Wouldn't we have heard something earlier if Paul was an abusive husband - ? Anyway looks like it hasn't put Heather off men..
(don't know why I feel so strongly about this but this woman does all women a huge diservice - she is simply out to get as much as she can get obviously 30 million isn't enough to keep her in the lifestyle she now feels she deserves)
For anyone interested in hearing her first hand, she will be appearing on City Hospital in about 20 minutes on BBC1. Since the programme has Nadia Sawhalia in full flow, it is recommended to turn on subtitles and mute the volume
Good question. I think he's damned if he does & damned if he does not.
I have the feeling that this woman will never let go. She will milk her life as Paul's ex for the rest of her life.
If that's the case, then he's better off suing, IMO. People should not not be allowed to get away with such blatant lies which are seriously damaging to others :mad:
Wouldn't we have heard something earlier if Paul was an abusive husband - ? Anyway looks like it hasn't put Heather off men..
(don't know why I feel so strongly about this but this woman does all women a huge diservice - she is simply out to get as much as she can get obviously 30 million isn't enough to keep her in the lifestyle she now feels she deserves)
The drinks and drugs claim she's made are believable because we know he's done drugs in the past and I think he still smokes pot ( ), but as another fm mentioned earlier, she went too far with her claims :mad:
If that's the case, then he's better off suing, IMO. People should not not be allowed to get away with such blatant lies which are seriously damaging to others :mad:
It's poor Beatrice I feel sorry for
All this will take its toll.
I've been involved in a court case & it was very distressing.
He might feel it would be better to put an end to everything once they are divorced & not bother with a libel case for the sake of Beatrice.
PS Don't believe a word about her and the antique bedpan...too riduculous for words.. I'm sure they have en suite facilities and if she can get down to the beach unaided - I think she can manage a night time trip to the loo!
and if she can't, she could do what other amputees or disabled people do, and use a wheelchair or crutches.....
For anyone interested in hearing her first hand, she will be appearing on City Hospital in about 20 minutes on BBC1. Since the programme has Nadia Sawhalia in full flow, it is recommended to turn on subtitles and mute the volume
Macca's no saint, but I can't believe he would do those kind of things. Heather's determined to make him look the villain of the piece.
From the claims in Heather's court papers:
"11.24 The respondent often needs to go to the bathroom during the night, when her prosthetic limb is not fitted and so has to crawl to the bathroom on her hands and knees. This causes calluses and scrapes on her knees.
She asked the petitioner if she could buy an antique bedpan to keep under the bed and use at night if necessary (whilst he was asleep) so as to avoid her having to struggle. The petitioner objected vociferously, saying that it would be like being in 'an old woman's home'."
Why did she have to have an antique bedpan? Ordinary one not good enough? Hasn't she heard of crutches?
"11.17 Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair."
Why crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps? Didn't she have any crutches handy (again)? And will she bring witnesses to this?
"11.18 The petitioner often told the respondent when she was pregnant that he did not want her to breast-feed their child, making on occasion the comment 'they are my breasts' and on another occasion, 'I don't want a mouthful of breast milk'.
Notwithstanding this, the respondent did breast-feed Beatrice until, after six weeks, the petitioner's constant interrupting of her when breast-feeding (often in the presence of a midwife) had become so intolerable to her that she gave up. This made her feel very miserable and demoralised."
Wonder if she'll decide to bring this midwife into court as a witness?
"11.28 On Wednesday 26 April 2006, at about 8pm, the respondent asked the petitioner not to leave her alone with Beatrice at the Cabin (because it is isolated in the middle of a forest).
She had just had surgery on her leg (a revision amputation), was in a wheelchair, and was anxious about her ability to cope by herself.
Notwithstanding this, he walked off. The respondent then telephoned the petitioner, and asked him to return. The petitioner mocked her pleas, mimicking the voice of a nagging spouse, and refused to return.
(Later, she alleges, she) pulled him, staggering, towards the ground-floor bathroom, undressed him, ran the bath and helped him into it.
She then phoned the petitioner's psychiatrist for advice, and he told her not to attempt to move him (she might otherwise 'do herself an injury'), to get a duvet and two pillows, to empty the bath of water, cover him, and leave him there.
The respondent thereupon dragged herself upstairs, on her hands and knees (she was unable to wear a prosthetic leg as the wound from surgery had not yet healed), and brought back down the duvet and pillows.
She found that the petitioner had vomited on himself. She rinsed him off, and (worried that he might choke if he vomited again in the night, unattended), she got him out of the bath, dried him, and dragged him upstairs to bed.
At that time, the respondent also had a broken plate in her pelvis, and she was in agony; she also feared the exertions would cause the stitches from her pelvic scar revision operation to burst."
How did she manage to drag a full grown man, weighing 12 stone or so upstairs when she had one leg and had just had a major operation?
"11.29 On Thursday 27 April 2006 the respondent knew that the petitioner would be too hungover to help her with Beatrice and due to her own incapacity as a result of the recent operation, she had to call the babysitter to ask if she could come to help at 7.45am in getting Beatrice into the car and to the nursery.
The respondent went with the babysitter to drop Beatrice at the nursery and collected her later that day.
When she returned, the petitioner had woken up and tried to make a joke of the incident the night before.
The respondent appeased him, as she feared what would happen otherwise. That evening the petitioner drank very little (a half bottle of wine) and went to bed.
The following day, Friday 28 April 2006, the petitioner went to London but said he would be back in time to help the respondent put Beatrice to bed.
He did not arrive back at her bedtime, even though he knew the respondent could not cope on her own. The respondent had to ask a friend to help put Beatrice to bed.
At 10pm the petitioner returned home staggering drunk and slurring his words, demanding his dinner.
The respondent stated that it was on the stove but that she would not be cooking for him again, as he had no respect for her. The petitioner called her 'a nag' and went to bed.
That evening the respondent realised the marriage had irretrievably broken down and left, crawling on her hands and knees whilst dragging her wheelchair, crutches and basic personal possessions to the car."
Funny how she could drag him upstairs the night before, but couldn't get a little girl ready for school. Why wasn't the nanny in the house if Heather needed help? Will she bring the psychiatrist into court to back up her tale that she phoned him for 'advice'?
All this just smacks of vindictiveness, and I can see a judge laughing this out of court and HMM coming out of it with nothing. No wonder she was photographed the other day laughing as if she didn't have a care in the world - the calculating bitch knew exactly what was coming.
For someone who always says that she does not let her disability affect her life, she is certainly milking it in these court papers. I doubt macca is a saint but I don't think he did half these things.
Surely her sister would have come and helped he take her wheelchair, crutches etc from the home instead of her crawling on her hands and knees dragging them.
I rarely believe a word that comes from Ms Mills mouth.
11.17 Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair."
This can't be true - any wheelchair passenger at any airport is either carried by the fire service on a special narrow to fit the aircraft aisle seat or even put in the hi-lo vehicle that can be raised to aircraft door height..or use their own crutches? really Heather - that's just a lie!
Looks good when the papers taking photos in slogan tee shirts last week though... obviously suits her purpose to have a no make up, I'm so thin day today
"11.24 The respondent often needs to go to the bathroom during the night, when her prosthetic limb is not fitted and so has to crawl to the bathroom on her hands and knees. This causes calluses and scrapes on her knees.
She asked the petitioner if she could buy an antique bedpan to keep under the bed and use at night if necessary (whilst he was asleep) so as to avoid her having to struggle. The petitioner objected vociferously, saying that it would be like being in 'an old woman's home'."
Why did she have to have an antique bedpan? Ordinary one not good enough? Hasn't she heard of crutches?
"11.17 Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair."
Why crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps? Didn't she have any crutches handy (again)? And will she bring witnesses to this?
In the most recent press photos of Heather - she always seems to be wearing high wedge shoes - if she can balance on these - why can she not 'hop' when she is not wearing her prosthetic leg instead of having to crawl?
There are procedures in place at airports for getting disabled people on and off aircraft - I have NEVER had to crawl up or down aircraft steps - nor have anyone I know
I think this is just her fantasy life taking over again... the poor little me syndrome
11.17 Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair."
This can't be true - any wheelchair passenger at any airport is either carried by the fire service on a special narrow to fit the aircraft aisle seat or even put in the hi-lo vehicle that can be raised to aircraft door height..or use their own crutches? really Heather - that's just a lie!
Ah, but you see, you are not supposed to know that.
You are supposed to accept the version that slips so effortlessly from Heather's lips.
Even if parts of the story are true, the woman lacks any credibility so she'll be rightly dismissed as a liar.
If she's made all this up like I suspect, I hope she pays for it in cash and/or in kind :mad:
BTW, will Paul just sit and take this or will he sue for libel if they happen to be lies?
Yes, it's a case of the boy who cried wolf for Heather. She can expect her past lies to be raked up again now to prove her unreliability - and it's already been established in court that she lied in her book, assuming her childhood friend's victim status and saying she'd been hostage by a paedophile.
But as for sueing, Paul won't be able to - you can't libel/slander someone in court papers
Yes, it's a case of the boy who cried wolf for Heather. She can expect her past lies to be raked up again now to prove her unreliability - and it's already been established in court that she lied in her book, assuming her childhood friend's victim status and saying she'd been hostage by a paedophile.
But as for sueing, Paul won't be able to - you can't libel/slander someone in court papers
Really?
I guess he'll have to hope she repeats those claims in an interview and/or in her inevitable autobiography :rolleyes:
I believe she's bitter because Paul initiated the seperation and divorce proceedings!
Comments
(don't know why I feel so strongly about this but this woman does all women a huge diservice - she is simply out to get as much as she can get obviously 30 million isn't enough to keep her in the lifestyle she now feels she deserves)
Good question.
I think he's damned if he does & damned if he does not.
I have the feeling that this woman will never let go. She will milk her life as Paul's ex for the rest of her life.
If that's the case, then he's better off suing, IMO. People should not not be allowed to get away with such blatant lies which are seriously damaging to others :mad:
It's poor Beatrice I feel sorry for
The drinks and drugs claim she's made are believable because we know he's done drugs in the past and I think he still smokes pot (
All this will take its toll.
I've been involved in a court case & it was very distressing.
He might feel it would be better to put an end to everything once they are divorced & not bother with a libel case for the sake of Beatrice.
and if she can't, she could do what other amputees or disabled people do, and use a wheelchair or crutches.....
"to save her crawling to the toilet at night. "
Bit too dramatic.
Right, I'm off for a look at this.
From the claims in Heather's court papers:
"11.24 The respondent often needs to go to the bathroom during the night, when her prosthetic limb is not fitted and so has to crawl to the bathroom on her hands and knees. This causes calluses and scrapes on her knees.
She asked the petitioner if she could buy an antique bedpan to keep under the bed and use at night if necessary (whilst he was asleep) so as to avoid her having to struggle. The petitioner objected vociferously, saying that it would be like being in 'an old woman's home'."
Why did she have to have an antique bedpan? Ordinary one not good enough? Hasn't she heard of crutches?
"11.17 Indeed, in this connection some two and a half years later (22 April 2006), shortly after the respondent's revision amputation surgery, she was forced to crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps because they were not wide enough to take her wheelchair."
Why crawl on her hands and knees up aeroplane steps? Didn't she have any crutches handy (again)? And will she bring witnesses to this?
"11.18 The petitioner often told the respondent when she was pregnant that he did not want her to breast-feed their child, making on occasion the comment 'they are my breasts' and on another occasion, 'I don't want a mouthful of breast milk'.
Notwithstanding this, the respondent did breast-feed Beatrice until, after six weeks, the petitioner's constant interrupting of her when breast-feeding (often in the presence of a midwife) had become so intolerable to her that she gave up. This made her feel very miserable and demoralised."
Wonder if she'll decide to bring this midwife into court as a witness?
"11.28 On Wednesday 26 April 2006, at about 8pm, the respondent asked the petitioner not to leave her alone with Beatrice at the Cabin (because it is isolated in the middle of a forest).
She had just had surgery on her leg (a revision amputation), was in a wheelchair, and was anxious about her ability to cope by herself.
Notwithstanding this, he walked off. The respondent then telephoned the petitioner, and asked him to return. The petitioner mocked her pleas, mimicking the voice of a nagging spouse, and refused to return.
(Later, she alleges, she) pulled him, staggering, towards the ground-floor bathroom, undressed him, ran the bath and helped him into it.
She then phoned the petitioner's psychiatrist for advice, and he told her not to attempt to move him (she might otherwise 'do herself an injury'), to get a duvet and two pillows, to empty the bath of water, cover him, and leave him there.
The respondent thereupon dragged herself upstairs, on her hands and knees (she was unable to wear a prosthetic leg as the wound from surgery had not yet healed), and brought back down the duvet and pillows.
She found that the petitioner had vomited on himself. She rinsed him off, and (worried that he might choke if he vomited again in the night, unattended), she got him out of the bath, dried him, and dragged him upstairs to bed.
At that time, the respondent also had a broken plate in her pelvis, and she was in agony; she also feared the exertions would cause the stitches from her pelvic scar revision operation to burst."
How did she manage to drag a full grown man, weighing 12 stone or so upstairs when she had one leg and had just had a major operation?
"11.29 On Thursday 27 April 2006 the respondent knew that the petitioner would be too hungover to help her with Beatrice and due to her own incapacity as a result of the recent operation, she had to call the babysitter to ask if she could come to help at 7.45am in getting Beatrice into the car and to the nursery.
The respondent went with the babysitter to drop Beatrice at the nursery and collected her later that day.
When she returned, the petitioner had woken up and tried to make a joke of the incident the night before.
The respondent appeased him, as she feared what would happen otherwise. That evening the petitioner drank very little (a half bottle of wine) and went to bed.
The following day, Friday 28 April 2006, the petitioner went to London but said he would be back in time to help the respondent put Beatrice to bed.
He did not arrive back at her bedtime, even though he knew the respondent could not cope on her own. The respondent had to ask a friend to help put Beatrice to bed.
At 10pm the petitioner returned home staggering drunk and slurring his words, demanding his dinner.
The respondent stated that it was on the stove but that she would not be cooking for him again, as he had no respect for her. The petitioner called her 'a nag' and went to bed.
That evening the respondent realised the marriage had irretrievably broken down and left, crawling on her hands and knees whilst dragging her wheelchair, crutches and basic personal possessions to the car."
Funny how she could drag him upstairs the night before, but couldn't get a little girl ready for school. Why wasn't the nanny in the house if Heather needed help? Will she bring the psychiatrist into court to back up her tale that she phoned him for 'advice'?
All this just smacks of vindictiveness, and I can see a judge laughing this out of court and HMM coming out of it with nothing. No wonder she was photographed the other day laughing as if she didn't have a care in the world - the calculating bitch knew exactly what was coming.
Surely her sister would have come and helped he take her wheelchair, crutches etc from the home instead of her crawling on her hands and knees dragging them.
I rarely believe a word that comes from Ms Mills mouth.
But then, knowing her, Heather may decide to make further unsubstantiated claims. How long will he be able to take it
BTW, she's on City Hospital on BBC1 NOW!!!!
This can't be true - any wheelchair passenger at any airport is either carried by the fire service on a special narrow to fit the aircraft aisle seat or even put in the hi-lo vehicle that can be raised to aircraft door height..or use their own crutches? really Heather - that's just a lie!
Looks good when the papers taking photos in slogan tee shirts last week though... obviously suits her purpose to have a no make up, I'm so thin day today
In the most recent press photos of Heather - she always seems to be wearing high wedge shoes - if she can balance on these - why can she not 'hop' when she is not wearing her prosthetic leg instead of having to crawl?
There are procedures in place at airports for getting disabled people on and off aircraft - I have NEVER had to crawl up or down aircraft steps - nor have anyone I know
I think this is just her fantasy life taking over again... the poor little me syndrome
Pure theatre.
She has "Victim" stamped all over her face.
I knew she would look all wan and sad.
No surprises then.
Ah, but you see, you are not supposed to know that.
You are supposed to accept the version that slips so effortlessly from Heather's lips.
Laughable lie upon lie-and the worst bit is I think she actually believes it herself.
Yes, it's a case of the boy who cried wolf for Heather. She can expect her past lies to be raked up again now to prove her unreliability - and it's already been established in court that she lied in her book, assuming her childhood friend's victim status and saying she'd been hostage by a paedophile.
But as for sueing, Paul won't be able to - you can't libel/slander someone in court papers
She must think we're all stupid
Really?
I guess he'll have to hope she repeats those claims in an interview and/or in her inevitable autobiography :rolleyes:
I believe she's bitter because Paul initiated the seperation and divorce proceedings!