Is This Right?

[Dashing Young DissidentSpectator]

Saw this as headlining news today, because the Daily Mail have f~~~ all else to print.

right or wrong?

So, does she deserve the proceeds or not?

[Dashing Young DissidentSpectator]

…”Denied the financial security of a wife”

Self entitlement at work?

[narwhalParticipant]

That article leaves out a lot of important details. First off, it’s British, so I don’t know the laws there. I could only apply US laws.

– The fact that they had kids together should be irrelevant. It was stupid on his part, but it’s irrelevant.
– The article says that the mortgage was I her name. Was it entirely in her name or was it cosigned? If he put forth the cash for the house, it’s hard to imagine he wasn’t on it somewhere.
– I would assume some sort of common law applies since they were living together. Essentially, they were married in the eyes of the law.
– Were they living together before the house was purchased?

I do not see how she would be awarded the entire proceeds from the property. I would think he should get his initial deposit back, then whatever profit is left is split between the 2.

Most of what the article says around how he treated her is completely irrelevant. If anything, he made it clear that he was not going to provide her financial support, so she should have considered an alternate source of income, other than prostitute/nanny. Or maybe just another customer.

The judge is sexist, in assuming this woman is capable of financially supporting herself, and needs special treatment.

Ok. Then do it.

[Dashing Young DissidentSpectator]

Theres quite a few American readers of The Daily Fail believe it or not 🙂

What gets me most is the “denied the financial security of a wife” statement.

She wasn’t his wife, so it now seems that she can get whatever she likes being a proxy wife. I bet you a million bucks she’d still of gotten his house if everything was in his name, because she was “denied the financial security of a wife”.

[Dashing Young DissidentSpectator]

narwhal wrote:

That article leaves out a lot of important details. First off, it’s British, so I don’t know the laws there. I could only apply US laws.

– The fact that they had kids together should be irrelevant. It was stupid on his part, but it’s irrelevant.
– The article says that the mortgage was I her name. Was it entirely in her name or was it cosigned? If he put forth the cash for the house, it’s hard to imagine he wasn’t on it somewhere.
– I would assume some sort of common law applies since they were living together. Essentially, they were married in the eyes of the law.
– Were they living together before the house was purchased?

I do not see how she would be awarded the entire proceeds from the property. I would think he should get his initial deposit back, then whatever profit is left is split between the 2.

Most of what the article says around how he treated her is completely irrelevant. If anything, he made it clear that he was not going to provide her financial support, so she should have considered an alternate source of income, other than prostitute/nanny. Or maybe just another customer.

The judge is sexist, in assuming this woman is capable of financially supporting herself, and needs special treatment.

Oops, I forgot to ask-how would this of panned out in an American court? Would she of gotten the lot?

[ILiveAgainParticipant]

DON’T MARRY, COHABIT, LIVE WITH, SHARE, PRIOMISE OR SIGN …..

ANYTHING WITH ANY WOMAN.

HOW MANY MANY TIMES DO WE SAY THIS?

You young fk studs out there …

WAKE THE FK UP AND PAY ATTENTION.

[Anonymous 42]

Your whole life is up for review before a judge in princesses court of law, she of course is above all reproach!

You go guirl, divorce rape that sucker without a marriage license, it just shows the rest of us how arbitrary and overruling the just-you system is!

Wanna get cocooned and extracted by a court of law? Just get close enough to one of it’s three hole agents!

[Mr. SpockParticipant 10911]

How long before being “denied the financial security of a wife” can be played simply by rejecting a woman who asks you to marry her? I know it seems like a far stretch but the table has been set for judges to use this term as justification to divorce rape any man whether or not he is married to the c~~~.
Makes sense she’d do this since her picture looks like she was one step away from going full impact into the wall.

Feminism isn't about equality with men, it's about leverage over men.

[Dashing Young DissidentSpectator]

Mr. Spock wrote:

How long before being “denied the financial security of a wife” can be played simply by rejecting a woman who asks you to marry you? I know it seems like a far stretch but the table has been set for judges to use this term as justification to divorce rape any man whether or not he is married.

It’s f~~~ing ridiculous isn’t it? It’s like playing the lottery and demanding the full winnings when you lose citing “false hope”.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

Dashing Young Dissident wrote:

”Denied the financial security of a wife”

Do you know why she was denied it? Because she wasn’t his f~~~ing wife. That’s like me sitting and complaining that I’m “denied the financial security of a millionaire pop star”. Ya know why? Because I’m not a millionaire f~~~ing pop star.

Women go on about how entitled men are but just look at this s~~~. You think you deserve s~~~ that’s not yours because you “feel” it should be yours. Marriage isn’t the only pitfall, fellas. Just avoid women all together to avoid s~~~ like this.

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[Author]

Posts