http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/baroness-hale-the-unique-perspective-of-women-judges-on-the-law-533361.html
Why don't we ask the guys at Fathers for Justice?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120848/Another-blow-marriage-judges-demand-fault-divorce-say-current-laws-vastly-outdated.html
Was it men or women who voted New Labour in?
Is it men or women who keep voting Democrat?
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/too-many-women-have-vote-and-solution.html
What to do about so many women voting for Left Liberal parties
The Doyenne of Divorce, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not understand the principle of treating the accused as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lady-butler-sloss-patron-of-marriage.html
http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Content/Default.aspx?Content=426
How many female speakers? How many male?
Do you think these lawyers are more interested in preventing divorce or making money out of it?
Harry Benson is not a lawyer, but if you speak to him you will find him keener to sell you his courses and his books than in reintroducing the element of fault into divorce. The reason may be guessed at.
If they are really interested in preventing divorce, they should do what is the most logical thing to do, which is to reintroduce the element of fault back into divorce.
The best way of apportioning fault is to make it compulsory for those who wish to get married to agree a marriage contract. The party in breach of a term of the marriage contract would then be deemed to be at fault.
Why do educated legally-trained men and women find difficulty in understanding this laughably simple idea?
Is it because they want to continue making money out of the misery divorce causes while only pretending to be concerned about the long-term social consequences?
If so, then they really are beyond contempt.
Why don't we ask the guys at Fathers for Justice?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120848/Another-blow-marriage-judges-demand-fault-divorce-say-current-laws-vastly-outdated.html
Was it men or women who voted New Labour in?
Is it men or women who keep voting Democrat?
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/too-many-women-have-vote-and-solution.html
What to do about so many women voting for Left Liberal parties
The Doyenne of Divorce, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not understand the principle of treating the accused as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lady-butler-sloss-patron-of-marriage.html
http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Content/Default.aspx?Content=426
How many female speakers? How many male?
Marriage Foundation’s First National Conference
Do you think these lawyers are more interested in preventing divorce or making money out of it?
Harry Benson is not a lawyer, but if you speak to him you will find him keener to sell you his courses and his books than in reintroducing the element of fault into divorce. The reason may be guessed at.
If they are really interested in preventing divorce, they should do what is the most logical thing to do, which is to reintroduce the element of fault back into divorce.
The best way of apportioning fault is to make it compulsory for those who wish to get married to agree a marriage contract. The party in breach of a term of the marriage contract would then be deemed to be at fault.
Why do educated legally-trained men and women find difficulty in understanding this laughably simple idea?
Is it because they want to continue making money out of the misery divorce causes while only pretending to be concerned about the long-term social consequences?
If so, then they really are beyond contempt.
No comments:
Post a Comment