Report comment

If he's got his passport back, that's it, he's gone and she'll never see any of her, sorry his, money.

I can't say I'm crying into my corn flakes for someone who once squandered £5,000 on a meal and made no provision for life after divorce while the rest of us were putting something away for our retirement. She can hardly claim to be the first divorcee.

But spare a thought for their two daughters. What kind of a "B" sees them having to leave school early and live in rented accommodation, sharing rooms? Still they say you can learn as much from a bad parent as from a good one so on that basis they should be O K.

And another thing, it is the judge's job to listen to and read the evidence and to decide the case according to the law. I appreciate that this may be excruciatingly boring, but he did not have to take the job..

But it is not his job to tell people how they should behave within the law. We all may have a view on what we think of the Youngs, but it is our role to express those opinions, not the judge's, and he should stick to what he is paid to do. They are far too fond of making these 'ex cathedra' remarks as if they are some sort of Delphic oracle, or fount of all that is wise, and which the number of successful, and extremely expensive, appeals prove quite apodictically they are certainly not. It's just a pity they cannot be made to pay the costs of one party or the other in the event of a successful appeal. Now that would make them concentrate a bit more on the law and the evidence!