Wednesday, 24 September 2008

...and the horse she rode in on.

Ex-wife given £50,000-a-year maintenance for her three horses as part of £1.5m divorce deal


A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

...

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.


Jeez, so we've gone from women - strong, independent beings that they supposedly are/were - getting a shedload of man's hard-earned cash in divorce settlements to support themselves and 'their' children to them getting more of a man's hard-earned cash to support their frigging pets!

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.


She isn't Catherine The Great is she?

(Yes, I know it's an urban legend that Cathy croaked it getting a portion of equine-knob, but that doesn't stop it from being funny.)

Seriously though, just when you didn't think divorce courts couldn't get any more messed up and women couldn't get even more greedier. The judge actually agreed that this goldigging cunt shouldn't have to take up a '9-to-5 job' because that would take her away from her hobby. So her ex-husband has to stick to his job to ensure the bitch doesn't have to do a day's work ever again.

26 comments:

El Duende said...

Well, yeah, but she is still going to blow him every other Friday 'cause he is used to.

Wait, what?

Christianj said...

"just when you didn't think divorce courts couldn't get any more messed up and women couldn't get even more greedier."

Do you think there is worse to come ?

Anonymous said...

fuck. me. senseless.

Anonymous said...

Duncan you are an eternal optimist if you think women can't get any greedier, or that the court systems couldn't be more fucked...

Hmh said...

Hmm. Y'know, it still surprises the women around me that I'm kind of cynical at best about the idea of marriage.

jbgood3 said...

It does say that women "should be kept in the manner to which they are accustomed" within divorce legislation. In other words, getting married is a meal ticket for life whether a woman stays married or not.

jbgood3

Anonymous said...

It will get worse.
There's no indication that it won't.

What they're up to next time I have no idea.
They are very creative people.

Maybe next time it will be alimony for a cat she might have had.

Anonymous said...

Look at this....

First presidential debate...

"The CNN poll showed men were evenly split, but women gave Obama higher marks 59% to 41% for McCain. "

That's an 18% gain, just for 'looking better and young' for Obama.

My fucking god.

Anonymous said...

So far, this must be the gold standard in how ridiculous and indulgent a divorce judgement in the UK can be. I hope it's getting widespread coverage on British TV, too, so that men (especially those most sought-after men for marriage, men of means) are fully warned of the state-sanctioned ripoff they leave themselves open to if they ever consider marriage.

It'll be amazing to see the next judgement that tops even this one for pushing the bounds of lunacy.

Anonymous said...

The next step in this pursuit of delirium tremens might be obligation to pay university education for the horse.

Anonymous said...

For those who ask I can tell you one way this will get worse. These 'rights' will be extended to co-habiting couples. But this will be only the beginning. Co-habiting will then, by degrees, be defined as having any sexual relation with a woman. So for a few pointless and unsatisfying shags a man with have to pay the woman for life.

Just watch this space. Look out for the argument being infiltrated into the public domain.

Masculist Man said...

Thank Labor

publius said...

I welcome the coming collapse of the US and Britain. It would be an honor for me to urinate on its socialist/feminist grave.

Captain Zarmband said...

This should not be a surprise. Women still regard marriage, and for that matter any relationship with a man, as being all about money. They'll never admit it of course, but for proof you need only look at their behaviour during and after a divorce. All their actions and words are focussed around the idea that "I'm owed" as if demanding some form of compensation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - a woman is totally incapable of falling in love with a man, she simply falls in love with the lifestyle the man can provide for her. All women's relationships with men revolve around this principle.

Anonymous said...

Women Are Insane.

Men are slowly learning.

Duncan: BTW did you see the 'Bridget Jones Generation' DailyMail piece?

Anonymous said...

And I thought family law court here in the US was completely, totally FUBAR ...

Anonymous said...

Does british or american laws allow the marriage settlement? Stupid question maybe, but I have been wondering this for a long time, because I see so many articles like this constantly. Second question: How about alimony payments? Do you guys has to pay alimony fees, if you have a divorce?

In Finland we have no alimony payments, only child support if you got children. We also have option to arrange the marriage settlement, which is quite popular nowadays. We can f.ex arrange that all belongnings and property that each had before the marriage, are kept out of the sharing and spouse does not have any right for them. Settlement can also consern only some spesific property (f.ex flat or business), or it can consern for all the property and belongnings of the spouses, including earnings that are gained during the marriage. For example if husband has full settlement and he win in lottery, money is his all alone.

It is a quite good thing to have this option and if your legistlation allows similar acts, I recommend to make the settlement by defaut.

Jamppa
Tampere, Finland

P.S. Excuse me for my bad english.

Anonymous said...

One more reason why men are better off seeing prostitutes rather than marrying and starting families. Why do that if men can lose everything at a moment's notice?

Anonymous said...

Just in case you have not already read this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4833106.ece

mintxx said...

Hey Duncan. I'm a big fan. Now: have a look at this shit. Particularly the conclusion -
http://www.theage.com.au/national/drunk-wife-felt-up-officer-20081007-4vvf.html

Anonymous said...

"These 'rights' will be extended to co-habiting couples".

Indeed!

This is already true in the Peoples Republic of California where there is a "Common Law Marriage" act in place and cohabitating couples after 7 years time are now legally married!

Anonymous said...

My mistake on the California common law marriage act. I should have researched it better before I posted. Apparently California does not recognize common law marriage but if you enter California having come from a state that does, you are considered to be married!

Anonymous said...

Marriage Strike. Right here, right now. Simply say no to marriage

http://davidcohen188.googlepages.com/eng3

Anonymous said...

This news is completely outrageous. In Australia, they are extending 'marriage', and all the penalties that marriage imposes upon men, to men who haven't even gotten married.

I believe that under new legislation, a couple living together for 2 years (cohabiting), is deemed to have crossed the threshold where a marriage-equivalent asset-split can occur.

'De facto splits on a par with divorce'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/de-facto-splits-on-a-par-with-divorce-20081018-53o3.html

Covers the same story: 'De facto couples bill passed by Senate':
http://news.smh.com.au/national/de-facto-couples-bill-passed-by-senate-20081016-52ay.html

And how charming, now a man and his girlfriend can sign a 'prenup', because in the eyes of the law, they're now 'married' - at least as far as legally having a shot at his assets is concerned.

'Prenuptial rights for same-sex, unmarried':
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/prenuptial-rights-for-samesex-unmarried/2008/10/18/1223750399550.html

This is total, outrageous, feminist overreach. Two years of sex with a girlfriend should *not* cost a man his house. This sort of redistributive thinking is grounded upon an outdated, 1950s social-model of society, where an 'abandoned woman' could potentially be left destitute with children.

Women today outperform men in school, in university, have their own jobs, and their own money. There is absolutely no justification for them to collect men's assets on top of this, as a legally enforced 'tariff' for having a non-marriage relationship with her.

We know men are already avoiding marriage because it's just such a raw deal. So, in order to 'harvest' more men, the man-hunters are extending the size of their net. On the bright side, this overreach may well be the tipping-point that politicizes many Australian men.

hawkeye said...

pretty sure this was in oz

Coffee Catholic said...

What the hell?!?!?! Did I read this right or am I nuts?? I mean, I heard that for a while after having given birth your brain is mush and yer a bit nuts but...