Comments on: MEP: Smile's attitude makes me frown

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:42:00 +0000

Cooooooo-eeeeeehhhhhhhh Did you miss the bit where the DWP said "This would treat surviving civil partners in the same way as widowers" over the other side of the Atlantic, Ian.Lets not muddy the water with facts, eh? And if anyone does, we can always ignore them!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:24:00 +0000

Robert, All you say I agree with. Trouble is we have have lame ducks amongst us who are not, for whatever reason but usually ignorance, who are not only prepared to do nothing about but who actively complain when others do. My last word !

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:14:00 +0000

Ian, thank you for clarifying that for me. Seems that partnerships are then not equal to the married couples' rights then. Why is it allowed if civil partnered couples are supposed to have the rights of marriage? I thought the government was supposed to treat them as such or am I missing something? Is anyone doing anything about it? They've had almost two years to make the necessary changes and a lame excuse at best, so what is taking them so long or is there no legal obligation for that too? Seems to me as if there is some conflict in the law that needs to be addressed. You're either equal or your not, simple as that.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:01:00 +0000

any differences (if there are any) would fall foul of the equalities act and legislation would need to be changed. as countless others have said there is a lot of legislation and with then copeous holidays that MPs take, all laws are not going to be changed over night. it also begs the question, when you are looking at the act are you going on to read all of the amendments since it was originally enacted to ensure that the issue you have has not already been dealt with?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:40:00 +0000

Calculation of survivor benefits for civil partners7. Initially, the Government announced its intention to use section 255 CPA to require schemes that contract out to make provision for survivor benefits for civil partners based on the scheme member’s rights accrued from the date of introduction of civil partnerships.8. This proposal attracted a number of representations from Members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as from many organisations and individuals. Their concern was that, while many schemes in the private sector already made provision for unmarried and same-sex partners, the difference in treatment between civil partners and spouses in those schemes that did not make such provision, would not be remedied for many years. This different treatment would not meet the Government’s objective of according to civil partners as many as possible of the rights and responsibilities accorded to married couples.9. In the light of representations received, the Government announced on 26 October 2004, that contracted-out schemes would be required to make provision for survivor benefits for civil partners on the basis of the contracted-out rights accrued from April 1988. This would treat surviving civil partners in the same way as widowers.I think the relevant part is the very last line.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:53:00 +0000

Robert, Goverment is the problem so far as civil service and local government. Not this government – any government. They say they can't afford it. For example so far as lump sum payable on death is concerned it can only go back to 1984 (or 1982) can't quite remember even if contributions commenced long before that whereas for married couples that is not the case – full pension rights for them calculated from the day the employee paid contributions maybe even as far back as early 60's in some cases. I am not an expert on this but that much I do know !

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:27:00 +0000

Ian, do you know for sure if it is not illegal to deny a bereaved partner in a civil partnership full pension rights? If that's the case, shouldn't this be addressed and resolved or maybe people just don't care that much about it since they can't marry?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:31:00 +0000

Hi Steve, Actually it is NOT illegal to refuse to cough up full pension rights to a bereaved partner in a civil partnership ! So I take it you will at least take up the cudgel on that one ! Though I hasten to add this was not the issue here. Why not have a quick look at the Act or at least the summary before jumping to conclusions ?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:39:00 +0000

I think the question is whether they discriminated in the provision of goods or services. As far as I am aware those entering into civil partnerships were not prevented access to good or services by Smile and therefore there was no breach of the law there.It has been pointed out again and again that in the absence of a drop down or any other type of box for civil partnerships the married option should be used as the two have identical status under law.I’m sure if you dredge the statutes you can probably find some minor infringement of the law somewhere if you look hard enough as you usually can, but I think this would have been more of a story if Smile where refusing to pay out a pension to a partner who had entered into a civil partnership or something similar, but of course they have not, as that WOULD be illegal.We will come across LITTLE issues like this no doubt for several years to come with the mass of legislation that is being changed. I for one will not be manning the barricades or joining a lynch mob for something as minor as this. I think we all need to get a sense of proportion.Next thing we’ll have women complaining its sexual discrimination that they don’t fill in the ‘male’ option on a gender question, or vice versa.My question to you before was “Was it perhaps Maverick's use of the word 'knob head' that you considered a worthwhile contribution our John's reference to 'scum like them'?”. I notice that you haven’t come back with a reply. Perhaps it was because they seemed to side with your argument, and on that basis its okay for people to be as abusive as they like, maybe?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:54:00 +0000

This debate begain over a narrow issue about whether or not banks are in breach of a legal abligation if they fail to provide facilities for those who have a civil partnership to enjoy the same facility as others who have legal status e.g married/divorced.Both Smile Egg were approached by friends of mine in a CP and my partner a long time ago and were politely asked about their failure to provide this facility in their drop down menus. For a very long time they prevaricated and then finally refused. Both indicated that they had been advised by their legal dept that there was no legal obligation to do so. No point in going through the courts because it takes forever. That is where the Pink Paper were informed and the story unfolded. Smile were not singled out though perhaps were unlucky that they have borne the brunt of this. But it is really asking too much to feel sorry for a bank prepared to breach the law. It could have been any institution including those who advertise in the Pink. There are many who have obeyed the law on this almost from the start including Lloyds TSB Barclays. No doubt because they were aware of Equality Act(Sexual Orientation) Regs 2007 made under s. 81 of the Equality Act 2006. which make it unlawful to discriminate on ground of sexual orientation. The regulations deal with many issues of which this is one. Read it on any search engine. They were in breach of a law designed to stop others treating gay people unfavourably. End of. Now they are aware of this and thanks to the tenacity and persistence of those who have brought this matter to a head hopefully the issue will be brought to a swift conclusion. How on earth can any level headed self respecting gay person even begin to criticise the action that has been taken ?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:16:00 +0000

Why oh why are you all so bitchy, you ask Ian, having just singled out probably the two people who contributed nothing other than bitching to the argument Was it perhaps Maverick's use of the word 'knob head' that you considered a worthwhile contribution our John's reference to 'scum like them'I'm afraid for me anything worthwhile you might have had to say has just been flushed down the toilet.The "if my life's not perfect then the whole world's homophobic” brigade are thankfully in the minority here, but I have to give it to you, there are certainly a few of you. Admittedly some of you log on with different names to give the impression that you are greater in number, but still its a surprise to me that so many of you are around.I think most of us will savour the benefits we have and look forward to remaining minor issues being tidied up and resolved, and the rest of you can stew and fester over the fact that sometimes, just sometimes life just isn't quite perfect … all the time. You will clearly never be happen, so I suppose its pointless even suggesting that you try to be.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:55:00 +0000

You're right Bonnie Prince Charlie and Ian, those of us who haven't actually got one yet should nip out and get the word VICTIM tattooed across our foreheads and maybe paint a great big target on our backs.Steve (2) was absolutely right when with his comment, yes, we have been persecuted in varying degrees for years, but the sooner we shake off the feeling of persecution and start seeing ourselves as equals, the sooner we will be equals.Also Bonnie Prince Charlie if you're up in the Highlands I'm a singing f**king kipper. I suspect you may in fact be an ocean away from Scotland – and Atlantic Ocean.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Bonnie Prince Charlie

Bonnie Prince Charlie — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:43:00 +0000

Who the f**k is this Sister Mary Claptrap? What a bag of shite as we say up here in the Highlands. Can we please have a decent debate on the blatant discrimination by big take your money companies, denying those in LEGAL CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS their correct marital status. I bet anything you like that the likes of sad old Sister Mary Clap is single. God, to pinch an ecclesiastical name, can you imagine being Civil Partnered to him or her, whatever she/he/it is? It's enough to make you go straight, well nearly as dear Ian has already mentioned. So come on all you Jessies, make November the month when we all expose those firms who deny those in Civil Partnerships their rights. Hit them where it hurts and give them the bad publicity they so desperately detest. There are plenty of firms out there who do not discriminate and they are just dying for our business, it's our game now which makes a nice change so do it and enjoy it.Bonnie Prince Charlie

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:42:00 +0000

I posted some comments on 27 Oct just to address the main issues and am astounded at the amount of irrelevant crap that has materialised since then apart from Maverick and John. Why oh why are you all so bitchy. I almost (but not quite) am beginning to wish I was straight ! Ian.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:00 +0000

The thing about Robert is that he has lots of money, he pays lots of taxes – but he brags about it, therefore he doesn't have an ounce of dignity. This tells me an awful lot about him – as they say "You can take the girl out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter out of the girl" lolHe's obviously well suited to the loud, brash, Capitalistic American society – and with any luck, he'll stay there.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Sitster Mary Clarence

Sitster Mary Clarence — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:16:00 +0000

I think someone needs to tell failed soap actor Michael Cashman that he's missed the boat, so he can save himself the price of a stamp.And Robert – marriage is a contract by the same definition.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve (2)

Steve (2) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:09:00 +0000

Robert its been said before that we probably don't have too much trouble with hearing the truth, the problem is the crap that a small minority comes out with.I'm with SMC – I want to be equal I don't want to be the same.Again it say been said before that we are in changing times, if everything isn't perfect from day one we could just maybe make people aware of it and ask them to sort it out rather than rounding up a lynch mob at the first minor problem.Yes, we have been persecuted in varying degrees for years, but the sooner we shake off the feeling of persecution and start seeing ourselves as equals, the sooner we will be equals.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:53:00 +0000

Sister Mary, Blair has NOT legislated for marriage equality. If he had, you wouldn't have civil partnerships in the first place. They are NOT marriages just because they have most of the rights of marriage and Blair as you well know it has categorically stated that they are indeed not marriages or recognised as marriages but legally binding contractual partnerships just like any other contract, nothing more. Let all civil partnershipped couples tick the married box in the absence of an civil partnership option on any application and see what happens.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Robert, ex-pat Brit

Robert, ex-pat Brit — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:48:00 +0000

Drew, I was born and raised in the UK. Last time I checked, I still have a British biometric passport. I also maintain a residence and a business and pay taxes,employ people and probably far more taxes than you do. So telling me and others from the US that we can't comment if something is not to your liking is typical of the narrowminded, insular attitude that you and others display. You don't like hearing the truth, that's for sure because its not to your liking.