|
Post by bluecake on Jan 23, 2015 0:38:04 GMT -5
John, I haven't seen a single fan bitch about the money Paul paid in the settlement. He's recouped that money many times over - and why would fans care about it anyway? (WE didn't have to pay it.) Instead, the root of dislike over Heather Mills is her well-documented behavior. That's what fans have complained about, but instead of addressing those multitude of accusations (as you can't, as there's no valid excuse for them) you return to a strawman argument about the money, which no one cares about.
Your repeated assertion about U.S. divorce is also irrelevant. For one, you're inaccurate. Not every U.S. state is an equal property settlement state, nor is likely Heather have taken 50% of everything Paul had even in those states, considering the short duration of their marriage. (I won't even start on you thinking U.S. divorces are "no fault" and therefore have no mudslinging - I've worked on family law cases.) The fact remains that it makes no difference. Both Heather and Paul are U.K. citizens, which means they could NEVER have had an American divorce. No jurisdiction. You might as well talk about how, if they'd divorced in Iran, Heather would've been left with nothing. It's equally as relevant as talking about what she might have gotten had they been Americans (my opinion: had she pulled the same stuff in U.S. court as she did in Britain, she would've gotten the same settlement or even less).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jan 23, 2015 0:53:51 GMT -5
My take on the money side is it's a good thing she didn't make him sign a pre-nup. She would have made him promise her the world when he smitten in love and wanting to marry her.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 23, 2015 0:54:34 GMT -5
You will PLEASE note that the problem most people had was not with poor 'Paulie' being forced to give her money, but the way she lied, manipulated and tried to damage his reputation during the separation, the divorce and even AFTER the divorce. The money is COMPLETELY secondary. If 'David' had accepted 'Goliath''s offer in the first place (and apparently it was pretty damn close to what she got anyway) and didn't go haring after the media to complain about the media and accuse Paul of abuse, MAYBE there wouldn't have been any metaphorical bloodshed, anyway....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 23, 2015 1:25:20 GMT -5
What?! The Macca Mad Hatters were going nuts back then that Heather got any money in that divorce! Macca Mad Hatters live vicariously through Paul, even at the expense of their own families if they have actually put down their Paul magazines, books, or websites long enough to start their own families in the real world!
I have done 27 years of divorces so I quite know what I am talking about at least as to my jurisdiction and I mentioned the U.S. divorce system, it is State by State, only for the point that Paulie could have done worse and the Macca Mad Hatters would really be crying. And I did mention in my one, just one, post on it(except in responding to you and vectis) that some Judges would rebut the presumption of an equal division of property in Paul's case but others would not. But in most U.S. jurisdictions, you start with the presumption that property (and debt) should be divided 50-50 even in a one day marriage sought to be dissolved through divorce and the burden of proof is on the spouse who wants to rebut that presumption of 50-50.
I got the feeling Heather had to prove her request for every pound she was awarded beyond just the consideration of having been married and all the blood, sweat and tears equity spouses earn!
As George Harrison might agree to, and as the now Paul bought and probably destroyed "Linda Tapes" might reveal, being associated with Paul McCartney as either a bandmate or a spouse is probably a huge heartache and hassle! Heather earned every pound she was awarded!
Just look at the two or three posts here in this Thread the past day or so where Heather is called a golddigger, etc. I rest my case!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 23, 2015 4:15:39 GMT -5
UK divorces don't automatically favour the father/husband - far from it. But there are times when they can be relatively even-handed. And there are also times - like this one - when the Court recognises that one party wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit her on the kneecap, prosthetic or otherwise.
|
|