I wasn't impressed with the UK judgement. UK judges often seem to be influenced by the chivalrous notion that women are more likely to be truthful than men. Not only that but she was the underdog, another common preference for judges.
But British judges don't know how Americans relate to one another. Where there's money, I think a lot of people of either sex lose their moorings. And I see no reason to think an underdog is likely to be right than an overdog, whatever that is.
My take on the English judgement was again, it would have been best to find some way for both to lose. I feel the same about the American case. They were both horrid to one another. Both were abusers, not one or the other. They both demanded a lot of attention. They are both picking at the scab of their old relationship.
Judgements are designed to find one party right and the other wrong. Here, both are wrong.
The message I'd want to give them. Stop wasting the court's time arbitrating a dispute in which there are no good guys. Quit looking backwards. Just move on.
| 