Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I gave you a link Rags and I guess based on how quickly you replied, you never read this

Opps

I have read it, and it's not relevant. Do you actually think that people who live together who split up have a financial claim on each other's assets?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have read it, and it's not relevant. Do you actually think that people who live together who split up have a financial claim on each other's assets?

Liar, pants on fire.

Its very relevant, as you do not hold the same principle that couples not married, should remain stated as a couple

What has your second question got to do with people rightly being able to divorce?

Its a seperate issue

Happy to answer though, but its very piss poor misdirection on your part, when you know you are clutching at straws here

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is that forced marriage, if once the papers are signed, they are thus free?

Opps

They have to wait for the papers don't they? They have to wait for the divorce court to look at them. In the meantime, I guess you think they are in a "forced marriage".

Marriage is voluntary - nobody is forced to sign the register or forced to make vows.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Liar, pants on fire.

Its very relevant, as you do not hold the same principle that couples not married, should remain stated as a couple

What has your second question got to do with people rightly being able to divorce?

Its a seperate issue

Happy to answer though, but its very piss poor misdirection on your part, when you know you are clutching at straws here

You've gone completely off now. People who live together obviously don't have to get divorced because they made no contract to get or stay married. They have no claim to the property, money, or possessions owned by the other, but married people who get divorced can have a claim to those things.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They have to wait for the papers don't they? They have to wait for the divorce court to look at them. In the meantime, I guess you think they are in a "forced marriage".

Marriage is voluntary - nobody is forced to sign the register or forced to make vows.

So at best 4 weeks then?

So you agree, that nobody need rule on the divorce?

If there is no ruling, its not forced

If there us a ruling it is forced

Do you understand the differnce?

It thus simple becomes a formaility.

Only then  the matter of finnance andkids should come into play

Marriage is voluntary and yet you wish to force people to remain married

Should not be divorce be voluntary?

Oh dear, how majny times, are you going to end up with egg on your face Rags?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You've gone completely off now. People who live together obviously don't have to get divorced because they made no contract to get or stay married. They have no claim to the property, money, or possessions owned by the other, but married people who get divorced can have a claim to those things.

You really never read the link?

So why are you not forcing these people to be togethert Rags

Its certainly a verbal contract, which is recognised within the law?

People like you, base your beliefs religiously and that is what the issue is here

I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So at best 4 weeks then?

So you agree, that nobody need rule on the divorce?

If there is no ruling, its not forced

If there us a ruling it is forced

Do you understand the differnce?

It thus simple becomes a formaility.

Only then  the matter of finnance andkids should come into play

Marriage is voluntary and yet you wish to force people to remain married

Should not be divorce be voluntary?

Oh dear, how majny times, are you going to end up with egg on your face Rags?

I don't have egg on my face merely because I disagree with you. I think the divorce law is fine as it is, and nothing you've said has made me think any differently. You have your opinion, and I have mine, so don't bother to do your usual thing of trying to bludgeon someone into agreeing with you.

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

You really never read the link?

So why are you not forcing these people to be togethert Rags

Its certainly a verbal contract, which is recognised within the law?

People like you, base your beliefs religiously and that is what the issue is here

I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it

Recognised in what way within the law? Only when claiming benefits or being tenants of a property. Otherwise, living with someone has no basis in law.

Religion has nothing to do with this for me. I do know that you will try to make it a religious issue, but that's your own problem.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

Alternatively, how can a person be happy knowing they are forcing another person to be legally tied to them for years when it's obvious the other person wants to be free of them.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

Alternatively, how can a person be happy knowing they are forcing another person to be legally tied to them for years when it's obvious the other person wants to be free of them.

Raggamuffin wrote:Back to the actual subject. What is this woman so upset about? I can only think that it's because she can't have a financial settlement without being divorced. However, she is free to live wherever she wants - she doesn't have to live over the road from him. If she owns half the business, she has money of her own. It will be no hardship for her to wait for the divorce, and she's just stressing herself out by trying to claim that he's done something wrong when he hasn't.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Recognised in what way within the law? Only when claiming benefits or being tenants of a property. Otherwise, living with someone has no basis in law.

Religion has nothing to do with this for me. I do know that you will try to make it a religious issue, but that's your own problem.

Sorry, but we are now on to tennacy agreements and benefits?

How far have you fallen off the wayside here

Religion has everything to do with your views here

I will speak out on reasons why people hold beleifs on something

Is that now wrong, to encompass that?

For example, if someone holds a religious belief homosexuality is wrong. Is that not important to say and explain why?

Catholicis are against marriage for example and believe marriage is for life. Its why my Grandmother stayed, as the victim of domestic violence. To a husband fucked up by the war. So I know very much how religion plays a part in such arguments

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't suppose this woman cared about his feelings when she accused him of unreasonable behaviour, and she probably didn't care about his feelings when she had an affair.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Back to the actual subject. What is this woman so upset about? I can only think that it's because she can't have a financial settlement without being divorced. However, she is free to live wherever she wants - she doesn't have to live over the road from him. If she owns half the business, she has money of her own. It will be no hardship for her to wait for the divorce, and she's just stressing herself out by trying to claim that he's done something wrong when he hasn't.

How can you even ask?

You can think many things, but you are not her

She wants to be divorced and you should never even figure into that conversation and yet you have

She wants out

Have you never wanted out of a job?

Yes or no?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How can you even ask?

You can think many things, but you are not her

She wants to be divorced and you should never even figure into that conversation and yet you have

She wants out

Have you never wanted out of a job?

Yes or no?

she can have a divorce - in February 2020.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How can you even ask?

You can think many things, but you are not her

She wants to be divorced and you should never even figure into that conversation and yet you have

She wants out

Have you never wanted out of a job?

Yes or no?

She can have a divorce - in February 2020.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry, but we are now on to tennacy agreements and benefits?

How far have you fallen off the wayside here

Religion has everything to do with your views here

I will speak out on reasons why people hold beleifs on something

Is that now wrong, to encompass that?

For example, if someone holds a religious belief homosexuality is wrong. Is that not important to say and explain why?

Catholicis are against marriage for example and believe marriage is for life. Its why my Grandmother stayed, as the victim of domestic violence. To a husband fucked up by the war. So I know very much how religion plays a part in such arguments

Catholics are against marriage?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't suppose this woman cared about his feelings when she accused him of unreasonable behaviour, and she probably didn't care about his feelings when she had an affair.

Thats lawyers for you

The reality is, was she lying or telling the truth?

You have taken the position, she is lying

You see how you made your mind up here

Hence bias

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Catholics are against marriage?

They are against divorce

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Thats lawyers for you

The reality is, was she lying or telling the truth?

You have taken the position, she is lying

You see how you made your mind up here

Hence bias

She didn't lie, it's just that her idea of unreasonable behaviour was not considered to be unreasonable behaviour by the judges. She still went ahead and accused him though. She must have known that it was all very petty and trivial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


They are against divorce

Well done for admitting your error.

I'm not a Catholic, and my views on this are nothing to do with religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Alternatively, how can a person be happy knowing they are forcing another person to be legally tied to them for years when it's obvious the other person wants to be free of them.

That's a question for the husband, and it's not up to anyone else to decide what should make him happy.

Syl wrote:I will leave you two to carry on having fun.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:I will leave you two to carry on having fun.

How can it be fun, when someone advocates people to be forced to remain married Syl?

Its forced marriage

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's a question for the husband, and it's not up to anyone else to decide what should make him happy.

True, he may derive his happiness from making his wife unhappy.

But that's where I think the law should be changed to introduce no blame divorces....it isn't fair he should be blamed for the breakdown of the marriage, and it isn't fair that she should be legally  tied to him for 5 years longer than she wants to be.
There should be a legal compromise.

Raggamuffin wrote:I do wonder where all the details of this divorce came from? Do courts generally release all the details, or have they come from her or him? There's stuff about a row over the recycling, a row at Heathrow, his loud voice, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

How can it be fun, when someone advocates people to be forced to remain married Syl?

Its forced marriage

No it's not. Nobody forced her to get married.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I do wonder where all the details of this divorce came from? Do courts generally release all the details, or have they come from her or him? There's stuff about a row over the recycling, a row at Heathrow, his loud voice, etc.

Misdirection

I can tell you where they come from

Religion

And how Christianit/judeo beliefs played a massive part in contructing them over history

I mean in Islam, a man simple has to say they are divorced. Which is even more so abused

These laws are simple based on backward religious beliefs.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it's not. Nobody forced her to get married.

But they are forcing her to remain married

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Misdirection

I can tell you where they come from

Religion

And how Christianit/judeo beliefs played a massive part in contructing them over history

I mean in Islam, a man simple has to say they are divorced. Which is even more so abused

These laws are simple based on backward religious beliefs.

The Church published all the details? Wow! I mean where did the actual details come from - the details in the press?

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, why do you object to a Muslim man being able to simply say they're divorced? I thought you wanted divorce on demand. If a Muslim woman had the same right, would you think it was OK then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But they are forcing her to remain married

Only for a bit longer. That's the law, which she already knew about.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Church published all the details? Wow! I mean where did the actual details come from - the details in the press?

Man made belieffs

Raggamuffin wrote:If there was divorce on demand, people might demand a divorce after one row or something. That's why they have a waiting period.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Man made belieffs

You didn't understand the question did you? Did the court give the press all the details?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't understand the question did you? Did the court give the press all the details?

What does that matter, when she should have the right to divorce?

If she humped one million men, what does that matter?

She wants out

She should be allowed that divorce

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


What does that matter, when she should have the right to divorce?

If she humped one million men, what does that matter?

She wants out

She should be allowed that divorce

I asked a question which interested me. If you didn't know the answer, you only had to ignore it or say you don't know.

Raggamuffin wrote:What's strange is that this is headline news. Are there not others who have had to wait five years because their spouse did not consent to a divorce? It's not as if it's a new rule.

I guess most people would consent because they don't want to contest a divorce - that can be costly.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What's strange is that this is headline news. Are there not others who have had to wait five years because their spouse did not consent to a divorce? It's not as if it's a new rule.

I guess most people would consent because they don't want to contest a divorce - that can be costly.

Subjective

What evidence do you have on the above?

Claims to Jesus walking on water?