Gold digging Ex-wives!!

Originally Posted by Samnooshka

...Agreed those that don't work, like the Orange County Wives / Footballers Wives types don't deserve anything as some (not all) are in it "for the money".
...

I dont know about that one - if they are trophy wives they have their role to play in the relationship - its a status position to take. But if the Footballer is silly enough to marry one thats in it for the money - fair play to her IMO. I dont see its so different than some coroporate organisations in the world.

Originally Posted by neio79

....But if a person (man or woman ) got married done nothing had no kids to care for and just sat arround , did not even get a part time job then why should that person have half of what the other person has worked for and paid for...

Same here...why would a bloke marry someone like this in the first place unless she was making up for it elsewhere???

Originally Posted by neio79

NO as in it was a jok, i know not all women are gold diggers etc so it was meant asa funny, obviously it was lost on you?

No not lost at all. Only after some of your more unbelievable comments throughout the entirety of this thread I just can't find it in me to laugh.

For example:

Originally Posted by neio79

Honestly i think it is im most womens nature, they all seem very nice untill divorce then want everything from the bloke.

Women will always go wit hor stay with an ugly rich bloke!

And please guys, keep the personal insults out.

Going by the original post I would think that 20 years is an awful long time for a "gold digger" to hang around for a payout. If she's really such a leech don't you think she would have made her move long before now and moved onto the next target?

Originally Posted by Bluewolf

Going by the original post I would think that 20 years is an awful long time for a "gold digger" to hang around for a payout. If she's really such a leech don't you think she would have made her move long before now and moved onto the next target?

yeah, you could make far more money that way

You know there are many marriages that end in divorce when there is no acrimony or bad will between the parties concerned. They have perhaps simply decided that the marriage does not anymore provide what each is looking for. Or that they simply want to enjoy their own space.

A couple with that mentality,(and I suggest that they are not as rare as tabloids would have you believe) are very likely to ensure that each is provided for in an amicable way.

Originally Posted by Gmonsta

LOL: You need to ask your mum what she thinks and I am sure she will set you straight on your opinions. I spend a lot of time looking after my kids - much more than most dads I know - and its hard work being so organised.

As i have said throughout this thread, my comments are based on my own perceptions. In the case of my parents, my father works considerably harder. He works 10 hours a day(plus travel). In comparison my mum has her own business(property development ), but in reality she does very little....site managers do most of the work.

As far as house work, i guess all my family contribute a bit.

Whilst i am prepared to concede that my opinions may change in the future, if i have my own kids to look after, i think my dad gets a raw deal. It doesn't seem to bother him though and thats what really matters.

i have not read all the posts as its at 11 pages (too lazy) but as an ex forces wife myself I take offence at being called a money grabber.

When your husband is in the forces he cannot take joint responsibility of kids. my ex went to sea for months at a time, went on courses and did duties. I therefore had to be there for the kids. I gave up my career in the navy when I got pregnant, we later got married.

When we divorced I was advised by my lawyer that I was entitled to a share of his pension as he was to mine. We send of for details and it came out I was entitled to approximately £25k (we were married 14 years). My ex and I decided to split the debts 50/50. He would then put the £25k owed to me (he agreed it was owed to me) towards my share of the debts.

If I had not agreed to this he would have got a pension sharing order and I would have got a monthly sum paid to me once I reached 60 or 65. Not a lot of good to me then.

I opted for the debt clearance.

I still have full responsiblity for the kids, he sees them maybe 3 times a year (he is busy and its too far to drive, and hes busy etc etc) I now work as a class room assistant and earn under £10k a year. I also had 2 cleaning jobs to make ends meet.

He is now an officer in the navy earning in excess of £45k with a full pension waiting for him when he retires at age 50.

It has been proven that after divorce men carry on with almost same standard of living whereas womens takes a drop.

Anyway rant over. all ex wives are not gold diggers and those who are good on you

Originally Posted by kitkat

i
Anyway rant over. all ex wives are not gold diggers and those who are good on you

see its that attitude from women that really p's me off, if it was not a joke??

your case is different as you settled on a one off lump sum agreed before you are not after anymore by the sounds of it etc.

but if you had not got this why would you think (if you do) that you are entilted to have anything that you are entilted to before the law says you are?? i.e getting the monthly payments at 65!!

you have to wait till you are 65 for the state one!

that is really my whole point this woman is off to court to try and claim something earlier than the law says she can have it because she happened to give 20 yrs to her hubby, she should Fing well wait, not assume she deserves more than other ex forces spouses.

Therefore my statement about her being a gold digger stands!!

Originally Posted by neio79

see its that attitude from women that really p's me off, if it was not a joke??

your case is different as you settled on a one off lump sum agreed before you are not after anymore by the sounds of it etc.

but if you had not got this why would you think (if you do) that you are entilted to have anything that you are entilted to before the law says you are?? i.e getting the monthly payments at 65!!
something earlier than the law says she can have it because she happened to give 20 yrs to her hubby, she should Fing well wait, not assume she

you have to wait till you are 65 for the state one!

that is really my whole point this woman is off to court to try and claim deserves more than other ex forces spouses.

Therefore my statement about her being a gold digger stands!!

I seem to remember glancing at the particular piece you are referring to and as i understand it the bloke has taken 'early retirement'. This means that he is legible for a part of his pension and will get the full amount upon reaching 65, assuming he has served for long enough. On top of that he also has his wage, which he now earns in the private sector.

As im not in posession of the facts, i cant really judge what she should be entitled to, but it seems that your entire argument is based on her wish to draw a pension before he does, which i believe is incorrect.(Discalimer i was skim reading )

What do people think of Heather Mills' antics? Was her settlement fair? Poor old Paul...
And what about the insane claims where a wife is entitled to a proportion of the husband's future earnings, IE those earned after the divorce??

Chucks petrol on bonfire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA62Mg0JEeA