McCartney/Golddigger Judgement

Did anybody see the less than flattering picture of HMM on the front of The Times today?

You could not paintshop something that scary.

Jono

quote:

Some golddigger fleecing a Beatle for £24,000,000 is hardly in the interests of justice.

If she fleeced Bill Gates or Mr Amstrad would that have been OK then?

No. It's just the only reason the media give a damn!

£39K a year on wine and she doesn't drink. I'd like an invite to one of those parties!

It'd be interesting to see what'd happen if she were now to marry someone with a conventional income and then separate. How much would the husband get?

phil

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:

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.

The civil and criminal systems are quite separate. Few civil cases that make it to trial are trite - the financial and emotional costs of most litigation sees to that.

Having a system of settling civil disputes is as much in the interests of justice as having a criminal justice system.

quote:

How can it be injust? You shouldn't enter into a contract unless you intend to abide by the terms of it.

Your idea was that people must enter into a pre-nuptial contract - where is the choice?

He should have hired a hooker. Saved him a bundle.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


The civil and criminal systems are quite separate. Few civil cases that make it to trial are trite - the financial and emotional costs of most litigation sees to that.

Having a system of settling civil disputes is as much in the interests of justice as having a criminal justice system.

Your idea was that people must enter into a pre-nuptial contract - where is the choice?

yawn

quote:

Originally posted by _charlie:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


The civil and criminal systems are quite separate. Few civil cases that make it to trial are trite - the financial and emotional costs of most litigation sees to that.

Having a system of settling civil disputes is as much in the interests of justice as having a criminal justice system.

Your idea was that people must enter into a pre-nuptial contract - where is the choice?

yawn

yawn (it's catching)

Dull...Duller...Deane

Sir Paul sounds like a wanker anyway. Why so much support for him? Because he's a pop singer? Is it his accent - nice and lower-class?

Seems like everybody has bought the PR hook, line and sinker. Sir Paul can afford the best though - so it's no wonder.

My darling I love you, you have such beautiful eyes..................... I am now an independent woman of wealth - Take me up the aisle my sweet Warren........................................

Maybe I should just get out more

The judge's summing up was hardly complimentary to HMM, so the fact that he awarded her what he did suggests that her case must have had some substance.

I'm taken aback by the venom in some of the comments about HMM. Do any of the posters know her personally? If not, their impression of her is based on the reports of the media in feeding frenzy mode - hardly the most reliable source of information. I would hesitate to judge someone in such scathing terms, on the basis of this evidence. If that makes me sound "holier than thou" so be it.

Nigel

In ten the ten years following my tenth birthday, I had three different step-mothers. I never comment on marriages, and it is certainly true that the truth is warped in the divorce court let alone if the the case is then filtered through the news media!

Nothing to say really except it is a shame that so many column inches have been published on it in the Boulevard Press.

The issue is essentially not one that is of great interest in my view.

George

quote:

it is a shame that so many column inches have been published on it in the Boulevard Press.

The issue is essentially not one that is of great interest in my view.

That too! Thanks George.

summary of judgement

There are not many folk I take a dislike to that are in the public eye. I really can't remember disliking someone since the likes of Norman Tebbit and his cronies. Clearly I will have been influenced to a degree by the media but don't read the gutter press (Red tops and Mail/express) which will force opinion down my neck. I however have come to my own conclusions. I have never met the woman and hey she is probably charming. The 'opinion' is based on what she says and how she says it. The judgement linked above gives more credibility to my opinion. I am no great lover of St. Paul, but realise he is a national treasure and he certainly is not blameless here. Divorce can be grim at the best of times, it is my opinion that she should have kept her head down and out of the media glare and she may have gained some respect. Hell no. She promotes herself and daughter as the ones who re being downtrodden.

The judgement reinforces to me that she is a gold digger.............................

On Mills's budget: "She claims for seven fully staffed properties with full-time housekeepers in the annual sum of £645,000. She claims holiday expenditure of £499,000 pa (including private and helicopter flights of £185,000), £125,000 pa for her clothes, £30,000 pa for equestrian activities (she no longer rides), £39,000 pa for wine (she does not drink alcohol), £43,000 pa for a driver, £20,000 pa for a carer, and professional fees of £190,000 pa."

Hey what do I know

Regards

Diccus

Hi Diccus

I was concerned about the amount of venom, and the lack of reasoned comment on this thread. Your last post starts to redress the balance, so thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Not to say I agree with you, as I simply have no sense of what a reasonable settlement might look like in in such extreme circumstances. In truth, I haven't paid the case a lot of attention, as it is entirely irrelevant to my life.

Actually, the comment that triggered my post was not one of yours. "It would have been cheaper to hire a hooker", smacks of thinly veiled misogyny, and has no place on this forum, in my view.

Nigel

The whole problem arises out of a uniquely Christian attitude to property. Something of a relic from when marriage literally meant that a husband owned his wife. Perhaps this is why Rowen Williams thought introducing the Sharia in Britain would be such a good idea! The concept of property within a marriage in the Sharia is probably much more compatible with modern realities, and as divorce is not seen as being problematic in Islam the methods of sorting out such matters are far more straightforward, not to mention fairer, than the cobbled together nonsense that is British divorce law.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Why so much support for him? Because he's a pop singer? Is it his accent - nice and lower-class?

No, it's not because he's a [QUOTE]popsinger

. And I can't judge his accent. And I don't discuss the sentence nor the British Laws, which are not mine. I could explain the reason for my support for him, but really, must that be explained?

The outcome of the case McCartney/Heather Mills was not so suprising. Heather Mills has a track record of making extreme comments, there has never been any detetection of wisdom in her past comments or actions. All her acts and statements in the media can be interpreted as a goldigger and alas has so been confirmed by the judges from her day in court. Her only positive side was allegedly she did do some work for charity and she claimed that she made financial contributions towards a charity but no evidence of these financial were bought forward to the court? In a nutshell she dug her own grave. If I was a rich bachellor living the life of the 'jet set' I would stay way clear of her because she has proven to be big trouble.

Through out the court proceedings Paul McCartney stayed silent giving no comment to the press probabley from good advice given from his own counsel 'less is more'.

At the end of the day she was awarded 24.3 million pounds for a few years of marriage, which is not bad, but she fully deserves the negative media which she herself has ignited from her stupidity and greed.

she is just a greedy slag on the make. the sooner she p****s off to oz the better! bloody sick of the whole farce.

p.s.
he must take some of the blame as everybody tried to warn him NOT to marry her....dickhead.
bet he wishes he had listened now!

Now come on Scotty, what have the poor Aussie drongos done to deserve that! I vote for the North Pole, Polarbears don't put up with that kind of c**p from anyone!

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
Thank god its been sorted.
Now the Beatles remasters can be let loose on the world.
Happy Days

Amen to that. The laws may well be intended to protect wives, but they certainly are not there as some form of 'get rich quick' scheme. Macca was foolish, he should have listened to his kids.

Now let's have those albums mastered to the quality of "Love".

Steve