MCP wrote:

> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1437071,00.html
>
> Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
> Monday March 14, 2005
> The Guardian
>
> Unmarried partners who split up are likely to win new rights to make
> divorce-style claims for financial support and a share of the other
> partner's property if Labour is re-elected.
I am left in constant astonishment at the
absurdity of the situation.

As if married men are not being fucked over
sufficiently; now we are to find that the
bitches want to fuck every boyfrined on the way.

Having sexual relations with females is alreay
fraught with danger; if men don't live in fear
of a false rape allegation they may be trapped
by some lying bitch claiming to be on the pill &
then getting pregnant and slamming him with a
child support claim; or some psychopath taking
his sperm and inceminating her self against his
will.

There is a key problem - THS IS ALL CONTRARY TYO
HUMAN RIGHTS.

The Human Rights Convention prohibits mental
cruelty. It is known to be a mental cruelty to
prohibit or associate with threat a natural
biological function.

typoical examples often used as psychological
abuse to break down prisoners are techniques
that prey on the hypothalamus such as sleep
deprivation; food deprivation; subjecting the
person to extremes of hot or cold or swinging
beteen extremes. The most well know being
sensory deprivation though this si rathter
difficult to carry out and therefore usually
takes the form of senory monotony.

One that is quite obvious to me but hardly every
mentioned is sex deprivation. One of the reasons
men suffer so badly when females become
destructive is because this creates a conflict
between sex-drive and survival.

The natural (hypothalamic) tendency is to try
and avoid that which is found to be a threat
while, for men, being driven by an inescapable
drive toward the female of the species.

What women and the courts are doing to men is a
plain a clear HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION.

It is mental cruelty by any definition and
clearly dangerous.

The CSA should be put behind bars.

And this governemnt is doing nothing but sucking
up to the feminist vote. In the process they are
    simply sacrificing men.

D.



> Reform of the law to provide new legal protection for the four million
> people living together outside marriage - one in six of all couples - is not
> yet formal government policy. But ministers are concerned about the lack of
> safeguards for the growing numbers who choose not to formalise their
> relationship, and the effects on their children.
>
> The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, has asked the Law Commission to produce
> proposals for legislation and a draft bill, which would apply to England and
> Wales. The two-year project is expected to get under way in July, with
> initial proposals for consultation the following spring and final
> recommendations and draft bill by summer 2007.
>
> According to figures last week from the Government Actuary's Department, the
> numbers of married men and women are predicted to fall below 50% of the
> population within six years. By 2031 the number of couples living together
> outside marriage is expected to nearly double, from 2 million to 3.8
> million.
>
> Later this year gay partners will be able to register their unions as civil
> partnerships, giving them many of the rights conferred by marriage. But
> heterosexual couples who fail to tie the marital knot are left with
> virtually no legal redress when the relationship ends.
>
> Until now, ministers have resisted extending rights to them for fear of
> being accused of undermining marriage. But statistics show that the growing
> numbers who opt out of marriage remain largely unaware of their lack of
> rights.
>
> Research in 2000 found that 56% of people, rising to 59% of cohabitees,
> believed that "common law" wives and husbands have rights
similar to those
> conferred by marriage. In fact, unlike a husband or wife, an unmarried
> partner has no right to claim financial support from the other partner, no
> matter how long they have lived together, and no automatic right to a share
> of property in the other partner's name.
>
> The Department of Constitutional Affairs has mounted a "living together
> campaign" to try to make cohabitees aware of their limited rights.
>
> Stuart Bridge, the law commissioner heading the new project, said the idea
> was not to give cohabitees the same rights as married partners, but to give
> them a measure of protection.
>
> Similar laws have been enacted in Australia and Canada, and in New Zealand
> "de facto" spouses have almost all the rights which marriage confers.
>
> Both Resolution (formerly the Solicitors Family Law Association) and the Law
> Society have drawn up separate blueprints for reform. Under both, rights to
> claim financial provision would come into play once a couple had lived
> together for a fixed period, say two years, or had a child. "The watchword
> at the moment is how to deal with financial hardship when a relationship
> breaks down, and we're looking for remedies for that," Mr Bridge said.
>
> The project will cover opposite-sex and same-sex couples and will look at
> hardship caused when one partner dies, as well as when a relationship breaks
> down.
>
>
>



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 8:57:05 AM ---