In the interest of national unity

Today’s unanimous judgement of the Supreme Court will strengthen national unity and is good for Britain’s future.

Had the Supreme Court found against the appeal of Gina Millar and quashed the Scottish ruling, then the rift between Britain’s regions would have deepened considerably.

MP’s are calling for a Unity Government whilst Boris Johnson is at the UN Climate Summit and has endless calls to resign. Boris said he would not resign. But if even Nigel Farage asks for the sacking of Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s adviser, then things are getting really serious for the government.

Boris behaved like a tinpot dictator and probably could get into the history books as the shortest serving Prime Minister ever.

The Supreme Court quashed the prorogation as if it had never happened. So all laws, which were in preparation do not have to be done again.

Christians loose right to refuse unmarried couples

There it is anybody who has strong Christian beliefs and happens to run a guest house cannot only not refuse to accommodate gay couples but is also not allowed to refuse abode to those who want to share a room without being married. story link

It’s this drive for equality that takes away the rights of individual to make their own decisions as to what or what not they want to happen under their own roofs.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull obviously are the good guys.

Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said: “Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.” Out of the window goes the cautionary approach, which tells people to wait until married of course.

Supreme Court makes home owning more contractual

Home owning couples will have to make more specific contracts in future to sort out who owns what after a couple split when they originally shared a property. The Supreme Court sided with the ruling of a district judge on how a home is split between a couple who separated decades ago but originally purchased the home on a joint mortgage, into which the remaining woman then solely paid in. The man spend a lot of money doing it up and improving the internal decorations, fixtures and fittings.  The Appeal Court overturned the district judge’s ruling and awarded the man equal value of 50:50 despite the fact that the man stopped paying the mortgage in 1993. When the woman appealed this to the Supreme Court, they found in favour of the woman owner.

This leaves couples to contractually sort out home value and improving owned homes in case they split somewhere along the line. I do not agree that this solely benefits woman, because the same ruling will equally apply if it is a man who remains in a property and the woman moves out.

I think it shows the dilemma home ownership has brought us to when we have these liberal divorce laws that recycle relationships more often. For relationship breakups rented properties are easier to manage because couples pay the rent and if they split up then it is only 1 months worth of hassle to deal with. Of course home improvements are always made by the party that spends the money if they are not the sole owner. In the case of couples, often the woman remains, but they have no automatic right, if they have no children to care for.

In today’s market not only relationship splits make home owning complicated, its also the ever increasing volatile job market with more short-term employments, that make home owning more complicated. It’s good to own but one has to consider other factors such as relationships and job durations as well. Sometimes its just better to rent.