Wednesday, February 20, 2008

A difference of opinion from the Winehouse house

While Gordon is playing fantasy divorce courts and claiming that the Winehouse family don't believe that Blake would get a penny because Amy was drug-addled when she hooked up with him, Mitch Winehouse has given an interview to Closer which is a lot more understanding of Blake's position, and - crucially - claims that she hated hard drugs before she met Blake. That would seem to offer a suggestion that Winehouse entered the relationship clear-eyed.

It's also clear that Mitch, at least, isn't pushing for a divorce at any cost. Not at the moment, anyway:

Mitch said: "He had a problematic upbringing, he moved out of home at 16 and was homeless in London at 18. That's why I do have sympathy for him.

"Blake's got the chance now to prove how much he really loves Amy by staying drug-free. Their marriage can't survive if they're together on drugs.

"One or both will die, that's all there is to it."

Not quite the hard-faced viewpoint Gordon was suggesting. Perhaps he hasn't had his Closer delivered yet.


sven945 said...

In defence of Gordon (something I never thought I'd here myself say) he was suggesting that she was incapable of making the decision to get married, whereas Mitch is saying that she was clean before she got into a relationship with Blake.

Whether either of these is true or not is a different matter. And, more importantly, the issue is if a divorce court would care.

simon h b said...

Fair point, Sven, but it would still undermine an argument that she entered into the *relationship* because she was drug-addled - which would lead any decent lawyer to ask 'she was clear-headed when she entered the relationship; she was clear-headed when she started taking drugs in that relationship - why would the choice to get married be annulled when she entered into those choices of her own free will'?

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.