As usual I'm irritated by the intrusion into individuals private affairs. I presume the lady didn't court this publicity and although the court proceedings are a matter of public record that doesn't mean theses people have to have their dirty knickers waved around.
To quote the Press Complaints Commission code
"Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications. Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent."
And yes there are exceptions for "public interest" stories, Which I dont think apply to this or similar cases.
"1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child."
It might have been a better idea to have asked a general question as opposed to an article in the news papers, where it is hard to know all the facts, thus possibly making uninformed judgements.
If the question had been should a wife be entitled a large settlement of the husband’s wealth if they divorced or split up.
I personally would judge that on.
Has he built the empire while he has been married?
If the wife and husband have been together through the process of what he has achieved I would say she should be entitled to a very large claim, as like any relationship you venture into that includes a partner, each must have contributed something for it to have lasted as long as it had. On monetary terms the share might not be equal but I believe commitment and time should be a key factor.
If the husband had the empire before marrying then I would view that differently and I would say I would not expect the woman to get the same faction of the share as the example about should get.
By Jove he's got it he's really got it.
Now once again sing again:
"The lies in spades aren't solely in the Mail"
Benny it was a joke, I know that is a tad hard for you but here is the definition of the word joke...
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal
a. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
b. An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock
Don't get too carried away jeez. :shock:
And on(ish) topic I have no sympathy for the rich .....shoot the f**king lot of them....Class war now
no no...
who is Michelle Young?
lp
Who the hell is Michelle Young? Never heard of her. A few details would help.
How the heck can she not have paid the rent on a pad like that?
Is her husband the guy who reckons he lost all of his money, but cannot remember what on?
If it is I do think it is quite funny, as he is obviously doing his best for his wife to get as little as possible.
I do not know enough about this one to comment any further, and the circumstances are such I do not know.
It happens to me max if i use the back button on my browser after posting rather than the return to forum button--like this
Staggers dear boy....That is a bit of a stereo typical comment for you Sir.
We go not know about his tax returns, but let us assume he does pay his tax, it would be a vast ammount of money...no?