Comments on: God Save The Queen http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:04:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: E-Rock http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-5360 E-Rock Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:21:07 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1489#comment-5360 I was wanting to find sites that addressed the issue and not the movement, if that makes sense. (similar to addressing environmentalism and not the creeps who were blowing up SUVs a couple years back). Her site is a good jumping off point, though. I was wanting to find sites that addressed the issue and not the movement, if that makes sense. (similar to addressing environmentalism and not the creeps who were blowing up SUVs a couple years back). Her site is a good jumping off point, though.

]]> By: Alex Fradera http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-5359 Alex Fradera Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:50:40 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1489#comment-5359 Check out <a href="http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">Trish Wilson's blog </a> for lots about Fathers for Justice and the whole 'fathers rights' fandango. I don't think it's objectively more of an issue over here where I am than in the states, but that it just so happens that this group is a bit more active and its hardcore are effective in getting publicity. Check out Trish Wilson’s blog for lots about Fathers for Justice and the whole ‘fathers rights’ fandango. I don’t think it’s objectively more of an issue over here where I am than in the states, but that it just so happens that this group is a bit more active and its hardcore are effective in getting publicity.

]]> By: E-Rock http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-5358 E-Rock Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:58:24 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1489#comment-5358 I should add that this "movement" seems like so many others in that initially the injured parties are few and vocal, then there are many who have reason to suspect they've been aggrieved because of those few's protests, and finally there are the plenty who just want to take advantage of the movement. I should add that this “movement” seems like so many others in that initially the injured parties are few and vocal, then there are many who have reason to suspect they’ve been aggrieved because of those few’s protests, and finally there are the plenty who just want to take advantage of the movement.

]]> By: E-Rock http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-5357 E-Rock Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:48:54 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1489#comment-5357 It's been hard to figure out because I've been trying to avoid baised websites, but what it sounds like is this: In 1989 Parliament pass The Children's Act, which is actually pretty straightforward and seems to be trying, in part, to undo a law that stated that the father was the automatically the natural legal guardian of the child. In fact, the law seems focused on having the state serve the best interests of the child. In 2000, however, Lord Justice Thorpe made what might be interpreted as a sexist ruling interpreting the law to give preference to mothers in the care and upbringing of children. The thing is I don't know whether it's possible to actually calculate how much if any effect that ruling actually has had on fathers' legal standing in British Courts. Interestingly the law grants "parental responsibility" to both parents if the child is born in wedlock. Out of wedlock, though, parental responsibility defaults to the mother. I should mention though that it appears British law grants a wide definition to marriage, accepting commonlaw marriages. It’s been hard to figure out because I’ve been trying to avoid baised websites, but what it sounds like is this: In 1989 Parliament pass The Children’s Act, which is actually pretty straightforward and seems to be trying, in part, to undo a law that stated that the father was the automatically the natural legal guardian of the child. In fact, the law seems focused on having the state serve the best interests of the child. In 2000, however, Lord Justice Thorpe made what might be interpreted as a sexist ruling interpreting the law to give preference to mothers in the care and upbringing of children. The thing is I don’t know whether it’s possible to actually calculate how much if any effect that ruling actually has had on fathers’ legal standing in British Courts.

Interestingly the law grants “parental responsibility” to both parents if the child is born in wedlock. Out of wedlock, though, parental responsibility defaults to the mother. I should mention though that it appears British law grants a wide definition to marriage, accepting commonlaw marriages.

]]> By: Amanda http://www.thetalentshow.org/2004/11/23/god-save-the-queen/comment-page-1/#comment-5356 Amanda Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:04:45 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/wp/?p=1489#comment-5356 No, the divorce laws are not draconian. The English are just more sexist than Americans and these men are bitter that their ex-wives won't capitulate to all their demands. Mostly, they don't want to pay child support. No, the divorce laws are not draconian. The English are just more sexist than Americans and these men are bitter that their ex-wives won’t capitulate to all their demands. Mostly, they don’t want to pay child support.

]]>