|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 03:22 PM January 30th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about high priced pussy! Sorry Folks! I just don't believe it! With all the movements and information that is out, how can they even try and get away with this? Merry old England isn't so merry anymore, eh what? We will see what those "lords" wear under their robes. Either pants, or panties!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by dipy911
(dipy911@Nunya.com)
on 04:45 PM January 30th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
And they want the same salary as if they had been working 16 years as solicitor. Actually, according to another thread, she should make as much as her husband(sorry that's canada).
dipy911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The good thing is that stories like this will make it clear to other men, don't get married.
If you are married already, kick her out before things get worse.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 08:29 PM January 30th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Bert said:
"If you are married already, kick her out before things get worse."
I agree in principle, but you have to do it the most effective way. Wait until she is out of the house, get a restraining order because you are "in fear" of her, specify that she must be kept away from the children because you are afraid she might seek to retaliate through them, clean out all the bank accounts and cancel all the credit cards. Make sure a sheriff is on hand when she comes by to pick up her allowed personal posessions, and don't react if/when she gets abusive - but make sure the sheriff is there as a witness. Get a few more witnesses as well, if possible. File for divorce AT ONCE. Never, ever let her into the house overnight. Never let her have the children overnight. Go for full custody in the divorce decree, since the children are in their customary home and being cared for by their parent and primary caregiver.
A man I know of down in LA found out his wife was planning on "Pearl Harboring" him in just this way, and did it to her first. It can be done.
It's their law - let them live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:49 PM January 30th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Good advice! The sad fact is that most of the time it is the women that go for a divorce first. But, all the same sage advice for those that are considering a divorce. The problem is though that most Men that I have known wouldn't stupe to that level unless it was true, that is where the women that do this have the edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I agree with you Tom, When I said "Kick her out" I didn't mean literally from one moment to the other. How to get rid of her should indeed be thought over well. But no matter what, today men have nothing to win and everything to lose, so the best is to tell boys and young men "Don't do it".
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:15 PM January 30th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The U.K. divorce law story illustrates a frightening and seemingly irreversible legal trend ... that is, any man who marries shall pay for that "privilege" FOR EVER AFTER ...
It matters not whether he pays during a lifetime marriage (and dies conveniently on schedule 7 years earlier than his beloved cupcake); or whether he pays after cupcake divorces him (70% of divorces being initiated by women who's main reason is that "he's not fulfilling my needs...")
Once married, apparently the man is delusional to believe that his efforts to create a career, make money, and become successful are entirely due to his own work.
Oh no! At least 50% of what he accomplishes is due to his being "complimented" by his soulmate, who may or may not actually make any meaningful contributions, other than spending his wages and breeding him into inescapable wage-slavery.
There is a federal law against racketeering, but apparently it does not apply to the predators who fuel the marriage-divorce industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:16 AM January 31st, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right Roy! But don't forget their invaluable training to nag a Man into being uncomfortable within their own home. How else would so many Men become either workaholics, and or alcoholics? I suppose the system is just trying to compensate them for making Men miserable so that they can be abused even more! The truth shall set you free, or depress the living hell out of you! "It is a good day to die!" By the way, after 20 years of marriage when my Father died at age 48 my Mother "bragged" that she made my Father miserable for those 20 years. She was proud of that fact. I at least thank her for being honest about certain things!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:50 AM January 31st, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It might work if we could get all Males to ignore the propaganda that they are targeted with beginning at birth. I mean you would have to have a strong Family unit to keep that from happening right? Oh, the government has already taken care of the Family here in the U.S. haven't they? I guess they just get away with their mass psychological manipulation of entire generations as we suffer so they can preserve "their" Families places of privelage! Now the only ones that are comming out of this looking like they might have the answer is organized religion, talk about propaganda! We have been played, and played well Folks! Control is the only ends that this system cares about, how else will they preserve their gilded cages that they live in? "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 08:08 AM January 31st, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Kenneth McFarlane is senior tax partner at the accountants Deloitte, earning more than £750,000 a year, and his marriage to Julia lasted more than 16 years. She gave up her career as a solicitor with a City firm to look after their children."
Oh that poor (say it with me(: "victim". How dare he make enough so she had the option to stay home. That bastard. She must have been forced, probably at gunpoint, to give up her job. And it's HIS responsibility .... how again. What self justifying bull.
Next piece of bullsh*t:
"Until now the amount of a husband’s income paid to an ex-wife — and occasionally the other way round — has usually been determined by working out how much the wife needs. The current argument is about the amount of a husband’s “surplus” income above this level to which wives should be entitled."
Excuse me?! Pardon the f*ck out of me, but "entitled"!? Is he entitled to a piece of ass every now and then? Or to have her give him company, companionship, or be there when he's sick? She CHOSE to stay home. I can understand that she should get 1/2 the marital assets (it was a long marriage) of what was earned DURING the marriage. But she chose to leave work, and probably chose to leave the marriage. He doesn't owe a dime besides what was earned during the marriage.
More whining:
"Julia McFarlane’s payments have already been set above this in an earlier judgment. She was given half the couple’s £3m capital assets, plus £250,000 a year for five years. Her spending needs had been set at £128,000 a year. She is now appealing to the Lords for a more favourable settlement."
She, ahem, needs (rough conversion here) $180,000 a year to live!!?! Give me a freaking break. What a self-absorbed entitlement princess. And she is getting (rough conversion) $350,000 a year and wants MORE!?!? Cry me a freaking river.
This is just a one sided sob piece with no balance or male point of view. I feel for these British dudes. Marriage is legal slavery over there. Not much better here, but WOW.
Steven
"Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. Sleep safe tonight, we're on the job."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "