Suffererof1crankymofo Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Further to the above, the 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' can still be applied to relationships that started before the change of law in 2006, so your final point also seems moot here. If you search "common law marriage myth" you will see that the lack of awareness on this issue isn't really the fault of those in power, who have tried for many years to communicate to people that no such thing exists. So you're basically saying that it's a case of "I'm alright Jack (or Jill), to hell with you" to those co-habiting in relationships which started after 2006? It did exist, it now doesn't for many couples. Not everyone wants marriage but are perfectly happy with having rights recognised under co-habiting. Edited May 7, 2015 by Suffererof1crankymofo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Further to the above, the 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' can still be applied to relationships that started before the change of law in 2006, so your final point also seems moot here. If you search "common law marriage myth" you will see that the lack of awareness on this issue isn't really the fault of those in power, who have tried for many years to communicate to people that no such thing exists. So you're basically saying that it's a case of "I'm alright Jack (or Jill), to hell with you" to those co-habiting in relationships which started after 2006? It did exist, it now doesn't for many couples. Not everyone wants marriage but are perfectly happy with having rights recognised under co-habiting. The old law was essentially just marriage without the ceremony. All marriage is, is agreeing to have those rights together. If you don't want to be married, you don't want those rights, that is very simple. You can still draw up and sign a private contract or 'co-habiting agreement', if you really wish to do something other than state-recognised marriage. Edited May 7, 2015 by hjasga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Further to the above, the 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' can still be applied to relationships that started before the change of law in 2006, so your final point also seems moot here. If you search "common law marriage myth" you will see that the lack of awareness on this issue isn't really the fault of those in power, who have tried for many years to communicate to people that no such thing exists. So you're basically saying that it's a case of "I'm alright Jack (or Jill), to hell with you" to those co-habiting in relationships which started after 2006? It did exist, it now doesn't for many couples. Not everyone wants marriage but are perfectly happy with having rights recognised under co-habiting. The old law was essentially just marriage without the ceremony. All marriage is, is agreeing to have those rights together. If you don't want to be married, you don't want those rights, that is very simple. You can still draw up and sign a private contract or 'co-habiting agreement', if you really wish to do something other than state-recognised marriage. Well look what's happened at Westminster. They passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. That didn't abolish civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are being extended so that everyone has an alternative to marriage, yet it doesn't appear that the Scottish Parliament did this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted May 7, 2015 Report Share Posted May 7, 2015 Further to the above, the 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute' can still be applied to relationships that started before the change of law in 2006, so your final point also seems moot here. If you search "common law marriage myth" you will see that the lack of awareness on this issue isn't really the fault of those in power, who have tried for many years to communicate to people that no such thing exists. So you're basically saying that it's a case of "I'm alright Jack (or Jill), to hell with you" to those co-habiting in relationships which started after 2006? It did exist, it now doesn't for many couples. Not everyone wants marriage but are perfectly happy with having rights recognised under co-habiting. The old law was essentially just marriage without the ceremony. All marriage is, is agreeing to have those rights together. If you don't want to be married, you don't want those rights, that is very simple. You can still draw up and sign a private contract or 'co-habiting agreement', if you really wish to do something other than state-recognised marriage. Well look what's happened at Westminster. They passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. That didn't abolish civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are being extended so that everyone has an alternative to marriage, yet it doesn't appear that the Scottish Parliament did this. Yeah, that's a fair criticism, but definitely not sexism and very far removed from the original point made. You do appear to just be looking for anything you can possibly criticise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 Who are these Lib Dem's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 ^ The infamous silent majority, apparently. At least we appear to have the Tories back in overall charge so its not a total disaster, just a shame its not UKIP. Gorgonzola Butt-cheese 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 How can it not be a total disaster? The country is now "polarised" with the SNP to the north, Tories to the south and, labour (and all the rest) scattered in between. It is also worth minding that, although UKIP, the LibDems, Labour et al lost they seats the contested, they still polled a considerable number of votes. In a situation not dis-similar to the referendum, we now have a considerable volume of the electorate that has been, effectively, disenfranchised. With an overall tory majority, the SNP presence at Westminster is going to be just that, a presence as they will have no effective 'clout'. No doubt some of the 'green' and still 'wet behind the ears' Nats will try and make life uncomfortable for the Tories but, they have no chance of doing any real damage just yet. Although I did not (and would not) vote for them, I would agree that it is a shame that UKIP did not do better and win a couple of seats. They (like others) polled enough votes to justify 'being heard'. Acid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 How can it not be a total disaster? The country is now "polarised" with the SNP to the north, Tories to the south and, labour (and all the rest) scattered in between. Sounds like a quite nicely set stage for a potential civil war, or at least sporadic outbursts of random anarchy. Messy, but usually rapidly effective in making those sitting comfortably and getting fat to have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get sh*t sorted. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and we ain't livin long like this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 How can it not be a total disaster? The country is now "polarised" with the SNP to the north, Tories to the south and, labour (and all the rest) scattered in between. Sounds like a quite nicely set stage for a potential civil war, or at least sporadic outbursts of random anarchy. Messy, but usually rapidly effective in making those sitting comfortably and getting fat to have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get sh*t sorted. Yep, all they will need to get it started will be a couple of crazy(?) "policies" depriving the already deprived of even more or, to continue selling off the "profitable" bits of the NHS to all and sundry.Just as well that they have already disarmed us isn't it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 enjoy the cuts. your so keen on. fishing must be really good at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 fishing must be really good at the moment. I wouldn't know, last time I touched the briney was about a month shy of 23 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted May 8, 2015 Report Share Posted May 8, 2015 All in all a good election , just a shame Farage and george galloway did not make it. Great to see Labour and the lib dems getting the boot ! Ed Davy , Ed Milliband . long overdue ! THE best result of the day is Ed Balls losing his seat. This man wanted to be in charge of the economy when he was the one who advised Gordon Brown as Chancellor to sell our gold reserves when they were at rock bottom prices and when they still had plenty of money in the Treasury. This is the man who wrote out not one cheque on a account that had been closed down 3 years previously but 5 - and 2 to the same tradesman. He was utterly clueless and would have been a disastrous Chancellor. Thank you to all in his constituency who didn't vote for him. LIB DEMS= 2,415,862 votes 8 seats SNP 1,454,436 votes 56 seats DUP 184,260 votes 8 seats BUT UKIP = 3,881,064 votes and ONLY 1 SEAT!!! Something really isn't right hereWill the lefties continue to promote P.R, ? Salmond said the Scottish lion has roared , but thankfully with a conservative majority the only roaring will be the violent vibration of his sphincter after a heavy night on the Haggis and whiskey. Oh and what a paradox, deluded left wing lentil farters urging the downtrodden common man to vote for an old etonian imposter ! UKIP has been consistently subject to huge media bias , yet there only aims is to improve the democratic process , make migration equally fair to all and vastly reduce the cost of government by significantly reducing it. That is why they are slandered by corrupt career politicians and the EU propaganda machine. Robert Smith and Suffererof1crankymofo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 "LIB DEMS= 2,415,862 votes 8 seats SNP 1,454,436 votes 56 seats DUP 184,260 votes 8 seats BUT UKIP = 3,881,064 votes and ONLY 1 SEAT!!! Something really isn't right here" "Something" is VERY wrong and the figures show that the results (as in our referendum) can only bring discontent. Been saying for a long time that we do not have (and have never had) a representative democracy at all. A stat that you missed is that the Labour party actually increased it's share of the votes but, saw the number of seats it held reduced... What we need (and fast) is a proper PR system and, before anyone starts, the referndum held in 2011 was for an AV system not a PR system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted May 9, 2015 Report Share Posted May 9, 2015 An Orkney and Shetland Lib Dem majority of 10,000 reduced to 800, I'm still rubbing my eyes. A whisker away from having an SNP MP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted May 10, 2015 Report Share Posted May 10, 2015 Totally agree colin if your figures are correct,something needs to change this is not true democracy in my opinion. Would not be surprised to see another independance referendum soon. Question time in the commons should be even more of a joke than it has been in the past. Next 5yrs will be really exciteing or ma'be not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.