Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Biggest divorce award in UK...ever

BillieTheBotBillieTheBot Posts: 8,721 Bot
in Politics & Debate
Too fucking right.

The best quote was this greedy pathetic man decrying the "grotesque" award by saying that his £20m offer was "more than any reasonable person could ever spend in their lifetime", and that giving her anymore was, like, totally unfair.

So what about the £18m you're arguing about then, or are you not reasonable, you stupid greedy prig?

For the record, her settlement is about 1/3rd of what he is worth. They've been married 30 years.

He's appealing...I hope they increase the settlement.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But how much of that money did she help him make?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If both of them had nothing going in to the marriage, then I find it fair that she should get half of the wealth he has accumulated while married. After all, if his buisness had failed she would have been living in poverty.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no reason why she should be entitled to anything more than a fraction of his wealth, presuming she contributed nothing to the business.

    Any chance for some wanton man-hate though, eh?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but shes contributed to who he is as a person, being there when he is down, being there to support him in times of need, love is pricesless, so why shouldnt she get all that money
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Spliffie wrote:
    There is no reason why she should be entitled to anything more than a fraction of his wealth, presuming she contributed nothing to the business.

    Any chance for some wanton man-hate though, eh?

    i would agree.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    in this case i agree, they were together a long time, and this agrees with my idea of how settlements should work out in that assets gained whilst together should be split equally, and since she didnt start up the business, she should only get less than half, and shes got 37%ish so thats about right


    the only problem is that his money is in bermuda mainly :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    There is no reason why she should be entitled to anything more than a fraction of his wealth, presuming she contributed nothing to the business.

    Any chance for some wanton man-hate though, eh?

    You cannot be married, if you think that a woman cannot contribute to a business if she isn't directly working for it.

    Besides, remember the vows? She should have got half.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    she should get half. They both had nothing when they met, theyve been together THIRTY YEARS. Why do some people try and wangle out of what is right?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What are people's opinions of the Paul McCartney & Heather Mills case? They were married 4 years and by then Paul had long ago earned the immense majority of wealth he's ever had.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What are people's opinions of the Paul McCartney & Heather Mills case? They were married 4 years and by then Paul had long ago earned the immense majority of wealth he's ever had.

    Which is exactly why she doesn't deserve much at all (that said, the not much is compared to his fortune. If I was handed the "not much" I'd be over the mood).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    she should get half. They both had nothing when they met, theyve been together THIRTY YEARS. Why do some people try and wangle out of what is right?

    Agreed! Even if she was not directly involved in the business, she was there to give him emotional and moral support and probably took even more strain bringing up the kids and holding the home together while he was out.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have no interest in how rich a couple of spoilt, pathetically squabbling millionaires are, they should both have all their money confiscated for bahavinh like children........
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i wish my mum was getting this much off my dad when they divorce!
    it depends how much she actually contributed to his business.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Paul McCartney shouldnt have to give a penny to Heather Mills at all! The only money that he he should be made to pay towards her is what is going to go to their child and thats it. He earned his money long ago, and it is his, except for what he is responsible for providing for his child.

    As for this case, i think a settlement of afew Million would have been sufficient, after all, she may have been with him through thick and thin but its not like he hasnt always provided anything and everything she has ever wanted. Ergo, a few million should be enough since she didnt earn the rest of it, he did. My opinion of the matter.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    You cannot be married, if you think that a woman cannot contribute to a business if she isn't directly working for it.

    It's not a case of 'cannot' but presumbly 'did not'. Being married to someone does not by default equate to making a substantial contribution to their business.

    Obviously she is entitled to a share of his wealth, that's only fair if she hasn't pursued a career as a result of the marriage - but to deny £20m is a fair offer would be ridiculous.
    Besides, remember the vows? She should have got half.

    From a legal standpoint, maybe; from an ethical standpoint, I'd like to see someone try to justify it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    It's not a case of 'cannot' but presumbly 'did not'. Being married to someone does not by default equate to making a substantial contribution to their business.

    Obviously she is entitled to a share of his wealth, that's only fair if she hasn't pursued a career as a result of the marriage - but to deny £20m is a fair offer would be ridiculous.

    If £20m is enough for anyone, then why are we arguing? Surely he should be happy with being left with a damned sight more than that?

    While he worked she kept the house and raised the children. I know from my own life that her job was no easier than his, was no less stressful etc especially when she was doing it alone because he was off making the family's living.

    Marriage is a partnership, it's why the vows are like they are. When a partnership dissolves they each get an equal share.
    From a legal standpoint, maybe; from an ethical standpoint, I'd like to see someone try to justify it.

    And this is a legal issue. Hence the fairness.

    If it was moral then perhaps we could ask why he thought being a business man was more important than being a father/husband etc...?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If what is in the BBC report is true and that an offer of £20 Million was made with the rest supposed to go to his relatives to look after them long term then I don't see the problem.

    £20 million is alot of money for anyone, the only winners in a divorce are the lawyers!!

    There's nothing in that news report to say how much his family shaped his life in the 20 or so years before he met his future wife... or how much support they gave him during his marriage with his business or otherwise..

    All that happens if that money is taken out of trust is the tax man will get more of his hands on it
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course she should get half. She looked after the kids and house. If she hadn't he wouldn't have been able to make all that money.

    What's really shocking is the amount of money sloshing around in the city. That is obscene.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Of course she should get half. She looked after the kids and house. If she hadn't he wouldn't have been able to make all that money.

    What's really shocking is the amount of money sloshing around in the city. That is obscene.
    Good point.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He could have hired an au pair/nanny and a house keeper ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    And a prostitute too I would imagine.

    Add up the cost of a full time nanny, house kepper and prostitute for thirty years, and you're looking at an awful lot of money. Perhaps not £20 million, but a hell of a lot.
    Whoa, where does the prostitute come into it? Surely you're not suggesting that a wife only sleeps with her husband to please him?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Did he hire a nanny or a housekeeper anyway? Who is to say she did actually raise their kids very much or tend to the house, she may have been out shopping, etc most of the time, living the high life or what ever. If so, then that changes things dramatically. It doesnt say in the link to the story about the living arrangements did it? because i didnt see if it did when i read it, but id like to know more details about the living arrangements.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SuzyCreamcheese wrote:
    she should get half. They both had nothing when they met


    who's to say he wouldn't have accumulated the same wealth had he not met his wife?

    poor man.
  • Options
    Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    "Divorce award"? That makes it sound like he says "Thanks for divorcing me, I hope everyone would do it but the world isn't perfect... Here's your prize!". :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Considering the length of this marriage, and the wealth amassed whilst the couple were together, I think the verdict was about right. I would certainly not complain, however, if the settlement towards the woman was increased in future.
    Aladdin wrote:
    What are people's opinions of the Paul McCartney & Heather Mills case? They were married 4 years and by then Paul had long ago earned the immense majority of wealth he's ever had.
    That should definitely be taken into account whenever this case is heard. I can already imagine the headlines. The Daily Mail's front page will decry Heather Mills, with a headline shouting out "PORN STAR GOLD DIGGER" or something equally daft.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lucifer devil wrote:
    who's to say he wouldn't have accumulated the same wealth had he not met his wife?

    Who's to say that she wouldn't have made more either?
    poor man.

    Over £70m is not poor by any definition I know.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Who's to say that she wouldn't have made more either?

    that's ridiculous. from what i've read she didn't contribute anything towards him earning his money through his business so why should she be entitled to half of it!

    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Over £70m is not poor by any definition I know.



    i didn't mean poor as in had no money. :\
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's somewhat amusing that people who don't give a fuck about marriage or oppose it in principle are now using it as an argument for splitting the wealth 50/50.
Sign In or Register to comment.