boyfriday Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 ...something something in a tree..... K I S S I N G .... Ah well. All is well in the world. I shall sleep well tonight. I'm very pleased to hear it salsafan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 :hihi: Coming to a cinema near you..... "ivanava, a man who auditioned for Benny in Crossroads-when the Irish said 'potatoes', he said 'famine', when they said 'sharia' he said armageddon!" HAHAHAHA. Oh that is a good line. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 17:14 ---------- Not really because the practice note merely confirms what I have been telling you all along. I now have doubts as to whether you understand the issues that are not contained in the note. You were still trying to convince us that women were entitled to a share of a mans estate. Not all women, just one woman. But yes, if you want to give some to me too, that is also fine with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I just found this which explains it in easy to understand English, surprising really when it come from the law society. The Law Society’s practice note on sharia-compliant wills Worth a read and I concede that I was wrong. The sad thing is that I had to prove that I was wrong instead of someone else proving that I was wrong. In fairness the link you posted is a simplified (understandable) form of the guidance, thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 :hihi: Coming to a cinema near you..... "ivanava, a man who auditioned for Benny in Crossroads-when the Irish said 'potatoes', he said 'famine', when they said 'sharia' he said armageddon!" According to this he died this morning, unless its different actor. http://paul.henry.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_new_zealand.php ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 17:29 ---------- In fairness the link you posted is a simplified (understandable) form of the guidance, thanks for that. It needed to be simplified for me to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 According to this he died this morning, unless its different actor. http://paul.henry.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_new_zealand.php That's unbelievable, I only mentioned him because last night I was having fun Googling old soap stars-Minnie Caldwell, Ena Sharples, Meg Mortimer..and Paul Henry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I find it bizarre that one must convert in order to marry in the first place. Why couldn't they just marry? Mind control, submission to Islam. The fact he had to do it says far more to me. In order to satisfy the religion YOU have to conform to IT. I don't think highlighting his marriage does anything positive for the topic. who told you that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 13:03 ---------- Interesting point though from the above. If a married couple jointly own a house (lets pretend it's the only asset) and they have a child and spouse A dies, with a will in place. Spouse B already owns half the house. So presumably the estate in question is not the entire house, it is half the house. And Spouse B is legally entitled to 1/3rd of the half of the house that the dead Spouse A owned. If there were no children, it would be Spouse B being entitled to 1/2 of the 1/2 a house, resulting in them owning a minimum of 3/4 of the house. Have I understood this correctly (if willman or l00b or moosey or someone else with a legal background could comment that would be great). This is all a bit confusing and you need more information. If they own the property as joint tenants i.e they both appear as owners on the title and their has been no split of the property into shares, then upon one spuse dying the property transfers to the other automatically. It will not be included in that persons estate. This makes it very tax efficient and saves a lot of hassle. Dunno what you mean by legal entitlement, except of course if you mean as the will prescribes. If they decide they want to hold the property as shares i.e 50/50 then they have to make a declaration as such. In the case of where spouse B holds a share of the house as a tenancy in common and leaves half to the wife and half to the child, then you have the wife owning 3/4 and the child 1/4. the way you would resolve this situation I think is by: 1. Drawing up a will that declared how the situation was to be resolved. 2. Giving the wife a life interests, so after she dies it is sold. 3. Remortgaging the property and agreeing a payment with the child. 4. Child can attempt to force a sale of the property. Wife can counter by making a claim as a dependant. Normally husbands and wives discuss these things and if you get a solicitor to help he/she will point out such conflicts in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 That's unbelievable, I only mentioned him because last night I was having fun Googling old soap stars-Minnie Caldwell, Ena Sharples, Meg Mortimer..and Paul Henry I've been trying to confirm it and it appears to be a CELEBRITY FAKE NEWS HOAX GENERATOR. How sad is that, what would goes through someones mind to create a website like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 The principle is that you can leave your property to whoever you like. So as long as the will is validly executed, which means signatures and other legal compliance, then it will stand as a valid will even if he wnats to leave the whol amount to the clown home or to the cat. the other partues dont have to agree because the person making the will is distributing only his/her own property. If I own a car then I dont have top consult anyone who I might leave it to. If when the person dies and the wife/spouse, dependant fails to make financial provision for them, then they may feel hard done by. They can then make a challenge against the estate for reasonable provision be that a lump sum or regular payment, but the court decides under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. You would be able to make such an application against any will even if it was sharia compliant, but based upon the idea of being a dependant and the person failing to make reasonable provision. The court would take precedence over whatever the will said if an order was made. The Law Society is just issuing some marketing and drafting guidelines. They do the same in terms of knowing about sharia law and bank loans, because the notion of interest is not allowed. What you say is true but it is all a smoke screen. The fact is that the Law Society has issued guidance to solicitors to help them draw up wills that comply with the discriminatory requirements of Sharia law. Whether the resultant wills are legal or not is a moot point because the discrimination they seek to facilitate still flies in the face of this nation's equality principles, values and laws. Shame on the greedy legal profession and shame on everyone else who is willing to turn a blind eye to discrimination and inequality just because it is done under the banner of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I've been trying to confirm it and it appears to be a CELEBRITY FAKE NEWS HOAX GENERATOR. How sad is that, what would goes through someones mind to create a website like that. Bizarre, I'll return the black suit and brogues back to the hirer. ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 18:04 ---------- What you say is true but it is all a smoke screen. The fact is that the Law Society has issued guidance to solicitors to help them draw up wills that comply with the discriminatory requirements of Sharia law. Whether the resultant wills are legal or not is a moot point because the discrimination they seek to facilitate still flies in the face of this nation's equality principles, values and laws. Shame on the greedy legal profession and shame on everyone else who is willing to turn a blind eye to discrimination and inequality just because it is done under the banner of religion. Ol' Zamo aint gonna 'av it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts