To think that in the Lawson/Saatchi/Grillo Case...

[friday16]

...that if you're richer than the dreams of avarice, and your assistants who know about your and your wife's drug use have been taking the piss financially, your best bet would be to pay them off quietly and put the loss down to (easily affordable) experience, because any other path is going to make you look very foolish?

From what I understand, other members of staff have the same 'understanding' with regards to credit cards & 'gifts'. If this was all above board, surely this would be declared on their P11Ds?

I'm hopeful that HMRC follow this up. At the very least his company should be subject to a HMRC investigation.

JustGettingOnWithIt with regards to you last point about not buying her products, I agree that I won't be. I have a chrismas copy of Good Housekeeping from last year where she featured in an article...it makes difficult reading now.

Superstrength go and sit in a court and listen for a day. If people, who have to admit to illegal things in order to give evidence got automatically prosecuted, the whole system would grind to a halt.

Yes parents quite frequently admit to taking drugs in court as part of explaining the circumstances around their evidence.

Would you like to see someone not give evidence against someone pimping underage girls, because they'd get prosecuted for admitting the reason they where there is because they were hanging around getting stoned, or touting as an illegal breakdown rescue service listening in to police frequencies etc?

No the law doesn't get applied equally to all, otherwise high profile policemen dumping a hacked up prostitutes bodies in the canal would get charged with rather more than interfering with lawful burial.

So someone admits using illegal drugs in court & they are not prosecuted

It would be a complete waste of everyone's time. Mere possession of a Class A drug, which is all she's admitted to, with no aggravating factors, would have as a starting point a fine of one and a half a week's disposable income.. But she would tick a significant number of the mitigating factors, and none of the aggravating factors, so it would be a fine of half a week's income. Mere possession of Cannabis, even with the aggravating factor of the presence of children, would result in a conditional discharge, if that.

Leaving aside all the public policy reasons why prosecuting people for incidental admissions made in witness statements would be an incredibly bad idea, the last thing anyone needs is more joke convictions for trivial drugs offences. The Tulisa case you allude to is one of supply, and looks pretty pointless as well, but it's not mere possession.

No one comes out of this with much credit. I do feel a bit dorry for the Grillos as they seem to have been used as pawns in the ongoing divorce case of two wealthy and well connected people.

David Cameron was a complete fucking tit as well.

She would not get done for possession as they didn't find any on her/no evidence, even the Grillos said they never saw her take it- and prosecutions for past possession, which is what she admitted to are not in the public interest, with rates of ever having used cannabis at about 60% amongst young people.

Would you like to see someone not give evidence against someone pimping underage girls, because they'd get prosecuted for admitting the reason they where there

I think we can safely assume that if people were prosecuted for what's in witness statements, the people responsible for the grooming and sexual exploitation of young girls in Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere would all still be on the streets, still abusing. Almost every witness in those cases would have refused to give evidence, including the victims.

You're assuming the Grillos were telling the truth about drug use.

It's funny that they came up with the drugs story, many months after being charged.

babybarrister absolutely agree, and cannot understand why more people/media are not picking up on the fact that they were a) paid in cash for years and b) that PAs to high profile millionaire celebs do not get paid £26k pa, more like 10x that.

I was completely confused by the Grillos' defence. It seemed to be "we are not guilty of fraud: it was blackmail".

I was also surprised by the judge allowing publicity of the pre trial arguments which are usually sub judice and included Saatchi's email saying he believed every word the Grillos had said. It strikes me that a juror would find it difficult to ignore that when trying the case and yet they should only consider evidence presented at the actual trial.

I also agree Babybarrister that this is a tax dodge, their original limit on the credit card per month was £25,000, then increased to £100,000 and their accountant didn't think to mention it. The only justification for this can be that they were allowed to use large sums for their own personal spending- and presumably no limit was actually set down in writing whichi is why they were found not guilty.

I want a credit card with a £25,000 monthly limit!

I think she should be prosecuted for her admissions in court

Taking drugs is not an offence. Possession of drugs is an offence. Ergo you cannot be prosecuted unless there is evidence that you are in possession - which is rather difficult in hindsight.

There isn't enough evidence to warrant an arrest, let alone a prosecution.

To be honest I would have been surprised if Nigella hadn't taken coke at some point or another. Isn't it the drug of choice in the entertainment industry?

If someone were to dig hard enough in my past I'm sure they would find a few skeletons or two. Granted, it wouldn't be coke use (never had that kind of money) but I certainly indulged during my years at uni as did the majority of my friends.

ProfPlumSpeaking that's exactly what I've been hearing too, but we are hearing what the media wants heard.

She watched her husband die of cancer, she lost members of her own family to cancer. I can understand why she might have wanted to get out of her head occasionally. The "children" are late teens/early twenties.

I suspect it's all very grey and that the jury had a problem with "reasonable doubt". My guess (based only on Sky/BBC coverage) is that Saatchi/Nigella were often happy for the sisters to "treat themselves".If the sisters then took the piss, the jury may have felt that the employers had set a precedent which allowed the Grillos to think/hope they were not being dishonest.

The children are 19 and 16/17. Still young. A shame that they were pulled into it.

I still don't get the defence though.

Nigella didn't want Saatchi to know she was taking drugs, so she bribed the PAs. With his credit card. Like he wouldn't notice.

Why not use her own money? She's worth £15 million. It doesn't add up.

I dont understand why she isnt prosecuted tbh nigella is a pompous woman who thinks all thinks law are benath her she lives in her own world of course she takes drugs and is out of her face most days she admitted it, and no wonder she always had her head in her fridge in the middle of the night was the munchies.

Nigella probably mixed in circles from a young woman where cocaine was the drug of choice

The Grillo sisters are going to find it difficult to find a job after the intense media scrutiny they have received in the past few months. It doesn't matter if they have been found innocent, the whole trial was dodgy.

they will get book deals, and do some PR work they wont be suck dirt on a celeb is like gold dust especially people like nigella lawson

I mean people like Nigella as she gives out a squeaky clean image domestic goddess and all that, where it sounds like she might be a spoiled pampered junkie

be stuck*