Re: Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples
- From: Rob <robwilard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:51:39 -0700
On 31 Jul, 13:52, "amused onlooker" <n...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Rob" <robwil...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
On 31 Jul, 10:23, "Society" <Soci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> reported
Couples who are living together should have more
legal rights, according to a report from the
Lemmee guess: This "Law Commission" is a breeding ground
for more billable hours for the Lawyer-Courtroom Industrial
There is already a proven system for "couples who are
living together" to easily obtain "more legal rights".
It's called _marriage_. Sheesh. Shakespeare showed
a lot of sense when he had, who was it, Falstaff? utter:
"kill all the lawyers."
It says the current law is "unjust" [...]
If it defined 'unjust' we'd have somewhere to start the discussion.
<The Law Commission... wants a financial value put on the contribution
each person makes during the relationship. For example, if a partner
has given up a career to bring up children, they should receive
compensation in the event the couple separates.>
Why would someone give up a career to bring up children these days?
Isn't it a central tenet of Western Liberal Employment Law that this
is no longer necessary?
Yeah, unjust for men but that never stopped the Matriarchal
Establishment and its servile Front Men, has it?
Having worked amongst decision makers for many years I struggle with
this idea of an evil conspiracy of (in this case) senior lawyers
servile to some matriarchy.
My experience suggests bodies like the Law Commission are far more
superficial than that. They usually consist of busy (luckily busy, not
thinkingly busy) people who come together for a few short meetings to
achieve the thing everyone is besotted with these days - an 'outcome'.
Something they all can agree on and that will generally be perceived
as a good thing (motherhood and apple pie). The last thing the Chair
wants is not to have anything to report back to their sponsor, for
that way lies career inconsequence.
The whole process is driven by an (often unconsciously biased)
administrator who sets the detailed agenda (for which the busy chair
is enduringly grateful) and is the only resource the Commission can
use to get anything researched (not much resource, in other words).
She (and it usually is a 'she' in gender terms, because any 'he' is
out in the world doing something useful/criminal) then has a
significant influence on the result.
That's why, if unthinking busy people start with motherhood and apple
pie as values in common and then do very little else, motherhood and
apple pie end up as the main ingredients of any consensus. Which is
what has happened here.
Such nonsense proposals that would have been thrown out in the days
when rigour was valued above superficial consensus.
This article about the same subject has been posted on here
If you look in the comments section you'll find this one:
"This, I suspect, is not what it seems. In
the green paper the Law Commission (LC)
had no intention of giving men the same
right to access their partner's wealth or
estate. The LC world view was that only
women needed cash handouts, compensation
for hurt feelings or wasted years and the
right to claim on a dead man's estate.
This resurrects the "associated person"
concept devised in Family Law Act 1996...
The 'associated person' concept might have failed but there are other
provisions in the Family Law Act 1996 that are 'equal' nonsense and
should serve as a warning to any man thinking of marriage.
For instance: Two older wealthy people married in 1992; they agreed to
keep their finances separate; they lived in the 'first' spouse's only
house, which he had owned since 1959.
The Family Law Act slid quietly though Parliament in 1996 and this
house became the 'Marital Home' - although the government doesn't
bother to mention this to anyone.
In 2000 the couple argue about moving. The first spouse thinks their
age is such they'd be better off in a sheltered bungalow. He wants to
sell up to buy a place better suited to their age related
incapacities, particularly as he can't cope with the stairs or
bathroom for much longer. The second spouse no longer cares much for
him but likes his house. She fights the move.
The first spouse suggests that the second spouse might be better to go
her own way, then. She can move back into her previous home round the
corner (which she now rents out on a short term basis) and is
perfectly wealthy enough to cope. They currently spend most of their
time arguing, anyway, so maybe they'd both be happier apart.
The 'second' spouse goes to her solicitor. Her lawyer explains that
under the Family Law Act 1996 she can claim Home Rights over the
'marital home', register these rights with the Land Registry and then
prevent the 'first' spouse from doing anything with that house without
the second spouse's permission. Meanwhile the first spouse has
absolutely no rights over any of the second's spouse's 4 properties,
as none of these are the 'marital home'.
So the second spouse registers her interest in his house with the
result that the first spouse, who is too ill to negotiate the divorce
process, suffers for the rest of his life, stuck in an unsuitable
place with a woman he has come to hate - and all as a result of a law
he never knew about or signed up to, a law which is grossly unfair to
his marriage's circumstances.
Don't get married. Even if it seems like a good idea at the time, at
some point in the future your government will change the law
unilaterally and men will suffer. Your government has already done
this loads of times, e.g. via no-fault divorce, child custody laws and
the 'marital home' concept. They are not going to change this
behaviour, they are not interested in you. Not one jot.
Be very, very warned.
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
- Prev by Date: Re: Christian Men And The Marriage Strike
- Next by Date: Re: Sweating the Birth Rate
- Previous by thread: Re: Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples
- Next by thread: Re: Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples