Friday, 4 January 2013

Sir Paul Coleridge - Fool or Knave? Coward or Hypocrite? Or none of these?

Conference in London, February 15th, 2013        

Book a ticket here.
Cost: £40 and a day off work to exclude  most people.

"Modern Marriage: Myths, Realities and Prospects"

Playing to our strength as the authoritative organisation for up-to-date research on marriage in the UK, we are staging this important conference on February 15th, 2013. The future of marriage is clouded by the prevalence of many myths and a conspiracy of silence around some key issues. This conference therefore explores the myths and realities that currently shape both debate about marriage and the choices of people as they form and dissolve relationships.The Conference is being held in the London HQ of Notre Dame University at 1 Suffolk Street, SW1Y 4HG, just off Trafalgar Square. This fine location was originally built for the United University Club. The first session will begin at 09.30 and the day will end at 16.30. There will be ample opportunity to engage in debate and discussion. Tickets cost £40, which includes lunch, tea and coffee, etc. Please click to book a ticket.

The speakers will include: Sir Paul Coleridge, Baroness Deech, Professor Rebecca Probert and Professor Anne Barlow. During the course of the day there will be opportunities to interact with speakers and other attendees. Check back to this page as we update fuller details of the conference programme and participants in the new year.

Paul Coleridge
The Marriage Foundation is rooted in the vision and concern of Paul Coleridge, its Chairman and Founder. Sir Paul was appointed a High Court judge in the Family Division in 2000 after thirty years as a family law specialist barrister. He deals with complex cases of family break up, especially those which involve children.

Ruth Deech
Baroness Deech DBE is a British academic, lawyer and bioethicist. She is currently Professor of Law at Gresham College, London and Chair of the Bar Standards Board. She has recently highlighted the conspiracy of silence which limits open and factually-informed discussion of the consequences of family breakdown.

[CK: I wonder what Baroness Deech thinks of  Stigmatisation of SSMs, calling a spade a spade and a slut a slut is the only language stupid sluts understand!

It is also very interesting that Baroness Deech has blocked me on Twitter, presumably to avoid answering my questions viz

  1. Should fault be reintroduced into divorce?
  2. Should the law require a marriage contract to be agreed before recognising a marriage?
What possible motive has this woman for ignoring my questions?  Could it be because she does not understand them?  Or is she AFRAID to answer them?  If it is really the case that she is legally ignorant, then why on earth has she her highfalutin titles?]

Rebecca Probert
Professor of law at the University of Warwick, Rebecca Probert's recent work has recently shown that mass cohabitation is entirely a modern phenomenon. She has also written on the 'common-law marriage myth' and is currently addressing the question of whether legal rights should be accorded to relationships outside marriage and, if so, how they should be defined.
How likely is such a female academic to support marriage, bearing in mind her background and interests?

[CK:  OF COURSE legal rights should NOT be accorded to relationships outside marriage if you are genuinely intent on reconsecrating marriage.  Common sense should tell you what an idiotic idea it is.]

Anne Barlowe
Professor of law at Exeter University Anne Barlowe is an expert in the future of family law and policy. She has a particular interest in the regulation of adult relationships such as cohabitation and marriage. She has recently co-authored an article 'Is Modern Marriage a Bargain? Exploring Perceptions of Pre-Nuptial Agreements in England and Wales'.
How likely is such a female academic to support marriage, bearing in mind her background and interests?

[CK: Only a very foolish man would marry now if he has any money and is worth marrying.   In fact, it is now time for men to go on an OFFICIAL marriage strike mentioned at  Who would want to enter into a contract whereby the wealthier partner automatically forfeits half of his property and can be deprived of his children by malicious and false claims of child sexual abuse by his spouse?   To reintroduce the fault into divorce, simply require that all who wish to marry agree a marriage contract.  Such a simple and effective solution will predictably be vociferously resisted by the feminists.]

Why is this conference overwhelmingly dominated by female lawyers?  Have Mesdames Probert and Barlowe ever been married?  If so, what do their current spouses think of them as wives?
And if either of them are now divorced, what did their former husbands think of their divorce settlement? Why is Sir Paul Coleridge even bothering with this charade?]


Elsie said...

Well, obviously they aren't serious.

My first thoughts were that a) you are right that 40 quid + a day off work will exclude anyone with a real life from attending, and b) there IS no 'myth' about marriage to discuss.

Marriage is something that has been around for thousands (?) of years, and people have just got on with it, until recently, when lawyers like this shower have become involved.

But of course, Divorce has become a good source of income for lawyers.

I certainly don't think that 'fault' should be reintroduced as a criteria of divorce. Often there is no 'fault' on one side that causes a relationship to break up.
When children are involved, it is surely in their interest that their parents rest the best of friends -and picking over who did what to whom is pointless if nobody involved is hostile, and would prefer to sort things out for the best.

However,your views are interesting, and you should be allowed to argue them.

I don't think that marriage contracts would encourage people to get married at all (and I am pro marriage, for reasons that you would find obvious). To my mind there has got to be a division of
time spent in the home, and with children, and time spent on careers, which is bound to be unequal in purely financial terms.
Those terms are things which are personal to a couple, and I would hope that people getting married do it in a spirit of optimism ( " for better or for worse"), and the less lawyers can stick their noses in , the better !

Anonymous said...

IMHO .. having experienced bias, the greed and financial aspirations of most members of the legal profession induce by their vested interest in promoting conflict for personal revenue?. I would be happy to see solicitors removed from the divorce process entirely and a panels of independent laymen appointed to adjudicate on divorce proceedings at first step.It would save the parties, the state amillions in costs, and more importantly a better more balanced chance for the future of the children involved . But too may too many "professionals" benefit by the parasitical system as it stands so I dont hold out great hopes.