To be honest I thought I did read your post properly, and I still got the impression that I would be the sort of person you would be referencing. Simply because if I could, I would take the money, just as she did.Alice if you care to read my post properly you will will see that unless you are "a lazy bitch whos to self absorbed and lazy to support herself" you are obviously not the sort of person I am referencing!
From reading the article you gave as a reference source, it appears that she worked in a reasonable job (a human resources director in an investment firm), so for me, she doesn't meet the definition of lazy. And for me the fact that she was working in that job indicates that she wasn't being supported by her ex-husband or dependent on him, as you earlier contended. And it means she was also contributing quite a reasonable amount to the cost of raising their daughter.
The article you gave as a reference for the story is very obviously biased writing. It gives a very overly sympathetic angle for him and doesn't even attempt to be even handed for her. It goes out of its way to paint her as the greedy bitch who has loose morals (..."clutched a bottle of Champagne as she left her luxury waterfront home with a new man she has found..."), while he is the poor victim whose friends are rallying to have his story heard.I accused her of being lazy and self absorbed for suing him for 6.5 million 10 years after they divorced when he offered her 1.6 million and offered to set up a trust fund for their daughter. Is this is not greed in its finest form? He wanted the 3.2 million she now has to go to their child but she had that vetoed.....she wanted the money for herself. Its worth noting that when he won the money there was a huge increase in maintainence payments. I repeat she wanted this money for herself NOT for her child!!!
The article says he was 'forced' to give a share to the ex-wife who 'dumped' him 10 years ago and quotes "friends" who say that he 'generously offered her' $1.6 million and they 'used to get on pretty well' but she has 'ruined everything' by 'rushing to consult lawyers' . The 'friends' say that he always provided for his daughter, and 'even when he was out of work he made sure she was all right'. And the 'friends' say that "The $3.2 million lump sum she agreed to accept is hers to spend as she wishes after a bid by Nigel to pay it into a trust for Ella was vetoed."
So I wonder what the other side - her side - of the story is? And I wonder how different the perception would be if the article had been written in a manner overly sympathetic to her, with quotes from her friends instead? As an example, perhaps her friends might say that the trust fund his friends say he was going to set up had unreasonable strings attached and that she is still trying to secure the money for the child, but just not on his terms. Perhaps her friends might paint a very different picture of this man who just won $90million.
And then apart from his side and her side, I wonder what the truth is - I wonder what a completely unbiased and balanced story might say.
That's taking my statement quite out of context. I was responding to your assertions that he was supporting her, that she was too lazy and self-absorbed to support herself, that she should get off her arse and find a job so she could support herself, and that she was dependent on him. And my full and complete statement was saying that the amount of child support he would have been paying would not have been enough to support her and she would not have been dependent on him. My full and complete statement was saying that she would have been supporting herself and would also have been contributing to the cost of the child, which meant that your assertions of her dependency etc were not true. My full and complete statement was:and why the fuck should he? It takes two to make a baby. Why should he bear the total cost of supporting a child and her none?It's extremely unlikely that his child support was fully covering all the costs toward the upbringing of the child,
Left in context, I hope you can see that I was not saying that he should "bear the total costs of supporting a child and her none".She was supporting herself and the child for ten years before he won this money. He was paying whatever child support he was meant to be paying. That is not supporting her, it's assisting in the support of the child. There's a big difference. The amount he paid would have been proportional to his earnings during that ten years and may or may not have been enough to have been of huge assistance in paying the bills, putting the food on the table, and all the other costs in raising a child. It's extremely unlikely that his child support was fully covering all the costs toward the upbringing of the child, and in general it's quite unlikely that his child support would have been paying even half the costs.
So he wasn't supporting her - she was supporting herself. And he was contributing to the costs of raising their child - and so was she.
I don't know if in saying "why the fuck should he" you have got the impression that I think all men should be screwed to the ground for every cent the women can get under the guise of child support. Because that's not my stance at all. In general there are just as many greedy bitches trying to do that as there are arsehole men trying everything they can to evade their child support responsibilities. In general there are just as many rotten and unreasonable people and just as many genuine victims on both sides. In my work environment I see all sides and all degrees of fairness and unfairness when it comes to things such as child support and people's treatment of each other and their children after separation. So I'm really not trying to turn this into a whole commentary on that.
My personal view is that it isn't fair to be so judgemental about the woman (or even the man) in this story, simply because we do not have all the facts available for this particular story, and there seems to be a high degree of bias in the reporting that ensures we don't know the full detail and that we remain sympathetic toward the man, the $90 million lottery winner. I said in my first post, and still think,
My personal view is that I would take the money from my ex-husband if I was fortunate enough to have any sort of similar circumstance and opportunity. I would most definitely refuse a trust fund if he offered, because I could not trust my ex-husband and because there would be 'strings' attached. I would share the money with my kids and use it to benefit them and to set myself up for my retirement. Based on what you wrote earlier, and also what you responded to me with this time, that would make me, in your eyes, lazy, self-absorbed, and greedy (in its finest form). I, of course, disagree with that view of my character.I have a feeling there is more to this story than the small amount of detail in the article.
