WESTLONDONCHAT.COM
https://b65a9t-westlondonchatcom-7590.site.tb-hosting.com/

Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane
https://b65a9t-westlondonchatcom-7590.site.tb-hosting.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1486
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Westonman [ Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

MPs think they can legislate to redefine language. For 'wife', 'husband', 'widow', 'widower', read what the grossly overpaid dumbo MPs have voted for on Wednesday 05/03/2014. And these people will be knocking on our doors in April/May 2015 begging us to vote for them.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111108727

Quote:
SCHEDULE 3Consequential amendments to enactments etc. as a result of contrary provision made by Schedule 2

PART 1Enactments (general)


Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
1.  (1)  The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3(7) (qualifying conditions), in paragraph (a), for “husband’s” substitute “male spouse’s”.
(3) In section 17(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “widow’s pension”—
(a)in the opening words after “payable” insert “to a woman”, and
(b)for “husband” in both places it occurs, substitute “male spouse”.

Social Security Pensions Act 1975

2.  (1)  Section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 (increase of official pensions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5ZB)—
(a)in paragraph (a) for “widow’s pension” substitute “pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse”, and
(b)in paragraph (b)—
(i)for a “widower’s” substitute “any other surviving spouse’s”, and
(ii)“for wife’s” substitute “spouse’s”.
(3) In subsection (5ZC)—
(a)for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a)does not apply to—
(i)a pension payable to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse; or
(ii)a pension payable to a man in respect of the services of his deceased female spouse,
in respect of any service of the deceased spouse if that deceased spouse’s pension in respect of that service became payable before 24 July 1990;”, and
(b)in paragraph (b), before “surviving civil partner’s” insert “pension due to a surviving spouse who was married to someone of the same sex and a”.
(4) In subsection (7)(136), omit the definition of “widower’s pension”.

Pensions Increase (Review) Orders 1979 to 1990
3.  In article 2 (interpretation) of each of—
(a)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1979,
(b)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1980,
(c)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1981,
(d)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1982,
(e)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1983,
(f)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1984,
(g)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1985,
(h)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1986,
(i)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1987,
(j)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1988,
(k)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1989, and
(l)the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1990,
in the definition of “widow’s pension”, for “in respect” to the end substitute “to a woman in respect of the services of her deceased male spouse.”.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

4.  (1)  Schedule 5 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (pension increase or lump sum where entitlement to retirement pension is deferred) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 5(2)—
(a)in paragraph (a), for “widow” substitute “woman whose deceased spouse was a man”,
(b)in paragraph (b), for “widower” substitute “man whose deceased spouse was a woman”, and
(c)for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c)where W is—
(i)a woman whose deceased spouse was a woman,
(ii)a man whose deceased spouse was a man, or
(iii)a surviving civil partner,
an amount equal to the sum of the amounts set out in paragraph 6A(2) below.”.
(3) In paragraph 5A(1), for “widow” substitute “woman whose deceased spouse was a man”.
(4) In paragraph 6(1), for “widower” substitute “man whose deceased spouse was a woman”.
(5) In paragraph 6A(137)—
(a)for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) This paragraph applies where W (referred to in paragraph 5 above) is—
(a)a woman whose deceased spouse was a woman,
(b)a man whose deceased spouse was a man, or
(c)a surviving civil partner.”, and
(b)in sub-paragraph (2)(c), before “civil partner” insert “spouse or”.

Author:  vlad the impailer [ Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

why use one word when a couple of thousand will do ?. :roll:

Author:  Rich Kid [ Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

George Orwell said that language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people. Sadly so true ....

Author:  Jon [ Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

Our modern politicians see 1984 not as a warning but as a User Guide to government.

Author:  geezer466 [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

Have only skimmed the legal text but this looks to me like an attempt to bring existing legislation in line with recent Politically correct law changes and the re-definition of marriage.

The original text it seems speaks of husbands and spouses, of course given this Government's re-definition of marriage such words have become obsolete at a stroke.
In a male/male or female/female union there is no such thing legally as husband or wife although invariably one of the persons assumes the role from a traditional point of view.

Consequently existing pension provision entitlement legislation is incorrect and stood to be challenged in the Courts. This is their heavy handed attempt to bring everything back into line.

I have some gay friends and even they think this step was one to far. Everyone was happy with the civil partnership arrangement. Now all that has happened has the Government has enraged the electorate and the Church when it could all so easily have been avoided.

The Liberal Democrats are history, they will be seen as completely untrustworthy (and rightly so) over the student fees issues. The rights and wrongs of the policy aside you never promise anything you cannot deliver. They are also seen as being responsible for the lurch to the left (gay marriage bill and the like) inflicted on the Tories and the consequence of sharing Government with a minority party. Few wanted the bill but that's what you get I suppose when a minority fringe gains any sort of power.

For the Lib Dems to be discussing red lines at their Spring Conference (this weekend) that they will not cross when they go into coalition with the the next Government simply serves to show how deluded and out of touch they are. Come the next election they will be relegated to the annals of history.

As for the traitorous Conservatives. He promised to cut immigration to <100,000 a year but failed miserably he cannot ever deliver on this promise with the way things currently stand, it was almost like he was mocking the electorate in saying it.

He promised a referendum (1st attempt) and reneged, he promised it again (in 2017) after a sit down and re-negotiation with Europe but other leaders (such as Merkel) point fingers and smirk behind his back knowing he cannot deliver. He promised the sanctity of the Nuclear family yet wastes valuable time pandering to minority views pi$$ing everyone and their dog off in the process.

Then we have Labour out of power now since 2010 and to be fair we cannot pin any of the latest stuff on them. Gordon Brown for all his other failings running the economy and as the son of a preacher at least went on the record saying 'the government did not allow same-sex marriage because it was "intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom" which was was fair enough but then Milliband gets in and supports the measure. So even Labour have a tendency to change their minds as and when it suits.

Of course the one huge underlying issue is Labour can never again be trusted with the economy.

And that gives us the dilemma.

None of them are fit to govern but what other options (short of putting Tanks into Whitehall) do we have?

Author:  Westonman [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

geezer466 wrote:
Have only skimmed the legal text but this looks to me like an attempt to bring existing legislation in line with recent Politically correct law changes and the re-definition of marriage.
That is precisely what this is all about. Before MPs voted on redefining marriage, the Government was clearly warned that it would require the changing of hundreds of laws going back nearly a thousand years. But in their stubborn foolishness, Cameron, Clegg and Co. pushed ahead with this nonsense.

In this latest bout of insane law changes to accommodate their extreme foolishness, MPs have had to vote on related issues concerning the Crown. They have voted that a male 'spouse' of a King cannot become Queen; likewise, the male 'spouse' of a Prince of Wales cannot become the Princess of Wales.

And NONE of this was ever put before the electorate. NONE of this was even mentioned in the run-up to the last election. This government must rank amongst the most disgusting and untrustworthy excuse for a government this country as ever had.

Author:  vlad the impailer [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Confirmation: Majority of politicians are insane

They have voted that a male 'spouse' of a King cannot become Queen; likewise, the male 'spouse' of a Prince of Wales cannot become the Princess of Wales.


but what would hapen if said prince/princess was "gender neutral" or had a sex change opp,shirley that would be against their "uman rites" :shock:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/