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 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Sir Paul's divorce settlement
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Er, he's quoting linus.

Yep, my bad.

[ 19.03.2008, 13:21: Message edited by: The Batebe of Toro Foundation ]

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To paraphrase Milan Kundera, if a bunch of aliens showed up and started barbecuing people, and we protested, but they said "well, we're superior to you and the fact that we eat you proves it" would that argument work for you?
Bob Nozick, innit?
Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Taylor, that's reductio ad absurdum stuff, and I suspect you know it. Why don't you go all the way and say that vegetarians who wash their bedsheets are hypocrites because they're killing thousands of microscopic mites?


SR, you have a philosophy degree.

You must be aware that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument.

Come on.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ad hoc
Member
Member # 52

 - posted      Profile for ad hoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bob Nozick? No idea. I just remember a lengthy passage in the Unbearable Lightness of being where Kundera imagines a groups of aliens appearing on earth clutching their holy book which gives them the right to hold dominion over humans, and proceeding to eat them.
I once used it in a heated online argument with someone who believed in the settlement movement, who, in as shocked a tone as you can muster on email, "you take the word of this writer, whoever he may be, over the word of G_d?" At which point I kind of gave up, because anything else I said would be just ridiculing him.

Posts: 14456 | From: Magyaristan | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ha ha.

"this writer".

Yeah, I think the argument is from Nozick. Probably Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but I'm not sure...

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ginger Yellow
Member
Member # 447

 - posted      Profile for Ginger Yellow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I wouldn't kill a human being, boil him and eat him, the way I would eat a lobster. I wouldn't consume human flesh if that were (somehow) an option. This behavior is one manifestation inherently embodying the notion that humans are superior to lobsters or others animals most human beings consume.
I don't follow your point. Cannibalism is fairly rare (though far from unheard of) in the animal kingdom as a whole, and it's not unheard of among human societies either. All it demonstrates is that humans follow the general rule among mammals. Are chimpanzees superior to monkeys simply because they eat monkeys instead of chimps?
Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Linus is claiming a direct connection between opposing seal hunting and supporting the invasion of Iraq.
No, he isn't. He's saying that supporting one cause and not the other is abhorrent. Your point, that supporting one doesn't preclude you from supporting the other, is correct but irrelevant - it need not be the case, but he's talking about people for whom it is the case.

I think G-Man's argument about Burma only works if we accept that seal pups are on a par with humans. If not, then linus' point that we shouldn't support animal rights instead of human rights still stands.

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Has anyone read Michel Faber's Under the Skin?
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 
I agree with GY. The one feature distinguishing us from other species as far as cannibalism is concerned is that one section of that species has rejected cannibalism on moral and, I suppose, medical grounds and this view is now in the majority.
Posts: 3647 | From: the desk of the Chairman | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Spearmint Rhino
Member
Member # 189

 - posted      Profile for Spearmint Rhino     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No, he isn't. He's saying that supporting one cause and not the other is abhorrent. Your point, that supporting one doesn't preclude you from supporting the other, is correct but irrelevant - it need not be the case, but he's talking about people for whom it is the case.
Linus is being allowed to have it both ways here. First he brings up Paul McCartney's views on the war in connection with his views on animal rights (you want "irrelevant", well how about that?!), then his apologists deny that he ever claimed that there is a connection (when it was, at the very least, strongly implied). An extremely generous bit of slack-cutting, and I'm a bit baffled by it, to be honest.
Posts: 23907 | From: the Naughty North to the Sexy South, we're all singing 'I HAVE THE MOUTH!' | Registered: Jun 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 
The bit about her trying to get him to pay off 480,000 on a mortgage that didn't exist is quite amusing.

quote:
Heather Mills "exaggerated" claims that she saved Sir Paul McCartney's career after he was devastated by the the death of his wife Linda, the judge said.

The musician said her only meaningful contribution was a nylon fingernail she suggested he use for playing the guitar after his own wore down to the quick.

The former model had described herself as Sir Paul's "full time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist", said the judgement.

She said she had counselled him as he grieved for Linda following her death from breast cancer in 1998, had given him the confidence to tour again and had helped him write songs as well as helping with set designs and lighting.

But Mr Justice Bennett dismissed her claims one by one.

In his judgment he concluded: "He said that for about a year after Linda's death he was in a sad state and that the wife exhibited the normal reactions of any kindly person.

"He denied he had lost his confidence. Her case that in some way she single-handedly saved him was exaggerated.

"He denied that she had encouraged him to return to touring. He firmly said that she contributed nothing on the tours. She did not design sets or assist with the lighting."

The judge added: "The wife, as the husband said, enjoys being the centre of attention. Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention."


Miss Mills accused Sir Paul of sabotaging her career and calling her a "bad mother"' for wanting to work. She told the court he constantly obstructed her television and modelling careers.

"Countless lucrative business opportunities were made to me once Paul and I married. Sadly Paul advised against 99 per cent of them," she said.

"If I had been free to pursue my TV career, especially in the U.S., then I believe, and have been told by professionals, I would have made millions."

But Sir Paul told Mr Justice Bennett he had never said his wife was or would be a bad mother and had always been a "good mother".

The judge said: "I find that far from the husband dictating to and controlling the wife's career and charitable activities, he did the exact opposite, as he says.

"He encouraged it and lent his support, name and reputation to her business and charitable activities."

Miss Mills was castigated by the judge for a "distinctly distasteful" attempt to get 480,000 from Sir Paul to pay off a non- existent mortgage on a home he had already paid for.

The court heard details of how the "generous" musician lavished his wife with money, homes and gifts.

He lent her 800,000 interest free in May 2001 to buy Angel's Rest in Hove as well as further 150,000 for improvements.

The following year the loan was "discharged" after she paid back less than half of it.

Sir Paul gave her a Coutts credit card and from April 2003 she received an annual allowance of 360,000, as well as cash gifts totalling 500,000.

He lent Heather's sister Fiona 421,000 to buy a house, and purchased a 193,00 property for her PA Sonya Mills as well as buying his wife jewellery worth 264,000.

Between January 2001 and late 2005 Sir Paul donated around 3,425,000 to Adopt a Minefield, one of Miss Mills's favourite charities.

Yet in November 2005 she demanded 480,000 from Sir Paul's company, MPL, to pay off a mortgage on a house Thames Reach, which she later admitted had been bought outright using funds from a bank account where she had lodged her husband's 500,000 cash gift.

Mr Justice Bennett said he would not go as far as calling her behaviour fraudulent, but he added: "In the light of her husband's generosity towards her, I find the wife's behaviour distinctly distasteful."

THE McCARTNEY MILLIONS

Sir Paul said his fortune was 400million, rather than 825million, and insisted his wife did not deserve a large share because the bulk was made before they even met.

The musician produced evidence showing his business interests were worth 240,900,000, his properties 33,979,000 and he had 15,159,000 in the bank.

Other assets included works of art, musical instruments, jewellery, cars and furniture valued at 32,269,000.

Sir Paul argued that the "vast majority" of his wealth had been accumulated in the 45 years before he met his wife and that money he generated through touring during their marriage was the result of playing music written when he was in The Beatles and Wings.


Miss Mills claimed Sir Paul physically and verbally abused her during their marriage and made fun of the fact that she had lost a leg.

In submissions to court she also stated he abused both alcohol and drugs and that he was possessive and jealous.

But Sir Paul countered her claims by denying he was violent toward her and accused her of being verbally abusive and extremely jealous.

And he said that throughout their marriage she had shown a consistent inability to tell the truth.

His barrister, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, QC, told the court that his client was being called a hypocrite and a monster.

Sir Paul accused Miss Mills of bugging his phone conversations and leaking the details to the press.

He alleged that a June 2006 conversation he had with his fashion designer daughter Stella, who disapproved of their relationship, was taped. During the call Stella made "very unflattering comments about the wife".

Sir Paul went on to claim that his former wife leaked the intercepted material to the Sunday Mirror in a further attempt to discredit him.

Miss Mills denied this and, in turn, accused Sir Paul of leaking other stories to the press.

But Mr Justice Bennett refused to accept the submissions from either side.

"Volatile" Miss Mills was her own "worst enemy" in her dealings with the media which destroyed her chances of a high profile career, said the judge.

She claimed her earning capacity had been destroyed following her relationship with Sir Paul.

And she said his attitude towards her working during the marriage, coupled with the vilification she received in the media, was to blame.

In court, she argued that her earning potential was now 'zero' and that her career had been "ruined by bad publicity".

Miss Mills spent a considerable amount of time arguing her case for 24-hour security for her and Beatrice, the couple's four-year-old daughter, mainly because of the threat she felt from press intrusion.

She said they needed extensive security which would have cost Sir Paul 542,000 a year.

But Sir Paul contradicted her claims that her life was made a misery by the attention of the press.

He said: "On the one hand she loved and courted the attention. On the other hand she is obsessed with her portrayal in the media."

And in his judgment, Mr Justice Bennett referred to her disastrous round of TV interviews last year where she said she was hounded like Princess Diana and Kate McCann.

The judge, awarding her 150,000 a year for security, stated: "She unwisely gave interviews in October and November 2007 which may have produced intrusion into her life by the media. But that was very largely self-inflicted.

"She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews."

THE PICASSOS AND THE RENOIRS

Miss Mills wanted to cross examine Sir Paul over the true worth of his fine art collection, including pieces by Renoir and Picasso.

She obtained a valuation placing it at 70million - at odds with his claim they were worth 25million.

But she was denied the opportunity to question him after he argued that she was not entitled to any part of that collection or a share of the value because it was very largely acquired before they met.

Sir Paul, a keen painter, went on to deny her claims that he had given her 30 pieces of his own work which were hanging in her home.

He told the judge he wanted them back and may leave them in a trust for his children.

Mr Justice Bennett said: "In my judgment he is entitled to have them back."

IN her now notorious interview with GMTV, Miss Mills claimed she was 1.5million in debt and could not even afford security to protect her daughter.

However the court found she had assets to the tune of 7,302,561 which included her house in Sussex - Pean's Wood - worth 3,675, 000, and her 2million house in Hove.

She also has almost 1million in the bank.

Miss Mills wanted Sir Paul to agree a deal worth 125million to pay for her and their daughter Beatrice, which amounted to 3.25million a year.

She said she needed an annual sum of 627,000 for her charity work, 500,000 for holidays, 500,000 for security, 125,000 for clothes, 39,000 for hospital flights and 39,000 on wine, even though she professes not to drink.

But the judge refused her "unreasonable" demands and awarded her a fraction at just 600,000 a year.

She will receive 25,000 to run her Porsche Carrera and Mercedes 4x4 and 30,000 for food, wine and flowers.

For a housekeeper, a gardener and a nanny for Beatrice she gets an allowance of 80,000.

And she gets 100,000 a year to pay for her two existing properties and one she has yet to buy in London for which she has been given a budget of 2.5million.

But the judge ruled she did not need the full-time services of personal trainer Ben Amigoni.

Mr Justice Bennett said: "These items in her budget illustrate generally speaking how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife.

"In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best with the material I have."

Miss Mills had told the court they began living together in March 2000 and from that point on were only apart if one of them was abroad.

Sir Paul disputed her claims and insisted they did not live together until after their June 2002 wedding when "the nature of our relationship to my mind changed significantly.

"I was and remain fairly old-fashioned about marriage."

The judge backed Sir Paul's assertion that their "true and settled relationship" began upon marriage, which had a bearing on the amount Miss Mills would receive in the settlement.

The judge added that it was "not without significance" that until Sir Paul married Miss Mills, he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda.


Posts: 20007 | From: Terrestrial Paradise | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Humans thought it was OK to force cannibalism on cows, didn't they, until they started to fear for their own safety. Higher species my fat arse.
Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
lyra - you're going to have to explain that, I'm afraid.

SR - linus has explained why there's a plausible, and reprehensible connection between McCartney on seals and McCartney on Iraq, having to do with venality and maximising sales.

You can't just pretend he hasn't, everybody has read it. You can challenge it if you like, but you show no willingness to do so.

[ 19.03.2008, 14:12: Message edited by: The Batebe of Toro Foundation ]

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
then linus' point that we shouldn't support animal rights instead of human rights still stands.
I don't understand this. This sets up a contradiction that doesn't exist; unless it's about medical experiments, I suppose. And even then, who is linus to say what people should and shouldn't believe? What's the argument to support that?
Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"A British inquiry into BSE concluded that the epidemic was caused by cattle, who are normally herbivores, being fed the remains of other cattle in the form of meat and bone meal (MBM), which caused the infectious agent to spread.[6][7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy

"However, U.S. regulations only partially prohibit the use of animal byproducts in feed. In 1997, regulations prohibited the feeding of mammalian byproducts to ruminants such as cows and goats. However, the byproducts of ruminants can still be legally fed to pets or other livestock such as pigs and poultry such as chickens. In addition, it is legal for ruminants to be fed byproducts from some of these animals. [3] A proposal to end the use of cow blood, restaurant scraps, and poultry litter (fecal matter, feathers)[20] in January 2004 has yet to be implemented [4], despite the efforts of some advocates of such a policy, who cite the fact that cows are herbivores, and that blood and fecal matter could potentially carry BSE."

I would suggest that the fact that this was seen as acceptable until there was evidence to suggest that humans were getting ill, is a pretty disgusting reflection on human attitudes.

[ 19.03.2008, 14:19: Message edited by: lyra ]

Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  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