Victory for wealthy ex-hubby

(Excerpt) - Lord Justice Thorpe, giving his ruling in the Court of Appeal today, said: "The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity,, come to her rescue."

I think that's polite Brit speak for "GFYS you old gold-digging skank."

Legally it returns a decision that respects the principle that a DIVORCE is indeed an END to the man's vulnerability of further exploitation by his ex-mistake.

(Header, courtesy of Bob Marley... "everyday the bucket goes to the well... someday ... etc.)

Be careful before you start celebrating any "victory". The judges said the greedy, selfish gold-digger "may have entitlement to" a "modest award". Who wants to bet that they will somehow come to the conclusion that she does, and that the skank will still be gifted a good few thousands of pounds that she has not earned, does not deserve and will be filched out of her ex's hard-earned cash? Look at how the judge finds some sympathetic words for her, and hints that the ex-husband might give her more money "out of charity". Charity is for worthy causes, m'lud, not for greedy wasters.

Also note that she already had another £202,000 out of him just a year ago. That was already decades after the divorce. She has squandered that money in just one year flat, and is now coming back to the money tree for another raid.

So the principle that following a divorce a man should be completely shot of the burden of a parasitic woman, has not been conceded. The battle has still not been won. She is still allowed to lurk in his background, a constant shadow and threat to whatever he earns long after the divorce. The leech is still entitled to re-visit her victim for another good suck at any time of her choosing...

And what is the article doing by referring to her as "Mrs North"? She has not been Mrs North for nearly 30 years. Another example of journalist deceit, designed to make the readers believe that she is somehow still attached to him, that she is still his "wife" and he still has some moral obligation to her.

Poor Dennis North. If only he had had a crystal ball when he first met this creature. He would have run for his life, and been a happier and richer man today.

Look and learn, gentlemen.

I agree that it is outrageous that she even stands to get another penny out of him, but I think that Paul P is misreading the article in stating that she got another £202,000 in April last year. I think that this is the same award which has now been overturned.

Malcolm

Thanks for pointing that out, I think you are right. I guess my anger blurred my reading of the article.

But my comments still apply - why on earth is this poor devil being dragged through the courts to defend his own money from depradation by a woman who has long ceased to have anything to do with him?

Agree that the court should have thrown out the case immediately .
Agree that the there shoul dbe no modest award.

still it overturns the ruling that women are entitled from future earnings.
Which they had made two years earlier

I can sense a turn around in britain from the dark ages 2003 when fathers 4 justice exploded on the scene like a super nova.
Judges are just experimenting and expanding to gain more confidence

This guy is 70 and has a good amount of money in the bank?

Why is he still living in Britain? He would do better to leave that damned gold diggers paradise (just ask Sir Paul, ha, ha) behind in the dust!

Men have got to stop being sitting targets for this crap! An ounce of prevention is worth more than a ton of cure as the saying goes.