McCartney/Golddigger Judgement

and another, which I thought hit the nail on the head.......................................

The judge shouldve given her a fiver for a taxi and told her to piss off....

I'm so unconcerned about the whole thing I can't even be bothered to post!

Bugger!

Come on Mark it is fascinating

"You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
And in the middle of negotiations
You break down."

Well Paul, at least you got that right (!)

He married her and now they are divorced. She is entitled to a share of the matrimonial property.

This entitlement is reflected in the law of the land in the UK just as it is reflected in the law here in New Zealand.

The responses so far in this thread are as typically male as they are typically unreasonable.

The law is there mostly because of ex-wives getting shafted by rich bastards.

Deane, with respect, lighten up! I think you may just have missed the point. In any case, we're not bothered.

The fact is, he offered her £15,000,000 to settle out of court. She said no.

Draw your own conclusions...

quote:

She is entitled to a share of the matrimonial property.

Is she entitled to a share of what he made BEFORE he married her?

Which is, I think, the point...

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

quote:

She is entitled to a share of the matrimonial property.

Is she entitled to a share of what he made BEFORE he married her?

Which is, I think, the point...

If she was she would have been awarded half of the assets. She wasn't so she isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
He married her and now they are divorced. She is entitled to a share of the matrimonial property.

This entitlement is reflected in the law of the land in the UK just as it is reflected in the law here in New Zealand.

The responses so far in this thread are as typically male as they are typically unreasonable.

The law is there mostly because of ex-wives getting shafted by rich bastards.

However, he earned all the money before they were married, why should she be entitled to a penny of it? Matrimonial income is one thing, but she contributed nothing to McCartney's fortune, merely enjoyed spending it. She wasn't worth £240,000 when she married him, why should she leave with £24,000,000 after a few years of doing nothing, it isn't even like she can claim she was looking after his children.

OOOH, "typically male as they are typically unreasonable", thats rather sexist! Typical feminist bull s**t, it's fine to be rude about men, but when they do it to us it's patriarchal tyranny. Grow up.

Love Mrs djftw!

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

However, he earned all the money before they were married, why should she be entitled to a penny of it? Matrimonial income is one thing, but she contributed nothing to McCartney's fortune, merely enjoyed spending it. She wasn't worth £240,000 when she married him, why should she leave with £24,000,000 after a few years of doing nothing,

Because he married her.

quote:

OOOH, "typically male as they are typically unreasonable", thats rather sexist! Typical feminist bull s**t, it's fine to be rude about men, but when they do it to us it's patriarchal tyranny. Grow up.

Yes it's typically male all right - contributions to a marriage are not just financial and it is typically male to blithely argue as if they were. You can argue all day that it's typical feminist bull s**t but this means that the law is typical feminist bull s**t too - and given it was enacted by a bicameral parliament composed largely of patriarchs then that would be an irony big enough to choke a masculinist.

Whatever your opinion on the settlement, the way she came out at the end cheering and whooping plus the subsequent press conference she gave I don't think will endear her to the public.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
He married her and now they are divorced. She is entitled to a share of the matrimonial property.

This entitlement is reflected in the law of the land in the UK just as it is reflected in the law here in New Zealand.

The responses so far in this thread are as typically male as they are typically unreasonable.

The law is there mostly because of ex-wives getting shafted by rich bastards.

Being offered £15 million for four years of marriage, from a fortune she did Jack Shit to create, is your idea of being shafted is it?

I must go to NZ and get shafted.

Lighten up Deano, your 'holier than thou' response to people's light hearted comment looks suspiciously like trolling.

Regards,

Steve

quote:

the way she came out at the end cheering and whooping plus the subsequent press conference she gave I don't think will endear her to the public.

She should give a shit? Would you with £24M?
As posted earlier if PM spent a fortune a day his royalties and "Post Office book/Building Society A/C" interest will make another fortune every day, a bit like having a huge oil well in the back garden.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve S1:

Lighten up Deano, your 'holier than thou' response to people's light hearted comment looks suspiciously like trolling.

Regards,

Steve

A thread title like "McCartney/Golddigger Judgement" isn't trolling?

Regards,

Deane

quote:

Because he married her.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she should be left penny-less, but with ridiculous settlements like that you have to question why any rich man in his right mind would marry, unless he could find an equally wealthy woman and wouldn't have the concern that she might be marring him for his money!

In some countries a partner is entitled to keep any property that pre-dated the marriage. The point is that in this case, not only all the existing wealth, but also the income during that marriage came from work McCartney had done long before he married Mills.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

the way she came out at the end cheering and whooping plus the subsequent press conference she gave I don't think will endear her to the public.

She should give a shit? Would you with £24M?
As posted earlier if PM spent a fortune a day his royalties and "Post Office book/Building Society A/C" interest will make another fortune every day, a bit like having a huge oil well in the back garden.

I was thinking more for the future. I'm sure she wants to try & stay in the public eye.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she should be left penny-less, but with ridiculous settlements like that

So what is your opinion about a settlement that wouldn't be ridiculous?

Perhaps you are in a better position than the Court to render such an opinion? So let's hear it - exactly how did the Court get it wrong and what would you have awarded?

Far be it from me to question the court, question the useless politicians that we have, this isn't the USA and the judges aren't just allowed to make stuff up as they go along. Divorce law in the UK is very poorly thought through, and weighed heavily in favour of women (because those who wrote it never considered the possibility that women might be able to make a living, or even be wealthier than their husband). If you ask me it should be compulsory to sign a legally binding pre-nuptial and they should always be upheld regardless of what it says. It would save a heck of a lot of the courts time, and taxpayer's money!

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
Far be it from me to question the court,

But you did...(and nothing wrong with that, either)

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

However, he earned all the money before they were married, why should she be entitled to a penny of it? Matrimonial income is one thing, but she contributed nothing to McCartney's fortune, merely enjoyed spending it. She wasn't worth £240,000 when she married him, why should she leave with £24,000,000 after a few years of doing nothing

quote:

this isn't the USA and the judges aren't just allowed to make stuff up as they go along.

Oh but you've had your share of activist judges. And anyway, it is simply impossible to make perfect law that forsees all circumstances - that's what judges and courts are for - to distinguish circumstances and apply the law accordingly.

quote:

If you ask me it should be compulsory to sign a legally binding pre-nuptial and they should always be upheld regardless of what it says.

I suspect that many injustices would follow on such a simple and harsh regime.

quote:

It would save a heck of a lot of the courts time, and taxpayer's money!

Tax is paid to support infrastructure. Courts are part of that and promote the interests of justice. Perhaps if you save money there you could send a better team to the Olympic Games or something?

quote:

Tax is paid to support infrastructure. Courts are part of that and promote the interests of justice. Perhaps if you save money there you could send a better team to the Olympic Games or something?

The interests of justice? Well perhaps if they weren't so busy dealing with trite civil matters we might not have serious criminals committing murders and rapes whilst on bail waiting for a court date. Some golddigger fleecing a Beatle for £24,000,000 is hardly in the interests of justice.

As for the Olympic Games, couldn't really care less. It's criminal how much is spent on them when say... healthcare is in such a sorry state.

quote:

I suspect that many injustices would follow on such a simple and harsh regime.

How can it be injust? You shouldn't enter into a contract unless you intend to abide by the terms of it. If you break a contract you are not only breaking the law in most cases, you are demonstrating that you are a fundamentally dishonest and dishonorable person.

HMM has lost her appeal to stop the full judgement of the settlement released to the press. By the wheels of justice move quickly PM was happy for it to be released, HMM not so - why? Is it more damaging to HMM? the inference would suggest so, but hey who am I to jump on the anti - HMM bandwagon, I was there from seeing the two of them on 'Who wants to be a millionaire' and thought him warm and humorous and her cold and hard. There is a rumour going round on HMM side that the press have made her into someone who is worse than a murderer. I'm sorry I have made my mind up from seeing her in interviews and as a seeing her as a self serving 'celebrity' publicist. Whilst clearly she is no murderer, I believe she deserves her reputation. Now take your money and get out of our faces.

Digga Digga

Hear Hear!!!

quote:

'Who wants to be a millionaire'

Is that irony or what!!!

Read all about it

She did not do herself any favours

Full details of the settlement in the The Times - you might need to sign in