@*elizabeths-mum* wrote: You look at deserted wives in the 60s who worked to support their children in a full time job that paid 3/4 of a male wage and realise things have changed for the better.
There was no child care then, so I coudn't work in the beginning. Besides the father was earning an equivalent of $70,000 and should have been forced to pay, and was. Things certainly have changed for the better now.
But back to the topic. There has been a litany of bad character witnesses (that is what they are called when the alleged offences occurred outside Britain), and it is getting murkier and murkier.
@am*3 wrote: There is still about 4 weeks left of this trial to go.. Lots more to hear about.
Polks..you never mentioned upfront, your experience was in the 1969's. Of course things are going to be different then compared to now.
OK, but it is no secret that I am as old as the hills. 1964/5. No family court and no no-fault divorce until Whitlam. Thank you Mr Whitlam for making it easier for women now.
For a serious trial, for example, murder charge. It would make a difference to the outcome depending on if the accused was wearing a business suit or a polo shirt and jeans??
What influence does it make.. Do the jury members think.. Nice suit... He can't be guiltly?
It is not the ones who think good clothes wont affect any outcome that are deluded.
