The state, the law and the marriage rite

With reference to Kris Hopkins’s article “We need answers... for sharia law” (Yorkshire Post, May 8), he says: “I should like to know what consideration the Government has given to ensuring that all sharia marriages are legally underpinned by a compulsory civil marriage... Some men are choosing not to marry through the civil law process, because it makes divorce simpler.”

If this last statement is 
correct, it raises the question as to who is performing such marriages?

As a Catholic priest, we were given to understand in the seminary that because the Catholic Church is not the established Church of 
England, we celebrate weddings only with the state’s permission and strictly under that authority.

This means that a licence 
must be applied for by the 
couple in the normal way, a registrar or an authorised person must be present at the wedding, and the rite that we use must include (in addition to the Church’s own sacramental formulae) the legal questions and answers of the formulae required by the state.

The absence of any of these makes the marriage illegal 
and we priests would find ourselves in serious trouble with the law.

Presumably these same requirements apply to any celebration of marriage – but, if I have understood him correctly, this doesn’t seem to be the case according to Mr Hopkins’s sources of information, hence the concern he expresses.

Changed aims for dentist pay

From: GF Partington, Ashgate Avenue, Chesterfield.

Further to the letter from AP Hicks (Yorkshire Post, May 4) I would like to make a further comment about the Government’s power.

Ros Altmann has written extensively on the matters of pensions over the last few 
years and I do hope the Government will take note of what she says.

I suspect that they are short 
of funds, like the majority of people, and dentists being a soft option have had some of their funding removed, eg seniority payments.

I persuaded my employer and his colleagues in Coventry where I worked at the time in 1966, to vote for seniority payments. Giving up some income when young seemed to me a good idea to offset the effects of slowing down and illnesses that come along later in life.

Various governments of whatever political flavour do flex their economic muscle in different ways over the years and the patients and the providers do suffer the effects.

Way back in 1962 the Minister of Health, the Rt Hon Enoch Powell, cut dentists’ fees and hence our pay by about three per cent. On the other hand, Barbara Castle, the Labour Minister of Health in 1976, gave us a massive 20 per cent-plus fee increase to save us from financial meltdown (inflation rose to 26 per cent at that time).

Nearly 20 years later, the Conservative Minister reduced our fees by 10 per cent to prevent the cost of NHS dentistry rising. The result of this final act was to accelerate the move to private dentistry as it is today.

Realism and art of politics

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury.

looking at post-war Prime Ministers, I suppose there would be common agreement that Mr Attlee and Mrs Thatcher stand out as the most radical or reforming.

Whether their reforms have stood the test of time is another matter.

Nationalisation was certainly not a success and the National Coal Board, British Railways and the rest have long ago passed into history.

Even the NHS seems to be facing an uncertain future.

Mrs Thatcher’s Big Bang and the sale of public utilities, it could be argued in retrospect, have proved unwise in the extreme and you would struggle to find a positive achievement to her credit.

Curbing the power of the unions was essentially negative. She did have over a decade to work her magic and the 
economy is now in a worse
 state than ever.

Are there any conclusions to be drawn from this? I would argue that because of the way our imperfect democracy works it is virtually impossible to transform our society.

Attlee and Thatcher represent the two extremes and neither has been the success hoped for at the time.

It might be an unfashionable thought but lesser lights such as Macmillan and Wilson who were not noted for root-and-branch reform did preside over a united country and achieved important things within the bounds of what could reasonably be accomplished.

In the world of realpolitik, it is often the case of what can realistically be achieved in a given situation.

Hero’s shabby treatment

From: John Wheeler, Stamford Bridge.

Your article in the Saturday Magazine (Yorkshire Post, May 4) telling the story of Wing Commander Bransome raised several emotions.

Primarily I felt a deep sense 
of shame that a gentleman who has served his country so selflessly and well and justly deserves the description of “hero”, should be treated in 
such a shabby and cavalier fashion by the nation that he defended so well.

That he and his family 
should be placed in a situation where it has become necessary 
to auction off his medals in 
order to support him in his twilight years is a national disgrace.

Why does not a “grateful” nation take care of the people who saved us from a tyranny beyond the comprehension of modern generations?

What on earth has happened to our sense of proportion 
when we can describe someone whose only obvious ability is kicking a football as “hero” and then proceed to pay 
them more in one week than would support this genuine 
hero for the remainder of his days?

Sir, I salute you; the nation should hang its collective head in shame.