Heather Mills

[turves]

So, yesterday this woman was awarded £24.3 million or something, which she says she was exteremely happy with, despite the fact she wanted £125 million... Fair enough I suppose, but what has got to me is...

Their daughter is 4 years old. Paul McCartney is to pay her £35,000 per year. Outside court, Heather Mills says 'obviously Paul wants our daughter to travel 2nd class and not 1st class, obviously I'll pay the difference', or something along those lines

I'M SORRY - you've just been given more money than the majority of people on this planet could ever dream of having, your 4 year old daughter has £35,000 per year (what the hell could she spend that kind of money on at 4 years old anyway), and you're moaning about it.

I think that just proves what I always thought, she's a money grabbing spoilt .......[insert whatever word you feel like using!]

[Mark]

Or that people such as her have no concept of the value of money. I'd be mega happy if I was getting £35,000 a year :s

[BDunnell]

Or that people such as her have no concept of the value of money.

Exactly. That's probably the saddest thing.

[gadjo_dilo]

Hmm... I know a few parachutes ( pardon, I mean footballers ex-s ) who ask more than that for their kids.

[Daniel]

Turves :) Where were you when there were people whinging about me calling Heather a money grabbing so and so? :cheese:

I believe people should get money from a divorce but I think you should only get what you put in financially and enough to support your child. Now I somehow doubt Heather put 24 million into the relationship....

[maxu05]

I would be quite happy with 24 million pounds, I think I would put on a few pounds myself :D

[Rudy Tamasz]

I recall when I was breaking up with my girlfriend I said I'd keep the cactus and gym bag. She thought I wasn't doing justice to her. :D

[turves]

Turves :) Where were you when there were people whinging about me calling Heather a money grabbing so and so? :cheese:

I believe people should get money from a divorce but I think you should only get what you put in financially and enough to support your child. Now I somehow doubt Heather put 24 million into the relationship....

Not sure where I was but I back you 100% (although 'so and so' is quite tame) :laugh: Apparently, they've (being the press) worked out she's getting £700 for each hour she was married (someone has too much time on their hands).

I'm sure she's not quite so happy today now that the judge has ruled everything is to be made public...!

[Daniel]

Not sure where I was but I back you 100% (although 'so and so' is quite tame) :laugh: Apparently, they've (being the press) worked out she's getting £700 for each hour she was married (someone has too much time on their hands).

I'm sure she's not quite so happy today now that the judge has ruled everything is to be made public...!
£700 quid an hour? Well I'm having an operation done and I'm going to start chasing after a rich man :p

[gadjo_dilo]

£700 quid an hour? Well I'm having an operation done and I'm going to start chasing after a rich man :p
Hope you'll invite me at the wedding. Never attended a gay marriage.

[Daniel]

Hope you'll invite me at the wedding. Never attended a gay marriage.
Gay? I'm not gay! Just in it for the money :p

[gadjo_dilo]

Gay? I'm not gay! Just in it for the money :p

Well, to get money from a rich man you should marry him. If you're not gay why should he marry you? Just for your personal charm?

[Daniel]

Well, to get money from a rich man you should marry him. If you're not gay why should he marry you? Just for your personal charm?
I'd pretend to be a woman though :p He wouldn't know that I was a woman until the wedding (i'd be a prim and proper woman you know :angel: )

[gadjo_dilo]

I'd pretend to be a woman though :p He wouldn't know that I was a woman until the wedding )
Yeah and you'll also pretend to be an innocent virgin who's still waiting for the wedding night. :laugh:

(i'd be a prim and proper woman you know :angel: )
Never thought of you as an effeminate person but life is full of surprises.... :laugh:

Good luck with your operation ( a sex change, perhaps ).

[Azumanga Davo]

Gay? I'm not gay! Just in it for the money :p

You're gay when money is involved?

Did I ever mention that Eki is a millionaire? ;) :D

[Dave B]

So anyway, back to Heather Mills.... :p

It was reported on BBC News that McCartney had offered £15 million but Mills turned it down and took him to court.

Now she's moaning that releasing details of the case could put her daughter in danger. Do me a favour, I'm sure £35K PA buys a lot of security if she's that worried.

No wonder she didn't want any details leaking out: the judge apparently described her as a somewhat less-than-perfect witness.

Still, her petulant act of throwing water over McCartney's solicitor did at least give The Sun their headline of the year:

"Mucca chucksa cuppa water over Macca's lawyer Shacka" (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article930214.ece) :laugh:

[gadjo_dilo]

Now she's moaning that releasing details of the case could put her daughter in danger. Do me a favour, I'm sure £35K PA buys a lot of security if she's that worried.

The law takes into account not only the security of the child but also the father's income. The goalkeeper of an obscure football club in Bucharest is obliged to pay 5000 E/month for his boy although his wealth is light years away from Macca's.

[GridGirl]

Heather Mills is wealthy enough to pay whatever for her daughter now she's got her £25m. I don't see what she's complaining about. I'm sure that the kid has a more than healthy trust fund just waiting for her 18th birthday. Only 14 more years to go Heather.... :p

On a side note, for someone who now has so much money Heather should sack the stylist. I've never seen a suit so bad as the one she wore for yesterdays court hearing. She looked like a modern day jester and was only missing the hat.

[Dave B]

The Telegraph has published in full the judgement of the court (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/18/judgement.pdf), some of which makes interesting reading:



15. The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself
moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent,
accurate and honest.

16. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having
watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having
given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under
(and in conducting her own case) 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.

28. 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. Her problem stems from the lack
of any documentary evidence to support her case as to the level of her earnings. I do
not doubt her commitment to charitable causes. She is passionate about them,
particularly those that involve working for, and with, amputees. The DVDs shown to
me in court amply bear that out. I do not doubt that she modelled successfully and
was a public speaker. But the investigation in this case of her assets and earnings as
at 1999 when the parties met do not bear out her case.

32. The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax
returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me
that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities. However, the wife
had to accept in her cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence,
for example letters from the relevant charities, that her fees were sent direct to
charities. In her Answers to a Questionnaire of 6 February 2007 the wife, having
been asked to set out in a schedule the income earned by her and sent direct to
charities for the years 1997 and 2000 inclusive, replied that she did not have the
records requested to enable her to complete a schedule. Furthermore, her assertion
that she gave away to charity 80% to 90% of her earned income is inconsistent with
having £2m-£3m in the bank in 1999.

36. I find that the wife’s case as to her wealth in 1999 to be wholly exaggerated. The
assertion that she was a wealthy person in 1999 is, of course, the first step in her
overall case that her career, which in 1999 she says was one producing rich financial
rewards, was thereafter blighted by the husband during their relationship. It is
therefore connected to the issue of “compensation”.

54. The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as
the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge
in make-belief. The objective facts simply do not support her case.

68. The wife complains that in April 2001 or thereabouts she was offered a contract by
Marks and Spencers to model bras over a 12 month period for £1m but that the
husband would not allow her to undertake to do it. Her evidence was that he forbade
her. The only document produced by the wife in connection with this offer is an e-
mail from Jaime Brent, a creative director from Beckenham. There is nothing in it
about any remuneration. The husband’s evidence was that even if such a contract for
that sum was in the offing (which he doubted), nevertheless he and the wife discussed
it and decided together that as they were in a relationship it was not appropriate for
her to be seen modelling bras. She agreed. He also told me that if she had insisted he
would not have opposed her. In my judgment the husband’s evidence is much more
likely to be true.

84. I find that, far from the husband dictating to and restricting the wife’s career and
charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says. He encouraged it and lent
his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities. The facts as
I find them do not in any way support her claim. “Compensation” therefore does not
arise.

92. The husband, in my judgment, met this issue, as with the other issues, candidly and
honestly. He agreed that the wife together with his family and friends had helped him
through his grieving for Linda. He said that for about a year after Linda’s death he
was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly
person. He denied he had lost his confidence. Her case that in some way she single-
handedly saved him was exaggerated.

99. I have to say that the wife’s evidence that in some way she was the husband’s
“psychologist”, even allowing for hyperbole, is typical of her make-belief. I reject her
evidence that she, vis-à-vis the husband, was anything more than a kind and loving
person who was deeply in love with him, helped him through his grieving and like
any new wife tried to integrate into their relationship the children of his former marriage.
I wholly reject her account that she rekindled the husband’s professional
flame and gave him back his confidence.

101. In her final submissions the wife described her contribution as “exceptional”. I reject
her case. I am afraid I have to say her case on this issue is devoid of reality. The
husband’s evidence is far more persuasive.


Then I got bored reading but it's clear that Mills is, at best, a fantasist.

[BDunnell]

Here is the breakdown of what she wanted the money for: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7302736.stm

While I continue to enjoy the jokes and do think there is much amusement value to be derived from the whole case, I feel immensely sorry for Heather Mills, because what this seriously deluded fantasist needs is some sort of psychiatric or psychological help, not £25 million.

[Daniel]

Thing is she may be a crazy woman but she's still motivated by money also

[turves]

I love these comments: (from Sky News)

On Miss Mills' claims that she feels like a prisoner in her Pean's Wood home: "I find that inconsistent with her having already having spent on it £675,000 and wanting another £400,000 to put in a swimming pool."

On Miss Mills' budget of £499,000 for holidays: The figures are "much, much too high in every respect".

On Miss Mills' assertion that her earning capacity is now "zero": Her evidence that she had turned down huge amounts of work is "inconsistent" with that.

[pino]

How could Paul marry her in the first place ? :crazy:

[Daniel]

How could Paul marry her in the first place ? :crazy:
A gold digger :)

[Rollo]

As part of my job, I often deal with delusional rich people who feel exceptionally poor. One lady claimed that she found her $4000 a month mortgage difficult to maintain, so we checked the figures and found that she was on average spending $18,000 a month at David Jones (a department store). She wasn't happy when we recommended that her best option would be to cancel her Shop Credit Card and she threatened to sue us.

Perhaps Ms Mills is one of those people. She feels incredibly hard done by when a hint of injustice is done to her but can't quite put that together with her own character flaws.

Don't point out the speck in someone else's eyes without first checking the log in your own? She's been swinging her whole head around and wonders why the log hits things.

[Roamy]

WOW just think what the cost per **** was - staggering I would say !!

[Roamy]

Gee I must have been hijacked. So I will try a new angle

In the beginning God made man and women or the apes evolved.
population increased as a result of intercourse between male and female.
people did this for love or lust and many times no children were produced.

Now is Paul had to pay 23 million pound so I wonder was the cost was for each time they completed a act that could have produced a child.

Staggering I might say

[turves]

I read somewhere that Sir Paul offered her £50million before the hearing - she must've been hopping mad :laugh: at this result.

At least it didn't cost him an arm and a leg...

[Jag_Warrior]

I read somewhere that Sir Paul offered her £50million before the hearing - she must've been hopping mad :laugh: at this result.

At least it didn't cost him an arm and a leg...

Ouch! :D

[Drew]

£24.5 million, so she's single then? :cheese:

[Azumanga Davo]

Since divorces have turned more and more into the football transfer market, will Bolton put a bid for her to join next season?

Remember the pre-nuptial agreement (signing fee), and later on the lawyer fee (or agent salary if you like).

It's a team game, is marriage. Tag team, mostly.

[BDunnell]

Since divorces have turned more and more into the football transfer market, will Bolton put a bid for her to join next season?

Remember the pre-nuptial agreement (signing fee), and later on the lawyer fee (or agent salary if you like).

It's a team game, is marriage. Tag team, mostly.

I think she'd fit better into the Coventry squad.

[Jag_Warrior]

How could Paul marry her in the first place ? :crazy:

Not that much has been said about her over here (or if it has, it's thankfully escaped me)... but I haven't seen or heard anything about her that explains her appeal.

Maybe, because of her handicap, he (wrongly) assumed that she was of a certain character? As far as I can tell, she was just a typical gold digger, looking for the payday that Western courts give out to her type.

[maxu05]

Paul should have paid 1 or 2 mil for a hit contract and banked the rest :D

[Garry Walker]

Gold-digging bitch.

[SOD]

Mucca, she goes from A-list celebrity parties to the finger food "TV Now" party.

[Roamy]

How could Paul marry her in the first place ? :crazy:

Yea with his money she would not have been my first pick !!