| Currency exchange firm collapses Thousands of people in the UK face uncertainty over travel money after a currency exchange firm goes into administration. bbc.co.uk |
Facebook co-founder gives $100,000 to push to legalise cannabis in California Campaigners welcome gift from Sean Parker as polls show vote next month is likely to favour lifting banFacebook co-founder Sean Parker is giving $100,000 (£62,640) to the push for the legalisation of cannabis in California. Campaigners had complained they were short of cash in the run-up to a vote on the measure on 2 November.His contribution follows two donations by his fellow co-founder, Dustin Moskovitz, totalling $70,000. Polls suggest voters will approve legalising cannabis. A survey by Public Policy Polling last monthfound 47% for and 38% against.The ballot coincides with mid-term elections for a new California governor as well as Congress. Legalisation could take effect the day after the ballot, making California the first state in the US to do so.Parker, 30, founded the music-sharing site Napster when he was 19 and went on to raise funds for the social networking site Facebook, becoming its first president. He has since left the company, though he retains a stake and is worth millions. His donation was listed this week in filings issued by the campaign for Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Parker has made no public statement about the donation.Stephen Gutwillig, a spokesman for Drug Policy Alliance, which is spearheading the legalisation campaign and is the main beneficiary of the donation, told Associated Press: "What's interesting here is that [Parker] is a member of the generation that really gets it. We think he's pivotal to the future of drug policy reform in the country."Others say cannabis is much stronger than it was in the 1960s and 1970s and is dangerous, impacting on the health services and the workplaceIn an ironic twist, advocates of reform have complained of a ban by Facebook on adverts supporting Proposition 19. Facebook has responded that company policy only prohibits images of drugs, and not adverts either in favour or against legalisation.CaliforniaDrugsDrugs tradeUnited StatesEwen MacAskillguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
MPs call for deportee death probe MPs say they want an inquiry into the death of a Angolan man who died at Heathrow Airport as he was being deported from the UK. bbc.co.uk |
Prenups: a delicate balancing act | Geoff Cahill The warring parties in the recent landmark prenup case may have left us cold, but the issues at stake are complexThe Coen Brother's' 2003 film Intolerable Cruelty centred around the supposedly unassailable "Massey prenup" and the various characters' attempts to duck and dive its conditions. Needless to say, much hilarity ensued, but as Coen comedies go it made little lasting impression, even in comparison to their woeful remake of The Ladykillers.Why is this? Ultimately it has much to do with the subject matter. While The Big Lebowski can claim a certain stoner kudos and A Serious Man has plenty of well-observed insights into Jewish culture, Intolerable Cruelty left audiences cold. It was very hard to relate to its procession of hotshot lawyers and pretty gold-diggers, certainly in comparison to their finest comedy moment, Raising Arizona, and its heartbreaking story of a childless couple's desperate and doomed attempts at parenthood. Prenups are simply not the stuff of successful romcoms.To a large extent this shouldn't be surprising. The prenuptual agreement presupposes that a relationship might ultimately break down. For most couples, such a contract would be the very antithesis of the romantic ideal of marriage. Quibbling over the future division of ownership over a three-bed semi and the maintenance of as yet unborn children isn't something that would occur to anyone other than an experienced divorcee. Those with most enthusiasm seem to be opportunistic lawyers, who have wasted no time in welcoming the current supreme court decision in the Granatino v Radmacher case. But obviously the business angle isn't the only consideration, so who stands to win and lose from this decision?First, it is worth pointing out that the instant case is unusual. Despite a reported rise in the number of women choosing to seek advice about prenups, they are not yet as popular in the UK than some other EU states. It is still men who are more likely to insist on them as a prerequisite to marriage and there are concerns that the proportion of men seeking them will rise following the supreme court's approval.While many more modern marriages will be roughly equal in terms of the assets brought by the respective parties, the female role of child-rearing at the expense of career advancement is still very much the norm. The danger is that the greater the difference in income between the parties, the more likely the richer spouse will seek to limit any potential future losses.Of course, while one could always argue that a prenup is a contract, and both parties are equally free to accept or reject its terms, this ignores the emotional dimension. A weaker party may agree to enter a prenup in return for the financial security of marriage and simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility that separation could ever arise. The last thing a person thinks of when planning their "big day" are the harsh financial realities of divorce.Second, what of the children? Current divorce law is very much about provision for offspring. Contrary to popular belief – fuelled by lurid accounts of celebrity breakups – it is relatively rare for equal distribution to occur between the parties where children are not an issue. If a pre-agreed contract renders the courts powerless to act, then there is the possibility for real hardship to occur, especially in relation to stepchildren who could ordinarily expect to be treated as dependents of the family unit.Thankfully, the court has acknowledged that a pre-nup cannot be drafted to prejudice the dependents, which includes adopted children and stepchildren. The most it can do is to limit the long-term needs of the poorer spouse – bad news for those who arrive at the relationship with few assets, but not necessarily the end of the world for a wealthy banker.In the end, this decision elicits as little sympathy for its warring parties as the characters in the Coens' film, and the only real credit should be reserved for Lady Hale and her dissenting judgment in the case. She felt it was wrong to treat the parties as mere cohabitees – because what else is marriage for if not to give legal force to promises of love and mutual support? – and recognised that a parent will always continue to be a source of support for his (or her) grown-up children. Divorce ordinarily creates two households, both financially worse off, but when one party is left destitute and struggling to maintain a lifestyle their children are accustomed to, it can create damaging strife for many years to come.PrenupsMarriageChildrenGeoff Cahillguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Bloody Sunday victims must be declared innocent, says McGuinness Martin McGuinness has called for the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings to exonerate all 27 of those killed and injured from claims that they posed an armed threat to British soldiers. timesonline.co.uk |