Not just a word (it's a sentence)
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:59 pm
I'm sure this has been run before, but times they are a-changin'.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
You could have something useful to say instead of being a less charming echo of James Robinson.Gavin Chipper wrote:You could be under-age and in a relationship or engaged.
Does that not mean you are in civil partnership then? I know it does here in IrelandJon Corby wrote:I'm married in all but law - living together, joint mortgage, three kids, all that shizzle. I don't want to click "married" but "in a relationship" doesn't really cut it, considering some other twit will tick that because they've spoken to someone on MSN twice.
Oh I dunno - I took that to mean the gay marriage equivalent.james doohan wrote:Does that not mean you are in civil partnership then? I know it does here in IrelandJon Corby wrote:I'm married in all but law - living together, joint mortgage, three kids, all that shizzle. I don't want to click "married" but "in a relationship" doesn't really cut it, considering some other twit will tick that because they've spoken to someone on MSN twice.
As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.Jon Corby wrote:Oh I dunno - I took that to mean the gay marriage equivalent.james doohan wrote:Does that not mean you are in civil partnership then? I know it does here in IrelandJon Corby wrote:I'm married in all but law - living together, joint mortgage, three kids, all that shizzle. I don't want to click "married" but "in a relationship" doesn't really cut it, considering some other twit will tick that because they've spoken to someone on MSN twice.
I know such legislation was mooted in this country a couple of years ago, but I dunno if it ever passed. If in doubt, click "Other".james doohan wrote: As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
Based on no legal background whatever, I thought the exact opposite. If there's no marriage certificate, there's no legal implications. The woman takes the kids (probably), financial arrangements are made for their support, and all assets and liabilities go to whoever's name is on the documentation. There always seem to be moves afoot to change this, but nothing ever happens.james doohan wrote:As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
Hope thats not as clear as mud, but thats how I understand a civil partnership, formal or not!
Legal minefield though
Yeah, I checked with my legal assistant (sadly not in the employ of Apterous Towers) and the law has never been passed in this country.David Williams wrote:Based on no legal background whatever, I thought the exact opposite. If there's no marriage certificate, there's no legal implications. The woman takes the kids (probably), financial arrangements are made for their support, and all assets and liabilities go to whoever's name is on the documentation. There always seem to be moves afoot to change this, but nothing ever happens.james doohan wrote:As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
Hope thats not as clear as mud, but thats how I understand a civil partnership, formal or not!
Legal minefield though
The technical term used by the DWP (and virtually everyone else) fwiw is 'Common Law'. Civil Partnerships do indeed only refer to the gay.Charlie Reams wrote:I know such legislation was mooted in this country a couple of years ago, but I dunno if it ever passed. If in doubt, click "Other".james doohan wrote: As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
I fall into this category too. On opinion polls, it's usually classed as "living with partner" or "living as married". Definitely a BIG step up from being in a relationship. Can't leave my toenails lying around without getting a row.Ben Wilson wrote:The technical term used by the DWP (and virtually everyone else) fwiw is 'Common Law'. Civil Partnerships do indeed only refer to the gay.Charlie Reams wrote:I know such legislation was mooted in this country a couple of years ago, but I dunno if it ever passed. If in doubt, click "Other".james doohan wrote: As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
Jon Corby wrote:I'm married in all but law - living together, joint mortgage, three kids, all that shizzle. I don't want to click "married" but "in a relationship" doesn't really cut it, considering some other twit will tick that because they've spoken to someone on MSN twice.
That's how I understand it too. I don't mean to sound morbid and interfering, Jon (but I'll say it anyway!), if I were you, I'd make an honest woman of your beloved, or at least get a good solicitor to draw up a will to make sure she's not left high and dry if the worst happens, or indeed the other way round if you were left on your own.Charlie Reams wrote:Yeah, I checked with my legal assistant (sadly not in the employ of Apterous Towers) and the law has never been passed in this country.David Williams wrote:Based on no legal background whatever, I thought the exact opposite. If there's no marriage certificate, there's no legal implications. The woman takes the kids (probably), financial arrangements are made for their support, and all assets and liabilities go to whoever's name is on the documentation. There always seem to be moves afoot to change this, but nothing ever happens.james doohan wrote:As I understand you are already in a civil partnership whether you had a formal ceremony or not, as the legal implications are (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) that if you and your partner split up, in the eyes of the law your partner is entitled to half of your assets due to the lengthy and domestic situation of your relationship.
Hope thats not as clear as mud, but thats how I understand a civil partnership, formal or not!
Legal minefield though
Yes, with no will the kids get everything. That would change the balance of power in the Corby household.Julie T wrote:That's how I understand it too. I don't mean to sound morbid and interfering, Jon (but I'll say it anyway!), if I were you, I'd make an honest woman of your beloved, or at least get a good solicitor to draw up a will to make sure she's not left high and dry if the worst happens, or indeed the other way round if you were left on your own.
No. The term 'civil partnership' in the UK applies specifically and solely to same-sex couples.james doohan wrote:Does that not mean you are in civil partnership then? I know it does here in IrelandJon Corby wrote:I'm married in all but law - living together, joint mortgage, three kids, all that shizzle. I don't want to click "married" but "in a relationship" doesn't really cut it, considering some other twit will tick that because they've spoken to someone on MSN twice.
There are over four million couples living together in England and Wales in cohabitation. Although cohabitants are now given legal protection in several areas, they and their families have significantly fewer rights and responsibilities than people who are married or who have formed a civil partnership.
Most people think that, after they've been living with their partner for a couple of years, they become 'common law husband and wife' with the same rights as married couples. This is not the case. In fact, couples who live together have hardly any of the same rights as married couples or civil partners.
There is no such thing as ‘common law marriage’.
Yeah, that must be it.Martin Smith wrote:So less than half of Countdown fans can find a girlfriend/boyfriend? That's a bit worrying. Maybe we're all too choosy.
Especially not on their lap. Makes it very hard to type, you know.Jeff Clayton wrote:Some might not relish the sudden prospect of a squirming baby.
We were young and didn't know any better. But now we have seen the errors of our ways, and it won't happen again, sir.Matthew Green wrote:The fact that 50% of people on a Countdown forum are in or have been in any sort of relationship with another human being greatly surprises me.
There are over a thousand registered members, so it's more like 2% that admit to a relationship. And most of the rest aren't saying. Do you feel more at home with that?Matthew Green wrote:The fact that 50% of people on a Countdown forum are in or have been in any sort of relationship with another human being greatly surprises me.