Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 5:47:24 GMT -5
Is it just me or are most of the threads on this board lately reading like The National Enquirer or People Magazine? Does anyone other than a handful of posters want to discuss serious Beatles or solo Beatles items anymore? This place reads more like a rag magazine full of extra-curricular crap about ex-wives. Jeez...enough already! Ok, now here comes all the "Well, don't read the threads if you are not interested" leveled at me as usual; But anything truly worthwhile discussing is getting buried under all the other crap..... Time for a break I guess.... Don't lie LOW for too long.....Bass man
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 5:49:16 GMT -5
I never realised Heather Louise was a fruit cake but after reading this thread she appears to be as nutty as a peanut farm
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Jan 27, 2015 6:12:04 GMT -5
The 'divorce was easier than losing my leg' line always reminds me of her hysterical interview (to the press, in one of MANY interviews that day, IIRC) where she complained about the press and said she was being treated worse than a paedophile. Charming.
Funny that it was on Walters' show when she said that other line, though, considering the former's ties to Paul's now-wife. In 2008, Walters said:
She's interviewed Mills twice and had nothing nice to say about Paul McCartney's ex after her behavior at the second interview, by which time she was with Paul. Mills complained about the temperature of a glass of water she was given to sip. Said Barbara in the context of the longer anecdote, "She was extremely difficult... She was so impossible to our producers."
I actually remember two anecdotal stories from a McCartney biography extremely well because they were just so striking and exemplary of the bigger feeling I get from her:
"At a Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts event, Mark Featherstonestone-Witty presented Paul with a copy of his memoir, Optimistic Even Then, published as part of the school's tenth anniversary celebration. Though Heather had never betrayed any interest in the school, he says, she snatched the book away from her husband and rifled quickly through its pages as the men chatted. "After a while we heard a voice saying, 'But I'm not in it! It's all Linda!'" Paul said nothing. Featherstone-Witty stammered something about Heather being in the next edition, and the conversation between the men resumed."
"In London in 2004 the couple made a surprise appearance at a party celebrating the fortieth anniversary of A Hard Day's Night. A screening of the film's digitally enhanced print was followed by a reception for all the cast and crew members who had turned up. Old friends Paul hadn't seen in years were there, including the actor Victor Spinetti, the Apple executive Denis O'Dell, fellow Liverpudlian turned NEMS and Apple staffer Tony Bramwell, and others. They were all having a fine old time, drinking and laughing, and carrying on together, right until Heather marched up to Paul and, with nary a nod to the faces around him, announced that she'd had enough. "There's nobody interesting here!" she snapped. "I'm going shopping!" Bramwell, who was standing with Paul just then, saw his friend gape. "His face was like 'What? What!'" But off she went, never to return."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 6:27:02 GMT -5
I think Paul would have also gaped when Heather Mills first showed him some of the tricks she'd learn't from her old job. I don't think Heather would have been a Beetle..
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 27, 2015 11:18:29 GMT -5
John, I think you're part of a small subset of Lennon fans who - as older, white men - feel threatened about the decline in John Lennon's image. You and your ilk are being replaced by a new generation of Beatles fans, scholars and music writers who don't buy the St. Lennon image that you're so invested in. We're the people who were born after John's death, who aren't impressed with John's solo work, and who've shown a spotlight on the contributions of Paul and George, rather than mindlessly accepting the Gospel of John as Sole Genius. As an older, white, male "McCartneyist" (older than JSD, at least), I have to question this a bit: 1. The suggestion that 'Lennonists' are (by definition?) 'older, white men' is a bit prejudicial. Do McCartney's fans come form a more representative, multi-cultural background? (I, for one, don't). To use racial, sexual and ageist stereotyping as a stick to beat Lennon's most ardent followers is not very fair. 2. The notion that McCartney's admirers, as well as being of a more healthy, multi-ethnic persuasion, are younger ('new generation'), more educated ('scholars') and more culturally aware ('music writers') than Lennon's comes across as a bit of a pompous and self-regarding presumption.I'm not aware of any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to back it up, and I'm certainly an exception to that assumption myself. 3. The assertion that 'We [McCartney advocates] are the ones who were born after John's death' has an air of unpleasant divisiveness to it (as well as being untrue). It basically separates Beatles fans into two distinct, mutually antagonistic groups. i.e those born before John's death in 1980 and those born after. Should loyal fans be split into two artificially-created opposing sub-groups - one supposedly young, free-thinking and liberated, the other older, intellectually sclerotic and dogmatic?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 27, 2015 11:19:05 GMT -5
Ms. Mills is repeating herself. I suspect though that the reporters who interview her don't give a hoot about The Jump and just want to talk about her marriage to Paul.
I found her comments on Beatrice interesting and I paraphrase: Beatrice is loyal; she is privileged but not spoilt. I hope that is true. Paul would probably agree with that.
Skiing is good for her. It keeps her busy.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 27, 2015 11:46:59 GMT -5
John, I think you're part of a small subset of Lennon fans who - as older, white men - feel threatened about the decline in John Lennon's image. You and your ilk are being replaced by a new generation of Beatles fans, scholars and music writers who don't buy the St. Lennon image that you're so invested in. We're the people who were born after John's death, who aren't impressed with John's solo work, and who've shown a spotlight on the contributions of Paul and George, rather than mindlessly accepting the Gospel of John as Sole Genius. As an older, white, male "McCartneyist" (older than JSD, at least), I have to question this a bit: 1. The suggestion that 'Lennonists' are (by definition?) 'older, white men' is a bit prejudicial. Do McCartney's fans come form a more representative, multi-cultural background? (I, for one, don't). To use racial, sexual and ageist stereotyping as a stick to beat Lennon's most ardent followers is not very fair. 2. The notion that McCartney's admirers, as well as being of a more healthy, multi-ethnic persuasion, are younger ('new generation'), more educated ('scholars') and more culturally aware ('music writers') than Lennon's comes across as a bit of a pompous and self-regarding presumption.I'm not aware of any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to back it up, and I'm certainly an exception to that assumption myself. 3. The assertion that 'We [McCartney advocates] are the ones who were born after John's death' has an air of unpleasant divisiveness to it (as well as being untrue). It basically separates Beatles fans into two distinct, mutually antagonistic groups. i.e those born before John's death in 1980 and those born after. Should loyal fans be split into two artificially-created opposing sub-groups - one supposedly young, free-thinking and liberated, the other older, intellectually sclerotic and dogmatic? Where's the "applause" smiley?
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jan 27, 2015 15:56:26 GMT -5
?
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jan 27, 2015 15:57:13 GMT -5
Sorry, that was meant to be an applause smiley.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jan 27, 2015 15:57:57 GMT -5
Damn iPhone.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jan 27, 2015 16:54:10 GMT -5
Hey thanks Mark!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 27, 2015 17:36:00 GMT -5
I had to go into cold storage and find my Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney by Howard Sounes. Yeah, Sounes makes quick work of the Mel See murder story. I was all wet there. Mr. See copied Hemingway's suicide in remarkable fashion. Sounes even quotes Beverly Wilk, See's longtime partner. See was seeing another woman but See and Wilk were still residing in the same house. She found him outside. I have not had time to read about Heather's stay with Mr. See, and it was Paul who broke the news to Heather about See's death as Nicole may have written, but here was the passage from Sounes that haunted me, found at page 499 of the book: So ended the life of the man who may have been the Jojo of 'Get Back.' More significantly, it was an event from which Heather McCartney seemed unable to recover, becoming a virtual recluse thereafter. Her design businesses fell into desuetude, as did her pottery. A high wooden fence was erected around her Sussex cottage, where she became a hermit. 'The last time I met her [she] was in a dreadful state,' says neighbor Veronica Languish. 'Terrible thing, a girl like that, got everything to live for and nothing.'Could Sounes research be wrong, maybe but I just did not make this stuff up. I read it in this book. My worries and stated concerns in my first post on the topic come from that very paragraph, albeit by memory. That bums me out all over again.
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Jan 28, 2015 19:29:35 GMT -5
That Heather Mills interview is full of her usual whoppers and contradictions. She complains about being dropped by every charity then also claims she's donated "80%" of her divorce settlement to charity; she claims to have been "very wealthy" when she met Paul when the High Court already examined her taxes, bank accounts and assets and "thoroughly rejected" those claims. She claims she always wanted a simple life and traveling the world with Paul was torture, and that she does her own makeup and rides budget air and doesn't need security; in the divorce, she petitioned for huge annual costs:
The saddest part, though, was that in listing Beatrice's positive attributes she included, "She always tells me I'm amazing!"
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 28, 2015 19:53:36 GMT -5
I agree that Heather is trotting out her old stories. Sad.
And I missed that quote on Beatrice. I did see the one where Heather said Beatrice is loyal but I assumed Heather meant that Beatrice was loyal to both her parents as she should be.
Heather needs to focus on skiing and making that big jump!
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Jan 28, 2015 22:28:14 GMT -5
I hope that's what Heather meant, John, but I have a suspicion that she meant Beatrice is loyal to her because she flatters her and boosts her mother's ego. I think that's the only loyalty Heather would recognize.
I hope what Heather said about Beatrice's love of science is true. The only quote of Heather's I liked in the entire interview is when she said Beatrice wanted to go to the Arctic to see narwhals, and Heather said they'd do it for her 10th birthday if she got all As in science. But then people in the comments were calling bullshit on that because British primary schools don't use a grading system.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 12, 2015 23:06:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 13, 2015 8:40:58 GMT -5
Being helpful and gracious (whether once or many, many times), and being a manipulative liar (habitually) aren't mutually exclusive so no, I won't be apologising.
Her being a good mother, giving to charity and helping another celebrity out don't cancel out or wipe away the wrongs she has done, and the lies she has told. That's not quite how it works.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 13, 2015 10:16:42 GMT -5
What "wrongs" has Heather Mills done?
It seems to me that she was the victim of gross police negligence costing her her leg so that is not a wrong and then she fell madly in love with, as did he, Paul McCartney and married him, had a child with him but when she wouldn't be a doormat to him like Linda and Nancy(but not Jane Asher who walked away from Paul on her own terms and never looked back), Paul engaged in one of the nastiest divorce proceeding smears in the history of mankind and when one is a British institution like Sir Paul ex-Beatle, little Heather did not have a chance! I never saw any wrong there from Heather. Just a woman fighting for what she deserved: respect and a piece of that marital estate she contributed to by her love, sweat and blood equity!
She is lucky in my opinion to be alive today, Princess Diana anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 13, 2015 12:27:07 GMT -5
What "wrongs" has Heather Mills done? Aside from being born, not a thing! Not that I want to sound like one of the Macca Mad Hatters who defend everything Paul does, says, or breathes... but how do you "know" that Linda and Nancy were "doormats for Paul"? I grant you they're not loud, boisterous and obnoxious like Heathen is, but at least in Linda's case (I don't know enough about Nancy) she just seemed more willing to go with the flow and support her husband; not that she was any kind of a "victim". (But then again, there is the source I know who said that supposedly Paul always belittled Linda verbally, so who know?). On the other hand, Heathen came off bitchy and just wanted to be in the driver's seat and boss Paul all around -- which is not the same thing as being "equals". She brazenly told Barbara Walters "men need to be bossed".
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 13, 2015 20:48:20 GMT -5
Nicole did a more comprehensive list upthread, but some of Heather's greatest hits of wrongs:
-Lied about being molested as a child. She stole a childhood friend's experience of molestation and passed it off as her own in her memoir (said friend won a civil lawsuit).
-Stole money and jewelry from her former employer (resulting in charges and an arrest).
-Lied about being independently wealthy before marrying Paul (the High Court examined her finances).
-Lied about donating money to charity (her taxes showed zero contributions to charity before meeting Paul; in addition, charities she claimed to donate to had never heard of her).
-Lied about donating to charity part II: claimed often in the press that she only did Dancing with the Stars to donate the money to charity (tax records showed she donated only a portion of her salary to charity, not the "100%" she claimed in public). She's mentioned nothing about the salary from her subsequent reality shows.
-Lied about being a charity worker (her charity was unregistered and its only donation was from Paul).
-Lied about her resume, job offers and career history repeatedly. Tried to pass off the articles of a similarly named woman as her own work.
-Lied about suffering abuse from Paul and deliberately leaked it to the press to try and damage his image (her former publicist acknowledged that both the leaking and the allegations were false).
-Lied by claiming she lives a simple life when she petitioned to the High Court for an "outrageous" list of expenses and luxuries.
-Despite countless expensive gifts and a massive allowance from Paul for her, her friends and her family, she went behind Paul's back and attempted to embezzle money from his company (as shown in court records).
-Cheated at her sport (skiing) and after she was caught, assaulted a Paralympic Official and got herself banned.
-Was officially branded an "unreliable witness" "prone to make believe" by the High Court of England.
-Pathologically lied to her first husband, her serial fiancees, her friends and family.
-Lied about her mother's cause of death.
-Lied about being homeless. Lied about being a sex worker. Lied about doing porn.
-Was so erratic and unreasonable that the law firm she hired to represent her in the divorce (who'd represented Princess Diana) fired her as a client.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 13, 2015 20:56:00 GMT -5
Nicole did a more comprehensive list upthread, but some of Heather's greatest hits of wrongs: (snip) -Lied about being homeless. Lied about being a sex worker. Lied about doing porn. I won't upload it here (sorry, guys) but UK newspapers printed her porn pics. Or are you saying that wasn't her?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 13, 2015 20:57:19 GMT -5
Just went to her Twitter profile. I have more followers than Heather Mills.
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 13, 2015 21:07:47 GMT -5
Steve, I meant she lied about doing porn. She frequently claimed that all she'd ever done was topless photos and was a Page 3 girl, and it was no big deal and that Paul knew about it and didn't care. When actually, in addition to the topless photos, she'd done at least one hardcore porn shoot (which she at first tried to claim was for an "instructional manual").
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 13, 2015 23:02:02 GMT -5
Steve, I meant she lied about doing porn. She frequently claimed that all she'd ever done was topless photos and was a Page 3 girl, and it was no big deal and that Paul knew about it and didn't care. When actually, in addition to the topless photos, she'd done at least one hardcore porn shoot (which she at first tried to claim was for an "instructional manual"). OK. I misread what you said. Sorry. And your answer toggles my brain now. I remember she'd claimed she hadn't done more than topless.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 13, 2015 23:39:59 GMT -5
Steve, I meant she lied about doing porn. She frequently claimed that all she'd ever done was topless photos and was a Page 3 girl, and it was no big deal and that Paul knew about it and didn't care. When actually, in addition to the topless photos, she'd done at least one hardcore porn shoot (which she at first tried to claim was for an "instructional manual"). Oh, come on, by today's standards Heather's so-called porn shoot would be considered "soft" porn, kid's stuff! And don't tell me with Paul's little henchmen, led by John Eastman, that he didn't do his homework on one Heather Mills before he ever shagged her! Paul probably enjoyed those photos! Macca is not some saint when it comes to sex! That porn charge against Heather is sour grapes from Paul apologists! Heather's list of fabrications are no more than Brian Williams, the disgraced NBC News anchor, or dare I say than even Sir James Paul McCartney himself whose historical revisionism as to the Beatles makes Heather and Brian Williams look like George Washington, the "I cannot tell a lie" founding father of the United States of America!
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 14, 2015 0:47:51 GMT -5
Heather's list of fabrications are no more than Brian Williams, the disgraced NBC News anchor, or dare I say than even Sir James Paul McCartney himself whose historical revisionism as to the Beatles makes Heather and Brian Williams look like George Washington, the "I cannot tell a lie" founding father of the United States of America! You have said quite a lot of things I find ludicrous but this!? Really?! You honestly believe that Paul's 'historical revisionism' (which isn't necessarily a dirty phrase, btw - the authors of history don't always get it right immediately after events occur, revisionism can be necessary, etc) is far, far greater in terms of lies that those we have proof Heather has told!? That boggles the mind, frankly. Wow. Linda wasn't a doormat. Paul spoke about liking that she wasn't, actually. She and I liked to take the "mickey" out of each other and I liked that she was strong enough to take the "mickey" out of me. I was telling someone the other day one of the greatest things for me, strangely enough -- it seems a bit perverse but it's true -- was being told off by Linda. And it didn't happen many times, but the first year we got together, somebody had said something about her that wasn't amazingly complementary. I can't remember what it was, but we were walking down Park Avenue in New York and it was late, late at night, early in the morning,. We'd been to see probably her dad or something. We were strolling arm-in-arm, and I mentioned this thing; I said, "Oh so-and-so said so-and-so." Well, she stopped in the middle of the street. Luckily, there was no traffic. She put her hands on her hips and she just colored-up, not a kind of beet root color, more a sort of light strawberry, and she just looked me right in the eye. She said:"If you ever say that again or even suggest it," and she just tore a strip off me. I never forgot it. But you know what, I loved it. I just thought, God, this is her. She's being herself. She's not frightened. She's not the intimidated woman. And I love to see her like that. Fondly enough, because I think many men would think, "Ooh, how dare you go on like that?" and we'd have a raging argument. But I just said, "OK, I know that what you just said is absolute, a thousand percent true." And, apologize. You knew about it when she tore a strip off you. It's actually one of my most fondest memories. Linda even said in a public interview that if he ever cheated, she'd walk right out on him, and leave. Nancy doesn't strike me as a doormat, either, actually. Being quiet and avoiding the media doesn't make someone a pushover or without a backbone. Maybe she IS less of a dominant personality than Paul, but actually, he's always been attracted to strong women. It's one the traits he admired and loved in his mother, and that doesn't seem to have left him, regardless of him wanting his woman and the relationship to be traditional in many ways. CH: Linda was a successful and respected photographer -- nothing to do with the Eastman-Kodak family, as was rumored at the time -- before she met you. Neil Young, at the memorial service in New York, praised her work as among the best of her generation. How did marrying you affect her career?
PM: I used to joke that I ruined her career when we got married, because she became perceived as Mrs. McCartney, "the Eastman-Kodak heiress" Paul had married. A lot of newspaper stories just get changed because they are better stories when you lie a little. Of course, it still has to sacrifice the truth. So I used to make that joke. But to some degree I think it was true, because if she had a book of her photography, for instance, instead of people thinking she was worthy of a book, the thought was, "Oh, Paul probably arranged for her to have a book."
CH: Oh, I'm sure. I don't think it was a joke.
PM: No, no it wasn't actually such a joke because in fact, in later years, I must admit, I was starting to talk to her about maybe she should use the Linda Eastman name for photography or at least Linda Eastman McCartney because some of these people would say, "Oh I didn't realize that she was Linda Eastman." But the great thing is that she kept taking photos and whether people understood it or not, the body of work is there.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 14, 2015 4:50:36 GMT -5
Some of Paul's best Beatle's songs came from his fights with Jane with the topic of the fight most often her refusal to give up her acting career. How did Paul respond to her refusal to stay at home, he cheated on her with all kinds of women when she was away. He even had his "must have been magic" moment with Linda when he was still with Jane, on Monday 15 May 1967.
As scousette noted a page or so ago in this Thread, Linda was a Rock and Roll groupie who slept with bigger and bigger(fame wise) rock stars until she bagged her a Beatle! She essentially gave up her professional career as a photographer until about the mid-1980's or so when, pursuant to entries in the Keith Badman book, trouble in the McCartney marriage made her realize she felt unfulfilled. I give Linda credit for getting back into a career with both her photography and the veggie food. Her getting a career of her own came at about the time of the infamous "Linda Tapes" which laid out the winter of her discontent! And for which Paul paid huge bucks to buy back after Linda was gone.
Nancy was a big-time member of the New York State Republican scene, a lover of leather and red meat and several other things that go against the McCartney Family Values. Guess who bent on his or her way of life? But she's cool, she has her own money.
In one of my links on this Thread, Heather talks about Paul not liking independent women. Sure he likes loud, opinionated women if they are loud and opinionated pro-Paul, like Linda jumping into the Lennon-McCartney war of 1970 to 1972 and then later, post-John, the switching of songwriting credits. But apparently working outside the house is a no-no for Paul as to his woman. Oh woman, oh why?!
Paul really is Ying/Yang with his women and I feel a new postulate coming on. There are the Janes/Heathers versus the Lindas/Nancys and it is symetrical: Jane, Linda, Heather, and Nancy.
I was serious in the Kanye Thread that Paul's next wife/lover will be Miley Cyrus or someone like her so that will be a Miley.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 14, 2015 6:19:32 GMT -5
As scousette noted a page or so ago in this Thread, Linda was a Rock and Roll groupie who slept with bigger and bigger(fame wise) rock stars until she bagged her a Beatle! I'm glad that this has been addressed, at least. And Linda admitted in some interviews that she actually fancied John Lennon most! Of course, Macca fans have no trouble crucifying Yoko for hooking on to John, but say nothing about Linda bagging Paul. Keep in mind that this is only from Heathen's perspective. But even if it WAS true, Paul wouldn't be the first man that felt that way. So what? Me, I prefer women who are somewhat independent; less for me to have to do or worry about! Just sit back, relax, and be taken care of! But at the same time, I like to be needed too.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 14, 2015 9:20:36 GMT -5
Of course, Macca fans have no trouble crucifying Yoko for hooking on to John, but say nothing about Linda bagging Paul. Having no romantic leanings towards any of the Beatles, I have no problem with any of the marriages based on honest romance (by which I single out Heather Mills and a marriage based on her dishonesty and a premeditated plan to snag a millionaire through marriage and parenthood). As far as the Linda/Yoko thing is concerned, the distinction I make is that Linda was happy for Paul to be a Beatle, Yoko had it in mind to stop John being a Beatle.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 14, 2015 12:13:41 GMT -5
Of course, Macca fans have no trouble crucifying Yoko for hooking on to John, but say nothing about Linda bagging Paul. Having no romantic leanings towards any of the Beatles, I have no problem with any of the marriages based on honest romance (by which I single out Heather Mills and a marriage based on her dishonesty and a premeditated plan to snag a millionaire through marriage and parenthood). As far as the Linda/Yoko thing is concerned, the distinction I make is that Linda was happy for Paul to be a Beatle, Yoko had it in mind to stop John being a Beatle. Now vectis, you are clearly a respected Elder on this Board, a U.K. Firstie nonetheless, who knew and dug the Beatles before our American Firsties had ever even heard of them or seen them on Ed Sullivan but was Heather's pursuit of Paul any less sincere than Linda's pursuit?! I think Paul and Heather met at some event in which neither Heather nor Paul knew they would meet and if I recall, Paul was fascinated by the beautiful, fiesty, spunky yet highly sensitive, deeply intuitive and vulnerable Heather. Heather was naturally charmed by Sir Paul's pleasing public personality and remember, he had that killer short haircut back then that made him look like a stud, 25 years younger than his biological age! No one forced either Heather or Paul on the other and Paul wrote two of his greatest songs ever about those days, "Heather" and "Your Loving Flame." That's true inspiration that couldn't be faked by Paul! Paul loved Linda in Paul's domineering, control freakery, and some would whisper 'McCartney reign of terror' way! I have never argued that Paul and Linda did not love each other. Whatever gets you through the night is alright! But Linda left the U.S., left her very young daughter Heather Louise not with her father, Mel See, but with assorted family and friends to travel across the pond and bag her a Beatle. As JoeK reminds us, it was John that she may have first desired! She first met Paul on that "it must have been magic" night of May 15, 1967 at the Bag O'Nails and four days later Linder pulled stings(and God only knows what favors she did) to land herself at the Press party for the upcoming Sgt Pepper album at Brian Epstein's house at 24 Chapel Street, London. Little did real "Lady" Jane Asher know! So vectis, I love you like a granddad but I hope you see Heather Mills is systematically misconstrued by a vicious PR machine probably headed by John Eastman under the command of either Stella McCartney or even Sir Paul himself. Now as to Yoko, we all know John wanted out of The Beatles, John knew there was more to life. He was grateful for the doors opened but it was time for the once Dream Weaver to move on and become John again. As JoeK reminded us of years ago when he alone carried the Yoko flag, Yoko enabled John to break free. There is nothing wrong for a prisoner(here one of fame not iron bars) to desire freedom!
|
|