Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
vonuber said:
turbobloke said:
The usual amount of powitical cowwectness, check.
What has political correctness got to do with anything? Or is this just your standard line when defending those accused of misogyny? The distasteful nature of political correctness is evident in the false accusations of misogyny which are themselves bordering on misandry. In addition to the baseless accusations, contributors are subjected to insults and so discouraged from expressing opinions backed up by academic research merely because a minority of pc types don't like reality.
Back on-topic, local news coverage of the story is here.
In it the man who was forced to hand over £28,500 re-states his position namely that he made no promise. The list of costs he willingly met is astonishing in the light of the extra payment required, his treatment of the woman during their relationship was very generous and his response to the children/young adults of his former partner following the split would appear to be exemplary.
vonuber said:
What has political correctness got to do with anything? Or is this just your standard line when defending those accused of misogyny?
I don't think it is misogyny - I think the views aired on here are relative to someone abusing the system at the detriment of fairness. It just so happens that once again it is perceived a male is being unfairly financially punished by a female and in most posters experience its always that way round.If this story were sexes reversed most would think the male would be in the wrong.
I don't see why their is any more worth in a couple living together with a piece of paper than without a piece of paper.
If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
Perhaps we should not forget that this woman and her two children lived rent free for 10 years and he financially supported her through a degree and yet she still tried to claim half the value of the house. She appears to have contributed very little financially to the home and relationship.
She lost the claim against the house but the judge thought she should be compensated for what she gave up to move in with him. But what she gave up was money she had spent on a rented house, something that was arguably lost the moment it was spent and before she decided to shack up with this bloke.
The judgement sets a very dangerous precedent I fear bearing in mind the female entitlement mentality. No doubt lawyers are already planning the tv/radio adds, 'Have you claimed your entitlement from your ex partner yet, don't wait call 0800 SCUMBAG'.
She lost the claim against the house but the judge thought she should be compensated for what she gave up to move in with him. But what she gave up was money she had spent on a rented house, something that was arguably lost the moment it was spent and before she decided to shack up with this bloke.
The judgement sets a very dangerous precedent I fear bearing in mind the female entitlement mentality. No doubt lawyers are already planning the tv/radio adds, 'Have you claimed your entitlement from your ex partner yet, don't wait call 0800 SCUMBAG'.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Monday 20th October 07:53
Colonial said:
I don't see why their is any more worth in a couple living together with a piece of paper than without a piece of paper.
If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
Provides much greater equity to whom? If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
Marriage is a contract. You can't assume someone has agreed to something when they haven't. If you want the security of marriage, get married.
Colonial said:
I don't see why their is any more worth in a couple living together with a piece of paper than without a piece of paper.
If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
I agree to be honest, he should have offered her some cash to help set herself up rather than blow a hundred thousand on legal fees.If you live together as a married couple, despite not being married, then the same should apply as to a married couple.
Most civilised countries have put in place legislation to that effect.
Provides much greater equity to people, as well as additional security.
Sorry. I should have provided a PH worthy response
Snakes with tits innit
greygoose said:
I agree to be honest, he should have offered her some cash to help set herself up rather than blow a hundred thousand on legal fees.
From the newspaper article:"I even rented her an apartment for £620-a-month for six months and furnished all that and got her a new car."
She still sued him for half the value of the house, he had to defend that. She lost that claim but he still got stung with her legal costs of £50,000.
She seems like one greedy cow ....
PurpleMoonlight said:
greygoose said:
I agree to be honest, he should have offered her some cash to help set herself up rather than blow a hundred thousand on legal fees.
From the newspaper article:"I even rented her an apartment for £620-a-month for six months and furnished all that and got her a new car."
She still sued him for half the value of the house, he had to defend that. She lost that claim but he still got stung with her legal costs of £50,000.
turbobloke said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
greygoose said:
I agree to be honest, he should have offered her some cash to help set herself up rather than blow a hundred thousand on legal fees.
From the newspaper article:"I even rented her an apartment for £620-a-month for six months and furnished all that and got her a new car."
She still sued him for half the value of the house, he had to defend that. She lost that claim but he still got stung with her legal costs of £50,000.
The man in the case is of course entitled to set out his version of events in a media report, but the Court disagreed with his contention that he made no promise. No Court is infallible, but we have a system for adjudicating disputes, with the possibility of appealing initial adjudications, and people have to live with the adjudications reached on their cases once they have exhausted their rights of appeal. The case doesn't establish a striking precedent. It turns on the facts found by the trial Judge, and applies a well established legal principle that applies in many contexts, not merely the context of cohabitation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff