things the masses of people seem to believe that aren't true.

[shortroundd]

I am not talking about conspiracies here that can't be proven with a bit of digging but more false stuff that seems to stick in the minds of the general population as truths.

1. All/majority of lotto winners go broke after 5 years. I have seen this touted out a lot yet there is no known source of it as no such research exists. There is the handful of bad stories that are circulated but this is only a minority out of 1000s of big winners worldwide. Infact, I recall the tabloids doing a feature with winners to celebrate Camelot's 20th anniversary or so and many winners had said their lives were better.

1. Marriage means all assets are split 50/50. Another huge misconception.

1. Prenups will protect 1 in divorce- again I think 2 and 3 come from people watching tv shows and movies that use this as factual when it's not.

1. Elvis sings 'Lonely this Christmas.'

1. The capital of Brazil is Rio.

That there is no speed limit on the German Autobahn
There are stretches where there is no speed limit, but they are getting fewer every year.

I lived there in the early- to mid-nineties, when there were more stretches with no speed limit. I was once driving south on the A1 north of Hamburg, on a long, straight, downhill stretch with no speed limit. A Porsche appeared over the horizon in my rear-view mirror. Within about 30 seconds it was completely out of sight in front of me. Remembering that always makes me wonder why people in the UK buy cars like that: they are never going to be able to use the engine power legally, so what's the point of having it?

That may apply to your business, but not to do every one. I got a 12.5 days pro-ratered holidays plus only the bank holidays that fell on my working days. As there are more BH Mondays I would get more days off work than someone on same hours who didn’t work Mondays. Hence why all part timers at my company worked Mondays.

Mine is similar I work the middle of the week so in theory not entitled to get any bank holidays. I have an understanding boss though who I have an unwritten agreement with.

@Rogue1001MNer

That the tories are capable of running a country

Yes, very true and completely baffling

I'm pretty sure people still believe that head lice love dirty hair still and that if you have them you are a shower dodger.

And then there's the misconception that all issues in this country come down to immigration alone and not that the country is being run badly, is corrupt or that the top 1% don't pay any tax.

Logic is oft used whilst debating online.
Usually confused with ethos and pathos-99/100 the argument is not based on a logically sound premise.

Everybody in the workplace is equal-wrong.
Prices law and the similar Pareto effect mean that most people are not large contributors nor of equal value in the workplace. This can be seen by performance monitoring and empirical observations.
This is why people should not criticize fellow employees as it's likely your performance is similar to theirs.
Poor.
This is why small teams work better and are more productive than large teams, they are the core of the workforce.

When I did the mental and cognitive side to my training, I was taught that "traits" become the condition-any condition-at the point where they cause problems for the person concerned or for their carers/family group...or even, much more broadly, society in general. make of that what you will.

I agree with this distinction. My DS was diagnosed with autism at 7. DH has a lot of autistic traits, but I doubt he would be diagnosed because he isn’t in any way disabled or hindered by them. For example, his obsessive interests and ability to hyper-focus have served him very well in his career and hobbies, as has his ability to compartmentalise. He has none of the crippling anxiety or emotional dysregulation that affects DS every single day of his life (DH is actually one of the least anxious people I’ve ever met!) Sure, he isn’t keen on change and likes to be in control of how he spends his time, but can cope perfectly well if confronted with these things, where as DS will panic, shut down or hurt himself.

That you can't drink alcohol while taking antibiotics
There's one I know of flagyl where you most definitely can't though

It's called metronidazole. Flagyl is a brand name. Just saying that so people prescribed a different brand know they mustn't drink alcohol: it will make you really, really sick.

@shortroundd
I was going to refute your silly opinions about veganism and vegetarianism, but on further scrolling and seeing that you can't even understand the concept of citizenship (be it by birth, descent, or naturalisation) I dont think I'll bother!

Just so people can stop panicking. Nobody is being "forced" into marriage in Australia or NZ or anywhere else to my knowledge , on the grounds of defacto relationships or "common law marriages". ( obviously not the case in other countries but a different issue)
The reason for the courts treating de facto couples the same as married couples is to stop someone throwing out their longstanding partner , as they own the house and leaving their partner with nothing
The vast majority would not go to court anyway.
People make a choice just the same as a marriage. If you want to get married then do, if you want to live together then do , just know that after a set amount of time the courts will look at this the same as a divorce ( if you split) . You can avert all that by doing a binding financial agreement where you both have independent legal advice, and agree to having no claims on each others property. ( sort of like a pre-nup but legally valid). Children will be sorted on the basis of best outcome for the child, though supposedly starting from 50/50. I assume UK is the same.
Nobody is forced to do anything here!
I'm a bit flummoxed that it appears, from the reactions to this thread, that a woman could live with her partner for years, they could have children together etc, but if they were unmarried , he could throw her out and then the woman gets nothing except whatever child support she can manage to sort.
That's pretty shite. Or have I misunderstood like some posters had about our situation her in Aus NZ etc.

That you can't drink alcohol while taking antibiotics
There's one I know of flagyl where you most definitely can't though

See also: metronidazole

It actually stops you from being able to metabolise alcohol properly

@hesbeen2021

That you can't drink alcohol while taking antibiotics There's one I know of flagyl where you most definitely can't though

I thought you could drink alcohol but tha doing so reduces the efficacy of the drug

@wheresmymojo what you’re missing is that in the UK corporation tax is paid on profits not turnover/revenue.

That's pretty shite. Or have I misunderstood like some posters had about our situation her in Aus NZ etc.

You haven’t misunderstood - it’s exactly how it is in the UK. The Australian & Kiwi approach is more pragmatic, it recognises that the person who stays at home as the primary caregiver is most often coming from a relative position of disadvantage in the event of relationship breakdown.

Every single week there’s a story of a poor woman who has discovered her partner is having an affair but they’re not married, she isn’t working to take care of their small children, and he owns all the (otherwise shared) assets in the relationship or worse, she’s been paying towards the mortgage that’s in his name. I don’t know how people can defend this.

@Leftbutcameback

And reminded by another thread - that boundary (fence) ownership is always shown on deeds.

But if it is shown on the land registry - that is the correct situation. You can't just choose to ignore it.

Our neighbours think the land registry is wrong and won't replace their fence. Right... but they haven't tried to tell the land registry. Just refuse to replace the fence.

@marpelier

Just so people can stop panicking. Nobody is being "forced" into marriage in Australia or NZ or anywhere else to my knowledge , on the grounds of defacto relationships or "common law marriages". ( obviously not the case in other countries but a different issue) The reason for the courts treating de facto couples the same as married couples is to stop someone throwing out their longstanding partner , as they own the house and leaving their partner with nothing The vast majority would not go to court anyway. People make a choice just the same as a marriage. If you want to get married then do, if you want to live together then do , just know that after a set amount of time the courts will look at this the same as a divorce ( if you split) . You can avert all that by doing a binding financial agreement where you both have independent legal advice, and agree to having no claims on each others property. ( sort of like a pre-nup but legally valid). Children will be sorted on the basis of best outcome for the child, though supposedly starting from 50/50. I assume UK is the same. Nobody is forced to do anything here! I'm a bit flummoxed that it appears, from the reactions to this thread, that a woman could live with her partner for years, they could have children together etc, but if they were unmarried , he could throw her out and then the woman gets nothing except whatever child support she can manage to sort. That's pretty shite. Or have I misunderstood like some posters had about our situation her in Aus NZ etc.

So effectively, marriage becomes opt out? You can stay out of that legal contract as long as you actively sign a different one after X years?

Personally, I would not want to live in a country which did not distinguish between marriage and living together.

I am the higher earner in my relationship by quite a lot. I chose to marry my DH and accept that we are financially a unit. That was a choice that I willingly made when we decided that we wanted to start a family.

If something happened to DH and I became single again, then I can conceive that there might be a time when I might want to share my life with someone else, but I would not want to become financially enmeshed in the same way. On the contrary, I would want to protect my assets for myself and for my dd.

In a country where common law marriage is a thing, I guess that means that I would be consigned to living on my own forever. I would rather be able to make that choice for myself. Any prospective partner could equally make their own choice about whether they were happy to move in and share lives on an informal basis or whether they would only consider the marriage route.

There are legal options to protect those who want that protection. Why force it on those who don't?

@OneTC Be the change (in language) you wish to see in the world

I think a PP is surprised that partners who want to live together will be treated as though they are legally married whether they want to or not. There are many reasons to actively choose not to get married, and many believe (myself included) that those who want the legal framework of marriage should be able to opt-in to it rather than having it conferred upon them whether they want it or not. Having to opt-out of a serious contractual commitment like marriage seems unusual.

And yet it has worked for many years. Neither is it that unusual - just because it doesn't happen in your part of the world doesn't mean that it's wrong. You stick with your system and leave those of us who do things differently to our own ways. I personally think that living with a partner for years and having children with them then ending up with little in the way of rights if the relationship breaks down is criminal.

That, without our interfering with their pregnancies and genetics, cows would just constantly produce loads of milk - ditto sheep and wool. Like a wild animal in its own eco system would be wandering around trying to find a human to milk or shear it. I've also met people that don't realise dairy cows and laying hens are all female and that steak etc. are muscle tissue.

@Bananarama101

That your maximum heartbeat can be calculated using 220 - your age.

If you go for a stress test the treadmill will be stopped if your heart rate reaches 220-age.

It is therefore your maximum exercising rate.

It's one of those 'facts' that only occurs under certain conditions.

Similar to water boiling at 100 degrees C, it does at sea level but the higher you go the lower the boiling point, if you were to boil water on the top of Everest it would boil at 72 degrees.

@Tal45 Most of the world not only doesn't drink cow's milk they actually struggle to digest it.

Personally, I would not want to live in a country which did not distinguish between marriage and living together.

Then don't live in one - it's that simple. I read a lot of things on MN, or hear from friends living there, which make me very glad I don't live in the UK!

@SquirrelG I totally agree. The state should protect someone being financially abused, not collude.

That the term “blood is thicker than water” relates to family being more important. It refers to blood brothers ie bands of soldiers who pledged themselves and became “blood brothers” hence thicker than the water of the womb ie family

@MorningStarling
The biggest myth is the "climate emergency" - people genuinely seem to think that unless we destroy our way of life now, we're certain to reach the point of no return in the next few decades. That's simply not true. Climate change is real but not catastrophic.

Define catastrophic. We are nowhere on course to restricting temp rise to 1.5C between now and 2030, never mind 2C.
For some likely consequences of this, have a read of the following.
yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/08/1-5-or-2-degrees-celsius-of-additional-global-warming-does-it-make-a-difference/
You may not label these consequences "catastrophic " but I'd warrant most would disagree.

That flu is always a terrible illness and if you can get out of bed (or post on MN) you can't possibly have flu and it must be a mere cold. When in reality a good proportion of people with flu are completely asymptomatic (anywhere from 40-80% depending on which study) and many of the rest have mild symptoms.

See also: metronidazole
Same drug as flagyl!