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

[PAH]

As SueEllen has said 25% are women f4j. are striving for equality and that the interests of the child should come first.

The law is fine - it is getting the 1989/1996 Children Act implemented which is the issue.

Ok, this is a rare occasion: I apologise.

Was commenting as someone who has no first-hand experience so bound to be a bit out of touch with reality.

[SueEllen]

Interstingly I have got the best results in court from female judges! They expect women to work and not just look after children - which is what the male judges think.

Personally I'm not surprised. Think how difficult it would be to be a female judge particularly if you have children. The lawyers I know work stupid hours.

[BrilloPad]

Why?

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.

Your comments were "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."

As SueEllen has said 25% are women f4j. are striving for equality and that the interests of the child should come first.

The law is fine - it is getting the 1989/1996 Children Act implemented which is the issue.

Interstingly I have got the best results in court from female judges! They expect women to work and not just look after children - which is what the male judges think.

Of couse while women do not have equality in the workplace men will not get equality in the home.

[BrilloPad]

The night before the judgement Macca was about to sign an agreement for 55million pounds to shut her up. His legal representative managed to argue the case with him that the judge was very likely to agree to much less than that sum.
So, Heather actually lost out on another 30 million at the last minute. That must really hurt her and could well be the reason she gave the lawyer a 'baptism in court' with a jug of water.

I thought any deal with macca included a gagging order? How much is Heather's story worth? I dont care but there are alot who do.

[threaded]

You could be on the radio with material like that.

He is rather good, isn't he.

[bogeyman]

What's the difference between Heather Mills and Northern Rock?

One has got 25 million quid, is a bit wobbly and ****s old people with lots of savings.

The other ones a building society.

You could be on the radio with material like that.

[darmstadt]

What's the difference between Heather Mills and Northern Rock?

One has got 25 million quid, is a bit wobbly and ****s old people with lots of savings.

The other ones a building society.

[Cyberman]

Is 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?

The night before the judgement Macca was about to sign an agreement for 55million pounds to shut her up. His legal representative managed to argue the case with him that the judge was very likely to agree to much less than that sum.
So, Heather actually lost out on another 30 million at the last minute. That must really hurt her and could well be the reason she gave the lawyer a 'baptism in court' with a jug of water.

[PAH]

That's unfair for long marriages. In LA I think they have something where if you are married under 10 years then pre-nups count after that it is a 50-50 split. Obviously it means the richer partner if s/he is getting itchy feet files for divorce in year 9.

Maybe that's where the seven year itch originated from.

Yeah, not many true gold-diggers would stick around for that long unless they were happy with the meal ticket, or married a much older bloke/bird and hoped they'd pop their clogs sooner than later.

[SueEllen]

Yeah, I can see how paying maintenance to an ex-partner can be somewhat frustrating, especially if you feel they are taking you for a ride rather than being fair and pulling their weight.

Maybe a fairer system would be an automatic pre-nuptial agreement if both partners cannot bring an equal share to a marriage.

That's unfair for long marriages. In LA I think they have something where if you are married under 10 years then pre-nups count after that it is a 50-50 split. Obviously it means the richer partner if s/he is getting itchy feet files for divorce in year 9.

[PAH]

That way fathers would pay for their offspring and know that they are not paying maintenance for their ex-partner, as she is expected to get a job.

Yeah, I can see how paying maintenance to an ex-partner can be somewhat frustrating, especially if you feel they are taking you for a ride rather than being fair and pulling their weight.

Maybe a fairer system would be an automatic pre-nuptial agreement if both partners cannot bring an equal share to a marriage.

[SueEllen]

F4J

Sorry.

[oracleslave]

25% of FFJ members are women.

And there are women on this board and a few women professionals I know who if they end up divorced are likely to lose out similarly to men.

F4J

[SueEllen]

Why?

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.

25% of FFJ members are women.

And there are women on this board and a few women professionals I know who if they end up divorced are likely to lose out similarly to men.

Anyway I wish sometimes this country was more like Scandinavian countries where you were not expected to be married to have children. (One thing I dislike about the Tories.) That way fathers would pay for their offspring and know that they are not paying maintenance for their ex-partner, as she is expected to get a job.

[Diver]

Apparently, as well as the money he offered to buy her a plane...

>
>
>
>
>
and some hair removal cream for the other leg!!!