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?

While we all talk about Nigellas drug use, we are conveniently diverted from talking about the fact that Saatchi is an abusive bully.

Goldigger. The sisters were taking financial advantage of their employers. This formed part of their defence. This financial advantage was taken with the unspoken approval and agreement of NL.

I think a sum of £685,000 is considered taking a bloody great advantage of their employers. But taking advantage is not fraud. This is what they have been cleared of.

You didnt report your other post did you?
I had better report it and this one in that case.

"Drug taking is common in every part of society"

Especially in the set Nigella frequents......but of course she only did it the once.

Right.....

To be defamatory and therefore actionable the statement must be untrue.

For two employees to spend a sum of money over half a million pounds pounds without written contractural agreement or even a verbal agreement with their employer is clearly taking advantage. Not jury in the country would deny that.

What they have done is found them innocent of FRAUD!

But you sound like someone who is always right so do as you please.

I haven't read the whole thread, but fuck me, if I had to live with CC, I'd stick anything up my nose to get through it. Nigella should not have been put in trial in the witness box. This very high profile hounding could have a very adverse impact on justice. It could make witnesses very reluctant to come forward if they believed their private life could be dissected in such a way.
Deborah Orr in today's Guardian did a good piece about this, saying that because the employers blurred the boundaries and had a more personal relationship with the defendants, sanction of their free spending was implicit. It was okayed month after month until CC decided it wasn't.
Lets be clear here; the defendants were not declared "innocent", they were declared "not guilty", which is very different. It was always going to be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that theft/fraud had taken place in this mess of a "trial". Common sense has prevailed, as the amazing Deborah Orr said.

It would be interesting to know the real motive behind this court case. Maybe it will come out eventually

Sneezecake, read today's Guarduan on the subject. Very interesting and bloody sad too.

Cheers I will look online

No one comes out of it looking good. What a mess!

LazeyJaney, as a concerned member of the public, have you thought of bringing a private prosecution as regards to Nigella lawson and her admitted recreational/occasional use of narcotics? You have showed your dismay about this subject before. Don't worry, I'm sometimes in the habit of spotting somebody's pain, without knowing them, over the internet...just like you sense that Nigella must be a coke fiend and not a recreational user of drugs, even though she admitted to her use being recreational.
Have a beautiful christmas.

Their personal life is similar to many people u suppose minus the wealth and on a grander scale

And it should be nobody's business

bish. They are self publicists. If they didnt tell stuff about themselves , they couldnt be celebs!

We don't own the right to every detail about anyones life, no matter how much self publicising they have done.

I know the media would have you believe we do, but the media would have us believe the sky was yellow if it made money.

We re all self publicists, we all project an image of ourselves that's not totally accurate whatever we do

Oh my Gaaawd! I know some people are delicate so I'm begging you - don't watch BBC iplayer. Don't watch Shaun The Sheep. Don't watch We Wish Ewe A Merry Christmas. Because they steal their Christmas tree - from a church yard!!! FROM A CHURCH YARD!!!!!!!

Nigella is of course responsible for this moral outrage. She must know someone on telly. Tis the fall of man. Tis Eve all over again. Oh the paaaaainnnnn....

Baaaa.

I like Nigella and CS sounds a bit of a psycho, so I am not surprised if she needed mechanisms to cope.

However, it does sound as though the children were neglected - they may be grown up now, but they weren't when Nigella and CS got together. Even allowing for the media hype to make a good story, the impression is that CS insisted on being first in the pecking order and the children were left to fend for themselves; they could have whatever they wanted, provided they kept out of his way. They appear to have abdicated most of their parental responsibilities to the Grillo sisters.

No different really from the other celebs who have Nannies looking after their children.

When I was little I knew a family who were very well to do, with a family background high up in politics, and substantial assets, who spent very little time with their children. They had staff, and their children did reception year in the local school and then moved to a private school where they started boarding as soon as it was allowed.

Its not my choice of how to parent, and I wouldn't particularly say its good parenting, but its hardly neglect.

I think its very difficult to say that the children were neglected. The only evidence to that effect came from the defendants testimonies. This was one of the many issues with the reporting of the trial - neither NL (nor for that matter CS) had a right to test this assertions or reply to them.

"LazeyJaney, as a concerned member of the public, have you thought of bringing a private prosecution as regards to Nigella lawson and her admitted recreational/occasional use of narcotics?"

No need - the police are doing it already.

My understanding of the drug laws is that you can charge people with possession, but not for past drug use. And you can't actually charge people with possession without any physical evidence.

The police aren't doing anything. They have stated that it is subject to review. Ie if additional corroborating evidence enters there possession they will review their position. But they normally won't investigate or prosecute if the only evidence is what someone has said while giving evidence. Given that NL hasn't by her own account taken cocaine in three years, or previouslyfor a decade, I can't imagine there is any corroborating evidence they will get or are expecting to.

Oh and goldigger

If you want to look and find genuine libellous statements for MN HQ to report and take down, as you did mine, which was not because it was 'fair comment', look to the original post.

It states ' who knew about your and your wife's drug use'.

To the best of my limited knowledge on this case mr saatchi did not admit to drug use. If that is the case, now that really is libellous

I havent read my message from them yet.

But people can and do report. It is up to mumsnet to decide what and what is not libellous. I dont know about you, but I am not a libel lawyer.

I presume you do not have a problem with that.

Sattchi didn't give a shit about the money and he prob knew all along - this was his last knife in Nigellas back, last way he had to control her and drag her name through the mud.

I don't believe he was the slightest bit interested in securing a prosecution and he will probably see that the Grilling sisters are okay too.