[Westindieman]

I dont like or dislike her. When Ive seen her interviews I havent seen anything that makes me dislike her or think she is potty. Now the press definatley has a dislike for her and paints her in a bad light, even when the same interview I was watching (GMTV yesterday morning) doesnt give me the inferences they have assumed. Seems she may have been a hooker at some stage, she has had mega bad press over that. But then does that make her the evil, scheming, minipulative money grabber? Or does Macca have some very influencial media contacts? Whether she is bad or good, she aint got a chance now. The media want to ruin her. Is she evil enough for them to have that desire?

[Squiffy]

I agree - she has definitely been made the bad guy by the media.

The classic example is the weekend newspapers claiming she had given up her child for the settlement. Whereas the apparent situation is that she has agreed not to pursue sole custody, which is very different to how the newspapers portrayed this.

[la gran siete]

Unfortunately the guttter press are all pro Macca and detest Heather seeing her as a scheming opportunsitic money grabber. Dont think she was a hooker but they dredged up all these photos of a semi porn nature she did back in the eighties hence the label Lady Mucka. They should leave her well alone.

[chriszzzzzz]

I don't like either of them. (The beatles were never that good) More than that I don't really care. Why would anyone care either way?

[dBrowne]

English no-fault divorce settlements where assets are split down the line are now considered the most lucrative. I can see why things get nasty when the pot might be worth £1billion.

[toycollector]

Watched her say
"i get on with most of my exboyfiends" How many do you need?

[Intya]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

English no-fault divorce settlements where assets are split down the line are now considered the most lucrative. I can see why things get nasty when the pot might be worth £1billion.

I stay well away from all the celebrity crap cos it does my case in, but this, and that poxy one someone told me about in the news last week, bloke offered his missus several million for a divorce and she wants more. I just don't get it.

I swear these people don't even know what they're fighting for. I couldn't spend several million quid in a lifetime - Homes for me and the family, kit out the home cinema, and then live off the interest enjoying my free time to see & do things. Can anyone honestly say they could blow more then £5m? Surely you couldn't really spend more than the interest as it would keep mounting?

What in crying out loud do you need all of that cash for? Just so you can say you have that much? Build a business and earn more?

Maybe I just don't have that many ambitions. All I really want is to try and get on the property ladder (no chance what with being born too late and in the south of the country), pay for the wedding and maybe have a couple of kids. Am I the only one?

[Nebby]

Happened to catch the end of her interview on GMTV this week.

I have to say I warmed to her right away. She wasn't prepared to do a "Jade" and make out that she's been misunderstood. She was fiesty, up-front, and made no apologies for her abrasive personality. Made a refreshing change.

What's more, I also believe that she truly cares about animal welfare. Can't say that's always the case when other celebs get involved in "issues".

Heather: I, for one, salute you!

[Nimby]

"Poor" Heather ain't gonna be poor any more!

Perhaps it's time someone else shared some of the millions we paid to the Beatles.
Their task did not seem too difficult or too arduous for the rewards we provided.

[Mep]

Originally Posted by Nimby

"Poor" Heather ain't gonna be poor any more!

Perhaps it's time someone else shared some of the millions we paid to the Beatles.
Their task did not seem too difficult or too arduous for the rewards we provided.

you have a point!

[krish]

Originally Posted by Nebby

Happened to catch the end of her interview on GMTV this week.

all part of her media campaign .... she's just as much an expert at media manipulation as your average z-lister, just a tad more articulate than the Jades and Chantelles of this world

I really don't feel sorry for her; as I don't for any other 'celeb' who doesn't respect their own privacy (i.e. "media whores"). I understand Mills is quite clever and knowing about this, by going on every low brow media outlet (GMTV, Radio 1 Newsbeat, tabloids et al), but still claiming to be highly protective of her and her daughters' privacy and that she's only doing the media circuit for charideeee/seals/landmine victims. Doesn't really wash

She has a history of attention seeking, selling personal stories/photographs to the tabloid press, being a fantasist, impersonating her namesake, a Private Eye journalist, for quite some time in the 90s, and claiming to speak for or represent certain causes and people, when its all just a trick for the media dreamt up by her and her publicist/agent(s)

Am just waiting for the Martin Bashir interview ....

[jelly]

should have had a pre nup if she wasnt with him for the money it wouldnt be a problem, also how would she need £10.000 per day just to get by??? why not give her a manual job that pays £6. per hour?

[Westindieman]

How do you know what settlement she is after or even that she is demanding more than offered when your only source is a totally biased media?

[overkill]

Originally Posted by krish

all part of her media campaign .... she's just as much an expert at media manipulation as your average z-lister, just a tad more articulate than the Jades and Chantelles of this world

I really don't feel sorry for her; as I don't for any other 'celeb' who doesn't respect their own privacy (i.e. "media whores"). I understand Mills is quite clever and knowing about this, by going on every low brow media outlet (GMTV, Radio 1 Newsbeat, tabloids et al), but still claiming to be highly protective of her and her daughters' privacy and that she's only doing the media circuit for charideeee/seals/landmine victims. Doesn't really wash

She has a history of attention seeking, selling personal stories/photographs to the tabloid press, being a fantasist, impersonating her namesake, a Private Eye journalist, for quite some time in the 90s, and claiming to speak for or represent certain causes and people, when its all just a trick for the media dreamt up by her and her publicist/agent(s)

Am just waiting for the Martin Bashir interview ....

Exactly. Anyone with a few cells can manipulate the media, and TV is much easier to get your spin over than through the papers. Their agendas are too rigid.

Just look at the Hamiltons? A sleazier pair you couldn't imagine, but with clever manipulation of events and coverage they've gone from sleazy MP & wife on the take, to minor celebs. There is of course the advantage of coming from the 'right background'. Just look at how a conniving, greedy, adulteress has gone from being desperately (and deservedly) unpopular to being completely re-rehabilitated in the eyes of the English public. She's still the same person, but you'd never believe it when people talk about Camilla Windsor now...............

[RMCF]

Sorry but I have no time for her.

Agree with others here that she is just an attention seeking z-lister. When her divorce.split-up thing started int he press she was in the tabloids every day saying how much it was taking out of her - yet she was (allegedly) offered £50 million for a quickie divorce she she wouldn't take it.

And it was Paul who made all this money - not her. She should have been happy with a tenth of that.

Then she appears on TV constantly and even enters a dancing contest on TV - she is just addicted to publicity like all the others non-entities.

[Kieron]

Title should read....

Heather Mills, poor (soon to be fabulously rich) girl has no chance.

[toycollector]

Heather Mills.
originally famous for losing a leg. If she hadn't , would we know here?

[Mep]

Originally Posted by toycollector

Heather Mills.
originally famous for losing a leg. If she hadn't , would we know here?

That's a rather pointless and tasteless post.

[la gran siete]

mmm cant help but agree

[Sonic67]

She was married for about 1700 days. So how many millions do you think she should get?

[Mac Man]

Have to say I don't have too many sympathies for her.
She shacked up with Macca after dumping her last boyfriend practically at the alter.

She's a serial fantasist - I wouldn't believe a word she says.

[Revaan]

A girl who marries a fabulously wealthy guy 20-30 years a senior, is always a gold-digger in my book.

But part of me cant help but think it serves that idiot right. Did he really believe he can have a long-lasting relationship as he had with Linda with this woman. (and marrying her not soon after his 'beloved' Linda passed away).
She wouldn't have given him the time of day, had he not been a rich celebrity !

My sum of this whole relationship ;
She's a gold-digging ho and he's just a plain stupid twit.

[dBrowne]

She's a gold-digging ho and he's just a plain stupid twit.

Does that imply that stupidity should be so expensively punished while at the same time avarice and deception be so wonderfully rewarded?

[Jenn]

What amuses me is that she's always on TV repeating she doesn't want the attention of the paparazzis etc.

Well excuse me but people who don't want to be in papers seem not to be in papers. If you give the paparazzis what they want (complaints, agressive behaviour or whatever), they'll keep on coming for more. If you simply don't give them anything interesting to show and talk about, they'll leave it.

Somehow you don't see her soon to be ex husband all over TV going "I really don't want to be everywhere in the news, boohoo.."

And in the same sentence she manages to combine "I never said anything bad about my husband and never will" and "I don't know why people have a campaign to make me look like the bad one, you should ask Paul about that" with a smirk on her face.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

avarice and deception be so wonderfully rewarded?

He worked hard to earn HIS money, not wanting to give her half of it for simply saying "yes" at a wedding is not avarice.

A woman with honour wouldn't argue the amount she receives, I wouldn't even want his money if he was as bad as she claims.
Money to look after their child yes, that's expected, but for her? Why? Is she not her own independent woman equal to men etc.?

[dBrowne]

Jenn, I was refering to her avarice and deception.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by dBrowne

Jenn, I was refering to her avarice and deception.

Sorry I misread your post

[dBrowne]

No worries. 'Twas a bit of a convoluted sentence.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Jenn

He worked hard to earn HIS money, not wanting to give her half of it for simply saying "yes" at a wedding is not avarice.

A woman with honour wouldn't argue the amount she receives, I wouldn't even want his money if he was as bad as she claims.
Money to look after their child yes, that's expected, but for her? Why? Is she not her own independent woman equal to men etc.?

He was an older man, with ample resources to pay for good advice.

He entered into a binding, life-long arrangement to spend the rest of his life with this woman.

Now that they have parted ways, he seems to think his vows can be cast to one side.

Why isn't his 'honour' in question? Even if it did cost him 50% of his money (which it won't), wouldn't he have more than enough left to live every single day in luxury way beyond the means of probably everyone posting here?

[jodenice]

I have to say i really don't feel (or care) that just Heather is at fault here but i am slightly biased in that the only beatle I didn't like was hideous Paul McCartney, heard so many stories about him being pi**ed, arrogant, thinks hes the worlds all time rocker, please - The frog song anyone? Take him from the beatles and he was utter cack. And all the while attempting this wounded animal, sand kicked in face humility.

John Lennon wouldn't have been in this situation. Pah! And cut your hair Paul. You're 97 for gods sakes.