Why don't we broaden the discussion to be about everything? That will make it possible for you to avoid to discuss anything.
What do you mean, "persuasive"?
Why don't we broaden the discussion to be about everything? That will make it possible for you to avoid to discuss anything.
What do you mean, "persuasive"?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
But based on your previous arguments why does it matter if she is a gold digger or not? She got him to marry her that entitles her to half of his assents.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_precedent
"Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent that is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law; but the judge may consider that it is the correct principle, so he is persuaded that he should follow it. Persuasive precedent may come from a number of sources such as lower courts, "horizontal" courts, foreign courts or statements made in dicta."
Where have I said it matters?
ravdin
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 4,985
"Their" £400 million? Did Heather Mills write all those songs? I must have missed something.
I wouldn't feel at all sorry for Sir Paul (my second favorite living Beatle) if he had to pay a lot more than he did. But no tears for Mills either, please. She's now fantastically wealthy.
Maybe at least McCartney will think twice before getting involved with another one legged gold digger.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
It might not have been an appropriate assumption, but there's enough evidence to say it was an accurate label. Pity Macca didn't tell her to hop off a long while ago...
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
I don't think you have.
However to be clear, is it your view that a gold-digger should be entitled to 50% of the joint assets, regardless of anything that is brought into the marriage or any behaviour during the marriage?
Lothian
should be banned
As Jaggy said. Looking at the judgement in this case para 159 referred to a decision in a the same court so is only persuasive, however the decision referred to in para 160 was from a higher court so would form a binding precedent for this case.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Huh? Where have I avoided talking about anything in this thread? For that matter, why are you even posting in this thread? You've offered nothing substantive on the subject matter of the thread, instead just popping in to throw jibes.Why don't we broaden the discussion to be about everything? That will make it possible for you to avoid to discuss anything.
The fact is that the discussion has been about both the specific case and how the breakdown of marriage should be treated in general. Like many threads here, a specific example leads to a broader discussion of the principles. If you have nothing to add to either discussion, why are you even posting in the thread?
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I wish my mum had lived to see it. She'd have been quite happy Heather didn't get half. Mum didn't like her.
My reactions are all emotion-based, not logic-based. Mostly because I lack the full data to make a logical assessment...as do we all. I like Paul, though realistically, I know next to nothing about him.
It's just me, perhaps, but I thought it telling that one of Heather's quoted comments regarded how poor little Beatrice would have to "fly coach" while Daddums flew "first-class." Yes, yes, I know that remark was taken out of context. Yes, I know the fact that it was isolated like that means there's a lot more I didn't hear that would likely affect my opinion. I know this could be the press' way of weighing my sympathy towards Paul, to deliberately make Heather look like a gold-digger.
But honestly, when you're getting divorced and removing one parent from a child's life, does the seat number on her boarding pass even make the top ten of valid concerns for her future? Why even say something that shallow to the press?
I wish I knew what kind of dad Paul is to Beatrice. I think that's a lot more important than worrying whether she can expect a package of nuts or a filet mignon on her next trip.
My reactions are all emotion-based, not logic-based. Mostly because I lack the full data to make a logical assessment...as do we all. I like Paul, though realistically, I know next to nothing about him.
It's just me, perhaps, but I thought it telling that one of Heather's quoted comments regarded how poor little Beatrice would have to "fly coach" while Daddums flew "first-class." Yes, yes, I know that remark was taken out of context. Yes, I know the fact that it was isolated like that means there's a lot more I didn't hear that would likely affect my opinion. I know this could be the press' way of weighing my sympathy towards Paul, to deliberately make Heather look like a gold-digger.
But honestly, when you're getting divorced and removing one parent from a child's life, does the seat number on her boarding pass even make the top ten of valid concerns for her future? Why even say something that shallow to the press?
I wish I knew what kind of dad Paul is to Beatrice. I think that's a lot more important than worrying whether she can expect a package of nuts or a filet mignon on her next trip.
That goes way beyond the Commonwealth, then.
Lothian
should be banned
I am not sure about way beyond. I think the court needs to be based on the English Common Law system. I don't know enough about the legal systems in Denmark, Uganda, Kazakhstan, or even Togo.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Napoleonic Code based.
Common law based
Not sure Russian/Soviet law?
Napoleonic code based
The courts will for the most part limit themselves to common law based systems.
Lothian
should be banned
So you are suggesting that having a Ugandan relationship could count against you in a UK divorce case ?Geni said:
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
[ensures he is sitting down, door closed with nothing liquid/breakable within arm's reach]
Okay, I am now ready for the sleaze. Hit me.
That's it? Really?
[gets up, opens door, grabs a coffee]
After all that preparation I was expecting a little more than a simple assessment of witness credibility.
Last edited:
Yes (I mentioned earlier about the reservations I have about an issue of abuse in a marriage and what should then happen).
Before they married she had (according to the judgement) about tuppance ha'penny to her name and he £400 million, by getting married they decided to create a fortune worth £400 million and tuppance ha'penny. So that is the fortune that needed to be split (as it was) when they divorced.
I just want divorce settlements to be simplified with a straightforward 50/50 split so everyone getting into a marriage knows in advance and throughout the marriage what would happen if they divorced.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
I would agree with you that there is a value to certainty of what would happen in the event of marriage breakdown. However, I would disagree with you that a 50/50 split is the only or the best way to achieve that certainty. You could achieve the same level of certainty with a rule that says there will be no split of assets: each spouse gets to keep their own assets, if something is legally owned jointly (like a house) each gets half. Sam amount of certainty, no sharing.
The firm 50/50 split encourages gold-digging and does not allow for any differences related to different relationships. This is why I prefer the NFP approach: its underlying premise is that what should be shared equally is the growth of assets during the marriage. Typically, the longer the marriage, the more the growth, the more the sharing. This approach also provides as much certainty as your hard 50/50 split.
I think I understand why you feel that way...after all, the dissolution of marriage has become a MUCH bigger negotiation process than deciding to get married initially...but I still must disagree, when children are involved. If we were to, in all cases, divide property between two adults in a 50/50 way, consider what that might do to the financial security of children who most often end up living in one household or the other. And also, to be fair, if we are going to say "oh well, you knew what was coming. 50/50, that's the deal", then how can we honestly then demand one parent pay yet another portion of his or her 50% to the other parent with custody of the child? You see, it can't turn out to be 50/50, not when children are involved. Someone is still, more often than not, going to end up paying more. And even if it COULD, even if the custodial parent didn't want additional support for the child/children, then still that child's/those children's financial stability has been reduced by half. For most people (not the mega rich), this type of division wouldn't be beneficial to children, who are also parties involved in the marriage.
People with no children, or adult children? Okay, I can see applying the 50/50 idea. After all, one can transfer part of one's wealth to adult children BEFORE remarrying if one wants. But when minor children are involved? I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with an outright 50/50 split. While it might not affect the financial stability of children of the mega wealthy,for average people with average incomes, it seems like an unfair thing to do to the children involved.