Ramblin' Man

Having nothing in particular to blog about this morning (at least nothing that merited its own post), I thought I would have a ramble about a few things that I considered posting about. This also provides me with a (slightly tenuous) excuse to show the above excellent video of an old favourite by the Allman Brothers.

Following on from my last post, it is interesting how American family lawyers (or at least some of them) don't seem to have (yet) embraced the non-confrontational approach to family law that is now prevalent over here. A commenter on that post referred me to a firm in Tulsa who call themselves 'Bulldog Divorce', a name I couldn't imagine any firm using over here. The firm says:

"Our name, Bulldog Divorce, reflects our approach: we will stand by your side and work diligently to reach a mutually agreeable settlement between you and your spouse. In the event your case must go before a judge, we will defend your rights aggressively."

To be honest, this doesn't bother me quite as much as the sprinkling of Bible quotes around their website, but that's another matter. Their stated approach is very similar to the Twitter bio of an American lawyer that I recently came across. He described himself as a: "divorce attorney who gives you personal attention and aggressive litigation". I wonder if these American lawyers simply eschew the 'modern' approach, or perhaps they are just more honest than some of their English counterparts?

Moving on, I did contemplate doing a post about the state of the family law blogosphere in this country, something that I have not done for a very long time (I think this was the last one). However, these days too many family lawyer blogs are of the nature: "here's a family law news story - if you have a similar problem, we can help" variety. Now, there's nothing wrong with using a blog to promote your business (thankfully, there are still few rules about what exactly a 'blog' is), but this type of blog just doesn't really float my duck. Don't get me wrong though, there are still a few UK family law blogs that do keep my mallard from drowning, all of which can be found in the sidebar to this blog.

To end this short ramble on something topical, The Telegraph reports today the stunning news that couples who don't marry are more likely to separate. This revelation comes from a study carried out by the right-wing think-tank the Centre for Social Justice and the Bristol Community Family Trust. They are convinced that much of the breakdown amongst unmarried parents is "utterly avoidable", and that the answer is for these miscreants to get married. Yep, that'll stop them breaking up. The story is also carried by that monument to liberalism and tolerance the Daily Mail, and I'll finish with a quote from one of their commenters:

"I think in order to legally have children you must pass a certain criteria.. You must be married, you must have been married for a certain duration, you must have evidence that you can support a child.

Anyone outside this criteria can either leave the country or have an abortion."



  1. King Canute comes to mind!

  2. 'the stunning news that couples who don't marry are more likely to separate.'

    i would submit, however, that they are infinitely less likely to divorce.


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.