Confidentiality, Loosing Out & Sharia
In Marylyn Stowe's post 'Kitchen Confidential – by guest blogger Jonathan James' the misuse of documents and information during divorce proceedings, in particular copies of documents “left lying around” are considered in light of the recent English case White v Withers & Anor [2008] EWHC 2821 (QB)
Nigel Bradshaw of the Ancillary Actuary highlights two of three systematic failings in the way pension issues are settled in most divorces that causes a wife, or rather 'the person with the smaller final salary pension,' to lose out. The first fault, using CETVs for valuing final salary pensions is explained here and the second, the common practice of discounting, or reducing, a pension value when offsetting, is here.
I think it's right to question the logic of discounting a pension for offsetting purposes in divorce. From a finances POV I don't understand the idea that assets which can't be readily accessed are less valuable than those that can. I've never come across this in other countries apart from in England. Is it an American idea? (I always blame the Americans first and actuaries second) 
Liquidity is not fixed and can vary depending on willing buyers and sellers in the market so is often only available in rising markets. Therefore there is no guarantee a house is a liquid asset all the time either.
John Bolch of Family Lore posts regarding the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain launch at the House of Lords. The campaign is seeking legislation to curb the influence of sharia law in Britain. You can add your support by signing the Sharia Petition.

7 comments:
Crikey, I never realised it could be so difficult posting a smiley in Blogger.
I think people should be free to practice religion as long as they are respectful of themselves and others.
However, regardless of religious belief, we are all equal before the law and there is no room for parallel legal systems. There can be only one law, the law of the land.
Yes and some can argue with equal conviction, that we are all equal in the eyes of god.
Law is always evolving and never static, I just find the undertones of this debate, a little disturbing and divisive from professional people.
There is absolutely no way that this could ever become a reality in UK law, not withstanding an invasion force sweeping across Europe, so the only real purpose is to stir up religious tensions and in the process web hits.
Pat Condell Youtube channel is specifically for the same purpose whilst gaining plenty of personal exposure. A shock Jock in short.
I the divorce courts, I do think there is room for an ethical/spiritual dimension in the process, 40% of the population has spiritual belief.
IMHO the law needs to aim to be based on what is known to be true rather than what is believed to be true.
Also I agree the law is evolving all the time as society changes and people integrate within it, but it's a two way process, and immigrants need to be willing and able to adapt to the laws underpinning the society of the country they have moved to.
It's interesting you mention Europe because Rome III was intended to simplify divorce in the EU but was shelved when a group of countries lead by Sweden dissented over the issue of Sharia.
The European Union wasnt the invading force I had in mind, but it is interesting what you say.
I know a lot of people are very emotional about it, but I personally dont see it as realistic possibility, the only reason I commented were the undertones that are not dispelled in my mind.
I am not having a go at your blog in anywhere, just expressing a frustration at the lack of balance elsewhere in the media.
I would agree about the media, although the Scottish newspapers haven't covered Sharia very much.
Post a Comment