Divorce ruling in the UK Watch

Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#101
Report 12 years ago
#101
(Original post by Thud)
lol - it looks awesome. :cool:
It was good in its day!
0
reply
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#102
Report 12 years ago
#102
(Original post by Thud)
Because it blatantly was.

Disapproving of other people expressing their opinions.
As I have said many times - you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that that was me. Also, may I inform you that I am actually worth -88...so stop whinging or you'll find out.

Also - you will find that it is not people of a right wing perspective who wish to shut people up - just look who is inflicting political correctness on the public.
0
reply
completely random
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 12 years ago
#103
The first ruling (McFarlanes) is a little easier to comprehend in some respects. While the wife did give up her career after the birth of the second child to raise the family and she should be compensated for this, to the extent that she was has angered me. Her side had already been offered a substantial settlement for the provision of both her and the children in the future, which was rejected because they wanted more. Whether this is solely due to greedy lawyers I don't know. But a third of his future earnings seems extremely excessive in addition to everything she got already. I know women used to be treated incredibly harshly by the divorce courts but I fear we have gone too far the other way. As to the Miller ruling, I'm utterly disgusted. This woman will be earning 85k a year when she goes back to work, and she gets 5m for a childless marriage lasting less than three years??? She didn't give up work to raise children and her career prospects have not been harmed at all. She got the 4m house as well! I don't envy her, I pity her. And in an era of post-feminism, I'm ashamed.

Now this is precedent can you imagine how much Heather Mills is going to get in her divorce settlement? 200m - thats a quarter of McCartney's wealth - for a four year marriage? This is wealth built up substantially before he met her - if she gets that much I will be very shocked, but I can see it happening.

Who's for a pre-nup? (yes I know they aren't legally binding...)

I have read about a woman recently who had to pay her husband a substantial amount, leaving her worse off than before though.....
0
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#104
Report 12 years ago
#104
Stories like this are what make me raise an eyebrow, upon hearing the saying "it's a man's world".
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! (502)
37.8%
No - but I will (102)
7.68%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.85%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (633)
47.67%

Watched Threads

View All