jennykadry: WTF. Moderator should lock this thread

+1. Their persistence is bordering on psychoses now. See wahala o!

ileobatojo:
+1. Their persistence is bordering on psychoses now. See wahala o!

because y'all beloved adonis is getting verbally lashed the thread should be closed? sagamite played a devils advocate when he said the bible was a book of shyte - just because i pointed it out to him that the bible encourages anonymous donors in the church....the dude is battling with mid-life crisis!

coogar:

after telling us ibori is not corrupt? after telling us the court has to find him guilty first? after foolishly telling us he cannot be guilty by association? then you moved to playing the devil's advocate - then you moved to the clusterfuck argument with pro01 as if that affects the price of fish......

sagamite, admit it - your intelligence quotient = the phallus between your legs divided by π

This is like a Man A that has been having mouth that he would beat Man B to a vegetable state when he sees him.

Then on a Sunday, he sees Man B dressed in his best sunday attire and goes to attack him. A fight ensues and Man A ends up in the gutter, has a battered face and is places in an ambulance heading to hospital. Man B did not even have a single stain on his white trousers and shirt he used his chung-chin-chung kungfu to dismiss this insignificant nuisance in seconds, and heads to his destination. Yet Man A is telling everyone who bothers to hear that he won the fight, that he kicked that morrafuckers arses, he dealt with him. Knowing no one believes him, so he is still spoiling for a fight with Man B. Man B knows he has nothing further to prove, the world knows what happened and there is no denying it.

I am confident I have proven you are a sophist, have lower intellect and have a "I no go gree, you must kill me today" mentality. I am happy to leave it at that.

Are you happy to leave it at that?

Sagamite:

This is like a Man A that has been having mouth that he would beat Man B to a vegetable state when he sees him.

Then on a Sunday, he sees Man B dressed in his best sunday attire and goes to attack him. A fight ensues and Man A ends up in the gutter, a battered face and in an ambulance heading to hospital. Man B did not even have a single stain on his white trousers and shirt, and heads to his destination. Yet Man A is telling everyone who bothers to hear that he won the fight, that he kicked that morrafuckers arses, he dealt with him. Knowing no one believes him, so he is still spoiling for a fight with Man B. Man B knows he has nothing further to prove, the world knows what happened and there is no denying it.

I am confident I have proven you are a sophist, have lower intellect and have a "I no go gree, you must kill me today" mentality. I am happy to leave it at that.

Are you happy to leave it at that?

a very daft analogy!
this is man a(coogar) saying he would beat man b(sagamite) after school on friday!!! man a has evidence that man b was spewing bollocks eons ago. man b asked him to provide the evidence. man a diligently provided the evidence with a date and man b became keanu reeves in an instant by claiming he was just playing the devil's advocate!!! there's no al pacino here, sagamu boy!!! stop begging, this is already a rape session!

Sagamite:

Amsorry, babes. I am a junkie!

I am addicted!

Obviously!

So they are seeing sense finally.

[size=18pt]Divorce law reform may end right to equal share with plans to use formula to divide assets[/size]

[size=14pt]- Proposal would end presumption that former spouses would share marriage proceeds equally
- Instead, divorcing husband and wife could be allowed to keep property and cash they owned before marriage[/size]

Couples who split up may have to divide their assets according to a ‘divorce formula’ {As Saga intelligently proposes}, legal reformers suggested yesterday.

The proposal being mooted by the Law Commission would end the long-standing presumption that former spouses share the proceeds of their marriage equally.

Instead, a divorcing husband or wife could be allowed to keep all the property and cash they owned before their marriage.

The recommendations follow the Commission’s recent consultation on pre-nuptial arrangements.

The reforms are aimed at reducing the acrimony between warring couples and the huge amounts of money wasted on lawyers and court hearings.

But some critics said they could cut the amount a divorced woman might expect to get from her husband. {And so? Lunatics! She should get what she deserves based on her earnings and earnings potential.}

The Law Commissioner in charge of reforming divorce law, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, said the organisation is ‘looking at the boundaries of the sharing principle’ and considering what a couple might not share when they break up.

She added: ‘These are technically difficult questions. They are also very emotional questions because they are important to people at an incredibly difficult time in their lives.

‘The way people respond to them depends upon their own beliefs about marriage and about commitment and responsibility.

‘Most people who have to deal with these questions in practice agree that the current law is inadequate.’ {As Saga said}

Professor Cooke said that a divorce or civil partnership break-up was a miserable experience for the couple and their children. ‘The law can make that misery worse if it is not fair, clear and accessible, by contributing to acrimony and wasted costs.

‘It would be far clearer if the law was to state what is to be achieved. Is it trying to compensate people for what they have lost as a result of the marriage, for example, earning capacity? {This professor must have been reading my work and learning how to think}

Is it trying to move away from what might have been and to think about how long it will take for them to achieve independence?

‘And how far should the law be incentivising independence, trying to encourage people to move on?’

The Commission has already run a consultation deal about prenups, documents drawn up by a couple in advance of their wedding which set out how their assets are to be divided in the event of divorce.

Two new consultations will now cover how far a husband or wife should cover the needs of their former spouse after divorce, and what happens to assets that one party had before the marriage.

The Law Commission will produce a set of recommendations on new laws for the Government next year.

But author and researcher on the family, Patricia Morgan said the plan would ‘devalue’ marriage.{person! So having one party milking or threatening to milk another party is what up-values marriage?}

‘We have already dismantled the connection between parenting and marriage. Now we are taking mutual help and interdependence away. We won’t be sharing any more.’

She added: ‘There is an assumption here that marriage is a transient union and not a lifelong one.’{More moronic statements. So when one party can milk the other is when marriage is capable of being lifelong? Foool, if it has reached a divorce point and these laws are activated it is inevitably a transient union. These laws will not have a bearing on the marriage pre-divorce point, so do not dictate the longetivity.}

The attempt to draw up a new divorce settlement law follows a number of key court decisions. In 2010, the Supreme Court allowed German heiress Katrin Radmacher to keep the greatest share of her £100million fortune according to an agreement drawn up with her husband before their marriage.

The ruling effectively gave prenups legal force in British divorce law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201371/Divorce-law-reform-end-right-equal-share-prenup-style-proposals.html#ixzz269VRG76D

As I always said, the things I have been saying for years the West finally pick up years later. It is just a typical scenario of my life because I am too advanced in thinking and a pure God. A G-O-mudafcking D!

I am sure when they finally come up with the proposal, it would still be inferior to the one I suggested because their collective intellect of all the Oxbridge guys in the Law Commission is just below mine when it comes to logical thinking. Pure fact!

This is something that should have been done years ago.

And by the way, finally, Murray has now become a successful tennis player yesterday. Prior to that he was an utter failure despite being one of the Top 10 highest earners ever, won many titles and reached 4 grand slam finals to legends.

A shame Thierry Henry would end his career as an unsuccessful football player since he never won European or World footballer of the year.

^^^see this crazed man trying to bring me back to his deluded discussion, instead of licking his wounds from what Coogar inflicted on him .....ok let me indulge ONE TIME (no, i wont give you the pleasure to go back and forth again, and humiliate too)

pls sit down and have these following question go through you mind for a minute.......or two:

A) where in this BS article does it say that what people earn during marriage SHOULDNT be shared equally with their partner (is that not what you have been biatching about)?!

B) is that article not about legalizing prenups in the UK, which is also what i have been saying all along (aka if you dont like the law then get a prenup)?

C) where in all what i have written to you, did i ever mentionned that the assets that anyone owned BEFORE marriage should be shared after marriage(since thats what this article is also about)?!

D) what has this "divorce formula" got to do with the stoopid proposal that you brought forward (about people leaving with what they EARNED DURING MARRIAGE, and/or "choose" how much they want to give)?!

E) funny how you are quick to agree with the point that fits your deluded agenda, but then criticize the points that doesnt........why bring your BS article then? take all what is been reported or nothing......but then again, this is narrow minded Saga we are dealing with here, a guy that sees things only his deluded way and no other. lol!

F) it is sad that you never figured out that I NEVER EVER MENTIONNED ASSETS THAT INDIVIDUALS OWN BEFORE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE SHARED as part of the settlement...... i guess you have comprehension issues. this article is actually more what I proposed than what YOU proposed BWAAAAAAAAAH! so WTF are you on about? this is pretty much MY proposal and definitely not what you proposed.... since the assets generated during the union will STILL be shared equally (unless you dreamed of reading something that isnt there). DUH!!!!

FINALLY, since you are only focussing on BS irrelevant issues on this article, let me help you, here is what you should have focussed on (and the most important part of this article):
"The Law Commissioner in charge of reforming divorce law, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, said the organisation is ‘looking at the boundaries of the sharing principle’ and considering what a couple might not share when they break up."
it says the BOUNDARIES of the sharing principle, NOT (like you wanted) that nothing should be shared equally...... which simply means that this is what I (MBJ) proposed: share what is generated during the union, and NOT all the assets of that said couple (aka what someone earned before marriage and brought in this marriage)...... but nice try sha!

pls, no need to reply as you are clearly a waste of my intelligence, bringing stoopid article as this one in order to "try" to be relevant (with your deluded proposal), when it is clearly obvious that you aint!

as for Murray, yes AS FROM TODAY, he can/could be referred as a successful tennis player......but until last week, he had NOT earn that right, and was still considered an unsuccessful mediocre tennis player, now let us all rejoice for this "successful mediocre player", lol.

I am not even going to reply to the garbage you wrote about Thierry Henry(another Saga's poor attempt to get this discussion back on track), because if you dont know that he was part of the French winning team of both WC 1998 and euro 2000, then you have no business talking to me about football!

why dont you instead continue creating new profiles to give hype to yourself, you certainly need it!

I just knew this thread would re-awaken once I saw that Andy Murray won the U.S. Open

I'm glad the consultation around reforms is starting. For one, it will prevent the millions currently being wasted on lawyers, and will stop wealthy people being screwed over by their exes (usually at the encouragement of their lawyers).

MRbrownJAY:
as for Murray, yes AS FROM TODAY, he can/could be referred as a successful tennis player......but until last week, he had NOT earn that right, and was still considered an unsuccessful mediocre tennis player, now let us all rejoice for this "successful mediocre player", lol.

Lol at the above. I guess Andy Murray is quite literally an overnight success then.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^see this crazed man trying to bring me back to his deluded discussion, instead of licking his wounds from what Coogar inflicted on him .....ok let me indulge ONE TIME (no, i wont give you the pleasure to go back and forth again, and humiliate too)

pls sit down and have these following question go through you mind for a minute.......or two:

A) where in this BS article does it say that what people earn during marriage SHOULDNT be shared equally with their partner (is that not what you have been biatching about)?!

B) is that article not about legalizing prenups in the UK, which is also what i have been saying all along (aka if you dont like the law then get a prenup)?

C) where in all what i have written to you, did i ever mentionned that the assets that anyone owned BEFORE marriage should be shared after marriage(since thats what this article is also about)?!

D) what has this "divorce formula" got to do with the stoopid proposal that you brought forward (about people leaving with what they EARNED DURING MARRIAGE, and/or "choose" how much they want to give)?!

E) funny how you are quick to agree with the point that fits your deluded agenda, but then criticize the points that doesnt........why bring your BS article then? take all what is been reported or nothing......but then again, this is narrow minded Saga we are dealing with here, a guy that sees things only his deluded way and no other. lol!

F) it is sad that you never figured out that I NEVER EVER MENTIONNED ASSETS THAT INDIVIDUALS OWN BEFORE MARRIAGE SHOULD BE SHARED as part of the settlement...... i guess you have comprehension issues. this article is actually more what I proposed than what YOU proposed BWAAAAAAAAAH! so WTF are you on about? this is pretty much MY proposal and definitely not what you proposed.... since the assets generated during the union will STILL be shared equally (unless you dreamed of reading something that isnt there). DUH!!!!

FINALLY, since you are only focussing on BS irrelevant issues on this article, let me help you, here is what you should have focussed on (and the most important part of this article):
"The Law Commissioner in charge of reforming divorce law, Professor Elizabeth Cooke, said the organisation is ‘looking at the boundaries of the sharing principle’ and considering what a couple might not share when they break up."
it says the BOUNDARIES of the sharing principle, NOT (like you wanted) that nothing should be shared equally...... which simply means that this is what I (MBJ) proposed: share what is generated during the union, and NOT all the assets of that said couple (aka what someone earned before marriage and brought in this marriage)...... but nice try sha!

pls, no need to reply as you are clearly a waste of my intelligence, bringing stoopid article as this one in order to "try" to be relevant (with your deluded proposal), when it is clearly obvious that you aint!

as for Murray, yes AS FROM TODAY, he can/could be referred as a successful tennis player......but until last week, he had NOT earn that right, and was still considered an unsuccessful mediocre tennis player, now let us all rejoice for this "successful mediocre player", lol.

I am not even going to reply to the garbage you wrote about Thierry Henry(another Saga's poor attempt to get this discussion back on track), because if you dont know that he was part of the French winning team of both WC 1998 and euro 2000, then you have no business talking to me about football!

why dont you instead continue creating new profiles to give hype to yourself, you certainly need it!

Let me be gentle on you and not humiliate you too much on the junk you put up there .........except you insist sha!

"‘It would be far clearer if the law was to state what is to be achieved. Is it trying to compensate people for what they have lost as a result of the marriage, for example, earning capacity?" - Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Law Commissioner.

{Coughs} MBJ argued Goerge Weah is not a failure despite not winning any major title because it is a team sport, not individual, hence a team's failure not his. But then now argues Henry is successful based on his team's performance, hence it is Henry's achievement.

Claus: I just knew this thread would re-awaken once I saw that Andy Murray won the U.S. Open

I'm glad the consultation around reforms is starting. For one, it will prevent the millions currently being wasted on lawyers, and will stop wealthy people being screwed over by their exes (usually at the encouragement of their lawyers).

Thank you.

Hopefully it would also put an end to legalised gold-digging and opportunist robbery.

It is because of moronic reasoning of sharing what is made in marriage that gold diggers like this get what they do not deserve.

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/07/lap-dancing-wife-awarded-3-million-divorce-settlement

[size=18pt]Lap-dancing wife awarded $3 million in divorce settlement[/size]

A multimillionaire from Australia was ordered to pay $3.25 million to his ex-wife, whom he met while she was working at a lap dance club.

The unidentified man, 58, signed a prenuptial agreement when he and his wife, who is 14 years his junior, married in 2005. They separated two years later.

He claimed that she was a gold digger and their relationship became a loveless one after they married. They have no children. This was his second marriage. His first also ended in divorce with his first wife being awarded $7 million.

A high school dropout, she now lives in an apartment with her truck driver boyfriend.

"(A) change in the nature of intimacy between parties when they marry is not an indication of fraud, coercion or unconscionable conduct. It is indicative of normal human behavior," said judge Robert Benjamin. "These parties were not in the 'first blush' of their relationship in 2005, they had commenced living together about eight years previously."

She deserves 3.25m she never worked for, can never make and did not perform well in school to set herself up to make, all because the money was made in a ....................UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNION!

Intellectual suggestions! Kai!

If a law is there based on her contribution and earning potential, then she would not be able to gold-dig.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^see this crazed man trying to bring me back to his deluded discussion, instead of licking his wounds from what Coogar inflicted on him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgLWdGZmLjg

Reminds me of a low-life that picked a fight with a pro and got owned. He then said he won.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewpFmi9_n2A&feature=related

^^^

Ediot, you are making conclusions about a fight based on a woman's commentary? You are really pathetic. Anyway, I live in that area and I can tell you that the guy the so called thug, beat the shyt outta the uniformed 'agbero." You wouldnt know because you are basing your conclusion on a 2 min clip from Youtube.

I dont get you dawg . . . if you want to live in America, live in America; if you want to live in London, face London squarely. You cant be living in London and then be spending hours on end trolling the internet for videos of events and actions happening in America. You are really confused . . . beyond what is normal.


### Odeski

fstranger: ^^^

Ediot, you are making conclusions about a fight based on a woman's commentary? You are really pathetic. Anyway, I live in that area and I can tell you that the guy the so called thug, beat the shyt outta the uniformed 'agbero." You wouldnt know because you are basing your conclusion on a 2 min clip from Youtube.

I dont get you dawg . . . if you want to live in America, live in America; if you want to live in London, face London squarely. You cant be living in London and then be spending hours on end trolling the internet for videos of events and actions happening in America. You are really confused . . . beyond what is normal.


### Odeski

person, is the guy that was beaten from your hood?

^^^

Whats your BMI?

You seem to not have your priorities right. When you are not trolling the internet for fake videos with raunchy commentaries, it seems you spend the lil money you have on food, No?

Time to hit the gym dawg and put more of your focus on job ads. . . Youtube videos dont pay bills.


## Just saying!

fstranger: ^^^

Whats your BMI?

You seem to not have your priorities right. When you are not trolling the internet for fake videos with raunchy commentaries, it seems you spend the lil money you have on food, No?

Time to hit the gym dawg and put more of your focus on job ads. . . Youtube videos dont pay bills.


## Just saying!

person, it is time for you to stop being bitter about the bullying you got all your life.

coogar:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgLWdGZmLjg

bro Coogar, OH LAWD, i laughed so hard tears came out...... typical Sagamite big talk with no substance, but people are starting to realize who he really is.

ALL HAIL COOGAR!!!!!

MRbrownJAY:

bro Coogar, OH LAWD, i laughed so hard tears came out...... typical Sagamite big talk with no substance, but people are starting to realize who he really is.

ALL HAIL COOGAR!!!!!

Yeah, I can see people are starting to realise based on the whooping you got.

It was all "big talk", you did not get destroyed.

^^^

You are an empty barrel. I honestly believe that.

That said, if the point of your noise making is in the hope of landing Naijababe et al, well, what can i say: More grease to your prick! I cant begrudge you for that. Just STFU when I am around.

fstranger: ^^^

You are an empty barrel. I honestly believe that.

That said, if the point of your noise making is in the hope of landing Naijababe et al, well, what can i say: More grease to your prick! I cant begrudge you for that. Just STFU when I am around.

person, get over the bullying.

You will never get your own back no matter how much you troll.

You were bullied and mentally tortured all your life for being daft. Deal with it and move on.

MRbrownJAY:

bro Coogar, OH LAWD, i laughed so hard tears came out...... typical Sagamite big talk with no substance, but people are starting to realize who he really is.

ALL HAIL COOGAR!!!!!

"i am sagamite, nature's best gift to humanity - i'm a graduate of banking & finance from nigeria."

coogar:

"i am sagamite, nature's best gift to humanity - i'm a graduate of banking & finance from nigeria."

Actually, I have a PhD in Sagamu studies from the University of Soyindo Babalawo's Association!

Sagamite:

Actually, I have a PhD in Sagamu studies from the University of Soyindo Babalawo's Association!

Dude, even if Phds were handed out like candy at candy stores in the middle of candy hills under candy bars, you still wouldnt be smart enough to grab one. You are that clueless and inarticulate. Waste of one-night-stand!

fstranger:
Dude, even if Phds were handed out like candy at candy stores in the middle of candy hills under candy bars, you still wouldnt be smart enough to grab one. You are that clueless and inarticulate. Waste of one-night-stand!

You will be surprised a PhD is not a candy, it is an academic qualification. Moronic hoodrat!

The stupiid sagamu boy is getting his asss whooped here again... dont you get tired?

agiboma: he is wicked and mean as is the case with most rich men, why cant he give her what she wants, its for the good and upkeep of his 4 children omg

thief international thief

The simple truth is clear and irrefutable: divorce and settlement laws, here, are heavily tipped in favor of the woman; it matters little what contributions or merit opportunity costs her espousal period to you is; the courts would ensure the stripping of everything with glee.

I believe much of these would remain the status quo, until the demographics of wealth distribution and responsibility tilts towards the female, then we may have a real test of its provisions and neutrality. But given the crass opportunism and leeching that defines today’s social order; I would not be holding my breath.

P.S
The escape path from state backed plunder seems obvious: if you’re wealthy, stay out of marriage.

Mr9ndhalf:
;d ;d she wan find maga. . .

lolz

GOD don catch him... why cant he marry a naija lady

Latty88 good morning