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?

Well he was stupid for doing it too, if that is true. We will see whether he gets away with it.

Can anyone say what are the up sides to taking drugs? Because I certainly dont know of any

She admitted she smoked cannabis infront of her children.

No she did not SuperStrength. If you're going to comment please try to get things right. Otherwise people will think you don't know what you're talking about.

What happened was that Nigella Lawson had finished giving evidence and one of the Grillos was asked about buying cigarettes for the children.

She said Nigella 'smoked weed' in front of them.

She was not asked to prove this. Nigella, like all witnesses, had no counsel and no right to question anyone or make statements.

The judge put a reporting restriction on the comment and later found he couldn't do that.

Hence the headlines that 'Nigella smoked cannabis in front of the children'. They were reporting what Grillo had said in court. There's no obligation to check whether it's true or not.

Understand now?

Nobody saw NL taking drugs but as she admitted to taking drugs (the admission being on a limited basis) I can see how the confusion has arisen.

Deliah is my preference too after listening to this circus over the last few weeks.

This couple of rich entitled twits deserve all the scorn they have coming to them.

superstrength is that true about Sam Cam & rehab? Have you got links?

There was an article on Dec 17th in the Guardian reporting from the trial. If she really believed everything was authorised "I was lucky enough to have beautiful and authorised gifts" - then why all the "can't explain/don't remember"?

Some excerpts:

The jury heard that in late August 2010 she flew to New York, stayed at Soho House and shopped at Louis Vuitton in a trip that cost over £5,000, according to credit card statements, Carpenter said. "I am suggesting that is money spent by you, on your own or with a personal friend," said Carpenter. "I don't remember," said Grillo.

On 4 September 2010 she went to Paris for a day, withdrawing €300 (£250) from St Pancras Eurostar terminal and spending £707 in Chanel, Carpenter said. "I can't say yes or no," said Grillo.

Carpenter asked if spending of nearly £5,000 on flights, hotel and at Chanel was personal unauthorised spending. Grillo said she could not remember.

The following month there was a four-day trip to New York costing more than £8,000, Carpenter said. Grillo said she could not explain it.

The Deborah Orr piece in today's Grauniad was spot on. They were servants to people who were uncomfortable about having servants, and who encouraged them to be "part of the family". So they acted like part of the family.

Mess of boundaries.

Had not thought of the tax/NI side, but that would add to it.

So if I gave someone my credit card and told them to buy themselves a new coat, they can then take my credit card and buy the matching gloves and hat, without my approval, and I have no recourse.

Insane. Just insane.

I think the not guilty decision was the only logical one to be reached.

It was obvious spending was allowed on the credit card and nobody can properly account for how this spending was being regulated, if indeed there was any regulation in terms of spending limits

I have never really been a fan of Nigella's cooking, just somehow never clicked with her style but I do think this case will seriously damage her chances of success in the USA. Whether it's true or not, lurid tales of drug taking with children involved when your empire is build on easy entertaining with friends and family will hurt her chances of success in a more conservative country like the USA and may have been the whole point of this charade. While Kate Moss can bounce back from drug taking allegations, because like supermodels and coke who would have thought it domestic goddesses are a different matter

There is no way on earth that the credit card bills weren't noticed, as someone has already said it was a blatent tax dodge.

wannabe. But when people are not v careful about bills,and dont care that much either at the time, spending gets blended.

Agree about the Orr piece.

Someone care to remind me who brought the case to the police's attention?

I think it is a reflection of the arrogance or saatchi and Lawson that their behaviour would be overlooked while their employees would be punished. The sisters were undoubtedly taking financial advantage of their employers.

Frankly they have all been revealed as morally wanting!

Sneeze. You need to ask mumsnet to delete your last post because of your second sentence. Mumsnet and yourself can get into legal trouble for that.

And cant see how you know better than a jury.

wannabe. But when people are not v careful about bills,and dont care that much either at the time, spending gets blended.

That doesn't make it right.

If the Grillos were innocent they should have faced the charges with dignity. Not dragged drugs into it, a dead man and two kids.

Saatchi is a puppet master.

If they really thought it was all authorised, albeit unspoken, why did they initially apologise and offer to pay back the money?

It was their defence that dragged Nigellas reputation as a witness into it.

She looks pretty good for a 53 year old coke and dope fiend

They said that there was never a conversation about it though, which is obviously why its not blackmail. So if they weren't blackmailing her, how did they know she didn't want them to tell Saatchi?

Maybe they knew that no one gave a stuff about the bills because Saatchi never cared about the money, Nigella was in an unhappy marriage (and for all we know had no say anyway) and actually Saatchi has caused all this, not because of the money, but because he knew they would make a defence that would damage Nigella in some way.

Their whole defence hangs on the fact that Nigella didn't want Saatchi to know, but if there was never a conversation where Nigella said that then it doesn't wash.

Team Nigella will never accept their goddess has feet of clay. Cue round and round on this. More interesting is her outburst afterwards IMO.

The jury believed them to be not guilty.

Anyone would thing that some posters on here are part of a team trying to salvage the drug taking Lawsons reputation.

She's as big a twat as CS is, even if she's playing the offended victim card.

The Daily Telegraph has a long article today (p 2) headed 'Saatchi's campaign to smear his ex-wife'. It alleges that he used a middle man to repeatedly leak information damaging to his ex-wife to the press and details his role in ensuring that Nigella had to appear in court when she attempted to withdraw from being a witness by threatening to sue her for the money the Grillo's were accused of taking plus legal costs.
A real eye opener into his total determination to harm her

I think Saatchi has used this case as revenge. He's poured a bucket of shit over Nigella to punish her for leaving him. His PR mates have been sending bizarre emails with lurid allegations similar to those made by the Grillos for months now - no doubt to entice journalists and encourage them to report allegations as soon as they were mentioned in court. Without Nigella having any chance to respond or defend herself.

The allegations are all tissue thin. The Grillos had to admit they had never seen Nigella taking drugs. But supposition and gossip was allowed to stand without challenge, because Nigella was a witness, not a defendant.