Search the Community

Fucking useless. Can anyone tell me why the law is so biased towards mothers getting custody when it is totally clear to anyone with a grain of common sense that if it has to be a single parent situation, kids grow up much more balanced and disciplined with a father rather than a mother. I'm working from home today, and the silly single mum bitch that lives next door to me (renting, of course) is once again completely out of her depth when it comes to controlling her kids, whom I can hear running riot round her as she no doubts whines on Facebook about how their father is late/early/on-time to pick them up again. When I'm Prime Minister, the three options in order of preference enshrined in law will be: a. two parent family, of course b. custody to the father c. adopted by the gays c. children taken into care d. adopted by wolves/apes Women simply can't cope on their own. Proper rounded parenting is just more thing that they're not very good at. It's not their fault of course - had they been born men they'd be fine. Just bad luck I suppose. Following the steps above, crime rates will drop dramatically, behaviour in school will improve resulting in better results, and the economy and general social well-being of the nation will see tangible benefits. Plus I could concentrate on getting some work done without having to listen to the screams coming from next door. You know it makes sense. Noos-sense. Vote Noos.

For reasons best known to herself my wife decided to wipe the nose of her vehicle down the side of my old but (up until a few days ago) tidy motor. Both are insured fully comp in our respective names but the V5s are both in my name. Her insurance has agreed to pay for her vehicle but phoned yesterday to say they wouldn't cover mine as I 'have a financial interest in both vehicles'. I pointed out that since we are married that would be the case if the V5 was in her name and the complaint has been referred a little higher up the food chain, but I do not anticipate a spontaneous change in sentiment from them. My broker says they are talking nonsense but cannot act on my behalf unless I start the claims process with my policy which will almost certainly result in the loss of my no claims. Looks like this will head to the ombudsman but I seem to recall there's a couple of insurance fellas on here? Any advice appreciated. Funny remarks less so.

I'm going to do a new thread and poll on this cos' Red Mist fucked up the previous one by making it a private poll. The racist scoundrel. Anyway, with it rearing it's head again today; what do you think should happen with it? The subject isn't going away and with other countries, particularly the US, increasingly seeming to side with Argentina I can see a reckoning coming soon. Plus, it will be harder to defend now with the cuts to the MOD. BBC News - Argentine leader says UK 'arrogant' over Falklands