It's over - Paul & Heather are divorced

Originally Posted by Rellevart

If "insiders" and "reports" are not to be believed when saying something negative about Heather, I'm not sure why they should be believed when saying something neutral about her either.

I really do not give a toss what the media writes about Heather what is negative or neutral or even positive. It's the acting on the stories what matters...I believe.

The latest one about the Channel 4 show just makes me laugh because of what it says and the way it is written.

Originally Posted by Lucy

Will do. I am off to watch it in a moment as it starts in about 10 mins. Apparently it is in three parts over three weeks.

Very cool

Originally Posted by Hari's Chick

And this is the True statement, which is not sarcastic or mean spirited. Heather is being sincere, as she has been about Paul's dating from the beginning. Further, her "better them than me" remark was not about being with Paul as a SO... it was about dealing with the dynamics of being around/with a national icon (ie. dealing with the media).

I also think this is what she means...think....

Originally Posted by hibgal

Take the statement "Kids have four or five months holiday a year", for example. Clearly an exaggeration and yes, most parents know how she means that but it doesn't come across that great so perhaps not the wisest thing to say.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so probably am not from the "most parents" category

I did a little counting and kids here have holiday including public holiday's and the Queen's Bday and Labour day etc going close to 4 months as a whole...so ok..not 5... but the thing she was saying was that she takes in consideration Beatrice's vacation with Paul to not lay on a beach or boat with different guys in each country, but to do charity work.

Or when she wanted to make people stop drinking milk and talked about milking rats. Certainly, we know what she means but, because the exaggeration deflects our focus (My mental picture of milking rats still makes me giggle whenever I happen to think of it!), the real message gets lost.

does it get lost? Some will think twice when drinking milk. Now I see nothing wrong with drinking milk, but what she maybe means is to have people think more on what they do. Like saying "do you eat Rat tonight?" and most will horror.. then she might say " what's the difference between a rat and a rabbit" and that can make them think...

Originally Posted by Lucy

Miss Hewitt, 44, said: "We went into high class prostitution behind closed doors and nobody knew about it...[Adnan] Kashoggi, Kerry Packer and one of the Royal princes of Saudi, they were the big fish and there were a couple of others that were classed as Heather's sugar daddies.

then Heather must have known "The Sheik Of Arabia" at least...

Originally Posted by FPSHOT

I'm not sure what you mean here, so probably am not from the "most parents" category

What I meant is that for a parent it feels like the kids are always home! I guess the holidays vary from country to country and I'm not in UK so I can't really say. To me it seems excessive but...

does it get lost? Some will think twice when drinking milk. Now I see nothing wrong with drinking milk, but what she maybe means is to have people think more on what they do. Like saying "do you eat Rat tonight?" and most will horror.. then she might say " what's the difference between a rat and a rabbit" and that can make them think...

She puts her credibility on the line, that's what. That is a real issue for her future charity work. What happens when she comes to tell us about something else that's wrong with the world? Will it be shrugged aside as over the top as well? The possibility certainly exists.

As to the milk etc. personally, if there was a way to actually milk rats and if I knew the animal was disease-free, I wouldn't hesitate to drink it. In many parts of the world rat is a dietary staple, as are rabbits, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, larvae and all sorts of foods that we in the Western world usually consider gross. I'm not going to go into a huge vegan discussion here but think providing enough food for all is more of an issue than limiting animal products. Husbanding our resources and putting domestic animals on land that is useless for agriculture would be a good step forward. That's how it used to be done, you know. Nobody would put cattle to pasture on prime ag land, it just wasn't done.

I'm swerving off topic here so I'll better stop. Anyway, if Heather wants to be taken seriously, she has to be careful with exaggerated statements, is all I meant. And yes, she can do whatever she wants but she'll also suffer the consequences, as do we all.

Okay well for those of you that are interested, I watched the TV thing last night.

For a start, I misunderstood and it is a three week series but Heather was part 1 and following weeks are different people.

My opinion was that I honestly think that the reporter Jacques Peretti was trying to be as balanced as he could possibly be and that is why they had said that it was going to get the truth behind the headlines.

I didn't think thay the show as a whole flowed very well - it seemed to jump all over the place but there certainly was a variety of imformation and people provided.

Something interesting which was uncovered which actually confirms some of Heather's claims of Paul's camp leaking or allowing stuff to come forward about her was that the reporter said that he had contacted the sister of Heather's first husband Alfie (as she speaks for the family) to comment on that part of Heather's life. She hadn't replied but then she called him to say that yes she would be speaking to him and related how she had had a call from Paul's legal team who wanted a meeting with her at which they told her she should talk to the reporter as they had heard that the show was getting made. He described it as a silent nod to anti-Heather people to speak up and tell their story. A little under-hand to say the least! However in balance to that, he was contacted by Heather's biographer and friend Pamela Cockerill who had been given a similar silent nod from Heather's side.

Regarding the high-class call girl thing, the evidence for that was a woman that used to be one of the girls with Heather who stayed friends with her for years, during the time she was with Paul. She seemed to come across well and she explained how she had fought for a long time for the story to be kept silent and Heather always assured her that it would be because Paul wouldn't let it come out (obviously it had been uncovered when she and Paul got engaged but it hadn't come out because Paul had stopped it) and then all of a sudden when they split, she knew that it would all come out. So this woman told her family about her past in order to come clean about it before the papers broadcast it and then sure enough it was in the papers the next day. I honestly have no opinion on the matter of whether or not Heather was a call-girl but really it made me think why would this woman allow her face to be on TV talking about the fact that she used to be a whore if it wasn't the truth? Why would she make that up - and don't say MONEY because she was wealthy as anything...lives in an exclusive area of London. Also regarding this AND on the Heather side of the argument, Pamela Cockerill said that although Heather had never mentioned that she had been a call-girl (and she said that she had shared with her some pretty personal stuff), she said that it wouldn't have shocked her if she had been because of the background and history she had had.

Heather's father - well I don't know. I don't know enough about the claims of violence Heather has made against him to really comment. He has suffered a stroke so came across as a defenceless friendly man who misses his daughter. He said that he was proud of her for standing up for herself and representing herself. He described her as "loaded" which made me laugh.

So yeah I guess it was interesting but didn't really do a lot to either support or bitch about Heather. It was pretty balanced. And I guess that is what you would want out of something.

Originally Posted by hibgal

I'm not going to go into a huge vegan discussion here but think providing enough food for all is more of an issue than limiting animal products.

Okays, I gotta answer. Now, I am not preaching, I am responding.

From Time magazine (not too sensational )

"Much as we have awakened to the full economic and social costs of cigarettes, we will find we can no longer subsidize or ignore the costs of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs, sheep and fish to feed our growing population. These costs include hugely inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock feces, rising rates of heart disease and other degenerative illnesses, and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet’s life depends."


http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/resources.html

"It takes more land, water, and energy to produce meat than to grow vegetarian foods. It’s several times more efficient to eat grains directly than to funnel them through farmed animals. According to the Audubon Society, roughly 70 percent of the grain grown and 50 percent of the water consumed in the United States are used by the meat industry. A Minority Staff of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry report states the beef in just one Big Mac represents enough wheat to make five loaves of bread.30 See also these excerpts from an ADA position paper.

A vegetarian diet can feed significantly more people than a meat-centered diet. The State of World Hunger, by Peter Uvin of the Brown University World Hunger Program, reported the populations potentially supported by the 1992 food supply on different diets:

Almost purely vegetarian diet --> 6.3 billion people
15% of calories from animal products --> 4.2 billion people
25% of calories from animal products --> 3.2 billion people
Source: FAO, 1993."

*******

So you can see... compare 3.2 billion to 6.3 billion. That is a huge difference.

Here is another interesting link. It explains how it is more important to go green in your diet than it is to buy an eco friendly car.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...25304.800.html

Originally Posted by Lucy

Okay well for those of you that are interested, I watched the TV thing last night.

Thanks so much, Lucy. This was very interesting to read! Good to know they really were trying to offer an unbiased view, too.

Originally Posted by Hari's Chick

Almost purely vegetarian diet --> 6.3 billion people
15% of calories from animal products --> 4.2 billion people
25% of calories from animal products --> 3.2 billion people
Source: FAO, 1993."

The Heather thread is perhaps not the best place to discuss these issues so I'll keep it sweet and short, asking only one question: How are you going to grow all those food crops without fertilizer? If you don't have animals there will be no manure for the fields. Artificial fertilizers are a non-renewable resource, creating vast destruction to the environment.

Truth is, there are no easy answers.

Originally Posted by hibgal

I'll keep it sweet and short

Shorter still...


http://www.veganpeace.com/organic/ve..._gardening.htm

Originally Posted by Lucy

He described it as a silent nod to anti-Heather people to speak up and tell their story. A little under-hand to say the least! However in balance to that, he was contacted by Heather's biographer and friend Pamela Cockerill who had been given a similar silent nod from Heather's side.

I am glad you tell us this. It shines a light on how things have gone behind the scenes.

Interesting.

Under-hand it sure is yes.

Regarding the high-class call girl thing, the evidence for that was a woman that used to be one of the girls with Heather who stayed friends with her for years, during the time she was with Paul. She seemed to come across well and she explained how she had fought for a long time for the story to be kept silent and Heather always assured her that it would be because Paul wouldn't let it come out (obviously it had been uncovered when she and Paul got engaged but it hadn't come out because Paul had stopped it) and then all of a sudden when they split, she knew that it would all come out.

that makes perfect sense. I have read a story here and there in this direction in the past when certain pictures made it to the press. This "news" about her activities in the past is not really new I believe yet the way they seem to have touched it is stylish. Whether it's true or not, I don't really care.

I honestly have no opinion on the matter of whether or not Heather was a call-girl but really it made me think why would this woman allow her face to be on TV talking about the fact that she used to be a whore if it wasn't the truth? Why would she make that up - and don't say MONEY because she was wealthy as anything...lives in an exclusive area of London.

yeah good thinking. I agree.

Heather's father - well I don't know. I don't know enough about the claims of violence Heather has made against him to really comment. He has suffered a stroke so came across as a defenceless friendly man who misses his daughter. He said that he was proud of her for standing up for herself and representing herself. He described her as "loaded" which made me laugh.

Loaded

So yeah I guess it was interesting but didn't really do a lot to either support or bitch about Heather. It was pretty balanced. And I guess that is what you would want out of something.

yeah exactly..it's not really worldshocking news but interesting and yeah the way they brought this I agree, that is what one would want out of it.

Thanks so much for the review

You're very welcome!

For those really interested in seeing it, I am sure that channel 4 do an on demand thing online somewhere so you might be able to find it.

Keep those London reports coming Lucy

But of course!

"Heather's father - well I don't know. I don't know enough about the claims of violence Heather has made against him to really comment. He has suffered a stroke so came across as a defenceless friendly man who misses his daughter.
.[/quote]

And he denied abusing her. As he would, whether he did or not.

I think it was a pity Jacques didn't interview Heather's brother and sister, who in the past have both backed up Heather's accusations against her father to the hilt. However, Shane has his own musical career and doesn't wish to be associated with the media circus surrounding Heather, while Fiona somewhat understandably has no trust whatsoever in 'investigative journalists' and now likewise refuses to be interviewed. Thus it seems to the world that it is just one person's word against another while the real ratio is is three against one.

It's quiet here...shall I invent something?

If you do, FP, make sure you first get your cut from the Daily Mail!

"its over - their divorced!" And I couldn't be happier for him!
I do feel sorry for Beatrice though. Po' thing, having to be in the middle of it all.
But she'll be just fine, she's got a wonderful family (The McCartneys..) to see she's happy!

Originally Posted by hibgal

If you do, FP, make sure you first get your cut from the Daily Mail!

Oh trust me..I will LOL but that's for our special London News reporter Lucy.