Ex-wife wins £50,000 maintenance, for her HORSES.

Source: Daily Mail

A wife has been awarded £50,000 in maintenance for her horses as part of a £1.5m divorce package in a landmark case that could spark bitter disputes over pets.

The woman, who has not been named, was awarded the yearly sum after appeal judges agreed her three horses were a key part of her life.

They also ruled she should be given a lump sum of £900,000 from her ex-husband, a banker in the City, to allow her to buy a house with enough land for the animals.

Lawyers believe the case could break new ground in divorce cases with couples claiming maintenance for their pets as well as themselves and their children.

Somebody fucking shoot me.

The talented rider’s annual package came to £80,000, including the £50,000 for her three animals which the court heard were almost a child substitute.

Oh fuck off you childish bitch. I guess this female is incapable of providing the upkeep for these horses from her own back. She chooses, he pays. And people wonder why marriage rates are falling through the floor.

The couple, who live in Gloucestershire, had been married for 11 years but had no children after she lost a baby in 2001.

‘During the marriage the horses played a major part in the wife’s life with the consent and encouragement of the husband,’ Britain’s most senior family judge Sir Mark Potter said.

So what’s the message then? Don’t consent to your wife doing anything can she could use against you in divorce? Oh wait, you can’t do that, that would be OPPRESSING the poor, weak, female. Wait, I thought women were equal to men? Guess that’s another flip flop they can do when it suits them.

The animals became even more important after they lost their baby and in 2004, her husband gave her a foal to celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary, the court heard.

She had bought the other two herself with £20,000 from a personal inheritance and loved eventing them.

However, when the couple split up, her husband argued the horses were an unnecessary luxury and that she should keep one and put it into livery.

The appeal judges disagreed and upheld the original award made by District Judge Michael Segal in the county court last May.

Of course they did. Reading this article, one gets the feeling of a spoilt child arguing for the man to continue to pay for her little treats, as if he is obligated to her after divorce. For how long? Until she says so? What does she have to do in return? That’s right, FUCK ALL.

He held that the wife’s talent and obvious love for her horses had been prominent throughout their lives together.

She had given up her part-time job in a financial company after they married while her husband carried on working in the City.

A woman working part-time in the City? Well I never. I know this story well. A part timer bitch who shacks up with a banker, immediately quits her job (probably the bloody reason she went for a job in ‘finance’ anyway) and does the ‘i love you’ scam for the required length of time. Beats having to earn a living eh…

Judge Segal said: ‘In any event, the wife does not want a 9-to-5 job, because this would not give her enough time with her horses. I am not qualified to say whether or not it is because she has no children that she is so devoted to her horses.’

I don’t believe this. The Judge is making excuses for this entitlement bitch. She doesn’t want to do a full time job because of her horses? What the FUCK does that have to do with the husband, who was probably pulling 50 hour weeks in the City to fund her self-indulgent lifestyle. It’s HER choice, her action, so she should be responsible for that. Anything the ex-husband gave her should be appreciated for what it was. Which is now over.

The wife had said: ‘Horses are my family. I see them every day. You form a very close bond with horses.’

Mr Justice Potter agreed she should not be expected to work full-time at the cost of her horses and eventing because the hobby had been such a big part of their lives.

Barbara Simpson, head of family law at Boodle Hatfield and a deputy district judge in the family courts, warned the ruling would have far-reaching consequences

<!– function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&&sectionName=BusinessLaw’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=1000,height=711′); } //–>

‘One could easily envisage a scenario where, for example, the wife had a particular interest in breeding spaniels and entered them in local dog shows,’ she told The Times.

‘If there was enough money in the divorce pot, it is not inconceivable that she would be awarded money in order to buy a property with kennels or maintenance to cover the costs of the vet’s bills or doggy treats.’

That’s another 50,000 men saying no to marriage, then.

Advertisements

Married teaching assistant who groomed student walks free from court.

One guess what sex this ‘teaching assistant’ was…

Source: Daily Mail

A married teaching assistant who fell in love with a teenage pupil escaped jail yesterday because their affair stopped short of sex.

Lindsey Jane Collett, 26, had sent the 16-year-old boy saucy text messages and a photograph of herself wearing a bra featuring children’s TV character SpongeBob SquarePants.

The pregnant mother of two had become friendly with the pupil when she was helping him to catch up on coursework, Bridlington magistrates were told.

They began communicating through the social networking website Facebook and met up in a park for a ‘kiss and cuddle’, the court heard.

One text she sent the teenager read: ‘Every time you touch me you turn me on. When I see you I feel light-headed.’ Another told him that she loved him.

Yesterday, Collett sobbed hysterically as she admitted a charge of abusing a position of trust between October and February.

She is still with her husband, who has stood by her throughout.

Passing sentence, magistrate Robin Sunley said the court took into account her guilty plea. Her position at the school would ‘usually make the offence more serious’, he added.

‘However, having listened to the evidence, we consider the physical contact to be minimal.’

The boy, who is now 16, was not in court and cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Magistrates also ruled that the school, in East Yorkshire, should not be named. The court was told that the teenager and the teaching assistant had an inappropriate relationship lasting about four months. Continue reading

Wives to be let off for murdering their husbands in cold blood

Hot on the heels of my earlier scribblings regarding what actually constitutes ‘abuse’ for the self interested feminists and abuse industry.

Source: Daily Mail

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

I hate this evil feminist bitch.

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.

Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.

Women’s groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

As long as they’re women, hitting men.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel ‘seriously wronged’ by ‘words and conduct’ took experts completely by surprise.

They must establish only that they were responding to a ‘slow burn’ of abuse.

The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a ‘sudden’ loss of control.

In cases where a husband kills, the existing ‘partial defence’ of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether.

The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women.

In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation.

They include those ‘seriously wronged’ by an insult.

Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.

Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction.

Note that this is the complete opposite to equality. This is just giving women who are so inclined, a government mandate to kill their husbands, as long as they can cook up a good textbook story about abuse, which as we know can be almost anything women say it is.

Essentially, this means that if a woman ‘feels’ wronged, she can kill you, if you ‘feel’ wronged, you cannot kill her. The ‘crime of passion’ motive has been strengthened for women and taken away from men. This represents laws for certain groups. This is illegal. Continue reading

A Life Blighted By Feminism

A great letter, written by a gentleman called Philip Jones to Henry Makow. Found via Rense.

I’m sure many men can relate this his experiences. He has been there, done that and got the T-Shirt, this is how he feels.

Dear Henry,

Feminism has been a blight on my life. *It has obstructed, even prevented me from realizing my absolute potential as a man and creature of nature. It has corrupted every relationship, perverted how others have perceived me, how I have perceived others, and endeared a rotten and reluctant misogyny within my breast for that deranged part of the female of our breed which kneels at the alter of the feminist lie.

Of course, the nature of this misogyny is borne out of resentment for experiences lost and is vengeful and bitter in it’s reluctance, as as much as I loathe them, I delight in the true feminine. Continue reading