Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Paul McCartney of Beatles Fame

Strangely? Silent ...Please make comment in this post as to why women (I am particularly interested in their views) think that Heather Mills is entitled to ANYTHING after divorcing Paul McCartney. What should Heather be entitled to?

So here's the thing.

Why women in this forum think that Heather Mills is entitled to ANYTHING after divorcing Paul McCartney.

I don't think she is and have raised the issue several times. I think The law is wrong.

So here's the test for women.

1) If they DON'T RAGE at this injustice then they MUST tacitly SUPPORT IT! (After all this website represent people who are prepared TO COMMENT AT LEAST.)

2) If they think it does not affect them - then what about the rule of law and caring about the community in general?

I understand why men are silent - they are so beaten down in this country they accept what is heaped upon them ("Put more on - I can take it") - but WOMEN are far more savvy when it comes to money. So why the silence? Nothing wrong? Situation normal? He was stupid enough to cave in to an aggressive, abusive, manipulative women; serves him right (go girl you). If only men would stand up to women?

So the best way Paul McCartney could have stood up to Heather Mills was to:

1) Make up stories and sell them to the papers.

2) Go for all her assets (10c).

3) Appear on dancing with the stars.

Any other suggestions?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
So here's the thing.

Why women in this forum think that Heather Mills is entitled to ANYTHING after divorcing Paul McCartney.
Where did this come from? Have I missed some postings somewhere?

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I am not sure what people think about this issue and am keen to get their views.

It seems a big area of family law worth discussing given this extreme example.

NONE of the women I have spoken with at work have any comment to make about this - they go all quiet - they sort of put the ideas in a little mental box in the corner and ignore it.

So why the lack of comment?

Is it that most women think the family law system which allows this sort of outcome is a good thing? They like the idea of women somewhere getting money from an ex? In most cases women benefit from these things - so what do women think?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
This topic was moved here from the Lobbyist area -which did not appear an appropriate area for its content

 Senior Site Moderator and Administrator
Could be because they are embarrassed that someone would go to such length in search of the old Au.

But let's face it why would anyone do this to a Beatle for goodness sake I mean he's Paul McCartney one of the Fab Four OK he slipped a bit with Wings but hey that can be forgiven.

I mean a porn star you'd have to think about her true feelings for love or money.

But then she does have a disability so she does need to be taken care of.

Simply put perhaps people just don't know how they feel about it all especially when they hear no pre-nups and it is only a small portion of his wealth.

The question that should be ask " Is Paul McCartney happy with it all?"

And if you attack the assets that people have made after divorce won't this effect those amongst the ranks who have managed to do well after divorce. Yes I know your talking about profiting from crime but no crime was committed apart from the normal ones at separation and divorce.
The poor man made a bad decision while still grieving for his wife.

I would say, beware of any women who seems too good to be true and wants your baby after the first couple of dates.

The world is filled with calculating women, it's just sad he didn't get a pre-nup (bfa in this country); which is something I've banged on about on this forum enough already.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
But the point is - it's not the woman's fault - she did nothing wrong. The law and the system was set up for to claim large amounts of money.

People often blame the person involved i.e. he should not have been so stupid, he should not have trusted her, she should not have gone for the money.

The law allows this to happen - what about turning this on the head. Why should anyone be entitled to anything from anyone after divorce? - especially after a few years - NOT  a lifetime of building assets and especially after a person is already employed - earned most of their money - established most of their career?

Wys doesn't anyone think the system is wrong?

What exactly is wrong with the Paul McCartney (or Greg Norman or Donald Trump) stories?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Yes, the system is wrong. I don't know much about the English system. I wonder what the settlement would have been had he gone to court. She contributed very little to the marriage. I suspect Sir Paul gave more than he was required to because he didn't want to be in court for years.

I suppose I look at the personal angle and not the system. The system needs changing, but that is slow. In the meantime, you cannot escape personal responsibility.

Anyone who thinks it cute to not have a pre-nup, when that sort of money is involved is crazy.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I guess it's all relevant to status and ego when you are playing with exceptional amounts of money and fame.

As we have seen in several cases it could also boil down to legal blackmail where one parties silence is bought, this is then not part of what is available to most people and is beyond the law but rather an agreement for discretion. This has nothing to do with length of time spent together or assets built etc. So it does boil down to personal greed of the person.

This in itself would suggest the Law has no call on personal agreements or hush money this is simply a contract entered into that the person feels is more viable than the possible alternate.

Are you suggesting that all assets go to state when separation occurs ???

Perhaps in essence the system isn't wrong but the application of it is.

The story of the three people that you have mentioned is the seems to be that they settled to a point they were not dissatisfied they were prepared to foot the bill before it went to far and probably saved in the effort of legal costs for both parties.

The system was set up for fair appraisal of both parties with consideration for time and assets, it's application seems to be what is in concern.   

Come on people - this is no more than an amusing topic as none of the actors involved, the money or the Law represents the average

McCartney had enough and why the 'piss off money' seems high it in no way affect Sir Paul's lifestyle

Donald likes to trade in for a newer model every few years so his costs are probably factored as acquisition and disposal of a temporary asset and I believe he is into pre nupts - smart fella! (Must be - look at his property empire - so contracts are a way of life for him)

Greg decided he liked America and got the full treatment, but we should remember his marriage was long term and she was also his business partner
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The writing should have been on the wall when she threw her engagement ring into the ocean - well, that's what the gossip mags say and they don't lie. Well, they don't do they?

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Agog - The idea that because someone has a lot of money they can afford to give some away is a strange concept - and strangely the one used in family court. i.e. the one with no money is never forced to give the one without money - money they never had? If you can swing a marriage where you don't work (or work reduced hours) , stay at home a lot, do little to improve things - smiling with awe at the growth of income and assets in the marriage - you know you will never lose.

As far as the outcomes representing the average - they do exactly represent the reality (maybe less because these people lose less percentage of their income and assets).

Spousal maintenance is STILL on the books and allows people to claim even more (he ruined my career as a world leader because I was carrying HIS children). All designed to encourage women to be treated like baby makers, incompetents and stay at home mums.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
The idea that because someone has a lot of money they can afford to give some away is a strange concept……."
Is it? - it forms the basis of the teachings of all major religions

None of these case represent any norm in Family Law in Australia - they are high profile one offs.

Now to the task at hand is to stop trying to beat up an irrelevant issue and now to try anbd tie it to the mainstream Australian Family Law process.

Spousal maintenance is an issue and is constantly being addressed by the Courts. With the forthcoming changes to CSA both the SPCA and SRL-R have been putting in groundwork on those issues. The issue is complex and little understood.


Last edit: by OneRingRules


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Personally I thought it embarrasing that a woman would go for so much money when she was only married to him for 4 years, however in all reality anything involving fame and money doesn't reflect our lives so why bother commenting when it is not an issue that could realistically assist anyone in these forums?

What I did find hard to take was the article about Heather Mills and her ideal man - how crass!

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Beat up an issue - Agog - Family law IS ABOUT ASSETS AND INCOME. These cases are not irrelevant and problem of not seeing it as this but as an individual woman's actions - is BIZZARE.

Imagine if we had a law which made it legal to beat up women but only those men who "needed" to or were "nasty" did so -THE LAW IS WRONG. Some laws are wrong you know - not just at the technical drafting complexity type sense but also - fundamentally flawed

Imagine if there was law that said domestic violence in marriage is not a crime - partners are allowed to be as violent as they like towards each other (without causing death). If you don't like what is happening - then divorce. That way there would less crime, less police time involved, people would get married KNOWING THE FULL CONSEQUENCES of what that meant to their rights and responsibilities. It would also mean that DV could not be used as an excuse to remove children or assets from one parent. Would this be a good law and why not?

THE LAW ON ASSETS SPLIT is completely ON TOPIC.

As for taking money from the rich - its all a matter of relativities. ITS still the case (for a number of reasons) that men have more money than women in most age groups (I would doubt that the over 40 divorced group would have the same gender spilt) ergo in ANY relationship - the man loses more than the woman generally. If you consider that even in an equal partnerships where chores are shared, child rearing, earning etc - assets are split - still one person wins another loses.

In Paul McCartney's case - she was fully supported and lived a life of luxury AND claimed hundreds of millions of dollars.

The issue is not that she did this - but that people generally SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THE LAW.

So lets discuss the merits of the LAW. Why should anyone be ENTITLED to anything that someone else owns or has.

For example the recent case where 2 people married in their 60's lasted a few years (5?) .7 years after divorce he inherited a large some of money. She went to court arguing that they knew auntY X was going to die one day and wife had an EXPECATATION that this money would go to her ex.

Judge said OK - Wife gets 40% of HIS inheritance 7 years after divorce. The law is right?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
 Beat up an issue - Agog - Family law IS ABOUT ASSETS AND INCOME. These cases are not irrelevant and problem of not seeing it as this but as an individual woman's actions - is BIZZARE.
Yes, you are beating up an issue with this topic. Family Law is about CHILDREN assets and income. It saddens me that you have raised your colors as a money issue and forgotten children. Sir Paul gets 'equal access' for 6% of his assets, forget the zero's as these are all telephone book numbers to the majority of us and the money to be paid makes absolutely no difference to their lifestyle.

Equal access for 6% of your wealth is a deal most Fathers would leap at.

Jon Pearson said
THE LAW ON ASSETS SPLIT is completely ON TOPIC.
No the topic is the McCartney Divorce (under English Law) it is not a topic on Assets Split. There are perfectly good forums available for AUSTRALIAN Property Law on this site.

Jon Pearson said
……….Judge said OK - Wife gets 40% of HIS inheritance 7 years after divorce. The law is right?
And the cases are?

============

Celebrity and high value overseas cases have little relevance to Australia other than for entertainment value

There is an another celebrity case coming up in the States. Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. She is worth 120 million and he is worth 1 million, so the odds are he will get a healthy chunk of that. Will it be of relevance to Australian Law - NO.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Agog - children sometimes come out of marriages sometimes they don't.

Is it possible to talk about issues related to Family Law, marriages, divorce etc with quoting CSA dogma "What about the children" as if that allows all logic and discussion to be thrown into garbage?

Do you want to find the specific case which was reported in the last year on THAT asset distribution - or what about the one where the QLD ex politician was told sold his BROTHERS house and give the money to the ex - do you read any of the cases in family law and CSA over the last 5 years?

Agog you fall for the trap - 6% to get to equal access - thats a loser mentality based on being downtrodden so long that if someone shows you a glimpse of sunlight for a minute you should be eternally grateful. Is Bob Geldolf  relevant - he's on the front of this site - why show him?

Of course there are relationships between overseas and Australian law - the go looking overseas for new models to use here all the time. Anything which does not cause too much fuss overseas is seen as fair game for an amendment here.

Why shoulld anyone pay anything - on why sensible basis - Why is it that some people cannot even entertain this question and think about it? It intrigues me where they put their mind. Right now this example is apparently about me showing my colours (whatever that means).

Why not attack the issue?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon

The issue is simply that you appear to relate all Family Law to Financial issues, mu great concern is that you missed the word 'children'. This is nothing to do with CSA dogma

Do I read any cases? I suppose that is a rhetorical question? The reason is that I have such a better understanding of what actually occurs is the amount of time I spend in Court. A four day hearing condensed into a Judgment that can be read in 10 minutes does not give anyone 100% insight into what actually occurred. There is a great difference between being an armchair critic and critique from someone that was part of a hearing

There is no loser mentality for 6% - if anything it could be considered sensible

Bob Geldorf is on the site because he has used his high profile to expose some of the extreme problems in English Family Law

By true colour I meant that most of your posts are about money or anti female

In this topic there is no 'issue' to attack -its a celebrity financial break up - the next one will be Kevin F getting milions from his ex -will this attract the same attention?
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Offended but not surprised at your comments Agog.

Quite often when people's fundamental beliefs are threatened they resort to personal attack and not logic.

I really don't mind you attacking my ideas or arguing them but YOUR politically correct attitude typifies exactly why many things don't even get discussed. I have no worries if someone makes themselves feel good by how aligned their thinking is  - no problem .  So its obviously not you I can have this discussion with - its also a topic failing to get any interest from others at all - which is my point entirely.

I have my children (over the last 12 years) - I have been there and done that. I have sat in courts in my cases and others to help  - the issue on this website are related to children and so is this one. I am not saying I know more than others - anyone is welcome to claim expert status if that makes them feel better. I am expressing my thoughts, concerns and questions validly , without prejudice and without intent on attacking anyone personally at all.

I relate family law to what are the underlying drivers and problems - one key one is money,  others are (a list)

1) Lack of expectation by many males

2) Role playing

3) complex legality (some thrive of this stuff - because it shows how clever they are)

4) Lack of logic

5) Lack of care for the children

Let's try a bit more logic just to see:

Children need money - why else Child Support? money must therefore be central to children issues? Otherwise there would be legislation and support about clothes, food, health, education, social values - all to do with separation.

Australian cases are the ones I am quoting - I did the research when I was preparing for my cases some years ago. I therefore have a pretty good view how magistrates around the country have been operating over the last 7 years.

If you propose the idea that a man should give up 6% of his assets (at least) for the wondrous joy of raising his children and you fail to see a problem with that - then great - go for it. Advise all your clients to give as much money as they can to "settle them down"  "reduce conflict" so they might have the chance (if they pay enough) so the "owning" parent can let them see the children.

Your comments about being anti female are probably beneath you - but once again show a lack of comprehension of many of the things I have raised here. Who needs feminists to attack me and my ideas when non-feminists seem to do the job for them?

If anyone is capable of engaging in this discussion on some sort of logical level and without resorting to personal attack - I would really appreciate it.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Actually JP I am interested in what is being said.

My feeling is that Agog is right at the nuts and bolts level, however draw back to the societal level, which in time effects the nuts and bolts level (and vice-versa), then it is relevant in that such a high profile situation will likely affect people's opinions and thus expectations. Just don't ask me which way this one is swaying opinions.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets