there apparently is not statute of limitation on wimyn's avarice; most times the only way wimyn acquire wealthis through the deceased estate of her expired hubby or by legal rip off tactics

Quote from shaazam

there apparently is not statute of limitation on wimyn's avarice; most times the only way wimyn acquire wealthis through the deceased estate of her expired hubby or by legal rip off tactics

It is not for the first time a judge abuse his position for the benefit of a useless bint!!

But this one takes the buiscuit!!!

It is just another example of how courtroom NAZI tyrants are operating beyond the law without any restrictions. Men do not longer have the protection of the law. They are exposed to the mercyless fascists judges who can not see any further than the twat in front of them.

It is also a clear violation of the human rights (Human Rights Act 1998 s42), thus, he may appeal on those grounds.

NEVO

But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: "This was not a second bite at the cherry but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband."

I think this QC (is that Brit for lawyer?) needs to crack a dictionary and look up the word "reasonable."

She said it was not Mrs North's fault that her investments had gone wrong.

Well it wouldn't be, would it? That would mean an adult woman would be responsible for her decisions and their outcomes. I bet it was the fault of a man who was handling her investments.

The district judge's award had been at the "bottom end of the spectrum".

Oh, alright then. Since the award was so low (£202,000), I guess we have nothing to be upset about.

It is not like that!

QC's and judges are responsible for decisions in family courts. In order for the divorce industry to flourish they must ensure that men, who are by and large holders of the family capital, are disposes of of that capital and women, who are largely inept at handling finances, get the rich pickings.

NEVO