Goldi, can I ask you if you left your job and were owed some wages, would you not expect to get the money that the company owed you?
Suppose if you regard a marriage as an 'employment', you'd be right.:)
Either a marriage is a committment or a business arrangement but I cannot understand how it can be both.
Anyway PA walked out on his wife and kids and imo deserves nothing (which is what he claims anyway).
I have no problem with him getting what he is entitled to. or what he has managed to negotiate through Divorce lawyers but if you issue a statement saying I walked away with nothing then I expect him to have done just that.
This means nothing if a confidentiality agreement is in place, she has no way of refuting it.
It means everything, this statement would have been agreed at the meeting, if not and incorrect, then both KP and her legal team would have by now demand it be removed and hold another meeting to discuss the breaching of PA actually putting this out for public consumption.
Her lawyers certainly would have immediately demanded it be taken down, especially after it appears to me it was PA and his legal team who pulled the meeting together in the first place.
Do you know for a fact it was his lawyers demanding the meeting. Genuine question.
I have no problem with him getting what he is entitled to. or what he has managed to negotiate through Divorce lawyers but if you issue a statement saying I walked away with nothing then I expect him to have done just that.
Walking away with nothing doesn't mean not taking what is actually yours.
Suppose if you regard a marriage as an 'employment', you'd be right.:)
Either a marriage is a committment or a business arrangement but I cannot understand how it can be both.
Anyway PA walked out on his wife and kids and imo deserves nothing (which is what he claims anyway).
When he says he walked away with nothing..I think he is saying he walked away with nothing of HERS. He was quite entitled to receive half of all the earnings they made as a couple.
If you read her statement she is being accused of leaking information.
The whole thing is ridiculous. They both need a good shake. The money spent on lawyers could be going to their children if only they could speak amicably.
Suppose if you regard a marriage as an 'employment', you'd be right.:)
Either a marriage is a committment or a business arrangement but I cannot understand how it can be both.
Anyway PA walked out on his wife and kids and imo deserves nothing (which is what he claims anyway).
Oh dear, (BIU) he divorced his wife not his children.
If you read her statement she is being accused of leaking information.
The whole thing is ridiculous. They both need a good shake. The money spent on lawyers could be going to their children if only they could speak amicably.
When he says he walked away with nothing..I think he is saying he walked away with nothing of HERS. He was quite entitled to receive half of all the earnings they made as a couple.
I have no problem with him getting what he is entitled to. or what he has managed to negotiate through Divorce lawyers but if you issue a statement saying I walked away with nothing then I expect him to have done just that.
As was suggested before, this could well be a settlement for a court order made against KP for damages. It was paid for a period of time. It could also be back pay for work he did with KP when they were married. Do you know if he was getting this from the time they divorced or was it paid at a later date?
When he says he walked away with nothing..I think he is saying he walked away with nothing of HERS. He was quite entitled to receive half of all the earnings they made as a couple.
i agree about being entitled to half of the joint earnings but maybe they already divided that up as and when it was received from each job (less the managers commission) so she had half in her bank account and he had his half in his which he would be entitled to keep and it would be his as he closed the door and walked away. So he would have had his own money from their joint earnings when he left.
its ok, no problem, I obviously dont read those newspapers as I had no idea where the info about the the solicitors meeting came from. I wont make you go there, I dont need a link x3
I need to give up the wretched little things or stop going advanced so I am not tempted by them.
Its the PA camp who has denied receiving any money. KP has denied being involved in giving any information suggesting so.
The only people who can verify any of this are bound by a legal order issued by a judge.
The PA camp are idiots since he clearly wouldn't have walked away from their marriage with nothing. Although I absolutely do not believe he has ever received maintenance... clever spin from someone. I do think that is a dangerous game to play though Goldi... sticking it to PA not that hard... but in this case I think it could be more this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKIzjF25sP8
When he says he walked away with nothing..I think he is saying he walked away with nothing of HERS. He was quite entitled to receive half of all the earnings they made as a couple.
Not necessarily just hers, he most probably bought things and paid towards the family home and didn't insist on getting any of that back as well.
If you read her statement she is being accused of leaking information.
The whole thing is ridiculous. They both need a good shake. The money spent on lawyers could be going to their children if only they could speak amicably.
anyway nite all x
It's not ridiculous Goldi if incorrect maligning information is being put out about you and you think or have proof it is coming from your ex-wife. Unfortunately, amicable, went out the window ages ago with this partnership.
This means nothing if a confidentiality agreement is in place, she has no way of refuting it.
She is more than capable of coming out and saying there is no truth in her paying him anything but it suits her to make believe she is, to gain the sympathy vote.:rolleyes: You can be sure if Peter Andres statement was incorrect she would be relishing and licking her lips at the thought of proving him wrong, yet she isnt, why is that do you think?:rolleyes:
Shes known for sue'ing at the drop of a hat yet isnt, again why not? unless god forbid hes telling the truth but that dosent suit the KP fans agenda really does it.
I see it as hes taken nothing from before or since they met and only his share of joint earnings, but i could be wrong. Only they know i guess both sides have reasons for playing this one out in the press, peter and his victim status and katie and her need to get back in the GBP worthy status.
I would say it means not being paid out by her the way AR is being paid out. I wouldn't expect him to leave his clothing, CD's etc. Or the money he himself earned through CAN projects.
She is more than capable of coming out and saying there is no truth in her paying him anything but it suits her to make believe she is, to gain the sympathy vote.:rolleyes: You can be sure if Peter Andres statement was incorrect she would be relishing and licking her lips at the thought of proving him wrong, yet she isnt, why is that do you think?:rolleyes:
Shes known for sue'ing at the drop of a hat yet isnt, again why not? unless god forbid hes telling the truth but that dosent suit the KP fans agenda really does it.
Well said Pet, but I think in the case of some FM's no matter how you explain it, they refuse to take much on board:)
Well said Pet, but I think in the case of some FM's no matter how you explain it, they refuse to take much on board:)
I think i shall away to my bed lol ive got too heated at times this evening trying to get people to see the wood beyond the trees but blinkers are currently de riguer i dont want to deliberately offend or fall out with anyone so i shall say goodnight all and see you tomo! much love to everyone pa/kp fans and neutrals alike
Comments
Suppose if you regard a marriage as an 'employment', you'd be right.:)
Either a marriage is a committment or a business arrangement but I cannot understand how it can be both.
Anyway PA walked out on his wife and kids and imo deserves nothing (which is what he claims anyway).
I hear ya mate.:)
It means everything, this statement would have been agreed at the meeting, if not and incorrect, then both KP and her legal team would have by now demand it be removed and hold another meeting to discuss the breaching of PA actually putting this out for public consumption.
Do you know for a fact it was his lawyers demanding the meeting. Genuine question.
Who by? I can only see a discussion on the thread topic.
Why would KP have demanded it?
Walking away with nothing doesn't mean not taking what is actually yours.
They were married and worked together see?
If you read her statement she is being accused of leaking information.
The whole thing is ridiculous. They both need a good shake. The money spent on lawyers could be going to their children if only they could speak amicably.
anyway nite all x
Oh dear, (BIU) he divorced his wife not his children.
Because her friend said she had. On twitter.
So nothing takes on a new meaning in your eyes.
I always thought that nothing meant nothing.
As was suggested before, this could well be a settlement for a court order made against KP for damages. It was paid for a period of time. It could also be back pay for work he did with KP when they were married. Do you know if he was getting this from the time they divorced or was it paid at a later date?
i agree about being entitled to half of the joint earnings but maybe they already divided that up as and when it was received from each job (less the managers commission) so she had half in her bank account and he had his half in his which he would be entitled to keep and it would be his as he closed the door and walked away. So he would have had his own money from their joint earnings when he left.
I need to give up the wretched little things or stop going advanced so I am not tempted by them.
The only people who can verify any of this are bound by a legal order issued by a judge.
The PA camp are idiots since he clearly wouldn't have walked away from their marriage with nothing. Although I absolutely do not believe he has ever received maintenance... clever spin from someone.
Not necessarily just hers, he most probably bought things and paid towards the family home and didn't insist on getting any of that back as well.
It's not ridiculous Goldi if incorrect maligning information is being put out about you and you think or have proof it is coming from your ex-wife. Unfortunately, amicable, went out the window ages ago with this partnership.
Night Goldi.
It's also naiive to think it means minus the shirt on your back.
She is more than capable of coming out and saying there is no truth in her paying him anything but it suits her to make believe she is, to gain the sympathy vote.:rolleyes: You can be sure if Peter Andres statement was incorrect she would be relishing and licking her lips at the thought of proving him wrong, yet she isnt, why is that do you think?:rolleyes:
Shes known for sue'ing at the drop of a hat yet isnt, again why not? unless god forbid hes telling the truth but that dosent suit the KP fans agenda really does it.
Does nothing not mean nothing?
Please excuse my naivety btw.
I see it as hes taken nothing from before or since they met and only his share of joint earnings, but i could be wrong. Only they know i guess both sides have reasons for playing this one out in the press, peter and his victim status and katie and her need to get back in the GBP worthy status.
I would say it means not being paid out by her the way AR is being paid out. I wouldn't expect him to leave his clothing, CD's etc. Or the money he himself earned through CAN projects.
Well said Pet, but I think in the case of some FM's no matter how you explain it, they refuse to take much on board:)
I think i shall away to my bed lol ive got too heated at times this evening trying to get people to see the wood beyond the trees but blinkers are currently de riguer i dont want to deliberately offend or fall out with anyone so i shall say goodnight all and see you tomo!