Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Heather Mills wins £24.3m divorce settlement

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm pretty good, only just back myself after I think a year. You good MR?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it quite surprising that she just got given nearly £25 million, and still wont shut up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well fundamental to the case was the idea that the marriage aquest should be shared (the idea of splitting everything) shouldn't apply here - from the judge's final ruling you can see the different attitudes -

    McCartney's position
    "We submit that fundamentally this is a straightforward case. Because of H's enormous pre-marital wealth and because of the brief duration of this marriage W's claim should be determined by reference to the principle of need alone. This is not a case where the principle of sharing of the 'marital acquest' is engaged at all. Nor is it a case where the principle of compensation will arise. W's needs fall to be fairly assessed, not predominantly by reference to the standard of living during the marriage. W's award should be reduced to reflect her post-separation misconduct. That misconduct is based on three distinct episodes as explained in our Conduct Note."

    Mill's position (as defined by the judge this time)
    The wife's case cannot be so succinctly summarised. By the time of the parties' first meeting in May of 1999 the wife says that she was wealthy and independent with, as she told me in evidence, properties and cash totalling between £2m and £3m. She earned her living as a TV presenter, a model and public speaker. She began to cohabit with the husband from March 2000 which led seamlessly into marriage and thus the relationship lasted 6 years. This is denied by the husband. The wife says that the husband's attitude towards her career was one of constriction such that the opportunities for the development of her career fell away during their relationship. He dictated what she could or could not do. She thus seeks compensation for the loss of her career opportunity in that during their cohabitation and subsequent marriage she forewent a lucrative and successful career. She seeks an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon. She places great weight on the contributions she says she has made to counselling the husband's children by his former marriage and to the husband's professional career. She asserts that his assets are worth in excess of £800m and that she is entitled to share in the 'marital acquest'. Finally, she asserts that throughout their marriage and after their separation the husband behaved in such a way that it would be inequitable to disregard and that his conduct should be reflected in the award.

    He clearly agreed more with the former and frankly I can see why... Although I will say this has clearly been an experience that has left some pretty deep psychological scars, especially for Heather Mills. I think some time far, far away from the public eye will hopefully help.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I think some time far, far away from the public eye will hopefully help.


    The chance of Heather Mills voluntarily stepping away from the limelight is less likely that Nick Griffin announcing his conversion to Islam
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »

    I think some time far, far away from the public eye will hopefully help.
    Help the public yes.
    She has i think proved that she is nothing more than a gold digger ...to ask for a hundred and twenty five million quid of someone elses money cannot be anything else.
    I'm fine fiend thankyou.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They were married- it was her money too.

    Given the short duration of the marriage the usual 50/50 split doesn't count, but that doesn't mean she should walk away with nothing.

    It's odd how everyone is getting their panties in a wad about Mills getting £24m. It's only 1/16th of his £400m wealth, I'm sure he'll survive somehow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I was under the impression that a marriage is a lifelong contract. And so in my opinion, you can't break one aspect of the contract (mutually or otherwise) and expect the rest of the contract to be honoured.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just in case anyone was wondering how one can spend £35,000 a year on a child, the BBC has put together a guide on how to do it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7301423.stm
    Heather Mills says the £35,000 a year she'll get from Sir Paul McCartney to raise their daughter isn't enough. It may seem an absurd amount of money to average parents, but raising a child in more privileged circles can costs big bucks.
    So that makes it ok then!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    They were married- it was her money too.

    Given the short duration of the marriage the usual 50/50 split doesn't count, but that doesn't mean she should walk away with nothing.

    It's odd how everyone is getting their panties in a wad about Mills getting £24m. It's only 1/16th of his £400m wealth, I'm sure he'll survive somehow.

    As i said before, rich-people problems, certainly of this calibre, factor seriously-low-to-non-existent on the list of things to give a fuck about. The real argument was about a settlement figure - more precisely the specific number, not the actual money. When you're arguing over the obscene amounts of money these people have it doesn't make any tangible difference whether you end up with £24m or £240m. She was always going to walk away (a twat who's) disgustingly rich.

    And before any one says it, i think he's a bell-end as well.

    EDIT: And when HM comes out with stupid shit like in KHSS's quote above, it really makes me think a punch in the face might have been a more suitable settlement for her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    They were married- it was her money too.

    .

    No it wasn't her money ...don't you legal people have any morals!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    They were married- it was her money too.

    Given the short duration of the marriage the usual 50/50 split doesn't count, but that doesn't mean she should walk away with nothing.

    It's odd how everyone is getting their panties in a wad about Mills getting £24m. It's only 1/16th of his £400m wealth, I'm sure he'll survive somehow.



    It's not about the fact that she got money off him, it's the fact that she's complaining that 24 million quid, somehow isn't enough money.

    Which makes her a greedy bitch.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's not about the fact that she got money off him, it's the fact that she's complaining that 24 million quid, somehow isn't enough money.

    Which makes her a greedy bitch.

    Exactly, that quote "my daughter has to travel b-class while her father travels a-class", most children are lucky they even get to travel on a plane ya greedy wee cunt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That 35k is on top of private school fees and childcare up to 24k a year! How she's hardly not going to get the best of everything from that, plus her mum is mega rich now. :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Exactly, that quote "my daughter has to travel b-class while her father travels a-class", most children are lucky they even get to travel on a plane ya greedy wee cunt.

    I think we need to set up a charity appeal for her and her kid. I mean, that's just not good enough. Society needs to take a long hard look at itself when 4-year-old kids are only travelling B-Class.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote: »
    flying economy is obviously so much worse

    Have you ever flown Ryanair :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    Have you ever flown Ryanair :yeees:

    Yes, and come to think of it I did feel like my human rights were being infringed upon :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    It's not about the fact that she got money off him, it's the fact that she's complaining that 24 million quid, somehow isn't enough money.

    Which makes her a greedy bitch.

    Whereas he only offering 24m from a pot of 300 makes him...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He only offered 15m....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whereas he only offering 24m from a pot of 300 makes him...?
    It shouldn't realy matter how much he has ...he earned it over a period of many years ...she married him not HIS money. Turns out she didn't actualy give much to charity and didn't earn loads of money herself ...according to her tax returns.
    He should have shoved her over a cliff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It shouldn't realy matter how much he has ...he earned it over a period of many years ...she married him not HIS money. Turns out she didn't actualy give much to charity and didn't earn loads of money herself ...according to her tax returns.
    He should have shoved her over a cliff.

    All completely irrelevant Mr Roll.

    When you marry you make certain promises, "all that I am.. all that I have" etc.

    From the moment they married it was technically also her money.

    Also, when branding someone as "greedy" for wanting more than £24m, it matters a great deal how much the other party ends up with. It seems here that people are judging the outcome of a legal case on the basis of which person they like best.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my opinion:

    lady mucca is taking the good sir paul for a ride!!

    men get battered in divorce, its fact, the man doesnt deserve what happened to him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I was under the impression that a marriage is a lifelong contract. And so in my opinion, you can't break one aspect of the contract (mutually or otherwise) and expect the rest of the contract to be honoured.

    Remind me again, who filed for divorce?

    Peoople are judging this based on the fact that they don't like Mills. How good or bad a person she is is completely irrelevant. The judge really describes her as a 'Walter Mitty' character (people always forget to quote the paragraphs where he was nice about her), but that is irrelevant too.

    He married her and fathered her child. He should pay for his former wife's upkeep and his child's upkeep. If she was marrying him for his money then that's his own lookout.

    £35,000 per year for a child of a Beatle really isn't that much at all. I somehow doubt that Stella and his other children lived on £35,000 a year, so why should Beatrice?

    I really don't think that an offer of 1/16th of his wealth is particularly onerous. I also don't think she was particularly wrong in asking for what she believed to be 1/8th of his wealth- bear in mind her demand for £125m was based on estimated wealth of £800m.

    People are arguing about the figures when they should be arguing about the percentages. If anything, McCartney has kept a greater proportion of his wealth than he would have if he was a binman. Nobody can say he's been hard done to, £24m to him is loose change. He'll earn that in a few months when he sells his back catalogue on iTunes.

    Out of interest, why doesn't he "deserve what happened to him"? Because Heather Mills is perceived by the media to be a moneygrabber? Why is that relevant?

    And, even more to the point, are you sayinhg he should he get out of paying for his child's upkeep because of who the mother is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All completely irrelevant Mr Roll.

    When you marry you make certain promises, "all that I am.. all that I have" etc.

    From the moment they married it was technically also her money.

    Also, when branding someone as "greedy" for wanting more than £24m, it matters a great deal how much the other party ends up with. It seems here that people are judging the outcome of a legal case on the basis of which person they like best.
    I can't stand either of them! But i think her ranting showed the world exactly what she was and what she was after.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A party in a particularly acrimonious divorce?

    I'll ask again: who filed for divorce?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems here that people are judging the outcome of a legal case on the basis of which person they like best.

    Certainly who I dislike the least (and it was hard choice whether Macca is the bigger cunt or his ex)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But i think her ranting showed the world exactly what she was and what she was after.

    So?

    He wanted to grab as much money for himself too... only difference is who ended up with over £250m.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So?

    He wanted to grab as much money for himself too... only difference is who ended up with over £250m.

    I know what your saying MOK ...i just can't stand either of them. Then to realy annoy me ...the old git is dumb enough to be taken in by a blow job nearly costing him HIS ....HIS ....fortune. HIS ...cos thats how my mind works.
    And this bit ....'When you marry you make certain promises, "all that I am.. all that I have" etc'.
    ...doesn't realy come into it when 'through sickness and in health blah blah ...until death us do part' ....has all just been chucked out the window.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    People are arguing about the figures when they should be arguing about the percentages. If anything, McCartney has kept a greater proportion of his wealth than he would have if he was a binman. Nobody can say he's been hard done to, £24m to him is loose change. He'll earn that in a few months when he sells his back catalogue on iTunes.
    Possibly not the most relevant point here, but I question this assumption. EMI, the record label that The Beatles were signed to, has wanted to allow online downloads of their records for years. However, there's been a long legal battle, as the rights are split so many ways. EMI owns some of them, BMG bought others years ago before the merger with Sony, Michael Jackson owns a percentage of them... none of them have really been able to agree on this over the years. There are rumours going about that they'll be online soon, (or at least according to McCartney, they will) but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Besides, when you factor in the massive influence of file-sharing, (or theft, as I prefer to call it) there's even less money in it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once i'm going to be honest ...Kermit and MOK are right. Whats realy realy getting my goat is the fact that i've allowed celebrity news ...celebrity people ...to get me riled! I just don't do the celebrity thing ...ever ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I feel the same, I hate the whole sorry thing. Let them have their bitter spat in private and save the money for their daughter's therapy bills when she's older.

    If you need cheering up, though, the judgment of this case is absolutely hilarious.

    Rolly, you'll be buying Hello! and talking about Sienna Miller's haircut next :thumb:
Sign In or Register to comment.