thesultanofsheight Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 £24m - I wonder how much that works out per shag? Not bad for a ugly mental bird with one leg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgy Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 IMHO she's a gold digging b#*$h She wanted £125M and got £24.3M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I'm no fan of McScary but I doubt she married with this in mind, unlike that other woman, the one who used to be 'lady of the Nunnery'. Money is shit and it attracts shit too - good luck to them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I'm no fan of McScary but I doubt she married with this in mind You mean she married a multi millionaire 25 years older than herself but divorcing and cashing in on his millions never once crossed her mind? Oh please. He deserves all he gets but really she's a gold digging old slag you will spend the next 20 years claiming she's being percecuted because she was married to a Beatle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 From the BBC report: Following the ruling, Ms Mills will receive £14m for herself and £2.5m to buy a house in London. Sir Paul will pay for Beatrice's nanny and school fees, and give the four-year-old £35,000 a year. The judge awarded a lump sum of £16.5m and assets of £7.8m. The settlement equated to £17,000 for every day of the couple's marriage. Nice work if you can get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 give the four-year-old £35,000 a year Parents beware, doubtless pocket money claims will be rising once this filters down to the playgrounds........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 No Wonder She Didn't Want It Published! The High Court judge who ruled in the Mills-McCartney divorce battle has accused Heather Mills of being "less than candid" in her evidence to the court. In his full judgment, published today after Ms Mills lost a legal challenge to keep it secret, Mr Justice Bennett said that he also felt bound to reject Ms Mills's claim that she was independently wealthy by the time she met the former Beatle in 1999. Ms Mills was yesterday awarded a total of £24.3 million by the judge, although she had claimed £125 million. "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," the judge wrote. "Overall she was a less than impressive witness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 McScarry Threw Water Over Paul's Lawyer And the Manx reaction to that bombshell - I'm too tired of the grimly unhinged Ms Mills to even comment on her behaviour or the outcome. But Fiona Shackleton looks absolutely smoking hot. What a fox. Liz, Douglas, Isle of Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Posterity will surely record Ms Mills great contribution to the desirability of a pre nup. For any multi millionaires planning to marry deranged geordie slappers, a vist to http://www.pre-nuptial-agreement.co.uk might not be a bad thing. Bet old dead eyes wishes he had one........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The settlement equated to £17,000 for every day of the couple's marriage. Nice work if you can get it Now he's a batchelor again what's stopping you from proposing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Nice work if you can get it? Its probably a lot more than the average one legged prostitute earns in a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Judgement here Some funny points in that lot. A nutter of the highest order! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 It is based on a number of matters. 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 p.a. (including private and helicopter flights of £185,000), £125,000 p.a. for her clothes, £30,000 p.a. for equestrian activities (she no longer rides), £39,000 p.a. for wine (she does not drink alcohol), £43,000 p.a. for a driver, £20,000 p.a. for a carer, and professional fees of £190,000 p.a. All these items Mr Mostyn submits are theoretically recognised heads of expenditure but “extraordinarily exaggerated”. Heather... One of the largest items in the wife’s budget is security in the sum of £367,000 for the wife and £175,000 for Beatrice i.e. a total of £542,000. She wants round the clock security including bodyguards for herself and Beatrice. Paul... In 2005 spent £125,908 and £36,264 on security in the UK and the USA respectively. There were never any bodyguards at Peasmarsh. The general farm employees kept a look-out for anything suspicious. There was virtually no security at Cavendish Avenue. At the office complex in New York there would be one guard on the door given the location of the office in mid-town Manhattan. There was an off duty police officer who provided night cover when I was at Long island, and on trips to and from the airport. There was no permanent close protection during this period unless I was on tour or attending high profile events. This was how I had lived with my first wife and our four children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Someone's got whacked there: 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. During her cross-examination she asserted for the first time that in addition to property assets she had £2m-£3m in the bank. No mention of such assets was made in her affidavit. There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion. During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements, which she said she thought she had in Brighton, to verify this claim. No bank statements were ever produced. 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”. 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 I do not accept the wife’s case that the property in Heather Road in Beverly Hills was purchased for her. The husband’s explanation for putting it into Mr Whalley’s name is the more credible, namely to disguise the fact that the husband had bought it. He told me that when a star buys a house in Beverley Hills it goes onto a map showing where the stars live. The husband did not want unwelcome and unwanted visits. The husband and wife, the husband accepted, did call it “Heather House” because it was in Heather Road just as they called Cavendish Avenue “Cavendish”. I saw a DVD in which the wife could be seen in the property saying that “Heather House” was “my house” in rather a jocular way (apparently without contradiction by the husband) but that was, I find, wishful thinking on her part. 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. Not a fan of manx stamps then: Furthermore, the wife asserted in her cross-examination of the husband that some 30 paintings done by the husband, which are hanging in Angel’s Rest, were given to her by the husband. The husband strongly disagreed. The husband told me that when the wife bought Angel’s Rest she had nothing to hang on the walls and so he lent her 30 of his own paintings. He told me they were his, that he may leave them in trust for Beatrice and his other children, and that he wants them back save for the flower photographs and the Isle of Man stamp design, both given to the wife by the husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manx-minx Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Paul & Heather McCartney 24.3 million ! bet she is not hopping mad anymore ! just footloose & fancy free, she can now go for the Golden boot Award? It's a very sad world we live in when Sir Paul McCartney and his wife are facing divorce and all anyone seems to want to do is make jokes about her false leg. Personally, I think it's prosthetic. News reports have confirmed that Paul McCartney has separated from his wife Heather Mills-McCartney. Mrs Mills-McCartney is said to be distraught over the split. "He has been my crutch for so long"! She said in an earlier briefing, "I have no idea why this has happened, I'm really stumped" "She's running around in circles", according to a close friend, "she will need all the support she can get. It's not like it's easy to walk out on a relationship like this" After his break up with Heather, Paul was asked if he would ever consider going down on one knee again. Paul said he would prefer it if we called her Heather. It is not known whether a pre-nuptial agreement was signed prior to the marriage. Paul McCartney is one of the richest men in the world, and if An agreement has been signed it is believed that she won't have a leg to stand on. Rumours abound over the split which have suggested that infidelity may have been the cause. "She's terrible" a source stated, "always trying to get her leg over". Another source has suggested that her battle with alcoholism was the cause. "Macca couldn't handle it anymore" a friend said, "he would get home at night and find her legless" Many have attributed this to a problem which started with the present that Paul bought her prior to the wedding. He gave her a new prosthetic leg for Christmas but that was just a stocking-filler. A miner in Africa has an accident and loses a leg. He says to his mate "I'm f---ed, who will want a one legged gold digger?" His mate says "try Paul McCartney" Finally a poem by Sir Paul McCartney: I lay upon a grassy bank My hands were all a quiver I slowly removed her suspender belt and her leg fell in the river These jokes are funny but lets spare a thought for Paul please. Now she has left him, he's going to struggle to find another woman who can fill her shoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.