The matriarchy prefers expense, uncertainty and unfairness to cheap and simple solutions in divorce

The Law Commission is starting a consultation on the question of what should happen to property in a divorce case owned by the individual partners before they are married, in an effort to come up with guidelines for England and Wales. Ayesha Vardag, a leading divorce lawyer, and Prof Elizabeth Cooke, one of the law commissioners, discuss the question of divorce and property.

The solution is simple: marriage contracts for all.  

Will this simple solution be taken on board and implemented?

Of course not: it is too cheap and too simple and too rigorous.  The matriarchy will hate it.  They will take a few more years to sit on the idea and piss and poo all over it.

I once suggested to a female solicitor the idea and she looked at me as if I were mad.  I suggested it to another one and the same thing happened. What is the matter with these evil bitches that they want people to suffer?  

Why do these bitches dislike the marriage contract?  Because it means that fault will be attributed and we all know ex-wives can do no wrong, don't we?  Yep, it is all a feminine conspiracy to appropriate the property of men and then treat them like shit.

Time to tell feminism to fuck off, peeps.  Tell them now.

Don't fucking bother with the Law Commission - it is more than their job's worth.  Call a solicitor who does family law and ask that parasitical cunt why not.

The Muslims have marriage contracts.   Why can't non-Muslims have them too?

Because such a sensible and fair solution is something the matriarchy hates.   They want half their husband's property even if they were the ones who ran off with the milkman, so to speak.


Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The easy and cheap availability of British women

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?