Bob Geldof and I may be poles apart when it comes to grooming, but I find myself batting on his side when it comes to marriage.
Daughter Peaches, who is five months pregnant with her first child, has been told by her dad that she and her boyfriend Thomas Cohen must ‘get married and be together for ever’.
Good old Sir Bob. Who’d have thought that underneath all that wild hair lurked the heart of a traditionalist?
But the Boomtown Rats frontman strikes at the very heart of what it takes to bring stability back into domestic life. Having watched his recalcitrant daughter bounce between allegations of shoplifting, extreme dieting and drug taking, her concerned father is absolutely right in staking her future happiness on the bedrock of a long and happy marriage.
The PC brigade can go and check their lentil bake isn’t burning if they don't like this. Yet rafts of statistics exist which point to the fact that married couples are less likely to break up than those who co-habit. What’s more – and in Peaches’ case this is especially pertinent – children thrive, mentally, emotionally, socially and educationally when they are being brought up by married parents.
Only the other week, senior high court judge Sir Paul Coleridge launched a campaign to promote marriage and reverse the ‘appalling’ impact of family breakdown in the face of soaring divorce rates.
We need to go back to old, traditional family values which salute rather than scorn the holy state of matrimony.
If a hoary old rocker can rein in a wayward daughter who has complied with his advice and who will now be marrying later this year, then it can’t be that hard for everyone else to sing from the same hymn sheet.
Tell me why, I don’t like marriage – I can hear the sound of those church bells already.
Spare me the moods of women in the workplace
The other day I rang Eon, my dual fuel provider, after receiving two letters on the same day – one giving me 14 days to provide a meter reading or threatening an increase in direct debit, and the other almost doubling the direct debit.
A woman at the end of the line told me my account was in credit for over £1,000. “Lovely”, I said, “can I have my money back?”. In short, I couldn’t. What’s more, I needed, I was told, to increase my direct debit. Some 13 minutes and 21 seconds of debate later, the call mysteriously disconnected.
I calmly phoned back, and this time a young man took my call. The matter was resolved in less time than it takes for a woman to put her lipstick on at the traffic lights. Money back, direct debit reduced, good day and thank you, sir.
How can this be? Well, dare I suggest that women are frequently unreasonable when in positions of power and dealing with men. In court, for example, lady prosecutors can be tricky, tight-lipped and complex throughout a case, while their male counterparts tend to be solid, focused, reasonable and straight to the point.
With women there’s always a mood, a sub text.
In the work environment, the most productive women to deal with are those who think and behave like men.
Happy to discuss. Your views are valuable to us, and we'll put you straight through…
Lie detectors will give court oath back its meaning
I wonder if police investigating the Stephen Lawrence murder will be prosecuting the parents of convicted killers Gary Dobson and David Norris for perjury and for attempting to pervert the course of justice after providing false alibi evidence? They told the court both men had been at home on the night of the murder.
Over 30 years as defence lawyer, I have listened to countless prosecution witnesses commit perjury. Yet even when this is proven, beyond any doubt, there has never been a criminal prosecution.
What is the point of the oath? Or indeed the affirmation.
The purpose of giving sworn evidence is that it is true – it is the axis upon which every case turns and, as such, lies at the heart of the judicial process. If people tell lies without fear of prosecution, then it makes a mockery of our criminal justice system.
To prevent the oath becoming worthless, we need to haul the courts into the 21st century and wire every witness up to a lie detector. That way we can be sure to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.
After all, it’s not supposed to be a game.
Law and truth were never meant to be mutually exclusive.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Does his bathroom have a Loo Pole ?
This column is one of your worst yet, which is really saying something. You quote bob gelfof ( divorced) and then expound your own views ( you are divorced) on marriage. Spare me. Then it gets even worse when you extrapolate your sexist views on women following an unsatisfactory conversation with an employee at eon.
It is no surprise to me that the MEN's circulation figures are plummeting when they employ 'columnists' who misrepresent statistics, offend with their prejudices and never, ever inform.
To prevent the oath becoming worthless, we need to haul the courts into the 21st century and wire every witness up to a lie detector. That way we can be sure to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.
As long as we can wire up the defendants as well. I bet that would mean a few of your "celebrity" clients actually pleading guilty, that way we can be sure to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent as you put it.
Over 30 years as defence lawyer, I have listened to countless prosecution witnesses commit perjury.
And i bet every prosecution lawyer/Police officer would say over the same period they have listened to countless defendants and defence witnesses doing the same.
Ever since the courts system has been in place, we have heard defence lawyers talk utter tripe to put it mildly, put forward ridiculous defences for their "guilty" clients etc etc. and see guilty people get off with technicalities.
The section about women in the workplace HAS to be a spoof. Surely no intelligent man could write drivel like that and get away with it.
Maybe Mr Freeman your "attitude" towards women is what gets up their noses and is the reason they treat you so. I have never had a problem obtaining a refund on my utility bills. Sometimes the conversation takes longer than necessary but I have to be honest I cannot remember which sex has the shortest conversation with me 'cos quite frankly I am not sexist!
don't care about your sexist comment you have put that in to get a big reaction my only point will be that I have passed a lie detector test - easy - all you have to do is stay calm.
"How can this be? Well, dare I suggest that women are frequently unreasonable when in positions of power and dealing with men. In court, for example, lady prosecutors can be tricky, tight-lipped and complex throughout a case, while their male counterparts tend to be solid, focused, reasonable and straight to the point.
With women there’s always a mood, a sub text."
Dare I suggest that you are an out dated and mysogynistic man? Where is the evidence that women are frequently unreasonable when it comes to dealing with men? Apart from your own pathetic irrelevant example of a call centre worker... and probably your own wife. Mind you, who could blame her having to live with such an out dated, sexist husband?
And pardon me about your strong case for "traditional marriage", would you care to elaborate on this a little further? If i may interpret what you probably mean... Chain the woman to the sink, assign the role of cook, clean and be pregnant. Clearly this good old marriage works as you say... or should I say contradict youreself "...promote marriage and reverse the ‘appalling’ impact of family breakdown in the face of soaring divorce rates.." Excuse me but to me a divorce is a breakdown of marriage... not of cohabiting couples as you say...
Maybe you should be questioning the inadequacies of the so called "heaven" that is traditional marriage...
And no this wasn't written by a hairy, bra burning, lesbian feminist as you will probably be instantly thinking. But rather by a young man who is appauled by your careless, ridiculous and above all completed miseducated stereotypes.
Please MEN, I beg you to kick away the soapbox from beneath this odious man's feet. I don't know how he does it but each week he manages to surpass the previous week's level of hatefulness with his column.
"Yet rafts of statistics exist which point to the fact that married couples are less likely to break up than those who co-habit"
Your confusing correlation with causation and as the saying goes, you can use statistics to prove anything.
''children thrive, mentally, emotionally, socially and educationally when they are being brought up by married parents.''
Why do you not mention the parents being a man and woman?
Also - If Peaches comes to you with a hatfull of cash, two years after her wedding ... are you going to refuse to process the divorce?
Is this a joke? When did the MEN turn into the Daily Mail?
"The purpose of giving sworn evidence is that it is true – it is the axis upon which every case turns and, as such, lies at the heart of the judicial process"
And if it ever actually happened simply asking the accused if they are guilty or not would solve every case, the courts could close and lawyers retrain.
(What is the point of the oath?)
Yes quite. If you think using God in today's world is more likely to make them truthful, you're very naive. God has no place in court any more, if it ever did. Nothing said before giving evidence is persuasive and you wonder why people treat the whole process as a game? The comedy outfits and ridiculous wigs don't help matters either, when worn. Basically,the whole court system looks like an outdated joke.
If you want the court process to be more effective, you need to overhaul it and get rid of some ineffective and counter productive traditions and behaviours. What you replace them with, is up for discussion.
Family breakdown is often the consequence of me me me attitudes which I attribute to right wing values, in my own case this took the form of a parent having affairs and I must say the subsequent divorce caused me a lot of grief, as a child.
Who is this man? His views are medieval and offensive. Get rid please MEN.
A soupcon of tup-thumping right-wing sentimentality, a sprinkling of straightforward outright misogyny, followed by a dollop of breathtaking hypocrisy where "Mr loophole" himself appeals for more honesty in court.
The recipe for another classic Nick Freeman column!
I've had many dealings with women over the telephone (from my phone company, my energy supplier, HMRC, various other service providers, etc) yet the phenomenon you describe is quite alien to me, Nick.
...any ideas as to why that could be?
in fact, substitute the word "woman" for "black man" (for example) and you'll see how bigoted Nick's views are... and vicariously the MEN for publishing this guff.
suspect this comment will be "moderated"
On the telephone front, when I ring jobcentreplus to get more information about a job, I don't like getting through to blokes, because they rush you through a call, with minimal effort and enthusiasm. Most of the time, it sounds like you're inconveniencing them. I even had one yawn on me twice in a 2 min call. If that's being straight to the point, I don't care for it.
Nick's been nicked for having an out of date MOT !!!
I wonder how Mr Freeman hopes to establish a long and happy marriage if he feels his wife is one of those people who "always have a subtext" and should behave more like a man? If I was Mrs Freeman I'd be taking an oath to cut off his supply.
Bob Geldof actually looks like he has a modicum of taste, originality and personality and he appears to be intelligent, another chasm.
Hasn't Peaches Geldof already been married???
women are not moody we simply have days when we are less inclined to put up with crap!
"Well, dare I suggest that women are frequently unreasonable when in positions of power and dealing with men"
Sure. You can suggest anything you like. And I can dare to suggest that if you approach women with those kind of misogynistic prejudices you may well find that the women to whom you display those attitudes are going to pick up on it, and may well 'unreasonably' faile to fall in with your wishes.
It's interesting that you assume that the reason the first call-centre staff member you spoke to at EON was unable/unwilling to help you because she was a woman. I recently had a similar situation with my energy comapny. The first person I spoke to (who happened to be male) told me that I could not have my overpayments back becasue the company wanted to 'ensure that I didn't get into debt' and wanted to put my payments up for the same reason. When I explained that I would prefer to manage my (hypothetical) future debts for myself, and that I personally was fairly confident that my Spring time use of energy would be lower than my winter use, he told me he couldn't send my money back without an up to date meter reading.
When I called back, with my readining, the woman I spoke to dealt promptly and professionally with my query and sorted out the refund and lower payments.
Rather than assuming that this was becasue, as a woman she was competent, and the first member of staff I spoke to was a man feeling the need to assert his power by being unreasonable, I simply assumed that like most call-centre staff he had been working from a script, and that my energy comapy is well aware of the benefits of holding on to it's customers money and of having them over- rather than under-pay and has set a script, and trained its staff, to ensure that customers have to be persistant to overcome this.
But perhaps that's just my female moodiness coming through.
I have no doubt at all that if Mr Freeman extends his sexist, misogynistic attitudes to the workplace then he will, no doubt, find it easier to deal with women who have adapted themselves to his preferences and 'behave like men' rather than him having to (shock! Horror!) actually learn to work with anyone who thinks differently to him.
I feel very sorry for his colleagues and still sorrier for any employees he has.