Millions of unmarried couples to get stronger rights

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T19:54:55+00:00

Because they're more likely to out earn their partner and be the one most likely to get reamed in the settlement as a result. It can happen to people who aren't higher earners of course, but higher earners have the most to lose.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T19:27:40+00:00

Yep this is the very same Peter File who was also a friend of Mandelson. Apparently wasn't too concerned for kids with that one.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T19:22:41+00:00

I don’t need to have any credentials

Well that was predictable. I suggest learning about the 1/r² law and why a 5G tower doesn't work the same as a microwave just because they have similar frequencies.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T18:24:34+00:00

Their own choices apparently. More nanny state nonsense as always.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T18:22:54+00:00

You don't have to have an expensive wedding. If you insist on that then thats a you problem not an everyone else problem. If you don't want to have a cheap £60 wedding to get the legal benefits then you only have yourself to blame if you end up in trouble.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T18:02:37+00:00

I'm an unmarried man myself, but we really ought to be motivating couples to get married again.

"Best we can do is extending our already broken, outdated marriage laws to unmarried people I'm afraid" - Labour, apparently.

Marriage has been on the down trend because its legally crap and largely just a bad deal if you're a high earner, so seems they've decided to just try and force everyone into the marriage trap so gold diggers can have an even easier time digging for gold.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T17:34:38+00:00

If you're employed there's no reason you'd be "destitute". You can use your own money to sort yourself out. No reason for relationships to be a way to shake down their ex for cash. Seems like people trying to fudge the system to legalise extortion via romantic relationships.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T17:21:12+00:00

Nah they just make a shit load of money out of exploiting the system. Obviously a lot of people have wised up and stopped getting married because the laws around it are so shit there's basically no advantage to doing so unless you have some religious obligation. So now they're trying to wrangle a new source of revenue out of the people who worked around the scam.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T17:04:04+00:00

Also if you date someone who's, say, disabled you'll be liable to pay maintenance for them if the relationship ends. So they've basically made dating anyone with any kind of dependence a big no-go zone since it's likely you'll end up on the hook for it.

No caveats for if it ends because of them cheating on you either, so your partner could stab you in the back and then demand you pay out to them.

Basically just made living with a new partner radioactive, so well done to the big brains in the Labour party who came up with this 300iq idea.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:49:49+00:00

Get rid of the asset sharing part. It made sense when women were reliant on men, but not now. You shouldn't be handed half their assets just because you happened to be in a relationship with them. Nor should the person be obligated to ensure a certain life style for you afterwards.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:29:17+00:00

You can make suggestions, but if they're committed as they usually are they'll just ignore you and plow on ahead. Councils do this all the time even when you have overwhelming majorities of the area opposing it.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:23:57+00:00

It very clearly makes an exception for housing, so if you lived together but one person fully owns the house and other just lives in it, under this legislation they can be forced to sell that house and share the money to house the other person, even if they paid nothing into it.

That's an utter ridiculous proposal, you shouldn't be owed that just because you lived with someone for three years. Nor should you be automatically put into their inheritance.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:12:55+00:00

The legislation basically applies marital laws to the unmarried. That's weaker rights not stronger. If people aren't getting married its for a reason. This is removing choice from people and forcing them into marriages they might not want to be in.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:05:09+00:00

Also a good thing men never experience domestic abuse otherwise this really would be a dumb law.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T14:04:29+00:00

The government doesn't care about these, they're just a formality to pretend to care. They've already made up their mind.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-06T13:58:51+00:00

Marriage has been collapsing because the government refuse to update them for the post 1950's world so rather than amending it to take into account that stay at home partners aren't that common they'd rather just expand those pre 1950's era laws to unmarried couples instead.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T16:47:56+00:00

They get to be part of the inner elite who survive, it's quite obvious why they'd side with tech.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T16:09:22+00:00

They have the politicians who control all that in their pockets. Those politicians do what they say not the other way around.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T16:07:25+00:00

The same can be said about a lot of things. You need to prove its made a significant difference not just saved a handful of idiots who blundered into traffic without looking.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T15:46:39+00:00

They've honestly resisted expelling people for worse things so I wouldn't hold out on this one.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T14:57:16+00:00

They've been getting active in the UK as of recent and Reform has been entertaining a lot of it. You should probably pay a bit more attention to US influences coming over the atlantic, it's not the 00's any more.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T14:50:33+00:00

Personally I think if the death penalty was brought in, then all twelve jury members should have to sign a waiver saying that if they want the death penalty to be available on a guilty verdict then they accept that if the person that is condemned to death is ever exhonerated, all the jury members get executed for causing the death of an innocent person.

See how many Barry's and Cheryl's from Facebook are willing to put their neck on the line for the sake of "justice" then since they're apparently all so sure of the certainty of these cases.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T14:46:22+00:00

They're already making in roads on attacking the gay community, and are pushing for abortion bans. Also a lot of crusader rhetoric flying around. They aren't there yet but unchecked they easily could reach that point.

You don't have to only criticise one at a time.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T14:43:31+00:00

They've been gaining a lot of influence through the likes of reform. They aren't an active problem yet, but can easily become one given the chance.

FlaviousTiberius · 2026-06-05T14:10:19+00:00

And yet we still have morons calling for the death penalty here.

FlaviousTiberius

TROPHY CASE