ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
AIBU to think that The Saatchi Person is being just nasty now?(71 Posts)
HE says that Nigella and her daughter were both off their heads on drugs and in doing so, let the PA's run rings and spend money fraudulently. There is a case going on, so not sure if this will get drop kicked, but the man seems to know no depth to his nasty.
He'll be punching old ladies next.
Could there be any truth to it all? Did wonder on occasion why N's eyes looked quite as erm...wide awake as they did.
He is a vucker isn't he?
Reading the BBC story, it says he only discovered the drug use as they were splitting, and in the email it refers to the sisters' claims being proved right. So it sounds like the defence claims and the choking incident pre-dated the sending of the email, therefore it could well have been sent as a form of revenge on Nigella.
I imagine he's at least massively exaggerating any drug use. If she was a coke/amphetamines addict she'd be scrawny and not interested in food.
Coke use and rich people are often a combination.
Nigella may well have a problem with coke.
It is a very more ish drug.
I would be very surprised if Charles Saatchi has never taken it.
Some people lie about or block out their past.
I did coke with a friend of a friend at a party (where 98% of people there were doing coke). I knew for a fact that she did coke every weekend.
Three years later she telling everyone that she had never, ever taken coke. Hmmmm.
Duck: I knew coke users who are quite big.
It messes about with your metabolism.
Diego Maradonna isn't scrawny.
Kerry Katona is /was never scrawny.
The catering industry is renowned for drug use - keeps people going during the very long hours.
Yes good point - I hadn't thought about them! But Nigella looks healthy, not a bit like DM or KK did.
Regardless of whether she has a coke habit or not he seems out to get revenge and a highly unpleasant character.
Even assuming that this were true (which I doubt), what it would strongly suggest would be that the two employees were blackmailing her. Difficult to see how that is a point in their favour or why they have been advised to use that at their trial. Surely it's just inviting prosecuting counsel to ask some very unpleasant questions?
But what it boils down to is that we are supposed to take the word of two (self proclaimed) blackmailers and an abusive ex against that of a woman we don't know anything against.
Pretty much everyone in the London media world does coke to some extent. I honestly wouldn't be massively surprised if it were true. Saatchi's an unpleasant individual but I'm still not sure that he orchestrated this release – he was saying a few weeks ago that he would reveal something and then he pulled back and didn't. This release was by the defence for the two PAs, no? Who are defending themselves against Saatchi/Nigella?
I'm not justifying the throttling at all, just saying that I don't think this was necessarily meant to be public as many people think. I like Nigella's writing but even being a nice person doesn't preclude taking a bunch of blow.
Ages ago I remember reading a Stephen Fry essay (probably, in hindsight, written when he was taking a bunch of recreationals) in which he said that a UK TV channel had once done a documentary about "middle class junkies" which had to be shelved because they all seemed too healthy and fine. Not everybody looks like Zammo out of Grange HIll.
This is no doubt a naive question. But why would they do it, assuming they so? Because everything is so high powered, and fast pasted, and heavy stakes?
Insecurity is my guess, underneath they don't feel they match up to their outer persona. They also have the money, they feel it is glamorous and they like to be the 'in' crowd. They put it down to high powered etc because it is more of an excuse.
Hmmm, so he gave a written statement when it was clear the email would be used in court, which includes:
"I did believe the allegations" (note past tense)
"On reflection I was simply speculating that the Grillos would use this material to defend themselves."
Is it just me or does that actually suggest he's actively trying to limit the impact of the email and backtrack on its contents? I would imagine they have some choice things to reveal about him too.
I stand corrected as it does seem from reports this morning that he is cooperating with the defence.
It will be interesting to see at the trial if they have anything to back this up or if it's just a horrible ex and two disgruntled ex employees smearing her. Although there is never any excuse for what Saatchi did.
I hope it's not true, I have a real problem with parents who take drugs.
He certainly seems to have all the PR skills of a powerful fan set on reverse.
I hope nigella didn't do this but if he were a loving husband why didn't he notice something was wrong. Why didn't he help her with the drug problem when it came out rather than throttling her.
I think Charles Saatchi is a twat and maybe he made it up or someone else did and he believed them.
However, I'm just not getting the whole it's ok if Nigella took lots of illegal drugs in front of her kids because she's so fragrant and luffly and cooks lots of nice buns on telly and he's such an arse.
Maybe he was pissed off she was, or he thought she was, taking drugs in front of his child as well.
But I thought the last story from Saatchi was how horrible Nigella was being to Saatchi's daughter by not taking her to NY with her and not being in contact with her after the split? He can't have everything his way but he sure is trying.
This is the pre-trial phase and the court reporters were amazed that the judge did not impose reporting restrictions, apparently. And it's not just the the tabloids salivating over this tat, it was all over the DT - but we've got the press we deserve and they'll pick over every desicated bone of this unedifying and sleazy saga because it sells.
there were reporting restrictions - they were lifted by the judge yesterday.
I stand corrected - my level of ignorance indicates my level of interest.
Um, isn't the order of events:
- email sent
-* legal case/research starts against Grillo sisters*
- episode outside Scotts
- Grillo sisters trial starts, using evidence that predates the whole throttling thing?
It would seem not.
First the Grillo sisters case starts, no mention from their legal team of drugs.
Then the abuse goes public. Divorce follows.
October the email gets sent.
Third party hands statement of Grillo sisters making drugs allegation against NL to prosecution. Court calls allegations scurrilous and not allowed to be reported
Sacchti says he believes Grillo sisters innocent, that they had NL's unspoken? permission to spend like mad. Bad character thingie allowed in court meaning allegations can be reported.
Basically the drug stuff, email and all, appears to have popped up only after the public abuse, the admission of abuse in the form of accepting a caution, NL divorcing Satcchi, Sacctchi's threat to sue NL for... not sticking up for him, or something and NL's counter threat to pull put of the Grillo case as a witness for the prosecution for the Grillo's
Nobody has done a nice tidy bullet point timeline as far as I have seen, but they are "innocent face" underlining the distinctly .... interesting.... sequence of the events.
So upshot, not a whisper of drugs untill after NL divorces Satcchi and fails to crumble in the face of all his previsouly widely reported tactics to try bring her to heel.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.