Divorce ruling - don't stop...

Jim99 said:
But that's a huge assumption. Do any of us, trilobite excepted, actually know what is typical or normal? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

What's a huge assumption?

That not every single woman who ever got divorced gave up a promising career to look after the kids?

Whilst it is an assumption I think it's a pretty safe one.

Not sure why you expect extinct marine arthropods to have the answer though! :p
 
D.P. said:
That is indeed the main reason why insecure men on OCUK get their panties I a twist.
If one of the partnership gives up a lucrative career then there is not only the missed earnings but the future missed earnings by not having been successfully proofed and continued the career path to senior levels.
Click to expand...

However I don't get interest payments from my bank because the missing funds could have generated or amassed additional income in future.

The point is that the forward projection of earnings is exactly that - an unfounded projection. Attempting to justify that is effectively like guessing the lottery and it's also based on how long the woman feels that she would have remained a mum-at-home. QED if she gets divorced then she immediately states that the plan was for her to remain at home rather than a couple of years before returning to work.

I know a mum that is attempting to return to work after full time, it's hard to get a job when you've been away for 3 years.


One thing is clear, in the past people have associated difficulties with the situation or with the economy or even "that's life". Now with the event of the legal money making machine.. it's changed, people now feel that someone must be to blame for anything and everything because life has not given their imagined dream lifestyle on a plate plus.. that blame must have a monetary value associated with it.
 
LMAO I was going to post this,

But i'm considered a misogynist/marriage hater here which to be fair is not fully accurate.

However... in this case yes. Let's all sit down together around and table and rationally agree this is just about money. We all know it is.

The fact that a woman is entitled to half of a mans business is just bat**** crazy to me and why I will never get married. I'm not dumb enough to sign a contract that guarantees I'll lose half my net worth I spent my life building up.

Any business owners here i'm sure can attest to how difficult and stressful it is to run a company and grow it. Imagine losing half of it randomly just because she wanted her disney princess wedding then you signed a form.

Yep! that'll guarantee you half of my assets, all good. Sweet deal, you'd be mad not to sign it! love and all that ****....

It all benefits the woman. That's why I guess they pressure guys into marriage....it's a crazy safety net form them. Hell woman can even cheat and still take half your ****. It's a win/win all around for them.

Mr Badger said:
I can see there is a valid point regarding husbands not being honest in the original proceedings. However, I'm struggling to find sympathy for someone who considers that a £10m settlement (plus 30% of the proceeds of shares held by her software entrepreneur husband in his company) wouldn't be enough to live on. Anyone think that she could, maybe, get a job?
Click to expand...

I agree, the men were dishonest but the fact that a woman is entitled to that much in the first place is just MIND BOGGLING. She didn't build that company lmao, why the hell does she get a cool 10 mill for having a party and signing a form?

The guys were dishonest in the first place probably because they cared about/loved these woman at some point and felt pressured into marriage, they being businessmen who are probably smart knew how much of a raw deal marriage is so they lied. I don't blame them.

So many dudes get suckered into marriage, I think it's cause we all deep down are hopeless romantics and want to be the hero of our own story like prince charming in the disney films. Except they don't show snow white getting gang banged by the 7 dwarves then divorcing the prince and taking his castle whilst shacking up her new 7 boyfriends!
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
well even the city centre here has shops that don't open until after 10am.

your telling me no jobs exist that a single mum with kids can fit in to their lifestyles ? No single mum ever managed to work or just ones with well off husbands?
Click to expand...

Of course there are some jobs that fit into that pattern, but there's really not many. Unsurprisingly there's a high demand/low availability situation.

You seem to be under the impression that all mothers with kids of school age can just walk straight into a job that sits their position. It's very much not the case.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
The fact that a woman is entitled to half of a mans business is just bat**** crazy to me and why I will never get married. I'm not dumb enough to sign a contract that guarantees I'll lose half my net worth I spent my life building up.

Any business owners here i'm sure can attest to how difficult and stressful it is to run a company and grow it. Imagine losing half of it randomly just because she wanted her disney princess wedding then you signed a form.
Click to expand...

Running a business is especially difficult and stressful when you get convicted of money laundering. Hiding £35 million in assets from the authorities must be pretty stressful too.

Gold-digging is a far worse crime than anything this guy did, right?
 
Haggisman said:
What's a huge assumption?

That not every single woman who ever got divorced gave up a promising career to look after the kids?

Whilst it is an assumption I think it's a pretty safe one.

Not sure why you expect extinct marine arthropods to have the answer though! :p
Click to expand...

No, that "in general, the defence for why the man gets milked dry is that the woman is hard done by and sacrificed a promising career to look after the kids and should therefore be compensated".

I don't know whether that's true, in court at least. I do think that's a good reason for a partner to be given money in a divorce, but I don't know how often and to what degree it's actually the reason that a judge awards money.
 
Seems a reasonable ruling to me. Judgement given without the benefit of the full facts either being disclosed or wilfully withheld.
 
You should watch the documentary Divorce Corp. Its not available for free yet on youtube but can get it from torrents or buy it to support the creator who is still paying for his mistakes. Apparently the UK is no where near as bad as the US when it comes to divorce. I still hear a lot of stories ending with the man getting the worse deal, not in the media though. The media thinks only stories where a woman lose custody of her children or didn't get their 50% are newsworthy.
 
FoxEye said:
Britain is now the best place to /in the world/ to get divorced, if you are a woman. "Divorce shopping" is now a thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/your-money/09iht-mdivorce.4538249.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



I think this will go some way to destroying marriage in future years.

Why should anyone be entitled to "lifetime earnings" of their partner? Will are talking earnings prior to the relationship, and earnings after the relationship.

If a man was to get married and divorced 3 times, the law in this country expects him to pay lifetime support to all three! It's crazy.

Also the House of Lords have enshrined in *law*, that a woman with an "expectation of living in wealth" now must be given the funds to enact that lifestyle.

Feminism, yo.
Click to expand...

Always hilarious when white knights come in to defend this stuff. I'm afraid there is nothing you can use to say that it is acceptable for some woman to be entitled to half a mans lifetime earnings.

But betas gonna beta... let them make their own grave.

True love n **** yo...
 
Last edited:
CREATIVE!11 said:
Always hilarious when white knights come in to defend this stuff.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure you know what a White Knight is.

This thread is about nobody in particular. There is no woman in it. There is nobody to impress or gain romantic privileges from. Talking about societal issues and trying to explain some of the rights of women doesn't make you a 'white knight'.

I'm afraid there is nothing you can use to say that it is acceptable for some woman to be entitled to half a mans lifetime earnings.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has suggested a woman should be entitled to 50% of a mans future earnings. I very much doubt that is ruled in many cases at all.
 
Haggisman said:
I'm not talking about this particular case really as I don't know the ins and outs of it, but in general, the defence for why the man gets milked dry is that the woman is hard done by and sacrificed a promising career to look after the kids and should therefore be compensated, when that is by no means a universal truth.
Click to expand...
You have a point but also missed one, who says its the woman who sacrificed her promising career?

Jay
 
[TW]Fox;28688342 said:
I'm not entirely sure you know what a White Knight is.
Click to expand...

You assume a single definition of White Knight while it's fairly well accepted that beta males who leap to the defence of women in threads because that's what they've been conditioned to do are White Knighting too (just with no actual possibility of reward).
 
Moley said:
(just with no actual possibility of reward).
Click to expand...

So the point in that would be.... what exactly?

The idea that explaining the reason why our justice system works the way it does in divorce cases is 'white knighting' is one of the most odd things I've ever read on here.
 
[TW]Fox;28688843 said:
So the point in that would be.... what exactly?
Click to expand...

*Exactly*

White Knighting is one of those strange beta male behaviours that just make no sense whatsoever. Much like lots of conditioned responses.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
.

But betas gonna beta... let them make their own grave.

True love n **** yo...
Click to expand...

Spent too much time on bodybuilding.com?

People that will in future be out of pocket due to supporting a partners job should be entitled to some earnings.
 
Last edited:
The Craig said:
Spent too much time on bodybuilding.com?

People that will in future be out of pocket due to supporting a partners job should be entitled to some earnings.
Click to expand...

Do I have to spend time on bb.com to come to conclusion handing over 50% of your earnings to someone is a raw deal?

If so yeah count me in. BB.com is the ****! (I don't read bb.com btw).
 
I can see a whole new industry popping up in fake weddings here.

All the glitz and glamour, every ounze of partying, real church, fake minister/officiator and fake registrar. Even includes a free vasectomy for the guy.

The veggie bacon of weddings.

I have to say this ruling given the circumstances is reasonable but women are starting to make themselves unmarryable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom