Motoring4 mins ago
Dale Vince, Kathleen Wyatt And That Divorce (Again).
Did anybody hear Dale Vince interviewed on LBC yesterday?
Notwithstanding the fact he 'can afford it' (not a worthy argument in my view), I felt his measured outrage at the injustice of it all. It was palpable. I completely agreed with him.
If my understanding is correct, the chronology runs as follows:
1 - Met in 1981 (had a son)
2 - Split in 1984
3 - Divorced in 1992
4 - Company established in 1995
She had a child from a previous relationship, and has subsequently had two more children from other relationships.
The child they had together has lived with the dad since 18 and works full-time in the business.
According to the papers yesterday two of the children Wyatt has had with her other partners are unemployed and the other one is a prostitute, drug addict and burglar currently doing time.
It was reported yesterday that Wyatt is doing this for "Woman Power", and her two grown up kids from other partner(s) who are not in jail have stated (paraphrasing) 'we need this money otherwise we are going to be made homeless'.
On the assumption 'The Supremes' have interpreted the law correctly, then isn't it fair to say the law is just simply wrong and parliament needs to step-in pronto to close this hideous gap that the loose of moral (Wyatt and Mischon de Reya and those of a similar ilk who are probably rubbing their hands together at the prospect) will try to exploit?
The immorality becomes even worse when you consider Mr Vince is having to fund Wyatt's lawyers fees.
I wonder if Wyatt and Mischon de Reya are pursuing the fathers of her other children!
Can anybody provide an argument in support of this decision?
Notwithstanding the fact he 'can afford it' (not a worthy argument in my view), I felt his measured outrage at the injustice of it all. It was palpable. I completely agreed with him.
If my understanding is correct, the chronology runs as follows:
1 - Met in 1981 (had a son)
2 - Split in 1984
3 - Divorced in 1992
4 - Company established in 1995
She had a child from a previous relationship, and has subsequently had two more children from other relationships.
The child they had together has lived with the dad since 18 and works full-time in the business.
According to the papers yesterday two of the children Wyatt has had with her other partners are unemployed and the other one is a prostitute, drug addict and burglar currently doing time.
It was reported yesterday that Wyatt is doing this for "Woman Power", and her two grown up kids from other partner(s) who are not in jail have stated (paraphrasing) 'we need this money otherwise we are going to be made homeless'.
On the assumption 'The Supremes' have interpreted the law correctly, then isn't it fair to say the law is just simply wrong and parliament needs to step-in pronto to close this hideous gap that the loose of moral (Wyatt and Mischon de Reya and those of a similar ilk who are probably rubbing their hands together at the prospect) will try to exploit?
The immorality becomes even worse when you consider Mr Vince is having to fund Wyatt's lawyers fees.
I wonder if Wyatt and Mischon de Reya are pursuing the fathers of her other children!
Can anybody provide an argument in support of this decision?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's alot about the divorce laws that I've never really understood.
It's like I work for a company for a couple of years, decide to leave them, but still expect them to keep paying me forever on the grounds that while I was working for them, I became accustomed to a certain lifestyle which they now have some sort of obligation to maintain for ever more.
I realise a marriage isn't exactly like employment, but it's basically a legal contract in the same way. If anyone actually read the marriage contract and realised what they were signing up for they'd run a mile from it. It's madness from a legal point of view.
It's like I work for a company for a couple of years, decide to leave them, but still expect them to keep paying me forever on the grounds that while I was working for them, I became accustomed to a certain lifestyle which they now have some sort of obligation to maintain for ever more.
I realise a marriage isn't exactly like employment, but it's basically a legal contract in the same way. If anyone actually read the marriage contract and realised what they were signing up for they'd run a mile from it. It's madness from a legal point of view.
the question seems to be whether Vince supported his son while his ex wife was raising him. If he didn't and the court rules he should have, then of course he should have to pay her lawyers' fees: he could have avoided it by doing his duty as a father.
That's "if". The court did not rule that she can have his money - only that she is entitled to ask for it.
That's "if". The court did not rule that she can have his money - only that she is entitled to ask for it.
According to the interview yesterday, not only did he support his child, he also supported her other children....she refused a standing order because it would upset her benfits and therefore he paid her cash.
This is, of course, his side of the story, but its quite telling that she has declined interviews.
He has said, which I would think is reasonable, that given the the sheer passage of time he no longer has documents. Even the court do not have the original divorce details!
This is, of course, his side of the story, but its quite telling that she has declined interviews.
He has said, which I would think is reasonable, that given the the sheer passage of time he no longer has documents. Even the court do not have the original divorce details!
// the question seems to be whether Vince supported his son while his ex wife was raising him //
Yes. I don't know at what point you stop paying child maintenance - if it's 18 yrs old, the question for me would be whether he paid anything towards his son between the years 1984 - 1999.
If not, I would say she's entitled to claim that back from him irrespective of how long ago it was. If he did, I can't see she's entitled to anything.
Yes. I don't know at what point you stop paying child maintenance - if it's 18 yrs old, the question for me would be whether he paid anything towards his son between the years 1984 - 1999.
If not, I would say she's entitled to claim that back from him irrespective of how long ago it was. If he did, I can't see she's entitled to anything.
The first MrG didn't support our son well after our divorce. He went on to build a successful business....made a fortune....all without my help. He's now retired and enjoying the fruit of his hard work.
I couldn't justify claiming anything he worked for after we parted any more than I can justify this woman's actions.
I couldn't justify claiming anything he worked for after we parted any more than I can justify this woman's actions.
No, Jno...he started with nothing.....worked his socks off and eventually built a business.....
When I was bringing up our child he was skint too.....
I remarried a few years later and I worked and we were fine.....I didn't need to make things any more difficult for him simply out of bitterness....x
When I was bringing up our child he was skint too.....
I remarried a few years later and I worked and we were fine.....I didn't need to make things any more difficult for him simply out of bitterness....x
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Have You Got Led Strip Lights?
Home & Garden6 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News6 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.