This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Sir Paul's divorce settlement (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Sir Paul's divorce settlement
hobbes
Member
Member # 28

 - posted      Profile for hobbes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, with 25 million quid, she's got a Crust for Life.
Posts: 12499 | From: East of Ealing | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskolnikov
Member
Member # 751

 - posted      Profile for Raskolnikov     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Pre-nups are not legally binding in the UK.
Posts: 651 | From: London, England | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not at all?

In the US, I think pre-nups are usually binding for the money stuff, but not for custody of kids. The court will always decide based on its opinion of what's best for the child.

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskolnikov
Member
Member # 751

 - posted      Profile for Raskolnikov     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nope.

The Court may (and often does) take them into account, and may choose to enforce them in their totality, but they are not per se binding. There's been talk about them becoming binding for years: they were covered by a Green paper back in 1998, and in 2004, the Law Commission recommended that they be so recognised. They also feature rather regularly in divorce cases, often high-profile ones, but it seems no-one is prepared to bite the bullet and make them definitively binding. The closest it's come so far was earlier this year, when the Court of Appeal held that 'a judge had a discretionary power in ancillary relief proceedings to require a party to show good cause why a prenuptial agreement should not govern the division of assets on the dissolution of the marriage.' Mind you, that case involved a serial-divorcée millionairess claiming financial provision after a marriage lasting less than two years, where both parties had instructed highly-experienced lawyers to draft a no-provision pre-nup.

Posts: 651 | From: London, England | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tubby Isaacs
Member
Member # 223

 - posted      Profile for Tubby Isaacs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I know it's per annum, dogbeak. I'm assuming it has nothing to do with what she needs, in any normal sense of the word. So it must be based on what McCartney earns. He must earn a much higher amount than that, mustn't he?
Posts: 18279 | From: Georgica | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The 35K is on top of school fees and all that kind of palaver isn't it?

I like her cos of the animal rights stuff but I share the concerns about damage to the cause. However I noticed today that Sir Paul is on the home page of the PETA website, so maybe they've done that thing you have to do of taking sides in a divorce.

When i see the word 'divorce' I hear Arnie saying 'consider that a diworce'.

Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bored Of The Dance
Member
Member # 6347

 - posted      Profile for Bored Of The Dance     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He must earn a much higher amount than that, mustn't he?
I assumed, naively, that they worked out over how many years he had accumulated his £400m and what part of that she was around for. Still looks like a very good deal any way you look at it.
Posts: 3647 | From: the desk of the Chairman | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah they were married 4 years so she gets a cut of what he made in that time rather than his overall fortune I think. I was reading some of the detail about the things she claimed and what kind of embarrassing lies most of it seemed to be - but I dunno, fault on both sides, etc.

They said it was something like £700 an hour for the marriage. I would marry Margaret Thatcher for £700 an hour.

Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tubby Isaacs
Member
Member # 223

 - posted      Profile for Tubby Isaacs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wouldn't the £35k for the daughter be based on future earnings though? As distinct from the £25 million which I assume is based on earnings during the 4 years they were married.
Posts: 18279 | From: Georgica | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
linus
Member
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for linus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I probably shouldn't bite, but come on then Linus, tell me why the cause of animal rights is a "retarded" one and a "millionaire" one.
SR, I think it's totally retarded for McCartney to go on a crusade against Canada because of the seal hunt when his own country, Britain, has had a big role in the death of about one million Iraqis and the ongoing destruction of their country in a colonial enterprise. Yet people like McCartney advocate economic sanctions against Canada because of the seal hunt.

Animal rights tends to be a celebrity pet cause which draws dumb rich famous people like Brigitte Bardot and that former Baywatch skank whose name escapes me. It is often motivated in a shallow kawai ethos, the cult of cuteness. Harping on the seal hunt is a perfect embodiment of that idiotic impulse. It's also partially rooted in a misanthropic vision of the world, in which animals are more important than human beings (or as important.)

The seal hunt in one of the most ecologically sound way to harvest animal protein, and it provides some great dietary and economic benefits to the poorest segments of some of the poorest parts of Canada.

It is also a "safe" cause, celebrities can speak out in favor of animal rights without having that affect record sales or their chances of being dropped from the movie industry (see what happened to the Dixie Chicks). They do so either because they don't want to speak out against the causes that really matter more, or are too dumb or politically outright wrong to leverage their celebrity status to make a difference.

While it would be wrong to dismiss animal rights altogether (there certainly are some basic standards that ought to be respected), I don't think it's as important today as some of the issues that affect the life (and deaths) of millions of people around the world.

Posts: 1376 | From: afar | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hieronymus Bosch
Member
Member # 1209

 - posted      Profile for Hieronymus Bosch     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would marry Margaret Thatcher for £700 an hour.

Even if you had to have sex with her?

Morgan -- their child is about four years old, I doubt if she has much of a clue what's going on, let alone experiencing any embarrassment.

The seal hunt in one of the most ecologically sound way to harvest animal protein

That's as may be, but surely there's a more humane way to cull them than battering them over the head with a 2 x 4?

Posts: 20007 | From: Terrestrial Paradise | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobbes
Member
Member # 28

 - posted      Profile for hobbes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I reckon there's a hint of napalm in the air.
Posts: 12499 | From: East of Ealing | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Linus has some good points.

However, my understanding is that baby seals are/have been clubbed for their fur, not their meat, and for most of the world's population, wearing fur is an unnecessary and impracticle luxury.

The Inuit, et al, do eat a lot of seal meat and wear animal skins, and they need it to survive, but as far as I'm aware, they're more inclined to kill a big seal. After all, big seals are easier to shoot because they're bigger.

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskolnikov
Member
Member # 751

 - posted      Profile for Raskolnikov     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The provision for the child is not based on earnings, but the principle that her standard of living should not unduly deteriorate as a result of the divorce. Looking after children will be taken account of in the provision made for the responsible adult.

Sir Paul made an initial offer of (index-linked) £35,000 p.a. plus up to £25,000 p.a. for a nanny until the child reached 17 or left secondary education, plus school fees, health insurance, and other reasonable costs. The only change made to this by the court was to increase the nanny allowance by £5k p.a. and to order that arrangements be made to continue payments in the event of Sir Paul's early death. Ms Mills' counter-proposals were so inflated that there appears to have been little in the way of detailed scrutiny of the basis for Sir Paul's; it has ended up being, largely, accepted by default.

FWIW, Sir Pauls' average annual earnings are estimated around the £20 millions mark.

Posts: 651 | From: London, England | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tubby Isaacs
Member
Member # 223

 - posted      Profile for Tubby Isaacs     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ah thanks, that makes more sense.
Posts: 18279 | From: Georgica | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  12  13  14   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there