MRbrownJAY: ^^^^ bro, i made assumptions to make you understand and SEE that the opposite of what you wrote is POSSIBLE.
again, there is a 50-50% chance in this case that she may be entitled to every penny she was awarded (judged from the facts that we have)........if you cant see that then, pls, bring CONCRETE FACTS to the table for us to discuss or lets bow out of this discussion that simply goes nowhere.

you just keep on believing that she is a golddigga who deserves only 0.25% of the family wealth, while i believe that she deserve much more.

Answer the gaddamn question. Stop dodging it.

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

I am going to Paxman up this mudafcker because I know, you know, I know, you know, they know, I know, everyone knows, you know you are fcked that is why you are dodging answering it.

You can be as verbose as you want and keep on dodging. I will Paxman up the mudafcker!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

Sagamite:

Answer the gaddamn question. Stop dodging it.

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

Their education, especially if they didnt go to Bristol University.

Sagamite:



When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

The fact that they arent a product of a failing education system.

Sagamite:

And remember not to strawman me.

There was no place I said anyone mentored by their parents for 25years would automatically be successful in business.
And you called it a fact. Showing you really don't know what facts are.
You are sounding desperate now.

here is what you wrote since you seem to go through a bout of amnesia, lol:

Her contribution, I repeat, is not a determinant of his wealth. Without her contribution, he would still have made his wealth. On the other hand, without his parents contribution, he would probably be a nobody. He will end up like an almajiri. Yet the parents cannot dare ask for £21m, but you feel some gold-digger is entitled to it for enjoying his money with him. Is that fair?

dwell on that for a minute (or two), as it sure sounds to me that you are stating, AS A FACT, that anyone who has parental mentoring will generate wealth (aka a successful business).

MRbrownJAY:

here is what you wrote since you seem to go through a bout of amnesia, lol:

Her contribution, I repeat, is not a determinant of his wealth. Without her contribution, he would still have made his wealth. On the other hand, without his parents contribution, he would probably be a nobody. He will end up like an almajiri. Yet the parents cannot dare ask for £21m, but you feel some gold-digger is entitled to it for enjoying his money with him. Is that fair?

dwell on that for a minute (or two), as it sure sounds to me that you are stating, AS A FACT, that anyone who has parental mentoring will generate wealth (aka a successful business).

I am not sure what I find funnier in Sagababoon's post: His illogical postulations Vs. His puerile sentence construction. Either way, he comes across as immature and in desperate need of attention.

MRbrownJAY:

here is what you wrote since you seem to go through a bout of amnesia, lol:

Her contribution, I repeat, is not a determinant of his wealth. Without her contribution, he would still have made his wealth. On the other hand, without his parents contribution, he would probably be a nobody. He will end up like an almajiri. Yet the parents cannot dare ask for £21m, but you feel some gold-digger is entitled to it for enjoying his money with him. Is that fair?

dwell on that for a minute (or two), as it sure sounds to me that you are stating, AS A FACT, that anyone who has parental mentoring will generate wealth (aka a successful business).

I will comeback to address the error in this lame evidence. You will show me where in that statement I said "anyone mentored by their parents for 25years would automatically be successful in business".

In the mean time:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

Sagamite:
Answer the gaddamn question. Stop dodging it.

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

it all depends on the individual......if you are intelligent and marry a lady that has more influence on you, then it doesnt matter how well you were mentored by your parents, as she will control your every move, and therefore make you disregard everything you were ever thaught.
on the other hand, you could have no parental mentoring and still marry a very influncial and intelligent lady who will direct you in the right directions in life/business.
and last but not least, you could be a man who has great parental mentoring, marry a lady with many connection in high places (or family ties with certain industry big shot) and due to her connections, gain access to contracts and tie that would make you busniess flourish in no time.

so we can only look at each individual scenario and judge them when we have all the FACTS.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.
I wait.

is that not the same question? again, it is not a black and white case. many parents may teach their kids to be prudent in business, while after marriage, that man may listen to his wife and be more aggressive in business (thus making him highly succesful).
also, many may look at a business strategy in a one sided way, while the input of his wife may help him look at it differently and thus gain great insight on attacking certain markets differently.
the fact that you believe that parental mentoring will ALWAYS be the main reason for success, is your second fail of the day.

Sagamite: I will comeback to address the error in this lame evidence. You will show me where in that statement I said "anyone mentored by their parents for 25years would automatically be successful in business".

BWAAAAAH!!!! will patiently wait to see what you are going to come up with this one. lol!
if you believe that without her contribution, he would have still made wealth BUT that if he had no parental mentoring, then he would probably be a nobody (aka not succesful in business and no wealth)....then you are clearly saying that without parental mentoring you "probably" cannot make wealth or have a successful business, duh!

at least stand for what you wrote, even if you contradict yourself!

MRbrownJAY:

it all depends on the individual......if you are intelligent and marry a lady that has more influence on you, then it doesnt matter how well you were mentored by your parents, as she will control your every move, and therefore make you disregard everything you were ever thaught.
on the other hand, you could have no parental mentoring and still marry a very influncial and intelligent lady who will direct you in the right directions in life/business.
and last but not least, you could be a man who has great parental mentoring, marry a lady with many connection in high places (or family ties with certain industry big shot) and due to her connections, gain access to contracts and tie that would make you busniess flourish in no time.

so we can only look at each individual scenario and judge them when we have all the FACTS.

Still dodging the question.

Tell me, from your experience of life, which one has the highest probability of having influence on the individual: The nurturing or the marriage.

Stop giving me stories. Of course some almajiri child on the streets today can turn out to be the next President via being a union leader but what is the most likely fate of an almajiri child.

Stop giving me stories of exceptions. Answer my question based on the answer you will give if you were to make a reasonable and rational assumption.

MRbrownJAY:
is that not the same question? again, it is not a black and white case. many parents may teach their kids to be prudent in business, while after marriage, that man may listen to his wife and be more aggressive in business (thus making him highly succesful).
also, many may look at a business strategy in a one sided way, while the input of his wife may help him look at it differently and thus gain great insight on attacking certain markets differently.
the fact that you believe that parental mentoring will ALWAYS be the main reason for success, is your second fail of the day.

Verbose!

Answer my question. You are suppose to make assumptions here. This is a lesson on assumptions which you have failed in so far.

Here is the question again, give me your reasonable, rational, intelligent assumptions if you were to swing one way only:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

^^^^
i can only give you a direct reply based on different facts, and i wont come up with "most likely", as i am sure you wouldnt want someone to part with your hard earn cash on "most likely".

thats how YOU think...just because others (or even the majority) have done it, then ALL should be judged in that manner....while i am telling you that each and every individual should be judged on their merit, and not on the actions of others.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^^
i can only give you a direct reply based on different facts, and i wont come up with "most likely", as i am sure you wouldnt want someone to part with your hard earn cash on "most likely".

thats how YOU think...just because others (or even the majority) have done it, then ALL should be judged in that manner....while i am telling you that each and every individual should be judged on their merit, and not on the actions of others.

We have both agreed we have no facts, so we have to make intelligent assumptions. Stop dodging. You know if you answer your argument is fcked, so you have been dodging the question since.

I will ask you again:


Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^^
i can only give you a direct reply based on different facts, and i wont come up with "most likely", as i am sure you wouldnt want someone to part with your hard earn cash on "most likely".

thats how YOU think...just because others (or even the majority) have done it, then ALL should be judged in that manner....while i am telling you that each and every individual should be judged on their merit, and not on the actions of others.

By the way, I can kill your entire argument with the bolded if I wish.

Because I can easily ask you, how did you arrived at the definitive conclusion she deserved £21m if you made no assumptions? And then I will prove they are useless and weak assumptions.

When people are cornered and under pressure, they start fcking up in what they say. Police interviewing techinique 101.

You are fcking struggling now!

Sagamite: We have both agreed we have no facts, so we have to make intelligent assumptions. Stop dodging. You know if you answer your argument is fcked, so you have been dodging the question since.

of course not!!!!!!
YES, we have no facts to clearly and constructively judge this case, NO we shouldnt make assumptions........... and if we ever make any assumption, then they should be constructive, instead of biased.
an assumption will ONLY and ALWAYS be a "possibility" of the truth.......the fact that you are taking these assumtpions as THE TRUTH, is your third fail of the day!

Sagamite:

By the way, I can kill your entire argument with the bolded if I wish.

Because I can easily ask you, how did you arrived at the definitive conclusion she deserved £21m if you made no assumptions?

When people are cornered and under pressure, they start fcking up in what they say. Police interviewing techinique 101.

You are fcking struggling now!

i told you already bro....the court said that she deserved it....who am i to disagree with that?! so i will base any future claim on these FACTS.
if THEY looked at the evidence and said she did deserve this amount, then who are you to say otherwise?

so unless you know something we dont know, she was awarded £21million, and therefore she DESERVES it.
the assumptions that i wrote are probably some of the plausible reasons why she was awarded the money.

MRbrownJAY:

of course not!!!!!!
YES, we have no facts to clearly and constructively judge this case, NO we shouldnt make assumptions........... and if we ever make any assumption, then they should be constructive, instead of biased.
an assumption will ONLY and ALWAYS be a "possibility" of the truth.......the fact that you are taking these assumtpions as THE TRUTH, is your third fail of the day!

So if you made no assumptions how did you arrive at the definitive conclusion she deserved £21m? How come you used that assumption as THE TRUTH? You seem to start making rules when you are struggling, not realising you have broken the lame rules you are making yourself.

While you are at it (don't run, don't dodge), use your "constructive, non-bias" assumption to:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

MRbrownJAY:

i told you already bro....the court said that she deserved it....who am i to disagree with that?! so i will base any future claim on these FACTS.
if THEY looked at the evidence and said she did deserve this amount, then who are you to say otherwise?

so unless you know something we dont know, she was awarded £21million, and therefore she DESERVES it.
the assumptions that i wrote are probably some of the plausible reasons why she was awarded the money.

Cut the lame argument.

I am just seeing this.

So you are defending your weak and lame assumptions by referring to the courts? So what is the point of this debate then? Is it not that the basis, premise and assumptions the court uses to make decisions is moronic and unfair? So how is using an assumption that "she is married to him and hence owns a share of the money" without A SINGLE critical analysis of their relationship to determine contribution and which judges are not allowed to critically evaluate but are simply instructed to assume by default (because it is the law set by moorons), is your proof of THE TRUTH and FACTS? So you think it is THE TRUTH and FACTS that Heather Mills contributed £24m to Paul McCartney because THE COURTS said so? You think if Paul did not marry her, his money and royalties from the Beatles will stop coming during the period of their marriage? But if she lived with him for 20 years as a live-in partner without a wedding ring, the same courts will say she is not entitled to a single thing? You will then say, that is the TRUTH and FACTS because the court said so? That is the TRUTH and FACTS you want to use to argue with me, Sagamite?

You really are struggling. When you make the mistake of arguing against logic, you will struggle.

So since Saudi courts say any child off breastfeeding should be with the father after divorce, and if in a typical case they say a 2 year old is better off with being raised by the father after divorce, YOU would say "the court said that he is the better parent....who am i to disagree with that"? You will assume that is the TRUTH and stick with it?

You will not think the basis, premise and assumptions the Saudi court uses to make decisions is moronic and unfair? YOU, a whole MJB, that cares so-so-so-so-so-much about THE KIDS will say "i will base any future claim on those FACTS"?

Come off the lame arguments. You obviously are cornered and can't defend your position because you are seeing the logic collapse.

While you are at the coming off:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

^^^you have a one sided view of this case simply because you hate women in divorces, so i have to ask:" did a woman take your loot in divorce proceedings and ran?!"

here you are trying to settle this matter while having NO FACTS whatsoever, and gladly dismissing the ruling of the judges who had all the facts in their possession. this crystal ball of yours must be really powerful o.

you openly contradict yourself, then cunningly and shamelessly try to dismiss that lol, you try to blow smoke in this matter by talking about your friends bla bla bla, parental mentoring bla bla bla, probabilities and likelihood bla bla bla, what golddiggaz do bla bla bla, celebrities who paid high settlements bla bla bla........yet, you say NOTHING of importance or factual about this case.

so i will repeat the points that i've posted earlier, which should have made you realize that this discussion was over, a long time ago:
[b]- we dont have all the facts of this case, so therefore you and I can only SPECULATE about this matter.

- although each of our speculations "sound" right, they will always remain JUST THAT: speculations! if you want to build AND settle a case out of speculations (and think that you make any sense on NL), then be my guest as we (wise and open minded people) know that assumptions/speculations are just what "could" have happened, and definitely NOT a certainty of what happened.....but then again, you seem to be a master at judging (and sentencing) people via what others are doing/did, so what you write doesnt surprize me one bit.

- the independent impartial judges who reviewed ALL THE FACTS in this case, decided that the ex-wife was entitled to £21M. Sir Sagamite, who has absolutely NO CONCRETE FACTS about this case, says she is not...... based on assumptions made out of thin air, hatred for divorced women and his friends experiences etc

- last but not least, if you have ANY reason to believe that the law is unfair in high profile divorces, then please do go and fight this via the right channel. we couldnt care less what others have paid in their divorce settlements, as we were not there to know what happened in their marriages. if you believe that these women didnt deserve what they were awarded, then so be it.....but sitting here discussing these issues with me wont change anything whatsoever.[/b]

.....and yet you want to call yourself the "great" Sagamite of NL?!

MRbrownJAY: ^^^you have a one sided view of this case simply because you hate women in divorces, so i have to ask:" did a woman take your loot in divorce proceedings and ran?!"

here you are trying to settle this matter while having NO FACTS whatsoever, and gladly dismissing the ruling of the judges who had all the facts in their possession. this crystal ball of yours must be really powerful o.

you openly contradict yourself, then cunningly and shamelessly try to dismiss that lol, you try to blow smoke in this matter by talking about your friends bla bla bla, parental mentoring bla bla bla, probabilities and likelihood bla bla bla, what golddiggaz do bla bla bla, celebrities who paid high settlements bla bla bla........yet, you say NOTHING of importance or factual about this case.

so i will repeat the points that i've posted earlier, which should have made you realize that this discussion was over, a long time ago:
[b]- we dont have all the facts of this case, so therefore you and I can only SPECULATE about this matter.

- although each of our speculations "sound" right, they will always remain JUST THAT: speculations! if you want to build AND settle a case out of speculations (and think that you make any sense on NL), then be my guest as we (wise and open minded people) know that assumptions/speculations are just what "could" have happened, and definitely NOT a certainty of what happened.....but then again, you seem to be a master at judging (and sentencing) people via what others are doing/did, so what you write doesnt surprize me one bit.

- the independent impartial judges who reviewed ALL THE FACTS in this case, decided that the ex-wife was entitled to £21M. Sir Sagamite, who has absolutely NO CONCRETE FACTS about this case, says she is not...... based on assumptions made out of thin air, hatred for divorced women and his friends experiences etc

- last but not least, if you have ANY reason to believe that the law is unfair in high profile divorces, then please do go and fight this via the right channel. we couldnt care less what others have paid in their divorce settlements, as we were not there to know what happened in their marriages. if you believe that these women didnt deserve what they were awarded, then so be it.....but sitting here discussing these issues with me wont change anything whatsoever.[/b]

.....and yet you want to call yourself the "great" Sagamite of NL?!

I guess just like the independent and impartial judges in Saudi?

Instead of sitting down and writing all that, this is what you should have used your energy to answer:


Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

^^so now you want to shift the issue on the law in Saudia Arabia?!

well here is my simple reply: there are laws in that "muslim" state, and if anyone does NOT believe in them (or believe they are unfair), they should take the necessary step to challenge these laws via the proper channels....... or get out of this country.
but if you are going to live in any country in this world, then you best follow and accept the local laws!

as for your question that you are bringing on and on, you've seen my reply already, and it hasnt change....you may not like it, but thats MY thought on the issue.

MRbrownJAY: ^^so now you want to shift the issue on the law in Saudia Arabia?!

well here is my simple reply: there are laws in that "muslim" state, and if anyone does NOT believe in them (or believe they are unfair), they should take the necessary step to challenge these laws via the proper channels....... or get out of this country.
but if you are going to live in any country in this world, then you best follow and accept the local laws!

as for your question that you are bringing on and on, you've seen my reply already, and it hasnt change....you may not like it, but thats MY thought on the issue.

You said since a court says something, it is the truth and FACTS (that is what you called it ), and you choose to ignore the premise. So I gave you examples of courts and "facts".

So since Saudi thinks a child that has stopped breastfeeding is best raised by the father at all times, that is (according to someone that ignores premise) THE TRUTH and FACTS?

Stop dodging the question:


Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

^^ again, if any court, anywhere around the world, decides that the welfare of a child would be better with his father (in that said country), then thats where that child should be. if anyone has any problem with that, or think it is unfair/unjust, they should take that up with the proper authorities. this is MY view on the subject.

why would you want me and my western mind to make any judgment (or sense) with sharia laws in Muslim/Arab countries?! duh!
no matter how it may be wrong to you and your western mentality, this is the law in Saudia Arabia, and it makes sense to them, their culture and their people!

who are you to question their laws or way of life?!

MRbrownJAY: ^^ again, if any court, anywhere around the world, decides that the welfare of a child would be better with his father (in that said country), then thats where that child should be. if anyone has any problem with that, or think it is unfair/unjust, they should take that up with the proper authorities. this is MY view on the subject.

why would you want me and my western mind to make any judgment (or sense) with sharia laws in Muslim/Arab countries?! duh!
no matter how it may be wrong to you and your western mentality, this is the law in Saudia Arabia, and it makes sense to them, their culture and their people!

who are you to question their laws or way of life?!

It is not about whether people should follow the law, it is you lame assertion that "if the courts says something, it is the truth and facts".

Shows us how much you know about what "facts" and "truths" are and as I said: your logical compass is damaged.

Are you telling me it is a fact a 2 year old is better raised by his father? I know you will dodge this question and be verbose and tell us story.

Stop dodging the question:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

Sagamite:

It is not about whether people should follow the law, it is you lame assertion that "if the courts says something, it is the truth and facts".

Shows us how much you know about what "facts" and "truths" are and as I said: your logical compass is damaged.

Are you telling me it is a fact a 2 year old is better raised by his father? I know you will dodge this question and be verbose and tell us story.

NO, i am telling you that it is a FACT that the SAUDI LAW believes that a 2yr old would be better raised by his father....and therefore, if any cases were to be tried there, the judgment will surely favor in that direction.

as a smart person, i would rather that both the parents be EVALUATED, before deciding on who is more suited to care for the child.......but different countries have different laws, and therefore we should follow them (or stay away from such places).

MRbrownJAY:

NO, i am telling you that it is a FACT that the SAUDI LAW believes that a 2yr old would be better raised by his father....and therefore, if any cases were to be tried there, the judgment will surely favor in that direction.

as a smart person, i would rather that both the parents be EVALUATED, before deciding on who is more suited to care for the child.......but different countries have different laws, and therefore we should follow them (or stay away from such places).

Thank you! You are nailing yourself

You said you made your assumption that the wife deserved £21m because the courts that looked at the case said so. So who are we to question it? You refused to take into the consideration the premise.

The fact there is that the premise in the UK is to shaft the man (as you yourself agreed to earlier), so there is no evaluation, the judges ARE ORDERED to make an assumption that it is joint money, not evaluate who really did the work and made it.

So surely, if a Saudi court says a husband is best to raise a 2 year old, you will not quesion it and you will agree the husband deserves to be awarded custody. YOU SHOULD ALSO refuse to look at the premise that the Islamic law shafts women.

You should be like an unsmart person (like you did with the UK) and not evaluate each parent's real capacity to take care of a 2 year old and just believe the court, that looked at all the evidence, is right. Who are you to question it?

So you know smart people (like me) like real, solid evaluation? Not moronic premises of a court like UK or Saudi?

Stop dodging the question:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

Wow you guys!

Let me throw in a bit... The courts(at least here in the west) do not make valid evaluations about who is the best parent for a child to reside with,sadly. Ask any lawyer.

When a couple gets married,the wealth and debt accumulated while they are together is split 50/50. Child support is based on income,and spousal support is optional. I think its greedy for a woman to ask for spousal support unless some out of the ordinary circumstance is at play.

talina: Wow you guys!

Let me throw in a bit... The courts(at least here in the west) do not make valid evaluations about who is the best parent for a child to reside with,sadly. Ask any lawyer.

When a couple gets married,the wealth and debt accumulated while they are together is split 50/50. Child support is based on income,and spousal support is optional. I think its greedy for a woman to ask for spousal support unless some out of the ordinary circumstance is at play.

Thank you!

But, according to MJB, when the courts make the judgement, that is the Truth and Facts. Lets ignore the premise and default bias. The court is right. Lets not do what "smart people" (as he himself said) do and evaluate. The court is right!

Sagamite:

Thank you! You are nailing yourself

You said you made your assumption that the wife deserved £21m because the courts that looked at the case said so. So who are we to question it? You refused to take into the consideration the premise.

The fact there is that the premise in the UK is to shaft the man (as you yourself agreed to earlier), so there is no evaluation, the judges ARE ORDERED to make an assumption that it is joint money, not evaluate who really did the work and made it.

when did i "agreed" earlier that the courts in the UK shafts the man in divorce?! pls dont put words in my mouth, pls!
how can you claim the judges made an assumption when they had ALL THE FACTS in this matter before their eyes? they made their decision due to the evidence that was brought to them by BOTH party. if we dont elect a body to judge these cases fairly, then we would have men like yourself believing that women deserve absolutely NOTHING during divorce proceedings, regardless of their input in that said family wealth.

So surely, if a Saudi court says a husband is best to raise a 2 year old, you will not quesion it and you will agree the husband deserves to be awarded custody. YOU SHOULD ALSO refuse to look at the premise that the Islamic law shafts women.You should be like an unsmart person (like you did with the UK) and not evaluate each parent's real capacity to take care of a 2 year old and just believe the court, that looked at all the evidence, is right. Who are you to question it?

bro, what are you on about? are you ok?! what the hell are you babbling about?!

talina:
Let me throw in a bit... The courts(at least here in the west) do not make valid evaluations about who is the best parent for a child to reside with,sadly. Ask any lawyer.

says who? here is a simple clue for you: if i ask the lawyers of the parent who got custody of the child, then i am sure they will say that the court makes VERY valid evaluations, lol!

what Sagamite, you and many people out there fail to understand is that, someone impartial has to step in and make the mature decision that these 2 parents couldnt make on their own. if/when everything is "fair" in life, then the custody of the child (or family wealth allocation) is decided amicably by both parents. but, when both parents cannot come to a mature understanding, then the court is called upon to evaluate the evidences brought to them and make a ruling on this case, which would ultimately favor one parent over the other. what else would you rather these parents do?! keep on arguing about the matter childishly forever until one parent yields?!

it's very simple and after ANY ruling, then whatever the judge decidee becomes the FACT and their new REALITY (until a new ruling on this case is pronounced). why such simple matter is so difficult for anyone to understand is beyond me.

MRbrownJAY:

when did i "agreed" earlier that the courts in the UK shafts the man in divorce?! pls dont put words in my mouth, pls!

Look at FACT 4:

https://www.nairaland.com/878081/nigerian-billionaire-battles-british-wife/13#11480455

MRbrownJAY:
how can you claim the judges made an assumption when they had ALL THE FACTS in this matter before their eyes? they made their decision due to the evidence that was brought to them by BOTH party. if we dont elect a body to judge these cases fairly, then we would have men like yourself believing that women deserve absolutely NOTHING during divorce proceedings, regardless of their input in that said family wealth.

That is why a smart person looks at premise.

The court's premise includes the shyt called "maintaining the lifestyle she is used to". That is rubbish!

Stop dodging the question:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.

@ MBJ, Says who? Says the very lawyers who represent the parents. Says the required courses the parents take after separation.I have been around this kind of issue for years and some facts are:

Extracting the truth is very hard.
It quickly becomes a matter of "he said she said"
People lie all the time!
What a parent says in court on a affidavit means little unless backed up by a professional
The courts are swamped and the judges do NOT even read carefully put together statements(said by a lawyer)
Judges are human and therefore each has diffent values and moods(said by lawyers)
It must be a matter of extremes(like involvment of abuse ,drugs etc)for the matter to be heard in special chambers and even then....
A judge will still even grant equal care to a parent who is a known abuser

The system does what it can,but in all truth, much can be lost in the sea of chatter.

Sagamite:

Look at FACT 4:

https://www.nairaland.com/878081/nigerian-billionaire-battles-british-wife/13#11480455



That is why a smart person looks at premise.
The court's premise includes the shyt called "maintaining the lifestyle she is used to". That is rubbish!

LOL!!!! bro Saga, really?! so you dont know the meaning of QUOTE UNQUOTE?! you are failing rapidly bro.
anyway here is a picture for you to see what i meant when i wrote "unjust".....like that!



as for what the court decides (that you believe is rubbish) that is YOUR opinion, and you are entitled to them.....so long as you FOLLOW THE LAW!

MRbrownJAY:

LOL!!!! bro Saga, really?! so you dont know the meaning of QUOTE UNQUOTE?! you are failing rapidly bro.
anyway here is a picture for you to see what i meant when i wrote "unjust".....like that!



as for what the court decides (that you believe is rubbish) that is YOUR opinion, and you are entitled to them.....so long as you FOLLOW THE LAW!

Answer my question:

Tell me, from your understanding and intelligence, what has more influence on an individual: Their nurturing or their marriage.

When you finish answering that, tell me, which do you (from your capability of making assumptions) think will have more influence: The mentorship of parents over about 25 years from birth or an 11 year marriage of a man from his 30s.

I wait.