Camilla Duchess of Cornwall loosed her cousin Mr Charles Villiers to suicide during 8 years divorce battle
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall looses her cousin Mr Charles Villiers to suicide during 8 years divorce battle. Recently Mr Villiers was declared bankrupted.
Mr John Heppell wrote a comment “Yet again a man is driven to poverty by a judicial system that cannot cope with a simple concept – equality means ex wives standing on their own feet, not treating ex husbands as their personal slaves. In this case it is clear the man needed maintenance from the woman for the rest of his life.”
At the time of writing, his comment reached 4793 votes for and 313 against.
A is clear, public opinion has moved vastly against this outdated concept.
Are you all following the abuse in state care enquiry – and the exposure of the state in protecting those who harmed kids, while using the state agencies to target witnesses and victims to discredit them. We have seen this directly – a form of DARVO by the STATE when caught out.
A question is posed?
“If credible allegations of serious crimes against children are put before Crown Law involving employees of state agencies, what would taxpayers expect them to do – investigate those allegations and prosecute offenders or defend them?”
Story link here
In our story I caught the abuser of the vulnerable and the state came after our family for doing so.
Also in the story I posted – the questioning of the OIA being used to protect criminals, which is what many of us would have seen with the privacy laws in the secret family courts where the cover of privacy is protecting those who are harmful to children.
Quotes from stories posted previously.
“I’m not aware of a clause in the Official Information Act that provides for lying to the media to cover someone’s backside or preserve an institution’s reputation”.
Seems crazy, the idea of spousal maintenance.
Having to pay a former partner, well after the relationship.
You in effect, become a slave to the person.
You take responsibility for yourself, but they don’t.
If you fail to keep your partner, why the reward.
The bad partner, gets the same as the good partner.
Even the good partner, wasn’t good enough.
What of the good man, forced to pay the bad woman.
Ah yes spousal maintenance. I know the battle too well. In fact I have JC next week at I try to fend off a 180K claim well after 2 years from the separation date. And no, I cannot fund such a price.
It’s fair apparently. The spouse gives up their life/career to raise your children. The most important and rewarding job is suddenly turned into a burden after a separation. But what off the sacrifices that the family provider made? Missing the first time your children walked, first and last days of kindy/school, birthdays missed, game day and practices missed etc. Sadly such events have no value in this context. It doesn’t matter that you missed those ‘priceless’ moments. Mastercard had that 80s campaign completely wrong.
Clearly this man did not have enough money to keep himself from bankruptcy. That didn’t stop the people in authority from banging away until he had nothing left and she had the lot. And now she has taken his life. Unsure if they had children. But I can tell you if I was her child I would have nothing further to do with her. It should really be an indictable offence for anyone to participate in such a repugnant and draconian way. That woman and the tax collector should be named and shamed. The problem is such a website that told the truth is likely to fall foul of the up-and-coming hate speech laws. Conveniently protecting these narcissistic criminals who hide in the shadows.
Well I hope things go well, ErasingDad.
$180,000 is crazy, that’s years of income.
If you earn $60,000, without tax that’s 100% for 3 years.
Even if you earn $1,000,000 a year, it’s still wrong.
In the Charles Villiers case, there was a child.
Not 100% sure, that it is his.
Being a stay at home mother, is not an obligation.
If it was, then compensation may be correct.
But it’s not an obligation, it’s a choice.
A choice to have a child, and a choice not to work.
A choice to study, or not to study.
A choice to pick a good man, or bad.
So many choices, but no obligation.
Yet the man, has obligations.
In a perverse way, it’s like an experiment.
Because we can measure, outcomes into adulthood.
The going to prison rate, is much higher for them.
Problems with depression, and sexual behaviour.
We can easily blame the abuse, for outcomes.
Yet the argument, ignores the child entering care.
Drunk or drugged pregnancy, and abused afterward.
Damaged with outcomes, before care started.
As for the authorities, they are faced with reality.
Whatever happens, they must continue with care.
No matter how much, we want accountability.
Even they cannot change, the past.
If we ask ourselves, is it still happening.
Is some child now, being abused in care.
Certainly I have little confidence, nothings happening.
Thousands of humans, left alone with thousands of others.
How exactly, have we made abuse less likely.
What do we learn, about child development.
Because it’s an experiment, you can’t conduct.
This abuse, has this effect.