Divorce ruling in the UK Watch

cally
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Ouch. This has really made me angry on so many levels.

I am gonna calm down, re-read it all, then post some thoughts.

In the meantime here is the link to the news article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010888.stm

And this is for the discussion arising from it:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...015&#paginator

All thoughts are welcome
0
reply
high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
why does it make you angry? the woman sacrificed her career, why shoudnt she get compensation?
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 12 years ago
#3
goldiggers will be happy.


A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle.
What a reason to marry. :rolleyes:
0
reply
high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
(Original post by Thud)
goldiggers will be happy.

What a reason to marry. :rolleyes:
must admit that made me laugh.
0
reply
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
I can kind of understand the first ruling but the second one is rediculous this woman married a rich many they were married for less that 3 years and have no children but still some how she is entitled to 5 million pounds! How is that even slightly fair.
0
reply
Schmokie Dragon
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
Yep, that pisses me off.

She chose to give up her job, kowing full well that she may separate from hubby, that any number of things may happen. She was never given a cast iron gurentee (and no, I can't spell) that she would live happily ever after. Sure, some "compensation" to at least allow her to go back to her pre-marital way of living but 5 million? That is over a 1/4 of the guys fortune. She should get as much money as she can realisticaly be attributed to have earnt or have had a real hand in earning. But any money that he had before they were hitched should stay his. Only money that was earnt during the marriage should come into question.
0
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
She made the decision to stay at home and have kids, no one forced her to. She should live with the consequences. the same would be the case if the bloke had stayed at home while his wife became the high flying solictor, or whatever.
0
reply
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
(Original post by DanGrover)
She made the decision to stay at home and have kids, no one forced her to. She should live with the consequences. the same would be the case if the bloke had stayed at home while his wife became the high flying solictor, or whatever.
I agree that he should have to support that children but giving her that much money for the rest of her life does seem a bit extreme I mean what happens if either his or her financial situation changes?
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
An idiotic decision... no other way to put it ...

The notion that by giving up your career as say, an air hostess, you should be able to get half of say, the fortune of a best selling author, or recording artist, is laughable... why not base the money given on the maximum someone in the line of work the woman was in could have reasonably expected to have earned?

At that, why does being a mother mean being unemployed? Plenty of women work and have kids...
0
reply
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
(Original post by Lawz-)
An idiotic decision... no other way to put it ...

The notion that by giving up your career as say, an air hostess, you should be able to get half of say, the fortune of a best selling author, or recording artist, is laughable... why not base the money given on the maximum someone in the line of work the woman was in could have reasonably expected to have earned?

At that, why does being a mother mean being unemployed? Plenty of women work and have kids...
Yes they do work and have kids but some women want to give up work to have children and jointly make that decision with their husbands. It is not the fact that she wants money that annoys me it is the fact that she has been given so much,
0
reply
high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
(Original post by Lawz-)
An idiotic decision... no other way to put it ...

The notion that by giving up your career as say, an air hostess, you should be able to get half of say, the fortune of a best selling author, or recording artist, is laughable... why not base the money given on the maximum someone in the line of work the woman was in could have reasonably expected to have earned?

At that, why does being a mother mean being unemployed? Plenty of women work and have kids...
yes and as someone who was brought up by a working mother i cant say that i would inflict that on any hypothetical kids i may have.
0
reply
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
(Original post by high priestess fnord)
yes and as someone who was brought up by a working mother i cant say that i would inflict that on any hypothetical kids i may have.
My mum went back to work when I was 4 and I don't think that it had a negative impact on me at all. It can work
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
(Original post by randdom)
Yes they do work and have kids but some women want to give up work to have children and jointly make that decision with their husbands. It is not the fact that she wants money that annoys me it is the fact that she has been given so much,
And that's HER decision.

She's free to continue to work. She decides not to.

Most people would rather stay at home with their kids than work 100 hours a week in the city...
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
(Original post by high priestess fnord)
yes and as someone who was brought up by a working mother i cant say that i would inflict that on any hypothetical kids i may have.
My parents both worked. It was fine.

Again - its HER decision to stay at home - she cant have it both ways - she cant have the relatively enjoyable and emotionally rewarding part of being with her children, and forging that relationship, AND the salary of someone who works all the hours of the day in an office cubicle.
0
reply
high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
(Original post by randdom)
My mum went back to work when I was 4 and I don't think that it had a negative impact on me at all. It can work
are you an only child?
0
reply
Andronicus Comnenus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
(Original post by Lawz-)

Most people would rather stay at home with their kids than work 100 hours a week in the city...
I'd certainly do that! I'd take looking after the kids, doing a bit of house work and indulging in a bit of amateur part-time historical research over doing some ****ty job in town. Shame blokes rarely get the luxury of such a decision...

Oh yes, the one good thing about this ruling? It's confirmed my decision to never, ever get married.
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
I hereby comdemn the judgment - it's a total façade.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
(Original post by high priestess fnord)
are you an only child?
Yes - but I know people whose parents had 3 children and both worked, and they all turned out fine.

If you cant take care of your children properly without having to work you shouldnt have them
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 12 years ago
#19
I think one factor that has been overlooked was the fact that the money grabbing second one was cheated on. Personally I believe that if being unfaithful is the cause for marital breakdown this should reflect upon the afflicted party in the divorce courts (which is does...but only if its the man who cheats currently...) but I still think these rulings are farcical - 5million when it was almost all his to start with, and 250'000 a year is much more than any amount judged worthy for child support I'm sure...so I will be happy to see when the men affected by this ruling fight back against it.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report 12 years ago
#20
I have no problem with punishing adulterers ... however this ruling does the opposite... it says conduct is irrelevant - so that even if the WOMAN was sleeping around - she gets money.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (362)
37.47%
No - but I will (74)
7.66%
No - I don't want to (67)
6.94%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (463)
47.93%

Watched Threads

View All