D.i.v.o.r.c.e

[StandFree1982]

Just been reading the story of those wifies getting additional money from their (then) husband after they found out they had more money than they said.

 

What are folks thoughts on the whole giving 50% of everything to the missus? Even if the money was earned, in someone like Paul McCartneys case, before they came along (or even born...)

 

What about if the man came into more money AFTER they split up, should the ex wife be entitled to that?

 

Discuss.....

[Poodler]

Rather slit the cunts throat than give her half of my Ordance Survey maps.

 

Edit, divorce parties seem to be on the increase. Scandalous behaviour, though an easy ride for the opportunist man.

[Bluto10]

No cunt in their right mind would want a collection of OS maps.

 

Jesus fuckin Christ.

 

[RAZOR]

Nobody will ever get their hands on my programme and ticket stub collection.

[RUL]

Just been reading the story of those wifies getting additional money from their (then) husband after they found out they had more money than they said.

 

What are folks thoughts on the whole giving 50% of everything to the missus? Even if the money was earned, in someone like Paul McCartneys case, before they came along (or even born...)

 

What about if the man came into more money AFTER they split up, should the ex wife be entitled to that?

 

Discuss.....

 

I would say earnings before and during a fair game but new earnings after your officially divorced should not be considered.

[Poodler]

No cunt in their right mind would want a collection of OS maps.

 

Jesus fuckin Christ.

 

It was a joke you beaut.

 

 

SDG is going through a divorce, he should have the low down

[newcastlered]

 

I would say earnings before and during a fair game but new earnings after your officially divorced should not be considered.

 

Pretty sure that's what it is. Half of the assets collected during the time married.

[RAZOR]

It was a joke you beaut.

 

 

SDG is going through a divorce, he should have the low down

 

Just don't ask him about broom handle rapings.

[DD1903]

That's my understanding, newcastlered.

 

But, You don't need to give them anything either. That's if they agree. Guys can also for the burd's assests just the same.

[Ke1t]

Anachronistic bullshite.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

If women are truely the equals of men, then they should be able to go their own way and provide for themselves following a divorce.

 

I regard the system, which essentially turns the man into a kind of cash cow to ensure an easy life for the woman, as a tacit admission that women are not the equals of men.

 

In what is known as "womans lib" women have only sought to further advantage themselves, they not sought equality in areas where they had privilege or special treatment.

[Robbie Winters]

All the more reason for a Pre-Nup.

Lassies always have cash stashed for hairdressers'n'shit so I want a cut of that

[newcastlered]

If women are truely the equals of men, then they should be able to go their own way and provide for themselves following a divorce.

 

I regard the system, which essentially turns the man into a kind of cash cow to ensure an easy life for the woman, as a tacit admission that women are not the equals of men.

 

In what is known as "womans lib" women have only sought to further advantage themselves, they not sought equality in areas where they had privilege or special treatment.

 

That's not true though. There was a case a while back of a woman told to get a job and stop trying to leech off her divorce. The courts - if it goes that far - will start off at 50% of assets of the marriage then make allowances where necessary. If a woman has been a housewife to look after kids and stuff she's forgone a lot of her earning potential by being out of work. The courts have rectified that to an extent. It's fair enough imo but others will disagree.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

That's not true though. There was a case a while back of a woman told to get a job and stop trying to leech off her divorce. The courts - if it goes that far - will start off at 50% of assets of the marriage then make allowances where necessary. If a woman has been a housewife to look after kids and stuff she's forgone a lot of her earning potential by being out of work. The courts have rectified that to an extent. It's fair enough imo but others will disagree.

 

But very few women are home makers these days, most work.

 

Plus, the court should not consider what has gone before, only the future - and, even if the woman has been a home maker before, she can still get a job to support herself in future.

 

Certainly, yes, she should get half of the value of the house or other assets, but her ex shouldnt have to work to give her an allowance, instead of her earning her own wage.

 

And I go off on a tangent here:

 

Incidentally, I think what feminism has done to the idea of being a home maker (either gender) is terrible. It was (is) a very important thing, especially for young children and all women going en-masse into the workpalce has achieved is to undermine families, make everything twice as expensive and give women extra vehicles to talk about themselves.

 

Imo women wil never be happen until they start being women again, instead of second rate men.

[sdg111]

Pretty sure that's what it is. Half of the assets collected during the time married.

 

Okay, and avoiding broom handles at all costs, newcastlered is right, the default settlement is 50% to allow both parties a 'clean break'. The argument about lost earnings whilst bringing up kids is what gets me. My wife CHOSE to work less, felt she didn't need to and I went along with it. Now she wants more than 50% even though her friends all worked full-time and had same aged kids. Of course, if you have a decent pension and she doesn't, she'll want a proportion of your pension, in cash, to equal the pension pots. On top of that, you will have to pay child maintenance to the age of 18 or until they finish full-time education. Also any money gifted or left you during the marriage, she will get half of, even though it had nothing to do with her.

 

I agree with Clydeside_Sheep, far too many women will try and screw you over as a sort of revenge, and that's when you need to pay big bucks for the best lawyer. All round, it's a shit state of affairs.

[StandFree1982]

Okay, and avoiding broom handles at all costs, newcastlered is right, the default settlement is 50% to allow both parties a 'clean break'. The argument about lost earnings whilst bringing up kids is what gets me. My wife CHOSE to work less, felt she didn't need to and I went along with it. Now she wants more than 50% even though her friends all worked full-time and had same aged kids. Of course, if you have a decent pension and she doesn't, she'll want a proportion of your pension, in cash, to equal the pension pots. On top of that, you will have to pay child maintenance to the age of 18 or until they finish full-time education. Also any money gifted or left you during the marriage, she will get half of, even though it had nothing to do with her.

 

I agree with Clydeside_Sheep, far too many women will try and screw you over as a sort of revenge, and that's when you need to pay big bucks for the best lawyer. All round, it's a shit state of affairs.

It's those pesky affairs that cause the mess in the first place!

[Bluto10]

Sounds expensive.

Especially after schyster lawyers have taken their p o f.

 

Imagine being on a second marriage.

Double bubble

[Oregon Red]

Maybe its different in the US but my divorce cost me nothing much financially.

Just the $400 to file papers.

There was no division of assets..i let her have the house since she was going to be the primary care for the kids.

That and i pay for the kiddos health insurance.

Its different for other probably.

I pay child support though, but get my daughter weekends and whenever i want..ex and I are still friends, so its never a bother if i get a day off work and want the kid.

[Geoff_Tipps]

Don't get married if you plan on having a divorce, defeats the whole purpose of marriage.

 

Marriage is a life commitment.

[Bluto10]

Thanks Jeff

[Geoff_Tipps]

Nae bother min.

 

Be as well close the thread now.

[Heisenberg]

This thread needs some Bill Burr in it.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHGNHHV0L2E

[ChutneyLove]

Supid cunts those types that get married more than once.

Unless the 2nd wife is of the Thai variety of course, that's allowed.

 

Aye her,

 

 

Nae her,

 

[reekie_dock]

Did anyone see the shape oh the two birds in this mornings paper that won there case against there husbands?

 

They were absolute fucking reptiles, daft cunts marrying them in the first place if they were loaded.

[StandFree1982]

Don't get married if you plan on having a divorce, defeats the whole purpose of marriage.

 

Marriage is a life commitment.

It's a piece of paper and a very expensive meal and piss up. If you end up despising someone after getting married, there is no reason to stick with them, especially not because some fucking religious words said by a child molesting (probably) vicar in a church says so.

 

 

Note - Religion, location and Vicar can be interchangeable depending on your views, i.e. Humanist Wedding at Pittodrie with Willie Miller.

[Poodler]

It's a piece of paper and a very expensive meal and piss up. If you end up despising someone after getting married, there is no reason to stick with them, especially not because some fucking religious words said by a child molesting (probably) vicar in a church says so.

 

 

Note - Religion, location and Vicar can be interchangeable depending on your views, i.e. Humanist Wedding at Pittodrie with Willie Miller.

If it has Willie Miller involved in the deal it will never last

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Note - Religion, location and Vicar can be interchangeable depending on your views, i.e. Humanist Wedding at Pittodrie with Willie Miller.

 

It couldnt possibly be a Humanist wedding, if God was involved.

[StandFree1982]

 

It couldnt possibly be a Humanist wedding, if God was involved.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

It's a piece of paper and a very expensive meal and piss up.

'kin hell, who says romance is dead eh?

 

The Milk Tray man has got nowt on you eh? (I nearly said "The Man from Del Monte" at first, but realised my mistake lol).

 

If you end up despising someone after getting married, there is no reason to stick with them, especially not because some fucking religious words said by a child molesting (probably) vicar in a church says so.

 

 

There is a reason - the partners (in the traditional format at least) made a vow that they would stick together, until death.

 

Sure, many people say things just "for appearances sake" but I think people should mean what they say. Its good to have integrity.

 

And how the blazes could you end up "despising someone"? Marriages arent easy, they take a good bit of work and tolerance from both partners. If that is present, then they could never despise one another.

 

Of course, the first youthful flush of love inevitably fades - the butterflys in the tummy and all that - but that doesnt signify the burning out of a relationship, but rather its cementing with a deeper, more mature and more realistic kind of love.

 

It can affect anyone, but young women in particular often fall into the trap of thinking being in love means every day is like a page out of "Mills & Boon", but its not really. The guy who can smile through years of listening to his wifes inane prattle, thats love. The wife who can happily go around collecting her husbands skid-marked y-fronts off the bedroom floor to put in the wash, thats love.

 

I remember the first girl I fell in love with. I was 17 and she was 16. I was terrified of her. She was the most beautiful girl in the world. She had legs like a young deer, and eyes you could drown in. Never again have I experienced such flushes of emotion and excitement - some would say that is being jaded, but its not really - its simply to be mature, to have been 'around the block'. You cant feel like a 17 year old does forever. (Though you can have an 18-till-I-die mentality - but thats not the same thing.)

 

Note - Religion, location and Vicar can be interchangeable depending on your views, i.e. Humanist Wedding at Pittodrie with Willie Miller.

I was at a humanist wedding once. I see that they are appealling because they are 100% customisable, but my main memory (of the one I was at) was how banal it was.

 

It was a collection of nothing thrown together. They had us singing winter songs. F*ck knows why - it wasnt winter. Never did get to the bottom of it. Think it was just because they had to sing something.

 

At our own wedding, we said words that my ancestors had said, going back some 20 centuries. There was a real sense of history and meaning, and it was very powerful to think that aspects of the ceremony was something common to me and my ancestors whom I had never met - indeed almost like a portal through all history, linking us all in our own individual epochs.

[King Street Loon]

_{My wedding was a Humanist Wedding.}

_{there was no singing involved in it.}

_{It's about how you want to have your ceremony and it's about you (the couple getting married). Nae about a fictional character born in a manger...apparently.}