Shocking News
I am shocked, totally shocked, that Heather Mills has (allegedly) charged Paul McCartney with abuse. Okay, so this was as predictable as the fact that this couple would divorce quicker than two shakes of a lamb's tail. I wonder how much he will end up paying to get rid of, I mean, to compensate this woman for being married to him for four whole years?
posted by Helen at 5:14 PM
43 Comments:
I don't get it. Why was this predictable?
Because they're celebrities. Celebrity marriages never work out because each partner is in love with someone other than their spouse - themself.
Dweeb,
I couldn't have said it better myself, celebrities are typically more narcissistic than the rest of the population and compromise and putting other's needs ahead of one's own are not their strongest traits.
Not only was this predictable but I predicted it. Heather was a loose screw from the gitgo, I read the first few chapters of that crazy book she published. She was a very calculating cooking, she refused to sign a prenup which means she had an eye on a very big payday. I guess half of the millions wasn't enough for this schemer, she wants even more.
(I'm going to have to find that message board entry regarding Ms. Mills I made from a few years back)
What never? Well, hardly ever.
everyone here said she was manipulative.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2414575,00.html
As the couple appear to be heading for the most public divorce in recent legal history, lawyers for Sir Paul are reported to be studying the book, Life Balance, in which she writes: “As a working wife and mother I have learnt that setting the alarm 30 minutes earlier each morning can make all the difference. It allows me a little bit of personal space before the day begins.
“I organise everything for breakfast the night before so that I can get it ready without a panic and we can eat together as a family.”
In the court papers her legal team claims: “The Petitioner [Sir Paul] refused to allow the Respondent [Lady McCartney] to get out of bed in the morning even though she would wake up early and wish to use the time for essential physiotherapy for her leg and to attend to e-mails and administrative tasks before the staff arrived or their child woke up.”
But in an interview with Michael Parkinson in 2003, she praises her husband for “bringing me breakfast in bed every morning, no matter how he feels. And I do the dinner, so we’ve got that agreement. It’s thoughtfulness
***
she has consistently lied about her past before, she was a prostitute, she alleged that she was kidnapped for 3 days
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/19/nmacca19.xml
This is ugly but maybe this will bring to light how dangerous women that make false claims are - especially when they involve physical or sexual abuse. It should be treated as seriously as conspiring to illegally kidnap and imprison someone - because that's what it is.
Think about it - if a woman makes a false claim about a man alleging physical or sexual abuse she is conspiring to have him falsely imprisoned. (Not to mention what she and any co-conspirators hope to steal financially.) Imagine if you had a man that was conspiring to kidnap a woman and hold her imprisoned for a number of years - that's exactly what a woman making false claims is doing, only she is using the government (and anyone else convinced by her false claims) as a weapon.
The light treatment of this kind of crap has to end. These are dangerously violent people committing serious torts and felonies, not excuseable hijinks from jilted women acting out their "feelings." (And yes - violent. If you try to get the government to be your hitman using lies you are just committing a violent assault at a distance, even if you're too cowardly to get your own hands dirty.)
helen-
I couldn't have said it better myself, celebrities are typically more narcissistic than the rest of the population and compromise and putting other's needs ahead of one's own are not their strongest traits.
That's the case with all criminals and frauds, not just celebrity criminals and frauds. The person stealing from you is putting their selfish needs ahead of yours - and violating your rights. Even if their goal is just to impoverish you and make themselves look good, like stealing from you and giving your money to charity.
This can be used in connection with collectivism and ethno-supremacy as well. For example the Nazis claiming they had to imprison and sterilize innocent gypsy men for the "safety" of society, specifically women and children. (Note: The Nazis were master manipulators - they were using the "for the children" crap decades before emotional manipulators use it now.) Which was garbage, of course - they just wanted to abuse and exterminate people that they didn't like. (Of course if the gypsies had any money they would have gladly stolen that too.)
tmink--at least he's still an Englishman :)
TMink said...
What never? Well, hardly ever.
Hey tabitharuth, thanks for noticing!
So give three cheers and one cheer more for the Beatle chap who will get what for.
Sorry, best I could do before coffee!
Trey
Send me a postcard, drop me a line
stating point of view
indicate precisely what you mean to say
yours sincerely wasting away
Give me your answer fill in a form
mine forever more
Will you still need me
Will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four
(forgive me but I can't resist)
She's just trying to get a leg up in the divorce proceedings.
Poor linda must be spinning in her grave. I hate to think that Paul McCartney the man I listened to since I was in footsie pajamas is capable of being such a jerk, but who knows? It's even worse to think that Heather Mills would fabricate allegations just to get a bigger piece of Paul's billion dollar pie, 50 million wouldn't be enough for 4 years "work".
I think it's weird to have an opinion on this alleged abuse either way.
Why do you assume she's lying?
"Why do you assume she's lying?"
Because she's spent a lifetime lying. Most recently we hear that in 1998, she impersonated a journalist with whom she shares a name. That fascinating story can be read here.
Hmmm...
Paul McCartney has a fantastic marriage to one woman for thirty years, during which there are no allegations of abuse.
Paul tells Heather she doesn't have to sign a pre-nup as it isn't romantic (per an interview with Heather).
I'm sick for Paul. I really am.
How ironic. When Paul married Linda I was too young to be in the running (12 years old). When Paul married Heather I was already spoken for and he married a woman 12 years my junior.
Somehow I missed out both ways.
I don't believe for a minute Paul is an abuser. I think he was lonely and still mourning. There is a reason his kids don't like this woman.
My impression: Linda was all about Paul. Heather is all about Heather.
"This is ugly but maybe this will bring to light how dangerous women that make false claims are..."
Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team, and especially Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans.
I hope this woman gets what's coming to her: jail time. Furthermore, I hope her lawyers are censured for humoring and participating in this bid for pay day. The fact that neither of these is likely to happen just goes to show how distorted our legal system has become.
Turing word: slvut
He should have married a nice girl...like me!
I know states vary, and I don't know English law...but if it's like my state, divorcing spouses only have claim on each other's earnings and capital accumulation during the period of the marriage.
So Sir Paul's vast holdings before the wedding day won't be carved up. Just his vast earnings since they married.
Does anyone know enough about English law to confirm or contradict this?
Why should this bitch get half of his lifetime earnings that had nothing to do with her?
Also, I don't think one should be permitted to claim abuse or child abuse in divorce proceedings if one has never called the police and brought charges in immediate response to a situation. No police report? Never happened, then.
Rowena wrote: "No police report? Never happened, then."
Common sense recommendation, I bet it never happens. Some family attorneys make their living based on false accusations. Sara Evans anyone? Someone is making false accusations there. Sadly, I cannot imagine this logical and sensible recommendation getting any traction.
Trey
Rowena,
You must live in a commuinty property state. Other states, especially back east and in the south, are different. Community property is a concept we in the western states got from Spanish law - I think it goes back to Roman law. The theory was that a married couple had basically formed a corporation. Under common law the wife was more like an employee. The basic concept in common law historically was that the married cpuple's property belonged to the man's family rahter than to the man as an individual, so a divorce between individuals didn't involve that property. Historically this made sense because the property in question was land, and it had belonged to the family from before the wedding. That changed over a period of a century or so, but not in the direction of community property. Mechanisms such as alimony treat the ex-wife as a permanent dependent of the man, and huge, uneven divorce settlements look like payment for services rendered, or some kind of severence package, rather than simple, sensible division of property jointly acquired.
Oh dear Helen, how on earth can you be "shocked, totally shocked" by these accusations? Have you been living on the planet Zog for the last thirty years?
These accusations are (yawn!) well-scripted 100% bog standard fare for gold-digging women trying to take a man for everything she can prise out of him during divorce proceedings. And anyone who has taken even a passing interest in the state of the divorce industry in recent years knows it.
These women consult a lawyer who fills them in on the rules of the game, and as sure as night follows day out come the allegations of abuse. They don't have to be true, they don't have to be proved, and they do not entail any cost for the woman. So as long as she is unscrupulous enough to place her material gain ahead of the truth, fairness and any suffering she inflicts on others, she can just go right ahead, fully backed by her lawyers who also grab a big slice of ill-gotten loot out of the proceedings. It's a scam, a farce and a disgrace.
Wake up Helen! And the rest of you too!
Why do you assume she's lying?
The empirical evidence of his previous marriage.
If Paul was talked out of a pre nup then the fault is his.
"He should have married a nice girl...like me!"
I am always amazed at some men, no matter how often they were warned, choose dangerous women to marry. There are plenty of nice girls that would have appreciated this man, but he enthusiastically fell for the cunning lady who wormed herself into his good graces.
"If Paul was talked out of a pre nup then the fault is his."
Pre-nups hold no legal weight in the UK, therefore this is a moot point.
Cham,
It's the man's version of the "bad boy syndrome". How many girls have broken their fathers' hearts by marrying some loser? This one is especially sad because you would have hoped that he was old enough to know better.
Then why did Heather put up such a stink about it?
Paul Parmenter,
Yes, many of us here, myself included, know the allegations of abuse can be a scam, farce or a disgrace, hence the sarcasm in my post.
"why do you assume she's lying?"
I assume she's lying because almost every man I know, including me, has had these allegations thrown in their face. It doesn't even have to be a marriage breaking up, it could be ex girlfriends calling friends (or even police), making up stories, etc. One guy I know had his ex call him to pick up his things, then immediately called the police telling them he was stalking her and coming over and could they come get rid of him.
It's sad because there really are women in trouble, but the .. scorned .. ones have created an environment where my first instinct is to assume the woman is lying. Especially about someone like Paul! ;)
It doesn't even have to be an ex or someone they know. I've met a number of women who will make up stories about abuse, rapes, etc. in order to stir up those protective feelings in a male that they are pursuing.
Todays news http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/ap_on_re_us/marine_slain has a sad example of the aftermath of this.
Dear Paul Parmenter
You should get a DVD of Casablanca. Paul Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on (at Rick's Cafe Americain...". Its not an exact quote, but close enough. Excellent post, Dr. Helen.
first pre nups are not legal or they are looked upon with scorn, and there is something wrong with mill in my opinion, she is living in a total fantasy world thats bad enough.
but she has diana's lawyers, the ones who claimed charles abused diana just to get her £17 million
**.
http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3569775
Mills, whose move echoes that of the late Diana, Princess of Wales when she was interviewed by Martin Bashir in 1995, will face intense one-on-one questioning from either American talk-show host Larry King or British anchorman Sir Trevor McDonald. ***
and
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/celeb//articles/1023mills-CR.html
Heather Mills has reportedly claimed Sir Paul McCartney used to hit his first wife Linda.
The ex-model intends to ask the former Beatles' staff to testify in court that he was violent to her during their marriage, and claims they saw him treat Linda the same way.
A source told Britain's Mail on Sunday newspaper: "She told me that he did to Linda what he did to her that Linda had also suffered abuse. She told me that staff of Paul's told her that Linda had also suffered abuse."**
even heathers father says she is a liar..
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mills%20father%20heather%20is%20a%20liar_1011509
LATEST: HEATHER MILLS' sensational claims against estranged husband SIR PAUL MCCARTNEY have been rubbished by her own father, who openly brands her a "liar". Ex-paratrooper MARK MILLS, 64, who has not spoken to his daughter in three years, is furious at her cries of abuse against the former BEATLE - the same claims Heather makes against him in her autobiography, OUT ON A LIMB. Mr Mills rages, "She can't tell fact from fiction. She wasn't telling the truth in the past about me hitting her. That was all lies. "They were false allegations about me and she's doing the same thing now to him. "The difference is that I can't defend myself whereas MCCartney can. I hope he really goes to town. Heather is mad. She's doing it for the money." He adds, "I don't want to know her at the moment - although one day I hope we might be reconciled. She's my daughter but I can't believe what she is doing."***
I assume she's lying because almost every man I know, including me, has had these allegations thrown in their face.
Yeah, you might want to take a course on logic. That makes zero sense. Because women a, b, c, d, and e lied about men a1, b2, c3, d4, and e4, does not mean woman f lied about man f4.
Yeah, you might want to take a course on logic. That makes zero sense. Because women a, b, c, d, and e lied about men a1, b2, c3, d4, and e4, does not mean woman f lied about man f4.
It's not always about logic - logic deals in certainties, but there are also probabilities, and while cases a,b,c,d, and e don't make case f a certainty, that's still the way the smart money will bet.
I guess everyone forgets what a terrible influence the beatles were for all of the young women of America during the So-Called "British Invasion" of the 1960's. They toured the country seducing lust-crazed young women into all sorts of compromising activities, then they began the process of bringing drugs and eastern mysticism into the mainstream. I'm not at all surprised that this diaboloical old man seduced and tormented this unfortunate young woman. He probably didn't have her sign a pre-nup because he believed he'd be able to maintain his svengali-like hold on her indefinitely, and that with his retinue of guards and followers, she'd know no one would believe her anyways.
I'm glad this unfortunate woman found this strength to leave this vile old man. Don't you people realize that women simply don't like about this sort of thing? Don't help this wicked man by attacking the victim
Mystifying Supermike, I drank another cup of coffee and still cannot decipher the amount of sarcasm in your post. I think if I switched to scotch (too early) I would come to believe that you are dead earnest.
Trey
"Yeah, you might want to take a course on logic. That makes zero sense. Because women a, b, c, d, and e lied about men a1, b2, c3, d4, and e4, does not mean woman f lied about man f4."
So what?
We're talking about whether we believe her, we're not on a jury deciding if she's guilty. We're not Vulcans.
Maybe you can say I'm bitter, but I've seen too many men's lives either destroyed by liars, or nearly ruined, to take these kinds of accusations on face value. Just like many women automatically assume it's the man who's guilty of every horrible thing that is reported. I'm sure you don't lecture them.
Ronin1516 said: Well, isnt Heather Mills, essentially, what Brits call a "tart"? She suckered pail into marrying her, and now, he is in the fight of his life. Serves him right for thinking with the smaller head betwixt his legs.
When did naivety become something deserving of punishment?
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
kiss情網線上免費a片kiss168成人電影院免費視訊聊天 aio強姦ut聊天室聊天室豆豆聊天室微風成人區免費視訊聊天18成人交友哈啦聊天室線上aaa片免費看尋夢園聊天室寶貝視訊台北視訊視訊聊天室成人聊天室ut男同志聊天室聊天室尋夢園080聊天室豆豆聊天室男同志聊天室0800a片網080苗栗人聊天室080苗栗人聊天室女同志聊天室sex女優王國080中部人聊天室ut
Post a Comment
<< Home