Romance is dead!

I sat inside court 1 at the Supreme Court in Westminster today, eagerly awaiting a verdict from five Law Lords on who was entitled to what share, in a three bedroom bungalow in Essex. Something as common as the breakdown of a relationship and the sharing of assets should never have reached the dizzy heights of 'Supreme' justice. But, as the law stands, it is only through the divorce courts and the dissolution of a marriage that judges can appropriate beneficial interests like property, to parties involved. If there is no marriage, then the relationship does not enter the court process and the couple are left to play Russian Roulette in an unfamiliar world of expensive lawyers and court hearings.

The landmark case I was sitting through had roots in 1985 when Ms Jones sold her mobile home, putting £6,000 down as a deposit on a £30,000 bungalow; an 'act of love' she claims for her and her partner Leonard Kernott. According to the Supreme Court Press Summary, 'No declaration was made as to how the beneficial interest in the property was to be held.' And off they went. Everything was fine for some years, both taking out a loan in 1986 of £2,000, extending the property and making it more comfortable for them and their two young children.

In 1993, things started to fall apart and Mr Kernott was asked to leave the family home. Only in 2006, and after the value of the bungalow had reached a value of around £200,000 did he come forward to claim a stake. Unfair? That is what the County Court declared in 2008, awarding Mr Kerr a minmal 10% share of the property now worth £245,000.

This decision was upheld again in the High Court in 2009 on appeal from Mr Kernott, unhappy with the £24,355 on offer. Already racking up court and lawyers fees in the tens of thousands of pounds, Mr Kernott appealed... again, but this time in a landmark ruling by three High Court judges Mr Kernott was awarded an equal, 50% share in a property that he had not contributed to since 1993. Fair?

Lawyers across the country sat up and took notice. It presented a dilemma for practitioners of law in advising cohabitees on the current legal aspects of their property when the current law was balanced on a knife edge. Patricia Jones, the Appellant, told me that the wait for the verdict was "excruciating"; if the Supreme Court didn't uphold the appeal, the house that she has worked hard to sustain on her own for nearly twenty years would have to be sold to pay the lawyer and court costs, as well as £100,000 to Mr kernott, forcing her and her children onto the street. Fair?

Today five Law Lords handed down a victory for common sense and a cruel blow to Mr Kernott, who, through the advice of his lawyer, must now face paying tens of thousands of pounds in court costs as no legal aid or Conditional Fee Arrangement was available. This inevitably dwarfed the insignificent 10% that was first awarded to him at the County Court and which the original ruling the Law Lords have now restored.

On approach, Mr Kerr regrets ever taking things this far stating: "The amount of stress and pain this has caused myself and my children has been terrible and the costs are going to crucify me." Patricia Jones said: "I am drained by the whole experience and I warn anyone who goes into a relationship to consider that the worst could happen and not to leave property rights to chance, but be responsible and seek early legal advice".

Whether you feel this ruling is fair or not, this cautionary tale should reverberate through the minds of every young couple embarking out on a relationship together. Will young cohabitees now heed the advice of those bitten by huge financial costs, feeling that 'common sense' now outweighs 'love'? Is it possible to live together, unmarried, but incongruous under the security blanket of a legally written document? Or will 'love' keep taking its toll on us, romance superseding prudence, perpetually nourishing the courts and its lawyers?

There was only one winner today and it wasn't Patricia Jones.

The McCanns last stand.

It was just absolutely gut wrenching to be reminded of the hell that these two parents had experienced, both sitting today at the inquiry. The loss of their daughter to a want-to-be desperate mother, we hope; or worse, a peadophile ring, is impossible to contemplate.

Today I watched two dignified people, giving evidence for the first time publicly, about how the Press Pack, not only hounded, but completely ransacked the last piece of human dignity they had by accusing them of killing their abducted daughter: "they said we kept her body in our freezer" Mrs Mcann had explained to the hearing.

Who was these journalists, these human beings, who wrote those lies based on no evidence, no public interest, and no empathy? The Red Tops went for their jugular, literally making up stories, selling the public lies about the murder of a child by honing in to our heart felt sympathy, our humanity: Where was theirs?

The Leveson inquiry really hit home today. A poignant example of just how deplorable the British Tabloids have become and Lord Leveson has in his hands the opportunity to remedy this.

There must be put in place, constitutionally, a code of practice, punishable by law, not a further extension of the PCC's ability to shelter its own board of editors from flagrant conduct which brought the industry into disrepute. It is unsettling to think that if the phone hacking scandal had been successfully covered up by those in power, the McCanns treatment by the tabloids would have settled down nicely, forgotten about on the pages of history.

I believe there must be a period of State regulation, where the government can put right, under constitutional law, the savage practices of the Tabloid Press. Without a root and branch reformation of the Press industry, Leveson's examination means nothing, and power will just be returned to those, the unelected.

Occupy London: A wash out?

Hundreds of thousands of citizens around the world are protesting about the financial crises and the role that banks and other financial institutions played in bringing the world's economy to it's knees. New York, Paris, London... Islamabad, everyone is joining in - although some efforts are more committed than others.

Where does the UK sit in relation to the full commitment shown by its transatlantic cousins camping on Wall Street? On Thursday I went to Occupy London's protest at St Paul's Cathedral and was quite unimpressed by what I saw. In the pouring rain around 100 tents swam around under the very impressive edifice of St Paul's. I'm no campinologist, but I'm pretty sure that camping is strictly a summer pursuit and in the hands of the 'good old' British weather.

I watched in amusement as some committed protesters bailed out their tents, plugging holes, leaks, some having the ingenuity to raise them up on wooden pallets to allude the visible stream of rainwater and 'filth' meandering its way into London's sewer system. The background sound of someone strangling a saxophone and a badly beaten drum only exacerbated an already inclement atmosphere.

On closer inspection, a food tent - a large marquis type affair, sheltered those campers who held a more eat now-pay later philosophy, enjoying hot soup and a vegetarian pasta dish cooked by a very enthusiastic professional Italian chef; security guard by night, nourishing the Occupy commitment by day.

Further down, another ten birth'r bore the name 'Tent University' where inside an esteemed architect lectured on the concern of 'Scarcity'. The world's land and mineral resources held my attention for sometime before the cramp in my legs and back from squatting superseded his pressing concern for land management.

Under the scrutiny of St Paul, it struck me that as I looked around, the camp wasn't one of unity in its cause. One tent had 'Free Palestine' painted on it, another 'Women's Rights'. Further down, around to the steps, another held 'Down with Capitalism'. There was some discord and it became apparent that they were not all singing from the same hymn sheet. Soon after, around 50 Syrian protesters climbed the steps and stood in the doorway of St Paul's chanting "Down with Assad" and "Murderer" echoing off the great walls, pillars and rain.

Is St Paul's now at risk of becoming synonymous with random protesting? Has a failed attempt by a few anti-capitalists to occupy the London Stock Exchange inadvertently aroused the Nation's 'hard done by' to seek a more esteemed place to protest? Will we see Batman and Robin hanging from the 'Great Gallery' in protest of 'Fathers' rights' now there is no threat or interference from the Corporation of London? Can I too, bring my soapbox and protestations to the site of one of the greatest historical cathedrals in the world; where royal weddings are set and state funerals are conducted of England's finest like Nelson, Wellington and the great architect himself, Sir Christopher Wren.

Yes I can! It is my 'right' to Freedom of Assembly and Peaceful Protest. If those at St Paul's feel 'that' strongly about capitalism, let them make that protest. If President Assad of Syria threatens to murder anti-government protesters, let them protest here. I think Occupy London resembles more Plato's 'Ship of Fools' than a coherent and structured protest about the nature of 'laissez-faire' capitalism, but that is my opinion. It is a testament to this country's constitution that I can have that opinion, and a 'right' that those at the foot of St Paul's - no matter how futile the cause - are expressing in earnest.