I have a suggestion for Tina Owens. You report (26 July) that her husband will not allow her a divorce, and this was supported by the judges. As a married couple, all their property belongs to them both jointly. Tini can start spending them seriously costs. To buy a house, if it isn’t already; give thousands to charities (Women’s aid comes to mind); Tina can buy clothing and give many of the homeless, and her own friends and family; the same with jewelry; regular donations from her local food Bank, and what about Wi? Once she gets on a roll she would get away.
It would be wise to get £200 a day cash machine, and put it under the mattress, when the others have all gone. She wants a Lamborghini? Or account with a local chauffeur company? I’m sure her friends and family could come up with some ideas. It will be such a pleasure! How much she can spend, before her husband asked her about the divorce? How delightful it would be if she refused him.
• In the wording “the English law on divorce in a bad place. Time no-fault reforms has come” (July 28), You fail to mention that Hugh Owens now do not have to bear the injustice of being divorced on the grounds that it was “baptism of fire” because most importantly, he could afford to defend themselves. No luck the rest of society that “curse” because there is no judicial inquiry, the truth is most divorce petitions. The court automatically supports claims of the plaintiff because it protects the divorce is prohibitively expensive and one Respondent to live with this injustice. Well done Mr. Owens for calling this gross injustice for those of us who can’t.
• Join the debate – via e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
• Read more guardian emails – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you would like to share with other readers of the Guardian? Click here to download it and we’ll publish the best materials in the letters spread in our print edition