Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
As for anything about courts favouring women - whilst I doubt it is anything deliberate, results to tend to show this - there are women who makes careers out of this and get rich. Also some Solicitors tell women who are divorcing to go for it all and take the man for every penny he has. Because it is possible. The courts are a bunch of tits anyway, they make some idiotic rulings. I don't have the women - I just hate the idiocy of the rulings.
Jim V wrote:
As to the £200 million, I'm taking that with a pinch of salt at the moment, it just seems to be being pushed most by the papers whose perspective tends to see women as gold diggers.
Women get MORE than 50/50 alot of the time these days in a divorce. If a househusband were divorcing a working woman, this question, the trials, would not even have happened. We think men will "get by" somehow.
Either way. I say you take out what you put into a marriage, in the basic scenario, without kids, etc. You don't take half of the other person's stuff when you leave.
Well if she hadn't been earning (for whatever reason) and then come the end of the relationship she didn't get a good settlement then she's in a pretty fucking tight situation come the end of the marriage, isn't she.
For [a childless] example, if a woman managed the house and a man had a job and earned the wages then those are what they tangibly "put in" to the marriage. The man walks off with his previous earnings and his continuing wage (possibly quite high through consistent years of employment) and what does the woman walk off with if not a healthy cut, or the house? Maybe she should just pack up her tea cosies and Domestos and leave with what she put in, but I don't think so. If a marriage is a partnership then everything is taken to be shared, "ours", it then gets fiercly ugly when you're in splitsville and sudddnely everything becomes "mine" again.
Jim V wrote:
And remember there are still a vast number of men, especially richer men, who would encourage their wives NOT to work during the marriage.
how much do you think people are given in benefits?! it is the bare minimum.
Ok, so seeing as were having hypotheticals, how about you were married, and you were then left with nothing. You were well educated, but couldnt get a job due to lack of experience, your age and no references. You had been experiencing a good lifestyle, and we suddenly left with nothing. no home, no money and no way of getting any. But someone came up to you and said, oh its ok, we can put you on benefits.
You wont see your friends much as they live in a different area of town, you will be living with people who you feel are nothing like you, dealing with trouble you have never witnessed before and generally feeling rather shit and alone. You think someone should go through this? I dont. If their partner can afford to pay them some form of 'allowance' then that should be the way. If every woman who was divorced ended up on benefits, there would be none left for the people that need them, and eventually it will increase the taxes that come out of yours and my pockets.
It is not necessarily that the wife will be awarded 50% of the husbands estate, it is dependant on circumstances as i said before.
Jim V wrote:
I think I'd see myself as a partner not as the 'working' partner - that's why someone is a partner, not a cohabitant or a maid.
And £35 per week and living in a B&B after being thrown out by someone earning £50,000 a year?
This is why I'm not a fan of pre-nups.
dont believe everything you read.
Surley you can see why they are a good idea? In the event of breaking up... you have assured your assets are secure and you won't be screwed over! It'd also make any man you are with realise it is serious. :yes:
I never do. My parents buy the Mail. :yuck:
yeah i can see in the long run, why they are a good idea, i just dont think you should be going into marriage with the thought that it wont work long term. if this is the case, you shouldnt get married in the first place.
Damn sight better than the Mirror
I see your point.
But in the same vein, you don't get into your car expecting, or even thinking that you will crash on the journey. Yet you still fasten the seatbelt. Good to be prepared - and if both partners are intending that the relationship works - the prenup will never be needed, so no need to worry you got it?
I'd rate them about as bad as each other.
Guardian is where its at.
I dont think seriously, long and hard everytime I get in the car like I should before my wedding, but i can see your point
We were told in 1st year that we should buy the Times every day. I can honestly say I have bought it no more than the fingers I have on both hands
I have bought less papers than the fingers on both hands. I find thme on trains.
Why on earth did they tell you that though?
What I dont understand is why she should get £250,000 for life.
Basically she could live in luxury for the rest of her life now at his expense.
Not sure thats fair.
If its more close cut, then ok - but how can you justify being entitled to that money for life? Even in 30 years time he's still going to have to be shelling out money to her, how is she helping him then? She sounds like shes just out to see what she can get tbh.
im just saying she shouldnt be living in luxury because she is used to it