Update (5/10/08)

Update (4/25/08)

Update (4/24/08)

Update (4/23/08)

Update (4/21/08)

Update (4/12/08)

Update (4/10/08)

Update (4/9/08)

Update (4/8/08)

Update (4/7/08)

Update (4/4/08)

The Crop Ten

• 1. Lady Wigonna
• 2. Lucy In Disguise With Diamonds
• 3. Love Me (Hair) Do
• 4. Strawberry Blondes For Never
• 5. Skull Of Kintyre
• 6. Eleanor Wigby
• 7. Ticket To Hide
• 8. Hairband On The Run
• 9. Comb Together
• 10. Hello Good Dye

Update (4/2/08)

Update (4/1/08)

Update (3/31/08)

Update (3/29/08)

Heather's Statement 17th March, 2008

As you might imagine, I am so happy and relieved that this divorce has finally been settled and I am delighted with the overall outcome as I feel as if a great weight has been lifted.

Now, finally...I am looking forward to moving on with the rest of my life with Beatrice.

I would like to say a big thank you to my loyal friends and staff and everyone that has reached out to us, and supported me and Beatrice through these, for us, very difficult two years.

I have enormous respect for a judicial system that allows an individual to represent themselves...no matter how significant the opposition.

It is with great excitement and energy that I will return to normal life. My recent experiences, although very painful, increases my enthusiasm for I am first and foremost a mother of a wonderful four year old daughter that, gives purpose and meaning to all that I do.

I am a woman, a positive, loving, independent woman who fell in love...like so many other couples, experienced the painful realisation of divorce. This is not how Paul and I intended it to be, sadly though this was the outcome.

I must move on now for my daughter, myself, and for those that want and need my help and support. I intend to be an active, enthusiastic advocate for health and well-being, as well as for all the important charitable, philanthropic and campaign work to which my life has been devoted.

Please accept my most sincere appreciation!

Heather

Update (3/27/08)

Update (3/26/08)

Update (3/25/08)

Update (3/24/08)

Update (3/23/08)

Update (3/22/08)

Update (3/21/08)

"I do try to see good in everyone. Heather Mills is a bit of a challenge. But she has brought a little sunshine into our lives today. Firstly, by her claim that her divorce settlement of £24.3 million will condemn her daughter, Beatrice to have to travel B-class, while her father travels A-class. I know train and air fares have gone up but.... And secondly by throwing a jug of water over Sir Paul Macartney's legal representative, Fiona Shackleton in court. From the 'before and after photographs' in today's newspapers, I have to say that the wet bedraggled look bestowed upon Ms Shackleton a wanton and rather fetching appearance. If she wants my advice, I'd recommend she considers adoping the wet look on a regular basis. She might even try wearing a T-shirt as well."

Political opponent Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat member of Parliament for Cardiff Central, called his comments "inappropriate." "I'm surprised Glyn decided to publish these comments - even if he thinks it, I would have thought he should have shown more sense and not written such inappropriate comments online. It does suggest same old Tories."

In response, Davies responded Thursday with "Goodbye to humour":

"Don't visit this blog in future, if you are looking for any attempt at humour. The BBC have seen to that today. I've had to accept that my sense of humour must be eliminated from this blog, because no matter how inoffensive I try to be, it has the capacity to self-inflict embarrassment. And me a declared feminist as well.

"A few days ago, I blogged about Heather Mills pouring a jug of water over her ex-husbands barrister's head. It was an attempt to be funny, but the BBC's David Cornock reported me to the Shadow Secretary of Wales, and I suspect several others as well. The BBC have also run a story about this on their internet news site and Good Evening Wales asked me on to explain myself on air. For the first time in my life, I refused to appear, and I'm not going to approve any more comments on the offending post either. I would delete it, except that I think it would give the story more legs. I'm rather surprised by this turn of events.

"For me, there is an important point in all this though. Now I'm not racist, homophobic, sexist, fatist, or any other ist for that matter. But I do see humour in most things. But if my humour is going to produce stories which undermine my commitment to equality, it's just got to stop. I thought I had become fairly politically correct, but there clearly remain a few loose ends for me to tie up before I become a fully-fledged 'identikit' parliamentary candidate. In the meantime dear readers, you will now have to visit elsewhere to find pathetic attempts at humour."

Update (3/20/08)

Update (3/19/08)

Text of statement released by the Family Court on the financial settlement for Heather Mills in her divorce from Paul McCartney:

This is a summary of the judgment handed down today (17 March 2008). It is not a summary of every issue in the judgment. This summary forms no part of the judgment. The court ruled that the judgment should be published but upon Ms. Mills' application granted a stay of such publication pending her appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. The fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Ms. Mills. She sought an award of almost 125 million pounds ($250 million). Sir Paul proposed that the wife should exit the marriage with assets of 15.8 million pounds ($31.6 million) inclusive of any lump sum award.

2. The judge decided that the husband should pay the wife a lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) which together with her assets of 7.8 million pounds ($15.6 million) (which include her current properties) means that she exits her marriage with total assets of 24.3 million pounds ($48.6 million) inclusive of a deemed figure of 500,000 pounds ($1 million) referable to her overspending in the period of separation.

3. The judge found that the total value of all the husband's assets, including his business assets, was about 400 million pounds ($800 million). There was no evidence at all before him that he was worth 800 million pounds ($1.6 billion).

4. The judge found that although the parties met in 1999 and formed a relationship, the parties did not cohabit from March 2000 but did so from the date of the marriage (11 June 2002). The parties separated in April 2006. The length of the marriage was just under four years.

5. The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant.

6. The judge, in undertaking the exercise prescribed by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, decided that the needs of the wife were a factor of magnetic importance.

7. The lump sum of 16.5 million pounds ($33 million) is made up of a sum of 14 million pounds ($28 million) as the capitalized figure for the wife's income needs, which the judge assessed at 600,000 pounds ($1.2 million) per annum, and a sum of 2.5 million pounds ($5 million) for the wife to buy a property in London.

8. Financial provision for Beatrice consists of a periodical payments order of 35,000 pounds ($70,000) per annum, the husband agreeing to pay for her nanny and her school fees.

9. The court made an order in the following terms:

Save for the release of the judgment and Order dated 17 March 2008 the Wife and the Husband and any persons acting on their behalves are strictly prohibited from publishing, disclosing, or in any way revealing without the consent of the other, the evidence, correspondence, transcripts, judgments or Orders in the proceedings concerning (a) the child of the family, (b) the main suit, (c) the cross-applications for ancillary relief, and (d) any marital confidences. If consent is not forthcoming then the party seeking publication shall be entitled to seek the permission of a Family Division Judge to do so.

10. The judge expressed his confidence that the media would respect the privacy and confidentiality of the Children Act and ancillary relief proceedings, including evidence and submissions (oral and in writing) given within both sets of proceedings.

"First of all I just want to say I'm so glad it's over. It was an incredible result in the end to secure mine and my daughter's future and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with - because you know it has been my life for 20 years.

Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well, it's against everything that they ever wish, so when they write the judgment up they're never going to try and make it look in my favour. But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between £20 and 30 million. Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgment, and very much last minute to put me and Beatrice sadly through this - it's been incredibly sad.

So we're very, very, very pleased. And what I'd like to say, being a campaigning girl, is anybody wanting to go through a divorce, try your hardest, man or woman, to settle it immediately. And if you're in an impossible situation - which anybody listening will know that, people don't see eye to eye, things get out of hand - you can be a litigant in person. It's not easy, but just make sure you do all your research, save yourselves a fortune.

(Law firm) Mishcon (de Reya) wanted to charge me an extra £600,000 just to do this trial, which could quite easily go to charity. And I agreed before the FDR (final dispute resolution) to let them go if they didn't win at the final dispute resolution, which they didn't. It was an amicable parting, we had planned it for months, whatever you read, and I'm still very good friends with (Mishcon de Reya lawyer) Anthony Julius, that I very much respect.

But he was dealing with an impossible side. (Sir Paul McCartney's lawyer) Fiona Shackleton has very sadly handled this in the worst manner you could ever, ever imagine. She has called me many, many names before even meeting me when I was in a wheelchair. So I recommend, do it yourself, be a litigant in person, the power of one - the Law Courts do not want me to say this.

And the only reason I'm coming out to be honest, if the judgment had been sealed today to remain private I actually wouldn't be standing here, because we have a gagging order on us not to reveal marital confidences. That was something that Paul really wanted to be put into this. So I wouldn't be standing here. But I'm basically standing here because Paul is insistent on the whole judgment being put out. I've said if the whole judgment goes out, then all the transcripts have to go out because it's going to be written in a way that they will try and make it look like I wasn't successful. But all in all we came out with nearly £25 million. I know you want to know the figure. I'm allowed to say this because this is the summary.

The only reason I'm appealing the judgment tomorrow morning - which because I've got my daughter I'm going to get somebody else to do because I'm exhausted from all this - is because the judgment involves private secure matters of my daughter: where she goes to school, what she does, everything about her is in there. And they didn't even do a redacted version to keep Beatrice out of it. So it has gone against everything to do with human rights, the section six, it has gone against everything to do with the confidentiality papers, it has gone against everything to do with the private family matters.

They tried to compare it with a case called Sorrell vs Sorrell (a divorce settlement from 2005). There are no young children in that case. There is in this. When you go into court, and this is where it's very important, they've actually started to set a precedent, that we lose our right to privacy when we step in a family court by doing this - actually making the judgment (public in) full. Because normally you go into court and you expect complete privacy in a family court. Two days into the hearing, they threw up, 'maybe we can compare it to Sorrell vs Sorrell'.

And I was like, why would you need to do that, this is private. They said, 'well, we'll let you know at the end of trial'.

So they gave me no chance to not go to trial. They already had planned, the judge had his whole judgment statement written up before we even did our submissions. He just read it out - so he'd already decided that he was going to do this.

These people are in a club, it's like they want to stay together and they don't want to see a litigant in person doing well. But he could not award me and my daughter such a low sum because it was actually impossible. I'll read it to you. Sir Paul offered me - I'll have to go back to it because it's been a while - £15.8 (million) all in, including properties.

We got £24.5 (million) - I don't remember the figures because the most important thing for me was just to get this over and done with. I'm not appealing against the judgment, no, not at all, because it's not worth it. I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it. It will be published. That's why we're appealing. It has a stay on it until the appeal tomorrow, but this summary will come out today.

And I'll read the summary to you. He proposed £15.8 (million), and the judge decided that I should get £23.7 (million), it says. And then what they wanted to do was, because I'd spent money on security, they do a thing called "add back". Because they say me and my daughter don't need security, and Paul might give it for two years, but that's it, which you're going to read about in the judgment, otherwise I'd never put... Obviously I will use my funds to get security. But Beatrice only gets £35,000 a year. And so she obviously is meant to travel B class while her father travels A class - but obviously I will pay for that.

(Question: was it a mistake to represent yourself?) Not at all. The lawyers were not getting anywhere near this figure in the FDR, they couldn't get anywhere near this figure. There was no more evidence.

Apparently we didn't live together until the day we were married, and the judge believed that even though I'm registered at Westminster Council living with Paul since the 29th of March 2000 and even though many of you were outside Cavendish Avenue in July when we announced our engagement.

So a lot of strange things have been going on behind the scenes. I obviously had all the evidence to prove we cohabited and lived together. It's been followed by the world's media.

(Question: do you regret representing yourself?) No, I don't regret representing myself. I'm just glad it's over. And I hope this is reported fairly and balanced. I'm so so happy with it.

(Question: what are your feelings toward Sir Paul?) I've got no comment. And also, what the judge also said, as well as saying we never lived together, he also said that Paul is only worth £400 million and that is what he said he believes him to be worth. Everybody knows he has been worth £800 (million) for the last 15 years. So we know that has been... and I wasn't allowed any access to any of our accounts, nothing.

I wasn't allowed to look at what we spent, where we went, I was locked out of every home - I won't go into all the horrific details of what has happened because I'm just glad it's over. And I really hope now that me and my daughter can have a life and not be followed every single day and that is why I've come out, to give it closure.

Apart from one television thing (an interview with GMTV last October) I've stayed quiet for 21 months, I've been told that we can speak now. If the judgment was kept private than I wouldn't be out here speaking. I wanted to keep the judgment private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that's the only reason I'm talking. He's always wanted it public because he wants to look like he's this generous Sir Paul.

£35,000 doesn't include her (Beatrice's) school fees. He wants her to fly five times a year on holiday - £32,000 for two people on return fares, it costs, so that's obviously not meant to happen any more for her. It's very sad. Basically Paul has always wanted Beatrice to go to a state school - a private school, sorry.

He insisted that I move to that area even though he tore the cabin down with a 106 demolition agreement. But he's pretending it was me. If you look online you can see that he signed a voluntary demolition agreement to tear the cabin down. Then we moved to Brighton, and then he went to try and get my daughter, joint residency, when I already shared her 50-50, there was no need, forced us back to the school.

That's why she has to go that school. It's nothing to do with me wanting her to go to state school or private school, it's the school that Paul chose. So in that way he's got everything that he wanted. But that's what happens with powerful people.

But I say, be a litigant in person - just don't go through this unless you have to. But I'm really happy with the outcome.

(Question: do you think Sir Paul has been cruel?) I can't say that for the sake of my daughter. My sister (Fiona) does.

(Question: what are you going to do now?) I'm going to go and be with my daughter because I took so much time away from her. And I just want to thank everybody, and incredibly my sister for being so supportive to me. Every time I look at her, I want to cry.

(Question: Are you going to leave England?) I can't leave England. I've always wanted to keep my daughter near her father, and believe me if I tried to go he'd have an injunction on me in a second. So there's no point. And I love England, I've got all my friends and family here. And I just want to thank everybody for their support and finalising this, so at least we can start getting some really good headlines on the front pages, of important issues and matters instead of our boring divorce. I'm sure everybody at home is fed up with hearing a million figures that never existed.

This is the end result, and thank you very much. I'm appealing on the judgment being made public, not on the judgment, I'm very very happy with the judgment.

Update II (3/17/08)

The judge said the fundamental issue was what financial provision should be made for Miss Mills, and that she had sought an award of almost £125m. Sir Paul proposed his wife should exit the marriage with assets of £15.8m, inclusive of any lump sum award. Mr Justice Bennett ruled that Sir Paul McCartney should pay Heather Mills a lump sum of £16.5m, together with assets - including property - of £7.8m. This means she will exit the marriage with £24.3m, inclusive of a deemed figure of £500,000 referable to her overspending while they were separated. The judge found the total value of the ex-Beatle's assets, including business assets, was about £400m and not £800m.

The judge refused to permit either party to raise as an issue the alleged conduct of the other on the broad ground that it was irrelevant. The lump sum of £16.5m is made up of a sum of £14m as the capitalised figure for Miss Mills's income needs and a sum of £2.5m to buy a property in London. Financial provision for their daughter, Beatrice, consists of a payments of £35,000 per annum, with Sir Paul paying for her nanny and her school fees.

"First of all, I just want to say I'm glad it's over. And it was an incredible result in the end, to secure mine and [my] daughter's future - and that of all the charities that I obviously plan on helping and making a difference with, because you know that's been my life for 20 years. Obviously, the courts do not want a litigating person to do well. It's against everything that they ever wish. So, when they write the judgement up, they're never going to try and make it look in my favour. But all of you that have researched know that it was always going to be a figure between £20 and 30 million. Paul was offering a lot less than that, which you'll see in the judgement - and very much last minute. To put me and Beatrice sadly through this - it's been incredibly sad. So we're very, very, very pleased - and what I'd like to say - being a campaigning girl - is anybody wanting to go through a divorce - try your hardest, man or woman, to settle it immediately. But if you're in an impossible situation - which anybody listening will know that, you know, people don't see eye-to-eye - things get out of hand. You can be a litigating person. It's not easy, but just make sure you do all your research, save yourself a fortune."

"I'm not appealing against the judgment because it's not worth it," she said. "I'm appealing against the publication of it because it has so many details of me and my daughter in it. It has a stay on it until the appeal tomorrow."

Update (3/17/08)

Update (3/15/08)

Update (2/28/08)

Update (2/25/08)

Update (2/21/08)

I would hope that your question today about whether Heather Mills would ever appear at a Beatles fan convention was just devil’s advocate musing. First off, of the few conventions remaining, Abbey Road On The River and the Mersey Beatle convention are now largely Beatles band festivals and non-musical guests are kind of an afterthought. That leaves The Fest For Beatles Fans (or Beatlefest, as some of us oldsters still insist on calling it) and I highly doubt if Mark Lapidos would EVER book Heather and risk the wrath of his base constituency. Remember that, even though she may not be as completely reviled here as she is in England, Heather’s not exactly popular here in the U.S., either. Just because she appeared on some moronic reality show populated by a bunch of pop culture has-beens doesn’t mean that she’s popular. Considering Paul McCartney’s very vocal fan base here, I’m pretty certain that Mark would not consider a Fest appearance by Heather to be good for business, at the very least. Just my two-cents’-worth. Cheers, Al Sussman

Update (2/17/08)

Update (2/16/08) 10 p.m. ET

Update (2/16/08 A.M.)

Steve,

Just to note that your news article says " Heather wants her educated at a private school, while Paul wants her to attend public school". This reads OK in American, but over here private and public schools describe the same kind of institution (both paid for by the individual). The kind of school Paul wants her to go to (that the other 3 kids went to) is called a State school over here - ie free to the individual and open to anyone in the catchment area, whatever your income.

Regards,
Mike Tivnen

"I feel very bad for her. I know better than anyone what it's like being a Beatle wife, nobody gives you an easy time. Whatever happened in their marriage I don't know. But it must be very hard for her as well as Paul. The thing I keep remembering is how, just before Heather gave birth to her and Paul's daughter, he told me how happy he was. He actually said, 'I feel like I've been given a second life.' When I heard about their split, I was really sad."

Update (2/12/08 10:20 A.M. ET)

(2/11/2008 9:35 A.M. ET) Paul and Heather arrived at High Court this morning for the final rounds in their well-publicized divorce case. The Daily Mail reported Heather arrived first with a film crew and an entourage of eight. The UK Mirror reported she phoned Paul several times over the weekend over recent stories that she had been sleeping with other men while dating Paul, but Paul refused to discuss the case and said, "I'll see you in court."

People.co.uk has a story and picture showing what appears to be Paul striking a paparazzi. The article quotes Paul as saying the photog provoked it, while the photog says he said nothing.