Divorce Rates In The UK

These are a few of my thoughts about the divorce rates in the UK. It is probably well known that divorce rates have increased in the UK over many years. The National Statistics website shows us that over period 1971 to about 2003 divorce rates went up from 6 per one thousand married couples to about 13 per one thousand, more than doubling. Over the last 4 years or so the rate has consistently fallen to the 1981 level of about 12 per 1000, still double the old rates.

However, the actual levels of divorce are relatively low. People in the late twenties have the highest divorce rates at 26.6 divorces per 1000 in the age bracket 25-29 (men) and slightly higher for women in the same age bracket at 26.0. This may be due to an increasingly casual approach to marriage from “modern people”.

What this tends to hide is the fact that in 2009, for the first time, there were more single or cohabiting people in the UK than married people. This was an historic moment. There is no doubt that there has been a slow decline in the idea of marriage as a meaningful institution; why bother, just cohabit. The numbers of cohabiting people grew to such significant numbers that the laws in relation to “divorcing” cohabiting couples was tightened up as until recently these couple had to rely on a mish-mash of various laws such as contract and equitable principles to divide possessions including, often, the home. Often under these circumstances the women lost out. Men preferred to not marry.

Divorce laws in the UK tend to be very politically correct and therefore liberally based and some say biased towards the women. For this reason women who are allowed to come to Britain to get divorced did so. In a long marriage of whatever sort, good or bad the women would receive about half of the entire family assets. After such a long period it is deemed that the contributions of each party, in their own way, are about equal subject to some special reasons for dividing assets otherwise. The favourable laws towards women still exist here and that may push up divorce rates in the UK very slightly.

But it also reduces the number of marriages and if the parties are committed to marriage, it increases the number of pre-nuptial agreements. These are agreements entered into before marriage as to division of assets on divorce. Not many people like to do these for obvious reasons and in the UK they are yet to bind the parties legally but there is talk of change.

Although highly politically incorrect one reason for lower marriage levels is the generous benefits system in the UK for single mothers who have children. The concept of marriage and a family has been supplanted by single mother and the maximum number of children as benefits are linked to size of family. Family tax credit has been criticized for breaking up families.

Also politically incorrect is the fact that most divorces are commenced by the wife on the catch all ground of “unreasonable behaviour”. The behaviour of the husband need not be bad, just unpleasant for the wife. Almost any reason is acceptable. It has been argued that women use marriage and divorce in the UK to further themselves financially. The same mentality is involved in lucrative employment tribunal claims for sexual discrimination, it has been argued.

The fact is that as the institution of marriage wanes there is bound to be less divorces as those that do marry will be more committed to it. Whether married or not the most important underlying factor is that families stick together for the benefit of the children where possible and appropriate. There has been a development of a more casual approach to marriage and divorce that has resulted in more divorces.

Divorce rates in the UK will also be coloured by the different cultures in the country that are having an increasingly greater impact on divorce figures due to increased immigration.

Videos

The first one is interesting as it is from a Muslim speaker:

The video above is interesting too as it talks along similar lines to this posting. You will have to click on the picture to go to it on YouTube as this is not embedded. Opens in a new window by the way. The video has a religious context.

Expired Copyright

Here are some rules on expired copyright, which are quite complicated. In the USA the rules would seem to be as set out below in the table, which has been produced with the permission of the author. It comes from this web page (there is no more on this page than is here: http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm). I am constantly concerned about expired copyright or waived copyright. A lot of authors, creators, waive copyright totally or partially under a creative commons license (see video below). This is a good way of using work that would otherwise be copyrighted (see http://creativecommons.org/) - opens in new window.

DATE OF WORK	PROTECTED FROM	TERM
Created 1-1-78 or after	When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression	Life + 70 years1(or if work of corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation2
Published before 1923	In public domain	None
Published from 1923 - 63	When published with notice3	28 years + could be renewed for 47 years, now extended by 20 years for a total renewal of 67 years. If not so renewed, now in public domain
Published from 1964 - 77	When published with notice	28 years for first term; now automatic extension of 67 years for second term
Created before 1-1-78 but not published	1-1-78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright	Life + 70 years or 12-31-2002, whichever is greater
Created before 1-1-78 but published between then and 12-31-2002	1-1-78, the effective date of the 1976 Act which eliminated common law copyright	Life + 70 years or 12-31-2047 whichever is greater

As can be seen from the chart the general rule is that if it is published before 1923 the work (say a book) is in the public domain.

The protection provided by the Berne convention is life of author plus 50 years (source: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk). The clock starts from the 1st January of the year following the specified event.

There are some exceptions under the Berne in respect of film, anonymous and artistic works. Also it is wise to check the laws pertaining to the individual country which may be different. The Berne Convention signatories are (src: http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk):

• Albania
• Algeria
• Andorra
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Argentina
• Armenia
• Australia
• Austria
• Azerbaijan
• Bahamas
• Bahrain
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belgium
• Belize
• Benin
• Bhutan
• Bolivia
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Botswana
• Brazil
• Brunei
• Bulgaria
• Burkina Faso
• Cameroon
• Canada
• Cape Verde
• Central African Republic
• Chad
• Chile
• China
• Colombia
• Comoros
• Congo
• CostaRica
• Coted Ivoire
• Croatia
• Cuba
• Cyprus
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Djibouti
• Dominica
• Dominican Republic
• Ecuador
• Egypt
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Estonia
• Fiji
• Finland
• France
• Gabon
• Gambia
• Georgia
• Germany
• Ghana
• Greece
• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Guinea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Guyana
• Haiti
• Holy See
• Honduras
• Hungary
• Iceland
• India
• Indonesia
• Ireland
• Israel
• Italy
• Jamaica
• Japan
• Jordan
• Kazakhstan
• Kenya
• Korea
• Kyrgyzstan

• Latvia
• Lebanon
• Lesotho
• Liberia
• Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Liechtenstein
• Lithuania
• Luxembourg
• Macedonia
• Madagascar
• Malawi
• Malaysia
• Mali
• Malta
• Mauritania
• Mauritius
• Mexico
• Micronesia
• Moldova
• Monaco
• Mongolia
• Morocco
• Namibia
• Nepal
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Nicaragua
• Niger
• Nigeria
• Norway
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Panama
• Paraguay
• Peru
• Philippines
• Poland
• Portugal
• Qatar
• Romania
• Russian Federation
• Rwanda
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and Grenadines
• Samoa
• Saudi Arabia
• Senegal
• Serbia and Montenegro
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan
• Suriname
• Swaziland
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Tajikistan
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• Thailand
• Theformer Yugoslav
• Togo
• Tonga
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tunisia
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States of America
• Uruguay
• Uzbekistan
• Venezuela
• Vietnam
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe

From Expired Copyright to Home Page

Zoo Tiger Attack

Sometimes we hear of a zoo tiger attack. It is not that uncommon. I guess it is bound to happen not too infrequently despite the best efforts of the zoo management and keepers. This is because of the circumstances. And the circumstances are fundamentally highly dysfunctional and a sad reflection on how we (people) behave on this planet.

The tiger is a large wild cat that demands a large range in which to hunt prey. This is hard wired into the cat’s brain. Humans are not the usual prey of tigers but sometimes tiger attacks in the wild do take place (increasingly so) when tiger and people are forced into close proximity because of human activity, human population growth, unethical business practice, unsustainable business practices, short term thinking and planning, constant economic growth; in short all things unthinkingly human. Or a person injures a tiger so that it has to hunt people (easy prey). Basically, in whatever guise it comes, we cause the tiger attacks on us.

Of course we blame the tiger, naturally. Notwithstanding that the tiger is acting totally naturally and instinctively in response to our interaction with it.

A recent zoo tiger attack bears out my assessment of the dysfunctionality of it all. Firstly, there are good arguments for closing all zoos as they are fundamentally unnatural for the animals. It is unhealthy and if we had better managed the world’s resources and forests etc. we wouldn’t need zoos. We could have seen the tigers in the wild. Once again zoos, a second rate concept designed to entertain us at the animals’ expense, are due exclusively to our behaviour.

There was a zoo tiger attack by a white tiger in New Zealand recently. It happened at the Zion Wildlife Gardens in Whangarei (new window).

There is talk of closing the wildlife gardens down. I say they should never have opened. I know that in isolation it seems a good idea to have a wildlife park. We need to have them now because white tigers, all tigers in fact, are becoming extinct in the wild. But looking at the bigger picture would it not be more sensible to put resources into really preserving these cats in the wild? To put resources into creating a harmonious relationship with other animals with which we share the planet. Wild life parks or zoos are a horrible reflection of failure. They are a poor compromise, a strain on our character and a symptom of long term neglect of the bigger environmental issues that are now facing us.

The person killed was it seems a decent, caring and well liked senior cat handler, Dalu Mncube. Tourists watched the attack including children. The keeper suffered injuries to the abdomen and lower leg. It happened at 11 am when Mr Mncube and other keeper were cleaning out the enclosure. Why did it happen? And should the park close?

This is a lion at the Zion Wildlife Gardens – photo by ashiri

I have not seen an assessment as to why it happened. One person commented that it could be the smell from another tiger or animal on the keepers from cleaning out another enclosure causing the tiger to treat the keeper as prey or to defend from an attack. This sounds sensible but I don’t know if it is true and if it is I would have thought the park owners would be liable in law. They are probably liable in any case and may have to close because paying compensation may bankrupt them.

The royal white tiger was shot dead because it would not let go (apparently). Now that is the bit that is highly dysfunctional for me, although I realise the situation would have been very stressful requiring immediate decisions. However, the circumstances under which the zoo tiger attack occurred were wholly due to people, humans. The tiger at all times acted naturally, instinctively and predictably in the sense that it was known that there was a danger of an attack. That danger is always present. Under these circumstances there must be a method to save the tiger surely?

Why then was the tiger shot? It seems that there were not proven methods to deal with these circumstances? And if there are no guaranteed ways of stopping a zoo tiger attack other than by shooting the tiger then tigers should not be kept in zoos. I thought that in this world the perpetrator of wrong doing (us in this instance) is punished and the victim assisted and compensated. Doesn’t shooting the tiger turn the death of one into two? What have I got wrong? I seem to have missed the point.

From Zoo Tiger Attack to Home Page

Stop Poaching of Wildcats

As the governments of the countries where the wildcats are found do little that is effective in stopping poaching for body parts, the next best thing is for customers to stop buying the products.

I know it is simplistic and a kind of dream but if the demand for wildcat body parts completely dried up there would simply be no more killing of wildcats and their existence in the wild would be ensured. It is the market place, big business, that drives the wildcats to extinction. It could be argued that the two biggest factors in wildcat deaths are:

• poaching for the body parts of the animal for decorative and medicinal purposes
• habitat loss, the classic example being deforestation because of logging for paper; yes, photocopying paper! It is shocking to think about it. One major culprit is Asian Paper & Pulp (APP) a company with an allegedly murky history and an alleged lack of business ethics – see Deforestation in Indonesia for example.

What crossed my mind was, “who are the customers for the skins, for example?” I know that body parts are used in Chinese medicine, an archaic process that callously exploits rare animal species for bogus purposes.

But who would buys real leopard skin goods?

Leopard skin shoe (I don't think these are real) – by Felix42 contra la censura - photo published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License -- this site is for charitable purposes in funding cat rescue.

I don’t blame the guy for buying these shoes, which are fantastic (nice photo too) and which look like they could be real leopard skin, but I feel that we just need to make a connection between the product and the beautiful living animal that was killed to supply the market.

The leopard is listed under CITES Appendix I (new window),

Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants (see Article II, paragraph 1 of the Convention). They are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial..(CITES)

On the basis that trade in leopard skin is prohibited how did these shoes find there way onto the open market? They appear to have been bought in Brisbane, Australia (wrong, please leave a comment). The kind of comments accompanying this picture on Flickr is enlightening too.

They are truly magnificent….

Great shot, great shoes…

Really cool shoes

Personally, I’d like to see more comment on the problems and issues underpinning the whole ghastly edifice of the illegal trade in rare wild species. Even if these shoes were or are fake leopard skin, the first thoughts should be about the real and more important issues, the preservation of the earth, the beautiful wildcats and not the product, which will probably find their way into the back of a wardrobe within a couple of weeks.

There has to be a sea change in thought and desire from the world population. Consumerism, economic growth, human population growth all have to be seriously addressed to stop poaching of wildcats. It is a very profitable business indeed. Both CITES and IUCN are valuable organizations but they are simply recording the demise and gradual loss of the wild cats in the wild, it seems to me (see IUCN Red List for Cats).

We fail to connect up action and result. The same can be said about deforestation (which is habitat loss and loss of prey for the forest dwelling wild cats) due to logging. We buy furniture in the west that was logged from fabulous rainforest. Or we buy photocopying paper from the same virgin rainforest that is the home of the Sumatran tiger for example. When we buy a ream of extra bright clean photocopying paper from the local store we may well be contributing to the:

1. the extinction of the Sumatran tiger (the local logging company in Sumatra sells products to North America).
2. the production of green house gases that affect us in the west and everywhere.

In other words the world loses on all counts.

The problem originates in business, the large scale process of making money that is all too frequently founded on short term gains. In going for the easy short term fast buck the big businesses that effectively run the world are “mortgaging the future” as I call it. In other words in the future things will be worse because of taking a short term view.

The following video indicates that a lot of wildcat skins are still used by people in less well developed countries where there is a lack of appreciation of the decline towards extinction of wildcats. The issue here is obviously education and a change in culture, no mean task.

We have to stop poaching of wildcats. In the less well developed countries the people who run the country are often involved in making profit personally from any means including illegal trade in wildcat body parts. With that kind of collusion to stop poaching of wildcats is almost impossible.

Conclusion: I would predict that nothing will change and we will not stop the poaching of wildcats. The result will be their eventual extinction in the wild. Mankind as a whole will not find that distressing although many people will.

From Stop Poaching of Wildcats to Home Page

To Wild Cat Species

Deforestation in Indonesia

We know that deforestation in Indonesia is rapid and vigorous because the destruction of Indonesian rain forest accounts for about 4% of greenhouse gas emissions made by humankind at the date of this posting.

Why does this bother me particularly? Because it is probably the single biggest cause of the gradual extirpation of wildcats in the wild. Many of the small wildcats live in forest:

• African Golden Cat
• Asian Golden Cat
• Clouded Leopard
• Bornean Bay Cat
• Asian Leopard Cat
• Flat Headed Cat

This is just an example. In this post, though, I would like to mention the very rare Sumatran tiger whose presence in the wild will be severely jeopardized by plans that are being finalised to log 124,000 acres or 50,000 hectares of forest in Indonesia. What is particularly galling is that trees that can take hundreds of years to grow will be converted to photocopying paper that will be used in seconds and thrown away in minutes.

I am talking about an area of forest that is the last remaining untouched forest, near the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park:

The parcel of land to be logged is near the town of Rengat in the middle of the second map. This is where the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park is. In the top map it is top left of the map. There is a slight discrepancy between the embedded maps and the image map above. Here is a Google map of the area.

View Larger Map

The Bukit Tigapuluh National Park itself has been logged. This is meant to be some sort of reserve, a protected area! Having almost destroyed the park, the logging company in league with the government, looked to more virgin forest, neighboring ancient forest:

The Park itself has been under consistent threat from illegal logging and Palm oil plantations, with two thirds of the park logged (Wikipedia)

The government clearly has no concern for the tiger and are it seems are solely concerned with making a fast buck. Palm oil is popular at present as an alternative to petrol. It is use as a bio-fuel. So the demise of the Sumatran tiger is down to paper and fuel.

The company concerned is Asia Pulp and Paper (APP). Their website declares that they are concerned with the environment bla bla bla. Pure ***. “Care for Tomorrow” …..” We support actions for……environmental sustainability” bla bla bla.

APP has a very poor history. Do an internet search and you see words like “corruption”, “bullying villagers” “environmental exploitation” etc. This is clearly a bad company with a bad history of slash and burn disregarding the people and their lives and wildlife. They are supported no doubt by the Indonesian government. Say no more. And you know what? Nothing can be done about it except stop buying their products.

Back to the Sumatran tiger. Between 1982 and 2007 APP deforestation may have killed 70% of the Sumatran tiger population in killing 450 of them (src: WWF). APP claim that their logging protects forest by preventing illegal logging. They say “well managed pulp wood plantations act as buffer zones”. The trouble is they are just cutting down old forest. Where are APP’s plantations? Deforestation in Indonesia is killing off the Sumatran tiger, elephants and orang-utans.

Currently, there are only 100-400 Sumatran tigers left in the wild (Wikipedia)

Photo of Sumatran tiger: published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs creative commons License -- this site is for charitable purposes in funding cat rescue.

From Deforestation in Indonesia to Home Page