x
Turn on thread page Beta
-
Birchington
- Follow
- 62 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to Birchington
- Wiki Support Team
- Thread Starter
Offline20ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team- Follow
- 1
- 29-10-2015 22:29
-
- Follow
- 2
- 29-10-2015 22:34
Aye
-
cranbrook_aspie
- Follow
- 42 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to cranbrook_aspie
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 3
- 29-10-2015 22:41
Aye I suppose. Don't really care tbh.
Posted from TSR Mobile -
United1892
- Follow
- 20 followers
- 12 badges
- Send a private message to United1892
Offline12ReputationRep:- Follow
- 4
- 29-10-2015 22:48
Aye.
-
emiloujess
- Follow
- 72 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to emiloujess
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 5
- 29-10-2015 22:55
Aye.
-
James Milibanter
- Follow
- 56 followers
- 2 badges
- Send a private message to James Milibanter
- Visit James Milibanter's homepage!
- Political Ambassador
Offline2ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 6
- 29-10-2015 22:56
Aye
-
Saracen's Fez
- Follow
- 64 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to Saracen's Fez
- Wiki Support Team
Offline19ReputationRep:Wiki Support Team- Follow
- 7
- 29-10-2015 22:56
"Strengthen the institution of marriage". I didn't exactly have the greatest impression of the bill from the summary, but actually it's not bad at all. Probably aye, but I'm going to listen to the debate first, if indeed there is any.
-
Hazzer1998
- Follow
- 31 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Hazzer1998
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 8
- 29-10-2015 23:00
It's an Aye from me
-
PetrosAC
- Follow
- 47 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to PetrosAC
- Wiki Support Team
- Political Ambassador
Offline20ReputationRep:Wiki Support TeamPolitical Ambassador- Follow
- 9
- 29-10-2015 23:02
-
Aph
- Follow
- 118 followers
- 22 badges
- Send a private message to Aph
- Very Important Poster
Offline22ReputationRep:Very Important Poster- Follow
- 10
- 29-10-2015 23:03
5(2) is rediculous.
I'm also worried about the wording for children born outside of marriage to parents who later go on to get married.
Lastly what is the rationale behind stopping maintenance? -
Imperion
- Follow
- 133 followers
- 16 badges
- Send a private message to Imperion
Offline16ReputationRep:- Follow
- 11
- 29-10-2015 23:05
Aye
-
- Follow
- 12
- 29-10-2015 23:06
Aye, I would like to see fathers given more legal status about the housing of their children after divorce to correct the imbalance of children usually ending up with their mothers, but I will support this bill.
-
Saoirse:3
- Follow
- 41 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to Saoirse:3
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 13
- 29-10-2015 23:15
Leaning towards nay. I'm not sure of the merits of using court time to try and prove that someone's committed adulatory when it isn't a criminal offence.
-
- Follow
- 14
- 29-10-2015 23:19
(Original post by Aph)
5(2) is rediculous.
I'm also worried about the wording for children born outside of marriage to parents who later go on to get married.
Lastly what is the rationale behind stopping maintenance? -
TeeEff
- Follow
- 108 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to TeeEff
- TSR Support Team
Offline21ReputationRep:TSR Support Team- Follow
- 15
- 29-10-2015 23:44
Aye
-
Jammy Duel
- Follow
- 49 followers
- 21 badges
- Send a private message to Jammy Duel
- Political Ambassador
Offline21ReputationRep:Political Ambassador- Follow
- 16
- 29-10-2015 23:44
For once, I agree with Aph; I don't see the pointof 5 (2), although I would extend it to the whole section, it strikes me as pointless bureaucracy
Posted from TSR Mobile -
Aph
- Follow
- 118 followers
- 22 badges
- Send a private message to Aph
- Very Important Poster
Offline22ReputationRep:Very Important Poster- Follow
- 17
- 30-10-2015 00:06
(Original post by Wellzi)
Why should a higher earning spouse have to continue to subsidise the life of someone they're no longer involved with? -
- Follow
- 18
- 30-10-2015 00:13
Mostly a decent bill, I disagree with section 5 though. Firstly I can't see the reasoning behind not having a uniform divorce charge nationwide. This could lead to some councils setting extortionate fees if they are in financial difficulties (knowing full well that due to 5.2, divorcees would have no choice but to pay the fee). 5.2 on the face of it is simply ridiculous, marriages can last 20 or 30 years before breaking down... they could be living on the other side of the country by this point! I can only assume the reasoning behind this is to stop people from just choosing to go to the local authority with the cheapest charge, so it is only needed because of the unnecessary 5.1.
I also echo Saoirse:3's concern about trying to prove or disprove adultery in court. What are you going to do, force the other half of the alleged affair to appear in court as a 'witness'? This isn't the Jeremy Kyle Show. -
Life_peer
- Follow
- 29 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to Life_peer
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 19
- 30-10-2015 00:14
Aye.
-
- Follow
- 20
- 30-10-2015 00:17
(Original post by Aph)
It depends on the situation though. Sometimes you can get the higher earning spouse almost forbid the other one from working or getting a promotion so they should support them for a limited time until they get back on their feat.
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: November 5, 2015
Share this discussion:
Tweet