The Smiley Smile Message Board

I do not have a link, but I have seen the recent news postings, as I am sure you have...
    I think some of it is true , and most of it is false, but according to British/American law, that's enough to run with.
   Yes, I think he drinks, Yes, I think he smoked pot after promising her he wouldn't.
 Yes, I think he even might have been verbally abusive.
    But the rest of this developing story smells like yesterday's fish. I don't like the way this is heading for Sir Paul, and I hope it is resolved and revealed as the dishonest mess that it is. The strangest part is Paul telling Mills that she should not nurse their baby, because' those breasts are his", when Linda, owner of a most ample set, was allowed 3 children to suckle...The whole thing sounds like character assassination, and it's sad that it has gotten this far...

She is making him sound like a dope fiend which is hardly true. Pot is not something I do but his use hardly renders him a raving drug maniac. Drinking? I have never seen or even heard about it affecting him at all except in 1970 right as the Beatles broke up. I have never seen him appear to be intoxicated. As far as hitting goes it seems like this is something even Geoffry Guiliano hasn't suggested. I really never liked her once I saw her on Larry King. No sense of humor and gross shock tactics to make your point are things about her that I find repulsive.

"I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved.
Man I was mean but I'm changing my scene and I'm doing the best that I can."

I find it hard to believe that Paul McCartney is a booze and drug-addled wife beater.....and actually under UK law even if he is, it won't affect the financial settlement - which is what this court case is all about.

Heather's allegations are totally irrelevant to this particular court case. She's headline grabbing...or her lawyers are...
 
Heather would actually do better saying "I deserve a slice of Sir Paul's fortune because while he was married to me, he produced his first decent record in twenty years".

Actually I think Flaming Pie is by far his best modern one.

it doesn't smell right to me. McCartney may be a prick...a control freak, womanizer, pothead, elitist, whatever...but the guy has NEVER had anything like this pop up about his character in all these years. this crap doesn't just materialize out of thin air when you hit your sixties. there's no way this should have gone public, and no way its even close to being the whole truth. macca blew it by hooking up with this bottomless pit of a chick. His kids knew it...he should have listened.

Im with you.  I just don't buy it.  Paul definately has flaws like you mentioned but a wife beater?  I dont think so.  The man had a long relationship with Linda and they were totally in love.  You never heard anything about that kind of character in his time with her.  I guess it could have been kept quite but come on, I don't think she would have put up with it for that long a time.  That kind of flaw isn't something that just pops up all of the sudden.  At least I wouldn't think so.

I've got to hand it to Heather, though.

She'll go down in history as the woman who eclipsed Yoko Ono as the most hated woman connected to the Beatles.

hear hear.....I think im the only one who likes yoko

Second...I highly respect her as an artist.

But that's the most confusing part of this story for me. If Heather would've just accepted whatever Paul offered/would've offered, she and her daughter and her daughter and her daughter and so on would've been set for life. They could've/should've gone their separate ways and said, "We tried, but unfortunately things just didn't work out. I'm very sorry..."

Heather would've always had her haters anyway to some extent. But now, as Glenn said, she will eclipse the hatred shown to Yoko. For the extra money, or for whatever her motive is (even if what she says is true), are the consequences worth the extra money? I guess so...

I think she may be trying to get back for all the things run about her in the press after the divorce.  All of which simply concerned her past, which she lived (and allowed to be photographed).  If she thinks Paul is in any way responsible for that, this is payback.  If he's not, at least she can save face by making him look bad, too.  Twisted, maybe.  But she's an odd bird.  I remember what Roger Daltrey said about her having the coldest eyes he'd ever seen.  He was once a very close friend of Paul and Linda, as well as a neighbor, so maybe he knew what he was talking about.

I do think Paul might have developed a drinking problem after Linda's death.  He showed up extremely drunk at the Wings' induction to the Rock Hall of Fame.  There was an interview with Van Dyke Parks after the Queen's Jubilee.  Van said Brian was very upset with Paul for being drunk during the festivities, to the point of detracting from the experience for Brian.   Not saying that Paul did all the things she's claiming (and now there are questions about the whole thing in the press), but maybe he's had some personal difficulties not even related to the marriage itself.

...Paul has been a fan of scotch and soda since "Hard day's night", and his pot consumption has been duly noted over the past 40 years. That part doesn't surprise me. The verbal abuse, I can understand, as well, as all married couples say hurtful things, and when you combine it with pot and alcohol, it can come out very mean spirited. I know this for a fact, and it is not something to be proud of, but to see it on the front page of the "Daily Mail" is another thing altogether. The physical abuse will be hard to prove, without witnesses to this, as will all of these other allegations. I am sure her lawyers are coming up with a plan to say that this was a first rambling draft of a decree, and was never meant to be made public until the details were ironed out, and they will blame the faceless somebody who leaked it to the press. That gets her off the hook for slander charges, anyway...

I noticed that myself.  I think he even missed his cue to start singing "Let It Be."  Billy Joel just kept playing the intro over and over until Paul finally showed up at the mic and began singing.  It was very odd.


Never read that!  Wow.  You KNOW you're messed up when Brian Wilson is disappointed in you for being under the influence!



I don't think he ever recovered--or WILL recover--from the death of Linda.

I just remember pictures of him after the death -- Paul looked like a broken man.

Who knows what he'll look like after this new round of nastiness.

LMAOO!!! Good one!!!!

Not a Yoko fan but I made same observation about how the heat will be off her now.

If she's such a strong woman, like she always claimes to be, how come Paul was the one to call it quits? Does anyone believe she really would take all that abuse from him? Very strange.

Thought you would want to read this. It's sounds like merda http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2411606,00.html

I remember Brian criticising Paul for being drunk at the jubilee celebrations.

Paul and Linda were extremely close...I remember Paul saying that before her illness they spent precicely one night apart. That's the kind of intense love that usually wanes after a year or two...but in their case it remained.

I was not surprised that Paul looked broken after Linda's death. I was surprised he hooked up with Heather so quickly but being a kind soul I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sure Paul knows he's not perfect, but the whole wife-beating thing really sounds unlikely to me. As others have pointed out, it is not a trait that suddenly comes in one's 60's...and there's never been the slightest suggestion he was abusive towards Linda.

Every couple has their ups, downs and angry words....but the kind of verbal abuse Heather is alleging is far worse. Could be the actions of a drunk, angry man but again something doesn't ring true.

And what's the point? IT WON'T AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE FINANCIAL COURT CASE.

Yoko Ono...I think she was/is a very interesting artist in her own right...in a way its a shame she hooked up with John but in truth he was taking a new direction before they were together. Don't blame her for ruining the Beatles or John's subsequent output.

At the R&R Hall of Fame in 1999, Paul was pretty tipsy. I don't know if "extremely drunk" is really the right way to put it, though. His speech was rather rambling and not particularly coherent, but that had as much to do with his general lack of ability to give particularly good speeches over the years. "Extremely drunk" to me seems more along the lines of ranting and raving, seriously slurred speech, on the verge of passing out, etc. Paul wasn't near that.

As for Brian complaining about Paul, I'll say that it takes quite a bit of audacity for somebody like Brian to complain about somebody else given that people around Brian have been accepting and understanding and often have been apologists for the odd behavior that Brian has exhibited for around 40 years now. Some people at that same Queen's Jubliee thing found Brian rather odd as well, prompting even Ozzy Osbourne to indicate that he found Brian odd. When Ozzy Osbourne finds you odd, that's something to either be very troubled by or very proud of. Probably both. Has anybody other than Brian been able to freak out both Iggy Pop and Ozzy Osbourne? The coolest thing about Brian is that he totally shuts down the eccentricities of others. I recall vaguely reading some story about Brian meeting with Elvis Costello, and somebody who witnessed the meeting said that Elvis Costello was doing his little bit of eccentric behavior and it was just overwhelmed by Brian's personality. Elvis seemed a bit thrown off that he wasn't the most eccentric person in the room.

There's also that story about Alice Cooper and Iggy Pop making their way out of Brian's house, because he was acting a bit too weird for their tastes.

Sorry to veer off topic, but what exactly was said about Brian and the Jubilee? What was "weird"?

I thought Brian was near-joking when he complained about Paul. VDP (I think) asked Brian what it was like to meet the Queen, and Brian said, "I couldn't get a word in! Paul had had too much to drink ,and he just kept talking! It wasn't fair because he'd met her before." That's paraphrasing, but I think the main complaint was that Paul monopolized the chatter.
But hey, it was Brian, and not Paul, who addressed the Queen as "Queen."

Yoko Ono...I think she was/is a very interesting artist in her own right...in a way its a shame she hooked up with John but in truth he was taking a new direction before they were together. Don't blame her for ruining the Beatles or John's subsequent output.

Well I just dislike her voice. I don't blame her for John's quality of work, I merely dislike hearing screams (or her actually singing on more conventional tracks). I feel she was both good and bad for John. Do I think she got in the way of the group yes. I also think they broke up at the right time. I think it would have been disheartening to hear some of the solo output on a "Beatles" LP. I think breaking up then is one of the reasons they remain huge. They didn't decline and left everyone wanting more. Let's be honest if the Beatles TRULY wanted to stay together Yoko wouldn't have mattered.

Yoko's got nothing on this Mills witch. Now she says she has video and audio of their arguments, and are willing to present them in court. Now isn't that a class act!? Secretly tape your yelling matches, and sit on them til the time is right! I have had enormous blow outs with my wife in the past. As in any argument, hurtful things are said, voices raised, doors slammed...If any of that were made public for the world to see, it would be some of the most difficult, embarrassing days and weeks spent on this planet, and I'm not even famous....This is going to get worse before it gets any better, I'm afraid...

I know Melinda has her critics on these boards but she is a saint compared to Heather. Those tapes can not be used BTW as Paul was not aware he was being recorded. So she...eh...doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Yeah, I'm one of Melinda's biggest critics, but you're right...Mills is worse. A LOT worse. I think she basically took advantage of McCartney, who I personally feel will never get over losing his soulmate, Linda.

You know that headline she was so mad about, how it said losing her leg was the best thing to happen to her? It really was. She suckered McCartney into marrying her to get his money, and wanted people to feel sorry for her to ensue that she got that money. Of course, it's backfiring.

Good.

Well said, and well reasoned.  She hasn't got a leg to stand on.

I feel 100 percent the same way concerning Melinda compared to Heather. I could not stand Heather ever.

That reminds me, could someone give me directions to the "All I Want To Do" Hooker subject  ?  ;D

Something a bit ironic, my favorite recent Macca song is "Heather" on Driving Rain. Easily his best instrumental and one of his best melodies IMO. I listen to it constantly, great stuff.

I guess Macca won't be performing that one anytime soon...

If someone else petitions for divorce against you, it is likely you will respond (as you legally have to).  Mills reponse is certainly detailed (the bit about never declining sexual intimacy in 7 years, except once - physical exhaustion - stunned me, I guess because I'm trying to work out how many 'headaches' I've had - more than one - but not because I didn't care for my partner).  In divorce cases like this, every bit of dirty laundry is going to be aired, one perception versus another.  Inevitably, there is always a little truth in it, we all do things to loved ones that aren't nice and marriages are hard to sustain anyway, let alone one under media gaze. 

Mills sound like a strong character and is going to fight.  Some of you are a little merciless in your opinions.  I don't think for a minute that she's an angel (nor is McCartney), and they have both allowed the divorce to become a public fight.
Quit giving her a hard time.

Presumably you believe her claims; a lot of us don't- for reasons I think are best outlined in Jon Stebbins' excellent post on the first page of this thread.  This is a woman who was offered 60 million dollars as an option to airing the dirty laundry (which I also think is custom-woven dirty laundry) and chose this path instead. You call that strong; I guess it is, in the same sense that month-old eggs are strong, or the wind coming off a paper mill next to a hundred-acre landfill is strong. If she's so "strong" and was enduring all that...how come he's the one who left?

Sorry; lots more hard times forthcoming from me.

Why?  I don't see where Paul has matched what she's done, thus far, in terms of slinging mud.  The things that came out about her were from the press itself, and I have to believe they knew details of her past all along.  They held their fire prior to his marriage, no doubt out of respect for his contributions to music and the worldwide profile of Great Britain.  Once the marriage was over, the gloves were off.  The press never liked her.  That's not Paul's fault.  From most indications, he tried to make an amicable split.  That may have not been possible, but he at least tried (and to her credit, she seemed to before the merda hit the fan about her pre-marital life).  She's also the one that leaked all the info about him locking her out of his house in London.  But that lock-out came after contents were leaked of a taped, private conversation between Paul and his daughter, Stella.  A conversation that took place after the seperation.  Who taped his private phone conversation, and who leaked it to the press?  I'm sure that had something to do with why he changed the locks. 

What is she fighting about, anyways?  It's just money.  How much does she need?  How much does he need, for that matter, but he is the one that made it.  Plus, most of his money was made well before he even met her.  He doesn't owe her anything above half of whatever he made when they were together, and I don't see how trying her case in the court of public opinion is going to get her any more than that.  She's just making herself look bad, and if she hadn't taken this tack, she probably would have survived it all, received a nice settlement, and still could be a well-liked celebrity working for charitable causes.  If it's her lawyers' fault, she should fire them.  All of these things that have come out in the past few days are from a document she hasn't even signed, and contain statements that are contradicted by earlier public statements.  The rest is from so-called friends of hers, who are saying that Paul beat up Linda during that marriage.  How would they or Heather even know that? 

Wow...excellent post, fm.

If he had accused her of something outrageous - on the level of the stabbing incident - we all would have raised our eyebrows just the same.

She isn't thinking about her child at all by making this public. Paul is a hardass at times but I don't think he has ever ever ever been seen as a violent man. In fact I would say he is the very last person I would ever think would do such a thing. Why? Because he always has controll over himself. Except for being boneheaded about carring around pot at airports, he seems like he has never made a move that wasn't thought out first.

(http://www.record-producer.com/i/heather-mills-mccartney.jpg)

"Whip me, master!"

By the way, which woman did John beat, allegedly?  Cynthia?

I can see Paul being controlling. I can see him insisting that she cook, without help (as Linda did). I can see him saying nasty, hurtful things to her. I can see him getting drunk regularly and possibly having a problem. I can see him continuing to smoke pot. I can even see the bedpan thing as being true (although maybe exaggerated).
But the violent stuff sounds off the wall to me.

-- Heather Mills McCartney's lawyers said Tuesday she is suing two newspapers over "false, damaging and immensely upsetting" stories surrounding her divorce from Paul McCartney.

The law firm Mishcon de Reya named the Daily Mail and London's Evening Standard as the subject of legal proceedings, adding that a suit will also be filed against The Sun.

Mills McCartney had been vilified in the media and was now being stalked by photographers, the firm said. It alleged that other newspapers had also printed false statements but the three listed would be the focus of the lawsuit.

"She cannot sue -- for now, at least -- every single newspaper that has published false, damaging, and immensely upsetting statements about her. She should not thereby be taken to have accepted that these statements are true," the statement read.

Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard, said the stories about Mills McCartney in both papers "were obtained by proper methods and in accordance with good journalistic practice."

"Our exclusive stories were extensively followed up in detail by all other newspapers and media outlets," it said in a statement. The publisher said it would deal with the legal claim "in the normal way."

The McCartney divorce has become the most sensational marital breakup since Prince Charles and Princess Diana parted ways a decade ago, sparking immense rivalry in the British press for the best scoop.

Last week, the Daily Mail splashed its front page with what appeared to be legal papers drafted by Mills McCartney's lawyers against the former Beatle that alleged mistreatment.

Mills McCartney's lawyers said British media claims that she has been offered a $56 million settlement by her husband are false and "the truth is that no settlement offer, in any amount, has been made."

"She is pursued everywhere she goes. She is stalked by press photographers, who congregate outside her home and chase after her in cars -- regardless of her safety or the safety of her daughter," her lawyers said.

Mishcon de Reya issued a copy of a letter, apparently from The Mail on Sunday's investigations editor Dennis Rice, offering Heather's sister Fiona a "substantial sum" for information about the divorce.

It said the letter was hand-delivered and promised anonymity.

"It requires no imagination to conclude what kind of information was being sought from our client's closest confidante, nor why the assurance of confidentiality was believed to be necessary," the statement said. "We ask on behalf of our client for the media, as a matter of common decency, please now to show some restraint."

Associated Newspapers said the Mail on Sunday had been "led to believe that Fiona Mills had important information about this case and a perfectly proper and courteous approach was made to her

I forgot to list the above source as CNN on-line...PMcC

Somewhere a mouse is playing the world's tiniest violin...  :violin

John admitted publically that he hit women in his youth. I am sure Cyn and Yoko got a little bit of it and May Pang did for sure. It's funny but if John's wives were famous like Tina Turner he would be seen quite differantly. Personally I don't care much about what goes on between any couple when it comes to music. I am a big admirer of James Brown, Ike Turner, Lennon, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc and even Spector. I just either like someones music or I don't

Quote: Forget Marie
As I mentioned, neither Paul nor Heather are angels in this.  Even if what she is doing is in the public domain, and what he did is behind closed doors, that doesn't make one or the other of them more or less inculpable.  'Saint Macca' is an anachronism.  Respect musical contribution and cultural legacy; yes.  Assume all things bad are in Heather's ballpark; no.  I'm just trying to bring a little perspective here.  Divorces are immensely emotional and cause all kinds of decisions to be made.  And, why believe everything you read?  I don't "obviously believe" all that is said and I don't see why I should be blasted for giving a slightly differing opinion.

Blasted? I didn't see anything like that in this thread.

you gotta remember, this is big stuff in Britain. The Sun, Daily Mail and Evening Standard are on this like white on rice, calling it Macca vs. Mucca...If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

Yes, divorces are immensely emotional and a two-sided story.  My take, though, is only one side is actively waging a battle in public.  I do blame Heather's "side" for that, because that's where most of the leaks are coming from.  Everything that has come out about Heather is by instigation of the press, not Paul.  And now she's suing the press, which is really what her beef is about.  I doubt Paul ever even knew she did porno shoots, or the lowdown on her earlier relationships.  I'm not sure he would have married her if he did, because he's very public image-concious.  The worst thing that Paul did was marry this woman to begin with.  No, I don't like her.  I didn't like her when she was his saintly wife, either.  She's incredibly annoying and she does come off as a complete cold fish.  Paul might be the same sort of person, but Heather didn't write "Penny Lane" or several dozen other great songs, so I feel no need to put up with her.