In Australia if you have lived with a person for more than a set time (which may vary from state to state) you are considered to be a de facto partner. Once you've attained that status, if the relationship falls apart the assets of that relationship are divided between the parties. If the relationship was relatively short term and you were the partner who brought the most (financially) into the relationship, you stand to lose out financially. No, it's not about the girl getting everything. It's not sexist. If the woman was the major bread-winner and owned the house, then the man moved in with her, HE is entitled to a share of the house and her money.
My father was at Maralinga (where they tested Britain's atomic weapons in Australia) & was later in Hiroshima not long after the bomb was dropped.
He died at 53 years of age. Uncontrolable blood pressure. My brother and I have both had cancer of different types.
Yep - could be coincindence. But maybe not.
Either way my family doesn't expect the government to hand out compensation. My father was doing what he believed was the right thing and understood that there are risks that had to be taken. He knew that the full impact of being near atomic tests and then the added effects of going to Hiroshima were unknown. But he was bright enough to know that it wasn't going to be good for his health.
Dunno why some people and their families seem to have been effected and others weren't. Would be good to find out. But it doesn't change the fact that my father didn't want compensation and didn't want his family to claim compensation if it became available in the future.
He was doing what he thought was right & believed the government also acted in good faith. It was a different time, with different attitudes - when people took responsibility for their own actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Posting to undo mod error.
In Australia if you have lived with a person for more than a set time (which may vary from state to state) you are considered to be a de facto partner. Once you've attained that status, if the relationship falls apart the assets of that relationship are divided between the parties. If the relationship was relatively short term and you were the partner who brought the most (financially) into the relationship, you stand to lose out financially. No, it's not about the girl getting everything. It's not sexist. If the woman was the major bread-winner and owned the house, then the man moved in with her, HE is entitled to a share of the house and her money.
My mother, my children and my grandchildren all use Facebook - enough for me to accept "everyone uses it" too.
Time for a little Tom Lehrer - Who's Next. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw
Sadly - nary a free snippet to be had. *sigh*
My father was at Maralinga (where they tested Britain's atomic weapons in Australia) & was later in Hiroshima not long after the bomb was dropped. He died at 53 years of age. Uncontrolable blood pressure. My brother and I have both had cancer of different types. Yep - could be coincindence. But maybe not. Either way my family doesn't expect the government to hand out compensation. My father was doing what he believed was the right thing and understood that there are risks that had to be taken. He knew that the full impact of being near atomic tests and then the added effects of going to Hiroshima were unknown. But he was bright enough to know that it wasn't going to be good for his health. Dunno why some people and their families seem to have been effected and others weren't. Would be good to find out. But it doesn't change the fact that my father didn't want compensation and didn't want his family to claim compensation if it became available in the future. He was doing what he thought was right & believed the government also acted in good faith. It was a different time, with different attitudes - when people took responsibility for their own actions.