03 August 2006
An insurance magnate has been ordered by the High Court to pay his former wife £48m in what is thought to be the biggest divorce award in legal history.
Her generous husband offered her £20,000,000 plus their £6,000,000 home.
But no, that wasn’t enough. Western Women want as much as possible from men. More more more, gimme gimme gimme.
So the courts have given her £48,000,000 (which is almost US$100,000,000.)
Check out the goldigging whore’s lawyer at the end of the article saying how surprised he was that she was awarded so little! She got 37% of her husband’s fortune instead of a full 50% (which would have been £65.5m), which apparantly she “should” have received.
“There must be something exceptional about Mr Charman’s wealth to justify such a significant shift in his favour.”
No, nothing exceptional at all, except that it’s fucking his! He earned it, as is made clear in the article.
Still, at least every news story like this will ensure the number of men willing to get married will dwindle yet further, especially amongst wealthy guys. I sympathise with this guy because he married back in the 1970s, before the divorce laws became a goldiggers charter. However, I’m having trouble finding too much sympathy for men – particularly rich ones – who get married nowadays. They should know how badly they’ll get extorted and bled dry by greedy ex-wives, even after a few years of marriage, as Paul McCartney is about to find out.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:11 PM
At 6:12 PM, Anonymous said…
My question has always been this. Do these women have any fear? What I mean is for only a couple of million, even less than that probably, this woman can disappear and never see that 48 million. I just wonder if that thought ever occurs to them.
At 6:17 PM, FredXblog said…
Good post Duncan
Sickening isn’t it
I’ll bet his ex would have barely exceeded minimum wage if she had worked on her own merits
You are right- he earned his money
And she shouldn’t have got 37p, let alone 37% !!
At 7:25 PM, nevo said…
Frankly, I don’t feel sorry at all for him.
Someone who has built up such a large fortune in such short period of time undoubtedly must have ripped off quite a large amount of people by selling just some printed paper called “INSURANCE DOCUMENTS” paid for people with limited income (such as me).
If a fortune was made over the generations of one family may have a moral justification.
If a fortune was made over less than one generation and on the back of people with small income, is totally unjustifiable and is right that he should lose it.
Nobody who works an honest day is able to accumulate such a fortune.
There is one other factor which affects the division of property and capital and that is the “TAX”.
As I understand it, the likelihood is that Death Duties will be larger if the fortune is split up between two people.
Again the government grabbing people’s wealth.
THIS IS THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE OF CAPITALISM.
At 7:50 PM, Anonymous said…
I’m not quite sure why you’ve commented on this piece. It’s about as far removed from the plight of the ordinary bloke who’s wife wants a divorce because she’s bored of him as you can get.
He left her for another woman plus he’s still left with 83 million quid so it’s not like he’s had to move into a bedsit is it?
At 8:34 PM, Anonymous said…
Nevo this guy probably did more work in a day than his “wife” did in a whole year. If only everyone worked as hard as men like him do. We could create something beautiful.
At 10:07 PM, Pete said…
“Frankly, I don’t feel sorry at all for him.”
This is why women are able to rip us apart. The men in the black robes dn’t feel sorry for the common man, the rich men don’t feel empathy for the working men, the working men don’t feel sorry for the rich men… all the while women are profiting off of our unwillingness to empathize with a fellow man.
I do feel sorry for him. I also feel sorry for every man who was torn a new asshole in family court. From the one who lost millions to the ones who lost thousands.
Have a heart big enough to feel empathy for those in better circumstances than yours too.
At 10:16 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
It doesn’t matter a flying fucknut that this guy didn’t have to move into a bedsit, or that fact that us peasants can identify with him, the fact is that, quite simply, a woman married this guy, he made a fortune of £130m, she divorced him and took £48m despite contributing nothing to his fortune or earnings. The message it sends: “Women, marry a guy, you will be entitled to the fruits of his labour no matter that you contributed nothing whatsoever. Take him for all he’s worth!!”
The other message, of course, is simple; Men: don’t get married.
At 10:20 PM, Duncan Idaho said…
Also, what pete said, post above mine.
At 1:27 AM, HAWKEYE said…
great news guys
this story has made prime time headlines in australia.
you should have seen the look on the female presenters face after the story ran.hahahah
wonder what she was thinking ,
anyway this is bad but good because it gives wide exposure to this evil injustice,hope fully it will discourage young men from marrying without a prenup.
It often amazes me that with the mens movement such a hot and moving issue ,no smart journo has picked it up and ran with it .
At 1:40 AM, Anonymous said…
I just made the mistake of looking at her picture … no wonder he moved to Bermuda and never came back.
At 5:20 AM, NYMOM said…
Well I certainly don’t mind prorating women’s rights to your money as long as you understand that we must prorate your rights to any children produced of the marriage as MALE contribution in that area is slight…
So keep that in mind.
At 8:47 AM, Anonymous said…
Hello Duncan, I’m the guy that made the bedsit comment.
You say on your blog that you support traditional marriages (ie where the man works and the woman makes home and raises the kids) and this was a traditional marriage.
Elsewhere on your blog you said that if a man makes a commitment to stay and then runs off with another woman then he is a bit of a shit. Well thats what this guy did.
People seem to be freaking out over the size of the settlement but if you look at it in percentage terms it doesn’t seem that unfair to me. The guy has kept most of the fortune.
But I do agree with your last comment about not getting married these days, it’s just not worth the risk.
At 7:16 PM, NYMOM said…
In other words, Duncan Idaho and his cronies support these things in theory ONLY as long as they benefit men and disadvantage women…as soon as the opposite appears to happen they quickly change their mind.
AND frankly I think men should NOT get married if they don’t want to…but then they need to get out of the way and let women live our lives as we see fit…meaning if we wish to become single mothers they should accept it as none of their damn business, as they opted out of the game…
So stay out then and shut up about it…
At 10:03 PM, Davout said…
“AND frankly I think men should NOT get married if they don’t want to…but then they need to get out of the way and let women live our lives as we see fit…meaning if we wish to become single mothers they should accept it as none of their damn business, as they opted out of the game…”
Your argument doesn’t make any sense as men are equally important in the creation of life as women. Life cannot be created unilaterally as you well know.
The price for a woman to acquire a man’s sperm is for her to commit her life to him. If you don’t like the price, don’t screw the life of some kid over by becoming a single mother.
At 10:12 PM, Anonymous said…
How exactly are men standing in the way of single women who want to become single mothers?
Is it the fact that sperm banks are drying up now that the donors can be hit for child support (possibly multiple times if the mans sperm was popular)?
If that’s so women can always go abroad and get pregnant. The only problem with that though is that there ain’t gonna be no child support from the father is there?
What do you suggest? Compulsory sperm donations from men in your country so man-hating lezbos and fat single warpigs can get babies and child support as well?
At 3:34 AM, Trescius said…
Nymom as a man who has to put up with the bastards single mothers produce. Shove it.
I have yet to meet an illegitimate over the age of 4 that was given any kind of real discipline up until I threw them off of my yard.
I especially liked the time I put one of them under citizens arrest for smashing the windshield of my friends car.
Bastard and his mom kept screaming I couldn’t do that, that I had no proof. I loved the look on their faces when the cops arrived and I told them it’d be five minutes to get the camera footage.
Best $300 I ever spent.
And to think non of this would have happened if the boys father or a strong male influence had been allowed in his life.
At 11:36 AM, MarkyMark said…
You know, there was a time when the words (spoken my mothers), “Go to your room, and wait till your dad gets home!” meant something…
At 12:56 PM, Trescius said…
I know I was part of the phasing out generation here in Canada markymark.
At 3:13 AM, Anonymous said…
“Well I certainly don’t mind prorating women’s rights to your money as long as you understand that we must prorate your rights to any children produced of the marriage as MALE contribution in that area is slight…”
Ahem.. aren’t you missing the obvious point here that generally with women’s time taken up with being pregnant or “mothering” (with the way single mother’s kids behave I wonder what this entails exactly) they are incapable of obtaining a wage suitable to obtain what a child needs to survive?
Nappies and baby formula don’t grow on trees you know. The money to pay for it comes from somewhere, whether a husband, or the government. Government being “men, just indirectly but shhh”. Infact, historically the reason men are providers is so that children (and women in most cases) SURVIVE.
So bullshit men don’t put work into children. Every person alive on the earth is alive as a result of the work of billions of men who have provided for women and children.
So.. single mothers can be accepted as morally responsible if they have consent of the father that he didn’t want to get involved AND have enough savings to provide for themselves and the child during pregnancy (due to earning it themselves) and are able to support the child afterwards (ie. by fucking working).
Incase you haven’t noticed, the above rarely happens and incase you haven’t noticed that seeing as men are still the providers we are paying for this moral irresponsibility.
Sorry NyMom, responsible mothering means with father. With father means “you can get along with men”. I think there is precedent for this sort of thing working out. Simple.
At 3:24 PM, NYMOM said…
You are missing my point.
Obviously men no longer WISH to play by these rules and that’s okay…but you should accept that women are going to move on w/o you and have families w/o you…
Since just because MEN no longer are interested in marriage and having families doesn’t mean women no longer wish children.
That’s the point you keep missing.
AND responsible women over a certain age can become single parents and raise children just fine.
You keep saying to not get married in an attempt to force women back into traditional families; but you are missing the point that MEN are the ones who no longer WISH to have traditional families.
They find it restrictive, stiffling and dangerous in the event of divorce…
So it’s other men who are the hard cases you are going to be trying to convince regarding traditional marriage.
As THEY do not WANT IT anymore.