Divorce, sexism & gold-digging

[Dawn]

Well as much as i'm loving this 'debate' i'm off shopping!!!

 

Now did I earn it or did I scab it off my X

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:56)

im sure the 400k, is probably just a tiny amount from his wages in the big scheme of things.

No, it's over a third of his salary.

[Guest]

QUOTE (Dawn @ Jul 9 2004, 15:59)

Well as much as i'm loving this 'debate' i'm off shopping!!! Now did I earn it or did I scab it off my X

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 15:56)

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! yes & she looked after the children & the home in the meantime & was unable to work, her aside, he still has three children who need feeding, clothed, schooling & a roof kept over their head & the courts have decided he earns enough to be able to pay them 400K, so thats that.

[Lisa]

im off to find a footie player

 

I agree with you Andy about the amount she has been awarded etc but thats the shitter of earning so much & being married with kids I guess

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:58)

the judicial system & law says she is entitled, so we just got to accept that, no matter how unfair it seems

Sorry, I forgot this was a stupid convention.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:03)

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:58) the judicial system & law says she is entitled, so we just got to accept that, no matter how unfair it seems Sorry, I forgot this was a stupid convention. wel, us debating here sure as hell aint gonna help the poor sod is, now who's stupid!!!

[LiquidEyes]

Blatantly you guys haven't even read the article. You are clutching at straws with your arguments about the cost of bringing up children.

 

The majority of the money was allocated for her personal use anyway, not for the kids.

 

I want to marry her!

[Guest]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:03)

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:58) the judicial system & law says she is entitled, so we just got to accept that, no matter how unfair it seems Sorry, I forgot this was a stupid convention. Well it is true - we DO just have to accept the outcome.   Nothing we can do to change that - if the judge says it's acceptable, then 'that's that'.   We all have a right to opinionate the matter, but you don't really know the exact circumstances why that ammount of money is agreed for her to have.   You have your opinion, and others have their opinion.   Just how it shoud be.   aaah

[Guest]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:05)

I want to marry her!

Get a fucking job you scab.

[Alex]

Should have signed a prenup.

[Alex]

Plus I agree that the decision has set a dangerous precedent.

[Lisa]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:03)

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 15:58) the judicial system & law says she is entitled, so we just got to accept that, no matter how unfair it seems Sorry, I forgot this was a stupid convention. well, considering you started this debate, id say that makes you head of the stupid bunch eh??   I have read the article Andy & I did see where it say's she gets over 400K for personal gain & I do agree with you that it is way too much, but I still think there is probably more to this than meets the eye etc, the quickie divorce so on & so on!!

[Dawn]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jul 9 2004, 16:05)

Blatantly you guys haven't even read the article. You are clutching at straws with your arguments about the cost of bringing up children. The majority of the money was allocated for her personal use anyway, not for the kids. I want to marry her!

I have read it and yes £406k + was awarded to her personally

 

You tell me how she is supposed to go out and find a job to keep her children perhaps in private education or indeed the style they've became acustomed to, when the choice was made in their marriage for there to be a full time parent brining them up, which just so happened to be her. Just because the marriage has failed why should she have to go and find a job.

 

Why should their children suffer because of it.

 

The amount was only reached purely because of him being a footballer, being used to that amount of money week in week out, i'm sure she'd have fell in love with him no matter what career choice he'd made.

[LiquidEyes]

QUOTE (Lisa @ Jul 9 2004, 16:15)

but I still think there is probably more to this than meets the eye etc

I disagree. I agree we don't know the full[/] facts. But there is probably very little to it.

 

1. She had a good lawyer and no morals.

2. Our divorce system is outdated and unfair, and ruled in her favour.

 

Are you guys seriously saying we shouldn't even bother discussing the matter, just because we can't change anything personally?

 

Maybe we should ban debates altogether?

 

I'm going back to the "random bollocks" forum to discuss my faeces. Sorry, I meant the "general chat" forum.