Jump to content


Guest Spectre

Recommended Posts

Guest TinCanFan

Boy do I hate this woman.  I hated her even more when she said how her daughter couldn't travel "A" Class.  That really made me cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spectre

Here's a good summary I've lifted from another website:

The judgement in the divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills has been published in full.

Here are the key points from Mr Justice Bennett:

On when the couple will actually be divorced: I hope to be able to pronounce a decree nisi at a hearing on May 12.

On the evidence given by Sir Paul: It was "balanced". He was "consistent, accurate and honest".

On the evidence given by Miss Mills: "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."

On Miss Mills' claims that she was wealthy and independent when she met the former Beatle: Her case was "wholly exaggerated".

On Sir Paul's feelings about his late wife Linda: I have no doubt that he found Miss Mills "very attractive" but he was still "very emotionally tied to Linda".

On Sir Paul's wedding rings: He wore the ring given to him by Linda until he was married to Miss Mills.

On how Miss Mills felt about Sir Paul when they first met: She must have felt "rather swept off her feet" by such a famous man, which may have "warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief".

On Miss Mills' claims that she was Sir Paul's "wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist": Her presence was "emotionally supportive" to him but to suggest that she was his business partner is "make belief". Her claim that she was his "psychologist" is "typical of her make-belief".

On Miss Mills' submission that she made an "exceptional" contribution to the marriage: Her case was "devoid of reality" and Sir Paul's evidence "far more persuasive".

On suggestions that Sir Paul is worth ?800m: "There is absolutely no evidence at all to support that figure or any figure anywhere near it."

On Miss Mills' behaviour during cross-examination over whether there were loans on a property: It was "distinctively distasteful" and "damages her overall credibility".

On Miss Mills' submission that she is entitled to live at the same "rate" as her ex-husband: It must have been "absolutely plain" that it was "wholly unrealistic" to expect to go on living the same way.

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 coverage of Miss Mills in the media: "She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volative character."

On Miss Mills' outbursts in TV interviews: "She cannot have done herself any good" in the eyes of anyone who might want to hire her as a TV presenter, public speaker or model.

On Miss Mills' claims that her career is now at a severe disadvantage: "I think she overplays her hand."

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.

On media intrusion into Miss Mills' life: It was "very largely self-inflicted" by interviews she gave "unwisely" in October and November 2007.

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

On the calculations of Miss Mills' budget: There was no "sensible proposal" put forward. If she is unhappy about the figures "she only has herself to blame".

On the budget Miss Mills' suggested she needed: If a litigant "flagrantly over-eggs the pudding" they are likely to find that the court "drastically prunes the proposed budget".

On Miss Mills' charity work: Her devotion is "very impressive".

On the "rate" of living Miss Mills could expect: After a short marriage to a rich man, it is "completely unrealistic" to expect to live at the same "rate" as during the marriage.

On what the couple said about each other's conduct: Sir Paul said that his wife had "violently assaulted" his character. Miss Mills branded her husband as "a hypocrite and a monster".

On the opposing cases put forward by Sir Paul and Miss Mills: "On one side is the wife's case of a husband running a media campaign to smear her; on the other is the husband's case that it is the wife who is running a media campaign to smear him."

On the ?24.3m awarded to Miss Mills: If she considers the sum to be "unfairly low", she should remember it was up to her to make "a rational and logical case".

On Miss Mills' claim for ?125m: If someone puts forward "an excessive, indeed exorbitant, claim" then they only have themselves to blame if the court awards less than what they expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Mills loony needs a good hard slap.

How dare she say that 35 grand isn't enough to cover her daughters travelling expenses??  How come she's entitled to so much money when it seems that he made the majority of his cash long long before she came along anyway???

And she wasn't in it for the money?  Liar.

If I was Paul, I'd be doing all I could to get custody of my little girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I feel you are all being a bit harsh here. This is a poor woman who has sufferred greatly through losing a limb, and has worked hard for various charities, putting her own difficulties behind her. She then met Sir P. and was basically drafted into his life as a substitute for the late Linda, a very hard act to follow. I'll admit she has reacted badly to the media onslaught, but who wouldn't with all the bad press she has recieved in what only can be described as a witchhunt? The media is as much to blame in this case as she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Spectre

"The media is as much to blame in this case as she is."

Well the media's not to blame for her claiming to have ?2m in bank accounts when they met, a LIE.

The media's not to blame for her trying to extort cash for mortgages that didn't exist.

Large parts of her case were pure fabrication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, Heather Mills comes across as somebody who has a difficult relationship with the truth.  She does herself no favours at all with her strident, aggressive behaviour, and the sad thing is that her little daughter will probably grow up to imitate this behaviour.

?24 million not enough?  How the other half lives, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is a money grabbing so and so . To whine and gurn her daughter will only get 35k a year is unreal she needs to take a good hard look and think about kids who dont even get ?1.00 because their fathers cant be a***d these kids go with out. Yet her daughter will be getting fed from the silver spoon .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy