Mills gets £24.3m from Sir Paul in divorce settlement

[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?
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.

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.

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.