For the first time, in certainly my living memory, a legal divorce settlement has gone in favour of the husband. The judge in the Sir Paul Vs Heather McCartney case clearly and publicly came down on the male side stating in his judgement:
"The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
"But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness."
For too long in my opinion, ever since the rampant anti-masculine feminism of the early 1970’s, the main crime in the divorce court appears to be having been found in possession of a pair of testicles. A claim supported by the organisation “Fathers For Justice”.
I hope that the pressures in our society will now swing back toward the middle ground so that the testosterone carrying half of our population can once again approach the sad and stressful break-up of a relationship without the fear of emasculation from an often bitter and vindictive partner.
One other point to make here is that Heather McCartney made a fatal error in not engaging the services of a lawyer. This case not only endorses the old saying “that anyone who represents themselves in court will have a fool for a client”. But also, I think, proves that all lawyers do is gouge as much money (out of both partners) as is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment