marc_p Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I'd anal raid him for 25mil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 If he had 50p to his name and she got 25p I can't imagine everyone would be kicking off. I'd anal raid him for 25p Desperation is a terrible thing!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 So am I the only person who prefers Heather to Paul then? It's not as if she's just getting money to go out an buy nice things either, don't forget that quite a portion is to look after *his* daughter too. OK it seems like a lot of cash to us but in the grand scheme of things is he likely to notice it? I suspect not - plus it's got him lots of free publicity so he can continue to punt his rather tepid musical creations upon the world. Heather offers much more entertainment than Paul has ever done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Desperation is a terrible thing!! The supra's economy has dropped again:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 So am I the only person who prefers Heather to Paul then? For the kind of money involved, I'm not sure how fussy I would be..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 She is entitled to maintenance and money for when she gave up work to become Paul's sidekick. I doubt she would have made £25 million from her own career though in the short period of time she hadn't worked. I expect the judge thought she had damaged her reputation so badly over this case and wouldn't work again so offered that amount based on those facts. The thing that annoyed me was she was saying Paul was being greedy but she wanted £125 million And that quote "i wont be able to afford to send my daughter first class anymore" really didn't help matters. Interest on £1 million is approx £4k a week ! I think she is a bit unhinged and could do with thinking before speaking a bit more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 But the daughter is used to travelling first class - and lets face it she'd get stick is she didn't travel privately. As far as I know the settlement is always based on what you are accustomed to, so both of them are used to living that live so therefore they need to continue that. I think it's ridiculous that men think they can marry someone, expect them to give up everything to suit them, then when it comes to divorce expect them to go back to where they were. Chances are the woman was well out of their league when big money is involved so IMO if him having money is no different to her looks. (Him her used generically not specific to these 2) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 But the daughter is used to travelling first class - and lets face it she'd get stick is she didn't travel privately. As far as I know the settlement is always based on what you are accustomed to, so both of them are used to living that live so therefore they need to continue that. I think it's ridiculous that men think they can marry someone, expect them to give up everything to suit them, then when it comes to divorce expect them to go back to where they were. Chances are the woman was well out of their league when big money is involved so IMO if him having money is no different to her looks. (Him her used generically not specific to these 2) i agree, but she has plenty of money to send her daughter first class, her comment was an attempt to make it look like she received very little which is just not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't know about travelling first class but with 24million she should be able to afford her own plane. ...and some Immac for the other leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't know about travelling first class but with 24million she should be able to afford her own plane. ...and some Immac for the other leg. I got it Martin..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't know about travelling first class but with 24million she should be able to afford her own plane. ...and some Immac for the other leg. Its not 24m in cash though is it. 24m isn't much when you consider his value at 800m... 3% of his value. If he were worth £50,000 I am certain she would have gotten more than 3%. As for a 'Gold digger' I think money didn't really come into it. She made enough to keep herself happy without him and I guess the money she wanted was to get back at him. (All IMO only) I think that McCartney has been very clever with publicity... character assassination (and the stupid lass played up to it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 ...and some Immac for the other leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra_aero Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Its not 24m in cash though is it. 24m isn't much when you consider his value at 800m... 3% of his value. If he were worth £50,000 I am certain she would have gotten more than 3%. As for a 'Gold digger' I think money didn't really come into it. She made enough to keep herself happy without him and I guess the money she wanted was to get back at him. (All IMO only) I think that McCartney has been very clever with publicity... character assassination (and the stupid lass played up to it). I disagree and believe she is purely after money. On a relative scale, yes 24m is not alot compared to 800m. But standalone 24m is a v.large amount of money, and as previously said its v.unlikely she would have accumulated that wealth on her own, and she has done v.little during the time together to prove her entrepeneurial skills. Had it been V Beckham, I would say, ok she 'could' be entitled to half as she has earned a considerable amount on her own depsite being with her partner (little next to Mr D Beckham, but at least she has done/achieved something). For the record, I can't stand V Beckham . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
far Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 So am I the only person who prefers Heather to Paul then?. Yes It's not as if she's just getting money to go out an buy nice things either, don't forget that quite a portion is to look after *his* daughter too. Well she gets 35k per year to spend on their daughter on top of the 25mill - thats 3k per month!!! What can a kid get for that kind of money? HM is two faced, lying, publicity seeking, neurotic, gold digging bitch. I think that pretty much sums it up:d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 she has done v.little during the time together to prove her entrepeneurial skills. True but she did have his child didn't she? Goes beyond the call of duty does that if you ask me. Fair point with the rest of your post though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra_aero Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 completely agree with far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
far Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Had it been V Beckham, I would say, ok she 'could' be entitled to half as she has earned a considerable amount on her own depsite being with her partner (little next to Mr D Beckham, but at least she has done/achieved something). For the record, I can't stand V Beckham . Great point there - and the 'beckams' are actually a brand in their own right so I agree with this entirely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burna Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 He should have told her to hop it ages ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 But the daughter is used to travelling first class - and lets face it she'd get stick is she didn't travel privately. As far as I know the settlement is always based on what you are accustomed to, so both of them are used to living that live so therefore they need to continue that. I think it's ridiculous that men think they can marry someone, expect them to give up everything to suit them, then when it comes to divorce expect them to go back to where they were. Chances are the woman was well out of their league when big money is involved so IMO if him having money is no different to her looks. (Him her used generically not specific to these 2) Ah, but women (or more specifically a lower income partner, which can of course be either sex) can marry into money, not necessarily giving up anything at all or bringing anything ether, live the Life of Reilly for as long as it suits them, then decide to get a divorce and still take half of everything and some of everything that might be to come in the future. Child maintenance for children that were actually by the married couple I can live with, as I can enough to support a "reasonable" standard of living, but I don't buy this "keeping with what you are used to" thing for a second. IMHO it should be based on what you had before you got married, or what you contributed to the marriage - not what you have got used to by living off the main earner. I can see that some people might give up a career to get married and have children but in that instance the settlement should be based on the career that was given up. If you give up working at Burger King to marry a footballer then when you divorce you get Burger King money (index linked of course). If Burger King was the extent of your ambitions, then that's all you deserve. That's like saving up and buying an Enzo, then when you find you can't afford to run it writing a letter to Mr. Ferrari demanding that he finances your car for evermore simply because you have "got used to" driving it. What makes it even worse is that since there is no culpability in English divorce law, the person who is "at fault" is automatically just as entitled to a "fair" settlement as the person who got screwed (or didn't as the case may be ). If you are chairman of a company, flying around in Lear Jets and spending £10,000 a month on clothes and watches and you decide that the grass is in fact greener somewhere else then so be it - off you jolly well go, but don't expect to be able to have your cake and eat it. However, if you are living it up married to a rich partner and you decide to try it on with the gardener you still get to take a hefty income away with you. Where's the fairness in that? It makes me laugh the the Government is suppoed to be promoting Family Values, and yet can't see that the laws make marriage an excellent fast-track to making a mint. We're also breeding an entire generation that knows that the easiest way to get minted is to tart yourself up, whore yourself out and land yourself a rapper or a footballer. Whether you actually stay with them is, of course, entirely up to you, since you come out with a cool settlement anyway. Unfortunately, unless you presonally see it as otherwise (which has no legal bearing on anything, of course), marriage is nowadays little more than a legal document which signs half of your stuff away. How about instead having a legal document that says if you divorce you get sweet FA? Then let's see who gets frightened of commitment. Or conversely, when you get hitched you would know exactly why they wanted to be with you. Grrrr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 He should have told her to hop it ages ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 But the daughter is used to travelling first class - and lets face it she'd get stick is she didn't travel privately Exactly, surely it's in both of their interests (Paul's and Heather's) to travel like that - she's Paul McCartney's daughter for heaven's sakes, how much attention will that attract? I agree with Col, Heather doesn't really think at all before she speaks so I think that's her downfall, along with the tabloids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra_aero Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I can see that some people might give up a career to get married and have children but in that instance the settlement should be based on the career that was given up. If you give up working at Burger King to marry a footballer then when you divorce you get Burger King money (index linked of course). If Burger King was the extent of your ambitions, then that's all you deserve. That's like saving up and buying an Enzo, then when you find you can't afford to run it writing a letter to Mr. Ferrari demanding that he finances your car for evermore simply because you have "got used to" driving it. Thats a great quote - I agree entirely. And Burna that quote signature is hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
far Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Exactly, surely it's in both of their interests (Paul's and Heather's) to travel like that - she's Paul McCartney's daughter for heaven's sakes, how much attention will that attract? So if I put her in a room with 30 other kids you would be able to pick her out? I know I wouldnt and nor would most of the general public And even in first class there are members of the general public, it doesnt mean she has exclusivity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wallicechick Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Just read through the judgement released by LJ Bennett, and i think comments were abit harsh, basically calling her a liar. However, Bennett did recognise her independant wealth before her cohabitation, and he also recognised her hours of charitable work which she spend alot of her time and effort devoted to, which i think he did take into consideration. It does seem that Heather Mills BS'd about alot of her property and money, and could not produce any factual evidence to support the fact that she had lost anything through her marriage to Sir Paul, which is why it was almost impossible for Bennett to say exactly how much she was entitled too. She got alot more than she had to start with, especially considering the small amount of work she actually did to get to where she was. If it wasnt for Sir Paul then she would still be a very unrecognised person. I can see why she did not want this judgement published, as LJ Bennett took a disliking to her and it voiced it in very clear terms. From reading the judgement it certainly does not protray her in a posotive light, but in no way will it affect her daughter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra_aero Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 So if I put her in a room with 30 other kids you would be able to pick her out? I know I wouldnt and nor would most of the general public Agree once again far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.