They updated it with more, I'd bold but it's all fucking gold so I can't decide. In short, in this bit he says that maybe if she wasn't such a fucking crazy liar she might actually be liked:
On Miss Mills's future earning power, he said
"I accept that since April 2006 the wife has had a bad press. She is entitled to feel that she has been ridiculed even vilified. To some extent she is her own worst enemy. She has an explosive and volatile character. She cannot have done herself any good in the eyes of potential purchasers of her services as a TV presenter, public speaker and a model, by her outbursts in her TV interviews in October and November 2007. Nevertheless the fact is that at present she is at a disadvantage."
He went on:
"Her evidence there that she had turned down huge amounts of work is quite inconsistent with her assertion that her earning capacity is zero."
He ruled that she had a greater earning power than she claimed, escpecially if she became "less confrontational":
"I have no doubt that, despite the very adverse publicity in the last 2 years or a little under, the wife does have an earning capacity. She has earned her living since the age of 17. I have found that her association with the husband advanced, not stultified, her career.
"If in the future she is circumspect about engaging with the media and/or adopts an emollient and less confrontational attitude to it, I think that the negative interest shown towards her will indeed subside."
And he attacked Miss Mills for exaggerating how much money she needs to live:
"These items in her budget which I have touched upon above, illustrate generally speaking, how unreasonable (even generously interpreted) are the claimed needs of the wife. In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have.
"If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose she only has herself to blame. If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly over-eggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget."
|