Thread: Dubai adultery conviction upheld

bladdy heck

marry a fvcking wog what she expect?

false or not bladdy vindictive way to get back at your xwife. (but still the mother of his children)

that is really fcked.

Why is it that people still cling to thousand year old laws that no longer serve a constructive purpose in modern & multi-cultural society? These people are sick twats.

No stones available?

Can't they cut her vadge out or something?

At least put forth some effort...

Geeze (can I say that?)

At least the son, young boy, will be properly indoctrinated into British society.

Silver lining and all.....

She looks like she would or could become a real pain-in-the-ass. I happen to agree with the other posts; What do you expect when you marry a wog? (What's a wog?) Especially, when you live in their country and I am sure you would be expected to follow the traditional ways. If you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas. She got what she deserves.

her ex-husband Ihab El-Labban, who accused her of cheating on him.

We should all exercise the utmost measure of tolerance and help him stone her to death. If it makes you queezy, simply help collect the rocks.

Geez (oops) it's the least we can do to welcome him to out social network and absolute surrender of culture/values/mores. Welcome El-Labban!

^^
WOG = Western Oriental Gentleman.
A British term of derision...

tell me that's a joke....


please.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^^
WOG = Western Oriental Gentleman.
A British term of derision...

Peterpan was using it in its Australian context I believe.

Wog refers to people of Mediterranean, North African and Middle Eastern extraction.

Originally Posted by Lynn

She looks like she would or could become a real pain-in-the-ass. I happen to agree with the other posts; What do you expect when you marry a wog? (What's a wog?) Especially, when you live in their country and I am sure you would be expected to follow the traditional ways. If you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas. She got what she deserves.

So, adultery deserves death? From what old era do you come? Do you still wear a suit of armour by any chance?

More wisdom from Koran-Land. Lucky she wasn't in Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by mikehunt

Why is it that people still cling to thousand year old laws that no longer serve a constructive purpose in modern & multi-cultural society? These people are sick twats.

Why do people cling to two hundred old laws..??

Originally Posted by Texpat

No stones available?

Can't they cut her vadge out or something?

At least put forth some effort...

Geeze (can I say that?)

At least the son, young boy, will be properly indoctrinated into British society.

Silver lining and all.....

You forgot to include the term properly in your comment involving British society....oh! I see it now! Never mind. Keep up the good work Texxy.

More Islamic kookiness.

How did they prove this "adultery?"

Another way to think about this as I see the effect being no different to what women do in the West. If the system allows for it, people will use it to their own advantage. There's a lot of things we don't know about this case but here is just one scenario.

The parties noted in the OP have separated, she has told the husband (ex or estranged) that she want to go back to the UK - the effect of which the father won't see the boys. The mother will not hear of leaving them where they are regardless that is where they have grown up. The only possible alternative is that the husband pay an outrageous amount to have the wife "kept". In response, the father decides to use the system to avoid his sons from being taken away.

No compare that to the following:

Western man and woman separate in Australia (could easily be UK, US, Can etc) - the wife 99% of the times will keep the children (a view which is institutionalised in Aus). Father wants to maintain an equal level of week on week off residence. The mother wants nothing to do with it as it will either reduce her child support or she can't stand the ex-partner. Picking one argument out of many, the wife's version of events suddenly differs to the husband's view of what happened - in fact his memory is that the wife effectively provoked the argument in question. There are no physical assaults, no threats or physical violence - just a threat to throw her over the balcony in a knee-jerk reaction to her saying she will throw out the expensive laptop he left there and now wants back.

She applies for a DVO (Domestic Violence Order) because she has an "apprehension" that he might do something to her (no previous history - in fact, the male could provide 3 separate occasions where the ex partner assaulted him). It costs her nothing to make the allegation as the police prosecute on her behalf, the respondent has to be self represented (not a good idea) or pay around 2-4k in legal fees to defend - win or lose he gets none of it back. Effectively, its a lose/lose situation for the guy. He agrees to "consent" to the order being made as the order will note that as opposed to there being a finding of fact that a DVO event occurred (remember, only need to satisfy that the "aggrieved person" has an "apprehension".

Goes to family court to get orders for contact with the children - which was indicated to the ex-spouse if she didn't want to consent to a fair contact system (surprisingly before DVO was applied for). Of course, the issue of the DVO came up and as such, no judge will order a complainant to deliver the children to a person with the DVO. The father is painted as a person with "anger issues" and the interest of the child should be considered thereby requiring 1 day a fortnight access at a supervised location for 2 hours - to be reviewed after 6 months. The fact that he consented to the DVO has no bearing on the decision as the "best interests of the child" takes precedent - and its better for the judge's own conscious to be safe than sorry. To a father who wouldn't hurt a hair on his child or on most people for that matter, supervised visits is degrading for him and he stops after the 4th visit as he believes that its not only unhealthy for him, its also unhealthy for his children. Long story short, the father loses being able to see his children - a goal intended by the mother who has extreme feelings against the guy for ending the relationship (but a pretty good actor in court I must say).

I don't see any difference with the two outcomes, both parties used the system to their own outcome - in the West the female is favoured, in other countries the male is favoured. There is no "additional information missing", I've given a fair summary. The "mistake" if you want to say one was made by the guy in the second example was that he warned the ex-spouse that he would apply for a court order if she couldn't be more reasonable. I could probably hazard to guess that the woman in the OP made a similar mistake.

To lessens to be taken from this:
1. The law favours those who strike first.
2. Principles of justice and their application is dependent on how much you can afford in pursuing them.