Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Translation:
- Dmishra's taken the heat off me (thank fuck) and even though the point he's making is somewhat different to mine, I'll take it cos this isn't getting any better for me.
They are treated separately. In fact marriage is barely even recognised in the tax system.
You haven't addressed the salient point peter - are you still adamant that a wife's conduct has virtually no bearing on the husband's ability to achieve at work, and that her conduct and contribution within the marriage should not influence the settlement she gets in any way?
The wife will assert an equitable interest as opposed to a legal interest in the properties.
She will take most of his money
London courts are regarded as the world capital for divorces.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...eb/24/divorce-rich-husband-london-english-law
London courts are regarded as the world capital for divorces.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...eb/24/divorce-rich-husband-london-english-law
Thank you!
This one got everything:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/medic-ordered-give-ex-wife-every-6061723
Well this is the whole crux isn't it ? If a woman has given up her chance of a career / further education, to care for the home and raise their children (a decision that they certainly would have come to together) then the deck is stacked. He has had 20 yrs to build experience and his reputation and will have virtually no problem finding monetarily rewarding employment, whereas the woman is starting from virtually ground zero, competing against a more educated and career-driven marketplace without a recent employment history and probably with fewer qualifications, therefore her opportunities of finding employment that would keep her current standard of living are greatly restricted or negligible. Hardly what you'd call equal opportunities though they have probably contributed equally to the marriage.
They've got two young adults as their offspring, for the umpteenth time. A 17 year old and a 20 year old. Not "kids" in the literal sense. One of them escorted Rodgers on many of his public appearances last year after the break up, such was her absolute hatred for his so called appalling behaviour.
Like I said, if you're going to spout about morals and shit and act so privy to what's gone on, at least do your homework first.
Given that you described the situation I outlined (a wife unwilling to let work encroach on their family life, who expected her husband to do chores and was emotionally unsympathetic) as 'deliberately thwarting his career' it would seem you hold two logically incompatible views.
Either she has no impact on his ability to forge a career, or she can ruin him by being a demanding bitch.
Which is it? Because your current position is untenable
Dear me, this is desperate stuff SR. I was responding, quite reasonably to the general intended message of your stupid fucking example, not the details. Whether or not the behaviour you described might reasonably lead to career ruination was hardly the point. It seemed pedantic and mean minded to question it. I thought the point you were making was that a wife could, in extremis, behave in such a way as to damage a husband's career. You backed it up with examples. It scarcely seems to be my responsibility to vet whether or not your example is sound when the real question is whether or not I accept the possibility of a wife's behaviour, WHATEVER IT IS WE DEEM NECESSARY, could have such an effect.
I do accept that, but quite obviously that behaviour would have to be extremely obnoxious. It wouldn't fall into the normal range of marital conduct (I think one of the examples you gave was spending a lot of cash and doing loads of shopping). But within the normal range of conduct between couples, yes I maintain that a wife has no effect on the husband's career.
I do accept that, but quite obviously that behaviour would have to be extremely obnoxious. It wouldn't fall into the normal range of marital conduct (I think one of the examples you gave was spending a lot of cash and doing loads of shopping). But within the normal range of conduct between couples, yes I maintain that a wife has no effect on the husband's career.
If you think that is an extreme example of how unreasonable a woman can be then you have a fairly narrow perspective.
What I described is not a million miles away from what a lot of people would deem quite reasonable expectations, the lack of sympathy towards work pressures notwithstanding.
Regardless, if you accept that home life can have a bearing on your ability to succeed at work - unless you are proposing there is some magical cutoff point for stress, beyond which it has an effect, but below that it does not - then you're still holding contradictory views.
It either affects you, or it doesn't
What I described is not a million miles away from what a lot of people would deem quite reasonable expectations, the lack of sympathy towards work pressures notwithstanding.
Regardless, if you accept that home life can have a bearing on your ability to succeed at work - unless you are proposing there is some magical cutoff point for stress, beyond which it has an effect, but below that it does not - then you're still holding contradictory views.
It either affects you, or it doesn't
I'm not saying I think it's extreme. I'm saying I thought you were saying that a woman could ruin a career and were giving an example and I accepted the premise without examining the example.
Forget the fucking example. It's meaningless.
What I think is that within the normal range of behaviour (like 99% of marriages) the details of a wife's conduct has no real impact on the man's ability to get on in his work.
You act as if this is controversial. Are you somehow under the impression that divorce courts examine these things? The quality and frequency of nagging? Physical condition? Cooking? Massages? Sex?
I don't think they do.
My assumption is that by and large the courts don't have the time or resources to delve into what is truly reasonable and fair (assuming it is possible to judge, which it probably isn't) and therefore take a more black and white approach to it.
It's the same with child maintenance. The system is there to ensure that kids / carers get something but it doesn't deal with a raft of edge cases where the rules are hugely unfair.
It's the same with child maintenance. The system is there to ensure that kids / carers get something but it doesn't deal with a raft of edge cases where the rules are hugely unfair.
- Status
