Report comment

Well, Richard, you provide another bullet for me to fire at the irrationality of our 'once great', as so many commenters here call it, legal system and/or its judges.
Did the judge provide a rationally defensible argument as to how his decision was a 'matter of fact', not mere (if I dare use that word about a judge's power of reasoning) opinion?
Many people will find it insulting that, after the dear Lady judge declared the first judge's reasoning 'inviolable', she gave her sniffy opinion that a mere £20,000 income provides for only an unacceptably 'basic level' of existence. By what rational calculation did she then reach her judgement on what the daughter's 'reasonable' needs/deserts were, and why would that not require stating how she assessed them as greater than the State has assessed what the rest of us with no other income need, ie soc security or pension benefits? Just how high an opinion do judges have of their intellectual capacities in any domain?
The woman has an income of £20,000. My two pensions give me an income of £15,000 less tax, on which I manage quite well, overseas holidays included. I have learnt that it's quite a bit more than many FT teaching assistants get (disgustingly cheap labour in my opinion, esp when many do a teacher's job). The £20,000 is equivalent to £11,000 when I retired, and my post-tax income before retirement = £23,000 now. A quick on-line check shows that a £164,000 pension pot would take her income up to £30,000!
David, you are welcome to tell me that none of this would be considered relevant by the Courts, but you will see that it provides excellent fodder for a journo from a lawyer-bashing newspaper: "Snooty Lady Justice says if you only earn £20,000 you can't provide a decent life for your family," or "... thinks you should keep your benefits if your income goes up to £30,000."
Do none of those in the system who resent the common perception of it realise that it provides the ammunition for (some of) the public to fire at it?