The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
No we should not see the non terminally ill pressured to end their lives. We should find social care by insurance as Eabhal says
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
There is, as clearly set out above. Local councils have legal obligations to provide services without having the means to pay for this.
That can be easily fixed.
Those who set the requirement should fund it, Councils haven't set the obligation, Westminster has, so Westminster should fund it. Same with SEND.
Abolish Local Councils, fund SEN through the Department of Education and care through the Department of Health and Social Care but without creating and new rights or responsibilities or obligations.
Presumably we will also need a National Library Service, a National Highways Maintenance Service and a National Refuse Collection & Waste Management Service as well as a National Trading Standards Service and a National Cemetery & Crematorium Service?
Do you have any conception as to the range of activities undertaken by local councils? Clearly not.
I would privatise libraries, waste collection, cemeteries and crematoriums.
We already pay centralised road tax, so I see no reason why that can't be dealt with through those funds.
Similarly trading standards are national laws, so why not have it dealt with nationally? Given that most shops on the high street are national brands anyway, why the heck should each local council be duplicating the work dealing with them?
What about planning? Oh I forgot, you want to concrete all over the countryside so that can go too
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
So you are what? Five? Clearly you have never had any kind of straight relationship. Life doesn't fit your silly Conservative wish list
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
Well yes, but saying things should not be on fire does not put the fire out.
People have romantic notions about relationships, but they have legal ramifications and so a lawyer is required.
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
So you are what? Five? Clearly you have never had any kind of straight relationship. Life doesn't fit your silly Conservative wish list
I am married and while I am not opposed to divorce on grounds of adultery, domestic violence etc it is too easy to get divorced now. No fault divorce should never have been passed
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
No we should not see the non terminally ill pressured to end their lives. We should find social care by insurance as Eabhal says
Nobody should have no reason to feel pressured.
How people choose to spend their own income is entirely up to them. If they choose to spend it on cars, or holidays, or food, or drink, or care, or anything else that's their own business and not yours or mine.
Nobody has an entitlement to an "inheritance" as anyone might spend up all their own income on themselves and there's not a single damned thing wrong about that.
If people choose not to, that's their choice too.
Respect people's choices they make on their own. Everyone should be able to make their own choices in advance with an advanced directive and your talk of pressure if obscene and putting the cart before the horse. People are free to spend their own money on themselves.
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
There is, as clearly set out above. Local councils have legal obligations to provide services without having the means to pay for this.
That can be easily fixed.
Those who set the requirement should fund it, Councils haven't set the obligation, Westminster has, so Westminster should fund it. Same with SEND.
Abolish Local Councils, fund SEN through the Department of Education and care through the Department of Health and Social Care but without creating and new rights or responsibilities or obligations.
Presumably we will also need a National Library Service, a National Highways Maintenance Service and a National Refuse Collection & Waste Management Service as well as a National Trading Standards Service and a National Cemetery & Crematorium Service?
Do you have any conception as to the range of activities undertaken by local councils? Clearly not.
I would privatise libraries, waste collection, cemeteries and crematoriums.
We already pay centralised road tax, so I see no reason why that can't be dealt with through those funds.
Similarly trading standards are national laws, so why not have it dealt with nationally? Given that most shops on the high street are national brands anyway, why the heck should each local council be duplicating the work dealing with them?
What about planning? Oh I forgot, you want to concrete all over the countryside so that can go too
This might be news to you, but I don't own the entire countryside, so no I don't. In fact, I don't own a single bit of land in the countryside. Even if I did, I wouldn't do it, but I don't.
Your right, planning can and should go. It should be up to the owner of the land to determine what they do with their own land, nobody else. I would entrust the countryside to its respective owners - if a farmer owns land I would entrust the farmer to do whatever they deem to be the right thing.
Why don't you trust farmers or people who live or own land in the countryside?
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
No we should not see the non terminally ill pressured to end their lives. We should find social care by insurance as Eabhal says
Nobody should have no reason to feel pressured.
How people choose to spend their own income is entirely up to them. If they choose to spend it on cars, or holidays, or food, or drink, or care, or anything else that's their own business and not yours or mine.
Nobody has an entitlement to an "inheritance" as anyone might spend up all their own income on themselves and there's not a single damned thing wrong about that.
If people choose not to, that's their choice too.
Respect people's choices they make on their own. Everyone should be able to make their own choices in advance with an advanced directive and your talk of pressure if obscene and putting the cart before the horse. People are free to spend their own money on themselves.
No it isn't, the likes of you pushing euthanasia on demand like Canada is nearly at now must be fought and fought hard every step of the way.
Social care should be funded by insurance like Japan, that would also ensure even those who spent all their assets have still funded their social care if they need it .
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
There is, as clearly set out above. Local councils have legal obligations to provide services without having the means to pay for this.
That can be easily fixed.
Those who set the requirement should fund it, Councils haven't set the obligation, Westminster has, so Westminster should fund it. Same with SEND.
Abolish Local Councils, fund SEN through the Department of Education and care through the Department of Health and Social Care but without creating and new rights or responsibilities or obligations.
Presumably we will also need a National Library Service, a National Highways Maintenance Service and a National Refuse Collection & Waste Management Service as well as a National Trading Standards Service and a National Cemetery & Crematorium Service?
Do you have any conception as to the range of activities undertaken by local councils? Clearly not.
I would privatise libraries, waste collection, cemeteries and crematoriums.
We already pay centralised road tax, so I see no reason why that can't be dealt with through those funds.
Similarly trading standards are national laws, so why not have it dealt with nationally? Given that most shops on the high street are national brands anyway, why the heck should each local council be duplicating the work dealing with them?
What about planning? Oh I forgot, you want to concrete all over the countryside so that can go too
This might be news to you, but I don't own the entire countryside, so no I don't. In fact, I don't own a single bit of land in the countryside. Even if I did, I wouldn't do it, but I don't.
Your right, planning can and should go. It should be up to the owner of the land to determine what they do with their own land, nobody else. I would entrust the countryside to its respective owners - if a farmer owns land I would entrust the farmer to do whatever they deem to be the right thing.
Why don't you trust farmers or people who live or own land in the countryside?
So as I said you would allow a development free for all and build all over the countryside if landowners got a high enough price from developers for their land and agreed to sell.
Again why the likes of you must be fought hard every step of the way on issues like this too. We have council Local Plans for a reason, so development is not a free for all
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
So you are what? Five? Clearly you have never had any kind of straight relationship. Life doesn't fit your silly Conservative wish list
I am married and while I am not opposed to divorce on grounds of adultery, domestic violence etc it is too easy to get divorced now. No fault divorce should never have been passed
In the old days, couples would stage adultery so that they could get divorced.
So, is it really better that people had to lie to get divorced?
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
No we should not see the non terminally ill pressured to end their lives. We should find social care by insurance as Eabhal says
Nobody should have no reason to feel pressured.
How people choose to spend their own income is entirely up to them. If they choose to spend it on cars, or holidays, or food, or drink, or care, or anything else that's their own business and not yours or mine.
Nobody has an entitlement to an "inheritance" as anyone might spend up all their own income on themselves and there's not a single damned thing wrong about that.
If people choose not to, that's their choice too.
Respect people's choices they make on their own. Everyone should be able to make their own choices in advance with an advanced directive and your talk of pressure if obscene and putting the cart before the horse. People are free to spend their own money on themselves.
No it isn't, the likes of you pushing euthanasia on demand like Canada is nearly at now must be fought and fought hard every step of the way.
Social care should be funded by insurance like Japan, that would also ensure even those who spent all their assets have still funded their social care if they need it .
Canada isn't as liberal as I would go, but its a big step in the right direction.
Anyone who wants to die should have a safe, legal and humane way to do it. For any reason they choose, so long as there's been a cooling down period first.
Nobody should feel compelled to step in front of a train, or any other such horrendous act to end their suffering.
The answer being the national, centrally funded, care service that Labour has shunted off until its prospective second term.
It shouldn't be shunted off into a second-term, it should be axed, never to happen.
If people are able to pay for their own care, they should do so, it shouldn't be something taxes go towards.
Its also something we might need a lot less of if we enabled advanced directives for assisted dying, which would be a moral and responsible thing to allow rather than forcing people to remain alive with dementia against their wishes.
No national service could be viable without those who can pay making a significant contribution - hence where Mrs May got to. If it was remotely possible to provide free care for everyone, Labour would crack on and do it, but obvious it isn’t, and as soon as Labour spells out how people who can will need to pay, it’s the death tax all over again. That’s why Labour is both shunting it off to the long grass and hoping to get the other parties’ fingerprints on it.
Its a "problem" that does not need addressing. People who can pay for their care should do so, those who can't, there's a backstop. There's nothing wrong with the current situation.
We could massively reduce costs by giving people an alternative of advanced directives. I would far rather euthanasia than end up in a care home with dementia, but I don't have that choice. We should all get the choice and we should be able to make that choice up front in advance.
If you want to end up in a care home then that should be your prerogative, if that's how you want to spend your time and money then good for you. If you don't, then there should be an alternative option.
There is, as clearly set out above. Local councils have legal obligations to provide services without having the means to pay for this.
That can be easily fixed.
Those who set the requirement should fund it, Councils haven't set the obligation, Westminster has, so Westminster should fund it. Same with SEND.
Abolish Local Councils, fund SEN through the Department of Education and care through the Department of Health and Social Care but without creating and new rights or responsibilities or obligations.
Presumably we will also need a National Library Service, a National Highways Maintenance Service and a National Refuse Collection & Waste Management Service as well as a National Trading Standards Service and a National Cemetery & Crematorium Service?
Do you have any conception as to the range of activities undertaken by local councils? Clearly not.
I would privatise libraries, waste collection, cemeteries and crematoriums.
We already pay centralised road tax, so I see no reason why that can't be dealt with through those funds.
Similarly trading standards are national laws, so why not have it dealt with nationally? Given that most shops on the high street are national brands anyway, why the heck should each local council be duplicating the work dealing with them?
What about planning? Oh I forgot, you want to concrete all over the countryside so that can go too
This might be news to you, but I don't own the entire countryside, so no I don't. In fact, I don't own a single bit of land in the countryside. Even if I did, I wouldn't do it, but I don't.
Your right, planning can and should go. It should be up to the owner of the land to determine what they do with their own land, nobody else. I would entrust the countryside to its respective owners - if a farmer owns land I would entrust the farmer to do whatever they deem to be the right thing.
Why don't you trust farmers or people who live or own land in the countryside?
So as I said you would allow a development free for all and build all over the countryside if landowners got a high enough price from developers for their land and agreed to sell.
Again why the likes of you must be fought hard every step of the way on issues like this too. We have council Local Plans for a reason, so development is not a free for all
If landowners agree to sell, what's wrong with that? That's their land and their choice. Don't sell your own land if you're so bothered.
Developers would only give a high price if there's demand unmet by consumers who require a home, and if people require a home, they should be able to get one.
Trust farmers and landowners to do the right thing with their own land.
Is anyone here qualified to give advice on how partners who split up divide assets?
This is going to sound trite, and I don't mean it to, but have you considered asking ChatGPT? It's excellent at giving you Citizens Advice Bureau type answers
Grok is very good for this sort of stuff.
Grok is very good full stop. I use it more and more for stuff I’d use Google for.
Is anyone here qualified to give advice on how partners who split up divide assets?
This is going to sound trite, and I don't mean it to, but have you considered asking ChatGPT? It's excellent at giving you Citizens Advice Bureau type answers
Grok is very good for this sort of stuff.
Grok is very good full stop. I use it more and more for stuff I’d use Google for.
Grok, ChatGPT and Claude are all excellent. Each has things they are best at.
I've just been to the Palladium to see Rachel Zegler singing Don't Cry for me Argentina from the outside balcony. A warm sunny evening. A massive crowd. Everyone smiling and clapping. London is like a box of chocolates. All sizes, ages and colours. Enjoying themselves together ❤️. Magic
No, get with the programme. We are supposed to be on the verge of civil war.
OT - I supect the new party would take either winning a lot of councillors or costing Labour more with equal pleasure. They don't expect to win an election they want to force Lab back to the left. They can certainly do damage in London and urban areas - at least they can if they can come to an arrangement with the Greens (which is easier said than done),
Sky report there are 200 councillors already signed up to the new party. That would be a quarter of what the Greens or Reform UK have.
I bet they are including town and parish cllrs tho?
“🚨Our fears appear to have been vindicated on the very first day of the Online Safety Act's enactment.
Some footage of protests taking place this evening against illegal immigration is unavailable on X for at least some UK users, with a warning about a restriction due to ‘local laws’ appearing as the Online Safety Act comes into force.
If you have a standard X account in the UK - presumably the majority of British users - it appears that you may not be able to see any protest footage that contains violence. We’re aware of one censored post that shows an arrest being made.
We warned repeatedly about how censorious this piece of legislation would be.”
Primrose Hill looking exquisite, again, in the slant summer sun
I’ll say it once more: just build loads of Primrose Hills all over the country. Get tae fuck with these red brick semi asphalt Barratt home Leicester-suburb hell holes
Given PB, someone will be along in a minute to list all the crime and riots which were not prevented by the existence of Georgian London.
Along that same canal arrived the Peaky Blinders.
Very true!
It always amuses me, how NW1 has ascended the social ladder
At late as the 1960s, Primrose Hill was known as "soot city" because of all the fumes and grime from the steam trains running right alongside it. Property was, for this reason, dirt cheap, which is why penniless poets like Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes could live (and die) here
Ironically, it is now the isolation enforced by the railway tracks and associated roads which now make Primrose Hill a weird isolated enclave of beauty, and thus so desirable
I cannot honestly think of a nicer place to live, in any major city, anywhere in the world
Yet at one time the Canal was an infested strip, at least o epunctuated by massive explosions from gunpowder barges. Happily the Zoo was not too bady affected, but 'The elands and antelopes, the giraffes, the elephants, and a rhinoceros, showed great excitement.’
If I had a time machine the first thing I would do is go back and buy six houses in Primrose Hill for three quid each. Fuck all that "Hitler as a baby" shit
Priorities
Time travel would give you the opportunity to change world history or become very rich, for sure. But you have overlooked the biggest opportunity of all - the chance for you to go back and actually predict something correctly!
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
So you are what? Five? Clearly you have never had any kind of straight relationship. Life doesn't fit your silly Conservative wish list
I am married and while I am not opposed to divorce on grounds of adultery, domestic violence etc it is too easy to get divorced now. No fault divorce should never have been passed
It's hard o see why the state should force people to stay married if they don't want to. And if you make it too hard to get divorced, people simply won't bother getting married in the first place.
I've just been to the Palladium to see Rachel Zegler singing Don't Cry for me Argentina from the outside balcony. A warm sunny evening. A massive crowd. Everyone smiling and clapping. London is like a box of chocolates. All sizes, ages and colours. Enjoying themselves together ❤️. Magic
No, get with the programme. We are supposed to be on the verge of civil war.
Is this not just a continuation of the trend of recent years? Those of us fortunate enough to insulate ourselves from the worst features of this country do so. And on the whole we have a jolly old time, because there is so much about our country and culture that is amazing. We put fingers in the ears to how unbearable life can be at the fringes of society.
The difference we’re seeing now is that the problems which have affected a couple of northern towns beginning with R, are crashing into the places where the middle class opinion formers live like Epping, and where they work, like Canary Wharf. So all of a sudden, the thing we are not allowed to talk about is becoming the thing that is being talked about rather lot out there in the real world.
Is anyone here qualified to give advice on how partners who split up divide assets?
This is going to sound trite, and I don't mean it to, but have you considered asking ChatGPT? It's excellent at giving you Citizens Advice Bureau type answers
Grok is very good for this sort of stuff.
Grok is very good full stop. I use it more and more for stuff I’d use Google for.
Grok, ChatGPT and Claude are all excellent. Each has things they are best at.
Claude has been a great help with my home brew.
ChatGPT I stopped using as it would only answer a few questions then I’d have to wait a few hours before I could ask any more.
i) Do it amicably if you can ii) Get a lawyer. A divorce and/or separation has legal ramifications. So you need a lawyer.
Or save on lawyers fees and try to stick together, as our Lord says divorce should only be on grounds of sexual immorality and adultery, otherwise you should remain married for life
So you are what? Five? Clearly you have never had any kind of straight relationship. Life doesn't fit your silly Conservative wish list
I am married and while I am not opposed to divorce on grounds of adultery, domestic violence etc it is too easy to get divorced now. No fault divorce should never have been passed
It's hard o see why the state should force people to stay married if they don't want to. And if you make it too hard to get divorced, people simply won't bother getting married in the first place.
More people were married 100 years ago when divorce was more difficult than now
Comments
When am I going to get something to genuinely believe in, get behind, and feel positive about?
Every time some other group gets a new political home I feel even more politically homeless. :-/
People have romantic notions about relationships, but they have legal ramifications and so a lawyer is required.
opposed to divorce on grounds
of adultery, domestic violence etc it is too easy to get divorced now. No fault divorce should never have been passed
How people choose to spend their own income is entirely up to them. If they choose to spend it on cars, or holidays, or food, or drink, or care, or anything else that's their own business and not yours or mine.
Nobody has an entitlement to an "inheritance" as anyone might spend up all their own income on themselves and there's not a single damned thing wrong about that.
If people choose not to, that's their choice too.
Respect people's choices they make on their own. Everyone should be able to make their own choices in advance with an advanced directive and your talk of pressure if obscene and putting the cart before the horse. People are free to spend their own money on themselves.
Your right, planning can and should go. It should be up to the owner of the land to determine what they do with their own land, nobody else. I would entrust the countryside to its respective owners - if a farmer owns land I would entrust the farmer to do whatever they deem to be the right thing.
Why don't you trust farmers or people who live or own land in the countryside?
Social care should be funded by insurance like Japan, that would also ensure even those who spent all their assets have still funded their social care if they need it
.
Again why the likes of you must be fought hard every step of the way on issues like this too. We have council Local Plans for a reason, so development is not a free for all
So, is it really better that people had to lie to get divorced?
Anyone who wants to die should have a safe, legal and humane way to do it. For any reason they choose, so long as there's been a cooling down period first.
Nobody should feel compelled to step in front of a train, or any other such horrendous act to end their suffering.
Developers would only give a high price if there's demand unmet by consumers who require a home, and if people require a home, they should be able to get one.
Trust farmers and landowners to do the right thing with their own land.
Grok is very good full stop. I use it more and more for stuff I’d use Google for.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/25/ex-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-to-take-up-new-government-communications-role
What a shame etc
“🚨Our fears appear to have been vindicated on the very first day of the Online Safety Act's enactment.
Some footage of protests taking place this evening against illegal immigration is unavailable on X for at least some UK users, with a warning about a restriction due to ‘local laws’ appearing as the Online Safety Act comes into force.
If you have a standard X account in the UK - presumably the majority of British users - it appears that you may not be able to see any protest footage that contains violence. We’re aware of one censored post that shows an arrest being made.
We warned repeatedly about how censorious this piece of legislation would be.”
NEW THREAD
The difference we’re seeing now is that the problems which have affected a couple of northern towns beginning with R, are crashing into the places where the middle class opinion formers live like Epping, and where they work, like Canary Wharf. So all of a sudden, the thing we are not allowed to talk about is becoming the thing that is being talked about rather lot out there in the real world.
ChatGPT I stopped using as it would only answer a few questions then I’d have to wait a few hours before I could ask any more.