• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Just to cheer up BP

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Just to cheer up BP

    Divorce ruling: Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil win appeal - BBC News
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    #2
    People lie to courts then get found out and punished.

    Is this news?

    Comment


      #3
      Utterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married. Anything more is wrong in principal.

      The law is an idiot. These women are scumbags.
      bloggoth

      If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
      John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
        People lie to courts then get found out and punished.

        Is this news?
        BP defending womens' rights to more money!
        Originally posted by MaryPoppins
        I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
        Originally posted by vetran
        Urine is quite nourishing

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by d000hg View Post
          BP defending womens' rights to more money!
          Surely that is admirable defending what is right regardless of Gender is the correct thing to do.
          Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
            Utterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married.
            This is more or less what happens. I know someone getting divorced after a short marriage. He has a property portfolio worth ~£2M. They bought a house together. She put in £200K, he put in £300K for the deposit. The divorce settlement is that she gets 40% of the increase (or loses 40% of the decrease) of the proceeds from the sale of the house. His other assets are entirely untouched. This seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

            For longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.

            In any case, the law has to deal with how things are now - not as xoggoth would like the law to be. So it seems reasonable that if a settlement was based upon an untruthful statement of assets,
            then the case should have to be reheard.
            Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
              For longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.
              The only problem with this is that it only takes into account money. You get married, she decides to spend her husbands income on holidays abroad, studying, having dinners out etc. while he does 12 hour shifts 5 nights a week

              When they split up, she gets half of the money. But he doesn't get half of the holidays, half of the education, half of the time off, half of the fancy restaurants. She doesn't get half of his burden of working so having to work 6 hours a day 5 days a week for x years.

              So I would say it is morally wrong not to take those things into account.

              And since you can't directly do that, you should probably look into the circumstances of both people as individuals and how they behaved during that period, and compensate accordingly.
              Unless you're the lead dog, the scenery never changes.

              Currently 10+ contracts available in your area

              Comment


                #8
                However:

                Ms Gohil, 50, from north London, accepted a car as well as £270,000 as a settlement when she divorced her husband Bhadresh in 2002.
                In 2010, Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering and jailed for 10 years.
                At his criminal trial, evidence revealed he had failed to disclose his true wealth during divorce proceedings.
                So possibly his wealth was actually through ill gotten gains and illegal so if she is to get a part of that then surely she is then complicit and should share his prison sentence as well?
                Brexit is having a wee in the middle of the room at a house party because nobody is talking to you, and then complaining about the smell.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by vetran View Post
                  Surely that is admirable defending what is right regardless of Gender is the correct thing to do.
                  Indeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by NibblyPig View Post
                    The only problem with this is that it only takes into account money. You get married, she decides to spend her husbands income on holidays abroad, studying, having dinners out etc. while he does 12 hour shifts 5 nights a week

                    When they split up, she gets half of the money. But he doesn't get half of the holidays, half of the education, half of the time off, half of the fancy restaurants. She doesn't get half of his burden of working so having to work 6 hours a day 5 days a week for x years.

                    So I would say it is morally wrong not to take those things into account.

                    And since you can't directly do that, you should probably look into the circumstances of both people as individuals and how they behaved during that period, and compensate accordingly.
                    that sounds easy to quantify in court, are you a lawyer by any chance?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X