UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

Buster O'Keefe · Jan 20, 2019

The timing of this, politically, is fucking perfect, with May's 'plan B' due on Monday. Minds will be concentrated on what the implications of border controls in Ireland will actually look like.
I'm calling it for dissident Republicans, infiltrated by MI5. So it was the sneaky, untrustworthy Brits.

Datiko · Jan 20, 2019

Mr. A. L. Mao said:
Even with these restrictions in place, women are more likely to initiate divorce proceedings.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/rel...-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

It's bizarre to me that anyone in the current year thinks men are divorcing their wives to bang hot secretaries while their ex-wife and children starve. Maybe billionaires and celebrities can get away with it, but most other men will be taken to the cleaners.

People with assets tend to structure their marriages better. I asked my wife to sign a pre up and we have an agreed upon "salary" for her contributions to the family for the purposes of accounting for divorce. We keep our assets largely separate.

HG 400 · Jan 20, 2019

Good, fuck the Saxon lapdogs. I hope they bring back garbage-can nailbombs next.

Affluent Reptilian · Jan 20, 2019

Splendid Meat Sticks said:
Am I the only one who's worried that they counted from 16 instead of 18? I don't know what the age of consent in the UK is, but that's still awfully young.

I interpret that as being motivated by the fact that saying '48% of women are unmarried' is less intuitively shocking than 'over half are unmarried'. This might be overly charitable of me.

Edit: Also there is some reason to be less pessimistic about divorces than previously: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-low-latest-figures-millennial-a8555351.html

There are probably several reasons for this. Immigration from cultures where divorce is verboten would be part of it but I think a fairly minor part. Another would be that those who see marriage as constricting simply don't choose to get married in the first place. A third is probably that as gender norms have changed women who got married under old-fashioned ideas of marriage divorced, whereas those married in the last 20 or 30 years have been married under fairly constant ideas of what the opportunities of women are. I'm sure there are others; at any rate, marriage isn't dead although that isn't to say that easy divorce is optimal or hasn't done damage...

TowinKarz · Jan 20, 2019

There's also the fact that marriage gets used too often as a band-aid to try and fix a dysfunctional relationship or for the sake of halfheartedly trying to build a home for an unwanted child.

A lot of marriages fail because it's an attempt to glue together two pieces that don't fit, pressured by moralists or other third parties with ulterior motives beyond whether the two people in question are going to be happy and committed.

RadicalCentrist · Jan 20, 2019

Datiko said:
People with assets tend to structure their marriages better. I asked my wife to sign a pre up and we have an agreed upon "salary" for her contributions to the family for the purposes of accounting for divorce. We keep our assets largely separate.

Prenups are routinely thrown out, and a "salary" implies dependence. I hope you have a very good lawyer if shit hits the fan.

ulsterscotsman · Jan 20, 2019

It's likely the "New IRA" that did it.

Lou Wrong said:
Willing to bet Real IRA as a warning to what no deal Brexit would look like.

The RIRA no longer really exists anymore, back in 2012 a faction of it merged with smaller groups such as RAAD and other individuals that became what is know as the "New IRA", within the NIRA there is already different factions developing that hate each other.
Another RIRA splinter group called O.N.H declared a ceasefire last year due to their leadership facing years in gaol.

Aristophanes · Jan 20, 2019

Finally, I have the chance to post this.

Sable · Jan 20, 2019

ulsterscotsman said:
It's likely the "New IRA" that did it.

The RIRA no longer really exists anymore, back in 2012 a faction of it merged with smaller groups such as RAAD and other individuals that became what is know as the "New IRA", within the NIRA there is already different factions developing that hate each other.
Another RIRA splinter group called O.N.H declared a ceasefire last year due to their leadership facing years in gaol.

If IRA splinter groups didn't themselves immediately start splintering themselves, I'd worry that something was wrong with reality.

Stoneheart · Jan 20, 2019

those fuckn IRA Idiots are worse than sandpeople... all they can do is good music...

ulsterscotsman · Jan 21, 2019

Sable said:
If IRA splinter groups didn't themselves immediately start splintering themselves, I'd worry that something was wrong with reality.

There is only three active armed republican groups at the moment, The Continuity IRA, New IRA and Arm na Poblacht.
There is also a small group of criminals based in Belfast and Limerick that are pretending to be the CIRA.

Bum Driller · Jan 21, 2019

It should also be noted that marriage has just overall lost it's meaning in Europe. It doesn't mean that people wouldn't be making kids or living with their partners, it just means that they don't get married officially while doing so. Most of the people whom I know who have kids and who belong to the age group of 25-45 behave like this. Only the particularly romantic or conservative young people seem to get married these days.

Splendid Meat Sticks said:
Am I the only one who's worried that they counted from 16 instead of 18? I don't know what the age of consent in the UK is, but that's still awfully young.

Age of consent is usually around 16 or 17 in European countries, some might have 15 and some 18, but I'm quite sure none have over 18. It also varies somewhat by gender, for example where I live, women have the age of consent at 16, but men at 17.

Aristophanes · Jan 21, 2019

ulsterscotsman said:
There is only three active armed republican groups at the moment, The Continuity IRA, New IRA and Arm na Poblacht.
There is also a small group of criminals based in Belfast and Limerick that are pretending to be the CIRA.

All these splinter groups

Fareal · Jan 21, 2019

Hi, let's sperg, I used to divorce people as a career in the UK.

The reason the article above says "most women initiate divorce" is because in most divorces, especially those involving children, the women files first. That's all that statistic is measuring. Not who left first, or even who said they wanted the divorce, just whoever got their lawyer to file first.

In most marital breakdowns in the UK where children are involved, the children remain with their mother at the point of the physical separation. Not to put too fine a point on it, dads walk out of the family home, mums don't. (Yes, this is a broad generalisation, but not a moral one. It's much easier to find a roof over your head as a solitary adult than expect someone to take in an adult and a batch of kids. So normally the now non-custodial parent is the one who leaves. Protip: you never leave without your children. Never. Grab them and get to a refuge or a family couch if you must, but never be the one who walks.)

As a result, pretty much the principal practical concern of a UK woman in that situation is to get interim child maintenance payments running to cover the dad's now-missing contributions to the household finances, and/or to pay for more childcare so she can work more hours. When families with children divorce, everyone ends up financially worse off. It is hard economic reality, although you would be surprised at the number of my former clients who apparently had not managed to work that out.

If you're aiming for the unicorn that is the "amicable divorce with children involved", you are waaaaaay more likely to start voluntary maintenance payments out of the absent parent if you start sending them lawyer's letters. Motions for interim maintenance are pretty much part of the "divorce package" if you go to a lawyer and tell them you want a divorce. Absent parents in the UK are much less likely to fuck the other parent around if the other parent obtains a court order to have the maintenance paid. If you need to go through the Child Maintenance Service to get payments set up on a compulsory basis, the process is vastly quicker and easier if you have a lawyer saying they are working on your divorce right now.

tl;dr - if you are the parent (and no, it's not always the mother, and no, this advice doesn't change dependent on the parent's gender) who has in practice sole/the majority residence of the kids, it is always, always in your interest to file ASAP.

That's why most divorces are "initiated" by women in the UK. If the absent parent in these scenarios tended to be a mother rather than a father, then most divorces would be "initiated" by men. The economics of family breakdown are brutal.

Wesley Willis · Jan 21, 2019

Gynocentrists (aka traditionalists) arguing against feminism will only accelerate the MGTOW movement. We don't need anymore bad acronyms, alright? Just let people choose their own path.

ulsterscotsman · Jan 21, 2019

Aristophanes said:
All these splinter groups

There's a lot of internal politics and personalities involved, you right a book or TV series on par with Game of Thrones with the amount of drama and shady shit that happens within Irish Republicanism. It's absolutely mental.
The only IRA that can truly claim to be the legitimate IRA founded in 1917 is the Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA).

Mr. A. L. Mao · Jan 21, 2019

Datiko said:
People with assets tend to structure their marriages better. I asked my wife to sign a pre up and we have an agreed upon "salary" for her contributions to the family for the purposes of accounting for divorce. We keep our assets largely separate.

I like this idea, as it recognizes the man is the primary breadwinner while also recognizing the woman is sacrificing her career opportunities to raise a family. As some other posters noted prenups are no guarantee today, but I hope it works out for you.

Fareal said:
Hi, let's sperg, I used to divorce people as a career in the UK.

The reason the article above says "most women initiate divorce" is because in most divorces, especially those involving children, the women files first. That's all that statistic is measuring. Not who left first, or even who said they wanted the divorce, just whoever got their lawyer to file first.

In most marital breakdowns in the UK where children are involved, the children remain with their mother at the point of the physical separation. Not to put too fine a point on it, dads walk out of the family home, mums don't. (Yes, this is a broad generalisation, but not a moral one. It's much easier to find a roof over your head as a solitary adult than expect someone to take in an adult and a batch of kids. So normally the now non-custodial parent is the one who leaves. Protip: you never leave without your children. Never. Grab them and get to a refuge or a family couch if you must, but never be the one who walks.)

As a result, pretty much the principal practical concern of a UK woman in that situation is to get interim child maintenance payments running to cover the dad's now-missing contributions to the household finances, and/or to pay for more childcare so she can work more hours. When families with children divorce, everyone ends up financially worse off. It is hard economic reality, although you would be surprised at the number of my former clients who apparently had not managed to work that out.

If you're aiming for the unicorn that is the "amicable divorce with children involved", you are waaaaaay more likely to start voluntary maintenance payments out of the absent parent if you start sending them lawyer's letters. Motions for interim maintenance are pretty much part of the "divorce package" if you go to a lawyer and tell them you want a divorce. Absent parents in the UK are much less likely to fuck the other parent around if the other parent obtains a court order to have the maintenance paid. If you need to go through the Child Maintenance Service to get payments set up on a compulsory basis, the process is vastly quicker and easier if you have a lawyer saying they are working on your divorce right now.

tl;dr - if you are the parent (and no, it's not always the mother, and no, this advice doesn't change dependent on the parent's gender) who has in practice sole/the majority residence of the kids, it is always, always in your interest to file ASAP.

That's why most divorces are "initiated" by women in the UK. If the absent parent in these scenarios tended to be a mother rather than a father, then most divorces would be "initiated" by men. The economics of family breakdown are brutal.

Good post. To sperg in response:
1. I really can't grasp how "just because women file first doesn't mean they want the divorce" makes sense. I can get it if the man just dipped and she needs money to support herself and the children, but is that really the average divorce? I'm not from Britainistan, but it seems to me that "I'm just not happy anymore" or "we've drifted apart" is more common than "haven't seen him in six months welp time to file."
2. When the dads leave at physical separation, do you think it's because they don't want the children or because they're unlikely to get custody? It seems to me if you're not going to get custody you might as well be the one to move out instead of throwing time and money away trying to unsuccessfully win it. If I, as an internet shitposter, can see this trend, won't most lawyers tell the man the same?
3. Would you describe Britain as having a divorce system more friendly to the man or the woman?

Fareal · Jan 21, 2019

@Mr. A. L. Mao

1. Tbh "we keep fighting all the time and finally we had THE FIGHT and s/he just went fuck it and walked out" is the standard divorce from my personal experience. Long term erosion of a marriage leading to a breakdown like that is waaay more common in my observation than the classic "I found out s/he was cheating! divorce this ho!" stuff.

Truth is, marriage is hard, and there will be times it's really, really hard. And some folk choose (I say this without judgement) to decide they've had enough, and split up. Pressures around money and kids are a massive marriage killer.

It makes financial sense to file ASAP if you are the one with the kids. Honestly, it doesn't matter who was unhappy or why. The kids need food regardless.

2. Excuse the soapbox, but in terms of UK law, the "dads can't get custody because [bullshit] so there's no point in even trying" is without question THE most destructive myth in family breakdown/crisis scenarios. The default position enshrined in UK law is 50/50 custody. The only way the court will deviate from that is if one of the parties AGREES to take less than 50/50 or it can be proven in court (on the balance of probabilities) that they are a fucking crackhead paedo.

The reason so many dads don't get the 50/50 custody the law promises them is that they don't say they want it. They are happy to - in many cases actively instruct their lawyers to obtain - weekends only, every other weekend, that sort of thing. I acted for a lot of dads (I... somehow ended up with all the male clients in my old practice, Idk if that was some kind of recommendation, but anyway) and the first fucking thing these ordinary guys, who loved their kids, would say to me is "But I work full time! How can I have the kids with me, how could I look after them?" I had one standard answer: "Your soon to be ex wife is going to work full time after your divorce, and she is not having this conversation with her solicitor right now. She intends to figure it out. You and I are going to do the same. Now, tell me about anyone who can help you, how the kids are cared for right now, and we can figure out roughly how you could manage."

Most of them responded to being given this shake, and got their kids more or less half the week. Some of them though absolutely baffled me. They were completely unwilling to make the - I admit major - changes necessary to have their kids half the time. They were happy to be weekend dads.

I can only help you if you meet me halfway. If you do, I will do everything in my power to preserve your relationship with your children, because that is worth more than anything else in a divorce settlement. But if you really don't want to do school runs and overnights and cover half the school holidays, then I can't help it if your kids get a bit distant. If you do not step up to fight for your kids, even a little bit, the court will conclude you can't be fucked with the day to day caretaking of them.

I have never failed to get a dad a custody arrangement he was happy with. I hope years later things are working out for those families.

3. I would say the system is tilted heavily in favour of the parent with custody, but see point 2 above: that ought to be a 50/50 arrangement unless one or both parties is going to fight dirty and go for false accusations and all that shite. (Yes, been there, done that; won. It's a despicable tactic and I condemn utterly those solicitors who are prepared to resort to it. (It's also very easily disproven.)

The other big factor is whether the marriage is a 'traditional' one, in that one partner earns (nearly) all the income and the other partner has (mostly) stepped out of the workforce to bring up the children of the marriage. The long term hit on lifetime earnings - plus the hit to pension income and overall pension pot value, which is often neglected in this discussion and is crippling - is really severe. There is a figure floating around that to take five years out of the workplace before 35 will, by 80, in terms of salary and pension worth, have cost you a million quid. Now, if you have more than one kid and lengthen that five years, or you only go back part time to make childcare easier, that financial hit is even worse. Divorces of "traditional" couples in their late sixties often see the homemaking partner handed more than 50% of the marital assets on that basis - UK courts very very rarely grant any form of alimony at all, so they get given a larger share of the capital to support themselves.

On the other hand, the UK courts explicitly do not take into account "lifestyle when married" for the divorcing parties. (It is taken into account when sorting out child maintenance, but those proceedings are dealt with separately and there are different calculations in play there. If one of your parents is rich as fuck, it is reasonable that you should not have to live on the bones of your arse.) If you can keep a roof over your head, albeit a shitty one, and feed yourself, albeit on Tesco beans, the court dgaf. Shit happens and you are expected to earn a living for yourself.

Divorcing to get rich is not a thing here. (There are occasionally high profile cases where the couple got rich during the marriage, and the court is being asked to come up with a figure for how much the non working partner's contribution was worth to the increased wealth of the household jointly. These are invariably hilarious because Rich Folks Fighting, and the judgements are always worth a read. The divorce of Heather Mills and Paul McCartney was especially hilarious in this respect.)

mindlessobserver · Jan 21, 2019

Sounds like British women have a problem and Islam is the solution.

Mr. A. L. Mao · Jan 21, 2019

Fareal said:
@Mr. A. L. Mao

1. Tbh "we keep fighting all the time and finally we had THE FIGHT and s/he just went fuck it and walked out" is the standard divorce from my personal experience. Long term erosion of a marriage leading to a breakdown like that is waaay more common in my observation than the classic "I found out s/he was cheating! divorce this ho!" stuff.

Truth is, marriage is hard, and there will be times it's really, really hard. And some folk choose (I say this without judgement) to decide they've had enough, and split up. Pressures around money and kids are a massive marriage killer.

It makes financial sense to file ASAP if you are the one with the kids. Honestly, it doesn't matter who was unhappy or why. The kids need food regardless.

2. Excuse the soapbox, but in terms of UK law, the "dads can't get custody because [bullshit] so there's no point in even trying" is without question THE most destructive myth in family breakdown/crisis scenarios. The default position enshrined in UK law is 50/50 custody. The only way the court will deviate from that is if one of the parties AGREES to take less than 50/50 or it can be proven in court (on the balance of probabilities) that they are a fucking crackhead paedo.

The reason so many dads don't get the 50/50 custody the law promises them is that they don't say they want it. They are happy to - in many cases actively instruct their lawyers to obtain - weekends only, every other weekend, that sort of thing. I acted for a lot of dads (I... somehow ended up with all the male clients in my old practice, Idk if that was some kind of recommendation, but anyway) and the first fucking thing these ordinary guys, who loved their kids, would say to me is "But I work full time! How can I have the kids with me, how could I look after them?" I had one standard answer: "Your soon to be ex wife is going to work full time after your divorce, and she is not having this conversation with her solicitor right now. She intends to figure it out. You and I are going to do the same. Now, tell me about anyone who can help you, how the kids are cared for right now, and we can figure out roughly how you could manage."

Most of them responded to being given this shake, and got their kids more or less half the week. Some of them though absolutely baffled me. They were completely unwilling to make the - I admit major - changes necessary to have their kids half the time. They were happy to be weekend dads.

I can only help you if you meet me halfway. If you do, I will do everything in my power to preserve your relationship with your children, because that is worth more than anything else in a divorce settlement. But if you really don't want to do school runs and overnights and cover half the school holidays, then I can't help it if your kids get a bit distant. If you do not step up to fight for your kids, even a little bit, the court will conclude you can't be fucked with the day to day caretaking of them.

I have never failed to get a dad a custody arrangement he was happy with. I hope years later things are working out for those families.

3. I would say the system is tilted heavily in favour of the parent with custody, but see point 2 above: that ought to be a 50/50 arrangement unless one or both parties is going to fight dirty and go for false accusations and all that shite. (Yes, been there, done that; won. It's a despicable tactic and I condemn utterly those solicitors who are prepared to resort to it. (It's also very easily disproven.)

The other big factor is whether the marriage is a 'traditional' one, in that one partner earns (nearly) all the income and the other partner has (mostly) stepped out of the workforce to bring up the children of the marriage. The long term hit on lifetime earnings - plus the hit to pension income and overall pension pot value, which is often neglected in this discussion and is crippling - is really severe. There is a figure floating around that to take five years out of the workplace before 35 will, by 80, in terms of salary and pension worth, have cost you a million quid. Now, if you have more than one kid and lengthen that five years, or you only go back part time to make childcare easier, that financial hit is even worse. Divorces of "traditional" couples in their late sixties often see the homemaking partner handed more than 50% of the marital assets on that basis - UK courts very very rarely grant any form of alimony at all, so they get given a larger share of the capital to support themselves.

On the other hand, the UK courts explicitly do not take into account "lifestyle when married" for the divorcing parties. (It is taken into account when sorting out child maintenance, but those proceedings are dealt with separately and there are different calculations in play there. If one of your parents is rich as fuck, it is reasonable that you should not have to live on the bones of your arse.) If you can keep a roof over your head, albeit a shitty one, and feed yourself, albeit on Tesco beans, the court dgaf. Shit happens and you are expected to earn a living for yourself.

Divorcing to get rich is not a thing here. (There are occasionally high profile cases where the couple got rich during the marriage, and the court is being asked to come up with a figure for how much the non working partner's contribution was worth to the increased wealth of the household jointly. These are invariably hilarious because Rich Folks Fighting, and the judgements are always worth a read. The divorce of Heather Mills and Paul McCartney was especially hilarious in this respect.)

Thanks for the in-depth response, the part about fathers and custody was especially enlightening. Definitely a more nuanced issue than I was aware of.

UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

Buster O'Keefe

Enjoys offal

Datiko

HG 400

Guest

Affluent Reptilian

TowinKarz

Unclaimed Freight

RadicalCentrist

ulsterscotsman

Peak Male Performance

Aristophanes

Writing plays for Lolcows since 446 BC

Sable

DANGEROUSLY WAITING FOR MORE 2HUS

Stoneheart

Well hung, and snow white tan

ulsterscotsman

Peak Male Performance

Bum Driller

Cultural Appropriator & Cowboy Chemist

Aristophanes

Writing plays for Lolcows since 446 BC

Fareal

will definitely consider what you have said

Wesley Willis

Rock over London, Burn down Chicago!

ulsterscotsman

Peak Male Performance

Mr. A. L. Mao

Has the inclinations to...mount women

Fareal

will definitely consider what you have said

mindlessobserver

Mr. A. L. Mao

Has the inclinations to...mount women