egg

That's wrong. The same financial claims can be made on dissolution of a civil partnership as for divorce. The only differences in the process is that it's called something different and has to be in specific courts. Gay people can't even get a "divorce" and have to go to specific courts. And yes, one is in Brighton. It's not hard in the 21st century to have the same marriage, divorce process and court system for gay and straight people alike.

Apparently not. It would also seem that being gay is a decision that one makes.

Would mrs Turkish have been happy with your wish to have a diluted form of "marriage" where you were not committing exclusively to each other? Seems an odd wish.

You miss the point. Adultery doesn't exist in civil partnerships. Under the existing law gay couples can only "marry" in a way that doesn't recognise that their union should be exclusive to each other.

You're right. One of the differences between proper marriage and civil partnerships is that civil partners do not get '"married" to the exclusion of all others. Because of that adultery is not a ground to dissolve.

That'll be the problem. There will need to be explicit primary legislation making it clear that no chorch or other religious institution must be compelled to marry anyone. The HRA will also need amendment. It's doable, but i can't see it happening.

That's a very sensible suggestion. I hadn't appreciated that this bill was expressly against c of e chrches to marry gay couples. To give the decision to the individual churches allows for gay couples to decide on a church wedding if they feel that sits comfortably with their faith, and allows the vicar a free decision.

I'm new to this area. Is their actually a report button? We need a stat ometer to see who has the most fractions, who issues the most and who grasses the most. Kind of an opta upgrade for forums.

Agreed.

You wannabe bears are so fickle.

Exactly. I can't risk having to declare it on my practicing certificate renewal. What if I get a fraction for calling a fat person a fat person, or an idiot an idiot (no offence tokes)? Career over, marriage wrecked etc.

Tokes, your interest is flattering but recent events have confirmed that the dumb mods are exactly that. If they mistake my serious nature for sarcasm I could get one of them fractions. I can't risk such a serious black mark, sorry. I will pop by from time to time though just to call you a bellend, and argue a pointless point until I bore myself to sleep.

And for what?

I'll gladly moan anywhere, for a fee. I only made on comment re Brian etc. After that my beef was with you, not the bear. Reading it back I wander if someone saw the "when you meeting for a fight" and didn't appreciate the humour/context? If so I don't want anyone being precious on my behalf.

Have you complained about him to the mods?

Woah Tokes, don't go pointing the finger at me. I'm a miserable bastard but not that miserable. Your man bear was a forum gem. His egg is egg and tokes is chicken was genius - and true! I've never contacted a mod, complained about anyone on a forum or put anyone on ignore. There is a frequent flyer on that NC thread who is a self confessed complainer and has been instrumental in at least one previous banning of a prominent poster.

This. Ridiculous decision to ban him. Even the most serious/grumpy of occasional posters liked reading (most of) his posts.

It must be broken tokes, I can still see your tedious posts. I'll live with it if you can.

Cheers, done.

You're not wrong. It's a disgrace.

Indeed. The bottom line he is just a CEO. Nc is not bigger than the club and he ain't bigger than the liebherrs. I can't see the liebherrs allowing nc to win a power struggle. I suspect that they have the ability, and means, to be at least as tough as nc.

While I'd like him to stay based on his massive achievements on the pitch, there's no doubt that the liebherrs will have ceo's in their businesses that could come in and do a job.

Tokes, they'll be no break durn from me but thanks for the concern. Strangely enough I've no opinion on a political discussion on a footy thread. My one comment was about comparisons between posters and possible double posting, You bit because you're an attention whore. As for backtracking, you are the iidiot who thought we should meet for a fight because I dared highlight how much of an idiot you were being on a thread. We had a few pm's and that was that. Now you're being an idiot again. Just wind your neck in. If you want to carry on a pointless discussion please pm so that I can tell you what an idiot you are in private and allow other posters to discuss what they're actually supposed to be discussing.

Eh? Who with? I think he's in the 10m+ bracket but I'd fight tooth and nail to keep him, he's pretty much the first name on the team sheet I would imagine.

Purely based on the fact that mayuka hasn't delivered, that forren hasn't featured and that IMO gaston has flattered to deceive. My comment that it was 20m wasted was a bit flippant. 20m that probably could have been better spent would be more accurate. Either way, that transfer business looks pretty poor based on what I've seen so far.