She loves me yeah, yeah, er, no!
March 18, 2008 5:55 AM Subscribe
Sooooo... Macca finds himself £24m ($50m) worse off after his acrimonious divorce from strong woman / mentalist* Heather Mills. Mills also loses her appeal against keeping the text of the ruling private (read it here - PDF), maybe because of her 10 minute diatribe on the steps of the court yesterday, or because of her numerous TV appearances, but probably not because she threw a glass of water over Macca's lawyer, er, alledgedly. But the main point, of course (and thank you Dallas), was - what the heck was she wearing?
(*delete as approporiate depending upon your POV)
(*delete as approporiate depending upon your POV)
The "nutter" tag is spot-on. Talk about attention-whoring.
Is it so wrong that my very first reaction to this FPP was just a slight grating meh at the exuberant repeated use of "Macca" instead of the man's actual name? Is there a campaign afoot and I missed the memo? Google seems to not be supporting the effort. But, I can admit being American and therefore not as cool when it comes to Beatle-lore.
posted by pineapple at 6:06 AM on March 18, 2008
Is it so wrong that my very first reaction to this FPP was just a slight grating meh at the exuberant repeated use of "Macca" instead of the man's actual name? Is there a campaign afoot and I missed the memo? Google seems to not be supporting the effort. But, I can admit being American and therefore not as cool when it comes to Beatle-lore.
posted by pineapple at 6:06 AM on March 18, 2008
The guy's got $800 000 000, it's not like this cost him an arm and a leg.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:09 AM on March 18, 2008 [6 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:09 AM on March 18, 2008 [6 favorites]
Sorry pineapple, it's an affectionate, UK-centric nick-name... Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, takes so long to type!
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:13 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:13 AM on March 18, 2008
The guy's got $800 000 000, it's not like this cost him an arm and a leg.
Wait, there's a joke in there somewhere...
posted by From Bklyn at 6:16 AM on March 18, 2008
Wait, there's a joke in there somewhere...
posted by From Bklyn at 6:16 AM on March 18, 2008
So some celeb finally wears a garment that looks like something in my closet, and it's ALL WRONG? (Plus, I had it first.) (Plus I made it myself.)
posted by nax at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by nax at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
it's an affectionate, UK-centric nick-name
Figured as much. I told you, I'm just not cool, is the problem.
Reading the judgment is making me mental, in turns. He's only going to provide $70,000 per year in child support for Beatrice, and only provide security for Heather and the child for two years? Very chintzy, Paul. I realize that's on top of school fees and the nanny and such, but that does seem paltry for the child, considering his worth.
Then, I read that she actually argued that "she seeks an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon." I ain't sayin she a gold digger, but she ain't messin with no broke Beatle.
Do they not do prenuptial agreements in England?
posted by pineapple at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Figured as much. I told you, I'm just not cool, is the problem.
Reading the judgment is making me mental, in turns. He's only going to provide $70,000 per year in child support for Beatrice, and only provide security for Heather and the child for two years? Very chintzy, Paul. I realize that's on top of school fees and the nanny and such, but that does seem paltry for the child, considering his worth.
Then, I read that she actually argued that "she seeks an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon." I ain't sayin she a gold digger, but she ain't messin with no broke Beatle.
Do they not do prenuptial agreements in England?
posted by pineapple at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
an award commensurate with being the wife of, and the mother of the child of, an icon
I hereby award Heather Mills 64x64 true-color bytes.
posted by DU at 6:27 AM on March 18, 2008 [8 favorites]
I hereby award Heather Mills 64x64 true-color bytes.
posted by DU at 6:27 AM on March 18, 2008 [8 favorites]
The zoot suit is awesome. It looks like she's trying to become a super-villain. She shoulda froze the court with a freeze ray.
posted by fleetmouse at 6:31 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by fleetmouse at 6:31 AM on March 18, 2008
Do they not do prenuptial agreements in England?
They're apparently not enforceable there?
posted by jamesonandwater at 6:31 AM on March 18, 2008
They're apparently not enforceable there?
posted by jamesonandwater at 6:31 AM on March 18, 2008
I have the inside scoop on all this. The "divorce settlement" is just a convenient smokescreen: what's really going on is that the judge in the case is a music fan who finally grabbed the opportunity to fine McCartney 50 million for writing Silly Love Songs. Or Ebony and Ivory. Anyway, one of those.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:36 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:36 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
Ms. Mills could really teach Ms. Dupré a thing or two.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:36 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:36 AM on March 18, 2008
Reading the judgment is making me mental, in turns. He's only going to provide $70,000 per year in child support for Beatrice, and only provide security for Heather and the child for two years? Very chintzy, Paul. I realize that's on top of school fees and the nanny and such, but that does seem paltry for the child, considering his worth.
Huh?! I don't see how $70k/year + other benefits can be called chintzy under any circumstances, even given his vast wealth. Not unless he wants his kid to turn into another Paris Hilton. As long as he provides for her in his will I'd say thats a princely sum to support a child.
posted by Reverend John at 6:37 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Huh?! I don't see how $70k/year + other benefits can be called chintzy under any circumstances, even given his vast wealth. Not unless he wants his kid to turn into another Paris Hilton. As long as he provides for her in his will I'd say thats a princely sum to support a child.
posted by Reverend John at 6:37 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
I thought she was dressed as a court jester.
Which would seem appropriate.
The Sun actually has a pretty good 'run-down'. Apparently they've taken to calling her 'Mucca'
posted by Flashman at 6:38 AM on March 18, 2008
Which would seem appropriate.
The Sun actually has a pretty good 'run-down'. Apparently they've taken to calling her 'Mucca'
posted by Flashman at 6:38 AM on March 18, 2008
They broke up when he was 63. Alanis, pay attention: that is how you do irony.
Will you still be sending me a Valentine
Birthday greetings, £24,000,000 divorce settlement...
posted by aihal at 6:42 AM on March 18, 2008 [12 favorites]
Will you still be sending me a Valentine
Birthday greetings, £24,000,000 divorce settlement...
posted by aihal at 6:42 AM on March 18, 2008 [12 favorites]
It's fitting that the mccartney and mills links go to paulmccartney.com and heathermills.org.
posted by three blind mice at 6:45 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by three blind mice at 6:45 AM on March 18, 2008
Macca or as we Americans pronunce it: "Paul"
The jester suit is appropriate wear for a madwoman, I just can't wait 'till she gets older...
The ruling is surreal, I started to read it but my head started to hurt from her claims and antics. Paul was lucky to get out.
posted by djrock3k at 6:47 AM on March 18, 2008
The jester suit is appropriate wear for a madwoman, I just can't wait 'till she gets older...
The ruling is surreal, I started to read it but my head started to hurt from her claims and antics. Paul was lucky to get out.
posted by djrock3k at 6:47 AM on March 18, 2008
I'm genuinely curious why anyone gives a shit.
posted by dobbs at 6:48 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by dobbs at 6:48 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
I'm genuinely curious why anyone gives a shit.
Because as celebrities, their lives are so much better and more interesting and more valid than our own.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:49 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
Because as celebrities, their lives are so much better and more interesting and more valid than our own.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:49 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
She's going to need security for a lot longer than two years.
posted by mecran01 at 6:50 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by mecran01 at 6:50 AM on March 18, 2008
I just realized that "mentalist" doesn't here mean "performs magic acts involving telepathy".
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on March 18, 2008
I have the inside scoop on all this. The "divorce settlement" is just a convenient smokescreen: what's really going on is that the judge in the case is a music fan who finally grabbed the opportunity to fine McCartney 50 million for writing Silly Love Songs. Or Ebony and Ivory. Anyway, one of those.
Nope, it was for "We All Stand Together" - a.k.a. The Frog Chorus
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:56 AM on March 18, 2008
Nope, it was for "We All Stand Together" - a.k.a. The Frog Chorus
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:56 AM on March 18, 2008
I just realized that "mentalist" doesn't here mean "performs magic acts involving telepathy".
Sorry, an Alan Partridge reference. Substitute lunatic, nutter or psycho if in doubt.
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:57 AM on March 18, 2008
Sorry, an Alan Partridge reference. Substitute lunatic, nutter or psycho if in doubt.
posted by the_very_hungry_caterpillar at 6:57 AM on March 18, 2008
It's too bad she won all that money. I thought, with Pauls' powerful lawyet, she didn't have a leg to stand on!
I'll be here all night
posted by Mach5 at 7:00 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'll be here all night
posted by Mach5 at 7:00 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Thank god I have Metafilter to bring me the juicy celeb gossip that no other website or media outlet bothers to cover.
posted by ND¢ at 7:03 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by ND¢ at 7:03 AM on March 18, 2008
Hey Moz and Macca are two totally different things! And that was a youthful indiscretion. And other totally valid reasons that I can't think of right now.
posted by ND¢ at 7:22 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by ND¢ at 7:22 AM on March 18, 2008
(*delete as approporiate depending upon your POV)
I can't hear that lunatic anymore.
wished this thread was deleted.
posted by krautland at 7:28 AM on March 18, 2008
I can't hear that lunatic anymore.
wished this thread was deleted.
posted by krautland at 7:28 AM on March 18, 2008
Well, I'd like to see HIM do the Cha-Cha in an evening gown with only one leg!
posted by briank at 7:29 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by briank at 7:29 AM on March 18, 2008
dobbs writes "I'm genuinely curious why anyone gives a shit."
Because the proposed lifestyle of celebrities is filled of fun, sex, carelessness, beauty, being splendid and succesful with minor effort, being in the center of attention, being loved by many, having parties and occasional reckless behavior, variety of interests but none too deep requiring investment in attention.
It's an ideal life with adult tones. Have you noticed that celebrities are never sick, never poop, rarely fall from heaven or utter but fashionable nonsense ?
Others prefer just to envy their guts, for instance an hard working researcher getting in one year what one dolt gets in 3 days. Which breeds dehumanizing contempt for these walking bags of hydrocarbons, which in turns make them look snotty and hateful. Yet it's all they can do, hate their guts, because hating the boss guts is a lot more dangerous.
Others like to see celebrity fall, like Amy Winehouse, loveable trainwreck of decadent indulgence , who has some singing skill but has issues with alcohol and drugs...it's good to project in her the fact we may be good workers, but drink a little too much then just occasionally. It's a lot more easy then getting into a syndacate and start demanding better living conditions.
posted by elpapacito at 7:34 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
Because the proposed lifestyle of celebrities is filled of fun, sex, carelessness, beauty, being splendid and succesful with minor effort, being in the center of attention, being loved by many, having parties and occasional reckless behavior, variety of interests but none too deep requiring investment in attention.
It's an ideal life with adult tones. Have you noticed that celebrities are never sick, never poop, rarely fall from heaven or utter but fashionable nonsense ?
Others prefer just to envy their guts, for instance an hard working researcher getting in one year what one dolt gets in 3 days. Which breeds dehumanizing contempt for these walking bags of hydrocarbons, which in turns make them look snotty and hateful. Yet it's all they can do, hate their guts, because hating the boss guts is a lot more dangerous.
Others like to see celebrity fall, like Amy Winehouse, loveable trainwreck of decadent indulgence , who has some singing skill but has issues with alcohol and drugs...it's good to project in her the fact we may be good workers, but drink a little too much then just occasionally. It's a lot more easy then getting into a syndacate and start demanding better living conditions.
posted by elpapacito at 7:34 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
Hey Moz and Macca are two totally different things!
See, I get my cutesy British nicknames mixed up, so for a minute I thought the FPP was going to be about Morrissey getting divorced.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:44 AM on March 18, 2008
See, I get my cutesy British nicknames mixed up, so for a minute I thought the FPP was going to be about Morrissey getting divorced.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:44 AM on March 18, 2008
Have you noticed that celebrities are never sick, never poop, rarely fall from heaven or utter but fashionable nonsense ?
I was once washing my hands at the bathroom in The Kennedy Center while Sam Donaldson took a powerful shit in one of the stalls. It was... reality altering.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:53 AM on March 18, 2008 [7 favorites]
I was once washing my hands at the bathroom in The Kennedy Center while Sam Donaldson took a powerful shit in one of the stalls. It was... reality altering.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:53 AM on March 18, 2008 [7 favorites]
At first I read it as Macaca, and was wondering why former senator George Allen was having to pay his psychic ex-wife in British pounds.
posted by billypilgrim at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by billypilgrim at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2008 [5 favorites]
You never give me your money
you only give me your funny paper
And in the middle of negotiation you break down
posted by pyramid termite at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
you only give me your funny paper
And in the middle of negotiation you break down
posted by pyramid termite at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
Because as celebrities, their lives are so much better worse and more interesting and more valid entertaining than our own.
Fixed that for ya.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:59 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Fixed that for ya.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:59 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
flapjax at midnite: "...what's really going on is that the judge in the case is a music fan who finally grabbed the opportunity to fine McCartney 50 million for writing Silly Love Songs. Or Ebony and Ivory. Anyway, one of those."
Ebony and Ivory is irretrievably bad but I thought that the Red House Painters did a good job of salvaging Silly Love Songs.
posted by octothorpe at 7:59 AM on March 18, 2008
Ebony and Ivory is irretrievably bad but I thought that the Red House Painters did a good job of salvaging Silly Love Songs.
posted by octothorpe at 7:59 AM on March 18, 2008
I was once washing my hands at the bathroom in The Kennedy Center while Sam Donaldson took a powerful shit in one of the stalls.
When the Sex Pistols played Erics, I stood in the next stall to Johnny Rotten while he was taking a piss.
Now I know where all that rage came from.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:01 AM on March 18, 2008
When the Sex Pistols played Erics, I stood in the next stall to Johnny Rotten while he was taking a piss.
Now I know where all that rage came from.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:01 AM on March 18, 2008
I get the impression after all these years of observing the rich, that life for them is like life for us to the largest extent, except the decimal point is moved over a few places on all the documents.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:01 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:01 AM on March 18, 2008
I heard Melvyn 'Baron' Bragg produce a resonant anal guffaw after entering a cubicle in the toilet of a restaurant I happened to be visiting at the time.
Now, should I find him too pompous or disagree with his opinion the memory helps me keep a sense of proportion. It may be the case that all celebrities can produce such cataclysmic back-talk, other than those addicted to barbituates and opiates, as they are mostly human too.
posted by asok at 8:22 AM on March 18, 2008
Now, should I find him too pompous or disagree with his opinion the memory helps me keep a sense of proportion. It may be the case that all celebrities can produce such cataclysmic back-talk, other than those addicted to barbituates and opiates, as they are mostly human too.
posted by asok at 8:22 AM on March 18, 2008
Reading the judgment is making me mental, in turns. He's only going to provide $70,000 per year in child support for Beatrice, and only provide security for Heather and the child for two years?
Where a wife has made a substantial contribution to the accumulation of the husband's wealth, she's entitled to a share in that wealth. However, where the wealth pre-existed the relationship, then the award is made on the basis of need.
What we're talking about here then, is money that Paul will provide Heather with, ostensibly for the purpose of spending on the child, but in practice, once that dough is in mom's bank account, there's nothing to stop her from spending it on jewelled prostheses.
Judge is smart. He knows that Paul loves his kids and will provide for their needs and that mommy is a money-grubbing ho who lied her ass off in order to pillage his bank account. He's sending her a message. That message is: you're taking the piss.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2008 [5 favorites]
Where a wife has made a substantial contribution to the accumulation of the husband's wealth, she's entitled to a share in that wealth. However, where the wealth pre-existed the relationship, then the award is made on the basis of need.
What we're talking about here then, is money that Paul will provide Heather with, ostensibly for the purpose of spending on the child, but in practice, once that dough is in mom's bank account, there's nothing to stop her from spending it on jewelled prostheses.
Judge is smart. He knows that Paul loves his kids and will provide for their needs and that mommy is a money-grubbing ho who lied her ass off in order to pillage his bank account. He's sending her a message. That message is: you're taking the piss.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2008 [5 favorites]
Fiona Shackleton should definitely keep the wet look.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:41 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:41 AM on March 18, 2008
Judge is smart. He knows that Paul loves his kids and will provide for their needs and that mommy is a money-grubbing ho who lied her ass off in order to pillage his bank account. He's sending her a message. That message is: you're taking the piss.
Yeah, I've read most of the judgment (insomnia, what else can I say) and I have to admit that I totally agree, at this point.
Worth noting, though, is that I never argued that she herself should be entitled to more, for her own alimony, but that I thought that he should have provided more directly for the child.
But I expect that the £35,000 annually, plus nanny, plus security, plus school fees and expenses, plus insurance, plus the £4M house that he bought her after the divorce proceedings began (a 14-acre, 7-bedroom estate with playroom, gymnasium, equestrian facilities and staff cottage near the child's school), specifically to be their primary domain... as well as another £2.5M awarded to buy a secondary property in London (on top of the three houses she already owned)... provides more than enough capital to care properly for Beatrice from day-to-day.
posted by pineapple at 8:51 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I've read most of the judgment (insomnia, what else can I say) and I have to admit that I totally agree, at this point.
Worth noting, though, is that I never argued that she herself should be entitled to more, for her own alimony, but that I thought that he should have provided more directly for the child.
But I expect that the £35,000 annually, plus nanny, plus security, plus school fees and expenses, plus insurance, plus the £4M house that he bought her after the divorce proceedings began (a 14-acre, 7-bedroom estate with playroom, gymnasium, equestrian facilities and staff cottage near the child's school), specifically to be their primary domain... as well as another £2.5M awarded to buy a secondary property in London (on top of the three houses she already owned)... provides more than enough capital to care properly for Beatrice from day-to-day.
posted by pineapple at 8:51 AM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Where's the silver hammer when you need it, Macca?
posted by breezeway at 9:09 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by breezeway at 9:09 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
Bet Beatrice opts to live with Dad when she hits 12 or so. I sure would. What a fucking gold digger.
posted by yoga at 9:26 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by yoga at 9:26 AM on March 18, 2008
>>The guy's got $800 000 000, it's not like this cost him an arm and a leg.
>Wait, there's a joke in there somewhere...
I knew a woman with a wooden leg named Mills.
posted by anazgnos at 9:41 AM on March 18, 2008
>Wait, there's a joke in there somewhere...
I knew a woman with a wooden leg named Mills.
posted by anazgnos at 9:41 AM on March 18, 2008
Yeah, I've read most of the judgment (insomnia, what else can I say)
I've just got a few more pages left to go myself, and a very interesting judgement it is.
I've got no particular interest in either Sir Paul nor Lady Macca, but very few people can afford to litigate a divorce with such thoroughness, and it's also kind of rare that you get one in which so many issues are so thoroughly contested. (If you're paying your own legal costs, you're gonna try and keep them down.) Even if you aren't as rich as Sir Paul, it gives a very good overview of the various principles at issue in contemporary British divorce law, many of which would be applicable to everybody, regardless of their economic status.
I'm taken by how reasonable the judge is in this matter -- and how reasonable Paul is too, I suppose.
Disclaimer: I'm married to a divorce lawyer, so I've got an layman's interest in the subject. But there are all manner of aspects to her behaviour that strike me as being excessively odd. For example, I wonder why she fired Mishcon DeReya and decided to represent herself? Was it because she realized that the courts would penalize her excessive expenditure, and ensure that some level would come out of her settlement, she also realized that the fees of one of the top London celebrity divorce firms would cost her large? Or was it that some aspect of her lying became clear to her lawyers, who refused to present her lies to the court as though they weren't actually lies?
The refusal of the court to take conduct into account was very interesting too. I know that they rarely do in these matters, despite the fact that we still haven't moved over to a pure 'no-fault' system, effectively that's how things are, and the judge refused to make an example of her for the sake of just 0.2% of McCartney's wealth, or get sucked into her libel actions where she's obvously seeking a big win. Seems to me that he bent over backwards to be fair to Heather.
I hadn't followed the case at all until this point, but on the basis of the findings in this judgement, I would have given Paul custody of Beatrice and packed her back off to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's why Mr Justice Bennett is the judge here, and I'm not.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:43 AM on March 18, 2008
I've just got a few more pages left to go myself, and a very interesting judgement it is.
I've got no particular interest in either Sir Paul nor Lady Macca, but very few people can afford to litigate a divorce with such thoroughness, and it's also kind of rare that you get one in which so many issues are so thoroughly contested. (If you're paying your own legal costs, you're gonna try and keep them down.) Even if you aren't as rich as Sir Paul, it gives a very good overview of the various principles at issue in contemporary British divorce law, many of which would be applicable to everybody, regardless of their economic status.
I'm taken by how reasonable the judge is in this matter -- and how reasonable Paul is too, I suppose.
Disclaimer: I'm married to a divorce lawyer, so I've got an layman's interest in the subject. But there are all manner of aspects to her behaviour that strike me as being excessively odd. For example, I wonder why she fired Mishcon DeReya and decided to represent herself? Was it because she realized that the courts would penalize her excessive expenditure, and ensure that some level would come out of her settlement, she also realized that the fees of one of the top London celebrity divorce firms would cost her large? Or was it that some aspect of her lying became clear to her lawyers, who refused to present her lies to the court as though they weren't actually lies?
The refusal of the court to take conduct into account was very interesting too. I know that they rarely do in these matters, despite the fact that we still haven't moved over to a pure 'no-fault' system, effectively that's how things are, and the judge refused to make an example of her for the sake of just 0.2% of McCartney's wealth, or get sucked into her libel actions where she's obvously seeking a big win. Seems to me that he bent over backwards to be fair to Heather.
I hadn't followed the case at all until this point, but on the basis of the findings in this judgement, I would have given Paul custody of Beatrice and packed her back off to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's why Mr Justice Bennett is the judge here, and I'm not.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:43 AM on March 18, 2008
I knew a woman with a wooden leg named Mills.
There once was a woman named Mills,
Who struggled when climbing up hills,
Venereal diseases,
Led to a prosthesis,
You must take the full course of pills!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:49 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
There once was a woman named Mills,
Who struggled when climbing up hills,
Venereal diseases,
Led to a prosthesis,
You must take the full course of pills!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:49 AM on March 18, 2008 [4 favorites]
What was Heather wearing? I like what someone said about the jester suit up above earlier ..... to me it was almost a mocking reference (or a failure at mockery) to the fey military band costumes that the Beatles wore on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's.
That set of photos of Fiona Shackleton before/after is classic, classic stuff.
posted by blucevalo at 9:50 AM on March 18, 2008
That set of photos of Fiona Shackleton before/after is classic, classic stuff.
posted by blucevalo at 9:50 AM on March 18, 2008
Speaking of colloquial Britishisms, is it totally tactless to use the word "legless" anywhere in the vicinity of Ms. Mills?
For all men everywhere who have been driven to distraction by a crazy ex, I hope she blows through the money in a year and winds up going back into porn just to make ends meet.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:52 AM on March 18, 2008
For all men everywhere who have been driven to distraction by a crazy ex, I hope she blows through the money in a year and winds up going back into porn just to make ends meet.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:52 AM on March 18, 2008
PeterMcDermott said: "For example, I wonder why she fired Mishcon DeReya and decided to represent herself? Was it because she realized that the courts would penalize her excessive expenditure, and ensure that some level would come out of her settlement, she also realized that the fees of one of the top London celebrity divorce firms would cost her large? Or was it that some aspect of her lying became clear to her lawyers, who refused to present her lies to the court as though they weren't actually lies?"
I thought this was very interesting too, and my take was not that she dumped them, but they they dumped her after she violated the confidentiality agreement by making all the media statements and being possibly responsible for the leaks that happened at the time.
"The refusal of the court to take conduct into account was very interesting too. I know that they rarely do in these matters, despite the fact that we still haven't moved over to a pure 'no-fault' system, effectively that's how things are, and the judge refused to make an example of her for the sake of just 0.2% of McCartney's wealth, or get sucked into her libel actions where she's obvously seeking a big win. Seems to me that he bent over backwards to be fair to Heather."
I also believed that this was an effort not to get sucked into the libel case with the tabloids. Here's how I saw it -- the judge pointed out, quite fairly, that he couldn't consider her conduct without also considering his, since both sides were pointing fingers and crying "organized media smear campaign!" And, that it would be patently unfair to make a record of the allegations on his conduct, since they could then be used in the April 2008 libel case that she was bringing... Only, since he wasn't a party to that case (since it's Heather v. the Tabloids), he'd not be able to properly defend himself, and she'd have statements recorded in court with which to re-try Paul in the Court of Public Opinion. I thought the point the judge made that the amount that Paul suggested penalizing Heather for her bad behavior, which was £809K IIRC, was arbitrary -- and of no consequence either way, since Paul's position is one of enormous wealth and Heather's is one of very little.
"I hadn't followed the case at all until this point, but on the basis of the findings in this judgement, I would have given Paul custody of Beatrice and packed her back off to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's why Mr Justice Bennett is the judge here, and I'm not."
You know, I also was thinking, "Why on earth is Heather the Nutter getting the primary custody," but I think the judge made the right decision... if you look at the section where he addressed the age of the parents. Paul is 63 and Heather is 40. Beatrice is four. I think that any reasonable judge would realize that, absent any abuse (and Paul's statements throughout the judgment seem to indicate that he believes Heather to be a good mother to Beatrice), the parent who's most likely to see the child through to adulthood is the right choice for primary custodian. When Beatrice reaches majority age, Paul will be 79. There was a gentle statement in there about how Paul might be interested in taking it easy by that point, and not supervising the primary care of a teenager.
posted by pineapple at 10:06 AM on March 18, 2008
I thought this was very interesting too, and my take was not that she dumped them, but they they dumped her after she violated the confidentiality agreement by making all the media statements and being possibly responsible for the leaks that happened at the time.
"The refusal of the court to take conduct into account was very interesting too. I know that they rarely do in these matters, despite the fact that we still haven't moved over to a pure 'no-fault' system, effectively that's how things are, and the judge refused to make an example of her for the sake of just 0.2% of McCartney's wealth, or get sucked into her libel actions where she's obvously seeking a big win. Seems to me that he bent over backwards to be fair to Heather."
I also believed that this was an effort not to get sucked into the libel case with the tabloids. Here's how I saw it -- the judge pointed out, quite fairly, that he couldn't consider her conduct without also considering his, since both sides were pointing fingers and crying "organized media smear campaign!" And, that it would be patently unfair to make a record of the allegations on his conduct, since they could then be used in the April 2008 libel case that she was bringing... Only, since he wasn't a party to that case (since it's Heather v. the Tabloids), he'd not be able to properly defend himself, and she'd have statements recorded in court with which to re-try Paul in the Court of Public Opinion. I thought the point the judge made that the amount that Paul suggested penalizing Heather for her bad behavior, which was £809K IIRC, was arbitrary -- and of no consequence either way, since Paul's position is one of enormous wealth and Heather's is one of very little.
"I hadn't followed the case at all until this point, but on the basis of the findings in this judgement, I would have given Paul custody of Beatrice and packed her back off to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia. But I guess that's why Mr Justice Bennett is the judge here, and I'm not."
You know, I also was thinking, "Why on earth is Heather the Nutter getting the primary custody," but I think the judge made the right decision... if you look at the section where he addressed the age of the parents. Paul is 63 and Heather is 40. Beatrice is four. I think that any reasonable judge would realize that, absent any abuse (and Paul's statements throughout the judgment seem to indicate that he believes Heather to be a good mother to Beatrice), the parent who's most likely to see the child through to adulthood is the right choice for primary custodian. When Beatrice reaches majority age, Paul will be 79. There was a gentle statement in there about how Paul might be interested in taking it easy by that point, and not supervising the primary care of a teenager.
posted by pineapple at 10:06 AM on March 18, 2008
I usually would be moderately ashamed of spending more time in this stuff, but hell it's Paul we're talking about, not any self proclaimed celebrity, but that Paul of that Beatles...so I red the court's full ruling PDF
posted by elpapacito at 10:21 AM on March 18, 2008
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. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.Aka "you're a shitcock saying cocktard, without the internets"
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 earningsWow, she failed to produce recepits ? No evidence of movements from banks et al ?
Thus her tax returns for 1999 and 2000 do not support the wife’s case of very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit.Ahhh here's why!
The wife’s riposte is that much of her earnings, which are not included in the tax returns, were sent direct to charities of her nomination. In her evidence she told me that as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings went direct to charities.With no documented evidence! Opps :) And she didn't declare the chairty giving in her tax filings! Who wouldn't do that and why? The the judge hammers again and again that she's all talk about how much she spent on this and that, but no evidence was offered. Mhhh...Charities...mmmhh
If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget.BANG!
posted by elpapacito at 10:21 AM on March 18, 2008
I heard Melvyn 'Baron' Bragg produce a resonant anal guffaw &c
(Note to self: if I ever get famous, I will never visit a public convenience.)
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:27 AM on March 18, 2008
(Note to self: if I ever get famous, I will never visit a public convenience.)
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:27 AM on March 18, 2008
Peter McDermott, please stop calling this woman a "whore" and suggesting that VD caused her to lose her leg.
posted by Danila at 10:35 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Danila at 10:35 AM on March 18, 2008 [2 favorites]
And as for all the sniping about Silly Love Songs and Ebony and Ivory, the man wrote Blackbird. This is an achievement that I could never hope to equal, even if I had musical talent. I don't care if he parades down the street humping an ostrich with an enema tube up his arse; producing something of such sublime beauty is achievement enough for one lifetime.
This is the strangest comment I've ever made.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:35 AM on March 18, 2008
This is the strangest comment I've ever made.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:35 AM on March 18, 2008
"I knew a woman with a wooden leg named Mills."
What a funny name for a wooden leg.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:46 AM on March 18, 2008
What a funny name for a wooden leg.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:46 AM on March 18, 2008
I notice the mental crazy woman wasn't so crazy that she'd dump a glass of water over a lawyer with the judge present.
Shame Fiona didn't punch her out. That would have been something. Catfight! :)
posted by kaemaril at 11:06 AM on March 18, 2008
Shame Fiona didn't punch her out. That would have been something. Catfight! :)
posted by kaemaril at 11:06 AM on March 18, 2008
About that bugged telephone call: did anyone report exactly what Stella called her?
I want to send poor Heather her a mix tape to cheer her up -- "Peg (It will come back to you)", "Come on, Eileen", chirpy stuff like that.
posted by pracowity at 11:34 AM on March 18, 2008
I want to send poor Heather her a mix tape to cheer her up -- "Peg (It will come back to you)", "Come on, Eileen", chirpy stuff like that.
posted by pracowity at 11:34 AM on March 18, 2008
Peter McDermott, please stop calling this woman a "whore" and suggesting that VD caused her to lose her leg.
I'm pretty sure that nobody would take a limerick seriously. However, you can read the allegations about her previous career choices here.
I have to say though, reading through the judgement, I find that she's much more ethically challenged than any of the sex workers of my acquaintance, so I'll refrain from referring to her as such as a favour to honest, hard-working prostitutes.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:34 AM on March 18, 2008
I'm pretty sure that nobody would take a limerick seriously. However, you can read the allegations about her previous career choices here.
I have to say though, reading through the judgement, I find that she's much more ethically challenged than any of the sex workers of my acquaintance, so I'll refrain from referring to her as such as a favour to honest, hard-working prostitutes.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:34 AM on March 18, 2008
All the money in the world wouldn't change the fact that she will be forgotten almost immediately whereas he'll be remembered as the man who played bass for the Beatles, and wrote some of the best music of the 20th century.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2008
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 11:43 AM on March 18, 2008
Peter McDermott, please stop calling this woman a "whore"
Also, I note that you aren't in the least bit concerned about my implication that Johnny Rotten has a small penis. Is it just one gender that feels pain? For shame, woman. For shame.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:54 AM on March 18, 2008
Also, I note that you aren't in the least bit concerned about my implication that Johnny Rotten has a small penis. Is it just one gender that feels pain? For shame, woman. For shame.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:54 AM on March 18, 2008
I find that she's much more ethically challenged than any of the sex workers of my acquaintance.
I'm sure your sex-worker acquaintances would be thrilled to know that you use them as barometers of the lowest acceptable level of ethical behavior.
posted by 1 at 12:26 PM on March 18, 2008
I'm sure your sex-worker acquaintances would be thrilled to know that you use them as barometers of the lowest acceptable level of ethical behavior.
posted by 1 at 12:26 PM on March 18, 2008
Ms. Mills could really teach Ms. Dupré a thing or two.
You think so?
posted by dhartung at 12:33 PM on March 18, 2008
You think so?
posted by dhartung at 12:33 PM on March 18, 2008
I'm sure your sex-worker acquaintances would be thrilled to know that you use them as barometers of the lowest acceptable level of ethical behavior.
Is it you again? What the fuck are you babbling about now?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:47 PM on March 18, 2008
Is it you again? What the fuck are you babbling about now?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:47 PM on March 18, 2008
Am I the only one who thinks something along the lines of "Serves him right for marrying a hot blonde model decades his junior?"
posted by emd3737 at 12:48 PM on March 18, 2008
posted by emd3737 at 12:48 PM on March 18, 2008
Oh, hang on a moment, I think I see.
Because somebody objected to my references to the allegations made about Mills' involvement in sex work, you believe that my comment that she's more ethically challenged than the sex workers that I know somehow means that I'm using them as a barometer of ethical conduct?
You're a moron. Go back to sleep.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:52 PM on March 18, 2008
Because somebody objected to my references to the allegations made about Mills' involvement in sex work, you believe that my comment that she's more ethically challenged than the sex workers that I know somehow means that I'm using them as a barometer of ethical conduct?
You're a moron. Go back to sleep.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:52 PM on March 18, 2008
Uh, maybe take a minute to breathe, PeterMcDermott?
posted by jokeefe at 12:55 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by jokeefe at 12:55 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
"The Sun actually has a pretty good 'run-down'. Apparently they've taken to calling her 'Mucca'"
To be fair to the Sun, they called her "Mucca" and have since started every article with "Ex-porn star Heather Mills, dubbed Mucca" as if repeated use of this phrase will somehow embed it in the national unconscious.
It is at least marginally better than their last attempt at this when they tried to re-name Steve McLaren "McDonut" - a poor insult, presumably chosen because they hadn't invented the rather better "McClown" nickname that was doing the rounds.
posted by Auz at 1:27 PM on March 18, 2008
To be fair to the Sun, they called her "Mucca" and have since started every article with "Ex-porn star Heather Mills, dubbed Mucca" as if repeated use of this phrase will somehow embed it in the national unconscious.
It is at least marginally better than their last attempt at this when they tried to re-name Steve McLaren "McDonut" - a poor insult, presumably chosen because they hadn't invented the rather better "McClown" nickname that was doing the rounds.
posted by Auz at 1:27 PM on March 18, 2008
Jeezum crow, *I* pay nearly 70k/year in child support, and that's with SPLIT (50/50) custody. I'd imagine that even given the large expenses (house etc.) , he'd pay more than me per year. But then again, it's Britain, and I'm in California.
p.s. Even though it goes without saying, I'll say it: I don't have anywhere EVEN REMOTELY NEAR $800,000,000
posted by asavage at 1:55 PM on March 18, 2008
p.s. Even though it goes without saying, I'll say it: I don't have anywhere EVEN REMOTELY NEAR $800,000,000
posted by asavage at 1:55 PM on March 18, 2008
And as for all the sniping about Silly Love Songs and Ebony and Ivory, the man wrote Blackbird
And "The Long and Winding Road", "Let It Be", "Hey Jude", "Get Back", "For No One"... for Christ's sake, they can't all be winners.
Also, how can people possibly get indignant about unkind comments about Heather Mills? She's a horrible gold-digging piece of crap who has contributed nothing and who used and disposed of a beloved man who has enriched most of our lives with his awesome music. I mean, poor Paul. For all his wealth and fame, he's kind of a naive guy. He spent the years when most of us have the formative experiences that enable us to avoid vultures like Mills completely detached from reality as a pampered megastar, and his subsequent years married to his true love.
posted by DecemberBoy at 2:40 PM on March 18, 2008
And "The Long and Winding Road", "Let It Be", "Hey Jude", "Get Back", "For No One"... for Christ's sake, they can't all be winners.
Also, how can people possibly get indignant about unkind comments about Heather Mills? She's a horrible gold-digging piece of crap who has contributed nothing and who used and disposed of a beloved man who has enriched most of our lives with his awesome music. I mean, poor Paul. For all his wealth and fame, he's kind of a naive guy. He spent the years when most of us have the formative experiences that enable us to avoid vultures like Mills completely detached from reality as a pampered megastar, and his subsequent years married to his true love.
posted by DecemberBoy at 2:40 PM on March 18, 2008
Also, how can people possibly get indignant about unkind comments about Heather Mills? She's a horrible gold-digging piece of crap who has contributed nothing and who used and disposed of a beloved man who has enriched most of our lives with his awesome music. I mean, poor Paul.
Because this celebrity is better than that celebrity. Because the tabloids tell the truth about this but not about that. I didn't know so many people here knew this couple personally. The outlandish statements certainly make it sound like you do.
I don't know anything about this situation other than what I've read in this thread, didn't read the court case and haven't followed any news articles. It's just another divorce that's none of my business and I especially hate tabloids. But maybe this was the best of the web, so I clicked. I was struck after reading the Mefi comments and seeing the vitriol against some chick who married some famous rocker dude. Nah, this isn't any better than Britney vs. Kevin. There is nothing more worthwhile here.
I'm pretty sure that nobody would take a limerick seriously. However, you can read the allegations about her previous career choices here.
PeterMcDermott, I don't care about some allegations in a tabloid. I mean, The Daily Mail? I was responding to you saying that she should be sent back to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia, and then after that you said she got VD and that's why she lost her leg. It's just vile and unnecessary. Reading your comments is like reading the tabloids and that's a low standard.
I didn't see whatever you wrote about Johnny Rotten and I don't care. This whole thread has been pretty nasty and that primarily aimed at one person, and I thought your comments were just the worst of the lot.
posted by Danila at 3:04 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Because this celebrity is better than that celebrity. Because the tabloids tell the truth about this but not about that. I didn't know so many people here knew this couple personally. The outlandish statements certainly make it sound like you do.
I don't know anything about this situation other than what I've read in this thread, didn't read the court case and haven't followed any news articles. It's just another divorce that's none of my business and I especially hate tabloids. But maybe this was the best of the web, so I clicked. I was struck after reading the Mefi comments and seeing the vitriol against some chick who married some famous rocker dude. Nah, this isn't any better than Britney vs. Kevin. There is nothing more worthwhile here.
I'm pretty sure that nobody would take a limerick seriously. However, you can read the allegations about her previous career choices here.
PeterMcDermott, I don't care about some allegations in a tabloid. I mean, The Daily Mail? I was responding to you saying that she should be sent back to the whorehouses of Saudi Arabia, and then after that you said she got VD and that's why she lost her leg. It's just vile and unnecessary. Reading your comments is like reading the tabloids and that's a low standard.
I didn't see whatever you wrote about Johnny Rotten and I don't care. This whole thread has been pretty nasty and that primarily aimed at one person, and I thought your comments were just the worst of the lot.
posted by Danila at 3:04 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
I was struck after reading the Mefi comments and seeing the vitriol against some chick who married some famous rocker dude. Nah, this isn't any better than Britney vs. Kevin. There is nothing more worthwhile here.
Are you serious? Paul fucking McCartney is "some famous rocker dude" and no different than Kevin Federline? I... if you say so, I guess.
posted by DecemberBoy at 3:45 PM on March 18, 2008
Are you serious? Paul fucking McCartney is "some famous rocker dude" and no different than Kevin Federline? I... if you say so, I guess.
posted by DecemberBoy at 3:45 PM on March 18, 2008
I've never really like the Beatles and always though Paul was an arrogant idiot... in particular choosing such a complete nutjub as a wife. You think there might be a few slightly more sane bimbos decades younger then himself he can spend him money on.
Well I suppose she adds to the general gaiety of the nation... here's hoping she'll turn up on more chat-shows in the near future ranting on about her 'charity' work how the establishment tell lies about her (and the now legal profession too because she represented herself) and waves around her book of evidence.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:01 PM on March 18, 2008
Well I suppose she adds to the general gaiety of the nation... here's hoping she'll turn up on more chat-shows in the near future ranting on about her 'charity' work how the establishment tell lies about her (and the now legal profession too because she represented herself) and waves around her book of evidence.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:01 PM on March 18, 2008
Ah, Paul and Heather. I didn't really take sides until I heard this track by team9.
posted by flatluigi at 4:08 PM on March 18, 2008
posted by flatluigi at 4:08 PM on March 18, 2008
(forgive rehosting it on my DivShare account, but team9's site hasn't had it for a long time.)
posted by flatluigi at 4:09 PM on March 18, 2008
posted by flatluigi at 4:09 PM on March 18, 2008
Are you serious? Paul fucking McCartney is "some famous rocker dude" and no different than Kevin Federline? I... if you say so, I guess.
Yes, and because it is Sir Paul fucking McCartney there is absolutely positively no possibility that the news media has framed this into a nice convenient narrative of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man.
I'm quite willing to accept a kernel of truth regarding Mills's marital misconduct, but anyone buying the media's story hook line and sinker should contact me about a bridge that is about to be sold for scrop.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:42 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes, and because it is Sir Paul fucking McCartney there is absolutely positively no possibility that the news media has framed this into a nice convenient narrative of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man.
I'm quite willing to accept a kernel of truth regarding Mills's marital misconduct, but anyone buying the media's story hook line and sinker should contact me about a bridge that is about to be sold for scrop.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:42 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Or was it that some aspect of her lying became clear to her lawyers, who refused to present her lies to the court as though they weren't actually lies?
Yes. (Ex-divorce lawyer)
There's a large section towards the beginning of the judgment where Heather's claims about her alleged wealth at the time of the marriage are destroyed piece by piece by the judge. She had no documentary evidence to support the claims, despite saying that she had asked for it from the Inland Revenue, etc. Her solicitors, as Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature, are under a duty first and foremost to the court, and if they knowingly put before the court statements made by their client which they are aware are false, then they're in a whole load of trouble with the Law Society.
I would often find myself saying to clients that, without documentary evidence to support what they're saying, they are going to find themselves in some difficulty in trying to prove a particular set of facts. But in the electronic age in which we live, there are all kinds of records that can be retrieved, even if the client's paper copies have long since been destroyed. Their employers would have records of earnings and bonuses. And if they were self-employed, their accountants would have records, and their banks, and their financial advisers, etc. There was usually a way, if the client was telling the truth, to re-create the paper trail. So Heather's claims that there were no copies of tax returns, or bank statements or other records of such large sums of money were implausible.
I consider it very, very likely that Heather's lawyers advised her that the claims about her alleged pre-marital financial position would not stand up to scrutiny and that if she insisted on going down that path, it would have to be without their representation.
posted by essexjan at 4:44 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes. (Ex-divorce lawyer)
There's a large section towards the beginning of the judgment where Heather's claims about her alleged wealth at the time of the marriage are destroyed piece by piece by the judge. She had no documentary evidence to support the claims, despite saying that she had asked for it from the Inland Revenue, etc. Her solicitors, as Officers of the Supreme Court of Judicature, are under a duty first and foremost to the court, and if they knowingly put before the court statements made by their client which they are aware are false, then they're in a whole load of trouble with the Law Society.
I would often find myself saying to clients that, without documentary evidence to support what they're saying, they are going to find themselves in some difficulty in trying to prove a particular set of facts. But in the electronic age in which we live, there are all kinds of records that can be retrieved, even if the client's paper copies have long since been destroyed. Their employers would have records of earnings and bonuses. And if they were self-employed, their accountants would have records, and their banks, and their financial advisers, etc. There was usually a way, if the client was telling the truth, to re-create the paper trail. So Heather's claims that there were no copies of tax returns, or bank statements or other records of such large sums of money were implausible.
I consider it very, very likely that Heather's lawyers advised her that the claims about her alleged pre-marital financial position would not stand up to scrutiny and that if she insisted on going down that path, it would have to be without their representation.
posted by essexjan at 4:44 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
KirkJobSluder said: "Yes, and because it is Sir Paul fucking McCartney there is absolutely positively no possibility that the news media has framed this into a nice convenient narrative of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man.
I'm quite willing to accept a kernel of truth regarding Mills's marital misconduct, but anyone buying the media's story hook line and sinker should contact me about a bridge that is about to be sold for scrop."
I'm not buying the media's anything; I haven't read any of the tabloids or any other online or print media about this case. The only bit I've read is the official judgment... and I read every page.
So, the "convenient narrative" of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man came, for me, from the legal documents. Nowhere else. I had zero opinion about the conduct of either party before now. I love the Beatles and all, but plenty of great musicians have seen fit to act like assholes in their personal lives before now, so nobody gets an automatic pass from me.
I just think it's helpful if we all keep in mind that not every single MeFite who holds an opinion about a celebrity scandal must therefore be getting fed that opinion like sweet narcotic pablum from the teat of the downmarket presses. Some of us are capable of reading legal documents and forming independent opinions.
posted by pineapple at 8:05 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm quite willing to accept a kernel of truth regarding Mills's marital misconduct, but anyone buying the media's story hook line and sinker should contact me about a bridge that is about to be sold for scrop."
I'm not buying the media's anything; I haven't read any of the tabloids or any other online or print media about this case. The only bit I've read is the official judgment... and I read every page.
So, the "convenient narrative" of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man came, for me, from the legal documents. Nowhere else. I had zero opinion about the conduct of either party before now. I love the Beatles and all, but plenty of great musicians have seen fit to act like assholes in their personal lives before now, so nobody gets an automatic pass from me.
I just think it's helpful if we all keep in mind that not every single MeFite who holds an opinion about a celebrity scandal must therefore be getting fed that opinion like sweet narcotic pablum from the teat of the downmarket presses. Some of us are capable of reading legal documents and forming independent opinions.
posted by pineapple at 8:05 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
Reminds me of what Eddie Murphy said on the subject...
I was waiting in line, and I saw on Enquirer magazine's cover, there's Johnny Carson on the front page. And there was a picture of him like this (miserable). Then I said, "What's up with Johnny?" I turned to the inside story and his wife was on the other page and she was like this (exuberant). And over her head it said, "Johnny's wife wants half Johnny's money."posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:18 PM on March 18, 2008 [1 favorite]
I turned that shit back to Johnny. Then I started thinking about it.
Half.
If you... If you have $5.00 and had to give somebody $2.50, you'd be upset. Johnny had to have at least $300 million. And have to give up $150 million? And they wasn't even married but ten years. And $150 million? Give me a fucking break. And ladies... Now, here's a woman right here saying, "Right on." Not no $150 million.
I see a lot of you ladies going: "Get all the money you can, shit. I'm glad she did get all that money. She earned it. She was married to him, she deserved that money."
Get the fuck out of my face with that bullshit. No. Stop it.
Don't get me wrong. If you marry somebody and neither one of you have anything and you build $300 million together, you deserve half. But Johnny was $300 million in when they met. And I'm quite sure she knew. Johnny says, "Hey, I'm Johnny." She was like, "I know who you are, motherfucker." And they got married, broke up, shit didn't work out. And then he had to give her $150 million of his money.
I know a lot of housewives sitting out there going: "You can't put a price on what I do." But, ladies, if you marry a man with $300 million, you ain't no regular housewife. You ain't got to clean the house no more. You get a maid. You ain't cleaning shit! You marry a man with $300 million, you ain't cooking. You're eating out. You marry... You know how a lot of housewives gotta get jobs on the side to help make ends meet? He got $300 million, the ends are meeting like a motherfucker.
What you gonna do, get a job at a boutique on the weekends and shit? And say, "Here, Johnny. I made $70 put that with the rest. Now we have $300 million and seventy. Because I want to do my share." All you have to do, you marry a man with $300 million, is fuck your husband. That's it! That's your job. Fuck your husband! You fill out a W-2 they say, "What you do?" You say, "I fuck my husband."
Now, I've had my share of pussy. I have yet... even if the pussy was great, and sparks shot out the woman's ass, and cannons blared and the mountains crumbled and the seas roared, no pussy is worth $150 million! I'd like to meet some pussy like that.
Put the shit on layaway.
pineapple: So, the "convenient narrative" of crazy gold-digger vs. saintly but doddering beloved older man came, for me, from the legal documents.
While for me, the courts deliberate punting on the conduct issue failed to establish the innocence or guilt of either party in that regard.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:55 AM on March 19, 2008
While for me, the courts deliberate punting on the conduct issue failed to establish the innocence or guilt of either party in that regard.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:55 AM on March 19, 2008
« Older Once More the Engine of Her Thoughts Began... | UK Film Director Anthony Mingella has died. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, I like the multi-colored zoot suit.
posted by DU at 6:01 AM on March 18, 2008