Reason not to get Married #7,382: Millionaire tycoon's ex-wife awarded six figure payout even though he made his fortune a decade after they split [UK]

Reddit View
June 11, 2016

TL;DR See the title

Main Body

Sometimes I come across something that really makes my blood boil. I’ll let the story speak for itself here:

Kathleen Wyatt had earlier demanded a £1.9 million payout from Dale Vince, a former New Age traveller, although she did not lodge a maintenance claim until more than 25 years after they had separated, and nearly 20 years after their divorce.

He has also been forced to pay her legal costs.

Judges were told that the couple met as students, married in 1981 when they were in their early 20s, and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle. They separated in the mid-1980s and divorced in 1992. In the mid-1990s Mr Vince began a business career and went on to become a green energy tycoon after launching a company called Ecotricity - and justices were told that the business group is worth at least £57 million. They have a son together, which may have helped her claim:

Miss Wyatt and Mr Vince were together for two years and had a son, Dane, in 1983, who now lives and works with his father.

But check out how well she’s done as a mother otherwise:

She went on to have another two children during a brief romance with another man who left soon after the children were born.

She now lives in a rundown former council house with her unemployed son Robin Wyatt, 21, her unemployed daughter Jessie, 18, Jessie's jobless boyfriend Ashley Lloyd, 24, and their three-month-old daughter Scarlett. Her eldest child Emily Wyatt, 36, was jailed last year burglary and is in Eastwood Park Prison in Gloucester. The Supreme Court heard she was a heroin-addicted prostitute. Emily's young daughter Alita is about to move into the crowded family house after being cared for by her grandparents. Miss Wyatt has taken jobs picking fruit, and since the mid-1990s has lived largely on benefits.

And what has she learned from this experience pray tell? This is what her daughter has to say:

"Mum told me the night before the court case that she was doing it for women power. "She thinks all men are the same. I have seen my mum struggling for years and she is the best mum in the world.”

Classic victim mentality, and lack of personal responsibility. Dale Vince unsurprisingly disputes the claims. And since his biological son is the only one who’s made anything for himself, who are you inclined to believe?

He said that in considering whether or not to strike out her claim, the five Supreme Court Justices had had to take her best case as if it was true, without hearing the other side. He said Miss Wyatt's assertion that she raised their son alone and in great hardship, was not true. Mr Vince told Radio 4's Today programme that he had given her "a lot of money" and a "great deal of help".

Conclusion: DON’T GET MARRIED!




Post Information
Title Reason not to get Married #7,382: Millionaire tycoon's ex-wife awarded six figure payout even though he made his fortune a decade after they split [UK]
Author ExitAscend
Upvotes 744
Comments 176
Date 11 June 2016 12:00 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon81 points82 points  (1 child) | Copy

Oh I'm glad she's doing it for women power, otherwise I'd think she was just being a greedy cunt.

[–]tsudonimh6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sarcasm aside, she has been after him for years, going through any number of lawyers. She has been denied in every court at every stage. In the article, it says that the parties came to this agreement and that the judge approved of it.

That says that she has essentially worn him down to the point where he just wants to give her "fuck off and leave me alone" money. Three hundred large is probably less than he would spend on legal fees going forward.

She is a deadbeat who cant handle money. One her legal bills are paid out of the money, she will be broke again within 2 years.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (2 children) | Copy

Men think independence means not having to rely on anyone. Women think independence means not having to answer to anyone.

[–]Mildly_Sociopathic17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Men: What are responsibilities?

Women: What are consequences?

[–]el_beso_negro7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

You sir are a poet for the truth.

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (16 children) | Copy

[–][deleted] 96 points97 points  (8 children) | Copy

I'm so happy to be a man. Men age like wine, women age like milk.

[–]watcher4518 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

Skim milk. Which is water that lies about being milk.

[–]FiveLions20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy

Lol..stealing this. Never heard it before

[–]MagmaiKH1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy
Couldn't find it on youtube but the does it on the cc clip. @ 2:40

"It's like eating a piece of gum you already chewed."

[–]1000_sunny0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

he kinda looks like jason sudeikis

[–]-Universe-0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I take it that you are new here. It gets repeated a lot on TRP.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

mainly because a man has to continually be attractive or his wife will leave him but once a bitch gets pregnant, she can lock a guy in and get fat as fuck. guys get fat too but they don't make minimum wage after 10 years of marriage. a woman can start out fit then fat as fuck after 10 years. nobody cares how much money a woman makes. if she's unemployed or stays home to take care of the kids, the guy is still there.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Men age like fine wine. Women age like sour grapes.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon24 points25 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's good to see that she's kept herself in shape as the years go by rather than getting fat and bitter.

[–]50pluspiller11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

He aged really well. She hit the wall at 100 miles an hour.

Just goes to show why men should not get married, why be stuck with that when you can get some hot bitch 20 years younger?

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or 34 years younger...heh, heh.

[–]CraziAces13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy

this is why you dont stick your dick in crazy......

[–]snorted_the_red_pill6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well its not like like there's anywhere else to stick it if you're straight...

[–][deleted] 113 points114 points  (49 children) | Copy

I heard about this when it first came up last year, but never imagined that the system was so totally fucked up that she would actually win. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK! How is that in any sense a system of justice? It isn't even as if the one child they share is being looked after by her, or that there was any overlap whatsoever between the time they were together and the time he started his successful company. Then she has the gall to talk about 'woman power' when she has been a useless bag of shit ruining several people's lives by her inability to parent? NEVER, EVER, EVER SIGN THAT BLOODY MARRIAGE CONTRACT!

At least, she hasn't actually won any money as yet, and may well not, but that it has got this far, and cost him 500,000 sterling paying for HER to bring this ridiculous case is bad enough. She should have been laughed at as soon as she brought this up.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon35 points36 points  (18 children) | Copy


Once you're married you are never, ever free. She can come after you decades later... and you have to pay her legal fees, your legal fees, plus the settlement.

Women are now strong and independent. Which means "leveraging decades old female entitlement to make a man pay her legal fees to get other men to get an unjust settlement against the first man". So it's "let's you and him fight" writ large.

Do Not Marry

And if you're thinking "buh buh buh prenup", these get thrown out all the time. You will never, ever be free and women will leverage that contract against you for the rest of your life.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

This case is certainly an adject lesson, a new cultural low, the very idea that an ex-wife can take something from you that was gained years after you broke up with her. On prenups, it is not the same everywhere. I think in some places in Europe they have a long history and are pretty solid; in the US they are of some use but limited; they don't really exist in the UK. Something like this needs to be written in stone and obviously fair, not biased towards the woman, or marriage as an institution cannot be revived. It simply isn't good enough that a judge can overturn an agreement between two people because s/he doesn't think it is 'fair' to one party, or that it only takes account of the way things were before the marriage, rather than governing the assets acquired during the marriage, or that 'things changed' since the agreement was made so let's just forget about it.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]rushawa202 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy

If you're from the US it's a common law system where asking for "the specific law and paragraph" makes zero sense, unless you are asking about a specific piece of legislation. The majority of the law comes from strings of entwined and related jurisprudence created when high court judgments are made. You would have to look at the facts of the case and how closely they relate to similar cases where judgments were made, what the dissenting opinions were, the obstacles to the legal opinion, any relevant new guidance or legislation, any area specific rules, and so on.

[–]AnythingForSuccess -2 points-2 points [recovered] | Copy

unless you are asking about a specific piece of legislation

That is exactly what I am asking for. People claim that "prenups" get thrown out. Judges act based on law, law states what judges can and cannot do. Law states when "prenups" are to be thrown out. Laws state that women always get their half. I am just asking these laws so I can physically read it black on white.

[–]rushawa201 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

The vast majority of law isn't in legislation though. That's what I'm saying. There is undoubtedly legislation regarding prenups but it is useless without understanding the current prevalent interpretation of it, as well as competing interpretations and the nuances of when they are to be applied, as well as defences and circumstances which change how they are applied.

The judges don't open a big book called 'the law' and apply it, there is nothing to show you in black and white. The judgments themselves are the law, each judgment adding to the previous body of work, either strengthening it, creating a new subsection, or changing something which is no longer appropriate. It's similar to the scientific method in a way.

You can't say 'show me in black and white where science says evolution is true- show me the book and paragraph.' There's no such thing. There is just a huge body of work which supports certain conclusions and it's constantly evolving, as in a common law system.

The difference is that in law the government can legislate however they want, and then all future cases will be interpreted IN LIGHT of this new statue or guideline, because obviously in order to be democratic they must follow the will of the democratically elected body. But even then they simply reinterpret previous judgments in light of the new statute, it's not like they get a pamphlet that says "law 29134.3 is now changed from X to Y." It's more like "the previous interpretation of this area of law was X, however in light of the newest legislation we must consider this part of the jurisprudence to be irrelevant, however there are elements of this argument which can still be applied".

[–]AnythingForSuccess 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

So judges in USA can make up law on the whim? It is basically imaginary? Wow

I am asking for the specific legislation on prenups, because I'm a jurist and can interpret normative acts.

You can't say 'show me in black and white where science says evolution is true- show me the book and paragraph.' There's no such thing.

If that really is true in the USA, that sounds pretty absurd.

It gives a judge free will basically to do whatever they please. Huge open case for corruption. I'm sure in most of these cases the judges are simply bought and given their share of the "winnings".

[–]rushawa200 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

There are limits on how flexible they can be, and a strict system of hierarchy, which is often why a lower court will uphold what is a seemingly ludicrous decision. So they might be forced to award a ridiculous amount of damages in a clearly bogus claim because their hands are tied by the previous case law, and it's only on appeal where the court would have the authority to change the outcome.

It has the benefit of being fairer in the sense that in the real world, it's very hard to make a sweeping law that ends up having a fair outcome in every scenario. If the judges had literally no flexibility then they would be forced to make judgments which anyone could plainly see are absurd and unfair (perhaps due to some unforeseen or novel circumstances by the legislators) but if that's what the law says that's what they would have to do.

This way, they can apply the legislature in a way which is consistent with the intricacies of the real world and how every single case is different and may have extremely specific and unique circumstances which the law maker could not possibly have accounted for. The law can also adapt to social and technological change much more rapidly than a cumbersome legislature.

However there are moral concerns that judges, who are unelected, effectively make large portions of the law, but this is balanced by the fact that at the end of the day the legislation can always bring them back into line.

But it's not quite as bad as you make out. Just because the law is not written in the way you think it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a judge made a ruling which went contrary to the case law, then there would be an appeal and the judge would of course face negative repercussions in terms of his reputation and career. If he was found to have done it deliberately or for personal gain he would obviously be prosecuted. The law still exists and is predictable to some degree or lawyers would be pointless. It's just not written in the way some people think.

For example, if a top scientist decided to suddenly go against the entire body of work of evolution and published a big piece about how it was all wrong after being paid off by the church, it would be discredited immediately and not accepted into the overall body of work. Similarly a rogue judge who just made whimsical judgments would find his career short-lived. The law is still a solid body, it just is shaped over time by the judges.

[–]AnythingForSuccess 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

It has the benefit of being fairer in the sense that in the real world, it's very hard to make a sweeping law that ends up having a fair outcome in every scenario.

Actually, it is pretty easy and has been working fine in Europe for centuries.

If the judges had literally no flexibility then they would be forced to make judgments which anyone could plainly see are absurd and unfair

If the law is not absurd and unfair, how could the sentences be absurd and unfair?

[–]rushawa200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, most of europe uses a civil law system and it works fine, within its limitations. The UK has also being using a common law system (like the US) for centuries, as has most of the commonwealth, and that is working fine too. Both systems have their positives and negatives.

A law doesn't necessarily have to be absurd or unfair to lead to an absurd or unfair outcome, particularly when new technologies develop or situations arise that the the lawmakers couldn't have predicted. There are plenty of situations where what seems to be a simple law is ending up being taken to the highest courts in the land because the situation is so unique that a blunt implementation of the law is leading to an inequitable outcome.

[–]rushawa200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

For another example, read up on the constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the US, there is no one written document which you can call "the constitution". However, it still obviously has very strict rules and hierarchy in terms of constitutional structure, but the rules are a collection or body of works ranging from important legal scholar's works from a long time ago, to royal decrees, to statutes, to accepted interpretations of leading academics.

You might say it's "imaginary" but if there is still a clear constitutional structure and experts on matters of UK constitutional law. It's still very much real.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

It's on the judges whim and precedent, not written into law.

"You didn't read it". How would that ever be disproved? Isn't it your job to read a contract before signing? Well no it's not, not if you're a woman.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

The latter - they get a lot of leeway (to favour women) on these cases.

Seriously... don't get a prenup just don't get married.

[–]AnythingForSuccess 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't think the judges get leeway for women. There is no incentive.

I think judges get paid their fair share when they pass a decision in favour of the woman. This is quite common actually.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I don't think the judges get leeway for women. There is no incentive.

It happens. Women are more likely to be let off, and get lighter sentences when convicted. Check out the statistics.

[–]AnythingForSuccess 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

But it doesn't make any logical sense unless the judge is getting paid under the table. That is how it is in my country. You can generally just bribe the judge and that is what most "good" lawyers do.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Probably less so in the US/UK, or at least it's less direct.

Lawyers get paid for making or preventing money from changing hands. No idea how the judges profit from this, but they're often ex-lawyers and hence take a lawyerish point of view (and have all the same friends, and act in their interests).

There is also a large chunk of the Women Are Wonderful Effect (look it up on Wikipedia).

[–]RedSugarPill45 points46 points  (18 children) | Copy

I think were dangerously close to civil revolution.

Fuck these hateful nazi pieces of shit that are destroying basic human rights in the name of 'democracy' or whatever the stupid buzzword of the day is.

[–]Troll_Name38 points39 points  (10 children) | Copy

It's Trump, plain and simple.

The Democrat nominations have always been rigged. They were one of the original US parties, and they were rigged back then. Malcolm X said don't trust the Democrats, and days later he was killed. The US president at the time was LBJ, the one who converted the country's black population into Democrats. The Republican who replaced LBJ suspended the draft, one of the key racial controversies during the civil rights movement (which Dems attacked with filibuster in the Senate.)

The same spineless modern Republicans who let SJWism conquer the country are actively campaigning against Trump. Modern day Democrat local governments are condoning mob violence against women and children, all for the sake of protecting their establishment while claiming to be reformers.

[–]RedSugarPill13 points14 points  (9 children) | Copy

The only True reform is to go back to the constitutional government that our American founders intended--which is grounded in Natural Law. That was the closest to freedom the world has ever seen.

Democracy is the tyranny of the elites--this needs to end.

No president can save us. Freedom can only happen by the people, for the people. History proves this.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

The enemy with in must be purged by any means necessary. The breakdown of this entire corrupt system would probably condemn near 100 million people within the continental united states to freeze or starve within a year. Most people are so dependent and helpless they simply cannot survive without someone looking after them.

After that any who would seek to deny free men their natural rights should be put to the sword or exiled. I think it would ultimately lead to a reinvigoration of the United States at the very least.

[–]hhamama665 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

The breakdown of this entire corrupt system would probably condemn near 100 million people within the continental united states to freeze or starve within a year.

Good, we haven't had natural selection in a long time thanks to the fascists, I mean liberals.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It would reinvigorate the west getting rid of all the useless eaters, social justice warriors and special snow flakes. A lot of young men might actually have to grow some hair on their chests and get the testosterone pumping a bit.

[–]RedSugarPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most people are so dependent and helpless they simply cannot survive without someone looking after them.

Excellent point. That's why the overindulgent, serpent-fucking, satanic sellouts keep propping up and supporting the corrupt system. To them, their hedonistic pleasures are more important than everyone else's freedom. This iteration of revolution and tyranny is going to keep going until we all find freedom. I'd bet my life on that.

[–]watcher450 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

True, much of the country would be dead within 1-2yrs. Especially in winter when disease would sweep populated areas. The flu would probably empty out the north east corridor. Your analysis is pretty spot on too.

[–]watcher451 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Specifically grounded in "common law" which was the standard until the 1930-1950s when it was replaced by the creeping enforcement of "statutory jurisdiction" in the decades since. It really began in the 1930s when under FDR the courts began mixing law and equity, when we all started getting treated as 14th amendment "persons" instead of full constitutional citizens. After that you could push any contradictory law want and the slow fucking of America and the West got started.

[–]Diariocruz1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm borrowing that last part

[–]Troll_Name1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

The dream of going back is like the dream of undoing pandora's box - not happening.

Classical liberalism worked in a land of tenant farmers, wagon merchants, and sail ships. If a farmer wanted food, seeds were planted. The merchant trades if there's money; shines shoes or washes dishes if there isn't. But what's a slum-dwelling 20-something surrounded by viscous gangs and other paupers to do? Mooch from the government.

Any true solution must come not from going back in time, but rather fast-forwarding to a time where the waste has been flushed.

[–]RedSugarPill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I agree that we can't go backwards in time. However, we can reinstate natural laws that work for society. There is one basic natural law: don't steal. If the natural law of not stealing is followed by humans, our society will flourish. Whenever that simple natural law is violated, society, the environment, and everything and everyone suffers.

Don't steal.

That's the only natural law.

There is no reason we cannot return to following the natural order of the universe.

[–]aherne189 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy

For the record, the "nazis" did not believe in women "rights"!

[–]RedSugarPill9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's 'in group' vs. 'out group' mentality. Across the board, it's a civil rights violation. Like I said, pick your favorite 'buzzword', it's all the same.

Today it's feminism, islam, etc. Tomorrow it will be something 'fresh', 'progressive', or whatever. It's always the same: some group chants "we deserve more", and the rest are busy working until one day the sheriff serves papers, and you lose your savings, house, freedom, life.

There is one constant in tyranny: theft.

This is all theft, plain and simple.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

That is not true. Women were a protected class in Nazi Germany same as everywhere.

[–]aherne181 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

They were protected as dutiful wives, proficient child bearers. The "Nazis" (Hitler) held conservative beliefs in an age of already decayed moral values. Because women "rights" were already considered a peak of "progress", had they won the war things (in this aspect) would still have been carried to our situation by more "progressive" individuals who ride the tide of fashion.

[–]nobodyinparticu1ar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I second this. In the middle of such a turbulent election as well acts as a catalyst.

[–]jcrpta19 points20 points  (3 children) | Copy

At least, she hasn't actually won any money as yet,

She has, actually. £300,000. That's about, what, half a million US$?

[–]grewapair7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy

She didn't win. They were married in 1981 and had a child in the mid 80s and didn't actually divorce, just parted ways, until he actually divorced her in 1992. In essence, he dumped the child onto her lap and took off to pursue his nomadic life without any attempt at supporting or caring for his child. At least that was what he told her. He may have actually gotten a job somewhere and not paid her a dime. Translation, either way, he was an asshole.

She sued him for back child support now that he has money. He wasn't earning any money at that time (according to him), and it would have been impossible to prove, so he tried to have the case thrown out. The dispute she won was whether the case could be thrown out, or whether she could have her day in court to prove he had gotten a job somewhere else and not told her.

The next phase was for him to prove that he had no money at the time and, if proved, he would have owed her nothing. There were three problems. First, he was an unsympathetic asshole while she, certainly not a winner, did the right thing and he did not. Juries have a tendency to make "mistakes" under those conditions, which would have led to him losing and having to file endless appeals. When you're an asshole, even the appeals courts can frequently find ways to screw you. See Martin Shkreli. Second, the legal fees would have been horrendous. He had already spent hundreds of thousands. Third, no lawyer would take a case from some ex wife who couldn't pay them unless they had found out he was lying and were ready to present evidence that he in fact had a job and hadn't paid any child support. As a rich man, the jury would have clobbered him. The appeals court read between the lines and figured she should at least have the right to show that third part, which pretty much everyone knew he would lose on.

So he threw in the towel and settled for about $450K USD. Her legal fees were probably most of that. His future legal fees would have been at least that. And face it, he wouldn't spend $500K getting the case thrown out if he had really earned nothing during all that time. He would have taken the case to court, shown that he was broke, and that would have been the end of it. The judges all had to ask themselves why he was fighting so hard, and it wasn't because he was telling the truth.

Tl;Dr - Asshole husband abandons his son and later gets rich. Wife hounds him. Legal system takes her side, no surprise.

Don't get married, don't have a kid, if you pay child support save every record forever, don't be an asshole.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

She sued him for back child support now that he has money.

GBP1.9M for 'back child support' in the mid '80s? To pay back money that she never stumped up in the first place because she was on benefits anyway? Hardly, she is a useless pile of shit who saw that the man she let go because he was useless to her was now loaded, and she wanted to get a piece of the pie.

The rest, about him having a job that paid more than a subsistence, is pure conjecture. New Age travellers don't earn loads of money. If she actually wanted money from him, and he had any, then the period when he was married to her was the time to do it, but she attempted no such thing. The appeals court blocked it because it had 'no prospect of success', which would not be the case if he had been raking it in in the 80s and just not provided support.

[–]grewapair1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

The appeals court didn't block it. They allowed the case to proceed at which point he settled. They had to approve the settlement.

If he really earned nothing, he wouldn't have spent $500K trying to block the trial. And even if her earned just enough to get by, she was taking care of his toddler, he owed her 40 percent of what he made.

He didn't spend half a mil fighting the case because he owed her nothing.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

He spent money fighting the case because it was wrong, I would have done the same. You don't just hand over 1.9mil because some cunt smells money. Where does it say he settled? I am missing that part.

"This whole legal action has been designed to force a payment from me and I think that the principle is completely wrong. And principles are worth fighting for."

Doesn't sound like he 'just settled'.

Mr Vince was not required to pay maintenance because it was agreed he had no money.

Remember, this isn't simply her, the Child Support Agency is involved. Those bastards are very willing to hound men if they think they can get any money out of them.

Although initially given the go-ahead, the claim was blocked by the Court of Appeal which found it had "no real prospect of success" and was an "abuse of process".

Then it went to the Supreme Court, who said she was allowed to proceed with the claim in court (which he has to pay for). When they divorced there was a 'settlement' which was basically nothing because he didn't have any money in 1992. That settlement - the agreement that he had to pay nothing - should be the end of it, but the court records don't go back that far so he can no longer say, 'this was agreed a long time ago, that I need not pay anything on divorce'. It was a mistake not to keep his own record, but remember he married at 19 and spent a year with her, and the case was brought 20 years after the divorce. Who the hell things this isn't long in the past? This is the first case of its kind.

[–]grewapair0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Link one, second paragraph

"She was awarded the lump sum in final settlement of their divorce cash battle, but how much she will actually receive remains uncertain, because of outstanding legal bills which have yet to be fully quantified."

Later in that same link, undefined in red, it said that the judge approved the terms of the settlement.

And no, no one spends $500K on principle. He could have offered her 250K and been done with it. I stead, he's out $800K.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Got it, missed that link, thought I read all three. OK, it is clearer now. She made a claim for 1.9M, but the high court awarded her 300k. He then appealed, because it was frankly ludicrious, and won. She then took it to the Supreme Court (on his dollar), who overruled the appeal court. Which means she has won 300k, but given that she now has money, I guess that means he doesn't have to pay all her expenses (not clear on that). Given that he won the appeal, it is certainly reasonable that he challenged it. As I said elsewhere, the issue seems to have been that the records of their original divorce, where it seems it was agreed that he had no money and therefore needn't pay her anything, were lost because it was so long ago, and this is the nub of the problem.

This is an extremely bad precedent, letting a woman get away with making a claim for money earned long after the divorce. In general, divorce in the UK is not as fucked up as in the US or Canada, unless you are rich (you are still going to lose half, but at least the divorce itself can be done inexpensively). If you do have money, then of course you cannot marry, because the cost goes up tremendously, given that the expectation is that she will walk away with half of it. This adds a new layer, where you can't get married even if you divorce her before making your breakthrough.

[–]watcher451 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

He should pay the money to her in the form of pennies filling drums. She should enjoy that.

[–][deleted] 103 points104 points  (20 children) | Copy

Ugh, for "woman power"

Wtf.. Someone please start killing off these faggot white knights allowing this shit to keep going on

[–]stemgang52 points53 points  (18 children) | Copy

"Women's power" is using the courts to steal wealth that men produce.

[–]cariboo_j19 points20 points  (1 child) | Copy

I mean, being able to legally steal someone else's money because muh feelz would make me feel powerful...

[–]Tyrone_Shekelstein8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

She's a strong, independent woman that don't need no man! Just needs the state's monopoly on violence to force a man to subsidize her lifestyle.

[–]jav2538 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

And there are Men involved in those divorce courts getting a substantial chunk of that wealth. It's a big industry. Family Court lawyers are thieves plain an simple. So it's not just Feminist you would be fighting against but loads of corrupt lawyers/judges who's bread are buttered off stripping innocent Men of their assets.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (8 children) | Copy

Using white knights.. Kill the white knights and solve the problem

[–]TheRealMouseRat12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy

but that's like half the male population!

[–]nuferasgurd29 points30 points  (2 children) | Copy

Less supply, more demand. Congratulations, your value just went up.

[–]ChadThundercockII7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Can't argue with the SMP. Just do it.

[–]Peter-Keating3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

better, educate the white knight

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

"Teach men not to white-knight", could be a slogan

[–]MagmaiKH2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Feminist saw to it to make this retaliation very difficult.
The destruction of the nuclear family and the attacks to eliminate ABC's means there's virtually no contact for young men to be taught these things.

[–]watcher451 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

[–]stemgang1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The feminine imperative in action.

[–]Short-changedChad0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Let her have a couple of mill I say. Purge her from your life and watch on gleefully while she ends up back in a council estate with the rest of her degenerate spawn in a year and a half.

Oh I'd love to see her excuses then.

[–]stemgang6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's bad precedent to give her anything. Why should she enjoy the fruits of his labor?

She should have to pay for her own lawyers, and his lawyers too. UK does that for frivolous lawsuits.

[–]Short-changedChad1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The first bad precedent was set a long time ago my friend.

[–]watcher452 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Where is a dark Knight when you need one.

[–]precisionclear53 points54 points  (4 children) | Copy

It also seemed to be lost on the general public, that Robin Williams was driven to suicide after years of being forced to work 12-15 hours a day just to afford alimony to his wife. The courts turned him into a slave to a woman who had never achieved even the slightest level of success he himself did. The media was "so sad" about his loss but didn't dare to explore the circumstances surrounding Robin's life as it doesn't fit the western narrative that women are always the victims.

When a woman has problems, their life is combed through to find a male to blame. perhaps she was molested by her father. Men on the other hand... well, it's just some mysterious and stupid thing he did to himself, obviously. If only they would stop being stupid, then all their problems would go away!

[–]nillotampoco28 points29 points  (3 children) | Copy

Actually, for truth's sake, the autopsy revealed that Robin Williams had Lewis Body Dementia, a disease that's notoriously difficult to diagnose and all symptoms coincide with the symptoms of Parkinson's and Alzheimers. However the progress of the disease can be signifigantly delayed if they catch it early.

I'm sure that the huge amount of added stress, dealing with his ex-wife didn't help, slow or delay his affliction at all.

Anyway's everyone should look up Lewis Body Dementia, it's important to consider it a possibility in either yourself or elderly relatives, more than a million Americans have it.

[–]Five_Decades14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

Another problem with LBD is that doctors mistake it for Parkinson's disease, but the medications to treat Parkinson's actually make LBD worse. This could've contributed to William's death, the fact that doctors gave him drugs to treat a misdiagnosis that made his true medical condition worse.

Having said that, stress from having to support multiple ex wives didn't help Williams who suffered from suicidal depression, bipolar disorder and LBD.

[–]grewapair1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

1.4 million people have that disease at any given time. They all don't kill themselves.

[–]nillotampoco2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's exactly the problem, textbook suicide on a person without notoriety, fame or importance. There's not going to be an autopsy, we don't know when a sufferer of LBD offs theirself because it's so difficult to diagnose.

[–]50pluspiller11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

So bitches are going back 20+ years and claiming rape.. Now they're going back 20+years after a divorce to claim money.

Fuck this noise. Men, NEVER GET MARRIED.

If you wind up having a kid with some bitch, dont move in with her, get an attorney immediately, go for full custody, don't play nice.. If you are paying support or anything resembling support, then save every scrap of evidence, receipt, paid bill, etc for the rest of your life. Take photos of every bit of evidence and save it to the cloud. Save every email, note, card, she sends you, same with texts. Never communicate where you cannot document it. If she wants to meet, then do it with your attorney and have it recorded.

Have a dedicated Google drive AND Dropbox storage. Duplicate what you save so it's in 2 places.

[–]1Ronin11A27 points28 points  (16 children) | Copy

The U.K. Is by far the most fucked and draconian legal system when it comes to this shit.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon25 points26 points  (13 children) | Copy

The US and the UK are competing to see who can be the biggest fattest white knight around, coming second and third only to Sweden.

[–]1Halfjor18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sven has a permanent first place position in the global cuck leaderboard.

[–]Short-changedChad14 points15 points  (6 children) | Copy

Australia is hot on your heels. We have an election in a month's time and the leader of the opposition (the major left wing party) announced yesterday that if elected to government his party will offer ALL women 5 paid leave days a year to deal with domestic violence. I don't even know where to begin to say how fucked up that is.

[–]Archterus 10 points10 points [recovered] | Copy

Well that just brought up my breakfast. I am trying to avoid these morons parading around, but alas. Christ our country is going down the shitter. That and the green leader being 'afraid' of Trump and admiring Trudeau. All of the parties are milking DV for all it is worth.

[–]Short-changedChad6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

If you're a real masochist- punch in 'labor domestic violence leave' to a search engine and read the ALP's full release.

You won't be eating for the rest of the day.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

And the worse thing is, they are still less bad than the Liberals and Greens

[–]Short-changedChad1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You are probably right. I felt bilious the other day when Turnbull said he was a feminist. It was cringeworthy.

[–]grewapair0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Which means all women will be paid 2.5% less to make up for it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

Where does Canada stand iyo?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Canada is the rabbit those dogs are chasing

[–]gonorealover3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I couldnt have put it in better words .

Canada is the nest where these women are born .

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This isn't a league table!

But if it was, Canada would beat US and UK down into 3rd+4th.

[–]MeatRocket231 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I heard Canada has some pretty shitty divorce laws.

[–]J_AsapGem27 points28 points  (13 children) | Copy

well guys i've tried, everytime i think i'm out of it i keep returning to the misogynist anger phase... fuck this shit man, dam whores..

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet33 points34 points  (6 children) | Copy

Anger is not just a phase. Anger is a legitimate response to insanity like this.

Fortunately, you are armed with the truth now. So long as you never get married, and take precaution to never sire a child, you can avoid this kind of highway robbery at the hands of a government.

[–]jav2535 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

Not fathering a child is not necessarily the greatest plan though unless you intend to die young. You really trust these corrupt governments in the late stages of their decay to even be around by the time your old? Your not getting your pension or social security we all know it.

[–]steelerfaninperu7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

And why do you need a child to take care of you?

Instead of the thousands upon thousands of dollars you'd spend taking care of a child, put that in a trustworthy investment account that the government isn't responsible for. Voila, you've taken care of yourself. And now you can die old.

[–]MagmaiKH4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

When the country is nearing its end they will pass bachelor taxes.

[–]RedSugarPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's why I keep and maintain munitions (rifles, shotguns, ammo), fishing gear, and have survival skills. I'll happily build a cabin in the wilderness and start a new community with like-minded individuals after Armageddon. In the mean time, I'll keep my office job and continue playing the game of Monopoly with fiat American dollars.

TL/DR: Hedging my bets here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's what the other investment 'vehicles' are for. I think if I max out my 401k, invest in Roth while under the limit and avoid child support or alimony, I should be good. BTW if you get rid of social security, the US might as well be a third world country.

[–]Smoothtank0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Have you ever wondered whether or not your response is intended towards a design, and that you may just be a puppet playing into a system that wishes to eradicate you, your society, country, and any people who might otherwise be capable/beneficial additions to a society?

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy

I don't even blame her for this.

If men had the right to say "we had sex 20 years ago, so you now owe me millions of dollars" then quite a lot would try.

The problem is female entitlement to male resources, especially during and after marriage.

Marriage 1.0: You supported me, I am dependent, so now you owe me!

Marriage 2.0: You supported me instead of me working at the job I hated, so now you owe me!

I can't wait for Marriage 3.0: You didn't marry me, so now you owe me! Oh wait... child support, taxation and the welfare state ...

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

Marriage 3.0 will be the "basic income" or "guaranteed minimal income" which will encourage women to make babies with whomever they want and get a check, and no hassle of going to the welfare office or going to the court to extract wealth.

[–]el_beso_negro0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Interesting how it is taboo to even consider eugenic policies (such as a system favoring eugenic marriages) but we see the world turning dysgenic year after year

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I can't wait for Marriage 3.0: You didn't marry me, so now you owe me!

In my country we have common-law marriage for that.

[–]thehonestdouchebag0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Don't worry about it. Took me about a year of hate fucking sloots to get past the anger phase. Eventually reading things like this will just validate your beliefs and be more reassuring than depressing.

[–]kanji_sasahara6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is why ghosting is a thing.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

I mean, C'mon guys.

She was obviously oppressed by the patriarchy that caused her to start using heroine in the first palce and caused her to have more kids because of the distress of the divorce she had to go through. /s

[–]mugatucrazypills10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

she was oppressed by all these cocks

[–]strps 6 points6 points [recovered] | Copy

Why is the UK sooooo fucked up when it comes to divorce settlement? Most of the true horror stories I hear come from there and Australia. Wtf Brits?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You mean England, I think. Scotland has a different legal system, and divorce issues are devolved. For example in England they have alimony, but in Scotland the preference is for a clean break.

If there are no children under 16, you have lived apart for a year, and both agree to the divorce, then you can get a divorce straightforwardly. If one party doesn't agree, then you need to be apart for 2 years. If there is no disagreement about wealth distribution then you don't even need to go to court.

Now, this still isn't great, because the idea is that the division of assets is 'fair', by which they basically mean 50/50. It really ought to be a matter of the person who brought in the money keeps wealth in proportion to prevent the incentive to divorce rape. Also, child support should be by the Scandinavian system of a sliding scale of value according to the age of the child, not based on how much the father is worth. But at least there isn't any of this 'keeping her in the style to which she has become accustomed' as there is in England, US and Canada (with, naturally, no provision to keep him in the style to which he has become accustomed).

[–][deleted] 17 points17 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]zue36 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

That's the thing though. She's got no money of her own. That unfortunate man's money is going to go straight into her lawyers pockets. It's in their best interests to draw this out as long as possible and have the court order him to pay her legal fees. Blood sucking leeches, man.

[–]JustDoMeee17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

For fuck sake... The fuck is this shit?! How does this even make fucking sense?! Fucking bullshit court systems.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

I assume the journalists left something out, what is the legal basis for this claim and why did it get to the Supreme court?

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy

I suspect it was because while the kids were growing up, he had no money to send them, so she raised them on welfare. Now he's got money so they want him to pay up. But it was a long protracted legal battle.

Many women can't focus long enough to make something of themselves, but have laser like focus when it comes to extracting wealth from men.

[–]2short2BaStormTroopr11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy

By that logic he should pay back the government. If she was on welfare, she didn't pony up the cash, the government did.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Their taxes are pretty high. The government will get their cut no matter what.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Exactly, since he is now worth millions, he has paid far more in taxes than the general population, and far more than the State stumped up in child support for the 14 years.

[–]SnickeringBear12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy

The whole lot of you appear to be missing the point of the claim.

He got married and fathered a child. Claim: He did NOT pay support for the child and he did not pay "maintenance" aka alimony for the ex!

In this case, she is arguing for back child support and he is arguing that he paid her enough already. The problem is that he can't prove that he paid it.

The court is recognizing her right to pursue the amount he should have paid in child support.

Every single man reading this should take one thing to heart. Be sure that any money paid for your children's support is documented in triplicate so you don't get slammed with a "failed to pay" claim later in life.

Closer to home and much more personal, my ex tried to claim in court that I had not paid part of the alimony and child support due back in 1993/1994. I trotted out the cashed checks proving that it was paid and she received the funds. If you are in this type situation, KEEP THE RECORDS!!!!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Before my court ordered child care I transferred the money via online banking under "child support" and had her sign a receipt book. Once we had a signed agreement I just went to e-transfers.

Still annoyed that a full time student (not working) needs to pay child support to a full time working woman.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

there was no alimony (divorce settlement) when they divorced, because both knew that neither had any money. For the same reason he was not pursued by the authorities to pay child support at the time, nor in the three years after their divorce. The Child Support Agency is very keen to get fathers to pay up, so if he actually had a job they would have taken it.

Later, he started the company that became successful, and the son went to live with him. He says that he gave her lots of support when he became wealthy, but that was not support he needed to give, there was no legal claim. It is only relevant because she is claiming that he never gave her anything, when in fact he has supported her but she got greedy. The money that he has paid has been court fees, as he is not going to give her any money on this case out of principle - the principle being that you don't reward total cunts for behaviour like this and set a precedent. I applaud him for that.

[–]ben0wn4g31 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

She should have to prove he hasn't paid. It's still utter bullshit. But thanks for being the only guy in the thread who read up on it.

[–]Alabastercrab0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

You can't prove a negative. I mean really, how can you prove someone hasn't paid you?

[–]ben0wn4g31 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

By complaining about it as soon as they havnt paid you.

[–]Alabastercrab1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Complaining isn't proof of a lack of action. Under your premise, she'd still have to prove something that she wouldn't be capable of proving.

[–]Tarnsman4Life4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Honestly, if you are that wealthy, instantly transfer all of your funds out of the UK to a neutral country like Switzerland then leave and never come back. Move some place which won't extradite you and flip that woman the middle finger.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]ExitAscend[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I hate the Guardian but love the way opinion pieces are torn to shreds in the comments sections.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Why isn't there a statute of limitations?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

my god the entire article is annoying to read. it's like constantly reading a scam infomercial. they never get to the reason why she got to sue and won. the judge seems to think the circumstances were unusual enough.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

What the fuck is this bullshit. I mean they weren't even married when he started the business, so you can't say "she was accustomed to a certain lifestyle" because they didn't have much money when married. So infuriating.

[–]ben0wn4g30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's because they had a kid. Still bs.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

it will be income in one year's tax filing then she will be back on the dole

[–]HRpuffystuff1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

What the hell is new age travelling? Is this a career?

[–]steelerfaninperu2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's yuppie slang for "We went backpacking and slummed it around the world."

Which admittedly is not a terrible thing to do. But it sure as hell isn't a successful path for an LTR, eventually she's going to start expecting things like a stable roof over her head and you're shit out of luck.

[–]MeatRocket231 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is what happens when they take guns away from citizens.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Laws in this regard are fucked up. I don't buy into the whole "female supremacy" thing that some people in this sub think is happening, but the law clearly doesn't respect property of men who were married once. "You were married to some deadbeat woman at some point? Well, we don't want to pay her welfare so you do it." Fucking ridiculous.

[–]grewapair0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

It was a settlement. The court has to approve it, but it was not an award.

What happened was the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. It doesn't mean she would have won much of anything.

But he settled for about to what his legal fees to defend the case would have been.

It sounds like they just sort of parted ways, and she never got a judge to sign off on them doing that. The lesson learned here is first, don't get married, but second, go through the divorce process, even if there is no money to be split.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

It sounds like they just sort of parted ways

No, they separated after a couple of years in the mid '80s and got legally divorced in 1992. There was no divorce settlement since they were both penniless. The child was looked after by her (sorry, 'looked after' by her) but at the State's expense of course. It doesn't cost that much. Later, when he started the business, his son went and lived with him, and still does.

[–]FarCryExperience0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I want to have a son but I don't even know if adoption can even save me from these people.

Me: "But I adopted him!"

Court: "Fuck you that's why"

[–]Archterus 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Adoption is a hornets nest. Laws regarding biological parent access can change. Be very, very careful.

[–]FarCryExperience0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So it's a double edged sword when picking one or the other... thanks.

[–]ChadThundercockII0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There is a solution for these problems... become a Muslim. Just saaaying!

[–]pogomaster120 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If I was him I'd almost want to donate all my money to charity out of spite.

Either that or cash out and move to some nice tropical island.

[–]Forcetobereckonedwit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The world has gone cunt up.

[–]ben0wn4g30 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Edit: she got £300,000 wtf

[–]nostress200 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's the guy who owns Forest Green Rovers football club. Quite interestimg story behind it and they play decent footy

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ugh these blood sucking, money grabbing, pieces of shit leeches.

This is the most misogynist system ever, even the system is portraying women as worthless retards that can't make her own living if her life depended on it that they have to grab the money off of hard working men for her. Fuck them.

[–]juicystick0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, the judge probably saw the lady and her current extended family and thought about all the tax-payer funded benefits she's receiving. There's no way she'll ever pay the country back, so we might as well get someone else on the hook.

[–]Apexk90 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

Just shows you that to raise a good kid you need money.

[–]zue32 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

No, you need to keep them away from negative female and white knight influence. Money won't do shit.

[–]Apexk90 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The first son was raised by the women but he was given lots of Money.

Money gives you better education and more opportunities.

Having a rich daddy give you a job don't hurt.

Remember she raised the son that has a job too.

MO ey can send you to private school or military school.

[–]zue32 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

We don't know fuck all about the son. Only that he now works for his father, and why wouldn't he? Easy job placement. No shit he's going to take his father's side here, he's the guy signing the paychecks.

For all we know that son is already fucked in the head. But he's smart enough to realise that even if his mother got a big payout, he wouldn't see a single pound of that money. That's not how feminazis operate.

So no, money may provide you with opportunities but it doesn't make you into a decent, red pill person. Just look at Johnny Depp, rich as fuck, and also stupid as fuck. His money gave him a false sense of security and amber heard took advantage of that to fuck him in the ass.

[–]Apexk91 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Money seemed to work pretty good for Donald Trump.

Or for every other rich person on this planet. Who cares what kind of person you are money makes the world go down.

Look at Johnny Depp he got to bang Amanda heard and probably threesome it up with her and other women cuz she's a lesbo and all it cost him was half a years salary.

He probably spends that on whores anyway.

Also he's probably more intelligent then you that's why he makes 100 million a year with a net worth of 400 million. How much do you make Mr smart red person?

Cuz if my choice was to be Johnny Depp duck Amanda heard and lose 50 million or be you the choice is pretty easy.

[–]DownWithAssad-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't see the big deal here. The emotional garbage in the title of this tabloid article, devoid of legal analysis, means nothing i.e. "SIX FIGURE".

The wife simply received a lump-sum of child alimony payments her previously-poor husband had not give her.

The reason it went to the Supreme Court is because she filed the claim in 2011, decades late.

Please don't become emotional-reactionaries towards tabloid news.

[–]_fitlegit-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why do the people of this sub bother with numbering the reasons to not get married when it will never be a problem for any people here anyway?

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon-2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is the UK where they have universal health care and massive welfare benefits. The case went through many appeals and rejections before it finally made it to the supreme court. She has lived off welfare and is in poor health so you know she's at the doctor often. Either many men pay for her in the form of taxes, or one man pays for her in the form of alimony.

And people wonder why there are so many rich and famous Brits living in the USA.

I am not sure something like this could happen in the USA, but I won't take bets.

[–]Five_Decades1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Every wealthy country other than the US, and many middle income nations have universal health care.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter