Divorce ruling in the UK Watch

Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#61
Report 12 years ago
#61
(Original post by Howard)
I'm aghast that anyone could do such a thing. I bet he drowns puppies in his spare time.
Howard - always good for an audible laugh on my end... heh....

Perhaps that is how he made his money - good money in Andrex-pupp-coats and beadspreads.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 12 years ago
#62
(Original post by cally)
Now then. Put into a realistic context. Person A marries Person B who is a rich TV host/ess (again non gender specific). Person A demands divorce after a year. Still gets plenty of Person B's money. Simply as he/she expected to live a rich and easy life.
Actually it can be worse - Person B could well sleep around and be chronically unfaithful... and STILL get a HUGE sum... apparently conduct is irrelevant...
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#63
Report 12 years ago
#63
(Original post by cally)
Brief personal summary of anger:

1: It creates two-tier system.
2: Blatantly sexist. At least in this case. This, along with "maternity" (as opposed to the often paltry amounts of paternity leave you get) and courts continually siding with the mother makes me dispair at how a society which once complained about female opression can hypocritically do the same to males nowadays.
3: Removes circumstancial evidence - WHICH IS THE ONLY BLOODY THING TO STOP GOLD DIGGERS - GENDER REGARDLESS!!!

Strikes me as a decision made by lawyers (or more appropriately put; lawmakers) FOR lawyers: more gold diggers - quicker cases - more lawyers' fees and money. SIGH.

Now then. Put into a realistic context. Person A marries Person B who is a rich TV host/ess (again non gender specific). Person A demands divorce after a year. Still gets plenty of Person B's money. Simply as he/she expected to live a rich and easy life.

Absolutely sick. Ridiculous. Was there ever a law more designed to promote inappropriate behaviour? If this ever became the general concensus, society would destroy itself though utter selfishness.
Which brings me onto another subject. Should divorce be made a lot more difficult? Would it check some of this utterly selfish behaviour? I think it should and would.
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#64
Report 12 years ago
#64
(Original post by Lawz-)
Actually it can be worse - Person B could well sleep around and be chronically unfaithful... and STILL get a HUGE sum... apparently conduct is irrelevant...
I think its called a "no fault law" for this very reason.
0
reply
cally
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#65
do you mean person a, lawz? the example was portraying person a as the gold digger...
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#66
Report 12 years ago
#66
(Original post by cally)
do you mean person a, lawz? the example was portraying person a as the gold digger...
Yes - sorry - my fault... person A.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#67
Report 12 years ago
#67
(Original post by Howard)
It's an outrage! He brought all the materials, labour, and equipment he needed at one price, and then proceeded to use those resources to produce something which he sold at an even higher price while pocketing the bit in between!!

I'm aghast that anyone could do such a thing. I bet he drowns puppies in his spare time.
Yes, pocketed the bit in between.

Exploited the workers by paying them rubbish wages which kept them down whilst making massive profits off their backs.
0
reply
cally
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#68
(Original post by Howard)
Which brings me onto another subject. Should divorce be made a lot more difficult? Would it check some of this utterly selfish behaviour? I think it should and would.
It may well do, but you'd have the worlds freedom lovers knocking at your door demanding they regain the right to gold digging quick-and-easy.

Plus, think of what it does to the kids if the divorce is genuine - rather than for the sake of getting money. Long divorce = sad kids and so on.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#69
Report 12 years ago
#69
(Original post by Thud)
No it was entirely justified. I got -82 rep for my first post in this thread:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=230488
And you know it was him how?

And that makes fascism relevant how?
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#70
Report 12 years ago
#70
(Original post by Thud)
Yes, pocketed the bit in between.

Exploited the workers by paying them rubbish wages which kept them down whilst making massive profits off their backs.
WHats to stop the "workers" selling their products themselves and cutting him out?
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#71
Report 12 years ago
#71
(Original post by Thud)
Yes, pocketed the bit in between.

Exploited the workers by paying them rubbish wages which kept them down whilst making massive profits off their backs.
Exploited? Or employed?

Massive profit? What's your definition of an "acceptable" profit? Oh, sorry, I forgot - under the new Marxist order we're all going to get by by swapping turnips with one another.:rolleyes:
0
reply
BlackpoolCraig
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#72
Report 12 years ago
#72
In the miller VS miller case, the woman should have been shot!

Well, not quite, but it's ridiculous that she got so much money. Then again, it'll teach the guy to get a pre-nup.
0
reply
cally
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#73
(Original post by Thud)
Yes, pocketed the bit in between.

Exploited the workers by paying them rubbish wages which kept them down whilst making massive profits off their backs.
PROVE IT.
He may have offered the best wage in the industry.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#74
Report 12 years ago
#74
To a Commie - Profit = exploitation.

The truest thing you'll ever hear - Commies obssess about the sharing of wealth so much they ignore the question of the creation of it.
0
reply
Amnesia
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 12 years ago
#75
I agree with most people on the thread that this was a ridiculous decision. Why on earth they awarded these women so much money I don't know. It just gives a free reign to gold-digging *****es. Everyone should get pre-nup agreements now.
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#76
Report 12 years ago
#76
(Original post by BlackpoolCraig)
In the miller VS miller case, the woman should have been shot!

Well, not quite, but it's ridiculous that she got so much money. Then again, it'll teach the guy to get a pre-nup.
Pre-nuptial agreements have no strength in UK law. The judge may refer to them as a guide to what the parties intended or he may dispose of them in a shredder. What he does with them is at his entire discretion.
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#77
Report 12 years ago
#77
(Original post by Lawz-)
And you know it was him how?

And that makes fascism relevant how?
Because it blatantly was.

Disapproving of other people expressing their opinions.

(Original post by Lawz-)
WHats to stop the "workers" selling their products themselves and cutting him out?
They haven't got the money for the machinery so have to sell their labour.

They get pittance for selling their labour, and therefore cannot raise the capital required for machinery etc.

ie. it's a vicious cycle.

(Original post by cally)
PROVE IT.
He may have offered the best wage in the industry.
That's why I asked what he did.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#78
Report 12 years ago
#78
(Original post by Thud)
Disapproving of other people expressing their opinions.
You mean like under Communisim?

They haven't got the money for the machinery so have to sell their labour.

They get pittance for selling their labour, and therefore cannot raise the capital required for machinery etc.

ie. it's a vicious cycle.
*******s. Plenty of people borrow the money and start their own business... they could group together and buy the machinery...

regardless... they sell their labour for what its worth... why should they get more than its worth?
0
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#79
Report 12 years ago
#79
(Original post by Lawz-)
You mean like under Communisim?
No, it's perfectly ok under Communism.

(Original post by Lawz-)
*******s. Plenty of people borrow the money and start their own business... they could group together and buy the machinery...

regardless... they sell their labour for what its worth... why should they get more than its worth?
Possibly they don't think of it? Or the banks refuse to lend them money?


Who determines what their labour is worth? The capitalist. Is the capitalist, who's primary interest is profit, going to be fair about this? no.
0
reply
Lawz-
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#80
Report 12 years ago
#80
(Original post by Thud)
No, it's perfectly ok under Communism.
Many of those from the former USSR, from China, or from Cuba would be glad ot hear that.




Possibly they don't think of it? Or the banks refuse to lend them money?
If they dont think about it - then that's their fault...

It's impossible to properly "exploit" people in the UK, where there is a minimum wage, and the ability to retrain for better jobs...

Who determines what their labour is worth? The capitalist. Is the capitalist, who's primary interest is profit, going to be fair about this? no.
The market - ie you, me, everyone. The value of something is what others are willing to give for it. How else do you determine value? By refernce to some addle minded romantic notion of "workers"? Whatever they are....
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! (254)
38.84%
No - but I will (45)
6.88%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.19%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (308)
47.09%

Watched Threads

View All