Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:44)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:42) Why should her life change just because of a divorce? Why should HIS life change just because of a divorce? Who is the victim in this case? The children!!!

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:45)

Correct ... but if she'd allowed you to live off her earnings for 10+ years(which I know you wouldn't accept) where would that leave you.

In that situation, it was my PRIVELIGE not my RIGHT to live off her money.

If we split up after a situation like that, I should get a fucking job, not scab off her.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:44)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:42) Why should her life change just because of a divorce? Why should HIS life change just because of a divorce? Who is the victim in this case? there is more to it than just him & her though Andy, I am sure the court have worked this out around the children too, not just for her, maybe you are forgetting that

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:48)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:45) Correct ... but if she'd allowed you to live off her earnings for 10+ years(which I know you wouldn't accept) where would that leave you. In that situation, it was my PRIVELIGE not my RIGHT to live off her money. If we split up after a situation like that, I should get a fucking job, not scab off her. it isnt about scabbing off anyone Andy, they have three children together & children,, believe it or not, do not come cheap

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:46)

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:44) Who is the victim in this case? The children!!! Yeah, unlucky them, having to scrape by on £400k a year. Of course the whole family are victims emotionally, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.   My parents are divorced, but fortunately my mother is not a blood-sucking leech, so they came to an amicable settlement out-of-court.

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:48)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:45) Correct ... but if she'd allowed you to live off her earnings for 10+ years(which I know you wouldn't accept) where would that leave you. In that situation, it was my PRIVELIGE not my RIGHT to live off her money. If we split up after a situation like that, I should get a fucking job, not scab off her. If she'd have fooked off with a bloke and tried to claim maintenance for herself, then fair do's (but a judge wouldn't have allowed a claim for that to go through)   They have 3 children, why should the children suffer because the marriage has failed, why should she have to go out to work because their marriage has failed?

[snowqueen]

@ liquid eyes.....i see your point, she probably would do it eventhough she didnt have kids

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:49)

believe it or not, do not come cheap

I repeat:

£400k?

[Lisa]

put it another way then Andy, why should she & THEIR three children not get anything whilst he lives on probably three times the amount she has been awarded???

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:50)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:46) QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:44) Who is the victim in this case? The children!!! Yeah, unlucky them, having to scrape by on £400k a year. Of course the whole family are victims emotionally, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.   My parents are divorced, but fortunately my mother is not a blood-sucking leech, so they came to an amicable settlement out-of-court. I repeat footballer

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:53)

why should she have to go out to work because their marriage has failed?

You've got this question completely the wrong way round. It should be:

 

"Why should she not have to work because she used to be married to a bloke who was minted?"

 

Note the words USED TO BE.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:53)

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:49) believe it or not, do not come cheap I repeat: £400k? but what is his over all earnings Andy?? Most things are worked out by means etc & im sure the 400k, is probably just a tiny amount from his wages in the big scheme of things.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:54)

why should she & THEIR three children not get anything whilst he lives on probably three times the amount she has been awarded???

Because he EARNS that money!

[Dawn]

 

Because they were MARRIED and she never had to and she has now has £400k so never will have to.

 

 

 

 

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:55)

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:53) why should she have to go out to work because their marriage has failed? You've got this question completely the wrong way round. It should be:   "Why should she not have to work because she used to be married to a bloke who was minted?"   Note the words USED TO BE. we could debate about this all day & night the fact of the matter is, she has spent the last X amount of years caring for him, their children & their home & the judicial system & law says she is entitled, so we just got to accept that, no matter how unfair it seems