What a nasty piece of work Heather Mills is, and her "spin" today in response to her getting almost the minimum she could expect from Paul McCartney was an object lesson in bravado and spin over substance, with some really telling quotes which tell us as much as we need to know about her personality as we would ever want.
in the first instance, it was hilarious to hear that she wanted £125 million of Sir Paul's money. In the end, she got just £700,000 more than Sir Paul was offering, meaning he has to pay her £16.5 million (she gets to keep her own £7.8 million is assets so the total is given as £24.3 million). When asked whether she had, in hindsight, been silly to represent herself, she said in response
"Not at all. Lawyers couldn't get anywhere near this figure."
Let's be clear for Heather, she wanted £109.2 million more than Sir Paul McCartney was offering, instead she got just £700,000. In real percentage terms, by representing herself she gained herself an extra 0.6%. Let's put it this way. A career representing others in the divorce courts is something Heather Mills should avoid if she can only get an extra 0.6%.
The other statements of note were her comments to questions as to whether Sir Paul was mean, her response was an attempt to be above the question, for the "sake of her daughter", followed by the spineless comment "I can't say that for the sake of my daughter but my sister does."
But what shows Heather Mills up in the worst possible light is her comments about the £35,000 that Paul and Heather's daughter will receive as a personal income each year. The problem is that Heather does not think this is enough. Let's get this clear, she thinks that a tax free £35,000 per annum, equivalent to about the same as myself and my wife get jointly, after tax, each year is not enough. Why isn't this enough, well Heather Mills explains
"So, she's obviously meant to travel B class while her father travels A class - but obviously I will pay for that,"
So in effect Heather, you are going to do what every other person in the world does and provide for your child from your own income ! Well what a hero you are (please note this is sarcasm).
What a horrible woman she is.
Today we learnt why she was so keen to get the court ruling made private. It appears she didn't tell the truth when revealing her financial situation.
7 comments:
Hear hear!
She's a Wanker- hope she enjoys being the new "Yoko Ono" for the next 40 years
correction "horrible Rich woman"
The divorce laws have to change in this country. Earnings before marriage should be completely scrapped and a cap put on the percentage of your partners' earnings you are entitled to.
Here's my typically British view of the story.
What surprises me is that it appears that Mills poured water over McCartney's lawyer in court and nothing happened. I would have thought this was at the least contempt of court if not assault!!!!!!
She is almost as nasty as Livingstone.
Post a Comment