Divorce ruling in the UK Watch

high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Lawz-)
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
if you put your work 1st (as you have to to get promotions etc) then you arent goign to be a good parent, if you dont then you arent a good employee. something has to give, and why shouldnt a woman be compensated if her husband wont sacrifice his career to look after the kids.
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by Lawz-)
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.
Yes...I saw that too - but that has been the case for many years, so I dont see why its a shock revelation - it seems to be socially wrong to kick an adulterous woman out onto the street but a judge will happily christen your first dumpster for you if you're a man.

Fnord - that is ridiculous - there are no constraints on parenting if you wish to have a career. The whole point of parenting is that its not about how much time you spend with your children (although more is obviously preferable) it is about the quality of time you spend with them that helps you develop a relationship.
OK, a woman should get some compensation for this, but since she'll already be getting the majority of the house and possesions, is 250k a year really fair? I think not.

This is almost as bad as the case of Ray Parlour when they wife took virtually every penny he had claiming he would not have made the money had she not been beside him....he was a FOOTBALLER for christs sake!
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by high priestess fnord)
if you put your work 1st (as you have to to get promotions etc) then you arent goign to be a good parent, if you dont then you arent a good employee. something has to give, and why shouldnt a woman be compensated if her husband wont sacrifice his career to look after the kids.
Rubbish... all life is about balance. the notion that if you have a job, your children have to suffer is simply not true.

Indeed, children may benefit from having productive parents with careers, who are thus happier, and better able to provide for their needs.

The father chose not to stay at home... she could have done the same. The notion that she gets a 1/4 of a million a year for the rest of her life due to HER CHOICE is idiotic.
0
reply
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by high priestess fnord)
are you an only child?
No I am one of 3 I am the eldest so my brother was about 6 months old when my mum went back to work full time. I don't agree with what people are saying that looking after children is an easy past time. I worked as a nanny at one point and that involved looking after children and running a household. However paying a woman 250 thousand pounds a year because she gave up work. It is unlikely that she would be able to have earned that much in her working career. She should be given a fair settlement (maybe 100,000) and then child support for her children until they turn 18. The current settlement is unfair.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
Then again, the bloke has so much money that he doesn't need. The woman has his children to bring up now so of course she will need money for this.

Doesn't marraige usually mean sharing assets equally between the couple?
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by Thud)
Then again, the bloke has so much money that he doesn't need. The woman has his children to bring up now so of course she will need money for this.
It doesnt take 250k every year for the rest of HER Life to take care of the children. Its a separate award.

Who CARES if he NEEDS it? All he NEEDS is shelter, food, and air... he WORKED for that money... she didnt.

Doesn't marraige usually mean sharing assets equally between the couple?
No. And it shouldn't.
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
it did until women started to demand everything during divorce, yes...

shouldn't this mean equal share of looking after the children? Since they could be argued to be your biggest asset, i.e., the thing you value most, that only happens extremely infrequently.
Because the system is inherently biased towards women, there is a lot more fighting than there should be.

Also - I dont believe it says that she still has to care for the children, so 250'000 a year would be appropriate for that, but not for life as it states.
I'm sure if given the opportunity he would rather bring up the children himself.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by Lawz-)
It doesnt take 250k every year for the rest of HER Life to take care of the children. Its a separate award.
No it doesn't take that much, but why should she have to burden the cost of the children when they're half his anyway? He has the money to give the kids a decent life so he should do that.


From the BBC site:

"His lawyer, Jeremy Levison, said there was "some optimism" in the "extremely complicated judgements" as they did not necessarily mean that Mrs McFarlane would continue to receive payments for life.

"The court says that as and when the children are a bit older and her child-looking-after obligations diminish, they rather expect her to return to work to help herself." "

(Original post by Lawz-)
Who CARES if he NEEDS it? All he NEEDS is shelter, food, and air... he WORKED for that money... she didnt.
worked for it. :rolleyes:

(Original post by Lawz-)
No. And it shouldn't.
I thought legally it did? Something about pooling bank accounts...?
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by Thud)
worked for it. :rolleyes:
Just because you look down your noses at people who earn more than minimum wage doesn't mean he doesn't have entitlement to that money since he worked for it and I'm sure sacrificed other things he'd rather have pursued in order to do so.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by Thud)
No it doesn't take that much, but why should she have to burden the cost of the children when they're half his anyway? He has the money to give the kids a decent life so he should do that.
Clearly he should... that has nothing to do with giving her 250k every year till she dies.


worked for it. :rolleyes:
Yes... worked for it. What's your point?

I cant stand this notion that people who get paid a lot dont work for it ... ill have you know that I will regularly be working 110 hours in a week... I will have for many purposes - no life outside work at times... I sacrifice a LOT for my pay... I am entitled to reap the benefits. You want those benefits - YOU do my job ... otherwise... dont complain.
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
christ...thats quite a hefty hourage lawz...what are you doing to warrant that? (and dont say dole scum! I know they do their job more hours than that in a week for their pay...)

I agree though - if you get paid a certain amount for doing a certain job, there is a demand for your expertise that mean to require them entails such a high wage. Otherwise, what would be the financial benefits of self-improving, which is what the masses are motivated by...
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by Thud)
Then again, the bloke has so much money that he doesn't need. The woman has his children to bring up now so of course she will need money for this.

Doesn't marraige usually mean sharing assets equally between the couple?
Call me a cynic if you will but as is often the case they are her children when it comes to parental custody and his children when it comes to paying the bills.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by bikerx23)
christ...thats quite a hefty hourage lawz...what are you doing to warrant that? (and dont say dole scum! I know they do their job more hours than that in a week for their pay...)

I agree though - if you get paid a certain amount for doing a certain job, there is a demand for your expertise that mean to require them entails such a high wage. Otherwise, what would be the financial benefits of self-improving, which is what the masses are motivated by...
Corporate/banking/financial law
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by Howard)
Call me a cynic if you will but as is often the case they are her children when it comes to parental custody and his children when it comes to paying the bills.
So very very true.
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by Lawz-)
Corporate/banking/financial law
You sell out scum...I suppose it could be worse though, and when I find out how I'll tell you

Ah...heres one - you're back doing your finals again, yesterday you had 2x3hour exams, and it was your 21st birthday isn't that a bugger...
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by Lawz-)
Clearly he should... that has nothing to do with giving her 250k every year till she dies.
Did you not see the quotes from the BBC site?

"His lawyer, Jeremy Levison, said there was "some optimism" in the "extremely complicated judgements" as they did not necessarily mean that Mrs McFarlane would continue to receive payments for life.

"The court says that as and when the children are a bit older and her child-looking-after obligations diminish, they rather expect her to return to work to help herself." "


Yes... worked for it. What's your point?

I cant stand this notion that people who get paid a lot dont work for it ... ill have you know that I will regularly be working 110 hours in a week... I will have for many purposes - no life outside work at times... I sacrifice a LOT for my pay... I am entitled to reap the benefits. You want those benefits - YOU do my job ... otherwise... dont complain.
Great good for you.

Any idea what the millionaire does?
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by bikerx23)
You sell out scum...I suppose it could be worse though, and when I find out how I'll tell you
Heh ... am I for sale? Arent we all...

and believe it or not... I GENUINELY think that I do good for the world. Making credit and capital available ensures a world of growth, productivity, and raises the standard of living for us all... sounds counter-intuitive... but lawyers are a necessary part of a well structured legal system, which is a necessary part of a productive society.

Ah...heres one - you're back doing your finals again, yesterday you had 2x3hour exams, and it was your 21st birthday isn't that a bugger...
Ahh, youll be fine... Look on it this way - you celebrated your 21st with two 1st class grades?
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by Thud)
Great good for you.

Any idea what the millionaire does?
Thats inconsequential - she would be trying to clear the same gratuitously large amount of money out of him no matter how he earnt it. Since the courts in these cases are abandoning the relevance of such things in these cases, what difference does it make?
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by Lawz-)
Heh ... am I for sale? Arent we all...

and believe it or not... I GENUINELY think that I do good for the world. Making credit and capital available ensures a world of growth, productivity, and raises the standard of living for us all... sounds counter-intuitive... but lawyers are a necessary part of a well structured legal system, which is a necessary part of a productive society.
I agree completely...I would just rather employ one than be one - but thats down to my personal sensibilities more than other factors.
Ahh, youll be fine... Look on it this way - you celebrated your 21st with two 1st class grades?
Dont hold your breath...after the nightmare of an exam I had today I would be happy to get honours :eek:
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by Thud)
Did you not see the quotes from the BBC site?

"His lawyer, Jeremy Levison, said there was "some optimism" in the "extremely complicated judgements" as they did not necessarily mean that Mrs McFarlane would continue to receive payments for life.

"The court says that as and when the children are a bit older and her child-looking-after obligations diminish, they rather expect her to return to work to help herself." "
Heh... evidently you dont know lawyers - they will look for anything to point to as a win...

The fact is that she is being paid a large amount of money entirely apart from the cost of bringing up the children.

Great good for you.

Any idea what the millionaire does?
No - but he MADE a lot of money in the last 2 1/2 years ... why are you assuming he did nothing for it?
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! (499)
37.83%
No - but I will (101)
7.66%
No - I don't want to (90)
6.82%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (629)
47.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed