And to be honest - it seems all of those people defending this woman - seem to think its right that those tax-payers on low incomes SHOULD subsidise the rich and famous.
I don't see that happening. I see people who are defending Martin Freeman for not having to pay someone else's tax bill and I see people who refuse to see being declared bankrupt as an easy get-out card that the rich play in order to keep their money.
Poor people often get declared bankrupt because they cannot afford to pay their way anymore. Its not an "out" for the rich. No-one even knows what her financial situation is. He might be very successful, but she's not exactly an A-lister, is she? Acting on TV doesn't mean you are swimming in cash.
But no-ones actually interested in the details of her financial situation. He's rich. She's (somewhat) famous. What are people expecting her to do if she's been declared bankrupt? Pay out of the money the courts have obviously decided she doesn't have? Have her legs broken like if she'd borrowed from a loan shark? Be forced into indentured servitude like in the good old days of antiquity?
Nah, people just want him to pay because he's rich and famous. Bugger the law, because he's rich. Law good when it protects the little folk. Law bad when it also protects rich man. Its just reverse snobbery and engineered outrage by the tabloids.