2015 post UK election discussion

[bring the ghost on]

What do you think marriage is? It is a contract.

Given that most would be very similar you could mostly use an off the shelf contract and then modify to your needs.

As for not being romantic. You have to apply for a marriage license. It's no less romantic than that and if it was a legal requirement nothing neither party could use that excuse.

Again, you're ignoring my point about the costs of subsequent litigation, which is the main reason as to why it's not a practical idea.

On the issue of the romance, it's a difference for opinion. I think you should go into marriage for the right reasons. Opening negotiation on who pays for what when you divorce is not a nice way to start.

Again, if people want a prenup, fair enough, but why you would make it compulsory of beyond me.

 

[marty mcfly]

Thought I said that...don't go along with your 'Boy' statement though you're talking testicles on that

Except ofcourse if two people go home drunk together and have sex. I wonder how even if the law is applied if.

1. The man cries rape.
2. The woman cries rape.

This isn't even the case of the sexist courts due but actually written into the law.

Perhaps also when two people go for the same job but are equally qualified. I could go on but you get the idea.

The law isn't equal to account for a perceived inbalance in society and whether you agree with that or not there's not getting around that fact.

 

[1966efc]

A lot of the current vitriol has been attributed to people not having any compassion for their fellow man, but that's probably difficult when you're just getting by yourself, working hard and trying to do the right thing. There's been quite a bit of financial stability for your average Joe of late, you can't blame them for not wanting that to change.

I smell a few champagne socialists on GOT with no genuine fear that things will ever go tits up for them

As a Bollinger Bolshevik myself, I don't perceive the difficulty with wanting others to have an easier life and enjoying one myself.

I suppose the subtext is hypocrisy. All I can answer with is that I don't mind paying higher taxes for better services.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Except ofcourse if two people go home drunk together and have sex. I wonder how even if the law is applied if.

1. The man cries rape.
2. The woman cries rape.

This isn't even the case of the sexist courts due but actually written into the law.

Perhaps also when two people go for the same job but are equally qualified. I could go on but you get the idea.

The law isn't equal to account for a perceived inbalance in society and whether you agree with that or not there's not getting around that fact.

Are you really arguing that men are discriminated against in sexual offences law? I think it's been firmly established that the law does not work in favour of women who are victims of sexual offences and is in desperate need of reform. This is evidenced by the poor conviction rates and sentences handed out to offenders, both of which are disproportionate.

 

[Jxg]

What is so terrible about it?

It's abused to no end. It should be protecting people from harm, not protecting murderers from deportation due to their "right to family life".

 

[SNova]

Are you really arguing that men are discriminated against in sexual offences law? I think it's been firmly established that the law does not work in favour of women who are victims of sexual offences and is in desperate need of reform. This is evidenced by the poor conviction rates and sentences handed out to offenders, both of which are disproportionate.

That's because in most cases it's a he said she said scenario.

Except ofcourse if two people go home drunk together and have sex. I wonder how even if the law is applied if.

1. The man cries rape.
2. The woman cries rape.

This isn't even the case of the sexist courts due but actually written into the law.

Perhaps also when two people go for the same job but are equally qualified. I could go on but you get the idea.

The law isn't equal to account for a perceived inbalance in society and whether you agree with that or not there's not getting around that fact.

Men get higher prison sentences for the same crime also.

 

[Jxg]

By scrapping the Human Rights Act the Tories are going to make it harder for UK citizens to access fundamental rights that they will still be protected by under the European Convention on Human Rights. For any one who is Eurosceptic, this isn't one in the eye for Europe. This is one in the eye for ordinary folks like you and me.

You should be asking yourselves why would your government want to make it harder protect your fundamental.......

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections

These rights were drawn up after WWII. It's safe to say that millions of people died for us to have them. The move is an absolute disgrace.

The government isn't going to scrap the act, they are going to reform it. You're blowing this way, wayyyy out of proportion.

 

[SNova]

The government isn't going to scrap the act, they are going to reform it. You're blowing this way, wayyyy out of proportion.

Because currently, criminals, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists can abuse the human rights act. It needs reforming.

 

[Blue 1]

Blimey. Priti Patel as employment minister. Bring back Esther McVey, all is forgiven!

 

[marty mcfly]

I'm not sure that it's much more difficult to show compassion just because you are just getting by. That's an attitude thing and it needs to change. I'm probably in the 'doing ok' demographic and out of choice our family is probably now in the 'just getting by' category. We still find ways to make a difference, by contributing the time and skills that we have etc. (I acknowledge that we do fortunately have a buffer). I think by being involved, you do tend to see things more clearly, that it could be you that is in the mire. Having the attitude of 'I'm alright Jack' and ignoring the plight of others is a ridiculous one to have. Poverty or incapacity could be just around the corner. Would you want others to ignore you? My guess is no.

I think you misunderstand why some people are more right wing than you. It's because they actually, yes actually believe it's better for society and those people you want to help.

e.g. Your work is a great case in point. The community stepped in and did a cheaper, better job without any corruption.

Now forget about the practicality of the issues because we probably don't disagree that much on those issues but it's the starting position of how you reach there. If it all possible I think the state should get out of people's lives. You think the state should be more involved in people's lives.

 

[degsy]

Except ofcourse if two people go home drunk together and have sex. I wonder how even if the law is applied if.

1. The man cries rape.
2. The woman cries rape.

This isn't even the case of the sexist courts due but actually written into the law.

Perhaps also when two people go for the same job but are equally qualified. I could go on but you get the idea.

The law isn't equal to account for a perceived inbalance in society and whether you agree with that or not there's not getting around that fact.

*heads for ignore button

 

[bring the ghost on]

The government isn't going to scrap the act, they are going to reform it. You're blowing this way, wayyyy out of proportion.

With Michael Gove put in charge of this repeal/reform, people will be rightly concerned.

 

[marty mcfly]

I get what you're saying, but perhaps people may have feared their taxes and general living costs could increase under a Labour government leading to them being dragged towards the poverty line. I dunno, I'm just trying to rationalise things instead of being hysterical about it.

Sometimes it's hard to see past your own situation and maybe the politics of fear prevailed this time round.

There's an arguement that you shouldn't either.

In game theory if everyone acts selfishly then the system finds a balancing point and reaches stability. If people however don't act selfishly but rather in the interests of others and everyone does that then the system would be overall better off however if there are individuals who don't do that then individuals who don't play by the rules end up being better off.

It's the basis of a lot of modern economic thinking and proven by mathematics to be true.

Unfortunately take someone like @Tree13. We don't live in an ideal system where everyone is responsible and by playing by the rules he's sort of screwing himself. I agree the system needs to change to stop people breaking the rules but while it's setup like that you need to also play accordingly. To do otherwise helps no one except those that are also breaking the rules.

It's a bit like the argument in football whether you think players should "go over" if they are touched. Unfortunately until something is done about it that makes it prohibitive the answer is yes even if we don't like it.

 

[SNova]

*heads for ignore button

* Points to Ched Evans

 

[bluemangroup]

Because currently, criminals, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists can abuse the human rights act. It needs reforming.

LOL