Jump to content

Heather Mills


Guest stevieintoon

Recommended Posts

Guest stevieintoon

Seeing as though half of you are either on the dole or are students, you might have seen Heather (mackem shitey Washington mackem accent) Mills on GMTV today. I've just been to the shop for a sandwich for me dinner, and they had the radio on and much to my surprise she came on bubbling her eyes oot uncontrollably. Must've been something when they stuck it on radio, I couldn't hear what she was saying, but the last time I heard crying like it was when me mother got me the wrong Transformer for christmas in 1986.

 

Can anyone tell me exactly what she said or better still anyone got a link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whining on about the press hounding her or something. Went to see Frank Skinner the other night and he did a piss funny skit about her. Had McCartney calling her "a fucking lollipop". :D

 

When someone bost out laughing while Skinner was giving her sympathy and quick as a flash he goes "Is that Glenn Hoddle in tonight?" I almost shit myself laughing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

I agree. The press are a law unto themselves although the people who buy the shite the red tops print are as much, if not more, to blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years.

 

The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years.

 

The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

 

Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money.

 

A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years.

 

The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

 

Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money.

 

A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'?

 

As you put it "the masses".

 

All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc.

 

She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years.

 

The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

 

Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money.

 

A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'?

 

As you put it "the masses".

 

All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc.

 

She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed.

 

I wouldn't have said any of those have a better standing with the public to be listened to either. Like I said, she has a very good point, but because of who she is, like the Royals etc, it will be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, none of those above have put the issue across in as general and as sensible way as she did today. The paparazzi conviction point was a real eye opener. It's about time these scum were rightly put out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Nowt to do with it being her. This argument has been dismissed for years.

 

The fact she's on GMTV or Larry King every other week suggests she wants it both ways though. I do have more sympathy for somone like Middleton who (as far as i know) has never used the media before abusing it.

 

 

Who has dismissed it? It comes up all the time about how you can't do a thing about red top lies, especially if you don't have the money.

 

A very basic point she has is, if they printed a lie about someone/some organisation, then the apology should be printed on the same page and of the same size as the offending article. That seems perfectly fair to me. If I as a manufacturer make a dodgy product, I have to recall every single one at my expense with full page recall notices, what's the difference for them regarding dodgy 'news'?

 

As you put it "the masses".

 

All the royals have had the same complaint, the Beckhams, Gazza, Pete Doherty etc.

 

She hasn't come out with anything that hasn't been complained about before so it's not just her being victimised or dismissed.

 

I wouldn't have said any of those have a better standing with the public to be listened to either. Like I said, she has a very good point, but because of who she is, like the Royals etc, it will be dismissed. As far as I'm aware, none of those above have put the issue across in as general and as sensible way as she did today. The paparazzi conviction point was a real eye opener. It's about time these scum were rightly put out of business.

 

I'd say they're all more popular than her.

 

Two of them (at least) are national heroes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

All more popular than Mills I'd say. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that may be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

 

 

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written.

 

...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation"

 

I won't hold my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

 

 

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written.

 

...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation"

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

That's her whole point - even if she started suing now (against all 140odd separate pieces she claimed) she would be in court for years before seeing a penny. She detailed an apology printed about something reported about the divorce, it was completely false and the paper admitted so, but the apology was like 1 paragraph on page 20 - that was why she's talking about equivalent sizes etc.

 

Anyway, why should you have to sue them to stop them printing (patently and proveably false in that case) fabrication?

 

I sound like I'm defending her, I'm not, I never much gave her much thought till today, but in fact the way she put it across today has got me wound up about the injustice of it all. And she was clear in detailing the less well known people/organisations this happens to every day, giving it the 'they don't have the profile I do to be able to stand up for themselves' line, which in a way is completely true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gazza is hardly still a hero given the activities that caused him to be a press target in the first place. And if anyone treats the Beckhams as heroes they want their heads read. That's the hilarious thing comparing her to the Beckhams, Mills actually did a lot for charity before she even met McCartney, which is another of her arguments - this work gets disrupted by false reporting. Who the fuck were Posh and Becks before they were famous?

 

 

Mills was famous before she met McCartney and got a lot worse press than while she was with him. I'm guessing she's never actually received an apology in print (happy to be corrected though), I know she's never sued anyone for anything written.

 

...""She will defer issue of legal proceedings until the arrangements in relation to the divorce are concluded but intends to sue at that stage all parties (including individuals) who are intent on damaging her reputation"

 

I won't hold my breath.

 

That's her whole point - even if she started suing now (against all 140odd separate pieces she claimed) she would be in court for years before seeing a penny. She detailed an apology printed about something reported about the divorce, it was completely false and the paper admitted so, but the apology was like 1 paragraph on page 20 - that was why she's talking about equivalent sizes etc.

 

Anyway, why should you have to sue them to stop them printing (patently and proveably false in that case) fabrication?

 

I sound like I'm defending her, I'm not, I never much gave her much thought till today, but in fact the way she put it across today has got me wound up about the injustice of it all. And she was clear in detailing the less well known people/organisations this happens to every day, giving it the 'they don't have the profile I do to be able to stand up for themselves' line, which in a way is completely true.

 

So the papers shouldn't be able to print ANYTHING she claims to be a lie? Sorry but I firmly believe in the freedom of the press.

 

And The Sun are standing by their claims...

 

"The Sun, which regularly refers to her as "Mucca" (a play on Paul's nickname "Macca"), has responded to Mills' threat to sue by asking her to "tick the boxes" on a series of allegations the paper has made about the former model stating "It is not clear what exactly she plans to sue us about." The paper then asks: "Come on Heather, what exactly did we get wrong? Is it that you're a ..." Underneath the open question, the Sun lists six allegations about the former model, with a blank box beside each one. The words beside the boxes read: "Hooker, Liar, Porn Star, Fantasist, Trouble Maker, Shoplifter".

 

Fair play to her, she's gone on tv and got some people on her side, though she claims never to do any media other than promoting her charities. If she feels passionately about it, she's the one in a position to sue the papers in a high profile case that will hit them in the pocket, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman did it, she's financially secure enough to do it, stop whining to me for reading the papers if you daren't ask them where their proof is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being she did have a concrete example of a blatant falsehood being printed, and recieved an apology for it.

 

The fact remains, there is no incentive for them not to print lies if they think it will sell the paper, not from a negative publicity aspect (the tiny apologies) or from a legal aspect (the financial penalties are miniscule compared to the likelihood of being sued, as it takes years and thousands to even come to court).

 

I say again, why should you have to sue to cause a retraction of blatantly false information? That is not a free press in my book. And again, this is not an issue about her ability to protect herself, or even about what she claims is untrue, it is about the lack of punishment for blatant falsehoods and it is about everybody.

 

Gordon Ramsey took the Evening Standard to court, he eventually won in court and was awarded just £75k. Probably less than half the daily income of the paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point being she did have a concrete example of a blatant falsehood being printed, and recieved an apology for it.

 

The fact remains, there is no incentive for them not to print lies if they think it will sell the paper, not from a negative publicity aspect (the tiny apologies) or from a legal aspect (the financial penalties are miniscule compared to the likelihood of being sued, as it takes years and thousands to even come to court).

 

I say again, why should you have to sue to cause a retraction of blatantly false information? That is not a free press in my book. And again, this is not an issue about her ability to protect herself, or even about what she claims is untrue, it is about the lack of punishment for blatant falsehoods and it is about everybody.

 

Gordon Ramsey took the Evening Standard to court, he eventually won in court and was awarded just £75k. Probably less than half the daily income of the paper.

 

What was the blatant falsehood?

 

I agree that the retractions the papers are forced to print are paltry. Heather Mills isn't the person I'd be using as a beacon of hope in fighting that cause though.

 

The poor lass has been through loads, I feel sorry for the life she had and respect her for any charity work she does, but that doesn't alter the fact she's a vile piece of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Err..... she's a schizophrenic compulsive liar that courts the press, but doesn't like it when it back fires on her.

 

 

You do realise she used to go to job interviews pretending to be someone else with the same name (before she go involved with Macca).

 

She's a freaking nutter.

 

Comparing herself to Diana now, soon be complaining of secret service death plots next. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whining on about the press hounding her or something. Went to see Frank Skinner the other night and he did a piss funny skit about her. Had McCartney calling her "a fucking lollipop". :D

 

When someone bost out laughing while Skinner was giving her sympathy and quick as a flash he goes "Is that Glenn Hoddle in tonight?" I almost shit myself laughing.

 

:rolleyes: Aye it was a good night. He was really funny, I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
She has a general issue about how the likes of the Sun are just complete liars, and never truly have to pay properly for telling bullshit, even when taken to court, as to them it's not about truth - it's more about what costs less (cross ref. the Ford Pinto). Also about the paparazzi - one guy who caused her to crash her car (cue Diana references) had over a hundred convictions, and how is it right you can be beseiged in your own home etc etc. Also about how this has a real effect on her charity work.

 

She has a truly genuine complaint about the way our press and our laws are run, but because it's her, and because she is about to get a huge settlement from a Beatle, it will just get dismissed by the masses.

 

Err..... she's a schizophrenic compulsive liar that courts the press, but doesn't like it when it back fires on her.

 

 

You do realise she used to go to job interviews pretending to be someone else with the same name (before she go involved with Macca).

 

She's a freaking nutter.

 

Comparing herself to Diana now, soon be complaining of secret service death plots next. :D

When you put it like that the Diana comparisons don't seem that far off the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whining on about the press hounding her or something. Went to see Frank Skinner the other night and he did a piss funny skit about her. Had McCartney calling her "a fucking lollipop". :D

 

When someone bost out laughing while Skinner was giving her sympathy and quick as a flash he goes "Is that Glenn Hoddle in tonight?" I almost shit myself laughing.

 

:rolleyes: Aye it was a good night. He was really funny, I thought.

 

Really like skinner, my kind of humour but was disappointed with his autobiography, just rattled on about being a Catholic all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...