She just couldn't wait to spend it...

[miffy]

If this was to be considered "fair" I'd say the £24m should go to the daughter and peg leg gets the 35k a year (subject to PAYE of course).

I'd make a good judge I think

[AtW]

Why are the powers that be not interested in changing the divorce laws? Especially when most of them are men and are likely to have close experience of being stung by a gold-digger or complete bitch.

Because Labour MPs are probably not that rich to be worried about it and such action might be deemed by the women as declaration of war against them.

UK laws are unfortunately rather wrong in this area - splitting 50/50 even including money definately earned before marriage is complete travesty of justice. Perhaps if it was Linda divorcing Paul after like 25-30 years of marriage, then one could argue she deserves maybe even 50%, but the law effectively forces high payout - Paul is lucky in a way that Heather turned out to be a liar and the judge wrote it all down accurately, that's why payout is 24 mln, not 124 mln.

[AtW]

I'd make a good judge I think

How many years of prison you'd give to speculants?

[BrilloPad]

I agree. The Judge, unfortunately, did not have legal power to give her nothing and only money for the kid - also since Paul offered around £16 mln anyway, then his sum is not that far off original offer. This was all done to avoid her having a single point in law to appeal.

Good post.

But I was suprised there was any money for the kid in the judgement. If I was Heather I would have gone to the CSA. I thgink his earnings are £15m this year? 15% = £2.25m. A bit more than £35k...

[BrilloPad]

If this was to be considered "fair" I'd say the £24m should go to the daughter and peg leg gets the 35k a year (subject to PAYE of course).

I'd make a good judge I think

But the money does go the the daughter! The interests of the mother and that of the child are the same.

The 1989 Childrens Act implied equality for both parents. But judges, via case law, have given all rights to the mother.

Sir Paul was luck not to have to give 65%-70% of £800m.

You have alot to learn to be a judge...

[Archangel]

Here's an old Times story from her ex boyfriend, worth another read:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle722871.ece

SFW

[BrilloPad]

Why are the powers that be not interested in changing the divorce laws? Especially when most of them are men and are likely to have close experience of being stung by a gold-digger or complete bitch.

A post like that on the f4j forum and I would have banned you. Permanently.

[oracleslave]

Here's an old Times story from her ex boyfriend, worth another read:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle722871.ece

SFW

Good post.Enjoyed reading that.

[ratewhore]

Good post.

But I was suprised there was any money for the kid in the judgement. If I was Heather I would have gone to the CSA. I thgink his earnings are £15m this year? 15% = £2.25m. A bit more than £35k...

She CAN go to the CSA. In a years time...

Macca did better than me, in %age terms at least.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Why are the powers that be not interested in changing the divorce laws? Especially when most of them are men and are likely to have close experience of being stung by a gold-digger or complete bitch.

They are all lawyers. The law is run by Lawyers, for lawyers and you're not welcome - one of the few things that I agree with Hatstand Heather about.

It's not about what is fair. If the law was reasonable or fair you'd spend less time (and more pertinently, money) in Lawyers offices and Courts and that'd never do.

The point of the process is the process itself, not you. Decisions vary from place to place and judge to judge to judge. Your lawyer will explain that certain courts or judges prefer cases to be presented in a particular way compared with others.

The whole thing is a joke.

I am never getting married again.