Archive for the ‘divorce’ Category

Psycho divorcee imprisoned kids for seven-years
September 13, 2007


12 February 2007

Daughters Struggling After Mom Locked Them Away for 7 Years

Three girls who were imprisoned by their mother in a house of indescribable filth for seven years may never recover from the ordeal, experts said last night.

The girls were shut away from the outside world, existing in almost complete darkness, playing only with mice and communicating in their own language.

When they were discovered, their home in a smart, upper middle-class suburb had no running water and was filled with waste and excrement a meter high. The floor was corroded by mice urine.

What a bitch.

The girls’ ordeal was apparently sparked by their parents’ divorce, after which their mother, a 53-year-old lawyer, suffered a breakdown. But she won custody of the girls — then aged 7, 11 and 13 — and withdrew them from school, claiming that she would give them private tuition at home.

Her husband, a local judge in Linz, Upper Austria, named only as Andreas M, was not allowed to see them once, despite his claims for access reaching court nine times.

Welcome to the West; Mangina Central. The bitch suffered a mental breakdown but she still won custody of the kids and her husband’s demands to see his children completely ignored.

The mother is now being held in a special remand prison branch for the mentally unstable. She will appear in court in a few weeks on charges of grievous bodily harm and torture, and is facing between five months and five years in prison.

Ah yes, off to a special cozy psychiatric branch of a prison because she simply must be mentally ill or have a personality disorder like any woman who gone and done bad.

And the most she’ll get is five-years? Possibly less than half-a-year? Her daughters spent seven-years locked up.

I think, oh let’s say, seventy-years would be a more appropriate punishment. Or good old fashioned burning at the stake.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:00 PM


Education and the nanny state in the UK
September 12, 2007


07 February 2007

An education crisis is looming, unless parents do their homework

By Simon Heffer.

My suspicions were roused, and are regularly compounded, by Gordon Brown’s fiscal and economic policies. Marriage, except when deeply unhappy or abusive, is always the best context in which to raise children. Mr Brown has, however, neutralised the tax regime as it relates to marriage. Worse, he has gone to enormous lengths to encourage the creation of what has been called “the redundant male”.

State childcare facilities of which the old Soviet bloc would have been proud are being developed and funded to ensure that single women can have children and carry on some sort of career without having to worry about whether a man is there to assist with these awesome tasks, or to provide any financial support for them.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:16 PM


Another insurance-motivated murder
September 12, 2007


06 February 2007

Wife convicted of plotting plumber’s murder for life insurance payout, faces death penalty

Jurors have convicted a Florida woman of conspiring to murder her plumber husband so she could collect $500,000 in life insurance.

This is the second case in a week of a woman convicted of spousal murder for money.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:17 AM


September 6, 2007


23 January 2007

Hot off the cyber-press:

Outcast Superstar

Includes this post, Fuckers And Suckers, which has proved somewhat popular amongst the rounds.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:53 PM


Zsa Zsa winks
September 6, 2007


20 January 2007


Some quotes from serial ex-wife, talk-show circuit regular, slapper of Californian highway patrol officers (hence the mugshot above), failed actress, and famous for being famous “socialite” Zsa Zsa Gabor:

I have never hated a man enough to give his diamonds back.

I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.

I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?

I always said marriage should be fifty-fifty proposition. He should be at least fifty years old, and have at least fifty-million dollars.

To give her credit, at least she is honest about her attitude. She’s still a fucking gold-digger though. Unfortunately a very successful one. Her considerable fortune is almost entirely down to her many marriages and divorces (seven divorces so far, plus one annulment.) She’s been referred to as Hollywood’s most expensive whore. Given that her 90th birthday is seventeen-days away, I dare say business (if she still needs it) is a little slow.

Plus – possibly inadvertently – she did give us this gem of a quote, which I’ve seen in the sig of at least one MRA on a forum somewhere:

A man in love is incomplete until he is married. Then he is finished.

Damn right. Thanks for the warning bitch.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 2:42 PM


Marital toxicity
September 6, 2007


16 January 2007

From trophy wife to toxic wife

An article from the Daily Telegraph that deserves to be quoted in full. I dare any feminist to read through it and still insist marriage is “slavery” for women.

Decadent stay-at-home wives who take their rich husbands for a ride have finally been rumbled, says Tara Winter Wilson

Once upon a time, there was a truth, universally acknowledged, that a man with a powerful job and a beautiful house must be in want of a wife – preferably of the trophy variety. Domesticated, docile yet dazzling, she was the perfect finishing touch.

Not any more. According to research to be published in the journal Labour Economics, the earnings gap between married couples is narrowing. While in the 1980s it was the case that the higher a professional man’s salary the fewer paid hours his wife would put in, men today are more likely to want a dynamic high-flier, an equal who wows him as much in the boardroom as in the bedroom.

‘It is like a perversion of the evolution theory: they have evolved into creatures whose function is simply to get the most for doing the least,’ says one husband.

A victory for feminism? Sadly not. The reason for this change, sisters, is nothing to be proud of.

Rich men, I believe, have finally cottoned on to the sinister side of the stay-at-home wife: unless you marry an equal who’s going to pay her own way, you will end up with a lazy, indulgent, over-pampered slug. For the transition from trophy wife to toxic wife is as fast as the end result is furious.

I should know: many men of my age and acquaintance have become deeply bitter and disappointed about how their wives have changed since they hung up their working wardrobes. I am talking about university-educated women (often Oxbridge graduates) who do a couple of years work in the City before harnessing themselves to a milch cow and “having it all”.

Apparently there’s a new take on “having it all” – and it’s not what the majority of us understood it to mean. Back in the 1970s, it meant effortlessly maintaining a beautiful home, entertaining in grand style, raising perfect children, keeping the husband sweet and having some sort of career in order to create financial independence.

“Superwoman” was the phrase coined for these energetic pioneers; “trophy wives” for the less energetic ones. Today it’s a whole new ball game.

“It is like a perversion of the evolution theory: they have evolved into creatures whose function is simply to get the most for doing the least,” whispered an exhausted husband to me recently. “I wouldn’t mind providing her with so much if she just did something for me occasionally. She’s never even once cooked me a meal.”

“She doesn’t know the definition of sacrifice,” said another angry husband. “Relationships are meant to be about compromise, but she is more about selfishness. I bend and adapt to her needs, yet all she gives me are ultimatums.”

“Can’t you just divorce?” I asked.

“Are you kidding?” he replied. “I’d lose everything I’ve worked for, including my children, and I’d be paying her an indecent amount of money for life.”

“There’s another reason these husbands don’t divorce,” added a sympathetic onlooker. “They don’t want to admit to failure – they don’t want to be ungallant. There’s an unspoken nobility or gentlemanly understanding that divorce is something they don’t do.”

Indeed, “something they don’t do” is a mantra that extends to practically every area of toxic wifedom. Once an intelligent, educated woman who could hold her own in any dinner-party conversation, the toxic wife will do nothing of the sort.

“They not only become utterly vacant, they never throw dinner parties or entertain anyone outside of their small, closeted circle of other vacant wives,” said irate husband number one.

“None of us can understand this: they become obsessed with perfection, grooming, with all aspects of their personal appearance… in a word, they become boring.”

“Vain, boring, indulgent and lazy,” adds yet another voice to the growing army of fed-up husbands. “I have to take the children out of the house every Sunday morning and wander around with them trying to find things to do because my wife must have a lie-in. I’m only allowed back in the house after 11am. Sunday is the nanny’s day off, you see.”

“My wife,” chipped in husband number two, “gives over the whole of the weekend to pursuing what she calls ‘me time’. She goes to retreats, yoga mini-breaks, a spa, a health farm, even art classes… all of which I pay for, of course. What do I get back in return? Nothing.”

So today’s concept of a wife “having it all”, simply put, means never doing anything personally if she can pay someone else to do it for her. And if she can’t find someone else, her husband must do it.

“To be frank,” said another unfortunate husband, “I was conned. And I’m by no means the only one. There’s a pattern of behaviour that these wives all adopt.”

There are five tell-tale signs, apparently. First, she gives up work, ostensibly to care for the brood, only to have the children packed off to either boarding school or intensive (ie, lots of extra-curricular activities) private day schools.

Secondly, she suddenly wants to move somewhere more rural/suburban that suits her idea of family life, yet location-wise is horrendous for her exhausted, ever-commuting husband.

Thirdly, she demands wall-to-wall help, which nearly always includes an abused Filipina who works 12-14 hours a day, six days a week.

Fourthly, she refuses to fulfil in any way the traditional contract of the non-working spouse in terms of doing anything for her husband (such as cooking), while, fifthly, she expects her husband to fulfil the traditional but anachronistic male role in the household (such as paying all the bills).

Here is a typical day outlined by one husband of a toxic wife.

5.30am: Husband leaves for London.
7.45am: Filipina brings wife tea in bed.
8am: Nanny takes children to school.
8.30am: Breakfast, suduko and the papers.
9.30am-4pm: God knows; possibly gym, spa, shopping, boozy lunch with friends, nap or massage.
4pm: Nanny collects children from school.
5.30pm: Nanny gives children tea and goes home.
7pm: Filipina gives children bath.
7.30pm: Wife disappears off to book group.
9pm: Husband returns and roots around for an M&S ready-meal.
10.30pm: Wife returns. Bed.
10.35pm: Sex? In your dreams.

If the above timetable seems hideously parasitic, it is, and so is the woman behind it. The other day I nervously accepted an invitation for lunch with an old school friend. I felt daunted because, several years ago, she married a rich banker and I’d been dumped from her circle.

“Sorry I’m late,” I said on arriving at her mansion. “Got stuck in traffic so bad it gave me road rage.”

“Road rage?” replied Olivia, her eyes swivelling down to my shoes and up to my hair in a split, judgmental second. “Well, I’m suffering from maid rage. I mean, come and look…”

She led me into her kitchen, three times the size of my flat, and slid open a drawer. “How shoddy is that?” She was holding up a fork.

“What’s wrong with it?” I asked, peering at it politely.

“Just look! It has a disgusting piece of encrusted mashed potato on it. I mean, it’s so shoddy! She can’t even unload a dishwasher. I’m really going to have to sack her. And guess what else I discovered this morning? When I opened the towel cupboard after my bath, I noticed that she’d stacked the pink towels amongst the white ones. Can you believe it?”

What made this conversation so scary was the fact that the terrified Filipina was in the room with us, hunched over a table slicing up bits of duck and foie gras for our lunch. “Juanita!” snapped Olivia. “This is your last chance. Do you understand me? You’ll be back in Manila within the week… I couldn’t possibly recommend you to anyone. Understand?”

“Yes Madam,” she sniffed with a tremulous sob.

“And stop dripping your revolting bodily fluids over our lunch. Throw that away and start again. ”

Horrified by her manner and the distressing scene, I asked her for a tour of her home. She had just moved into one of those massive houses in Chelsea Square. Rich folk tolerate people like me (ie, broke ones) only because we make them feel better about themselves.

“Would love to, darling,” she drawled, “but first how about a drinkie-poo? Juanita! Open the champagne chilling in the wine fridge and bring it upstairs to the south drawing-room.”

“Yes Madam,” replied the poor slave.

“I won’t have any, thanks,” I said. “I’m driving and have to pick my children up from school.”

“You mean you don’t have a nanny to do it?” Olivia’s eyes glared with horror. “I have the most delightful Norland one. Although the uniform is brown and ghastly, they are so well trained. She’s downstairs in the basement doing my ironing at the moment…”

This was now utterly surreal. I had no idea that real people lived like this. Yet, minute by agonising minute, it got worse. I tried a bit of light humour.

“Well, let’s hope she’s not weeping tears on to your party dresses, eh?”

“What?” snapped Olivia.

“Well, then you’d ask her to redo the whole lot again, wouldn’t you?”

“Possibly,” she replied. “But a little moisture is no bad thing when ironing out the creases…”

Was she exhibiting a dry wit? I didn’t know. In her pre-toxic wife days, she was amusing and droll. Now we were different beings living in parallel universes. She showed me lavish room after lavish room, and at one point I heard some strange shuffling coming from one of her closets. Maybe her life is not so perfect after all, I thought; maybe she has rats.

As we sat down to lunch in the “informal” dining-room adjacent to the kitchen in an open-plan L-shape, I noticed that Juanita was eating a rather more humble repast slightly around the corner; although I couldn’t see all of her, I could detect an elbow jutting out from time to time.

“She won’t be joining us then?”

“Are you mad?” cried Olivia. “Why would I want to even see my servants?”

As if on cue, a wizened little Filipino man appeared, bowing and scraping. “Madam, I have finished all the shoes. I will go now, thank you madam.” He hurried out.

“See you on Thursday as normal, Pedro,” she replied, barely glancing at him.

“Where did he spring from?” I asked. After all, I’d just endured an exhaustive survey of her house, and there had been no sign of Pedro.

“Oh, he’s our shoe polisher. He comes twice a week. He works in a cupboard – probably why you didn’t notice him.” No rats after all.

Here was an educated woman who spent her days rotting her brain with alcohol, and bossing an army of staff.

“Olivia,” I said, “don’t you miss your old job, your financial independence? Isn’t all this a bit decadent?”

“Forget the work ethic,” she laughed. “Why on earth would I want to struggle, feel tired and look old before my time?”

I left, more agitated than when I arrived. Forget road rage; I was suffering from toxic-wife rage. Driving to collect my children, the outside world felt like a haven of normality and peace. How I pitied these rich and successful men who had naively hoped for a domestic goddess, only to end up with a diva.

Wake up, toxic wives, the game is over. Your milch cows have seen the light of day. You are toxic, you are trouble and you are about to become extinct.


Michael Jordan could lose up to 90% of wealth in divorce
September 5, 2007


08 January 2007

Jordan vs. Jordan: In Defense of Michael Jordan

After 12 years of marriage, [Michael] Jordan’s wife Juanita filed for divorce earlier this month and is seeking permanent custody of the couple’s three children, their 25,000-square-foot home, and her share of the couple’s property. Under Illinois law she may be awarded up to 90% of their assets.

Marriage: Just Say No. Multi-millionaire basketball player or humble office worker, just avoid it brothers.

90%…holy shit.

According to Forbes a few years ago, Jordan’s net worth was $398,000,000. You don’t even need to work out 90% of that to realise that this bitch is going to be sorted for life on the hard-work of a man. Okay, it may only be “up to 90%” but it’ll surely be at least 50%. In fact, even if she only got a mere teeny tiny little 0.9% of his assets she’ll still be far wealthier than she would have been had she not married him.

Michael Jordan and Paul McCartney going though divorces and losing so much of their assets at the same time on opposite sides of the Atlantic this year will, hopefully, wake up more men to the total bum-raping in the family courts men get during divorces, whereby a woman can file for divorce and plunder a husband for money he earned.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 9:37 PM


Mills gets death threats
August 28, 2007


17 December 2006

Underworld threatens Heather Mills

Detectives have warned Heather Mills they fear she may be attacked by criminals from the Liverpool underworld who are angry about her split from Sir Paul McCartney.


Hundreds of hate emails have been sent to her website, labelling her ‘the most loathed woman in Britain’ and ‘a gold-digging disgrace’.

Crikey! A little bit extreme, sending death-threats to her, but still, she is indeed a gold-digging disgrace.

It must be a shock to her to find out that not everyone is gleefully supporting her merry plundering of a man’s hard-earned fortune.

Ms Mills says she has no money to pay for security because her husband froze their joint account.

Oh dear. She might have to actually have to get a job.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 12:38 PM


A merry sing-a-long
August 27, 2007


02 December 2006


I was listening to some old Marilyn Manson album earlier, one I’d not listened to for a few years, and one song, Para Noir, contains a woman lewdly whispering lots of reasons why she’d fuck a guy.

The way these words are plainly uttered with determined ambition by the woman makes me imagine that this is pretty much what goes through most modern skank’s heads when they are trying to attract a man’s attention in the hope of fucking him, in more ways than one.

Or, to put it another way, this is what a woman would say whilst you tried to chat her up if she had taken some sort of pill that forced her, for fucking once, to actually be truthful about her motives and ambitions when she decided to grab her coat and hop into a taxi with you.

I’d fuck you for your money
I’d fuck you to control you
I’d fuck you so someday I can have half of everything you own
I’d fuck you to fuck you over
I’d fuck you until I find someone better
Then fuck you in secret
I’d fuck you because I can’t remember if I’d already fucked you before
I’d fuck you out of boredom
I’d fuck you because I can’t feel anything anyways
I’d fuck you to make the pain go away

I’d fuck you so I could feel something instead of nothing at all
I’d fuck you because you are beautiful
I’d fuck you because you are my nigger
I’d fuck you because I am your whore
I’d fuck you because you are a whore
I’d fuck you for fun
I’d fuck you for fun
I’d fuck you because I can
I’d fuck you so I have a place to stay
I’d fuck you so you will protect me

(The preceeding lyrics contained strong language and should not have been read by miners.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 3:25 PM


Single mothers better off
August 26, 2007


27 November 2006

Single mothers get £100 more in tax credits a week than working couple

Single parents on the poverty line are getting over £100 a week more in state benefits than couples facing the same difficulties, a new report says.

The huge difference in the treatment of single parents and married couples is plunging millions of children into poverty and encouraging couples to live apart or break up, it said.


The report, produced by the family charity CARE, comes at a time of growing concern about the built-in bias towards single mothers in the benefits system.

Lone mothers qualify for special rights to get housing, extra payments in benefits like Income Support, and are targeted by schemes like Sure Start that provide help, advice and childcare

The government has blatantly been encouraging divorce and out-of-wedlock births. They know that a family headed by a man is independent, unlike a “family” consisting of a woman and her kids, which is invariably dependent on the government and thus easy to push around. Plus, of course, feminism’s primary aim was to push men out of families (but to ensure they are still financially responsible – whether directly through Child Support or indirectly through taxes – for women and children) and they have certainly succeeded.


Women; the eternal victims!
August 13, 2007


23 November 2006

Action urged over abuse of women

The government is not doing enough to tackle the problems of violence against women in the UK, a coalition of charities has warned.

Men are far more likely so suffer violence in general, and just as likely as women to suffer from domestic violence at the hands of a partner. Whilst female children are more likely to suffer sexual abuse than male children, male children are more likely to suffer physical abuse than female children, and women are the greatest perpetrators. Women are responsible for the majority of cases of infanticide.

Yet all we ever hear about are poor women suffering. Oh noooo! One single woman suffering violence means the whole world must come to a stop and everything done to prevent this from happening again, but men and boys suffering – be it through violent crime, domestic violence at the hands of a wife or girlfriend, physical abuse at the hands of a mother, or the epidemic of male suicide – is apparantly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter. Only women matter according to charities and governments.


From the Comments IV; Revenge of the Nice Guy
August 8, 2007


18 November 2006


A good comment this time, one made by Anonymous on a recent post.

A rebuke of women who followed feminism in their youth but wish to return to the age of old now that they have reached old age, this rant deserves to be put forth here for all to see.

Women have the right to neglect and let nice hardworking men rot all alone while they are in their late teens and early 20’s while they get to squander their prime year to the thugs and exciting bad boys.

In return once men get financially stable (mid 20’s-early 30’s) we’ve got every fucking right to rebuke these western skanks for the worthless piece of shit they are. If women are in their 30’s crying that they can’t have children or can’t find a good man, that is their fucking problem not mine! They should thought about this when they were around 20 rather than in their mid 30’s. When they are 20 they could pick what ever guy they want.

However, once we all hit 30, men like me will be the ones who will run the show not them! Since they threw away their prime years at bad boys and thugs, I for one will gladly let them feel the pain I went through in my late teens and early 20’s and will glady rebuke them and let them feel what it is like being alone without any one showing them any affection.

Amen Brother.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:24 PM


Just when you thought it was safe to move to Japan…
August 7, 2007


14 November 2006


This humble blog of mine takes a second consecutive trip to Japan where there’s a new era of divorce set to begin:

A potential avalanche of divorces is set to occur after April 1, when a new system under the public pension scheme will begin, making a divorcing wife eligible for a maximum of 50 percent of her company employee husband’s pension benefits.

Many women in their middle or older years are believed to be waiting for the system to begin before divorcing their husbands, according to analysts.

With the new system to start in less than six months, civic groups have been sponsoring explanatory sessions in many parts of the country. A great majority of attendants have been middle-aged and older women.


If a woman never worked full-time during her marriage, she will be eligible for up to 50 percent of her husband’s benefits.

Japan = fucked

Remember, women fundamentally have no morals. If they can benefit from something, they’ll do it. Doesn’t matter if it’ll upset, devastate or completely ruin someone else, least of all mere men and children…if they can do it and get away with it, they’ll do it.

It’s all about the money. That’s all it is. When women look at co-habitation, marriage, seperation, divorce, remarriage…all that matters to most these days is “How much can I make?

Rarely will they “think of teh cheweldruhn” as they claim, or think of the husband, as they don’t even fucking bother to claim. No, it’s about what they can make. Money money money. Give give give.

“I didn’t earn it, but I feel entitled to it, so it’s mine! Refusing to hand it over is oppression! My grandma couldn’t vote (probably) so, erm…GIVE!”

Don’t marry. Don’t marry or co-habit, for your sake and for your financial security’s sake!

That goes for our Japanese brothers as well of course, who we will no doubt be welcoming in vast numbers into our cyber-safehaven of Matriarchal Refugees.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:11 PM


From the Comments III
August 6, 2007


13 November 2006

Wow, yet another dumb woman (this one an anonymous coward) spewing forth a tedious pile of drivel at the comments page here. It’s getting a bit unoriginal, all this shaming language, but it’s worth putting it up here anyway to remind us of how fantastic it is to not have to put up with one of these infernal Western Women in our lives.

Wow…clearly no one in this exchange has gotten any in years!

Right off, accusations of “You can’t get laid!”

Anyone fancy a game of fembot bingo whilst reading this?

Bravo. Way to misconstrue the facts and the law … but hey at least you have your angry man hate to keep you warm at night!

Man hate? We don’t hate men, feminist do.

Unless you’re trying to imply criticising women is equal to us hating women, which is, according to dumb cunts like you, is Bad, whilst hating men is Good.


From the comments
August 2, 2007


10 November 2006

This rant landed in the comments section of a recent post of mine, from someone called “Willie“:

You probably won’t post this. Who really cares. But this site is ridiculous. Any man knows that men still enjoy privledge. It seems you are just upset cuz you can’t go out and club a woman over her head, drag her back to your apartment and then rape her just for a quick thrill and to spread your pathetic seed. Get over yourself.

Rather than indulge in mud-slinging and insults, I think it’s worth politely pointing out and expanding my viewpoint to this chap, for what it’s worth.

For starters, if he thinks the idea of thuggish men beating women, dragging them off to rape them and impregnating them is bad, then alarmingly we actually have something in common. I have no such desire to do such a thing or to leave women open to such treatment either.

However, ironically, it is a post-feminist society that removes the restraints on women that makes this scenario more likely.

Before feminism, women were looked down upon for getting knocked up by thugs and losers, and not having the right to an abortion meant they had to be careful and only hook up with nice-guys. Divorce was frowned upon too, so women better make sure they’re hooked up with a decent chap, not some “exciting” but obnoxious criminal. Plus girls grew up with a father-figure to represent the strong-but-considerate male figure they should seek when selecting a mate. A father would also protect his daughter.


Something lighthearted
July 30, 2007


25 October 2006

Courtesy of The Onion

DNA Evidence Frees Man After 15 Years Of Marriage

JACKSONVILLE, FL—Henry “Hank” Doswell, 42, was released from his marriage Wednesday, after DNA tests conclusively proved his innocence in the July 1991 fathering of Spencer Doswell, the solitary charge that has kept him committed for 15 years.

Visibly moved to tears as his divorce lawyer read the test results, Doswell, who had been confined to a suburban housing facility after being wrongly wedded after allegedly impregnating then-girlfriend Karen Sanders, told reporters he was relieved to finally set his matrimonial record straight.

You can obviously tell it’s a spoof; in real-life men are forced to pay Child Support even if it’s proven that their wife’s kid is actually some other guy’s!

“I’ve made some choices I’m not proud of,” said the newly liberated Doswell. “When you’re in wedlock, you have to do things you never thought you would, make friends with people you would have never made friends with on the outside, shop at a Pottery Barn. But after wasting almost half my life on baptisms and birthday parties meant for some other man, I’m not about to take my single life for granted anymore.”

“I can’t believe I’m actually free,” he added.


posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:16 PM


July 30, 2007


25 October 2006

Man separates from wife — and his ring finger

A Viennese man cut off his ring finger and presented the digit, still holding his wedding band, to his ex-wife after an acrimonious divorce, Austrian news agency APA reported Tuesday.

Charged with dangerous harassment and assault for the act, he told a preliminary hearing he did not regret having cut off the finger and had chosen deliberately not to reattached it.

Heh. Interesting gesture, although a bit silly.

Typical how he still manages to get done for harassing and assaulting (!) his ex-wife though. Just because her feeeeeuhlings were obviously hurt.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:14 PM


Cohabiting couples need their own law
July 30, 2007


24 October 2006

A kind reader sent a link to this letter in The Business Online, basically some guy pointing out what most of us have figured out already; that the recent cohabitation laws will send the cohabitation rate plummeting just like the marriage rate.

The penultimate paragraph is especially worrying; it’s already the case in other Western nations that men can end up obligated to pay for another man’s children should he be foolish enough to marry or cohabit with their mother. This will happen here too no doubt (although why any man would want to get involved with a single mother is beyond me.)

He also sticks to being “gender neutral” when really we know that it’ll be men avoiding getting involved with women; even if a woman is wealthier than a live-in boyfriend, it’s hardly likely that she’ll have to pay him maintenance or surrender most of her assets to him.

Sir – The government may, on the face of it, be in favour of committed relationships between heterosexual couples, but if proposals currently being mooted by the Law Commission find their way into legislation, people are more likely to be deterred from cohabiting than encouraged.

Married couples’ rights in the event of a split are governed by divorce legislation, and same sex couples can now enter into legally binding civil partnerships, but cohabiting couples have never been fully recognised as a legal entity. With more couples considering cohabiting as an alternative to marriage, particularly in the light of recent high settlement divorces, the rights of couples living together certainly need urgent review. Currently even pre-nuptial agreements, which are becoming increasingly popular, are not legally enforceable – regardless of whether the couple is married or not.

The most fundamental change suggested by the Law Commission is that couples living together would automatically enter into a contractual relationship unless they made a conscious decision to opt out. Discussing opting out at the very same time as embarking on a committed relationship will be difficult for many couples to broach. And what of those who have already been cohabiting for some time? The Law Commission’s proposals could well result in a move away from not only marriage but any form of emotional commitment. Certainly anyone thinking of moving in with a partner without the legal ties of a marriage or civil partnership should review potential legal and financial implications in the light of this proposed new legislation.

The report also makes no allowance for assets accumulated by either party prior to cohabiting. The picture become even more disturbing where there are children involved: anyone cohabiting with, or even spending time with, another person with children from previous relationships could find themselves legally obliged to pay for those children should the relationship break down.

These proposed new laws do very little to encourage committed relationships, and seem to fly in the face of the government’s stated policy on marriage and cohabiting.

John McBride

The problem is, of course, is that this guy is still suggesting we have a “law” for cohabiting couples. That’s the last thing we need. In fact what we want is for the law to get out of private relationships, especially as its only ever on the woman’s side.

Don’t marry, don’t co-habit.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:42 PM


“McCartney was violent” claims ex-porn star and shoplifter
July 30, 2007


18 October 2006


Goodbye to violent McCartney, says Heather Mills

Former Beatle Paul McCartney’s estranged wife Heather Mills has reportedly accused the iconic musician of violence, murderous excess, sexual chauvinism, alcoholism and drug-taking throughout the course of their brief and ill-starred marriage, in the latest, ugliest twist in their divorce battle.

In a series of extraordinary allegations filed in the divorce papers, which quickly found their way into a British tabloid newspaper, Mills, a former model half McCartney’s age, accused McCartney of attacking her four times, trying to choke her and behaving in an altogether “vindictive, punitive manner”.

Mills, who has retained the late Princess Diana’s expensive divorce lawyer to try and claim the largest chunk possible of the former Beatle’s estimated one-billion-pound fortune, claimed the singer was “physically violent” and tried to stab her with a broken wine glass, refused to let her breast-feed their daughter and forced the one-legged anti-landmine campaigner her to cancel an operation since it conflicted with his vacation plans.

And who’s going to believe all these allegations that lack evidence, that suspiciously were not reported at the time, and which would coincidentally ensure an even bigger share of a divorce settlement? Oh right, a divorce court would believe them.

Divorce lawyers generally advise women to automatically make allegations of violence (or threats of it, which are even more difficult to disprove) against their husbands. It’s fair to assume the bulk of such claims are false.


Don’t co-habit
July 26, 2007


16 October 2006

Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down

Britain’s two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.

Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.

There was no doubt that this would go through. Women are whining that few men will marry, meaning it’s harder for them to orchestrate a legal theft of a man’s property and future earnings, and when women whine, governments swiftly act. Plus the family lawyers are panicking as their revenue falls.

Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes – expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years – would further undermine the institution of marriage.

Plus it’ll undermine co-habiting of course. This is what happened in Australia when they introduced similar laws; co-habitation has plummeted and more than a quarter of women are living alone or with parents, and moaning about it the whole time. “Boo-hoo, men are afraid of being financially raped…I mean, er, committment and intimacy.” The same thing will happen here.

The important thing is that as many men are made aware of this law as possible to save them from foolishly letting a woman move in and thinking that, so long as they don’t marry, they’ll be okay. They need to konw that that’s not the case.

But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years – and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.

I wonder whether these politicians are actually aware of the fact that the dropping marriage rates are because men are avoiding the risk of financial ruin, and that we’ll avoid co-habiting as well now, but are just deliberately refusing to acknowledge this, or are they genuinely that thick that they don’t realise.


%d bloggers like this: