|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 PM October 11th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
What a frightening article!
British men are being slaughtered financially in divorce courts where vicious gold-digging predators can walk away automatically with 50% of his assets, and then the real legal raping beings...
A generous percentage of his future earnings (termed "surplus") must be paid to the ex-wife.
Through marriage, any skank gains "a legitimate entitlement to a long-term future on a higher plane of affluence." (Even if it is a very short-term marriage.)
"'equality' should be the yardstick, and only with "good reason" should the courts discriminate financially between husband and wife. 'If, in their different spheres, each contributed equally to the family, then in principle it matters not which of them earned the money and built up the assets,' Lord Nicholls declared. 'There should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the homemaker and the child-carer.'"
A man's money inherited before the marriage is fair game, as well as any expected inheritance in the future.
Pre-nups are less than worthless and are routinely dismissed by the courts.
The article includes comments from Brit men saying that marriage is now a dead institution in the land of Camelot.
I guess we fellows here in the USA should put VAWA 2005 in perspective?
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought that divorce laws were worse (for men, of course) in the US than here in Britain. I guess we're catching up though. We don't have an equivalent of the VAWA but nonetheless it is pretty much an unwritten law that a claim of domestic violence by a woman will see the man arrested despite lack of evidence. Child custody rulings are heavily in favour of women too of course.
As depressing as the article is, though, its impressive that it managed to appear in the mainstream press. Every man with a brain knows that he'll be the one financially shafted in event of a divorce, but normally the media (much of it catering heavily to women) tries to ignore this fact and hope we won't notice it.
Hopefully there should be some men considering marriage in the UK who stumble across this, see the light and avoid marriage like the plague until some sort of fairness is hammered into the divorce laws.
Also, hopefully there will be some women who read it and think "Uh-oh. They're on to us. Damn!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:21 AM October 12th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the first time there's a high profile public case of one of these "superwomen" - (y'know, those who can have babies and multitask and empathise and all the things that men can't), there'll be an outcry about how an independent woman has to pay a lazy workshy husband.
Joking aside, I would not be surprised to see a test case which ruled differently for a woman in that case on the basis that "women's recent economic independence should be protected and the man can achieve the same earning levels if he had commited to work in the same way his wife had." On that basis, expect to see legislation protecting the income of high earning women sometime in the future.
And actually, I wouldn't bet against the USA beating the UK to it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Fantastic article