The Nice People Thread, No.16: A Universe of Niceness.

LydiaJ

Pyxis wrote: »

Some of the NPs might be interested in doing this next week..........

Well on Saturday, May 12th, it is Mass Observation Day, where each year people are invited to submit a one-day diary to be a social snapshot and kept in Archives as a historical record.

The first one was done in 1937 and has been done every year since, with each year being compared to the 1937 ones to see how our lives have changed.

I thought I'd have a go! Never realised it was done each year.

I thought I'd post this in advance of the Saturday, to give people a chance to read up on it if they want to have a go.

All the mundane things should be noted down. It's the mundane things that are interesting to future generations, after all!

Have a read about it here.......

http://www.massobs.org.uk/write-for-us/12th-may

(NB...They are also looking for more regular observers, for quarterly submissions I believe, to write their thoughts on specific themes, but at the moment are only looking for males aged 16-44 who live in any part of the UK except the south-east.
Anyone can do the Mass Observation Day one-day diary, though, even school-children).

Ooh! That sounds interesting. I hadn't heard of it either. I've put a reminder on my phone. Next Saturday will be a bit atypical for me, but I'll join in. I wouldn't mind doing it annually, but I'm not eligible for the quarterly thing. I'm living in the UK but not in the south-east, but I'm neither male nor 16-44.

A lot of my entry will be about being on the team for this event. If you know anyone who's been widowed under the age of 50, or over 50 but still with dependent children living at home, do tell them about it. It's probably not too late to sign up.

GDB2222

LydiaJ wrote: »

[Other posts in which PN details all the progress she's been making]



And she describes it as "not doing much" ???????



Nope, if your spouse wants to divorce you for "unreasonable behaviour", you do not need to "take the blame", nor do you need to "agree" that you've been "unreasonable". You merely have to sign to say you're "not contesting" the divorce. Been there, done that. I refused the "two years' separation and we agree about wanting the divorce" thing, because I didn't agree that the divorce was "the right thing to do" but was quite willing to say I "didn't contest" it when he petitioned for it. As I said to him at the time "I can't in good conscience help you to do something I believe to be wrong, but I'm under no obligation to try to stop you doing it if you choose to."

Oh, and BTW "unreasonable behaviour" doesn't actually mean that the person has behaved unreasonably. It's shorthand for saying that the person has behaved in such a way that it would be "unreasonable" to expect you to continue being married to them.

I am not sure whether they were separated for two years when Mrs Owen first petitioned for divorce, but, unlike you, the husband is contesting the divorce. Apart from being awkward, I am not sure what he hoped to achieve.

She is therefore petitioning on the only basis open to her, namely unreasonable behaviour, which he refutes. Indeed, his behaviour does not appear to be all that unreasonable!

One of the examples given to the court was "On returning from a holiday via Cancun Airport in November 2014, H had suggested a present for the parties housekeeper. W could not locate it in the airport shop so purchased an alternative. H publicly remonstrated with W on the airport concourse, asking her why did you not buy what I told you to? He then persisted with his criticism during boarding."

There were 27 examples given, and that was described by the trial judge as being in the top four.

Pyxis

GDB2222 wrote: »

I am not sure whether they were separated for two years when Mrs Owen first petitioned for divorce, but, unlike you, the husband is contesting the divorce. Apart from being awkward, I am not sure what he hoped to achieve.

She is therefore petitioning on the only basis open to her, namely unreasonable behaviour, which he refutes. Indeed, his behaviour does not appear to be all that unreasonable!

One of the examples given to the court was "On returning from a holiday via Cancun Airport in November 2014, H had suggested a present for the parties housekeeper. W could not locate it in the airport shop so purchased an alternative. H publicly remonstrated with W on the airport concourse, asking her why did you not buy what I told you to? He then persisted with his criticism during boarding."

There were 27 examples given, and that was described by the trial judge as being in the top four.

Something like that example might be embarrassing/annoying/upsetting as a one-off, but in some cases it could be a regular occurrence, and then could come under the psychological manipulation/bullying banner.

I wouldn't like to be 'told off' in public, whether I deserved it or not, although I might understand and forgive the odd occasion, but if it kept happening, I doubt I'd want to be with that person, tbh.



Is it still two years separation with consent? I thought it had been reduced to one year, or am I mixing it up with something else?

GDB2222

Pyxis wrote: »

Something like that example might be embarrassing/annoying/upsetting as a one-off, but in some cases it could be a regular occurrence, and then could come under the psychological manipulation/bullying banner.

I wouldn't like to be 'told off' in public, whether I deserved it or not, although I might understand and forgive the odd occasion, but if it kept happening, I doubt I'd want to be with that person, tbh.



Is it still two years separation with consent? I thought it had been reduced to one year, or am I mixing it up with something else?

Still two years.

As to the allegations made by the wife, the court of appeal said:
‘It is plain from his judgment that Judge Tolson was unimpressed by the wife’s petition. He variously described it as “hopeless” (judgment, paragraph 2), “anodyne” (paragraph 7), and “scraping the barrel” (paragraph 13). He said it “lacked beef because there was none” (paragraph 7). He described paragraphs 3 and 4 as “the only 2 grounds which … might in context have provided grounds for divorce.” He said the allegations “are at best flimsy” (paragraph 12)’.

They also said:
"With no enthusiasm whatsoever, I have reached the same conclusion on this appeal as my Lord, the President, for the reasons that he gives. It was the trial judges duty, and ours, to apply the law as laid down by Parliament. We cannot ignore the clear words of the statute on the basis we dislike the
consequence of applying them. It is for Parliament to decide whether to amend section 1 and to introduce “no fault” divorce on demand; it is not for the judges to usurp their function. Furthermore, this court cannot overturn a decision of a trial judge who has applied the law correctly, made clear findings of fact that were open to him and provided adequate reasons,
simply on the basis we dislike the consequence of his decision. "

Pyxis

GDB2222 wrote: »

Still two years.

As to the allegations made by the wife, the court of appeal said:
‘It is plain from his judgment that Judge Tolson was unimpressed by the wife’s petition. He variously described it as “hopeless” (judgment, paragraph 2), “anodyne” (paragraph 7), and “scraping the barrel” (paragraph 13). He said it “lacked beef because there was none” (paragraph 7). He described paragraphs 3 and 4 as “the only 2 grounds which … might in context have provided grounds for divorce.” He said the allegations “are at best flimsy” (paragraph 12)’.

They also said:
"With no enthusiasm whatsoever, I have reached the same conclusion on this appeal as my Lord, the President, for the reasons that he gives. It was the trial judges duty, and ours, to apply the law as laid down by Parliament. We cannot ignore the clear words of the statute on the basis we dislike the
consequence of applying them. It is for Parliament to decide whether to amend section 1 and to introduce “no fault” divorce on demand; it is not for the judges to usurp their function. Furthermore, this court cannot overturn a decision of a trial judge who has applied the law correctly, made clear findings of fact that were open to him and provided adequate reasons,
simply on the basis we dislike the consequence of his decision. "

That's fair enough!

LydiaJ

Pyxis wrote: »

Something like that example might be embarrassing/annoying/upsetting as a one-off, but in some cases it could be a regular occurrence, and then could come under the psychological manipulation/bullying banner.

I wouldn't like to be 'told off' in public, whether I deserved it or not, although I might understand and forgive the odd occasion, but if it kept happening, I doubt I'd want to be with that person, tbh.

I agree. If this is part of a pattern, it sounds indicative of an extremely unpleasant and controlling attitude. Who is the husband to be the only decider of what present "should" be bought? Why is the wife to be humiliatingly reprimanded publicly for not doing as she had been "told" when she had been making an independent decision about the present when she couldn't find what he had suggested? Coupling that with his current behaviour in contesting the divorce, which, as GDB points out, is hardly likely to have any good result of any kind, I think he looks like the kind of control freak who believes that he has a monopoly on being right, that anybody who thinks or does differently must therefore be wrong, and furthermore that being married to his unfortunate wife entitles him to expect slavish obedience from her, and to take it out on her if she crosses him.

(Please note that this may be harsh, but it's not man-bashing. My dislike of, and opposition to, control freak behaviour in relationships is entirely gender-neutral. I would feel the same way about any partner behaving that way, male, female, or anything else. Please also note that I take no position on whether this control freak behaviour extended to being adequate grounds for divorce under the current law, because I haven't got enough information on which to base any such decision. It seems probable that the judges know what they're talking about, but of course one can never be sure, and some judges have made some truly appalling decisions about some things in the past.)

Pyxis

Plus, of course, Pastures, you had lovely warm dry weather!


Wouldn't be so much fun if it were raining/cold/wet/windy/muddy.
Not to mention how comfortable or not the beds were!
(But then I'm a wuss these days! :rotfl:)

Unless it's glamping, of course! :rotfl:

Did you cook over a camping stove, or eat in cafès?

PasturesNew

Pyxis wrote: »

....raining/cold/wet/windy/muddy....
comfortable or not the beds were... cook over...

It wouldn't have happened. Wouldn't have gone
Not bad, raised/rigid bed.
I didn't... companion cooked with gas, I watched. Didn't eat in any cafes, nor get any chips. It was an MSE break Having seen the (1 ring) thing - and observed the faffery of taking saucepans/pans, cooking equipment, food from home, washing up ... I decided if I were to go I'd never even think about cooking on gas... I'd eat cold food.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PasturesNew wrote: »

camp

Hmmm - not a fan.

When I was a small child in the 1970's our summer holidays usually consisted of driving around Europe and camping... With all that camping 'experience' you'd think I learned a thing or two - but apparently not.

My one and only camping experience as an adult involved 3 days of torrential rain at a music festival a few years ago which only confirmed that both myself and Mrs McT are horrifically incompetent campers. Thank heavens for the group of teenagers who took pity on us and helped as we tried to get the tent set up - otherwise I reckon we'd still be there!

ivyleaf

Glad it went ok PN