blonde poker forum

I have watched over the last week some of the press, and listened to a radio interview.

I have my views, and she seems to divide people right down the middle..you either can't stand her or support her

I went off to google and found the following (The Independent 2007). Interesting read

What are your views?



 "It's difficult to believe a word that anybody says about Heather Mills McCartney. Unfortunately that includes a lot of the things she says about herself, and even the online defences of her which are posted on her website in the name of her estranged husband, Sir Paul McCartney.

It's certainly hard to take seriously all the things her critics say about her. Not since Yoko Ono - with the possible exception of Victoria Beckham - has a woman been held in such opprobrium for being the wrong woman to marry the right man. No one, it seems, is good enough for those of our national heroes to be ensconced in the highest level of the pantheon of British public esteem. Paul McCartney is not just a man, nor even just a musical genius. He is the embodiment of some fantasy deep in the collective psyche, a substitutionary figure for the hopes and dreams of the entire baby-boomer generation. The Sun, that dubious barometer of the national mood, summed up the ferocious animus against Lady McCartney with a cartoon that showed the unhappy woman's artificial leg hopping out of her dressing room saying: "Yarghh! I can't take her any more ... I'm off too!"

What everyone seems conveniently to have forgotten is that nobody much liked her predecessor, Linda McCartney, in the early days either. I have to declare an interest here. She once put her hands around my throat and tried to throttle me when, as a student journalist in the Seventies, I concluded an interview with the Great Man by asking why his wife had taken my notebook from me before we began and crossed out all the questions about John Lennon. She was prised off me by her husband who gave me a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale and answered all the questions by way of compensation. Even in those days, to maintain his niceness Paul needed a Mrs Nasty as his gatekeeper.

Only with Heather McCartney he got a woman whose name can be anagramatised as Hatchet Mercenary. And people have done so. There's a well-worn Geordie joke about the 38-year-old Lady McC, who was born in Tyne and Wear. "There's a terrible accident in a mine. One of the survivors has his leg crushed and passes out. When he comes to in hospital, the nurse says: 'You're all right. You lost a leg but you're alive. And the miner says: "That's all very well but who wants a one-legged gold digger? And Paul McCartney shouts out: 'I do'."

Gold-digger has been the defining image of the second McCartney marriage. It's been at the centre of both the anti- and pro-Heather arguments. The anti-view goes like this: "Young blonde marries rich, older family man ... gold-digger, publicity-seeker, children from first marriage horrified, wicked stepmother ... etc etc."

The pro-view tackles that head-on by presenting a story which is no less replete with totemic rags-to-riches stereotypes and high romance. "Father, a former paratrooper, abuses wife and children ... wife flees, child (our heroine) cares for siblings ... father imprisoned, callous stepfather, heroine Heather runs away ... joins a funfair ... lives on the street ... sleeps in a cardboard box under Waterloo station and wakes one morning to find a tramp urinating over her ... gets job, is arrested for stealing jewellery from store where she works ... but eventually ... My God, under that filthy combat jacket you're beautiful . ... lands modelling job. Only to be hit by police motorbike as she crosses street ... left leg severed below knee ... but bravely becomes campaigner for disabled, ships prosthetic limbs to war zone ... meets sadly bereaved most famous musician in the world at awards ceremony ... he proposes on bended knee. All live happily ever ..."

Sadly, then real life intervenes. But in truth the pro-story is almost as unsatisfactory as the anti-one. For a start, there are the accusations that Heather Mills McCartney's biography is just a little too good to be true. Those who have delved into her life suggest a considerable number of inconsistencies. Her old school friend Margaret Amble has described as wildly exaggerated Heather's account of what happened when the pair were "kidnapped" by a local swimming teacher at the age of seven. Official records suggest she was still enrolled at school at the time that her autobiography, Out on a Limb, maintains she had run away from home.

There are discrepancies between her account and that of her de facto stepfather Charles Stapley who has described her as a "damaged personality" living in a "confused fantasy world". Her first husband's recollection of their marriage differs somewhat from Heather's own.

Journalists have cast doubt on other aspects of her fairytale story. In some cases, they were wrong. One newspaper which criticised the effectiveness of her charitable work in the Balkans had to accept that its claim was untrue and pay damages after the threat of legal action. But she has not challenged reporters who discovered that she had claimed to have been awarded The Outstanding Young Person of the Year Award by the British Chambers of Commerce, which has no such award. And she was embarrassed when - to counter tabloid stories that the children of Paul McCartney's first marriage disliked and resented her - she told New York magazine that Paul's daughter Stella had issued a press release proclaiming how much she liked her new stepmother. Stella McCartney's publicist then said no such statement had been issued.

There were more doubts cast on whether Heather had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after the Heather Mills Health Trust gave away thousands of spare limbs to landmine and war victims worldwide. The nomination cannot be proved either way since the identities of all nominees are kept secret for 50 years.

Doubts were fuelled about Heather McCartney Mills's grip on reality when she gave an interview to The Sunday Times in which she claimed she had been offered a peerage, asked by the three main political parties to stand for parliament, and said she'd backed out of a meeting with President Bill Clinton because she didn't think she could be seen publicly endorsing the Democrats. Small wonder Private Eye published a spoof diary entry adumbrating her many fictional achievements.

Heather has responded to all this with a section on her personal website entitled "Fact and Fiction" which addresses more recent media accusations as well as the hoary old ones. There's a section from Paul saying that it's not true that Heather made him dye his hair, sack his loyal publicist and that she clung to him possessively (she did it because she only has one leg and floors can be slippy). Heather's sister Fiona backs her up over the terrible childhood that Heather has supposedly made up and asks: "Does it matter whether she was on the streets at 14 or 15?".

There is, in all this, a sense of both sides manufacturing myth. Many of the accusations made about the woman are clearly themselves exaggerated or embellished. On the other hand, Heather's engagement with the truth can clearly be a little shaky. Rumours of a marriage crisis began to be published after Paul McCartney - who famously spent only one night (and a nine-day spell in jail) apart from his first wife Linda - was pictured alone on holiday near Monaco. Heather promptly publicly insisted they were "total rubbish". She was apart from him to avoid the paparazzi as she recuperated from an operation on her leg. "It's hilarious. Paul and I are very much together," she said. "I will see him soon - I see him all the time. I can't wait to sue because I will make a fortune for my charity."

Where lies the truth? As with all marital disputes, it may never fully emerge, even if Paul McCartney doth perhaps protest too much when he says, as he did on his website this week, "in reading the media reports that are coming out, I would urge people not to believe them. Almost everything I'm reading is 100 per cent untrue. I urge people not to read this stuff and support Heather and myself at this difficult time".

Those who know him are less circumspect. "It's sad," said one friend. "When Linda died, he was very lonely, spending hours completely by himself. But when Heather came along, everyone freaked out. It felt too soon. The kids weren't horrible to her in my presence but there was a polite froideur."

But where Linda was strong, Heather was headstrong. "He put up with a certain amount of wifey stuff. She made him stop smoking dope which pissed him off because he was really into it. But he was very taken with her one leg and her "fuck you" to the world. He encouraged all that."

Heather took on many of Linda's causes, including animal rights, launching a campaign against China's practice of skinning alive two million cats and dogs a year for their fur. Last month, she lost her false leg during a violent confrontation with security guards in the New York office of Jennifer Lopez who uses fur in her fashion range.

Yet it wasn't the causes but Heather's hectoring manner which finally ground her husband down. That was evident in the interview that the couple gave recently to CNN on the killing of harp seals. Heather did all the talking. Whenever the interviewer asked Sir Paul a question, and he attempted to answer, she interrupted. It was obvious to anyone who knew McCartney's personality that there was trouble ahead.

"In the end, he got sick and tired of her trying to control him," said one friend. "After all, he is the ruddy star. People who know him are sad for him. And for her too - she has her own demons to lay. But in the end, we can't help but feel it's for the best." The tragedy for Heather Mills McCartney is that the nation seems to agree."

She's been done up like a kipper by the establishment.

The 'porn' (I'd have wanted a refund) didn't just come out after the break-up, how long was that one on file at the Sun?

She's taken more abuse than she deserved, he married a strong woman and found himself not able to handle it.

She doesn't have a leg to stand on, etc.

Missed one point - this is the mother of his youngest - and he's allowing the character assassination to go on - he could stop it easilly enough.

She said all she wanted was protection, pull the other one love...

The pr0n story and other ones about her have been going around for years, no one actually printed the stories though. They were only kept under the lid because she was protected by Paul and his ability to sue the ass of anyone, no paper wanted to destroy his good image or thier's on bitter legal disputes.

As soon as she was not under his protection it was open season, she started the media circus trying to get a positive slant with the public just as they broke up, paul reacted and did the same thing and they both look like losers.

Just watch the documentary about her that was on ch4 or ch5 last year, its obvious shes a gold digger who has a colourful past who will do anything for the $

I'm not one for reading the tabloids therefore do not make my judgement based on the bad publicity she has had in recent months. We all know how the press are capable of portraying someone badly if they decide theres a good story in it.
My judgement of Mrs McCartney the 2nd is based over what I have seen of her over a long peiod.
The woman is an ex glamour model, theres nothing wrong with that but I think most people would agree that, most people that go into this business are looking for stardom, publicity and a step up to bigger and better thing.
She had a horrific accident but rather than feel sorry for herself she used the publicity to benefit charitable work , sceptics could say and her own profile.
During this charitable work she had the benefit of meeting high profile celebrities, one of which was a aging mega rich superstar who was grieving for his beloved wife and was looking for support. Being the charitable type this beautiful young ex model befriended then fell in love with then married our beloved Beatle.
Things don't last forever but at least there was a beautiful baby born to this now bitter relationship. Not that this matters in financial way as obviously she was going to get a significant divorce settlement, although she has contributed little to the added wealth of her husband.
But due to bad publicity, Porno star etc, which was obviously all lies she had to go on TV and defend herself, comparing herself to The Late Princess Di, and the distraught Mrs McCann. For some reason I can't see the comparisons and am struggling to feel sorry for this talentless Millionairess, but I'm sure thats just me.

My assessment of Mrs Mills - McCartney is a clever, ambitious young lady somewhat selfish and unscrupulous who knew from a very young age what she wanted in life - I think in short they would call this A GOLD DIGGER.
   

Personally I don't like her as a person purely from the way she handles herself in public. The comments last week about committing suicide to save her daughter were at best extreme. There is one thing however that I find myself totally agreeing with and that is on the subject of apologies in the press. They should as she quite rightly points out be in both the font size and cover the area of the original article.

"There's a terrible accident in a mine. One of the survivors has his leg crushed and passes out. When he comes to in hospital, the nurse says: 'You're all right. You lost a leg but you're alive. And the miner says: "That's all very well but who wants a one-legged gold digger? And Paul McCartney shouts out: 'I do'."

never fails to make me chuckle :)

HMM is very much a fantasist - she has told so many stories about herself which defy belief which are totally uncorroborated. The article doesn't even mention the big scandal about her past which she is most protective about becoming widely known.

Though her main problems are a) her accent, b) that you never see her smile (she could be used as the dictionary definition of 'sour-faced'), and when you combine this with the fact you only ever hear her moaning about something it makes her an intensely dislikable person.

I must agree on all the above points.  She just doesn't come across well and there are hardly hoards of friends coming out of the woodwork to defend her.

The only one I feel sorry for out of that whole mess is their child. 

Mom and Dad have more money available to them in just a day than most of us would see in a lifetime.  In danger...get security guards.  Messed up...see a shrink.  Want more...hire a legal team.  The average person doesn't have the luxury of hiring the 'best in field' to help us with anything...we just deal with it and move on.  I don't have an ounce of sympathy for either of them, but my heart breaks for that poor child because the adults are acting like morons.

True , neither have come out with reputations enhanced . You would think that he would offer a decent amount, she would take it and they can both concentrate on the future of their baby. Does it realy make a difference if she gets 25, 50, 100 million they are both still fecking rich.

Was Paul McCartney so stupid that he didnt realise she was out for what she could get? I dont think so!!

They were obviously very happy for a period of time, so much so that he even wanted to marry her, i dont believe he needed to do it for publicity.

As for the details of the split I havent read any of the papers so I dont know what she is getting (doesnt interest me), but i bet its LESS percentage wise than the average wife gets in a divorce settlement!!!!

How easy it is to be judgemantal about people we dont "really know"

HMM got Paul M on a grief stricken rebound, Dis she capitalise on it, you bet, she got knocked up as fast as poss, moved in, got her foot under the table and played house till she knew she could hear the kerching.

I said from day one when Paul started dating/seeing/having it off with HMM that it would end in tears and she would be minted because of it.

BTW there was a massive tell in the whole affair, She's much younger than him and he was feeling sad and lonely at the time.

I will say our press have done a bang up job of stirring the pot as usual.

;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMwAZ0k65Po

sums it all up.

who gives a flying F...really. Remember..just because the Sun tells you to care it doesn't mean you actually have to.. Have a mind..and life..of your own and stop reading shitty gossip.

blah...I really hate this celebrity culture.

 :goodpost: ;iagree;  The Sun is rubbish for celebrity gossip...Heat magazine is the bible.

Yeah me too!   

That bloody Ed again ;grr;.

The porn rumours were around for years, but there was no proof. I was involved in getting that porn story in The Sun last year (her sensational nude shots in the dodgy German book), and believe me, we had not been sitting on it for years! If we had it years before, there is no doubt we would have published it years before.

Or made it up.

Well..the "no doubt we would have published it years before part" is a bit...erm..open to debate if nothing else. The Sun (and many other tabloids) has been known to have sat on stories for years when it suited them before just waiting for a good opportunity to stick it to someone when their agenda changed.
I personally still don't care about what the Sun says about someone and half of the stuff they post is simplistic scaremongering and sensationalism, journalism of the lowest order (well, the Mail is of course the lowest) and it's sad that soomany people read this stuff and consider it news.

I agree with the short German hippy :)up

Fact - The Mirror had stories all typeset and laid out in advance. All they had to do was re-jigging when the story was "ready" to be broken.  A lot of the 'last minute' exclusives are never last minute.

LOL. And one wonders why the Guardian and Independent get such a low readership.

among the population as a whole, perhaps, but if you were to carry out a survey of, for example, my network of friends, you'd find a lot more guardian/independent readers among them than people who read the tabloids. 

I'm trying to be careful what I say here, because I don't want to look like an intellectual snob, but I agree 100% with what Boldie is saying.  Whilst most of us here on blonde would have the intelligence to read an article and take it with a pinch of salt, there are an alarming number of people that take what's printed in the tabloids as gospel - the amount of conversations I've had with my nan where she's told me all about the awful things so and so has been up to (which she read about in the Sun or the News of the World).  She doesn't even say 'i read in the paper', it's to be taken at face value as far as she is concerned. 

I find it all very scary to be honest, but whose responsibility is it really?  Do we blame the government for failing to educate us properly to make us more discerning? I don't know.  There's a huge market for the tabloids (which is evident from the sales figures, as Simon pointed out). 

sorry, that turned into another one of my nonsense waffles :)

I'm with you Claw

Independent and The Times every day for me

Economist, Spectator and Private Eye too


I do despair at the tabloids and the stuff that they go with

but then I despair at Heat/OK/Hello and the like too

leave Heat out of this Tighty - I stand by my earlier comments.  it's my embarrassing vice actually.

understood

what complete tat though

to see the likes of Kerry Katona make fortunes out of no talent whatsoever because of these sorts of publications is embarassing

Like I said on the Dancing with stars thread or whatever it is called, people have to realize good or bad most of the population love the tabloids and believe what they print.

Frankly I find reading the serious papers boring and dull, yes they may be more accurate with the truth but on a lunchtime I don't want to read heavy stuff. There is a place for all different papers and we have to accept this. The inverted snobbery is much more sickening :)

p.s its not inverted!! just plain old snobbery  :D

Agreed.  I get the headlines from the Metro in the morning and on t'internet during the day.  Anything groundbreaking will end up being discussed on blonde anyway :D

I think the tabloids are great, I dont use newspapers for news anymore, i can find it on the internet a lot quicker/up to date, so the papers are for light entertainment to pass a few minutes, and reading dear dierdre or sun-spots is far more entertaining then some pseudo-intellectual trying to tell me in 1000 words why socio-economic problems with regards to rastafarian bagpipe players is a much bigger problem then it was 11.343503507697 years ago, or other such tripe.

Its the Daily Mail thats the real danger...

I don't think it matters which paper you read as these celebrity gossip type stories are in them all. Sensationalised in the Red Tops agreed, but most of the same info is in all the papers.
The key is not to believe every thing you read the mass populous in this country seem to be so gullable hence The Sun's ability to make or break Governments.
Luckily the majority of people on Blonde have their own mind. Thank God for sane, realistic people.
Wow I didn't think I'd ever say that about Poker Players........

and Rupert Murdoch..the man is simply the Anti-christ.

Agreed.

There are also an alarming number of people who take what's printed in the bible as gospel.

 rotflmfao rotflmfao ;applause;

lol true.  note the use of the small 'g' :D