[noodles]

Well, serves him right for founding Wings.

[Codyyy]

We want prenups! We want prenups!

[distressed_romeo]

Originally Posted by Drew

It's called a prenup, gentlemen. If you're that rich, you're a moron to get married without one.

Sad but true...

I remember when they first got married and McCartney said that they wouldn't get one as it was 'unromantic'. A noble sentiment, but extremely misguided.

[Rick]

Fucking golddigger.

[oompa]

Originally Posted by distressed_romeo

Sad but true...

I remember when they first got married and McCartney said that they wouldn't get one as it was 'unromantic'. A noble sentiment, but extremely misguided.

exactly, i would have gladly shared all my stuff the first period of time with the girlfriends i have had.

thats why it should be an option and not the default way, that would put the less rich person in an 'unromantic' position asking the richer one to share half of his/her stuff.

[distressed_romeo]

Does anyone else think it's a bit rich how she keeps going on about charity work, within the same breath as the air-fare remark, as if that's a get-out-of-jail-free card that allows her to be a bitch as much as she wants?

[stuz719]

Judgement published.

Originally Posted by BBC

The judge wrote that he gave Ms Mills "every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under".

But he added: "I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid".

"Overall she was a less than impressive witness," he said.

Ms Mills said the decision to publish the address of her houses had affected the security of her and her daughter, Beatrice.

The ruling questioned Ms Mills' statement that she owned a penthouse flat in Piccadilly worth "approximately £500,000" when she met Sir Paul, along with a Brighton property "worth £250,000".

"I have to say I cannot accept the wife's case that she was wealthy and independent by the time she met the husband in the middle of 1999," said Mr Justice Bennett.

He said the penthouse flat "was not worth £500,000 in 1999", adding she sold it in 2001 for £385,000 after the London property market had risen substantially since 1999.

"She did not in 1999 own the property in Brighton. That was not bought until March 2000," he said.

He also questioned her claim that she had £2m-£3m in the bank at this time, adding: "There is no documentary evidence to support that assertion."

And her claim to have had "very significant earnings as set out in her affidavit" were not supported by her tax returns, the ruling said.

The judge added that her tax returns "disclose no charitable giving at all", despite Mills saying she gave "as much as 80% or 90% of her earnings ... direct to charities".

Commenting on that claims, Ms Mills said it was because her accountant "hadn't ticked the tax return box".

"Not ticked the tax return box"?! Either that's professional incompetence on the part of the accountant - there are tax advantages to charitable giving - or tax evasion through the hiding of income, or lying about just how much (if anything) you do give to charity...

The evidence on the property values needs no further comment from me...

[Rick]

"These people are in a club," she said. "It's like they want to stay together and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well."

Yeah, because I don't know how I could "do well" with just being awarded $48 million for nothing.

[playstopause]

Originally Posted by noodles

Well, serves him right for founding Wings.

[InTheRavensName]

Don't worry guys, she's getting raped by the press over here...

...some consolation at least