Men's RightsMan becomes a millionaire 20 YEARS after his divorce, ex-wife has just been awarded a cash settlement (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

LINK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

Ridiculous...she is described as a 'New Age Traveler' which essentially means she hasn't worked a day in her life, and she's been living off of the state. She's also 55 - meaning that she's post-wall and wasn't able to find any Betas to pay for her lifestyle after the divorce.

The worst part of this is that 'Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in her favour'. One of them described the claim as "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process". Unfortunately divorce rape is not only legal in the US, but here in the UK as well.

So even 20 years after you split from a woman, if you become successful, they are still legally entitled to your hard earned money!

DO NOT GET MARRIED! Men need to collectively stop getting married, until shit like this is illegal.

EDIT: Apologies, the title is incorrect, she hasn't been awarded anything yet. However, even if her demand of £2m isn't met, she is likely to get enough to have a mortgage free house - as five court justices have ruled in her favour.

[–]Swimmingdunce 330 points331 points  (18 children)

The heading for this post is misleading. She hasn't been awarded anything yet. She's been given the right to take her claim to the family court. It remains to be seen if she will get any money.

[–]flatox 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Regardless, 5 people from the court thought this to be her right to lay claim to his hard earned money, that was earned after the divorce.

It doesn't get much more exasperating than that.

[–]Rayn211 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That is fucking mind blowing.

[–]addum 47 points48 points  (3 children)

I don't know why this is so far down. OP didn't read the article the whole way through.

She won the appeal to appear before a family court. Nothing more.

[–]fittitthroway 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Why the fuck would they even entertain that option?

[–]LambdaMale 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As I see it, one of the main arguments is that she raised the common son without support from the father. That is time and money he saved and used to work on his company instead and time and money she (potentially, in theory, that is legally enough) could not use to grow a business or whatever.

Honestly, if you keep in mind the kid AND that he was careless about the paperwork, he had it coming. He could afford to lose 2mil, if she only gets a modest home out of it, that'll be way less.

[–]jcrpta 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The question being asked of those judges isn't "Can I have more money?".

It's "Even though the divorce was done and dusted years ago, please may I have permission to go back to the family court to get the settlement re-appraised?"

Their job isn't to say "You don't deserve it". It's to say "Given matrimonial law, is it reasonably likely that a family court would award support?". The answer to that question dictates whether or not they grant that permission.

What the judges actually think of matrimonial law doesn't enter into the matter. That's something for the family court to decide.

[–][deleted] 22 points22 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]mister_barfly75 29 points30 points  (6 children)

it's now been easy enough to get a court order of no further financial claims after the divorce has been finalised.

Absolutely. It was written into the conditions of my divorce and I didn't even need to request it. Older ones (10+ years) didn't automatically include it, which is why the UK also had the case a couple of years ago where a woman cheated on her husband then divorced him to be with the new guy. 10 years (or so) later, the ex-husband won the lottery and she managed to sue and win for £2million even after he'd offered her £1million to make sure their kid grew up comfortably

[–]zephyrprime 23 points24 points  (4 children)

Even without the writ forgoing any further claims, on what grounds does the woman have at all to ask for any money? I just don't see the legal justification at all. The system is just BS.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

It's a striking difference between the UK and the U.S.. I deal with barristers on a regular basis. The way their laws work make me scratch my head. I'm only licensed in Florida but the only time a woman can ask for more money is if she has been awarded permanent periodic alimony and the man's income significantly improves or her situation significantly worsens. Still this requires at least fifteen years of marriage typically and isn't always a guarantee.

I've had women go after clients of mine after one or both of the parents of the client dies and leaves them a ton of money. The judges in all but one case abided by the law, on the one they didn't, we won on appeal and I got my fees ordered to be paid by the ex-wife to the ex-husband.

[–]Newdist2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I've had women go after clients of mine after one or both of the parents of the client dies and leaves them a ton of money.

Are you familiar with any court case where a woman's parents die and her exhusband has sued for "his share" of the money?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

David why don't you make your name RedPillWarrior?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

on what grounds does the woman have at all to ask for any money?

On the grounds that she is a woman who is struggling financially, and wanted money. You know "for the kids".

[–]thinktankman 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That is why I will never get married

[–]malthuswaswrong 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's also not "winning the lottery". If reddit had awards for most misleading title this would be in the running.

[–]scrodzilla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either way, getting married is still stupid.

[–]Waldo00 59 points60 points  (1 child)

The irony is unbelievably astounding. Want equal rights but can't let go of those entitlements of a dependant. It not even frustrating anymore it is more of a face palm situation like are you fucking serious right now.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They wan't equal rights without equal responsibilities.

Normally this would be impossible, but it's getting more and more common.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 28 points29 points  (10 children)

Analysis by Clive Coleman, BBC legal affairs correspondent

This is a striking ruling that underlines the fact there is no time limit for ex-spouses to apply to a court for a financial settlement following a divorce - however weak their claim may be.

Whereas there are strict time limits in other claims, such as those for breach of contract or personal injury, these claims can clearly be made decades after the divorce itself.

The judgement is also a timely reminder that divorcing couples who want protection from such claims, even if they have no money at all, should obtain an order from the court at the time of the divorce, in which they both agree that there will be no further financial claims.

That is the only way to guarantee that, if one of them goes on to make a fortune, they get to keep it.

She's mad she passed up on a guy worth £101m (don't know what that is in dollars - but a lot more than $101m) who's also been knighted by the queen.

They haven't awarded her anything yet, but they're saying there's a good chance she'll get a free house out of him. She's playing the victim angle and the fact she had to raise their son by herself. Full of bullshit. When courts entertain this, it helps nail home what we keep saying: don't get married.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (6 children)

This is a landmark case from what I can tell because it's the first time a judge ruled that it is okay to go after assets that were earned after a divorce has been finalised.

The thing that is scary is that, a lot of guys may get married when they are young (not advisable) to a woman in similar financial circumstances, a divorce happens, the guy alphas up and conquers the world, and now the women is somewhat entitled to some of that money. It's a fucking scary prospect.

[–]AnotherLostCause 23 points24 points  (4 children)

Im guessing the state is looking to get a "new age traveler" off their welfare rolls.

[–]GuitarHero07 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's exactly it. What it boils down to is governments want to stick some sucker with bills. Even if women have torn up their part of the social contract, men are still obligated to support them either through taxes or direct financial support.

[–]jcrpta 2 points3 points  (2 children)

With any luck, she'll be in for a hell of a shock.


Simple. Under British law, the welfare you can claim varies based on your net worth - if you have savings or a regular income, for instance, it's much harder to claim jobseekers' allowance. The big killer, however, isn't so much the welfare you can claim - it's the discounts you're no longer entitled to. A number of taxes effectively cease to exist if you're on benefits.

Thing is, the way it's worked, there's a sort-of black hole at around the minimum wage level where you have enough coming in that you no longer qualify for many benefits but the taxes you suddenly have to pay means ultimately, you are financially worse off.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Doesn't Britain work off common law and usually let totality of circumstances (AKA COMMON SENSE) reign? wouldn't this be uh common sense that she can fuck off?

[–]jcrpta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

Based on how much her ex is ordered to pay, she could wind up having those benefits taken away.

But - and here's the important thing - it is entirely possible that the net amount she has left to live on once those benefits are taken away is actually somewhat less than what it was before she took him to court.

It is absolutely vital to her that she gets either nothing or a sufficiently large sum that she doesn't wind up in this position. She absolutely does not want to be in that middle ground.

With any luck, though, that's precisely what will happen.

[–]skyw4lk3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only solution seems to be to trust the money up, or setup a trust for handing the finances

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is it possible to have kid(s) without being married?

[–]Limekill -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

She raised their son. So the moral of the story is NOT don't get married, but DON'T have children. If she just got married she would of got nothing.

[–]HV123 32 points33 points  (6 children)

Divorce. One thing that strike me about it is that women get money for their "role" in supporting the husband when he was working to his fortune. But when they get divorces he is still expected to make the same money despite not having the invaluable "support" of the wife.

This is the case of a legal anachronism that needs sorting out.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Men should seek compensation for the lost time with their kids while they are out working

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Wow this is the best divorce logic I've ever seen. If her support is so invaluable in him making the money, why is he still supposed to make the SAME FUCKING MONEY with out her?

I mean we both know her support is worthless, but by logic then she shouldn't get shit out of it, or should get nothing when it's over. You can't fucking have it both fucking ways. Jesus fucking Christ.

[–]HV123 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The whole thing is just stupid. Because you were married you deserve their money for life. If it's money for life then divorce should be either not allowed or harder to get. If marriage is a temporary, transitory arrangement, then OK, but the legal system with regards to spousal support should be changed to reflect this (i.e "parachute" payments for a few years at most)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Couldn't have said it better myself. They get it both ways, i.e. money no matter what logic dictates or their argument for it.

Their argument for spousal support defies logic, 100% illogical.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'd never even realised that irony of the system until right now. This is why I keep coming back to TRP - you literally won't see these perspectives and hard truths anywhere else.

[–]HV123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what strikes me about this case is what possible evidence is there that she enabled or helped him make his fortune in any way shape or form. Clearly none. It's a legal technicality and nothing more.

The only way it is going to change is if/when women start getting burned on a large scale.

[–]iHeartCapitalism 74 points74 points [recovered]

If you live in the European Union - it's very easy to do as I have, and legally funnel your foreign-earned money to a tax-haven like Bulgaria, where wives/exes have no chance in hell of getting it (isn't corruption great?) - and ofcourse, enjoy the flat 15% tax regardless of income.


Plus, Bulgarian women blow Western Women out of the water - and no one here would allow the feminism bullshit to spread. It's cheap as hell here, and you need very little to live a very, very good lifestyle.

So I don't understand RP men who still choose to live in the West.


I'll also add that I was confused for quite a while, trying to figure out if the person in the heading photo was the man or the woman.

[–]AusCro 21 points22 points  (2 children)

If Bulgaria is anything like Croatia, staying for a prolonged visit is great, but to live there, not so much. The problem over there is that it's hard to get the money to do what you want. Regardless though, I love the country.

[–]beginner_ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Exactly. You also get very,very low salary if you actually manage to find a job. And some basic stuff like electronics or cars aren't much cheaper at all (in fact electronics are almost certainly more expensive than US).

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 9 points10 points  (6 children)

It's also more than easy to set up a bank accounz in Malta. You can even do it online.

[–]iHeartCapitalism 4 points4 points [recovered]

It's not just about the bank account - if you transfer money to a bank account in your own name, instead of an actual functioning company - not only is it highly highly illegal, it's also very easy to track and prosecute you for it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You can also open a company there very easy. Tax rates are as low as 4.25% if you do it right.

[–]1InscrutablePUA 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Doesn't the company have to do something legit though, not just serve as a shield for your cash?

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Diombel 16 points16 points [recovered]

Well, I can see how our "way of life" could appeal to someone from the west. Most women are not different to your average western female, but yes I can agree that money is god here. Most courts can be played with and good lawyers are hard to come by, so I can see men being able to play against the gold digging epidemic. Feminist issues are kind of a myth here which I attribute to the communist agenda of " everybody has to work" that was alive 26 years ago. Violent crime is also very low. It is very rare that someone shoots someone else. Mainly mobsters do that to other mobsters due to inner conflicts. While free from those weird "western" problems we have a shit load of "local problems".

Corruption as seen by you could help you bypass some shitty laws, but the majority of it is destroying the almost nonexistent state and as far as my opinion holds any merit it will lead to Bulgaria, again going down the drain. One of the most avid examples of that was the theft, equated to 5% of our combined GDP(5.10^9). How big of a bullshit was that? If you are an american the equivalent would be if someone stole 800.10^9 form the federal bank. Noone was punished for that, not even the audit firm, that obviously didn't do its job.

Also , if you think amerca is a police state you are yet to read our laws as far as cop power goes. They can do everything they want. They can stop you wherever, check you for whatever, they don't need "probable causes", you must always carry ID and you are required to show it.

Also a minus is the political uncertainty. 3 governemnts have resigned before their mandate should end. And we are just switching two parties for the last 10 years. People have also given up and don't even bother voting. It is expected from the politicians to be corrupt.

Basically if you are rich and you have an external income that doesn't depend on the situation here you should be more than ok living here. Prices will be cheap (For you), taxes are flat and most people can be bought. But if you are poor or born here working some low end job it is a shitty situation.

Edit: If someone really is interested in knowing something specific about the life here, ask away.

[–]Trigger_Warnings 4 points5 points  (2 children)

How hard is it to privately own semi automatic rifles and can you get weed and cocaine easily?

[–]Diombel 7 points7 points [recovered]

Guns are illegal. It is pretty hard to get a handgun and even that you cant use to defend yourself if an intruder gets into your house. We have some bullshit laws about apropriate force of reaction- ex. if a thief comes with a knife and attacks you, you can't shoot him. You can use a knife and your fists. Pretty stupid shit and we have had some accidents that started discussions but as usual nothing got done. So yeah, unless you smuggle it somehow no way you are keeping it.

Weed is widely available and cheap. Illegal , but almost everyone knows at least one guy that sells. If cops catch you with it , they can jail you , but I bet you can buy your way out of something like that.

No idea about cocaine, since I'm not rich. I would assume it is relatively easy to find but low quality due to dealers .

[–]Trigger_Warnings 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is pretty hard to get a handgun and even that you cant use to defend yourself if an intruder gets into your house. We have some bullshit laws about apropriate force of reaction- ex. if a thief comes with a knife and attacks you, you can't shoot him. You can use a knife and your fists.

Sounds a lot like where I live, thanks mate.

[–]jcrpta 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Basically if you are rich and you have an external income that doesn't depend on the situation here you should be more than ok living here.

What's "rich" by Bulgarian standards?

[–]Newdist2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the most avid examples of that was the theft, equated to 5% of our combined GDP(5.109). How big of a bullshit was that? If you are an american the equivalent would be if someone stole 800.109 form the federal bank. Noone was punished for that, not even the audit firm, that obviously didn't do its job.

We already have that and worse here. It's called the federal reserve. They don't need to steal it because they legally control it.

[–]someguysomewhere321 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Living in developing countries to enjoy a better life is cool - I do it too, but banking in a developing country is like playing Russian roulette, especially in times of larger bankruptcies like in Cyprus. Stash it in Switzerland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Luxembourg etc. with a reputable bank. Impossible now for Americans though, but no problem for any other nationals.

[–]Blaat1985 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Why would you want to live in that corrupt criminal shithole called Bulgaria is beyond me.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

ridiculously hot women, cheap prices and if you have money you can do ANYTHING and get away with it.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (8 children)

what would i do if i moved to bulgaria? no friends, no knowledge of the land, cities or towns... would get fucked over quick

[–]iHeartCapitalism 20 points20 points [recovered]

Depends, because when I came here I had no friends, no knowledge (aside that Sofia was the capital), I only knew the name of another city - and I managed everything perfectly fine.


So - if you're someone who learns quick, you'll do just fine. If you're too used to a comfortable life where everything is put into place for you, then it's best to be more prepared.


The main things that you need are these:

1: An apartment

2: Foreign income

3: A good accounting company.


To get an apartment, I could give you the contact of someone that helped me. About foreign income, I can't help you.


But I can also give you the contact of my accounting company - they did EVERYTHING for me, from my immigration papers, to setting up a company, to everything about taxes. It's not cheap or expensive - but it's worth it.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

after my training and studies i will be working internationally and will need a "home". will definitely keep you in mind for when i'm ready brother

[–]rpscrote 4 points5 points  (1 child)

bros helpin out bros.... brings a tear to my eye

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

tears of joy bro, tears of joy

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Could I get the name of this accounting company?

[–]2rp_valiant 1 point2 points  (1 child)

get involved in the expat community, there'll probably be a fair few individuals just like you.

[–]fittitthroway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it possible to have a successful online business and live like a king in Bulgaria

[–]kindablack 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I've heard Eastern Europe doesn't take to kindly to colored folk like myself.

[–]iHeartCapitalism 1 points1 points [recovered]

Well, I'm from Brazil - and it's easy to see I'm mixed white/black.

The only negative comments I've had are from people who don't know me and are jealous of the lifestyle I have here.


Here is pretty Ok, to be honest.

Russia (specially St.Petersburg and Moscow) is a place I'd never touch with a 70km pole though.

[–]dimmy666 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hey, I'm Brazilian too. What do you think of Bulgaria compared to Brazil? Is it an upgrade?

[–]greenovni 2 points2 points [recovered]

How 'colored' are you?

Pitch black? American Black? Brown? Latino tanned? Latino semi white? Glow in the dark latino?

Edit: A quick google search gives us Festival Mundo Latino in bulgaria.

Facebook shows us yet more Latinos https://www.facebook.com/latinos.bulgaria

I found this interesting

"The research director was born in Bulgaria to a Mexican father and Bulgarian mother. "

[–]kindablack 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty brown. But definitely not full black. Thus the username.

[–]blue_27 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Because I live in America, and nothing else is even vaguely close to a viable option. We have Sunset Blvd., the Vegas Strip, Atlantic City, Times Square, South Beach and Maui. The second place I'd live after America is America. It's all three of my top three.

[–]Swanksterino 13 points14 points  (10 children)

Marriage is obsolete, I feel it used to be a contract that bound men to providing for incapapble, and helpless women who weren't alllowed to work. But, they fought hard, and won their right to work and provide for THEMSELVES. So there is no longer a societal need for what is practically unilaterall contract. Good on'em, now back the fuck off my stack.

[–]GuitarHero07 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Unfortunately, women will still leech off men's resources/labor. They will extract money in the form of increased taxes to fund welfare programs.

ObamaCare is a transfer of wealth from men to women. Even though women consume far more health resources than men, the law requires that men and women be charged the same premiums. So that means men are subsidizing women's premiums. Of course, it's perfectly fine for car insurance companies to charge men higher premiums than women.

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Don't be fooled. ObamaCare is RomneyCare (and a buffed up version of DoleCare.) And after much backlash from the insurance companies and Republican outcry of socialism, they had to pull back from the Public Option and adopt a previous Republican plan (with some additions.)

So before we say "thanks Obama," realize that politicians are politicians. It's better to not fall into one side over another. Pay attention to their actions and not their rhetoric.

[–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I am no fan of the Republicans either. The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. They have switched ideologies multiple times throughout their history. Politics and hypocrisy go hand in hand.

But there is no denying that ObamaCare (and RomneyCare etc.) subsidizes women at the expense of men.

[–]WordsNotToLiveBy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But there is no denying that ObamaCare (and RomneyCare etc.) subsidizes women at the expense of men.

I don't think that will change anytime soon. Women will always be the "protected" gender. The only way that changes is if they sabotage that themselves.

[–]Newdist2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How the fuck is this controversial?

If you downvoted this, stop voting. Here and in real life.

[–]Swanksterino 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The car insurance thing. I am starting to think that is based on time behind the wheel, of which men a expected to spend more, voila more chance of collision.

[–]throwaway82512 1 point2 points  (2 children)

There are interesting meta-studies on this. Almost all of them came to the conclusion that no matter the age range, gender, amount of miles, driven etc men had FAR fewer collisions per-mile than women.

That and men drive roughly 3/4ths of ALL miles driven in the US. So even if they are generally more expensive (which they are) it still seems like bullshit and subsidizing women's insurance with men's normally higher income.

Edit: Found a study supporting the above though it IS old.

Passenger-vehicle travel data from the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) are combined with accident data from the 1990 Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and the 1990 General Estimates System (GES) to produce accident involvement rates per vehicle- mile of travel. The same data sources are also used to generate rates per driver and per capita. Analyses are conducted according to the age and gender ofthe driver for fatal involvements, injury involvements, and all police-reported accidents. Elevated mileage-based rates of fatal involve- ments were observed for drivers 16-19 and 75 and over. The youngest drivers had 3.0 times the overall risk offatalinvolvement per mile driven, while the oldest drivers experienced 3.8 times the overall risk. Considering accidents of all levels of severity, drivers 16-19 had the highest rate per mile in 1990, experiencing 3.3 times the risk of drivers of all ages. Drivers 75 and older recorded a rate 2.0 times the overall. Gender-related differences were observed in the 1990 accident involvement rates. Per mile driven, men had about 1.5 times the risk of women of experiencing a fatal accident. However, the difference in the fatal rate between men and women was most extreme among the younger age groups, and by age 60, the rates for men and women were essentially identical. For non-fatal accidents, a different picture emerged. Per mile driven, women were found to have a 26% higher injury involvement rate and 16% higher rate in all police-reported accidents compared to men. Women had hqher rates of non-htal acdden ts than men the same age for every age group 25 and over.

Found here on page 3.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's some good shit. I'll remember it when I want to go negative on XX

[–]Swanksterino 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I KNEW IT! I had myself convinced that every time I noticed it was a woman that had pulled an unbelievable maneuver on the highway, I was just experiencing confirmation bias. I'm not saying it's NEVER been man, but more often than not, when I see someone driving in a dangerously hesitant, or egregiously aggressive manner, it's seems often a middle aged woman. On the income inequality issue, I've never had a corporate job, but I get increases one of two ways. I negotiate hard during the interview, or I prove myself, and walk in one day asking for a raise. Not one boss has ever simply given me more money, why would they? I'm sure, especially in this work climate, that when a woman adopts these practices, her pay is on par. If not, more negotiations practice is needed. But you can never really help a victim I guess.

[–]SomebodyCool 9 points9 points [recovered]

Mr Dale set up his company, Ecotricity, in 1995 after the pair had split. He is now worth an estimated £107m and has an OBE.

Key sentence in the article. The man started his company and made his fortune after their divorce. There is no possible claim to his ex-wife having 'supported' him while he was making money, so there is no possible claim that she 'deserves' a part of it.

But there is, in our opinion, a real prospect that she will secure a comparatively modest award, perhaps of a size which would enable her to purchase a somewhat more comfortable, mortgage-free home.

And yet, despite no ruling having been rendered yet, legal experts predict that she might get enough money to buy a house. A frigging house. That's hundreds of thousands of pounds, awarded decades after the divorce, based on nothing but the fact that they were once married and the fact the he is now rich.

If this really happens, then it signals that men owe their ex-wives money simply because they were once married. That all the rhetoric about divorce settlements being fair compensation for supporting your husband is bullshit, and that the real legal principle here is simply that men should pay up and shut up.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There is no legal logic here besides, oh he can afford it. It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

[–]Limekill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lets ignore the fact he paid no maintainance, because they might create some logic in why she -MIGHT- get award some dollars or raising his and her son.

[–]NeopolitanAfterglow 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Regardless of where you live, don't get married. Retroactive laws are becoming the norm.throughout the world.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's like the logic of, ohh you fucked Bill Gates in college, and he can afford to give you $500,000 easily, so he should! After all you spent time with him once! It helped him create his empire!

[–]pupplenupple 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Even if he couldn't be bothered accessing the various sources of free legal advice available in the UK, in court the judge asks divorcing parties what they are doing about property settlement. The judge always pushes people to properly finalise the property aspect of their marriage, even destitute bums like they were. Either he didn't listen or he didn't care or he thought he'd be better off this way (maybe he thought he'd win by keeping all their meager assets instead of half... there was an old ambulance and a caravan mentioned) or he couldn't even be bothered showing up to a divorce from a woman he had a child with. Whatever the details, this is a story of an idiot who stored up trouble for himself during the time he was a dumbass stoner and did so despite the best efforts of the legal system to prevent him from doing so.

[–]jcrpta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They are today. I understand that wasn't so common ten or fifteen years ago.

[–]pupplenupple 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I divorced in the early nineties in Australia and I doubt the system was all that different to that in the UK. Those sort of divorces, where the assets aren't really enough to make a legal fight over property worth it? They are like bread and butter to the divorce courts, dozens going through any one sitting day. The judge has a damn checklist and it is tick tick tick down the list and a telling off and stern lecture when you miss one of the advisable but not legally obligatory steps.

Dude made his bed now he gets to sleep in it.

[–][deleted] 11 points11 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]6ArtemisFowl9 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Wouldn't that mean not paying taxes? The sanctions would be pretty severe.

[–]2alisonstone 12 points13 points  (3 children)

I think he means keep it secret from other people. With the IRS, you are just some numbers in the computer. The computer isn't going to try to scam you or sue you. Your poor "friends" and ex-lovers on the other hand...

[–]6ArtemisFowl9 6 points7 points  (1 child)

True, it's totally doable . But in case of a divorce, those numbers would be brought up regardless of your will.

[–]ben0wn4g3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She won't get a fucking penny but the fact it was approved is a fucking joke!

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Feminism and all the other leftist bullshit that goes with it is just like any other political movement; a power grab that will use fear, hysteria, and irrationality where it suits. Witch hunt anyone?

[–]symko 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You have an excellent point! It is clearly laid out logically. However the woman imperative doesn't run on logic, it runs on emotion.

Thinking emotionally, she is deserved it because she suffered under his aggressiveness.

Women will never think logically, therefore this will continue until they are painfully reminded that thinking this way hurts them the most. Hope that the next generation learns from their mistakes.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Women will never think logically

And yet... they always manage to think about things in a way that benefits themselves.

[–]symko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True, I have a dog that thinks that way too!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is just fucking sickening.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Damn that is one major loop hole. There is no time limit to file for alimony and they take your net worth at the time of filing. That is crazy.

[–]zephyrprime 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Here the law is ridiculous. They should obviously only be considering their net worth at the time of divorce. It's pure bullshit and another example of the legal system not looking out for men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Bro. I agree. But lucky for you, you know the truth. Do not get married. Problem solved.

[–]jcrpta 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a few things to bear in mind here:

  1. This woman hasn't been awarded a damn penny. What she has been awarded is the right to go to a family court - with a totally different judge presiding - and ask for money. That judge may still turn her down.
  2. It has happened at least once in the recent past that a family court judge has told a woman to get a job - and that was upheld by the court of appeal. So I can see her spending a hell of a lot more time in court.

[–]anonlymouse 6 points7 points  (0 children)

DO NOT GET MARRIED! Men need to collectively stop getting married, until shit like this is illegal.

Even if it is made illegal, still don't get married, there's no reason the laws couldn't swing back again.

[–]AntixD 1 point2 points  (2 children)

he could have got a better lawyer,fuck

[–]pupplenupple 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You don't even need a lawyer when you're both broke-ass broke or close to and have little to argue about, the pro bono legal advice available at the courts and the help of the court clerks in getting the paper work done is enough for a motivated person. Back before computers maybe you'd end up flinging someone a few bob to type up the documents.

[–]AntixD 1 point2 points  (0 children)

no i meant the second time

[–]redpillta 2 points2 points [recovered]

Hmm with that kind of dough he could probably find a guy who makes problems "go away" if you catch my drift.

[–]tsudonimh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He has. It's his lawyer.

He's won every time they've met in court. The woman has just won the right to have her case heard by a particular court.

[–]Newdist2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of those guys are informers.

[–]2Overkillengine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Relevant Chris Rock rant:


In light of that and the above article....

Don't fucking get married! You are not fucking special! You are not John Fucking Rambo!

You can get pretty much anything that has any worth in a marriage, outside of a marriage too, without the stupidly high risk of financial ruin. Only in extreme outlier cases is it reliably worth it for a modern man to marry- and that is when she makes far more than you yet still wants to marry you, or you hold a non financial status that she gets from associating with you that she cannot steal via divorce.

The majority of men will never see that particular situation. Act accordingly.

[–]Limekill 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Divorced rape.... Really?

Lose less than 1% of your assets is now divorced rape.... ffs.

She raised the kid on her own, without any money from him. He then makes $107Million pounds and she is going to get $300k and he is divorced raped???

Also he could of filled out a few forms to protect himself, but he didn't. Just like you can get a DNA test for less than $100 but guys still don't and then complain when the courts make the -same- decision over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Lets put it this way - if you have a kid - and unless your below the level of homeless your probbly going to have to pay something. Get over it and move on to more enlightening shit, rather than the same OMG shit......

And no the lesson is NOT "don't get married", it is don't have children. If she just was married she would of gotten nothing. But she had a kid with him and he did NOT pay.

[–]tsudonimh -1 points0 points  (2 children)

You are either ignorant of the facts of the case or a fucking retard.

The marriage lasted 3 years back in the 80s. They had a kid in 81. The divorce was finalized in 92. As they were both broke, he was not required to pay any support.

He started the company when the kid was 14. The kid was an adult before the company was worth anything.

The ex wife petitioned for a payout, and was slapped down on the basis that someone becoming wealthy after your kid reaches adulthood is not grounds for it. She went through 4 different solicitors before finding one willing to take the chance on her. She lost again.

This ruling is just that her case can be heard by the family court.

So yes, this is an attempt at divorce rape. It doesn't matter what the amount is.

Yes she raised the kid on her own (read: living off the taxpayer teat.) I don't doubt it was hard.

But making a fortune after your kid is an adult is not grounds for your ex to help herself to your hard earned. Every judge that has heard her case so far has said so.

[–]Limekill -1 points0 points  (1 child)

While in the good ol USA you might get the death penalty at the age of 14 because the state considers you an adult, everywhere else in the rest of the word does not. A 14 year old is NOT an adult.

Lets just repeat that again: A 14 year old 'MINOR' is NOT an adult.

You don't beleive me? Try getting a 14 year a morgage with a bank, try getting a 14 year to be a director of a company, try getting an 14 year old a drink at a bar. And while you at it try getting the same kid enlisted in the US Army....

The real point is he is going to lose less than 0.5% of his money and everyone is like "OMG - divorced raped!" Well no! losing >0.5% does not equal divorce raped.

So yeah I guess I am "fucking retard", because I don't think a 14 year is old is an adult, Losing >0.5% of your Net Worth is NOT divorce raped, and consider he put his dick in her and its his Son he should pay something.

[–]tsudonimh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, you are a fucking retard.

He started the company when his kid was 14. To borrow a phrase from you - "Let me just repeat that again": started

He did not have a company worth 100m when his kid was 14. The company did not make any profits until the kid was an adult. Now, most people who are not total morons realise that it takes time to build up a company from scratch to be worth a hundred mill. Perhaps you're not one of them.

Let me also repeat another point. Twice now, judges have decided that he owes nothing to his ex. Some random retard on the internet with a different opinion isn't going to change that.

I do agree with one point of yours. It's his son, and he should help him out. Give him a job, pay for his higher education, whatever. But it should be voluntary. It should be on his own terms. Not demanded with the threat of state-backed force.

[–]mehdika 2 points3 points  (2 children)

The money she was awarded was for bringing up their child. You trying to twist this story to fit within a particular narrative is misleading and pointless.

[–]happyhorse_g 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sort of agree. The sum that will be awarded looks like it's fair payment for raising his child - a responsibility he avoided,

However, her claim was not child maintenance money - it was 'never work again' money.

The judgment went in her favour but the settlement did not. The precedent is now set and it won't be long before these cases truly are unjust

[–]Swanksterino -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My parents divorced, there was child support paid, how much of that money went to my upkeep? I'll tell you, when I found out as an adult how much the payments were, I should have had much nicer clothes, maybe some vacations, things an earning parent would have provided. I can assure you this was not the case. I was appalled.

[–]grewapair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An appeals court can overrule this, and it just allows her to sue. It doesn't mean she'll win.

[–]1sailorJery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They were both described as 'New Age Traveler' when they were married, so they were disgusting hippies when they were a couple, thing is he made something of himself after they split and she went on to be average.

[–]mstersmith 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact this kind of this is even taken seriously is troubling. Its about as bad as being in the military. Getting divorce raped is pretty much a given with the social engineering regulations on the matter.

[–]qwertyleftme 0 points1 point  (0 children)

either way sounds ridiculous

[–]Transmigratory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think she'll get anything. The courts aren't going to want to set a bad precedent. Granted it was very stupid for the courts to rule in her favour to take it to family court. However family court are going to think of her case vs the fact that many other scorned women are going to go after spouses who've become wealthy post divorce.

Ain't going to happen. I'm an optimist, I know. Though there could be a bit of personal bias on my end.

Of course if you're worried, during the divorce ensure that there cannot be any future financial claims post-divorce.

[–]slavetothought 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why hasn't this post been removed? The title is wrong and will cause more unnecessary sensationalism.

[–]Swanksterino 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also love that he didn't become successful, until after he'd she'd that burden.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Shit wouldn't happen in a real country.... like AMERICA!!

USA! USA! British faggots...

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

eh our country's a bunch of American faggots.

Honestly, Arabs are the only non-faggots left in the world.

[–]happyhorse_g -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I think this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. She did raise their child, and claims she lived through hardship doing so. If this is the case, payment is fair. He has a duty to his child. But why there wasn't payment throughout confuses me - why a huge claim later on?

The judges said her millions' claim was too high, so they do recognise a money grab. But they also set a precedent here for an epidemic of gold-digging whores.

I think this will go one of two ways now. A)The flood gates open and we see some extreme sob stories and massive payouts. Or B) happens soon, and the law courts smack a time limit on claims, or otherwise regulate the amount that be scammed claimed after a time limit.

[–]svegni -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

[–]bustanutmeow 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That article you listed has a much older date on it.

[–]redzorp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, that article refers to a lower court ruling. Since then, the wife has appealed to the supreme court and they ruled that her case has merit and should be heard, even opining that she should get a mortgage free house!

So the case has yet to come to a resolution.

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]square-one 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It wont, not if she's 55. Their Son is old enough to be out of her support.

[–]bcb77 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Did you not read the post? They have been divorced for 20 years. If they had a kid, he/she would be an adult.

[–]redpillersinparis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ah ok, then it won't go to their son

[–]Sameoo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is fucking bs, we need men's right, right now!

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]bleez88 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I put it into gold and silver. I pay cash so there is no trace of it.

[–]Limekill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I put it in toasters... what the fuck is that bitch going to do with hundreds of $7 electrical appliances! (thanks Walmart)

Fucking WIN!