Originally posted by PAH
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
She just couldn't wait to spend it...
Collapse
X
-
A combination that doesn't allow the foot to be put in the mouth perhaps?Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away. -
I reckon if it was not for the kid Heather would get a lot less money - gold diggers use kids effectively to further their means.Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostBut I was suprised there was any money for the kid in the judgement.
Paul will pay £35k directly to the kid, and school feels too - that's a lot of help for any kid out there, and I think, despite never liking Paul, he won't be a complete bastard and would actually support kid a lot more in the future. Though I am sure Heather will spent every minute of her future life telling poor kid how evil the father was.Comment
-
yes - I agree with all the above. I think that residence is shared 50/50 though?Originally posted by AtW View PostI reckon if it was not for the kid Heather would get a lot less money - gold diggers use kids effectively to further their means.
Paul will pay £35k directly to the kid, and school feels too - that's a lot of help for any kid out there, and I think, despite never liking Paul, he won't be a complete bastard and would actually support kid a lot more in the future. Though I am sure Heather will spent every minute of her future life telling poor kid how evil the father was.
I do hope she moves on - it is best for the child...Comment
-
My advice to Sir P would be shut up, pay up and thank God it wasn't any worse.Originally posted by Ardesco View PostIs it just me that finds the fact that she ended up with £24 Million, despite the fact the judge said she was a compulsive liar and not at all deserving, sickening?Comment
-
I'm sure he will take that on board...Originally posted by Platypus View PostMy advice to Sir P would be shut up, pay up and thank God it wasn't any worse.
Older and ...well, just older!!Comment
-
"[Ed]Balls ... and his smug wife Yvette Cooper, who cost us, jointly, £580,000 a year in wages and allowances"Originally posted by AtW View PostBecause Labour MPs are probably not that rich
That's quite a lot of money for folks who aren't that rich.Comment
-
As I said before I never liked Paul, nor do I like him now but looking at it objectively I think his behavior was very reasonable, unlike Heather's who has shown herself a complete liar and a witch. I reckon the only reason she will get married is if she turns to a male gold digger...Originally posted by ratewhore View PostI'm sure he will take that on board...Comment
-
I am not sure the figure is that high, but that's an exception - most of Labour MPs are not very wealthy, or at least they don't want to look that way. They certainly won't be risking alienating female support base, and I doubt conservatives would risk that either. But I think this case sets a very good precedent - Heather did not automatically get 50/50 split, which in itself is a very good precedent - she only got effectively 5% of the whole, which to be fair is probably not totally unreasonable - it is only her behavior that makes people think that she got 24 mln too much.Originally posted by Platypus View Post"[Ed]Balls ... and his smug wife Yvette Cooper, who cost us, jointly, £580,000 a year in wages and allowances"
That's quite a lot of money for folks who aren't that rich.Comment
-
Why?Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostA post like that on the f4j forum and I would have banned you. Permanently.
I thought my post would have been met with some agreement from men who clearly aren't happy with the current justice system and how it seems to favour women. Sometimes unbelievably so.Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
Feist - I Feel It All
Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)Comment
-
Apparently, as well as the money he offered to buy her a plane...
>
>
>
>
>
and some hair removal cream for the other leg!!!Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Here’s Joint & Several Liability’s big misconception, and 5 key risks Today 06:59
- How to run a limited company — efficiently: smarter profit strategies Feb 27 07:13
- IR35 & Mutuality of Obligation in 2026/27: Explainer for Contractors Feb 26 07:32
- Post Office hit with ‘crazy’ £104million HMRC bill for IR35 failings Feb 25 07:03
- IR35 & Right of Substitution in 2026/27: Explainer for Contractors Feb 24 06:59
- Why Rupert Lowe MP’s Restore Britain has it wrong on IR35 Feb 23 07:21
- IR35 & Control in 2026/27: Explainer for Contractors Feb 20 07:13
- How key for IR35 will Control be in 2026/27? Feb 20 07:13
- Changes to non-compete clauses in employment contracts require ministers to tread carefully Feb 19 07:59
- What does the non-compete clause consultation mean for contractors? Feb 19 07:59

Comment