|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:25 PM October 31st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I dont believe it will pass.
"Of course, MPs could refuse to pass it. However, given that, of 646 members, only 127 are women, that seems unlikely."
Yes, but unfortunately 95% of male members are feminist stooges.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:35 AM November 1st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Now that they've got us by the nuts and have the right to kill us and then lie about it to avoid custodial sentences (after kidnapping our children and robbing us blind), I suppose that these cowards can finally start to let go of some of their childlike extra "rights" under the law. Mind you, I suppose this should have been expected, given that women have some sort of aversion to risks of any kind (i.e. the kind men are expected to take every day).
Enough with the feminist nonsense where equality = whatever favours women, discrimination = whatever favours men.
So, women want actual equality? Fine by me, I'll happily pitch in to make it happen. But don't say I didn't warn you, girls: you might actually have to take responsibility for yourselves and others all while giving up your special mommy-state protections and privileges. You'll have to learn to take risks and deal with the consequences. You'll have to compete fairly with men for jobs and your education.
Like that's ever gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 04:20 PM November 1st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dittohd,
unfortunately the English political system is pretty closed - there is no way to know who has voted unless you are actually inside the house. Insiders are (I believe) unable to discuss the behaviour of other politicos without getting into hot water themselves, so basically there is no way to know.
You'll get some pollies who will 'fess up and say whether they supported it or not - though we have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth - but mostly if it's anything even slightly contentious the majority of them decline to comment.
So no, there is no way to know. But as a Brit myself, I can tell you there is pretty much no way this thing will pass, especially given the current government.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 PM November 1st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It's about time, though I am too cynical to believe it will pass. But at least they are actually discussing the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:26 PM November 1st, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
That's how I feel about it, too.
I'm cynical but hopeful.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there's a reasonable chance of it going through. It says the Government asked the MP to put the bill forth, and when the Government backs a bill and there is a major rebellion in its own ranks of MPs refusing to back it then it usually hits the news headlines ("Embarrassment for Blair as MPs Rebel", that kind of thing.) I've heard nothing like this concerning this bill, so I reckon it will be successful.
However, I don't think it'll make much difference. It'll just mean a man won't be legally obgliged to raise his wife's living standards, but it doesn't say anything about removing a man's obligation to support an ex-wife or pay out child support. So men will still be obliged (if not legally so) to cater to their wife's every materialistic demand because otherwise she'll divorce him and will still get the house, kids, car, financial support, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Dittohd writes "Here's a