When a man and woman come together in holy matrimony, they start building up assets together and that’s where the trouble starts. The whole range of today’s outrageous assumptions come to the fore and I’m not excusing men in the least – the question of her contribution is a major factor in the matter.
The Mail is currently on a campaign of vilifying women as greedy cows, which is interesting because the Mail on Sunday is the opposite – it takes up any lefty cause and men are the villains.
Now why would they do this? Aside from irresponsibility, what could be the only outcome of readers looking through these two pieces?
It could only be negative, it could only have men checking very, very carefully the agreements they have, in writing, with their wives. And these days, there are also cases of men living off the women.
Complication is that individuals on both sides of the divide can be right bastards, can be nice or can become right bastards after having been nice. This in turn can be because they were either dissembling earlier, had not come under strain then or the other person subsequently drove them that way.
Also age and people’s health come into it.
In a divorce, “nice” is not the word to describe either party. One is a greedy, grasping, ne’er-do-well layabout and the other is the productive one who’s getting taken to the cleaners. The productive one is not “nice” any more because there is nothing which riles him or her more than that the other is as described, plus the rank dishonesty.
We’re not in the courtroom
We’re not privy to how the two below acted in the dock or wherever they stood, we can’t see the nuances. We can though list the agreement in pounds and pence, as the Mail would be in some trouble misstating those.
In neither case am I asking you who the baddy or goody is, as you have your own brain. No, what I’m assuming readers will do is have a good hard look at their own current position.
Look at both these people:
The story was written by a woman, Steph Cockroft. She is obviously biased towards the man in her report:
Part-time beautician Maria Mills, 51, received a £230,000 lump sum – along with £1,100 monthly maintenance payments – when she split from her husband Graham after 13 years of marriage.
But, since the divorce in 2002, Mrs Mills has invested the money ‘unwisely’ in a series of London properties, landing herself in debt because of her ‘poor’ decisions.
Let’s be fair to her in this sense – forget this “part-time” beautician – her field is beautician, full stop. This case turns on her now wanting to go back to the old well again, long after the original agreement, and get more.
Look at these two:
The story was written by a woman, Rebecca Hardy. She is obviously biased towards the man in her report:
But 12 years after the original divorce settlement that he believed was binding, Glenn’s 58-year-old ex-wife has been awarded an eye-watering share of his riches that surely goes far beyond the needs of a retired teacher with no dependents, a pension and a mortgage-free barn conversion.
According to Judge Mark Rogers, Glenn was ‘psychologically controlling’ and ‘a liar’ who was ‘dismissive’ of his ex-wife’s contribution to the family wealth and had ‘misled’ her into accepting less than her due.
The judge, as you see, is male.
These are the premises:
Think of the pressures on a boutique owner today, with online shopping and the major chains.
Also, reader, note that she is a retired schoolteacher, this case turns on her now wanting to go back to the old well again, long after the original agreement, and get more.
The lesser partner’s contribution
Aside from the outright lies, the barefaced lies, which is the main source of his outrage and which I’ll come back to, the demand being second to that, there is this point of what her contribution to his business actually was in those days.
I can’t nail it definitively in the two cases above, not having been in the courtrooms, as already said, but on the basis of their respective occupations, you are going to draw conclusions.
In the case of the “beautician”, she might have had a stall within the premises in which she plied her trade, she might not have. Point is, she had a trade to fall back on.
The obvious question is – which one did the lion’s share of getting the business up and running?
Then a point I think many men do not give due consideration to – were she then to work part time and run house, look after the children, that is not “nothing” – that has enabled him to go out and work at the shop or wherever. It really is a factor.
In the case of the one with the schoolteacher wife, he recognized that contribution in the over half and under half deal at the point of divorce.
But in her case, she chose to be on her own, away from any largesse from him and now needed to get on with making her life, minus any further contribution from him.
Ah but he’s paying the iniquitous alimony, isn’t he? I’ve never had any beef with child maintenance – if they produce children, they are equally responsible, no matter what.
I have every beef with alimony. What the hell is it?
It is a supposition, from earlier times when women were not in the workplace, that were she cut adrift – not walk away, but cut adrift – she had to be able to live.
These days, any woman can get work, plus benefits in this country covers the shortfall. There is absolutely no case for alimony any more and in fact, I shall not pay it, I flatly refuse.
I’ll pay child maintenance long after he’s 18 directly, as is my wont, fathers have always been soft touches for their children, but I’m damned if I’ll pay a penny to her in her subsequent life, especially if she is perfectly capable of supporting herself, plus if there is a man involved somewhere – I’d rather go to prison.
The retrospective claim
In the second case, Mr. Briers was not careful enough and failed to sign her to an agreement all those years ago at point of divorce, it was a “gentleman’s agreement” that things would be as they’d agreed. He had no reason to suppose she’d come back twelve years later and try to touch him up for more.
I had a “gentleman’s agreement” many moons ago and though she came back at me for money later for school fees, which was fair enough – by comparison with these four above, I got off quite lightly. So it’s not my personal beef here being discussed – it is the iniquitous principle.
As if alimony were not bad enough – and note it only ever goes one way, it is never paid by her to him – this “retrospective claim” leaves me pretty apoplectic, as you can imagine.
The third worst aspect
In my eyes, and clearly in those of Mr. Briers, it was the lies, the character assassination and it’s as clear as day he is desperately upset by this aspect of it, as I am.
It is these aspersions cast upon his character that Mr Briers finds particularly hard to swallow.
‘Calling me a liar really, really appals me,’ he says. ‘I know her barrister had to try to make a case to the judge by ruining my character, but where was the proof I was psychologically controlling? I have never treated a woman badly, and I don’t know how she could say things like that about me.
‘In court, she tried to make out our relationship had completely broken down after the divorce and she didn’t want anything to do with me.
My QC said, “Well, why did you have him round for Christmas dinner on a number of occasions?’ She said: “I never had him for Christmas dinner.” I couldn’t believe it. Her mum and my three children were sat there when I went round.
I’m going to address this aspect in a subsequent post at N.O., not at OoL.
The second worst aspect
The political side of it is that the PTB, the globalists, wish for men and women to be separated, distrustful, at odds, the better to pick off and control, not to mention the penury and distress the PTB would like to see people everywhere suffering from.
So even in running this post, I am contributing to the PTB’s plan. I thought about that before posting but the trigger was that men do need to be aware of this new “retrospective” monster and need to take measures.
But that’s up to all of you. I can only present these things.
The worst aspect
The worst is obviously the retrospectivity. If you are a divorced man or even a happily married one, if you have had any dealings with a woman at all, in which there was cohabitation and/or some sort of arrangement, whether married or not, then this is for you.
Retrospectivity could tear this country apart. We know there is a financial crash in the offing which they are holding back as a card for when needed – Carney is ready, the Fed is ready and as anyone who’s been following things knows, the whole debt economy is fiat – it is what they decide will be the case, whenever they decide it.
The Donald’s moves in the US look one way to the people, but the banksters know better. They can pull the plug tomorrow.
That is one thing but this new timebomb is even more frightening as it puts men forever at the mercy of women – at any moment, should she so choose, she can come at him ‘out of the past’ for a new settlement or even to establish one. So he’d better behave. This is a Sword of Damocles situation which a judiciary is setting up, a male judiciary, mind.
And digressing a little – look at the States and the judiciary acting outside the law to stop the Donald’s legal EO. There is no doubt it is legal and the judiciary’s case, supported at appeal, was flawed – they know that, they don’t care.
Back to the topic. Most women, to my mind, are not as the two above are, they’re willing to be reasonable, as far as I can see. But this political move turns them into monsters. Once they see they can come back for money at any male they’ve ever had at their mercy, then you see exactly where this is going. This is “no-win, no-pay” all over again.
It’s no longer about like or dislike – it’s about instant ruination or blackmail of one party by the other. And that is clearly going to affect men’s willingness to go into marriage, given that they think they can have commitment-free nooky with any loose woman today [possibly the majority of the Millennial women and later GenX, let alone the generation after that, put it about with no stigma and that’s the pool so many men are dipping into].
Now, any female can come back at any male where there was any dalliance. Just think of the implications for the control of society.