Cabbies can't wear World Cup garb
BLACKPOOL, England, May 20 (UPI) -- Taxi drivers in Blackpool, England, say a law barring any clothing supporting the British World Cup soccer team is unfair.
The Blackpool Council ruled any shirt with the word England, the Saint George Cross or the Three Lions shield may anger Welsh or Scottish visitors during the contentious soccer championships.
The Daily Mail reports London cabbies are not under the rule, which a 42-year-old Blackpool taxi driver called "barmy."
He found out about the rule when an officer suspended him until he changed out of a t-shirt with the word England on it.
The head of Blackpool's taxi association, Trevor Boaler, called on the council to draw down its ruling.
(nicked from UPI.com)
Now, I don't really give a toss about the world cup and my personal opinion is that anyone who wears a football shirt for anything other then playing football or attending a football match is posessed of dubious taste, but this seems tad out of order. Tell me again who's gonna be offended?
I guess that all football shirts will have to be banned in case the supporter of another team happens to see it and be driven into a blind rage. And perhaps I should chuck away my T-Shirt with the union jack on it just in case a french person walks past and becomes angry.
Frankly, whether we're talking Scots, Welshmen or Outer bloody Mongolians, if you come to England during the World Cup you're gonna have to accept that you're gonna see the George's cross or the three lions and the only peopel who would find this in any way offensive are clearly nuts. Or middle class white Daily Mail readers.
Just imagine the reaction if Americans were banned from displaying the stars and stripes in case it offends a visitor.
(A quick google suggested that this rule has been extended to Cheltenham as well, although I can't find any proper news pages to confirm it.)
Sarah didn't get the hump when taxi driver gave fare share of advice
At 19 stones, Sarah Bramhall was under no illusions about her size, but it took a humiliating encounter with a town centre taxi driver to shock her into action.
The 36-year-old was looking forward to a rare girls' night out. The cab was booked but when it arrived the driver refused to take her unless she agreed to get out at every speed bump.
Humiliated and horrified, Sarah had no other option but to agree. Little did she know that walking those few short yards would be the beginning of her journey to a new life.
A year on and the neonatal nurse and mum-of-two, from Avery Close, Padgate, has now lost six-and-a-half stones after enrolling at her local Slimming World group.
And she is so confident about her new look that she is to become a Slimming World consultant so that she can encourage other women to change their lives.
(nicked from thisischeshire.co.uk)
Heh. After I finished chuckling at the taxi-drives tact and subtlety, I had to nod to myself and say 'good on you, Sarah Bramhall'.
This story allows me to highlight my opinion that we all have a responsibility to let our friends and family know that they are getting tubby before they reach 19 stone. I speak from experience, here.
And finally:
Ex-wives win key divorce rulings
The Law Lords have ruled two ex-wives are entitled to their former husbands' millions in landmark rulings.
Melissa Miller can keep the £5m she was awarded out of her ex-husband Alan's £17.5m fortune, said the lords.
Julia McFarlane is entitled to £250,000 a year from her ex-husband Kenneth for life - not just the five years decided by the Court of Appeal.
The House of Lords' decisions could have far-reaching implications for future big money divorce settlements.
'Stay-at-home mothers'
Mrs McFarlane had argued she gave up a high-earning career when she married 18 years earlier.
After the ruling, she said: "Obviously I am very happy."
Her lawyer James Pirrie described the judgement as "groundbreaking".
"Until today, maintenance for stay-at-home mothers was going to be based purely on living expenses.
"Now judges must consider as well contribution and compensation. For people like Julia this is only fair.
"The judgement recognises her sacrifice and that marriage is a partnership," Mr Pirrie said.
He said it had been a joint decision with her husband that she give up her career to raise their children, which enabled him to increase his earning power.
"Isn't it fair that she should receive a fair share of that?," he said.
He said the ruling was at odds with divorce law in the rest of the world, but the Law Lords' ruling showed that the world was now out of step.
Mr McFarlane said: "Whilst I am glad that the judgement of the House of Lords today brings these matters to a close, I preferred the Court of Appeal's recognition that the achievement of financial independence at the earliest opportunity was a vital part of a fair outcome.
"I now look forward to enjoying life, once again, away from the media spotlight, with my lovely wife and family."
His lawyer, Jeremy Levison, said there was "some optimism" in the "extremely complicated judgements" as they did not necessarily mean that Mrs McFarlane would continue to receive payments for life.
"The court says that as and when the children are a bit older and her child-looking-after obligations diminish, they rather expect her to return to work to help herself."
High standard of living
In the Miller case, Mr Miller challenged an earlier court order that he pay his ex-wife the £5m after their brief marriage failed.
The Millers, who lived in Chelsea, London, were married for two years and nine months and had no children when they split.
A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle.
The judge had also cited Mr Miller's adultery as a factor in the award.
After Wednesday's ruling, Marcus Dearle, a family lawyer who works at the firm representing Mrs Miller, said: "What actually happened, at the end of the day, was that the judge focused on the high standard of living that Mrs Miller and Mr Miller enjoyed, and also the fact that a lot of money was earned in that very short... marriage."
Family lawyer Alan Kaufman said one key issue arising from the rulings was that conduct would not be considered in dividing assets, unless it was extreme conduct.
However, Mr Kaufman said: "These cases are very limited to the big money cases, except the issue of conduct applies to all divorces.
"Lawyers are going to be very happy with what the House of Lords have said because nobody wanted to go into any divorce situation, going back over the past with recriminations and who was to blame for the breakdown.
"We don't like doing it and thankfully in most cases we won't be doing it in the future."
The ruling is being seen as the Lords' most significant rulings on divorce in five years.
Observers have speculated on the importance of the rulings to any divorce hearing between former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, said to be worth an estimated £800m, and his wife Heather Mills.
(nicked from BBC News)
Well a couple of issues come to mind here...
"He said it had been a joint decision with her husband that she give up her City career to raise their children, which enabled him to increase his earning power."
Increase his earning power? I should think that his earnings potential remained exactly the same. In fact it would probably have been even higher if he hadn’t married and had kids.
"A judge decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle."
Well. That says it all really, doesn’t it. “she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle”.
"The judge also cited Mr Miller's adultery as a factor in the award."
Interesting, this. I wonder if it would have been a factor if it had been her who cheated.
No comments:
Post a Comment