nrp help

Wasteland_Drifter

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Where do you think the journalist got his info from?

Probably the same place as you. Wikipedia.

Loopy_Girl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Act_1989#Proposed_new_UK_legislation

And in particular the first sentence and the links that follow it.

Loopy_Girl

Wasteland_Drifter wrote: »

Probably the same place as you. Wikipedia.

And your point is? It's there in black and white. You are talking out your @rse and spouting a load of nonsense saying the Act you quoted was not repealed. You're right, it wasn't, but it was updated which is what you have been told and are choosing to ignore.

You're trying to scare the OP by saying he has no rights and the Mum will need to name him as a guardian - again, total rubbish.

Hopefully the OP will be a little more clued up than you, read the evidence given by other posters and realise the information you gave is incorrect.

You really have no idea and the 'advice' you gave to the OP - as well as being wrong - is actually dangerous.

Zara33

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Evidence is produced and you are still claiming you are correct - is it because you have realised that you are wrong and don't want to back down?

Agree it doesn't matter how much evidence we submit WD will just not back down...shame

Loopy_Girl

Agreed.

I just hope the OP reads the evidence

marksoton

If anyone is that bothered here you go : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040031_en_1

I doubt anyone can find a more reliable source...

Loopy_Girl

But he's just choosing to ignore the fact Mark that there was an updated Act from 1989.

Short of getting Gordon Brown on here then there's not much that will persuade him.

I'm not faffed what he thinks (or thinks he knows) and also what he thinks of me. What I am concerned is that there is an NRP being given wholly incorrect information.

Zara33

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

But he's just choosing to ignore the fact Mark that there was an updated Act from 1989.

Short of getting Gordon Brown on here then there's not much that will persuade him.

I'm not faffed what he thinks (or thinks he knows) and also what he thinks of me. What I am concerned is that there is an NRP being given wholly incorrect information.

:rotfl:Why bother having fact... fiction is much more interesting.

stokefan

thanks everyone

i didnt mean to start a war, before i posted on here i was under the impression i had the same rights and responsabilitys as the pwc, but now im unsure. reading what has been posted i am now sure that i have rights, but it seems not as many as she has, thanks again everyone for your help

Wasteland_Drifter

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

You're trying to scare the OP by saying he has no rights and the Mum will need to name him as a guardian - again, total rubbish.

I have said he should now seek professional advice. There is no evidence S2(4) of the Children Act 1989 has been changed.

If he wants to accept your advice and consider the work of a journalist or a Wikipedia article as fact then that is his prerogrative.

Your Wikipedia article discusses parental rights in the EU and parental responsibility in England & Wales.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040031_en_1 Thank you Marksoton, did you find anything in this legislation that repeals Section 2(4) of the 1989 Act?

Zara33 wrote: »

personal attacks are a little low.

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

Muppet

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

I've reported your comment.

Loopy Girl you can spend all night on Google, making insults against me and reporting my posts but it doesn't change the law just because you disagree with it. I can see why you are spending so much time on this forum.

Zara33 wrote: »

:rotfl:Why bother having fact... fiction is much more interesting.

And I see you have credited the posts appropriately.