Uh oh ... more embarrassment for Macca

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:31 am

Looks like the British tabloids are now publishing nude pics of Heather along with the usual tabloid allegations ...

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sto...ews/news1.shtml

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:47 am

I read the news yesterday and I decided to not post anything on that subject. But since we are talking about it now, I think it's all very distasteful and an unnecessary expose on behalf of the British press.

IMO It borders on being very cruel, even if there are any elements of truth at all.

BTW Dave, the link that you provided does not seem to work.

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:54 am

Here is the link but be warned it is graphic in detail and contains nudity.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:14 pm

Heather is suing the News of The World. This will be interesting to see how the tabloids handle that action. This may also have a deleterious effect on the divorce proceedings that are underway.

Man, it's not much fun to be famous is it?

paulv63 · Post by **paulv63** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:36 pm

If Heather didn't want to be seen naked then she should have kept her clothes on. Did she actually think these pictures weren't going to come back and haunt her?

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:23 pm

I have been doing some more digging on the net and oh boy, it is not a pretty story by any account.

In fact I feel compelled to amend my opinion of the coverage somewhat. Although it is still tasteless and shameful, it appears that there is a heaping measure of truth attached to the stories.

The Sun newspaper has a video on-line which supports the allegations by their sister Newspaper the News of the World.

There are also a plethora of photos from a German book that she claims is a how to guide. However by all accounts the book does not contain any text. It does not look good at all for poor old Macca. What a mess.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:27 pm

Has it occurred to anyone that, since Heather filed and she was granted child custody, Paul may himself be the one behind the uncovering of this unsavory story?

After all, there is about $200 million at stake...

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:35 pm

The old card up the sleeve trick eh? Yes I thought about that, but he could have avoided all this by having her sign a prenuptial agreement. He ignored the advice of his daughter in that regard.

The term "caveat emptor" comes to mind for some strange reason when I look at Heather now.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:45 pm

Paul, he may or may not be behind the recent "un-covering" BUT he is not the one who posed for those pics. I think those pics show exactly who she was. (or what)

marctrain57 · Post by **marctrain57** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:05 pm

As far as nudity or graphic prose goes that is minor league stuff. If she had married Keith Richards we wouldn't give it a second thought. I am far more disgusted by the press for intruding into what is a personel issue that falls into that area I call none of our business

mgauction · Post by **mgauction** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:11 pm

Boy, he could do it, couldn't he? He certainly has the machine available to him. Big money speaks! It certainly does in the US! The Heather pics are certainly an eye opener. You can't say that they're not her.

My guess is that she will be judged by the press, the fans and the world by the amount she asks for, by her lawyers, in divorce. And, BELIEVE ME, it will be printed for the world to see public documents for public use.

On another hand, the McCartney children saw it, and he should have known with all his connections. I'm sure he knew it. It's probably just as much an embarassment to him ....

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:33 am

The press irritate me, raking through what is people's private grief. They are having a field day with this, because they have pretty much had to leave Paul alone. This is an excellent way of getting to him (sort of indirectly). It sells papers and so they love it.

Pretty much all of this was actually published when they first got together - as who he was suddenly made what she had done before rather more 'newsworthy'.

I truly feel very sorry for Macca over this. He was in love with the girl and she turned out not to be exactly what he thought she was. It's going to cost him a fortune, as the law is generally heavily on the side of the woman in divorce cases - though that's probably the very least of his worries at the moment. There is their child to consider.

I doubt he was behind doing anything to rake this up, as it was all in the press before. It's just being shouted 1000 times louder now that they are divorcing. Sad sad sad.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:41 am

Linda McCartney took numerous pictures of trashed, half naked rock and rollers in their hotel rooms and beds and far as I know never denied having slept with them. What's more, she had a kid at the time. I don't hear anyone ripping on her.

As for judging someone who's nearly 40 now and apparently came out of a rough background because they posed naked when they were 19, that's pretty simple thinking.

paulv63 · Post by **paulv63** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:57 am

If Paul and Heather stayed together this would have been chalked up to a bad past for her. I think the Linda thing you mention was chalked up to the "Swingin' Sixties." Heathers attitude stinks and that's why the dirt is getting dug up.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:20 am

I am not taking sides in this; merely observing.

Glamour modelling is one thing (and a Brit tradition, carrying much less onus in the UK than it does in the Puritan USA). But apparently she crossed the "line" into sex-for-money, fairly early in her modelling career.

She was sitting on a time bomb all through her very public life with Paul. A bit selfish, don't you think? Makes her appear even more gold-diggerish.

For his end, he is a public figure and were I him, I would have done a pre-nup AND had a bit of checking done on her past in order to avoid the potential for embarrassment.