Mills gets £24.3m from Sir Paul in divorce settlement

[edesignuk]

Heather Mills has been awarded £24.3m in her divorce settlement with estranged husband Sir Paul McCartney.

Speaking outside London's High Court, Ms Mills said she was "glad it's over" and "it was an incredible result to secure mine and my daughter's future".

As part of the deal, Ms Mills will receive £14 million for herself and £2.5 million to buy a house in London.

The couple failed to reach an agreement in court last month, leaving the judge to determine the final figure.

....

Ms Mills made reference to the £35,000 a year their daughter would receive.

"Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year - so obviously she's meant to travel B class while her father travels A class, but obviously I will pay for that."
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7300931.stm).

Emphasis mine. Greedy bitch.

[scotthayes]

What a hero, she's going to make sure her daughter travels A class...

And she wanted £125 million to start with, the gold digging bitch.

[edesignuk]

I know, it's amazing. I somehow can't see Sir Paul letting his daughter want for anything. I'm sure he'd happily see Mills on the street, but he will make sure his daughter is looked after. In reality I'm sure she will actually receive far more than £35k a year, when schooling costs and "gifts" etc are taken in to account.

[Markleshark]

Bitch deserves nothing. The kid will be well looked after.

I think Sir Paul's lawyers have done well on this one. Bringing his worth down from £800 to £400 million was the kicker. One of his houses may only be worth £20 million as a house, but when it's Sir Paul's house all of a sudden it's £40 million. He's done well in that respect.

[YeahIKnow]

" A miner is involved in a cave in, at the hospital the next day he starts crying when he sees his crushed leg. the nurse asks what he's crying about to which he replies "I'm screwed, who'd be interested in a one legged gold digger?" The nurse replies "have you tried Paul McCartney?"
:D

Oh, my sides. Aidez moi..

[mondesi43]

" A miner is involved in a cave in, at the hospital the next day he starts crying when he sees his crushed leg. the nurse asks what he's crying about to which he replies "I'm screwed, who'd be interested in a one legged gold digger?" The nurse replies "have you tried Paul McCartney?"
:D

Oh, my sides. Aidez moi..


That is a great twist on this story.

Shemade ~$34k/day.....now that's some special &^%$....

[Schtumple]

Urgh, she's proved to be the gold digging cow everybody said she was in the first place..

[Blue Velvet]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?

She does a lot of work for charities, and Paul McCartney was the one who proposed to her and he was the one who filed for divorce, not her.

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

[RedTomato]

I was supposed to go for an interview on tv tomorrow, and they cancelled me to cover this woman. Huh.

Heather, shut up and let other people have their 5 minutes of fame OK?

[mcarnes]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?

She does a lot of work for charities, and Paul McCartney was the one who proposed to her and he was the one who filed for divorce, not her.

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

Watch some of her interviews on YouTube. A whiny porn star hiding behind charities is the impression I got. YMMV

[Peace]

"Heather Mills has been awarded £24.3m in her divorce settlement with estranged husband Sir Paul McCartney.

As part of the deal, Ms Mills will receive £14 million for herself and £2.5 million to buy a house in London."


umm..Where's the other 8 Million ?

[Blue Velvet]

Watch some of her interviews on YouTube. A whiny porn star hiding behind charities is the impression I got. YMMV


I've seen clips of her, I don't find her particularly appealing as a person, but that's not the point. She was proposed to, her work for amputee charities is undoubted, she was then divorced... and besides, those who usually vociferously condemn porn stars on one hand are usually enjoying their wares with the other.

[iGav]

umm..Where's the other 8 Million ?

According to...


£16.5m lump sum (including £2.5m to buy London property)
£7.8m assets

[edesignuk]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?

She does a lot of work for charities, and Paul McCartney was the one who proposed to her and he was the one who filed for divorce, not her.

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?Maybe she does do good charity work, but I think my quote and specifically that which I bolded says a lot about her (of course I don't know her, but going on quotes). Just come out of getting £25m for a few years of marriage, and still has to bitch about how she's hard done by. I mean seriously, puleeeease.

[Blue Velvet]

Just come out of getting £25m for a few years of marriage, and still has to bitch about how she's hard done by. I mean seriously, puleeeease.


Like I said, she's not the most attractive of people, but Paul McCartney knew exactly what he was getting into, and knew what a divorce would bring... besides, there have been some pretty odd allegations made about him so to my mind, they deserve each other.

I hated Mull of Kintyre. ;)

[FleurDuMal]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?

She does a lot of work for charities, and Paul McCartney was the one who proposed to her and he was the one who filed for divorce, not her.

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

I dislike Heather Mills likely. But, tbf, I dislike Paul McCartney just as much. Why he seems to get such good press is beyond me.

[bartelby]

I hated Mull of Kintyre. ;)

Hey, that was one of my first ever records.

I won it at a fair, along with a Sparks 7".:o



The bloody frog chorus or whatever it was is worse!!

[zelmo]

I've seen clips of her, I don't find her particularly appealing as a person, but that's not the point. She was proposed to, her work for amputee charities is undoubted, she was then divorced... and besides, those who usually vociferously condemn porn stars on one hand are usually enjoying their wares with the other.

Niiiice, BV.

How long were they married, anyway? I think any partner who puts their own career on hold in support of the other is entitled to a reasonable settlement if there is a divorce, regardless of how they are portrayed by the press. Of course, determining what is reasonable is the fun part.

In my case, for example, my wife encouraged me and provided much emotional support as I advanced in my career. I must admit that I'd likely not be where I am if not for her. She also halted her career to care for our child. Therefore, regardless of the money she earned during our marriage, she ought to be compensated if we divorce.

I'm not sure how much dear Heather contributed to the bottom line of the McCartney marriage, but I somehow doubt this settlement is completely fair to Sir Paul.

[psychofreak]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?


How, while Paul has been respectful, she's gone on TV trying to bitch about him...its just disrespectful. It also seemed like she was lying about quite a lot of the 'mistreatment' she endured.

[Applespider]

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

No but I question how much of that cash was made during their marriage and how much was already sitting in the bank. I completely agree with her getting a fair share of what was created during the marriage. And her marketability went up leaps and bounds on marriage as well - can't imagine her on Dancing with the Stars etc without it.

I didn't have much of an opinion of her either way until the divorce claims went in for exorbitant amounts. She's got a 4 year old daughter who needs supported but why on earth does she need so much herself for 'support'? She can still work after all as she would have done if she hadn't screwed Paul.

I don't think I'm being overly harsh on her just because of the tabloids. Women who swan around doing sweet FA and expecting men to support them - not just now but for the rest of their lives - just get my goat in general.

[emw]

She was awarded roughly 6% of his net worth after being married to him for 6% of his life. Not a bad deal for her.

My thoughts are the same as Applespider's - she probably gained more from the notoriety of the marriage than Paul did, and his net worth likely increased very little directly as a result of, or even during, their marriage.

Should Paul have been awarded some percentage of her earnings as a result of her income during the marriage? Was that even accounted for? I don't believe she "gave up" much in terms of earnings to support Paul.

But then again, he knew the risks entering the marriage. Apparently there was no pre-nup and this is the price he paid.

[Blue Velvet]

I don't think I'm being overly harsh on her just because of the tabloids. Women who swan around doing sweet FA and expecting men to support them - not just now but for the rest of their lives - just get my goat in general.


Doesn't bother me really... they're not taking anything away from me, and since I don't have a telly or read any mags or papers except the sites I choose to visit, it doesn't seep into my consciousness and get me riled. Same with Paris Hilton and others of her ilk.

Good on her; all the money in the world doesn't seem to have bought her many friends, anyway. I seriously wouldn't swap my life with hers, regardless of how much money she has.

What I am aware of is how the tabloids can build up and distort a person's image to such a degree that it becomes taken as gospel. I don't even care if people view her award as unfair; no-one said life was fair.

[Iscariot]

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

I'm sorry, but in what way is this a fair percentage? I strongly disagree with the vitriol spewed at Heather Mills, but I can not fathom how 24.3 million is a "fair" percentage, unless you mean fair in the ample sense.

[brad.c]

Wonder if she'll buy any of the Beatles catalogue when it debuts on iTunes?

[Blue Velvet]

I'm sorry, but in what way is this a fair percentage?

See emw's post above... seems OK to me, especially as none of us were privy to the judge's deliberations. £24 million in those circles isn't unreasonable.

[Keebler]

imho, who cares?

in the end, i think it's sad that another couple, famous or not, has split up. it seems to be the 'in' thing to do these days.

sure, the kids will have millions, but she won't have a normal parental situation. not saying single parents can't do the trick themselves, but having divorced folks has got to suck in alot of ways.

and i feel for paul b/c he lost the first love of this life when his first wife passed.

[Applespider]

Doesn't bother me really... they're not taking anything away from me

They're not taking anything tangible from me. But I think they do bring out my feminist (non butch/non hairy leg) side.

If you're (in the generic sense, not BV) demanding equal rights and pay in the workplace or a fair share of a marriage's profits then you need to have equal responsibilities. Whether that's running the family home and entertaining hubbie's golf buddies or going out to work to bring in an extra income might be irrelevant but simply spending it on yourself and expecting to be kept in that style forever without having to lift a finger just seems wrong, particularly when there's no good reason why you're not capable of work.

[emw]

It's not just women.

Example: Kevin Federline.

At least I don't think incompetent = incapable. ;)

[madoka]

Sorry, what's the hatred for her actually based on, apart from parroting what the tabloids have been saying?


How about her own father who said that she was greedy:

Heather Mills’ bid to win millions from Sir Paul McCartney in their bitter divorce settlement has been slammed by her own father as ‘greedy’.

Mark Mills claims his 40-year-old former porn star daughter has been offered a fortune and he urged her to settle months ago.

“He’s offered her multi-millions,” said Mark. “She should take that and stop what she’s doing. It’s plenty.”

http://www.showbizspy.com/2008/03/07/heather-mills-dad-says-shes-greedy/

[Abstract]

Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?

Fair percentage? Define that.

Did PM make (at least) double her £24.3m settlement over their 4 year marriage? I doubt it.

[Unspeaked]

Fair percentage? Define that.

Did PM make (at least) double her £24.3m settlement over their 4 year marriage? I doubt it.

Macca could probably sneeze in a tissue and eBay it for a cool £500,000...

:D

[millar876]

and why is she complaining about £35K a year for her daughter, she wont be taxed on that 35K, and thats 10K more than i make in a year and i get taxed on that. I have a pretty descent life, i have a home, a newish car, an iMac, a Mac Mini, a nice TV, mobile phone contract, satellite TV and an internet connection, and still (with carefull budgeting) have enough left over to treat my wife and new baby daughter now and again, but the main thing is we are happy. So what the hek is a 4 (or whatever) year old going to do with 35K tax free per year, there are only so many Bratz dolls you can get.

[Markleshark]

Thing is, why is she entitled to it? WTF did she do to earn her 25 million?

Not that I'd ever dream of getting married (RE: This ****) but if a divorce did come round, mine would be easy to settle. She'd get half of everything. The chainsaw would be out and she'd get half...

[Abstract]

and why is she complaining about £35K a year for her daughter, she wont be taxed on that 35K, and thats 10K more than i make in a year and i get taxed on that. I have a pretty descent life, i have a home, a newish car, an iMac, a Mac Mini, a nice TV, mobile phone contract, satellite TV and an internet connection, and still (with carefull budgeting) have enough left over to treat my wife and new baby daughter now and again, but the main thing is we are happy. So what the hek is a 4 (or whatever) year old going to do with 35K tax free per year, there are only so many Bratz dolls you can get.

She can start on blow at a young age.

[iSlave]

Believe me, I'm no fan of Paul McCartney. He's toe-curlingly embarassing to watch (much like an elderly relative who refuses to accept they're past it), and he makes my flesh crawl with his creepiness. He also had that whole Lennon & McCartney/McCartney & Lennon debate which tried to suggest he had as much genius as the great man himself. On top of all this, his attempts at dyeing his hair are shite and really obvious ;-)

However, even I have felt sorry for him in the last few days for having to hand over a single penny to that vampiric, single-minded, money-grabbing leech that is Heather Mills. She truly is an awful human being in every sense of the word, and no amount of charity work is going to divert people from realising this.

The way she came out of the court yesterday complaining that she only got £24m sickens me to the pit of my stomach. £24m is far more than most people will see in their entire lifetime. More than soldiers get for risking their lives, more than nurses and doctors get for saving them. And guess what....they all have kids too. Sadly, the hard-working majority won't be able to give their kids the kind of luxury that Mills can now afford hers thanks to her incredible ability to sit on an old man's cock for a few years.

Paul McCartney? He can just **** off. But Heather Mills? She can burn and rot in hell.

[Henri Gaudier]

I'm staggered by the hostility shown here. Perhaps I've missed the tv show where she ate babies but what's happening? I saw a documentary about her where she went after stars who have fashion lines that use fur. (One rapper had a coat from a polar bear for f**ks sake!) Anyway, in that, she came over as a really nice person working herself sore to achieve something. He on the other hand came off as a right tosser. What is it that she's done? Of course the money is so huge anyone arguing about it looks pretty unsympathetic but if you were in her shoes you may have done the same. Especially if you're motivated politically to help charities which obviously needs money. Isn't this a case of the tabloids whipping up a frenzy based on a loose alliance to him out of a nostalgic fondness?

[Markleshark]

Oh, she does charity work? Sorry, I must have missed that. That means it's totally acceptable for her to be a greedy cow that still isn't happy when she gets £25 million for doing sweet FA.

[/SARCASM]

[Blue Velvet]

He proposed to her, she didn't stalk him. He didn't organise a prenuptial agreement. He also divorced her, not the other way round. So any claims of gold-digging seem a little far-fetched.

In any dissolution of contract, lawyers will always encourage you to claim far more than you're realistically going to get, and I'm speaking from recent experience here, and as well from the divorce of my parents and the divorce processes of some of my colleagues. She's just silly if she thought and said that she deserved what she claimed, but being silly isn't a crime. Yet.

She gets approx 6% of his declared assets as pointed out earlier in the thread, a fair enough deal in a divorce settlement, and proportionally far smaller a percentage than many people get when they divorce a wealthier partner.

Marriage and divorce are expensive. By that contract, she deserves what she gets and so does he.

I just think a lot of people here are just jealous that a woman can get that money with seemingly little effort. But none of us were flies on the wall during that marriage, and none of us were privy to the details of the hearing. If the judge, after considering all the submissions and evidence from both parties thought this was a fair settlement, then who am I to disagree? Personally, I think Paul McCartney got off lightly.

There just never seems to be the vitriol spewed at men that walk away from a marriage with a handsome payoff. Kevin Federline, as emw mentioned... and I'm sure that Sean Penn was earning less than Madonna when they split up.

If any of you have qualms or complaints about divorce law in England, then I suggest you don't get married. Or make sure you have a prenuptial agreement.

[Henri Gaudier]

The carve up of assets is the law. Every broken relationship goes through this process. Only a few are as high profile as this. There are no doubt, millions of cases of unfair distribution of assets. In this case I think he did well out of the system. I wonder if his £200 million iTunes money was totted up in the maths? I still can't see the reason for the hostility. If a couples assets are X then to walk away, a fair fraction of that sum is needed to start a new life. For some that's 50k or nothing; for others it's 250 million € £ $ . Huge though her sum is, at the end of the day, it's only a fraction of his net worth.

[iSlave]

....I suggest you don't get married.


Good advice for any man really. Keep your money, yours.

[mactastic1971]

I thought she was way out of order complaining about the $$$ even if she does do alot of work for charity. I'm sure she is going to find it hard to even get charitable work due to the negative greedy image she has now.

M.

PS: I would have been bouncing off the walls if my ex-wife had ended up with 6% instead of 50%+the house...

:mad: Grrr!

[Markleshark]

At least she lost her appeal, so all the exciting details will come out.

[Abstract]

I thought she was way out of order complaining about the $$$ even if she does do alot of work for charity.

Doing charity work is essentially a licence to kill. I have also done charity work, and I can redeem the good karma points I earned for a "Get Out Of Being A Total Jerk" card. What immunity!

I'm sure the community is really proud of her little blurb at the end about her willingness to make sure her daughter travels in A class rather than B class. She's practically a Saint, you know.

[iSlave]

Just out of interest, how many wooden legs can you get for 24 mil? Anyone know? ;)

[Doylem]

Some charmless posts here... in the fine tradition of the British tabloids building people up then knocking them down... and the great general public imagining they know someone... merely because they've read the gossip pages.

[Iscariot]

He proposed to her, she didn't stalk him. He didn't organise a prenuptial agreement. He also divorced her, not the other way round. So any claims of gold-digging seem a little far-fetched.

I disagree wholeheartedly. To gold-dig, one would only need to hang out in the right circles, and her background lends itself well to that idea. I'm not claiming she did gold-dig, and their marriage could certainly have been one of great love. The fact that it ended comparatively quickly doesn't mean that they weren't at one point mady in love with each other. But to dismiss it as far-fetched is taking it a step or two too far.

She gets approx 6% of his declared assets as pointed out earlier in the thread, a fair enough deal in a divorce settlement, and proportionally far smaller a percentage than many people get when they divorce a wealthier partner.

I still am not seeing why it's "fair". Comparing 6% of her life to the 6% of his declared assets doesn't hold any water because during that 6% she likely had an income, assets of her own, and she certainly received a fair helping of Paul's net worth while they were together.

I just think a lot of people here are just jealous that a woman can get that money with seemingly little effort.

That seems a little reactionary and playing the gender card to me.

There just never seems to be the vitriol spewed at men that walk away from a marriage with a handsome payoff. Kevin Federline, as emw mentioned... and I'm sure that Sean Penn was earning less than Madonna when they split up.

This isn't a thread about K-Fed. Does it need to be said here that Federline is as much of a leech as anyone in order to justify the premise that Mills may not be deserving of such a huge sum of money?

A google search for "Keven Federline Gold Digger" returns 20 000 more hits than one of the same for Mills. Mills wins "scum" by a slim margin, and K-Fed takes home the "trash" medal by a cool 100 000. It looks to me like public opinion of him is probably even lower than of Mills, and there's certainly a lot of vitriol being spewed his way for the amount he's walking away with.

[edesignuk]

Some charmless posts here... in the fine tradition of the British tabloids building people up then knocking them down... and the great general public imagining they know someone... merely because they've read the gossip pages.I haven't read the gossip pages. I've read quotes from BBC News. Is the BBC now a tabloid?

[Schtumple]

Just out of interest, how many wooden legs can you get for 24 mil? Anyone know? ;)

I knew someone would stoop that low at some point :P

[Markleshark]

£3.2m per year for herself and Beatrice
Properties in Los Angeles and New York
Between £8m and £12.5m for a home in London
£3m to purchase a New York home
£500,000 to £750,000 to buy a London office
Monetary value on compensation for loss of earnings


The bitch is mad.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Laws are set up for woman. this should be a warning to all wanting marriage. HALF! is hers if she goes.

Did she deserve all that money simply because she married him?

Great example why to not marry.

[Blue Velvet]

To gold-dig, one would only need to hang out in the right circles, and her background lends itself well to that idea.

She met Paul McCartney at the Pride of Britain charity event in April 1999, where she was presenting an award for courage and made an appeal on behalf of her charity, the Heather Mills Trust, which provides prosthetic limbs for landmine victims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills

It's not unreasonable for those who have suffered accidents — as she had herself — to work for and set up charities... hers was set up long before she even met McCartney. They married over three years later. Your slightly contemptuous claim of a 'background' without examining his speaks volumes. Speaking as someone who works for and knows the charity sector in the UK, I can tell you there's not a lot of spare cash floating around, in other words, it's not the scene for gold-diggers.


I still am not seeing why it's "fair".

Because a high court divorce judge has said so, someone far more qualified to rule on this case than you or I.

That was echoed by Carol Ellinas, a partner at the London-based Bross Bennett firm. "Justice has been done. She was always going to end up wealthy. But at the same time, the judgment has not dented his fortune. If you work out the percentage, she gets a tiny per cent," she said.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3568097.ece


That seems a little reactionary and playing the gender card to me.

And it's true and you know it.


A google search for "Keven Federline Gold Digger" returns 20 000 more hits than one of the same for Mills. Mills wins "scum" by a slim margin, and K-Fed takes home the "trash" medal by a cool 100 000.

This is the extent of an argument? One is an American celebrity, for want of a better word, with all the exposure that implies especially amongst younger people, the other English, who most teenagers probably wouldn't have even heard of until now. Trash is not a word often used here in the UK to refer to people, so it's not surprising that it doesn't generate many hits for Heather Mills.

[edesignuk]

The bitch is mad.Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm) (before anyone questions it).

Indeed, how can this be taken as anything else other than what it quite plainly is, complete and utter greed.

[mcarnes]

If the judge, after considering all the submissions and evidence from both parties thought this was a fair settlement, then who am I to disagree?

There are many, many examples of judgements throughout history that go against common sense, or common decency for that matter.

[a456]

She was awarded roughly 6% of his net worth after being married to him for 6% of his life. Not a bad deal for her.

The 6% at which he was most wealthy as well. I think that £35k a year is easily enough to ruin a kid and no doubt she will be the next media circus when she comes of age, and enjoys Class A and Class B equally ;)

[Blue Velvet]

There are many, many examples of judgements throughout history that go against common sense, or common decency for that matter.


Common sense or common decency — shorthand for a set of prejudices — have no standing in law. What you personally would call common decency does not apply to me.

[iBlue]

I think she is a sniveling, greedy little hussy. It's not that uncommon a problem, it's just that it's an unfathomable amount to most and she's draining it from a legend, rather undeservingly.
She's going to be fine. We needn't worry about Heather Mills.


I'm iBlue, and I approve this message.

[iAthena]

I wonder why Paul didn't get her to sign a pre-nup in the first place.

I don't think that the outcome was too outrageous compared to other divorces, but it does make me angry that she comments to the press. Paul has shown a lot more class in this respect.

[emw]

I don't really begrudge her the money - he entered into this knowing that he was "vulnerable" to this and decided not to sign any sort of pre-nup. If I were in a similar situation, I'd likely try to get what I could as well.

Christ, he has a £400M net worth. It's not like he'll now be out on the streets. And who knows what happened behind closed doors with those two?

Let's say my personal "fortune" is rated at a paltry $1,000,000. That would be like me getting divorced and giving my wife $40,000 and one of the cars. And really even less, because more of my worth is required to keep me financially viable. He could lose £200M and still be fabulously wealthy. If I lost $500,000 I'd be living in a cardboard box.

[Markleshark]

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm) (before anyone questions it).

Indeed, how can this be taken as anything else other than what it quite plainly is, complete and utter greed.

Thanks e.

I'll put money on Beatles on iTunes in a week or two now. That'll be worth, what, £100million?

[iBlue]

That's sort of a different thing, emw. Even if it's not the most spectacular percentage compared to many divorces, it's a lot more difficult to survive on $40k and a car versus £25mil and whatever else she has because of Sir Paul. (but I realize your point isn't that different than that, just saying that percentage wise matters less because it's a lot more money where Mills is concerned. It's enough.) I just imagine she would have never ever made that sort of money in her life had it not been for him.

[Blue Velvet]

If I lost $500,000 I'd be living in a cardboard box.


But you'd at least make sure it was a MacPro box, right? After all, that Mac smell alone would make it worth it. You wouldn't suffer for lack of visitors judging by some of the comments on this forum. :D

[emw]

^ :D

Maybe two put together so I could stretch out a bit. I'd live near the Apple Store in the mall parking lot so I could do updates from time to time.

[Gaelic1]

I've seen clips of her, I don't find her particularly appealing as a person, but that's not the point. She was proposed to, her work for amputee charities is undoubted, she was then divorced... and besides, those who usually vociferously condemn porn stars on one hand are usually enjoying their wares with the other.

My, are we a little uptight or do you always deal in such broad generalities?:confused:

[mondesi43]

Was she making 12.5M / year before she met him....doubt it. Why does she deserve any more than what she was making before they married + 1/2 of whatever she helped to bring in? Nobody really knew who she was before she started dating him.

Now she's complaining about not being able to fly her kid first class? Sorry but I don't make little more than half of what she gets in child support. Big middle finger to her and her attitude.

It was stupid on Paul's part on not getting a prenup. Not every woman is like Linda. Most of them dating older wealthy guys are in it for one thing, and one thing only: The payoff in death or divorce.

From CNN:
"Mills had sought an award of nearly 125 million pounds ($251 million), the court said, while McCartney proposed 15.8 million pounds ($31.6 million). "

Was she in it for love, or just a lottery pay out?

[madoka]

I remember at the beginning of the divorce how Mills claimed that it was NOT about the money at all. Very similar to the accuser in Kobe's rape case when she repeatedly claimed that she didn't want a single dollar from him. But then in the end, we learned in both cases that it was always about the money.

[madoka]

What you personally would call common decency does not apply to me.

And this is precisely why people are so upset over Mills and disagree with you.

[saltyzoo]

Because a high court divorce judge has said so, someone far more qualified to rule on this case than you or I.


LOL Thanks for the chuckle.

On topic: Who cares? So she's greedy? So what? It's not as though he's going to be homeless now. Put in perspective, if you have $1,000,000 in assets 6% would have been $60,000. That would hardly be a hardship to you. If it think it would, then make her sign a prenup before marrying.

[Kamera RAWr]

Reading this thread, I'm reminded a little bit of Eddie Murphy's Johnny Carson bit from Raw :D :p

[Iscariot]

It's not unreasonable for those who have suffered accidents — as she had herself — to work for and set up charities... hers was set up long before she even met McCartney. They married over three years later. Your slightly contemptuous claim of a 'background' without examining his speaks volumes. Speaking as someone who works for and knows the charity sector in the UK, I can tell you there's not a lot of spare cash floating around, in other words, it's not the scene for gold-diggers.


The fact that you would go so far as to claim contempt on my part speaks far more volumes about the gender politicking you seem wholly comfortable with doing on this topic than on any lack of examination on my part. Mills is an active participant in largely the same charity field that I am. She stands for a lot of the same things I stand for. I'm not the type to just throw out a glib condemnation of someone without examining it, least of all someone who is working towards the same ends I am. I think my post history should be fairly indicative of that.

Of course men aren't going to want to see a woman walk away from a marriage with a lot of money they feel she doesn't deserve. I'm sure women don't want to see a man walking away with a lot of money they feel he didn't deserve, which is likely why you brought up the cases of Sean Penn and Kevin Federline. Cases which also go to show that divorce can be startlingly unfair to anyone, which as far as I'm concerned is much more what this is about than anything.

Because a high court divorce judge has said so, someone far more qualified to rule on this case than you or I.

So anytime in the past or future you disagree with any law or ruling, you should be satisfied with a response of "well, a judge said so"? Somehow I doubt you're going to accept that, and rightly so.

This is the extent of an argument? One is an American celebrity, for want of a better word, with all the exposure that implies especially amongst younger people, the other English, who most teenagers probably wouldn't have even heard of until now. Trash is not a word often used here in the UK to refer to people, so it's not surprising that it doesn't generate many hits for Heather Mills.

You brought up the K-fed issue, not me. I'm simply pointing out that there is an awful lot of vitriol spewed at him as well, and that you can't just sweep it off the table as a gender issue.

[koobcamuk]

Fair percentage? Define that.

That's what I think.

If I marry a millionaire, their money is not half mine. It doesn't make sense.

Because a high court divorce judge has said so, someone far more qualified to rule on this case than you or I.

Isn't the high court judge just another person? It's all opinion. I wonder what a jury made up from most of the people I've talked to about this would say. It's not fair in any way at all that she gets millions. She didn't earn it. Unless this counts towards her being a "high class prostitute"?

This case has nothing to do with gender.

If I married that ugly woman on 'dragon's den' (because I loved her for her personality) and we split up, I wouldn't want her money. I wouldn't deserve it even if I did want it. Whatever my cause may be.

[Iscariot]

Unless this counts towards her being a "high class prostitute"?

Wasn't she in only one or two adult photoshoots? Twenty years ago? I don't think it's at all fair to call her a prostitute.

[koobcamuk]

Wasn't she in only one or two adult photoshoots? Twenty years ago? I don't think it's at all fair to call her a prostitute.

I wasn't referring to that. Read the second paragraph of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills#Criticism) Wikipedia entry to better understand why I said that.

Either way, she hasn't earnt the money she's taken from Paul Mc. I don't even like Paul Mc. I just don't like her more.

[Iscariot]

I wasn't referring to that. Read the second paragraph of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Mills#Criticism) Wikipedia entry to better understand why I said that.

Either way, she hasn't earnt the money she's taken from Paul Mc. I don't even like Paul Mc. I just don't like her more.

That's unsubstantiated. I may not agree with the divorce settlement, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, especially given the source.

[koobcamuk]

That's unsubstantiated. I may not agree with the divorce settlement, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, especially given the source.

I don't think she used to do that either.

What I do think though, is that she can be linked to that in my mind if she ended up being paid for literally not earning a penny. Not earning because he already had the money. She went in poor and came out rich. Nicely done Mills.

[millar876]

one question though, if she was as happy with the tettlement as she said she was, Why oh why did she slowly pour a jug of water over paul's lawyers head saying "well, justice has been done!" how is that not the markings of a crazy person.

Quotes from the divorce ruling...
"I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".
"Overall she was a less than impressive witness,"
"I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999,"

bbc report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm)

Full court judgment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_03_08_mccartney_mills.pdf)

needless to say it looks a bit damning to Ms Mills and I for one can see why she didn't want it out in the open, i can imagine the harm it will do to her rep in the USA where she seems to be liked A LOT more than the uk.

[iGav]

It's not fair in any way at all that she gets millions. She didn't earn it.

How much did McCartney and Mills earn during the duration of their marriage?
How many assets did they acquire during the duration of their marriage?

As far as I'm aware, Mills is entitled to roughly half of any income and assets acquired during their marriage (as would McCartney from Mills) but is unable to make a claim against earnings/assets acquired previous to that.

It's not unfair at all.

[RedTomato]

one question though, if she was as happy with the tettlement as she said she was, Why oh why did she slowly pour a jug of water over paul's lawyers head saying "well, justice has been done!" how is that not the markings of a crazy person.

Completely aside of anything else she's said or done, I don't think that's a sign of a crazy person. I can think of a couple of people I'd like to do it to. Maybe it's different in the USA, but that's been done a few times here.

Chumbawumba poured a bin of icy water over John Prescott's head (top uk politician) at an awards ceremony, and I remember a few other cases of water drenching at formal events.

[koobcamuk]

i can imagine the harm it will do to her rep in the USA where she seems to be liked A LOT more than the uk.

Understatement.

Well said too ;)

John Prescott ... (top uk politician)

:confused:

In the same sentence?!

It's not unfair at all.

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't think it's fair. Unless earning is by marrying someone with money/large income.

[scotthayes]

The full judgment makes interesting reading. She's lied big time.

Got to say, she seems a little delusional.

Guess Stella was right from the start.

[Phil A.]

The amount of vitriol in this thread is pretty unbelievable!
I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway ;)

[Abstract]

How much did McCartney and Mills earn during the duration of their marriage?
How many assets did they acquire during the duration of their marriage?

As far as I'm aware, Mills is entitled to roughly half of any income and assets acquired during their marriage (as would McCartney from Mills) but is unable to make a claim against earnings/assets acquired previous to that.

It's not unfair at all.

I agree that this is 100% fair. I think she's being greedy only because I really don't believe that PM could have earned £50m by playing golf over the past 4 years.

[edesignuk]

The amount of vitriol in this thread is pretty unbelievable!
I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway ;)Have you read what the judge had to say? And what she was originally demanding? She's potty!

I think she's being greedy only because I really don't believe that PM could have earned £50m by playing golf over the past 4 years.He apparently has extensive property and other business investments. Bringing in £50m over several years with sizeable investments (made with money earned way before Mills showed up) is perfectly doable.

[Ja Di ksw]

Prenup. How many times must it be said. Get a prenup!

/obligatory (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=79483298&id=79483267&s=143441)

[weckart]

But then again, he knew the risks entering the marriage. Apparently there was no pre-nup and this is the price he paid.

I wonder why Paul didn't get her to sign a pre-nup in the first place.


Prenup. How many times must it be said. Get a prenup!


Pre-nuptial agreements are an American obsession and have no legal status whatsoever in the United Kingdom. Both Paul and Heather are British citizens and are resident in the United Kingdom. Signing a random piece of paper promising to divvy up the spoils in the event of a split would not have any weight in a contested divorce case.

[Ja Di ksw]

*Shrug* Didn't know they carried no weight over there. I still stick by my statement for my American friends then.

Despite it just being an "American obsession" ;)

[iBlue]

Pre-nuptial agreements are an American obsession and have no legal status whatsoever in the United Kingdom. Both Paul and Heather are British citizens and are resident in the United Kingdom. Signing a random piece of paper promising to divvy up the spoils in the event of a split would not have any weight in a contested divorce case.
they may not carry as much weight over here but I know for a fact that people use them and they have their validity and place. it's better than nothing.

[iGav]

We'll agree to disagree then. I don't think it's fair. Unless earning is by marrying someone with money/large income.

It's primarily there to protect a spouse (man or woman) that may well have sacrificed their own career, though not exclusively, to contribute to married life in ways other than monetary.

Indeed, this was recognised in the following case, MacFarlane v MacFarlane (http://www.ambrose.appelbe.co.uk/DivorceCasesMacfarlane.htm), which presumably established that the contributions from a spouse who looks after home and family is now taken into account during a divorce.

Whilst you may think it's unfair, it'd would be unarguably more unfair to disregard such contributions to the marriage and subsequent family unit.


they may not carry as much weight over here but I know for a fact that people use them and they have their validity and place.

Whilst they're not legally binding, they can be evidently influential in establishing and assisting in a court deciding upon the original intentions of both parties prior to marriage.

See Crossley v Crossley for example.

[koobcamuk]

Whilst you may think it's unfair, it'd would be unarguably more unfair to disregard such contributions to the marriage and subsequent family unit.

Maybe, but she wouldn't have that much money if it weren't for him. She was a nobody before marrying him. I'm pulling out of this one now. She annoys me, she doesn't deserve the money, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would agree that way around....

When (if) I get married, I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all. Unless we were in business together, I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money :confused:

[iGav]

When (if) I get married, I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all.... I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money

My I give you a scenario.

You meet someone, she has a better career and is better paid than you. Substantially so.

However she soon falls pregnant. You decide to marry after the baby is born as well as purchasing your first house.

It is decided that after the birth, because her career is more financially advantageous, you both agree that you should stay at home and bring up baby, because you will both be better off.

You buy a house.

Because you're now married, the house you purchase is placed in joint names.

However because you are the house husband, bringing up baby with no income of your own. The mortgage and running costs are paid for entirely by your partner.

Fiscally, you contribute nothing because you're not earning. Instead you contribute to the family unit by bringing up baby, and running the home, (cleaning, cooking, shopping etc).

3 years later, baby is ready to attend nursery and you can now resume your career.

However, because of marital difficulties your wife says she wishes to divorce you.

You have contributed nothing to either acquiring, running or maintaining the property.

However, legally, your name is on the deeds and you own half the property.

Do you think you should be entitled to half of the property?
Do you think you should be financially compensated for sacrificing your career for the benefit of your family and your wife? Money that she was only able to earn because you were willing to make that sacrifice?

[edesignuk]

While all that is very true iGav, that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

[Markleshark]

Interesting Article from the BBC: How to spend £35,000 a year on a child (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7301423.stm).

I think what she needs to do is maybe step down of the high horse and like like a normal human being for a while.

[koobcamuk]

reasonable scenario

While all that is very true iGav, that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

Agreed. This case is nothing like iGav's reasonable scenario.

I think what she needs to do is maybe step down of the high horse and like like a normal human being for a while.

Absolutely. She loves the life of celebrity (whatever that is) and doesn't want to be a 'normal' person again. She's into the media spotlight so much so that she thinks it shines out of her a$$.

[mondesi43]

My I give you a scenario.

You meet someone, she has a better career and is better paid than you. Substantially so.

However she soon falls pregnant. You decide to marry after the baby is born as well as purchasing your first house.

It is decided that after the birth, because her career is more financially advantageous, you both agree that you should stay at home and bring up baby, because you will both be better off.

You buy a house.

Because you're now married, the house you purchase is placed in joint names.

However because you are the house husband, bringing up baby with no income of your own. The mortgage and running costs are paid for entirely by your partner.

Fiscally, you contribute nothing because you're not earning. Instead you contribute to the family unit by bringing up baby, and running the home, (cleaning, cooking, shopping etc).

3 years later, baby is ready to attend nursery and you can now resume your career.

However, because of marital difficulties your wife says she wishes to divorce you.

You have contributed nothing to either acquiring, running or maintaining the property.

However, legally, your name is on the deeds and you own half the property.

Do you think you should be entitled to half of the property?
Do you think you should be financially compensated for sacrificing your career for the benefit of your family and your wife? Money that she was only able to earn because you were willing to make that sacrifice?

K-Fed and Ms. Spears???? ;)

[iGav]

that situation is a million miles away from that of this case.

Not really.

koobcamuk stated;

Maybe, but she wouldn't have that much money if it weren't for him.

Indeed, in my scenario koobcamuk wouldn't either if it weren't for his wife.

Indeed, like Ms Mills he would've been a passive partner, not only with regards to his contributions financially (or lack thereof) towards the marriage and the family unit, but also the acquisition of any assets.

But my scenario is a valid and comparable one. Strikingly so given the following statement that;

I would not expect to get any of my partners assets at all.... I see no reason why I would be entitled to her money

So I presume the answer to my questions would be a no on both accounts then?

If that is indeed the case, I can completely understand your utter consternation at the Mills settlement.

[koobcamuk]

So I presume the answer to my questions would be a no on both accounts then?

Yes, my answer would be no to both accounts.

I wouldn't marry after producing a child - I would either marry before or not at all. As your situation would never apply to me, I will most definitely say that yes, I would not be entitled to half of a house that, whilst signed in both names, is not actually mine because I didn't pay for it.

I wholeheartedly think she doesn't deserve 24 million pounds, but then I am not a high court judge, so what do I know?

In a few years, she's managed to gain £24 million from just signing a bit of paper. She didn't give up a job that brought in big money at all. Even £1M would have been a lot more money than she was earning over the course of those marriage years.

[edesignuk]

Not really.Yes really! :p

Fine, she may have lost out on some earnings of her own. I wouldn't for a moment argue that she deserved nothing. She's the mother of his child, after all.

That said though she has hardly been the backbone of their family, propping him up when times were hard allowing him to make a success of himself. Paul's success and wealth was already well established before they wed.

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC. More than fair as I can't imagine she on her own for those years would have earned anywhere near that herself. Likewise I highly doubt she had any tangible impact on his earnings, or his ability/time to make money.

No, she wanted £125m, and so, she is a greedy bitch and deserves all the bad PR she gets.

[koobcamuk]

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC. More than fair as I can't imagine she on her own for those years would have earned anywhere near that herself. Likewise I highly doubt she had any tangible impact on his earnings, or his ability/time to make money.

No, she wanted £125m, and so, she is a greedy bitch and deserves all the bad PR she gets.

Quoted because it's what I should have said.

[Peace]

After reading this thread all I can do is quote the Judge.

"The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".

Commenting on that claims, Ms Mills said it was because her accountant "hadn't ticked the tax return box".

Up until this I had no real opinion on the subject. But to be known as a charitable person and not give any money to charity lends me to believe Sir Paul was wise to get out while he could.

[silbeej]

Ah, the truth comes out. Some women marry for love, others marry for what they think is love, but it really is just for the money. Hope i don't end up with the latter of the two.;)

[macgruder]

I don't see the problem with the settlement - McCartney made all his money on the back of Lennon's talent anyway ;)

I've always wondered why people suggest that John more talented. In terms of musicianship Paul was outstanding, and the guy who wrote most of Sergeant Pepper's and Let It Be can't be all bad :) They were both geniuses

[mcarnes]

I've always wondered why people suggest that John more talented. In terms of musicianship Paul was outstanding, and the guy who wrote most of Sergeant Pepper's and Let It Be can't be all bad :) They were both geniuses

Agreed. Most Beatles songs are distinctly Paul's or distinctly John's (or George). Listen to the playboy Lennon interviews. "That's mine, that's Paul's, that one's mine", etc.

[Iscariot]

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC.

"The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".


Mills, a self-proclaimed activist, also claimed she would need $1.25 million a year to give to charities, but admitted she would be using $985,000 of that amount for traveling to appearances via helicopters and private jets.

After presiding over the case, Judge Hugh Bennetts opined in his ruling that Mills was her "own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character."

Mills claimed to need $60,000 annually to cover her equestrian needs and $80,000 to pay for her wine consumption.

"In my judgement, Mills’s attitude...is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same 'rate' as McCartney and be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage," Bennett wrote.

"Although she strongly denied it, her case boils down to the syndrome of 'me, too' or 'if he has it, I want it too.' "

Though he awarded Mills close to $50 million—almost $34,000 for each day she was married to McCartney—Bennett made it clear he did not approve of her actions.

"In light of McCartney’s generosity towards her...I find Mills's behavior distinctly distasteful," he wrote.

There are plenty more quotes where those come from, and I think at this point they illustrate just how indefensible Ms. Mills' case is. If she even remotely reflected the kind of the activist she claims to be, she would have been more than satisfied with what was offered, and certainly wouldn't be needing multithousands for wine and hundreds of thousands for private jets and helicoptors.

Some of the activists I know live below the poverty line in order to devote the time and energy into their causes. As someone who is very active in the Canadian and US equivalents of the UK causes Ms. Mills claims to support, I am extremely disappointed in her hypocritical and flat-out greedy behaviour.

[Markleshark]

I agree that shes a crazy money grabber, but it does feel a little like we're flogging a dead horse now.

[Blue Velvet]

My view is that while she's behaved absurdly at times, that doesn't deserve the hatred heaped upon her, especially when weighed up against the irrational deference shown to Paul McCartney... Sir Paul? Don't make me laugh.

There's a piece in today's Guardian that sums my views up pretty well, and I particularly like this quote:

"when a man calls a woman a whore, he usually means two things: that she enjoys sex too much, and she isn't doing it with him"

:D


Anyway, here you go. It's a bit long but deserves rereading, especially for those who feel free to use the word 'bitch' for someone they don't even know. Should give a few of us some pause for thought.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2266631,00.html

[Iscariot]

Anyway, here you go. It's a bit long but deserves rereading, especially for those who feel free to use the word 'bitch' for someone they don't even know. Should give a few of us some pause for thought.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2266631,00.html

The arrows at the end of the left-hand navigation make the centre column of text seem like a bulleted list. If it's driving me nuts, I can only imagine the effect it had on you.

Your Sun newspaper reminds me of our Sun, if it's to be judged by it's outrageous headlines.

This is true, and there is certainly a strong feminist yearning to defend Mills, to get behind a woman facing a nightmarish barrage of criticism. And yet, for all that we can occasionally empathise with her unhappiness, her bitterness, her anger, Mills does make it difficult to stay resolutely on her side.

This is what spoke to me the most, of the article. I didn't go into this believing any of the tabloids -- like you, I have no cable, no newspapers, no magazines -- but it's difficult to empathize with someone who continually makes the claims she does. I don't agree with 99% of the mud slung at her, but I also can't defend her claims or actions.

[koobcamuk]

I agree that shes a crazy money grabber, but it does feel a little like we're flogging a dead horse now.

I know her face is a little long, but that's not very nice. ;)

There's a piece in today's Guardian that sums my views up pretty well, and I particularly like this quote:

"when a man calls a woman a whore, he usually means two things: that she enjoys sex too much, and she isn't doing it with him"

It's also just a derogatory term, you know.

I wouldn't ever have sex with her, and I don't care if she enjoys sex. In my mind, a woman is a whore if she sells her body (for sexual acts etc) for money.

Whereas Heather is a bitch.

And you have a chip on your shoulder I think - there's a bit of feminism coming through your posts ;)

[Blue Velvet]

And you have a chip on your shoulder I think - there's a bit of feminism coming through your posts ;)


I have no chip on my shoulder. And holding feminist views isn't a crime; in fact, if you know anything about feminism, it's part of an ongoing debate in society about affording dignity to all people, regardless of who or what they are.

Much of the public criticism leveled at Heather Mills has been of the most misogynistic and crude kind, and people who can't see that are blind to their own prejudices and double standards.

[koobcamuk]

I have no chip on my shoulder. And holding feminist views isn't a crime; in fact, if you know anything about feminism, it's part of an ongoing debate in society about affording dignity to all people, regardless of who or what they are.

Much of the public criticism leveled at Heather Mills has been of the most misogynistic and crude kind, and people who can't see that are blind to their own prejudices and double standards.

Fair enough. I am in complete favour of equal things to people that work equally as hard etc etc ... don't get me wrong.

I agree that probably most men would call a woman a whore because of the two reasons you linked to, but I just wouldn't.

I don't like heather mills one bit. I don't like the whole celebrity thing going on at the moment either. I don't like much at the moment, I'll be honest.

[MacBoobsPro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgIJdtSWtGA

*Warning Strong Language ;)

[Blue Velvet]

I don't like heather mills one bit.


I don't think I'd like her much if I met her either... but I'm also careful to recognise just exactly how my views of her are shaped by elements of the media because I've never met her in person.

She sounds a bit loopy and self-obsessed at times, but that doesn't hurt anyone.

[koobcamuk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgIJdtSWtGA

perfect.

[koobcamuk]

I don't think I'd like her much if I met her either... but I'm also careful to recognise just exactly how my views of her are shaped by elements of the media because I've never met her in person.

She sounds a bit loopy and self-obsessed at times, but that doesn't hurt anyone.

It's the greed that makes me hate her. £125M ? :rolleyes:

[John.B]

Much of the public criticism leveled at Heather Mills has been of the most misogynistic and crude kind, and people who can't see that are blind to their own prejudices and double standards.
Using the same standard, clearly there would also seem to be others on this thread who show quite the hated toward men. N.B.

[Blue Velvet]

Using the same standard, clearly there would also seem to be others on this thread who show quite the hated toward men. N.B.

If you are referring to me, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[skunk]

It's strange how personal people can get about those they have never met.

[Blue Velvet]

It's strange how personal people can get about those they have never met.


Whereas you and I can get as personal as we like. :eek: :D

Still, Heather Mills, just on my brief view of her, would be well-advised to keep a low profile for a while. She should have hired Max Clifford and a good lawyer, and certainly not represented herself in court.

[skunk]

Whereas you and I can get as personal as we like. :eek: :DWell natch, that's different. :)

[bartelby]

certainly not represented herself in court.

I think that's the bit that gets me. She seems to me to be very arrogant and by her thinking she can beat experienced lawyers kind of proves it.

[iGav]

I think that's the bit that gets me. She seems to me to be very arrogant and by her thinking she can beat experienced lawyers kind of proves it.

I believe it was reported that financial concerns played a part in her deciding to abandon Counsel and represent herself.

Coming to the end of almost 3 years of litigation myself, I can appreciate the difficult she had in making that decision.

[koobcamuk]

Coming to the end of almost 3 years of litigation myself, I can appreciate the difficult she had in making that decision.

She's a moron.

Someone just invited me to this (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2221165031) FaceBook group... :rolleyes:

[John.B]

If you are referring to me, you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Well you seem to have taken a stance of "all men deserve to get taken to the cleaners" where most other people here -- of both sexes -- had their fairness-meters completed pegged. Being of the opinion that her settlement was completely off the charts given the circumstances as we know them doesn't make anyone a misogynist, fergawdzsakes. Neither does the odd bit of humor.

Maybe this is somehow very personal to you?

[Blue Velvet]

Well you seem to have taken a stance of "all men deserve to get taken to the cleaners" ?

Just where did I say that?

[::Lisa::]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

bloody hell only 35k, she don't think about all those kids in the world that get f-all!!! I understand that she wants her daugter to have a good life but jeez! money is not everything, we are skint but 'happy'

[RHD]

The woman is a calculating gold digger and the poor child probably only exists because her mother figured shed get a way better divorce settlement with a baby in tow.

What I'd really, really, like is for the UK and world media to blackball Heather Mills and refuse to cover any story she's involved in ever again, as that is the only thing that would really annoy her.

[RHD]

Just where did I say that?

I think it was on another Heather Mills thread but I do remember reading something to that effect.

PS. I'm working with a girl (OK, 32) who supported her out of work husband for some years, then they decided to divorce so now she gets to lose her house to pay him off.
He kindly settled for only £25K Uk pounds.

Oh. He also wanted the dog. I kid you not.

[Blue Velvet]

I think it was on another Heather Mills thread but I do remember reading something to that effect.


There was no other Heather Mills thread. You remember nothing of the sort.

Let's just stick to discussing the topic rather than imaginary and paraphrased recollections of what I allegedly have or haven't said...

[skunk]

What I'd really, really, like is for the UK and world media to blackball Heather Mills and refuse to cover any story she's involved in ever again, as that is the only thing that would really annoy her.You could always just stop buying Grazia...

[koobcamuk]

Just where did I say that?

The fact that more than 4 people have now said something to this effect in this very thread doesn't make you think that you come across like that?

[John.B]

Just where did I say that?
Oh, riiiiiiiiight, you didn't say she deserved to take him to the cleaners, you said she deserved half of everything that he earned prior to the marriage. 'kay, gotcha. We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "fair" I guess... <shrug>

[Blue Velvet]

Oh, riiiiiiiiight, you didn't say she deserved to take him to the cleaners, you said she deserved half of everything that he earned prior to the marriage. 'kay, gotcha. We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "fair" I guess... <shrug>


Please, be my guest and find where I said anything of the sort. I'm not responsible for your obvious lack of reading comprehension, or others in the peanut gallery.

I suggest you reread the thread carefully and find out who said that and then, at your own leisure, reflect on exactly why you're projecting those comments upon me...

She gets approx 6% of his declared assets as pointed out earlier in the thread, a fair enough deal in a divorce settlement, and proportionally far smaller a percentage than many people get when they divorce a wealthier partner.



(Thanks again, Yoko, you caterwauling b****! But I'm not bitter or anything...) ;)

I suggest that the converse is true. That maybe this is somehow very personal to you?

I couldn't care less about Heather Mills or Paul McCartney. As someone interested in the media and communication, I'm far more interested in how she has been portrayed by the media; the misogynistic twist that seems to be put on her every action, the revisionist history of the tabloids, the curdling but amusing spectacle of people bowing and scraping to Paul McCartney and how people seem to think they're expressing a personal opinion, when it's merely nothing more than the parroting of memes.

[Iscariot]

I couldn't care less about Heather Mills or Paul McCartney. As someone interested in the media and communication, I'm far more interested in how she has been portrayed by the media; the misogynistic twist that seems to be put on her every action, the revisionist history of the tabloids, the curdling but amusing spectacle of people bowing and scraping to Paul McCartney and how people seem to think they're expressing a personal opinion, when it's merely nothing more than the parroting of memes.

Some comments seem out of character, like your suggestion that because a judge determined it was fair, we should simply accept that it is. You don't seem the type to roll over simply because an authority figure disagreed with you. Other comments such "just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage" suggests a certain personal interest.

I agree that the rampant misogyny in public opinion of Mills and the hero-worship of McCartney is bordering on the ridiculous, but it doesn't dismiss that some people logically find the case to be unfair based wholly on circumstances and character removed from gender. There seems to be some muddying on the particular issue -- that some feel the need to defend Mills just because she is a woman, even though she would be equally as unreliable and volatile a personality if she were a man, which in it's own way is misogynistic and self-defeating; and that somehow men are entitled to "their money" and that women are more capable of being greedy and gold-diggers than men -- of separating gender from the case.

IMO this thread has gotten far too personal and vitriolic, and should stick to the topic of why this divorce and others like it are unfair based on logical grounds, and how we as individuals (or a society) can combat these ridiculous show trials that dole out money at the expense of our collective dignity.

[Blue Velvet]

Some comments seem out of character, like your suggestion that because a judge determined it was fair, we should simply accept that it is.


My point is that a high court judge, with years of experience, who sat through weeks of evidence from both parties and their representations is far better placed to rule on what is fair, particularly in a trial that was held in strict privacy, than those who read the rags.

To be completely honest, I agree with Heather Mills when she's quoted as saying that the media have given her "worse press than a paedophile or a murderer."


Ms Mills told the BBC she thought the judgement was "outrageous".

But I certainly can't agree with that... and attempts to paint my comments in this thread as man-hating only serve to illustrate my overall point.

[koobcamuk]

Some comments seem out of character, like your suggestion that because a judge determined it was fair, we should simply accept that it is. You don't seem the type to roll over simply because an authority figure disagreed with you. Other comments such "just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage" suggests a certain personal interest.

I agree that the rampant misogyny in public opinion of Mills and the hero-worship of McCartney is bordering on the ridiculous, but it doesn't dismiss that some people logically find the case to be unfair based wholly on circumstances and character removed from gender. There seems to be some muddying on the particular issue -- that some feel the need to defend Mills just because she is a woman, even though she would be equally as unreliable and volatile a personality if she were a man, which in it's own way is misogynistic and self-defeating; and that somehow men are entitled to "their money" and that women are more capable of being greedy and gold-diggers than men -- of separating gender from the case.

Agree entirely with both paragraphs.

However well informed a judge is - the judge will still give their own opinion based on what they have heard - which makes it no better than any of ours. The only difference is, we hear that she married Paul (who I do not really like at all by the way) and walked away a few years later with millions, after coming in with next to nothing.

[iGav]

Yes, my answer would be no to both accounts.

In which case I completely understand your consternation.

I will most definitely say that yes, I would not be entitled to half of a house that, whilst signed in both names, is not actually mine because I didn't pay for it.

But your consideration and continued selfless actions for the benefit of your family unarguably would've contributed and assisted in both the purchasing and continued ownership of the property in ways other than financially.

Do you not agree that that contribution should be worthy of consideration and remuneration?
Or are you of the opinion that only the financial contributions (and in the proportions in which they were contributed) from each partner throughout the duration of the marriage should be the only factors considered when dividing marital assets?

Yes really!

No it's not. ;)

Fine, she may have lost out on some earnings of her own. I wouldn't for a moment argue that she deserved nothing. She's the mother of his child, after all.

So you have more of a problem with the sheer size of the figure, as opposed to the actual moral judgement then?

That said though she has hardly been the backbone of their family, propping him up when times were hard allowing him to make a success of himself.

I wouldn't know. But I see no reason to assume that her contribution to the family unit were of any less importance than that of the average wife and mother.

Paul's success and wealth was already well established before they wed.

I actually briefly mentioned this case in passing whilst in my solicitors on Thursday, and from what I understand the whole of McCartney's wealth is taken into consideration, not only the wealth acquired during the period of marriage, which I do think is unfair. I was mistaken in my previous post, It's Scotland that only the assets that are acquired during marriage are considered.

But regardless, he/they continued to increase and amass both wealth and assets after they were married, of which she arguably has a valid claim of roughly half regardless.

She did deserve to walk away with something, and he offered her that something, £15m IIRC.

But that offer was less than she was entitled to. For all the somewhat carefully worded damnation by the Judge, he obviously agreed with Ms Mills that McCartney's offer was unsatisfactory and that she was deserving of more.

More than fair as I can't imagine she on her own for those years would have earned anywhere near that herself. Likewise I highly doubt she had any tangible impact on his earnings, or his ability/time to make money.

As I've already pointed out, contributions to the family unit other than financial contributions (of which a number of posts in this thread appear obsessed) are taken into consideration.

In McFarlane v McFarlane, the case established that;

"Now judges must consider contribution and compensation for people like Julia. This is only fair. The judgment recognises her sacrifice and that marriage is a partnership."

Also, in the case of Miller v Miller, the Court of Appeal stated that;

by marrying her, Mr Miller had given his wife an expectation of a significantly better standard of living.

It was also reported during the Mills v McCartney case that a Judge, when making his decision, that because there is a child involved has to take into consideration when coming to his judgement that there should be no substantial difference in the perceived standards of living between the two parents after the divorce.

where most other people here -- of both sexes -- had their fairness-meters completed pegged.

Hmmmmmm.

The only difference is, we hear that she married Paul (who I do not really like at all by the way) and walked away a few years later with millions, after coming in with next to nothing.

Are you intimating that you actually believe she should be entitled to nothing then?

[koobcamuk]

But that offer was less than she was entitled to.

How much do think think she was entitled to?

£500K sounds reasonable to me. Even £1M seems like a huge amount of money for no real loss. What has she lost here? What is the money signifying?

[skunk]

How much do think think she was entitled to?

£500K sounds reasonable to me. Even £1M seems like a huge amount of money for no real loss. What has she lost here? What is the money signifying?£500K wouldn't even buy her a decent house in the suburbs, let alone London, and £1M would hardly do any better. What about running costs, living expenses, bodyguards for the daughter, limousine, chauffeur, cook, cleaner, holidays, private school, ponies, gym, healthcare? Get real, this isn't Mrs Bloggins from up your street. I'd say £25 million would be a bare minimum, and £40 million would be more like it. Living with that old fart for four years can't have been easy.

[RHD]

There was no other Heather Mills thread. You remember nothing of the sort.

Let's just stick to discussing the topic rather than imaginary and paraphrased recollections of what I allegedly have or haven't said...

Gosh. Thank you for telling me what to think and remember.
I know what I know, and I think moderators should be more impartial myself.

[skunk]

I know what I know.Why don't you post a link, then?

[Blue Velvet]

Gosh. Thank you for telling me what to think and remember.
I know what I know, and I think moderators should be more impartial myself.

When you're making accusations and alleging me of making statements with no quote or links, then there's no reason to be impartial. I know full well what I've written in this thread and elsewhere.

[RHD]

When you're making accusations and alleging me of making statements with no quote or links, then there's no reason to be impartial. I know full well what I've written in this thread and elsewhere.

Page 1 of this thread post 8. You accuse people of disliking Mills merely because she's a woman who got a "fair" share on divorce.

I think lots of people dislike Mills for lots of reasons and don't consider her payment as fair pay for the 4 years grief she caused.

Here's your quote: "Or is it just a reaction to a woman getting a fair percentage from a marriage, any marriage?"

[skunk]

Page 1 of this thread post 8. You accuse people of disliking Mills merely because she's a woman who got a "fair" share on divorce.Justifiable point, as far as I can see, and certainly no grounds for an accusation of misandry.

I think lots of people dislike Mills for lots of reasons and don't consider her payment as fair pay for 4 years grief.A lot of people are envious. And misogynystic.

[koobcamuk]

£500K wouldn't even buy her a decent house in the suburbs, let alone London, and £1M would hardly do any better. What about running costs, living expenses, bodyguards for the daughter, limousine, chauffeur, cook, cleaner, holidays, private school, ponies, gym, healthcare? Get real, this isn't Mrs Bloggins from up your street. I'd say £25 million would be a bare minimum, and £40 million would be more like it. Living with that old fart for eight years can't have been easy.

Is this £500k her own money, or money she wants to take from Paul? Does she not have her own savings? What did she come in with?

You think £40M is a good figure? Why does she need a bodyguard? OK, she does - people want to kill her. Gym? £30 a month? Private school? Why not a normal school? Running costs?? Why does Mills need a chauffeur? A cook? A cleaner? Holidays? Will she not work ever again? She is not royalty. She does not need ponies. If she earns money, she can buy ponies.

Mrs Bloggins is a much nicer person than Heather Mills.

[skunk]

Is this £500k her own money, or money she wants to take from Paul? Does she not have her own savings? What did she come in with?What has that got to do with anything? :confused:
It's not "money she wants to take from Paul", it's their shared assets. Are you married?

[RHD]

Justifiable point, as far as I can see, and certainly no grounds for an accusation of misandry.

A lot of people are envious. And misogynystic.

Misogynism is endemic and something all women have to learn to deal with very young.

For me there is a huge difference between a woman who marries, brings up children, usually at the cost of her own career and hopes, and then divorces and gets a good pay-out, at least half, to represent the work she put into the relationship. That is fair.

Mills married a lonely man 25 years her senior who had just lost his wife and life partner and callously played him through the media to walk away with as much money as she could get.

I do not think marrying for money is a respectable job and I think Mills brings women down with her behavior.

[Blue Velvet]

Page 1 of this thread post 8. You accuse people of disliking Mills merely because she's a woman who got a "fair" share on divorce.


Since when does 'fair' mean taking everything you can get?

And you think 6% of his declared income and assets isn't fair? That this constituted me saying that all men should be taken to the cleaners? This level of projection and distortion isn't really worth much more consideration.

I do not think marrying for money is a respectable job and I think Mills brings women down with her behavior.

He proposed to her. :rolleyes:

He met her at a charity event and pursued her thereafter. Just more Saint Paul crap...

[RHD]

You could always just stop buying Grazia...

I don't buy Grazia, Hello or any of the other rubbish. The problem is the Times, Telegraph etc who keep publicizing the wretched woman too.

[RHD]

Since when does 'fair' mean taking everything you can get?

And you think 6% of his declared income and assets isn't fair? That this constituted me saying that all men should be taken to the cleaners? This level of projection and distortion isn't really worth much more consideration.



He proposed to her. :rolleyes:

I didn't make myself clear. I think she got too much. Fair would have been a smaller amount for only 4 years.

[skunk]

Misogynism is endemic and something all women have to learn to deal with very young.

For me there is a huge difference between a woman who marries, brings up children, usually at the cost of her own career and hopes, and then divorces and gets a good pay-out, at least half, to represent the work she put into the relationship. That is fair.

Mills married a lonely man 25 years her senior who had just lost his wife and life partner and callously played him through the media to walk away with as much money as she could get.

I do not think marrying for money is a respectable job and I think Mills brings women down with her behavior.I see I must defer to your in-depth knowledge of their relationship, her motives and his state of mind. The child appears not to figure in your otherwise scientific calculations.

[RHD]

I see I must defer to your in-depth knowledge of their relationship, her motives and his state of mind. The child appears not to figure in your otherwise scientific calculations.

I think the poor child was conceived as part of Heather Mill's scientific calculations to get as big a payout as she could.
I am desperately sorry for the poor thing, I doubt she will get much fun.

By the way. The Times, or possibly the Telegraph, published online a .pdf of the judges ruling. You can read it yourself if you are interested enough. I only skimmed it I have to confess. There were more interesting things in the news.

[skunk]

I think the poor child was conceived as part of Heather Mill's scientific calculations to get as big a payout as she could.
I am desperately sorry for the poor thing, I doubt she will get much fun.I have no idea what her life will be like. I do not know what kind of a mother Heather Mills is. The payout certainly isn't going to dent McCartney's lifestyle, at any rate.

And no, I am not in the slightest interested in reading the judge's ruling.

[koobcamuk]

What has that got to do with anything? :confused:
It's not "money she wants to take from Paul", it's their shared assets. Are you married?

No, I am not married. I also would get a prenuptial agreement before marrying if my wife-to-be were 25 years my junior and had less assets than I.

Mills married a lonely man 25 years her senior who had just lost his wife and life partner and callously played him through the media to walk away with as much money as she could get.

I do not think marrying for money is a respectable job and I think Mills brings women down with her behavior.

Well said.

Bluevelvet, I really bet Paul Mc wished he did not pursue her at all. What a waste of time and money. I bet he's glad to see the back of her.

I don't even like Paul. I don't like Heather. It's the case, not the people, that I am struggling to come to terms with. It just isn't right.

[skunk]

Is this £500k her own money, or money she wants to take from Paul? Does she not have her own savings? What did she come in with?

You think £40M is a good figure? Why does she need a bodyguard? OK, she does - people want to kill her. Gym? £30 a month? Private school? Why not a normal school? Running costs?? Why does Mills need a chauffeur? A cook? A cleaner? Holidays? Will she not work ever again? She is not royalty. She does not need ponies. If she earns money, she can buy ponies.I see class war is alive and well. Good luck with the prenuptial.

[koobcamuk]

I see class war is alive and well. Good luck with the prenuptial.

What?

What do you mean by "I see class war is alive and well"?

Didn't she get in with Paul, have a good style of life, leave Paul but want his style of life? It just doesn't add up to me.

Are you married? Thanks for the luck with the prenup, though I won't need it.

[skunk]

What?Why the hell shouldn't she send her daughter to a private school, why the hell shouldn't she have a bodyguard for the child, a good house with some privacy, and so on? If you had made £800 million, wouldn't you want those things for your wife and child?

Yes, since you ask, I've been married for thirty years.

[RHD]

What?

What do you mean by "I see class war is alive and well"?

Didn't she get in with Paul, have a good style of life, leave Paul but want his style of life?

I'm not getting a prenuptial. I am never getting married.

As I think I've said earlier on this thread.

A 32 year old woman I know who owned her own house in London (not easy) married a man she totally supported for some years and when they divorced he dragged it out for four years trying to get half her house. He also wanted the dog which was also hers.
She was eventually grateful to buy him off with a mere £25K which she will still have to sell her house to afford but at least she has some chance of being able to buy a flat or something with the remainder.

I'm not ever getting married either and I'm a woman but all I've got is my home which I've worked all my life for.

[Eraserhead]

If you had made £800 million,

Well the judge only thinks he's worth £400 million, but still your point is reasonable.

She was eventually grateful to buy him off with a mere £25K which she will still have to sell her house to afford

Can't she just remortgage her home? £25k is almost certainly a lot less than her house is worth if its in London.

I'm not ever getting married either and I'm a woman but all I've got is my home which I've worked all my life for.

That is sad, what if you meet someone special?

[RHD]

I have no idea what her life will be like. I do not know what kind of a mother Heather Mills is. The payout certainly isn't going to dent McCartney's lifestyle, at any rate.

And no, I am not in the slightest interested in reading the judge's ruling.

Well that's fair enough. I just though you wanting to know how I obtained my:

I see I must defer to your in-depth knowledge of their relationship, her motives and his state of mind.

[koobcamuk]

Why the hell shouldn't she send her daughter to a private school, why the hell shouldn't she have a bodyguard for the child, a good house with some privacy, and so on?

You're right. She should have gotten about £40M actually. Then she could live how she wants to, with her child being brought up in the best possible environment.

I guess I was getting caught up in the moment.

That is sad, what if you meet someone special?

I have met someone special and have been with them for many years. Hopefully, for the rest of my life. I don't see how getting married would make anything better or make our love more real. We don't feel sad for not being married.

[RHD]

Well the judge only thinks he's worth £400 million, but still your point is reasonable.



Can't she just remortgage her home? £25k is almost certainly a lot less than her house is worth if its in London.



That is sad, what if you meet someone special?

No sadly. He left her with a lot of debts on joint accounts too and the mortgage market has just hit the skids in the UK as a knock on of the American sub prime thing.

I'm not sad about not wanting to marry, there are plenty of other things you can do if you meet someone special, why drag lawyers into it at hundreds of pounds an hour?.
Not very interested in cooking. cleaning and football anyway and I'm told that the sex goes downhill after marriage anyway.

[skunk]

Not very interested in cooking. cleaning and football anyway and I'm told that the sex goes downhill after marriage anyway.Don't you believe it.

[koobcamuk]

Don't you believe it.

The cooking, cleaning, football or sex part?

[skunk]

The cooking, cleaning, football or sex part?I don't mind the cooking and cleaning, and I'm not interested in football.

[RHD]

Don't you believe it.

Good for you! And Mrs Skunk!

[iBlue]

Don't you believe it.

seconded. :)

And never say never.

[koobcamuk]

And never say never.

I'd be careful with that one. :D

[iBlue]

I'd be careful with that one. :D
That sentence is the only way to acceptably say never.

(seriously, I've said so many "nevers" and watched them pop right up in my life later. live and learn, I suppose)

edit: oh, heee, I think I get what you're saying... and: NEVER! :p

[mactastic1971]

I heard that Macca bought her a false leg the first xmas after they got married. It wasn't her main present though - just a stocking filler...

:rolleyes:

[emac kinda guy]

The Judgment (which I have only briefly scanned) notes several exaggerations by Heather for which she is not held accountable. It's payday.

Isn't it Paul's money? Don't you think he would want and provide all of those things and more to his daughter? It is joint custody.

Why does that money for children go to the person filing for the divorce? Does anyone else question why Paul's contribution to raising his daughter will go though Heather?

The ruling just helps destroy our definition of marriage. Divorce needs to be up front and center on any body's personal relationships in the future.

She just doesn't want to be his wife anymore. Fine.

EDIT Shame on the Judge.

Why the hell shouldn't she send her daughter to a private school, why the hell shouldn't she have a bodyguard for the child, a good house with some privacy, and so on? If you had made £800 million, wouldn't you want those things for your wife and child?

[John.B]

Isn't it Paul's money? Don't you think he would want and provide all of those things and more to his daughter? It is joint custody.

Why does that money for children go to the person filing for the divorce? Does anyone else question why Paul's contribution to raising his daughter will go though Heather?
Let me guess, this is your first foray into the bizarre and sometimes surreal world of family law?

[emac kinda guy]

Not my first foray - but part of the reason I'm trying to keep a eMac going. :-(

Let me guess, this is your first foray into the bizarre and sometimes surreal world of family law?