I very rarely remark on the subject of 'celebs' and their doings, mostly because I've never heard of the majority of them and I have to ask the little 'Memsahib' who they are and that only increases the contempt with which she views me! However, unlike that 'Cocklecarrot' of yesteryear, I have heard of the Beatles, and thus, of Sir Paul McCartney and his travails in the High Court with his former wife, Heather Mills. She appears to be universally disliked by the press who, from a quick glance at the papers in my local newsagent this morning, spent the previous evening finding the most ugly photographs of the lady for their front pages. I, of course, take a completely neutral stance over this contentious issue but I cannot help feeling that anyone who chucks a glass of water over a lawyer cannot be entirely bad. This event produced a classic headline in The Sun ("We love it!"), as follows:
"Mucca Chucksa Cuppa Water Over Macca's Lawyer Shaka"
How do they think them up?! Some dandruff-ridden reprobates from Canary Wharf are even attempting to work out, given that 'Stumpy' used to be a call girl and the fact that the former Governor of New York, Mr. 'Spittingwithrage' Spitzer paid his tart £2,000 a night, whether or not Sir Paul would have been better off renting her by the hour. Unfortunately the hacks' ability at sums ends at the tenth digit on their trembling hands so we shall never know. Anyway, I wish to thank 'Stumpy' for all her efforts which, whatever they might have brought her, have certainly added to the gaiety of the nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNWbTlucl0
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 12:07
Oh God, 'DM', I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 13:56
"I cannot help feeling that anyone who chucks a glass of water over a lawyer cannot be entirely bad..."
Funnily enough, I had the same feeling, albeit fleeting. The barrister should have thanked her, it actually improved her - that 'before' hairstyle was the pits!
Posted by: JuliaM | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 15:10
Sigh. I've told people a thousand times - do not exaggerate!
Not "per night" - per 2.5 hrs. And it was $4300, a sum that included remaining balance for past services rendered, current bill and deposit for the later date. Ashley-girl wasn't even a 3-diamond functionary; her rate was a meagre $2000/hr! The girl's loot wouldn't even pay for a half-month rent in UWS, let alone a session in decent tanning salon and a pedicure, for xristsake.
I'm not turning on that video...I'm at work and US legal system is our client!
Posted by: Tatyana | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 17:58
Sigh. I've told people a thousand times - do not exaggerate!
Not "per night" - per 2.5 hrs. And it was $4300, a sum that included remaining balance for past services rendered, current bill and deposit for the later date. Ashley-girl wasn't even a 3-diamond functionary; her rate was a meagre $2000/hr! The girl's loot wouldn't even pay for a half-month rent in UWS, let alone a session in decent tanning salon and a pedicure, for xristsake.
I'm not turning on that video...I'm at work and US legal system is our client!
Posted by: Tatyana | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 17:59
Ouch, Julia! You ladies really know how slip the knife between the ribs. Mind you, she really did not look amused when she left court. I wonder if she'll sue 'Stumpy' for the price of a new hair-do?
Tatyana, er, you seem to have considerable expertise on this subject, so perhaps you can tell me what, given that Spitzer paid for 2.5 hours, did he do during the remaining 2 hours 27.5 minutes? You understand that, putting it delicately, I am judging this man by my own experience and the fact that the little 'Memsahib' used to show increasing signs of irritation (always a warning sign!) were my heroic efforts to take longer than 2.5 minutes, er, not that they did very often, of course!
Please don't worry about 'DM's' video. I can assure you that even the US legal system would have a laugh at it.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 18 March 2008 at 21:23
Wrong perspective, DD. In Spitz' case, he was not the one rendering the services, so 2.5 min timeline is inapplicable. And as you probably know ladies take an awful looong time preparing for the party.
I might be mistaken, of course - but then so is my source.
Posted by: Tatyana | Wednesday, 19 March 2008 at 18:43
Tatyana, I surrender to your superior knowledge!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 19 March 2008 at 18:48
I concur with Dearieme. McCartney's lawyer should be thanking her. Take that photo to the stylist and ask them to give her the drenched cat look, it suits her. Bouffants rarely look good on anyone.
Posted by: the ill man | Saturday, 29 March 2008 at 00:02