Sunday 15 March 2015

Ageing Money-loving Hippies Slug It Out

Wow, taking sides on this one is difficult.  Tempting, but difficult.

In the red-green corner is Dale Vince, "former hippy turned green energy tycoon".  If we thought Branson was a poseur ... and of course for all his "green" credentials he's as tough as nails: the bottom line shows that others pay him handsomely for the privilege of going green.  Hippy, my arse - that's a capitalist@work.

In the puce corner is Kathleen Wyatt, sometime fellow-traveller of Vince - new-age traveller, no less - and mother of his child.   New age, my arse - she's suing for £1.9 million, three decades after the fact.

Heaven alone knows what is going on in all the different courts involved - Divorce Courts, Appeals Court, Supreme Court, High Court.  For once, somone is going to make money out of Vince, though it may end up being just the lawyers involved.

One the one hand: 30 years - I mean, come on ... !  The implications are pretty far-reaching.  On the other hand though: hmmm, Dale Vince ...   (the Grauniad even manages to work up some positive sympathy for Wyatt).

Might there be a solution where both these unattractive protagonists lose?  I think there might: divorce proceedings are like that.



Suffragent said...

Of course it will go through. The Law is only for lawyers after all. Gold diggers everywhere will be contacting their lawyers as we type (or vice a versa), having spent the hansom pay-out they have already received." oh their income went up, after they dumped my sorry ass, well I must be entitled..... Regardless of what you think of the twat, this will set a precedent. Now he's made good (robbing the energy consumer) is there any numbers with regards to how much he's giving his kid? Even if they were still married, he would still be entitled to leave it all to the local cats home.

E-K said...

1.9 million to raise a kid.

That's what this amounts to. No wonder I'm always broke. I have two.

dearieme said...

This was a decision so bad that it calls for statute law to reverse the position.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

I am irresistibly reminded of the cartoon by (I think) Gillray - two men are arguing over who owns a cow, one pulling the head, the other heaving on the tail. The lawyer sits underneath, happily milking.

Jan said...

....according to Dale Vince on the Today programme the other day he's already paid out half a million to lawyers....and he will pick up the tab for all the expenses incurred....the lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee.

CityUnslicker said...

the logic of this leads me to conclude that the only ex who is not a threat to your financial being will be a dead one.

Sad eh?

Will give a whole new meaning to the phrase 'clean break'

Budgie said...

After she takes him to the cleaners presumably she can earn a bit more with a book and the Jeremy Kyle show.

Jim said...

Don't forget that the courts haven't ruled on the actual case yet. All the Supreme Court judgement was on whether the case could be struck out on the time issue alone. Which they decided it couldn't. They also said that there was no way she'd get 1.9m either.

So we shall have to wait and see what the actual judgement comes out at. It may be they tell her to p*ss off. Which would be the best outcome for all the rest of us - gold digging b*tch gets nothing, eco-loon leaching off the rest of us has to pay large legal bills.

And it doesn't actually create much precedent - if Dale Vince had sorted the correct legal paperwork creating a clean break divorce at the time she'd have had no chance of even bringing a case in the first place.

Which leads us to two bits of advice:
1) Never get married, and
2) If you are and get divorced make sure the correct financial separation documents are filed.

BE said...

My high-flying criminal defence solicitor and bitter divorcee friend's comment on all this was "this is pretty much the end of heterosexual marriage".

Suffragent said...

Seems I'm not alone in my bitter viewpoint.
Maybe she needs the 1.9 mil to go after the husband of her first child.
It's different if kids are involved but the current setup disregards what you have actually brought to the relationship (My only reference is male friends but I'm sure there are some women in this situation)
Marriage is irrelevant.
I think you will find it's an end to heterosexual sex (for anybody financially self sufficient), unless a holiday romance and you just happen to drop your phone in the sea.
Tell me again why the gays are fighting for marital status?

1) never have sex
2) If you have to let them into your house, after parties, check under the sofa and in the shed. If one of them drops out of your closet after six months your screwed.
PS these rules will only work for men for the next 10 years. As you know "he lived on his own and kept himself to himself" is the description of every sex pest and murderer, so Harperson will closing down that lifestyle if allowed back in to power.

No?...bitter?...Me? Maybe I should change my monica

Suff said...

Stealing an Idea from porridge. Spring is coming so the garden could do with a turnover and GCHQ now reads our emails so
“I havn’t seen my partner for weeks and the rose garden has a peculiar smell.”
No flags raised?
Semtex, anthrax, map of London, Queen, buried in the garden…………………oh wait there’s somebody at the door.