PDA

View Full Version : society doomed



BrilloPad
5th April 2008, 07:06
'the family justice system is all that stands between the present dire situation and "social anarchy".'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/nfamily105.xml

=====================================
Britain is suffering from an epidemic of family breakdowns affecting all levels of society from the Royal family downwards, one of the country's most senior judges will say today.

Mr Justice Coleridge, who presided over the preliminary divorce hearings of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, will accuse Gordon Brown of prioritising the abolition of plastic bags over support for families, and say the Government is "fiddling while Rome burns".

"Family breakdown is at all levels of society - from the Royal family downwards," he will say.

advertisement
"Without being in any way over-dramatic or alarmist, my prediction would be that the effects of family breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary people, in this country will, within the next 20 years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects of global warming.

"We are experiencing a period of family meltdown whose effects will be as catastrophic as the meltdown of the ice caps."

Judges are witnessing a "never-ending carnival" of human misery, and almost all of society's social ills can be traced back to the collapse in family stability, he says.

Many single mothers do a good job, but thousands of children are being raised by women who have several children by several fathers, none of whom stick around.

The judge, who has 37 years of experience of family law and is Family Division Liaison judge in the south-west legal circuit, stretching from Hampshire to Cornwall, will speak in Brighton at the annual conference of Resolution, which represents 5,000 family lawyers.

His intervention - one of the most strongly worded of its kind by a serving judge in recent years - comes as new figures show marriage levels are at their lowest since 1862, and the number of children living with a single parent has doubled in 20 years.

Lawyers say family courts are overstretched to the point of collapse.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 58, who is married with a daughter and two sons, is expected to say that the family justice system - comprising social workers, local authorities, mental health specialists and legal experts - is all that stands between the present dire situation and "social anarchy".

It is understood he will call for laws relating to unmarried couples to be modernised, giving cohabitees legal rights on separation, enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, and for reform of divorce law to remove the "fault" element and blame from the process.

He also wants the Government to invest millions in properly researched projects which boost family stability.

===========================

This guy is a total joker. The 1969 Divorce act gave all the power to women. This was not corrected in 1989 or 1996(the laws not implemented). the family justice system caused the present dire situation and if not stopped will cause social anarchy.

Shakespeare had it right - "first lets kill all the lawyers".

OwlHoot
5th April 2008, 10:24
'the family justice system is all that stands between the present dire situation and "social anarchy".'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/nfamily105.xml

[..] It is understood he will call for laws relating to unmarried couples to be modernised, giving cohabitees legal rights on separation, enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, and for reform of divorce law to remove the "fault" element and blame from the process. [..]

FFS! Trust a trendy left-wing judge to come up with precisely the wrong solution in all respects, which will only pour petrol on the fires and make the situation worse! :mad

The real answer is to continue giving unmarried cohabitees no rights, however long they have been together, and to abolish divorce except on a few traditional grounds such as non-consumation. The rot set in when divorce was first legalized in 1854!

SueEllen
5th April 2008, 13:12
This guy is a total joker.


Agreed. The law is unable to keep up with the changes in society and even when it attempts to it gets it wrong because it doesn't listen to the people who have to implement it.



The 1969 Divorce act gave all the power to women.

Society has changed since the 60s.

The Divorce Act actually gave women more rights but there was still social stigma about being divorced until about the last 20 years. (I know I had to live with it as a child.)

There is a reason why people aren't getting married. And giving cohabitees rights won't help the situation as everyone now wants rights with no responsibilities.

AtW
5th April 2008, 13:17
They should make prenups legal - in these all aspects of possible (or likely even) divorce should be agreed, and a standard prenup should be produced so that majority could use it - if anything this would take out the sting from divorce and would encourage to marry.

BrilloPad
5th April 2008, 13:56
They should make prenups legal - in these all aspects of possible (or likely even) divorce should be agreed, and a standard prenup should be produced so that majority could use it - if anything this would take out the sting from divorce and would encourage to marry.

absolutely

BrilloPad
5th April 2008, 13:58
Agreed. The law is unable to keep up with the changes in society and even when it attempts to it gets it wrong because it doesn't listen to the people who have to implement it.


Society has changed since the 60s.

The Divorce Act actually gave women more rights but there was still social stigma about being divorced until about the last 20 years. (I know I had to live with it as a child.)

There is a reason why people aren't getting married. And giving cohabitees rights won't help the situation as everyone now wants rights with no responsibilities.

Until the early 80s a contested divorce had to go to the RCJ(High Court)!

Agreed about rights/responsibilities - IMO it would help alot if the family courts put children first.

SueEllen
5th April 2008, 15:49
They should make prenups legal - in these all aspects of possible (or likely even) divorce should be agreed, and a standard prenup should be produced so that majority could use it - if anything this would take out the sting from divorce and would encourage to marry.

Even if they were legal lots of people wouldn't sign them as they think they are the ones who won't get divorced.

AtW
5th April 2008, 15:55
Even if they were legal lots of people wouldn't sign them as they think they are the ones who won't get divorced.

Yes, and that's why prenups should be made compulsory - refuse to register marriage otherwise: they either agree their own prenup or use most standard prenup that is suitable for everyone (apart from gold diggers), ie: separate bank accounts, all money earned before marriage are their own, equal access to children etc.

Simple solution really - very cheap too. It will encourage people to marry (as the sting will be taken out) and also discourage gold diggers. If you don't like that fair approach then you are probably a gold digger.

d000hg
5th April 2008, 17:33
Yes, and that's why prenups should be made compulsory - refuse to register marriage otherwise: they either agree their own prenup or use most standard prenup that is suitable for everyone (apart from gold diggers), ie: separate bank accounts, all money earned before marriage are their own, equal access to children etc.

Simple solution really - very cheap too. It will encourage people to marry (as the sting will be taken out) and also discourage gold diggers. If you don't like that fair approach then you are probably a gold digger.Or people could stop going into marriage planning for it to only be a temporary decision, and remember it's supposed to be a life-time commitment. People seem to think divorce is just a slightly more grandiose way of breaking up with their girlfriend.

AtW
5th April 2008, 17:41
Or people could stop going into marriage planning for it to only be a temporary decision

People already stopped going into marriage. Making it safer for each side should at least encourage marriage more, and more importantly quickly resolve any issues that arise from divorce.

Current legislation that requires 50/50 split regardless if money were earned before marriage, and also unfair access to kids should be at the very least overturned pretty quickly, I don't know how the heck they arrived to position where some gold digger like Heather can get 25 mln after 4 years of marriage while her own earnings before that were like £30k pa - and in this case Paul is lucky not to give her 100-150 mln, that's just plainly wrong.

d000hg
5th April 2008, 18:42
People shouldn't be considering marriage unless they're sure. Reasons like "we realised we weren't right for each other after all" aren't reason enough. Someone cheating on you, that's fair enough I think, but generally people just don't seem to take it seriously.

However yes the current rules do seem ludicrous, especially that Sir Paul is lucky under the current rules to pay ONLY 10s of £million!

BrilloPad
5th April 2008, 18:49
People already stopped going into marriage. Making it safer for each side should at least encourage marriage more, and more importantly quickly resolve any issues that arise from divorce.

Current legislation that requires 50/50 split regardless if money were earned before marriage, and also unfair access to kids should be at the very least overturned pretty quickly, I don't know how the heck they arrived to position where some gold digger like Heather can get 25 mln after 4 years of marriage while her own earnings before that were like £30k pa - and in this case Paul is lucky not to give her 100-150 mln, that's just plainly wrong.

a very sensible suggestion - but would require family courts giving up their garvy train.

SueEllen
5th April 2008, 21:33
Current legislation that requires 50/50 split regardless if money were earned before marriage, and also unfair access to kids should be at the very least overturned pretty quickly, I don't know how the heck they arrived to position where some gold digger like Heather can get 25 mln after 4 years of marriage while her own earnings before that were like £30k pa - and in this case Paul is lucky not to give her 100-150 mln, that's just plainly wrong.

It's because of her "contribution" to the marriage.


Very expensive hooker IMO.

AtW
5th April 2008, 21:56
a very sensible suggestion - but would require family courts giving up their garvy train.

Do you think courts like dealing with this crap? Courts are not exactly writing laws - they have to follow whatever Parliament agreed on, if NL wanted to solve this problem they could have easily done that. They probably don't want to lose female votes though as fair split and prenups would not be exactly popular among them.