damiso:
I hope she does not get a dime .. wrong precedent to set.
Those judges that even allowed the case to be heard at all is preposterous. .

Timbuktou:

That's exactly the way women should be treated, and is, in fact, how the law wants women to be treated when one considers the millions of femcentric policies littering the western world.

Women are never held to account for anything.

Timbuktou:
Men have always earned whatever 'rights' and privileges they enjoyed. Women get it handed over to them by men. Fact

Timbuktou:
Are you aware that at a time in history, not all males had the right to vote? Only those that owned land actually could vote, and at another time males had to earn a certain amount of money to be accorded the privilege of voting? Or that men were once forced to join the army and fight wars, and so on.

Fhemmmy:
This is the type of woman that made men insult women . . . it is sickening and sad that someone could do such and the law that even allowed her to be able to is pathetic.

coogar:


were you not arguing the law is fair few weeks ago? why change mouth now?

TV01:

Ultimately I'm not sure it matters if they see it. I'm sure some probably do, but don't see beyond it - which is key. The pre-occupation with their feelings and well-being mean they will rather remain in denial, even if clearly outlined to them.

Ultimately there wil lbe a backlash - not necessarily physical - driven someway by men opting out of a zero value proposition. As ever, women and children will bear the brunt, so many women will finally "get it" and probably fight hard to reverse the feminsit madness.

Order will be restored. The tried and tested, all round beneficial Patriarchy will be restored. As ever, because women want it as much if not mores so than men !

When this will happen or how much damage will be done before this takes place, I cannot say. For now, men of understanding need to take a firm stand and continue to run their families along sound patriarchal principles.


And it's the abuse that will rot society so badly that there will have to be a re-think - somehow, some way. It will simply become unsustainable, and the damage to male/female relationships and wider society will be undeniable. Right now they are still managing to sell - an untrue - story of female emancipation and empowerment (of which the sum effect appears to be sluttiness and butt implants ).


Commander TV

Fhemmmy:


CHairman, I argue case by case and not in general . . . this one is wack BUT some aint bad . . . .

crackhaus:

Lol.
They think they know, but they don't. . .

Dumb as a plank, wanting to be pro-choice and acquiring every so-called right but never accepting responsibility for the consequences which those choices and rights can bring.

So yea, that is template kid behaviour - playing victim and expecting a pity party on one hand, then calling themselves strong black independent women on the other... where is the responsibility?
Of course the law will have to take care of/protect people like this, else they may end up being the architect of their own destruction and total annihilation.
This is one area where I give props to the white man, his ability to see the future. . . unfortunately for him however, what he didn't bargain for was the increase of feminazis who subsequently begun taking advantage of pro-women policies to finally expose their deep-seated hatred for their own feminity... I've even heard/read/seen some saying that God the creator is sexist for making them bleed for days at a stretch every month, ergo, they hate the fact that they have to menstruate and men don't. Lmao...

Most of these women don't even realize that policies like ridiculous divorce settlements and favourable sexual laws like no-consent equals rape even in a marriage, actually prove the long-held stereotype (which they hate BTW) that women are indeed a weaker less-thinking specie of humans who need protection from their own choices.

The femcentric policies of the western world do not protect women from men, it protects them from themselves.

It's hilarious really, almost comical.

ladygogo:
This is a money grab.

TV01:

Undeniable fact


...in some parts it was the fact that the state had the right to conscript men into the army that meant they got the vote. Women were not conscriptable - that is were never called upon to lay down their lives in defence of their countries (as ever it was men doing just that in protection of women and children ). The vote wasn't a male privilege, it was the quid pro quo for male responsibility.

As you noted, there was one vote per household/family - the man as head typically cast it. men without famlies/homes did not get to vote either.

When the vote was made universal, there was very little, if any time, between all men and all women getting it. Don't fall for deceitful feminist revisionism.


TV

Fhemmmy:
This is the type of woman that made men insult women . . . it is sickening and sad that someone could do such and the law that even allowed her to be able to is pathetic.

pickabeau1:


But..

Bro you were arguing that the law is fine and dandy a few weeks back

coogar:


why is it wack?
how's this any different from forcing fathers to pay for kids they don't see or visit?

pickabeau1:


But..

Bro you were arguing that the law is fine and dandy a few weeks back

coogar:


he is now born again!

Fhemmmy:


Dont let us derail, however, as a father, if your ex-wife stop you from seeing your kids or visit them, there is a procedure, use it and fight her at her own game . . . dont punish the child by not paying the child support . . . All i was saying was that a MAN ( real man) should not be forced to support his own child.
But dont let us derail, now that we finally on same page on this one, let us have fun together, but note that i am not changing my stands that women and kids should not be abused. . . even a man should not be

coogar:


i am not even talking about the past issues - why do you think this woman isn't entitled to get a dime from the hubby. remember....she carried the baby for 9 months(one of your points few weeks back) and must have fed the baby with more than 20 litres of breäst milk

Fhemmmy:


How old is the child in question now, the man started making money after the woman had left . . . Now dont get me wrong, nothing bad if the man takes care of his child as soon as he start making it, but for the woman to now be asking for money, it means ......

Timbuktou:
The damage has been done already. The world is upside down and we can't even see that, that's what's most sickening and scary. Have you heard of Dubai porta potties? You go weep for humanity.

Timbuktou:
Where's the family unit today? Its now about pseudo-respect and false rights. Like the bible says not all permissible things should be indulged in, I believe this is where feminism has missed. Going for it all.

Timbuktou:
Speaking of unsustainable, at this rate, the western civilisation cannot continue to support this decadence and level of perversion and hope to survive a determined and formidable opponent. I don't know the strength of the likes of ISIS but if Russia and China are up for it, there could be a shift in the balance of power as we know it.

coogar:


what about the money she had used raising the child? surely, she's entitled to that exciting to your logic few weeks back.....

Fhemmmy:


When they separated, did she asked for anything? If she did, now the court would have ruled against even future makings of the man
How come she never asked for nothing when they were going their separate ways? Cos she never see the man to be able to amount to something
And thus my saying earlier, it wont be a bad idea for the man to at least start taking care of that child as soon as he start making money, but if he start making the money once the child was already an adult . . . . . Different ball game

coogar:


she couldn't have asked for anything then. the man was dirt-poor. according to your logic in the previous thread....you said and i quote...

"There is nothing wrong if a woman is irritated by poverty, cos we all do have phobia for poverty"

oga fhemmmy - this woman is only following your principle. she was irritated by poverty.

If she was going by my philosophy, she would have sued at that time for child support, and that will be against future fortune of such man.

TV01:

Yes na. But in some ways it's not new. Like I said earlier, all we have to show for Ferminism is ultra-sluttiness. And is it any worse than women copulating with animals for money?


From a biblical perspective, feminism is pure anti-Christ. No gainsaying. Bad is now called good - by law. Isaiah 10:1, Daniel etc.


When ISIS land on these shores there will be few men to defend them - and those that can may well prefer ISIS. In a sense, they already have, the Rotherham sex scandal and al the radicalised/extremist nutters roaming the UK are signs.

Watch and pray


TV

Fhemmmy:


Cos this is a different case, i go case by case and section by section of the law . . . .

coogar:

he is now born again!

Fhemmmy:


If she was going by my philosophy, she would have sued at that time for child support, and that will be against future fortune of such man.

Fhemmmy:


If she was going by my philosophy, she would have sued at that time for child support, and that will be against future fortune of such man.

TV01:

Broda, you are trying, but seriously sounding like a man with no assets or no woman . It makes little or no sense. At least there should be some sort of cap and statute of limitations. What if he becomes a billionaire in 10 years time? Does she get to revisit. Will there be a refund if he turns broke-ass?

The child ceases to be a minor at 18 - he's now 30 somehting. Even if she wanted back-payment for rasing his child, "the 2nd of her 4 by 3 different men", I doubt she spent anywhere close to £2million.


TV

coogar:


and that's exactly the reason the court has allowed her to press for her claim she wasn't able to claim since 1992. if there was a settlement then, there wouldn't have been any need to come out now. the new family law has a no-limit policy. ex-wives of 1856 can claim in 2015 if they never got a dime when the divorce took place.

this woman deserves to press for claims cos she has satisfied all the criteria you listed in the previous thread. your criteria then were.....

•She married him
•Cooked for him
•Warmed his bed
•Made his house
•Made his house be a home

so oga fhemmmy, what changed your policy?

Fhemmmy:

Chairman, I never changed at all, still same but again, i am on case by case

coogar:


why is this woman a leech now? she's fully satisfied your 5-point criteria.