Is this bonkers?
David Johnson
Yes, totally bonkers. Still in the feminisation of the world, what do you expect?
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Is this bonkers?
A lot of these 'new age' people go on about how they have removed themselves from society, how they have opted out of all things that the conformists do, how people who work are playing the system, and so on. Notice how when there is loads of money that might be available though the woman says 'oh yes please, I want some of that, I want the things that those people in the society I wanted nothing to do with have, I believe in hierarchical structures of wealth and ownership (when I can be one of the ones high up on the economic totem-pole), please give me some of that cash so I can surround myself with lots of large material things like homes and cars - all things from the very society I claimed I wanted nothing to do with'. What an idiot that woman is!
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
"Still in the feminisation of the world, what do you expect?"
Feminisation of the world? You jest. In vast areas of the world, women are treated as second class citizens, mere chattels.
When it is women that make the dosh and get divorced, the boot is on the other foot. Guy Ritchie was reputed to have got ?50 million from Madonna when they divorced. She did alright before she married him and she did alright after the divorce, but still had to cough up ?50 million according to BBC News.
Feminisation of the world? You jest. In vast areas of the world, women are treated as second class citizens, mere chattels.
When it is women that make the dosh and get divorced, the boot is on the other foot. Guy Ritchie was reputed to have got ?50 million from Madonna when they divorced. She did alright before she married him and she did alright after the divorce, but still had to cough up ?50 million according to BBC News.
Re: Is this bonkers?
At the end of the day she'll probably get a couple of hundred grand, but it won't make a fraction of the column inches, and so most people who are now getting worked up about it won't even notice.
Yes, it's pretty crap that she is only retrospectively going after him for money. When they were together they had nothing; when they split they had nothing; and when the divorce finally went through they had nothing. She was left looking after their kid, and he didn't even start making money on his business until the kid was almost 18.
At the end of the day she'll probably get a couple of hundred grand tops to make up for what support he should have given her for the last couple of years until the kid turned 18 and went to live with him, anyway. This outcome, though, won't make a fraction of the column inches, and so most people who are getting worked up about it now won't even notice.
It is an unfortunate truth that in such dispute, it's usually the case that the party without the money has either little or no income, and so qualifies for Legal Aid, while the party with the money does, and so it is often cheaper for them to chuck in the towel and agree to unfair terms, rather than put up a costly fight to get something more even.
When my brother got divorced in the mid-90s, although he and his wife both worked, she was below the Legal Aid threshold, while he was well about, but couldn't actually afford legal fees. She thought she could walk away with half the joint assets and none of the joint debts (maxed out credit cards, negative equity in the house, etc.). She even tried to argue that she couldn't take on half of the debts because she'd run up loads of new ones herself after the split!
What she hadn't reckoned on was my mother doing all my brother's legal representation. At the time she was "only" a legal secretary, but having a non-qualified representative is allowable, so on the day she say down with the other side's solicitor and hacked out an agreement that pretty much split everything - assets and debts - 50/50. At the end of it, in full view of her by then seething client, the solicitor shook my mother's hand and said, "it's been a pleasure working with you, [first name]."
Most people, though, are obviously not as lucky as my brother. Sure, there are some women with are avaricious gold-diggers, but there are also plenty of men who would happily walk away from a non-working ex-wife they've supported for years/decades, without paying them a penny.
Yes, it's pretty crap that she is only retrospectively going after him for money. When they were together they had nothing; when they split they had nothing; and when the divorce finally went through they had nothing. She was left looking after their kid, and he didn't even start making money on his business until the kid was almost 18.
At the end of the day she'll probably get a couple of hundred grand tops to make up for what support he should have given her for the last couple of years until the kid turned 18 and went to live with him, anyway. This outcome, though, won't make a fraction of the column inches, and so most people who are getting worked up about it now won't even notice.
It is an unfortunate truth that in such dispute, it's usually the case that the party without the money has either little or no income, and so qualifies for Legal Aid, while the party with the money does, and so it is often cheaper for them to chuck in the towel and agree to unfair terms, rather than put up a costly fight to get something more even.
When my brother got divorced in the mid-90s, although he and his wife both worked, she was below the Legal Aid threshold, while he was well about, but couldn't actually afford legal fees. She thought she could walk away with half the joint assets and none of the joint debts (maxed out credit cards, negative equity in the house, etc.). She even tried to argue that she couldn't take on half of the debts because she'd run up loads of new ones herself after the split!
What she hadn't reckoned on was my mother doing all my brother's legal representation. At the time she was "only" a legal secretary, but having a non-qualified representative is allowable, so on the day she say down with the other side's solicitor and hacked out an agreement that pretty much split everything - assets and debts - 50/50. At the end of it, in full view of her by then seething client, the solicitor shook my mother's hand and said, "it's been a pleasure working with you, [first name]."
Most people, though, are obviously not as lucky as my brother. Sure, there are some women with are avaricious gold-diggers, but there are also plenty of men who would happily walk away from a non-working ex-wife they've supported for years/decades, without paying them a penny.