General > General Technical Chat
Elon Musk is a nice chap
MadScientist:
--- Quote from: james_s on January 19, 2023, 08:40:03 pm ---
--- Quote from: Leeima on January 19, 2023, 08:32:08 pm ---for all intents and purposes they are effectively married; whether in the official sense or not; so why should they be treated differently in the legal sense.
Obviously in practice they are treated differently - but that isn't really just
--- End quote ---
Because they're not married, they have not agreed to a contract that combines their assets. If they wanted to be married they would be, if they've been living together and not married it's because they chose to. They should absolutely NOT be treated as married in the legal sense.
[/quote
In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away
--- End quote ---
PlainName:
--- Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on January 21, 2023, 06:41:04 am ---Has the 8-car pile up been discussed here?
...
If you can get past the typical, nauseating Elon-hate, what do you think about this situation?
--- End quote ---
The car stopping and moving over was a bad move, but it didn't cause the pileup. What did was the cars behind not being awake - the van right behind, which got cut off, managed to just survive that manoeuvre and the car behind him didn't have a problem, but two cars bacvk the driver was asleep and just piled in.
You can argue that the Tesla caused the crash, which it did in a pedantic sense (because any accident is usually the result of more than one issue in sequence), but suppose someone had broken down there or a dumb car had a blowout or any similar problem - it is nearly always the fault of the driver behind if they run into something in front.
MadScientist:
I don’t think in any circumstances can Musk be regarded as a “ nice guy “. He brilliant , creative , adventurous, mad as a hatter , unconventional etc. but “ nice “ is not an adjective that is easily applied to him . His attitudes to employees is rather bizzare , his actions in Twitter had him fall immediately foul of Irish employment law at a twitters European HQ and it will cost him a packet in compensation when the employment court rules in favour of the dismissed employees which they will 100 % surely will anyone with significant service years will get big money in compensation or could be forced by the courts to be rehired. You just can’t fite people like that.
Musk clearly was badly advised or choose to ignore it. I presume he doesn’t care about thd 100000k in compensation his actions will cost Twitter Europe , it will also mean the labour courts will look extremely carefully at any subsequent layoffs and could levy Twitter with enormous fines , the labour courts have huge powers and they take it seriously they could in effect completely prevent arbitrary layouts without significant reasons in future. In fact it could force Elon to move the operation to another country but in the EU the labour laws simply prevent this type of reasonless layoff approach without significant compensation resulting.
james_s:
--- Quote from: MadScientist on January 21, 2023, 09:20:52 am ---In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away
--- End quote ---
But this is stupid, if a person is not married they have not agreed to a contract and assets should remain the property of each individual. Kids are of course a different matter, they are inherently shared, obviously a person shouldn't be able to just walk away from their kids and not support them in any way but a person should absolutely be able to walk away from a relationship. If you want to combine assets and have legal protections that apply to married couples then get married. I personally choose not to.
MadScientist:
--- Quote from: james_s on January 21, 2023, 07:23:18 pm ---
--- Quote from: MadScientist on January 21, 2023, 09:20:52 am ---In the vast majority of jurisdictions thd act of a “ couple” living together for a period of time is recognised in family law and hence the courts have a sag lay if an action is taken this is especially true if offspring are involved or shared assets like the “ family home “ etc you don’t get to just walk away
--- End quote ---
But this is stupid, if a person is not married they have not agreed to a contract and assets should remain the property of each individual. Kids are of course a different matter, they are inherently shared, obviously a person shouldn't be able to just walk away from their kids and not support them in any way but a person should absolutely be able to walk away from a relationship. If you want to combine assets and have legal protections that apply to married couples then get married. I personally choose not to.
--- End quote ---
Whether you think it’s stupid is irrelevant. Many countries family law accept evidence where a couple demonstrates living together that both parties have responsibilities Yes people can of course “ walk away but they cannot escape their responsibilities either. Family law is clear on that , say you’ve been financially supporting your partner for a long time , irrespective of formal marriage an order can be issued to force you to continue that support for a period etc. yes it’s not the same protection as being married but there is support in many legal jurisdictions for abandoned partners etc. asset division orders can also be made in certain cases , family law in many countries is extremely powerful and robust
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version