The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – When is a Man Single?

The late Albert Selby

The right of the survivor of a non-marital union to benefit from the estate of the deceased partner does not depend on the status of marriage, but on the duration of cohabitation with the deceased immediately preceding death. –per Byron P in Smith v Selby [2017]CCJ 13

The courts of law have through the years been called upon to make some surprising determinations. One English case involved the intriguing issue of whether ice cream could be considered meat for the purposes of the Sunday Trading Act 1994; another the more tendentious matter of whether a bicycle was a carriage under the 1835 Highway Act. We have seemingly now added our own quirky issue to this list. The Caribbean Court of Justice [CCJ] was recently called upon to determine when is a man to be treated as single for the purposes of the Succession Act.

The critical issue in the decision of the CCJ last Friday was not, as some aspects of the media would have it, whether a “common law” spouse generally may inherit or succeed to the property of her cohabiting partner on his or her death intestate. That issue had been settled as early as 1979 with the passage of the Succession Act. According to section 2 (3)(a) of that Act:

“For the purposes of this Act, reference to a “spouse” includes:

(a) a single woman who was living together with a single man as his wife for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of his death…” [Emphasis added]

There, the local legislature had given effect to the prevailing cultural norm locally, whereby a large number of relationships existed without “benefit of clergy”, as that expression is popularly understood. As I recall, there was not a lot of religious objection to this then and, if there was any, I must have missed it because I was abroad at that time.

This initiative further consolidated the earlier enactment of the Status of Children Reform Act whose section 3 provides as follows-

For the purposes of the laws of Barbados, the distinction of at common law between the status of children born within or outside marriage is abolished, and all children shall, after 1st January, 1980, be of equal status; and a person is the child of his or her natural parents and his or her status as their child is independent of whether the child is born within or outside of marriage-

and of the Family Law Act 1981 that recognized the concept of the union other than marriage in the following manner-

“union other than marriage” or “union” means the relationship that is established when a man and a woman who, not being married to each other, have cohabited continuously for a period of 5 years or more and have so cohabited within the year immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings.”

The critical issue in the recent case between Ms Katrina Smith, the appellant and Mr Albert Selby, the respondent, was rather whether Ms Smith satisfied the statutory definition of “spouse”, given that her cohabitant, who had died intestate in April 2008 and was the brother of the respondent, had been separated but not divorced from his wife for the first two years of the claimed cohabitation. He was eventually divorced in 2004.

Naturally, therefore, the argument of the respondent (who stood to benefit under the applicable law of succession on intestacy, since his brother would have had no spouse, no issue nor mother nor father) was that Ms Smith did not satisfy the statutory definition of spouse, not because of the failure to contract a marriage with the deceased at all, but rather because the deceased was not “a single man” within the meaning of the Act for the five years of cohabitation immediately preceding the date of his death. The basis of this was that since he was still legally married, even though separated from his wife, he could not be considered a single man.

This argument was rejected by the trial judge who, according to the judgment of the CCJ “influenced by his perception that the purpose of the statute was to correct the problem faced by the survivor of a non-marital relationship where there was no will, concluded that the word “single” included a married man who was separated from his wife.” Alternately, the judge was of the view that the word ‘single’ referred only to the status of the deceased at his death.

The Court of Appeal found the first holding to be a distortion of the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “single”, and rejected the alternative on the ground that “the word “single” reflected the status of the parties throughout the five-year period of statutory cohabitation” and not merely at death. The CCJ on Friday reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the order of the trial judge.

The ultimate resolution of the matter turned on the appropriately applicable rules of statutory interpretation and should arguably repay reading for keen students of this subject. I consider the minutiae of this, however, to be too esoteric for a Sunday newspaper column so I will not elaborate further.

It should be borne in mind nevertheless that the principal aim of the court engaged in an exercise of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the meaning intended by Parliament, as the CCJ makes clear-

“The court’s task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose. So, the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the entire statute, and the statute should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.”

As the varying decisions in this case demonstrate, this is an exercise in which highly learned men may reasonably differ as to the result. And while this may appear befuddling to the uninitiated who yearn for exactitude and predictability in the meaning of statutory provisions; as long as there remains the co-existence of the separation of powers whereby Parliament legislates and the courts interpret, and so long as the English language with all of its vagaries remains the primary means of legal communication, these will remain an unlikelihood.

There is one more point worthy of note. The notion of the “single man” has not been expressly enacted in the provision for the union other than marriage referred to above where a period of cohabitation also plays a significant role. It seems beyond doubt that at his death therefore, Albert Michael Selby was part of a union other than marriage with Ms Smith. Should this not also hold true for other married men whether separated or not?

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

261 Comments on “The Jeff Cumberbatch Column – When is a Man Single?”

  1. Simple Simon September 7, 2017 at 11:13 PM #

    @charles skeete September 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM “in the UK there is no provision for to allow partners to benefit from a non-marital relationship.”

    Dear charles: If a couple has not seen each other for 58 years is it still marital, and is it still relationship?

    Like

  2. charles skeete September 8, 2017 at 5:34 AM #

    “Simple Simon September 7, 2017 at 11:13 PM #

    @charles skeete September 7, 2017 at 3:14 AM “in the UK there is no provision for to allow partners to benefit from a non-marital relationship.”

    Dear charles: If a couple has not seen each other for 58 years is it still marital, and is it still relationship?”

    Mr Simon what I have posted is as a result of having been personally involved with settlement of an estate involving an unmarried cousin born and living in the United Kingdom who passed away three years ago intestate but living with a woman twenty years younger for over twenty years from whom he fathered five children but had no rights to his estate at death. The eldest child a daughter from a former relationship and with whom he had no contact took charge of the estate and along with the other siblings were the only beneficiaries.

    Like

  3. charles skeete September 8, 2017 at 5:41 AM #

    “I was shocked to learn that couples can only apply for a divorce after they can prove they have not been sexually involved with each other over a period of twelve months? In the meantime they can selfishly live their lives as they please irrespective of the harm it can do to children or family without penalty since infidelity is no grounds for divorce nor does it play a part in the divorce decision making process?”

    And what makes this provision so silly is that suppose after the stipulated twelve month period one party not wanting to divorce for one reason or the other indicates to the court that there was some cohabitation even if there was not –
    Where does the burden of proof lie?
    Reminds me more of the Duckworth/Lewis complicated method of settling rain affected cricket matches.
    This provision for divorce makes a mockery of marriage and family values and then we ask why the youth so

    Like

  4. charles skeete September 8, 2017 at 5:52 AM #

    “Obviously, the CCJ settled any such disagreements in Smith’s favor and acceded to her claims that for five consecutive years prior to his death regardless of his being divorced or not that he was living with Smith and not with his wife…”

    The CCJ does not always get it right- They seem to make decisions without fully immersing themselves in the tenets of the laws upon which they are asked to adjudicate – and the case with Winton Campbell readily springs to mind in which their ruling ran counter to the Barbados Pensions Act and deprived many public servants the right to early compensation if their job requirements were changed and no work of similar nature and pay could be found for them –
    So I ask again if by that in my view innocuous decision can a legally married undivorced person living with another person for more than five years marry that person without filing for divorce ? Just seeking clarification because I am not a cawmere boy just Rudder.

    Like

  5. Hal Austin September 8, 2017 at 6:10 AM #

    @Charles
    There are two issues involved, the legal, in which the CCJ judgement is flawed; and the moral. I have read the judgement, and re-read it and my view stands.
    At some point we must realise that not only lawyers are involved in the law. I have said before that any financial adviser giving advice on estate planning in Barbados – or the jurisdiction of the CCJ – must make the Smith V Selby judgement part of the conversation. It certainly would be in England and Wales.
    The other issue is that of moral choice. A married man (it is usually a man) who leaves his wife, for whatever reason, and cohabits with another woman for five years or more, or even a day, is making a moral choice.
    He cannot blame slavery, the white man, the ghost in the woods for compelling him to make that choice. That decision is based on his own sense of morality.
    Because you yourself may be illegitimate does not mean you must go around fathering children like a bull cow.
    This is based on the same amorality as the government minister who drives around without motor insurance or a roadworthy car; it is the same amorality as the boy on the block who kills a perceived rival in drug dealing; it is the same amorality as a prime minister who is having an affair with a colleague’s wife (a form of rape by abuse of office); it is the same amorality as a banker who gives a friend a mortgage who does not pass the affordability test; it is the same amorality as criminal justice chiefs who give a police killer bail because he is a friend and colleague; it is the same amorality as a manager who gives a job to a colleague’s son when he is not qualified for the job; it is the same amorality of the person who knows something is wrong yet opts to take the easy way out by remaining silent.
    Such a society has lost its moral compass.

    Like

  6. Bush Tea September 8, 2017 at 6:27 AM #

    So I ask again if by that in my view innocuous decision can a legally married undivorced person living with another person for more than five years marry that person without filing for divorce ?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Perhaps you should stay with financial matters then Charles.
    Human relations matters are complex.
    A+B=C may apply to Mary and Tom, but with John and Phylis A+B=E.

    All the CCJ ruling says is that if a couple lived together for five years, at the end of which they are both single, then any surviving one of them can inherit the joint property in the event of there being no will.

    Bushie don’t get your point – because those two could have certainly married – if they wanted to…

    Human relations are complex, and the legal concept of marriage that we have inherited is not universal. In fact, it seems (like most things in our society) to be more concerned with property than with community development. Well over 50% end in divorce, and Bushie would wager that 80% of the others are effective ‘cold wars’ that drag on because of the monetary cost and the social stigma attached to ending the farce.

    It becomes even more complex where children are involved, and this will always make each situation unique and difficult, but British history is replete with ‘marriage’ being used as a tool to bring resources together to build power, form alliances and gain access to wealth. The laws and traditions there naturally reflect this fact…

    We need to look at OUR traditions and OUR norms and configure OUR laws accordingly.
    Bushie has no issue with the CCJ decision in this particular case… only with the childish mediocrity which which the BARBADOS law has been written by our resident pack of legal parasites.

    Like

  7. de pedantic Dribbler September 8, 2017 at 6:59 AM #

    @Hal, your righteous indignation chaffs at times and leads to a defensive retort in support of Lil Bim…but as they say, two wrongs can never equate to being right. So suffice to say that your description of our Bajan immoral morass is right…and Britain is 100+ times larger than us and have 100+ times the morass.

    For my enlightenment can you explain what new and substantative details would inform a financial planner based on this case.

    @CSKEETE, many folks would thrash the CCJ ‘s bonafides as you did but in reality the judges set out to be accurate so many people also applaud their rulings and tone & their ‘fearless’ thrust.

    At no point have they opined on bigamy, so your remarks @5:52AM are not “innocuous”. You, good sir, are operating akin to your CCJ accusation: creating bad judgements!

    Like

  8. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 8, 2017 at 7:00 AM #

    “What if he had done as you suggested and she had run off with the postman?”

    Lol…Simple..when ya gifting something to people ya care about, such thoughts should not enter ya mind, he could have post dated the gift and she would still have to wait until he croaked.

    Like

  9. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 8, 2017 at 7:07 AM #

    I am so happy Hal is not a lawyer, I bet the outfit where he worked as a journalist made sure he had a supervisor looking over his shoulder at all times so he never got them sued for his idiocy, he definitely could never be left alone to make decisions on his own.

    Everyone who is not a lawyer want to ignore laws to suit their own diseased, irrational thinking.

    Like

  10. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 8, 2017 at 7:14 AM #

    he could have post dated the gift and she would still have to wait until he croaked.

    She however would not have had to wait until his mother croaked as well. …before accessing her fair share.

    Like

  11. Hants September 8, 2017 at 9:01 AM #

    Bushie wrote ” ‘cold wars’ that drag on because of the monetary cost and the social stigma attached to ending the farce.”It becomes even more complex where children are involved”

    Talking about me Bushie ?

    Like

  12. Bush Tea September 8, 2017 at 9:50 AM #

    @ Hants
    Talking about me Bushie ?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    LOL
    Only if the ring fits…..

    Like

  13. charles skeete September 8, 2017 at 11:00 AM #

    Mr Bushie i have always respected yur views and Mr Pedantic i am finding no fault with yours either but fool that iam i still ask given our own norms and laws under which we operate i wish to know whether a legally married undivorced person living with another person for more than five years can marry that person without filing for divorce since the CCJ”s decision in the case of Selby vs Smith does give give inheritance rights to Ms Smith even though Mr Selby was still legally married for two of the five year stipulation.

    Like

  14. Bush Tea September 8, 2017 at 11:14 AM #

    @ Charles..
    But why do you create a new scenario that plays no part in the ACTUAL ruling?

    Bushie imagines that if the gentleman was not divorced when he died, it would have been a COMPLETELY different scenario.
    The FACTS are, that the ex-wife had ALREADY been fairly taken care of….. Common sense seems to dictate that the CCJ’s decision therefore was the only fair and JUST course of action to be taken.

    The ONLY issue to Bushie …is how we can have so many high profile legal beagles in Barbados …that can write such loose legislation…and that it can pass so many levels of scrutiny…to get us all embarrassed by the CCJ with such a simple, OBVIOU, oversight….

    Like

  15. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 8, 2017 at 1:32 PM #

    Bushman…between Charles and Hal…ya will be explaining this same shit over and over for many, many days to come….lol

    Good luck.

    Like

  16. Simple Simon September 9, 2017 at 12:01 AM #

    @charles skeete September 8, 2017 at 5:34 AM “what I have posted is as a result of having been personally involved with settlement of an estate involving an unmarried cousin born and living in the United Kingdom who passed away three years ago intestate but living with a woman twenty years younger for over twenty years from whom he fathered five children but had no rights to his estate at death. The eldest child a daughter from a former relationship and with whom he had no contact took charge of the estate and along with the other siblings were the only beneficiaries.”

    Then U.K. law is defective and Barbados should not follow.

    I am not at all surprised to hear that your cousin had no contact with his eldest daughter. She is an immoral person since she has denied the mother of 5 children some share of her long term partner’s estate. Were some of these children minors? Are you and your cousin comfortable that the mother of your 5 young cousins [these children are your blood relatives] was put on the street. Is that moral behaviour?

    U.K. law is defective and Barbados should not follow.

    Like

  17. Simple Simon September 9, 2017 at 12:40 AM #

    @Bush Tea September 8, 2017 at 6:27 AM “Human relations are complex, and the legal concept of marriage that we have inherited is not universal.”

    Thanks Bushie.

    I noticed that I asked “what is marriage and nobody chose to answer.

    I also asked if a married couple has not seen each other for 58 years, and in fact would not even recognize each other on the street if they can still be said to have a marriage or a relationship and nobody has answered.

    I also asked who was the wife of my uncle who left his wife and minor child in Barbados and never returned, but lived with another woman in another country for more than 50 years and raised 8 children with her. Even though these two cases are extreme there are but two of hundreds or tens thousands of cases in the countries over which the CCJ has jurisdiction.

    Especially in the Caribbean with its high rate of migration, there is a correspondingly high rate of marriage/relationship breakdown.

    People ask about bigamy. There was a bigamy case in Barbados less that 10 years ago (I met the woman who introduced the two. She had no idea that the man had ever been married, he never spoke of his long dead marriage which by then was nothing more than a dusty piece of paper in a registrar’s office) my general impression is that bigamy is regarded as a relatively minor offence if none of the parties have minor children, and particularly if the female parties are past child bearing age. My recollection is that the courts handed out a three or six month sentence, which was suspended, and that the “offender” served no time at all. Besides hurt feelings [and which of us will ever get through this life without some hurt feelings] in truth nobody was hurt by a bigamous union between 3 elderly people…now if any of the 3 had minor children it would indeed be a matter of consequence.

    Otherwise bigamy is inconsequential.

    Like

  18. charles skeete September 9, 2017 at 7:48 AM #

    “Dear charles: If a couple has not seen each other for 58 years is it still marital, and is it still relationship?””

    Dear Simon as far as I am aware unless divorced they are still married under the laws of Barbados and that is why the CCJ ruling is flawed in my view and the Court Of Appeal right.

    Like

  19. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 9, 2017 at 2:01 PM #

    “Then U.K. law is defective and Barbados should not follow.”

    But more importantly, did the mother of the 5 children sue for a share of the estate, with children involved.., there is no way the court would deny that right to divvy up a 1/3 to every child,, neither would the court refuse to listen to an appeal for relief, if the female in the 20 year relationship had applied eith no children involved, …

    So that little fairytale by Charles sounds fishy, if the mother sat by and never challenged the matter, the courts can do nothing.

    Like

  20. Hal Austin September 9, 2017 at 2:09 PM #

    Bush Tea,
    I know you are risible, and your only contribution of value in BU is to make fun of things you do not understand, but legal theory does not depend on the actual facts of a case. So discussion can go outside the CCJ’s ruling and take in to consideration other permutations. That is what legal theory is about.

    Like

  21. TheGazer September 9, 2017 at 2:20 PM #

    The tale by Charles is probably true. The mother of 5 was (1) probably ignorant of the law, (2) had no one to advise her, (3) had no money to get a lawyer or (4) was conditioned by Hal and others to believe that she was due nothing

    This is/was a common happening.

    Like

  22. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 10, 2017 at 3:32 AM #

    Gazer…exactly, knowing how docile most black people, particularly bajans are about forging forward and demanding their rights…I can see that is exactly what happened.

    And she probably was not aware either, not that the clowns like Hal and Charles would even tell her.., that legal aid is available, even in old Blighty UK…for the destitute to access legal representation..

    …. but that is what happens when ya listen to ignorant negros who believe that they are lawyers…ya get led down a garden path to no compensation, then they are the same ones to later lament….cud dear she en get nutten.

    Like

  23. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger. September 10, 2017 at 4:23 AM #

    A really good example of that lack of commonsense occured when someone i know brought a case in Barbados for personal injury..and for all the time it was being litigated in the useless judiciary in Barbados all the person heard from black bajans were…

    Ya en gine get nutten
    Ya wasting ya time
    Dem dont pay out
    Ya cahn beat dem
    Ya could as well fuhget bout dah
    Is dem people time now, ya cahn do nutten to dem

    That is the most ugly form of self defeat.

    Not one of them knew or would believe that the claimant practiced law for years in another jurisdiction and would never be deterred….or play that negative game.

    Pure negative energy runs through the majority population on the island when one of their members has to assert their basic human rights, but it’s because of the negativity, sloth and uselessness of the judiciary and the deplorable corrupt way it has been managed for decades…..

    …..there is no such excuse in UK when demanding your legal rights, no one stops you but yourself……and onky if ya listen to dumb negros, who are nit lawyers.

    The best example of mismanagement and sloth in the judiciary…

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/100385/arch-cot-relatives-hope-favourable-decision

    Why is it 10 years later, there is still no decision in this clear case of negligence that claimed the lives of this family of 4….a whole decade with no decision, it is nit rocjet science.

    “TEN YEARS DOWN the road, family members of the Arch Cot victims are still waiting for their day in court and the chance for financial compensation. The relatives of Donavere Codrington, his wife Cassandra, and their children Shaquanda, Shaquille and Yashiro are hoping a judge will soon determine whether negligence led to their deaths and order compensation. The Codringtons perished when their residence, the Shalom Apartments at Arch Cot Terrace, Britton’s Hill, St Michael, fell into a 75-foot cavern on August 26, 2007.”

    Like

  24. Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger September 10, 2017 at 5:58 AM #

    …..there is no such excuse in UK when demanding your legal rights, no one stops you but yourself……and ONLY if ya listen to dumb negros, who are NOT lawyers.

    Like

  25. charles skeete September 10, 2017 at 6:39 AM #

    “Then U.K. law is defective and Barbados should not follow.”

    “But more importantly, did the mother of the 5 children sue for a share of the estate, with children involved.., there is no way the court would deny that right to divvy up a 1/3 to every child,, neither would the court refuse to listen to an appeal for relief, if the female in the 20 year relationship had applied eith no children involved, …

    So that little fairytale by Charles sounds fishy, if the mother sat by and never challenged the matter, the courts can do nothing.”

    No fairy tale-true as John 3:16 -all the siblings got there just due but who are we to say that the UK law is defective.

    Like

  26. Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger September 10, 2017 at 8:12 AM #

    …as they were entitled to a 1/3 of their father`s estate, whether their parents were married or not….in whichever part of the world.

    Like

  27. charles skeete September 11, 2017 at 6:11 AM #

    “Well Well @ Consequences Observing Blogger September 10, 2017 at 8:12 AM #

    …as they were entitled to a 1/3 of their father`s estate, whether their parents were married or not….in whichever part of the world.”

    But the lady with whom the deceased lived for over twenty years and fathered five chidren got nothing because she was not married to the deceased.

    Like

  28. Hal Austin September 11, 2017 at 6:50 AM #

    @Charles,
    There is nothing called UK law. More important is the effect of the law on social behaviour. People will refrain from acting anti-socially through symbolic gestures by conforming in dress, speech, and in other ways, and to show they are desirable partners and their commitment to social co-operation.
    If the wider society, including important institutions, show their disapproval of certain forms of behaviour, then most right-thinking people will avid such behaviours.
    These are the issues at the very root of socio-legal studies (see Richard Posner, Law and Social Norms).

    Like

  29. de pedantic Dribbler September 11, 2017 at 7:54 AM #

    @HalAustin, you create a dissonance (almost said annoyance 😆) in your posts often.

    Accepting the validity that ” If the wider society, including important institutions, show their disapproval of certain forms of behaviour, then most right-thinking people will avid such behaviours”…

    … accordingly it is equally valid that when certain forms of behaviour are approved, then reasonable (right) thinking people will accept such behaviours.

    Ergo, Bajans considered common law unions acceptable within the historical and custom norms of the day.

    So of course socio-legal issues are always rooted in the shifting times …. not whimsically so but concrete long term shifts which essentially become foundational.

    This line of argumentation becomes bothersome with conservaratives. They would contend that the US Constitution, for example, must be taken literally as written 300 plus years ago…

    Thus the right to bear arms validates a right in their mind to own a weapon of war mongering like a sub machine gun firing 600 bullets per minute when clearly the original intent was not geared towards creating that level of mayhem.

    In that same vein can anyone question two people living and loving with each other for 20 years as being in a union that is not deserving of marital norms…

    Intellectual hopscotch, also a normative value that drives socio-legal issues!

    Like

  30. Bush Tea September 11, 2017 at 11:06 AM #

    @ Dribbler
    Boss… do you REALLY expect Hal to follow such logic…??!!
    Can you not tell when a fellow is just plagerizing quotes and trying to sound intelligent enough to participate in these discussions..?

    LOL
    The man is so lost… that he THINKS that because HE finds Bushie to be ‘risible’, …then the bushman somehow lacks understanding….
    Normal everyday brass bowls NEVER understand bushmen….. because they tend to speak in parables …PRECISELY to ensure that outcome.

    Hal should note however, that any thoughts of crucifying this PARTICULAR bushman should be QUICKLY shelved… on account of the whacker….

    Like

  31. Simple Simon September 11, 2017 at 8:53 PM #

    @Hal Austin September 4, 2017 at 6:50 AM “I have said that if on registering newly born children mothers fail to register the fathers’ names then they automatically lose the right to claim child maintenance later.”

    And here is what happens to young children when mothers “automatically lose the right to claim child maintenance later.” In the United Kingdom the shamed poverty stricken mothers put their children in to orphanages, and here is how those state funded, church run orphanages dealt with vulnerable children, especially those children who were younger than 5:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41200949
    The bodies of hundreds of children are believed to be buried in a mass grave in Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation by BBC News.

    Like

  32. Simple Simon September 11, 2017 at 9:03 PM #

    And this

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39192744
    The Tuam mother and baby home, where human remains have been discovered, was “a chamber of horrors”, the Irish PM has said. Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the discovery did not only concern a mass grave but [It was not me, but the Irish Prime Minister who called it] “a social and cultural sepulchre”.

    I believe that traditional Bajan practice where we looked out for each other’s children, where we broke a biscuit in half so that a hungry child could eat is a better practice. The people of the United Kingdom can learn a lot form us, and Hal should have spent the last 40 years teaching them, instead of imbibing their deadly social and cultural practices on us and suggesting that mothers of infants should “lose the right to claim child maintenance.”

    Like

  33. Simple Simon September 11, 2017 at 9:10 PM #

    Mr. Kenny again

    “We buried our compassion, humanity and mercy…we gave them [our children] up because of our morbid and perverse pursuit for respectability.”

    Ya see this pursuit of respectability?

    I ent ’bout dat.

    Like

  34. TheGazer September 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM #

    @simple1
    The bona fides of Hal has been established
    The southern end of jackass heading North
    Was it Artaxes, Bushie or Miller who gave us that image

    Like

  35. TheGazer September 11, 2017 at 9:35 PM #

    *of a

    Like

  36. charles skeete September 28, 2017 at 8:11 AM #

    “The divorce becomes absolute or final at the expiration of one month
    from the date on which the court makes the order but you are not free
    to marry anyone else unless and until the document evidencing this is
    obtained from the Supreme Court Registry”

    According to the above then ,Mr Selby could not have been single during the two years he was married although living with Ms Smith because he was not free to marry Ms Smith or anyone else during those two years while married. That is why i will continue to conclude that the decision of the CCJ was flawed and they need to spend more time studying the laws of the jurisdiction they are called upon to adjudicate rather than swiping like blind willy.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: