Post: #1

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/bu...61391.html

A businessman ordered to pay financial support to his ex-wife for life has called for a time limit on maintenance payments so that divorced couples can “move on”.

Graham Mills, 50, told of his “anger and frustration” after judges ruled he should increase the payment he makes to Maria Mills 15 years after they split.

In the 2002 divorce settlement Mrs Mills, 51, was awarded a £230,000 lump sum and £1,100 a month in maintenance so she could buy a house and look after their young son.

Following a two-year legal battle the Court of Appeal this week ruled in her favour, increasing the payments to £1,441 after she ran out of money and built up heavy debts following a string of “unwise” property deals.

The court also told Mr Mills he must support his ex-wife for life, because she is “unable to meet her basic needs”.

In his first interview since the ruling Mr Mills, who has built up and chairs a successful surveying company Technics Group, told the Standard: “I don’t think it’s a good message to send to men or women.

“I don’t think it’s right that after divorce you should be tied together for ever. I don’t think you can move on mentally or physically with that tie in place. The law is wrong in that regard.”

The pair have now been apart for two years longer than the 13 years that they lived together as a married couple.

Mr Mills added: “I feel like I am paying for her mismanagement of finances.

“I’m angry and frustrated the system allows this to happen. I don’t really want this to be about me and her, I think there’s a wider issue about the law. I’ve no need to put her down, I’d rather the effort was concentrated on making the law work for people.”

He called for a mandatory time bar on maintenance after divorce and said he will consider fighting this week’s ruling if his lawyers advise it is an option.

Mrs Mills ran into financial difficulties after she overstretched herself on a series of property purchases.

After buying a home in Weybridge, Surrey, she admitted “unwisely” up- grading to a three-bedroom flat in Wimbledon before moving to a two-bedroom apartment at a Victorian mansion block in Battersea. It meant the ex-Notting Hill estate agent fell into debt as she had “over-financed” and increased her mortgage liabilities on each home, leaving her unable to “meet her basic needs”, judges heard.

She was left with no capital when selling the Battersea flat in 2009 and is back in Weybridge in a rented property, working two days a week as a part-time beauty therapist.

Ex-husband told to support wife for life after she blew £230k payout
Mr Mills applied to cut or cap his maintenance payments two years ago because their son is now 23 and more independent. He also wanted to free up money to spend on his second wife and their 10-year-old son, with whom he lives at their home in Guildford.

Mrs Mills’s barrister told the court her debts were “run up over many years as a single parent with health difficulties”.

Last year Judge Mark Everall, QC, rejected her claim but Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Ernest Ryder, in the Court of Appeal, overturned his ruling.

Mr Mills said: “It’s like I am insuring her decisions. I shouldn’t be held responsible. It feels like it goes against you if you’re successful. If I hadn’t bothered in life I wouldn’t have those liabilities.

“I think it’s grossly unfair. I’m not entirely sure what my options are but it gives me no incentive to work because it feels like the more I do the more I possibly will have to pay.

“It’s more stress, more money going out — and it’s out of taxable income, so I need to earn even more before I get more for myself. It’s money I’d have had for my new child.

He said he only agreed to the “open-ended” deal as he was told he “had no alternative” due to Mrs Mills being ill at the time and uncertainty on how much she could work in the future.

Post: #2

Unbelievable.

Post: #3

Meanwhile a muslim man can beat the shit out of his wife and face no repercussions. These laws are designed to destroy white countries and ensure fewer families, fewer children, and more government.

They want us to check out of marriage. Being 'wise enough' to see marriage is a bad deal is just the first layer of the onion, there's a much more sinister reason this is forced on us than simply putting up with a bitchy woman.

Post: #4

Looks like he needs to convert to Islam and go through a Sharia court.

Post: #5

How do Judges in the UK have such discretionary sweeping powers????

Post: #6

(02-08-2017 01:52 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  How do Judges in the UK have such discretionary sweeping powers????

That is a good question. In the US there are very few states where you can get alimony (spousal support) for life. I know that spousal support, in my state, is only for a few years of transition, only if the spouse was out of the workforce for a significant period of time. I have heard of 4 years or 7 years, coming off the back of a 20-30 year marriage, but this shit is crazy.

Post: #7

Sooner or later, one of these judges is going to end up murdered by a wronged victim they helped create. Turn a man into a victim, and vengeance will ultimately be on the menu. This ruling is so profoundly wrong. The lazy ass ex wife needs to get a job.

Post: #8

(02-08-2017 02:17 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Turn a man into a slave...

Fixed it for you.

Post: #9

So I guess we need to wait for a civil war to see the back of shit like this.

I think we will have one in a generation. Baby boomers still believe in this bullshit but more and more men are getting sick of it. Only a matter of time.

Post: #10

(02-08-2017 01:52 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  How do Judges in the UK have such discretionary sweeping powers????

Because the government is useless, the police are useless, those with money have powerful lawyers so they don't care, the plebs cannot get the change they want and any change has to be approved by Brussels.

Its old, tired and will be changed by force or democracy one day.

Post: #11

Women are equal to men....

...except when they get treated like children.

Feminists - if they had any moral conviction or backbone - should be up in arms about this.

Post: #12

(02-08-2017 12:51 PM)gmoneysauce Wrote:  Mr Mills applied to cut or cap his maintenance payments two years ago because their son is now 23 and more independent. He also wanted to free up money to spend on his second wife and their 10-year-old son, with whom he lives at their home in Guildford.

So after being divorce-raped hard he marries again? Dude obviously didn't learn anything from his first marriage.

Post: #13

These kinds of rulings are disgusting. It's time to start moving the overton window on these issues in a big way, but I'm not sure the best way to start going about it. The manosphere has helped a lot of men understand the current problems in society, but there needs to be a tactic that can be used to penetrate the mainstream consciousness.

Post: #14

Fortunately, there's a handy little solution:

Post: #15

^I don't think leaving is a handy solution when you're running a multi-million dollar business and have a new family.

Or maybe you meant get a lip piercing? Or go sightseeing over Orlando with a nice young slut?

Aloha!
(sounded like a Kona post, so have to end it correctly)

Post: #16

This judge is out of his damn mind.

Post: #17

Maybe some of the Brits here can chime in: Can this guy even appeal this ruling handed down by the judge? What kind of law is on the books to suggest that someone blowing their cash is reason to give them more of it? Seems like this would be so easy to overturn using existing case law.

Post: #18

(02-09-2017 01:14 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I don't think leaving is a handy solution when you're running a multi-million dollar business and have a new family.

Or maybe you meant get a lip piercing? Or go sightseeing over Orlando with a nice young slut?

All fair options

Yeah it isn't actually 'handy', I suppose it depends whether the accumulating cost of the ongoing robbery is more expensive than bailing. Given that he says he wants to spend it on his new family, it implies it isn't a trivial amount of money for him.

A multi-million dollar business can be sold and the cash wired overseas, a family can be moved. People do it all the time.

Post: #19

(02-08-2017 12:59 PM)C-Note Wrote:  believable.

Fixed it for you breaux

(02-08-2017 01:10 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  These laws are designed to destroy white countries and ensure fewer families, fewer children, and more government.

Laws are meant to destroy all families. They've just successfully decimated all the other racial families and whites are the last one standing.

(02-08-2017 02:04 PM)gmoneysauce Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 01:52 PM)El Padrone Wrote:  How do Judges in the UK have such discretionary sweeping powers????

That is a good question. In the US there are very few states where you can get alimony (spousal support) for life. I know that spousal support, in my state, is only for a few years of transition, only if the spouse was out of the workforce for a significant period of time. I have heard of 4 years or 7 years, coming off the back of a 20-30 year marriage, but this shit is crazy.

Time to fake your death #TupacIsAlive

(02-09-2017 01:14 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Aloha!
(sounded like a Kona post, so have to end it correctly)

Glossing over the rest of the posts and the "aloha" but no Kona rustled my jimmies

Post: #20

This sort of shit is why I never understand the contention with gay guys getting married. If you hate gays, why wouldn't you want them to suffer through the agony of marriage like everyone else?

And why in the holy hell would any man in 2017 ever wish to get married? What's wrong with just having a girlfriend? If she ever turns nutty you can just say, "Get your things. There's the fucking door. Leave."

Post: #21

(02-09-2017 12:58 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Fortunately, there's a handy little solution:

That may work with civil things like student loans that can't be discharged with bankruptcy but I'm quite sure conviction on these type of things will actually follow you overseas especially to western countries where they have reciprocal agreements.

Post: #22

(02-08-2017 02:17 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Sooner or later, one of these judges is going to end up murdered by a wronged victim they helped create.

Agree. Enslaving men is a recipe for violence. I sincerely hope we see men standing up against their enslavement with actual violence so that a public discussion can commence.

Post: #23

(02-09-2017 03:15 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  these type of things will actually follow you overseas especially to western countries where they have reciprocal agreements.

Fortunately (in this case) there exist countries that couldn't give a rat's ass about each others court rulings. Sure, your options aren't wide open, but there's no global "Fugitive Slave Act" as yet...

Post: #24

One of the comments say that one of the judges is her uncle, I do not know if that is true or not.

Post: #25

One of the few situations in life where a woman can get extremely passionate about the men's rights movement.

The second wife feels like her and her kids are second class citizens. Because first wife is still using the ex-husband as a meal ticket.

It's a zero-sum game. First wife's cashola is subtracted from what second wife's family income would usually be.