So it's alleged nigella took drugs with her kids?

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

lemonmuffin you have one hell of an axe to grind here, why?

Divorces can be messy and can sometimes involve financial claims. None were made here according to the Daily Telegraph report.

The photographer took pictures of what happened in the restaurant. Saatchi's public image does seem to have been impacted negatively to some extent after the publication of these photos.

According to the Mail, it was in May last year that Saatchi discovered the spending

"The saga began in May last year when Mr Saatchi heard a taxi beeping its horn for hours outside his Chelsea home. He discovered the cab was from a firm kept on account by his business and had been booked to take Grillo sisters to a polo match in Berkshire.

That led to him uncovering huge bills they had run up at his expense."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513829/Nigella-Lawson-took-cocaine-day-decade.html

Wow - I've never been deleted before! Just in case anyone cares, I was being deliberately hyperbolic about the allegations because they seem so bloody ridiculous.

Poor Nigella.

After reading all of these posts, it's very clear that some out there need to get in the real world and stop sticking your head in the sand...or is it the "out of sight out of mind, scenario"

Remember both come from a high privileged background, have never wanted for anything in their spoilt lives, and solicitors etc will be rich out of it...the two in question will not lose a wink of sleep...except if they do take coke...I did say if...

One things for sure they don't give a hoot about you and me...and the 10000s of homeless this coming Christmas......

They love the publicity,,,just ignore them....they will hate that.

End of rant.

I sort of agree with you Upthejunction, we don't need to invest emotionally in these people or this incident and it is healthier not to. That said, when the pictures were published it led to a lot of very unpleasant and misogynistic rubbish about DV and relationships being trotted out. I think it was worth people reacting to that and speaking up about it. Women need to be heard on that stuff, not so much to defend NIgella Lawson but for our own sakes.

I agree eldritch. Whatever cs does nigella won't be ending up in a woman's refuge.

However, the attitude of "shock horror, woman not actually domestic goddess therefore abuse must have been 6 of one half a dozen of the other" is very real. I'm not saying people are expressing this view on this thread (havent read every post) However it has been expressed re: this case.

OMG - celebrity takes drugs scandal.

Latest from the trial. Once again, Saatchi doesn't exactly cover himself in glory...

I now think this is a lot more complicated than I initially thought.

Saatchi presumably wants the case against the Grillos to go ahead.

The Guardian says
"Saatchi said he would sue Lawson for £300,000 at centre of Grillo fraud trial if she did not give evidence, court hears"

and that

"The threatened civil action demanding Lawson repay the money allegedly taken by the Grillos emerged as lawyers for the sisters argued there had been an abuse of process in the case and it should be dropped because the former couple, who are also the main prosecution witnesses, are "at loggerheads".

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/nigella-lawson-charles-saatchi-marriage-tv-cook-allegations-drug-use

I can understand that Saatchi does not want the case against the Grillos dropped.

So if Nigella does take coke are we supposed to believe that CS - the man of advertising throughout the 80s - can't recognise the effects?

Is threatening to sue someone if they don't give evidence even legal ? Surely the CPS decide whether someone should give evidence and the judge decides whether that person is being a cooperative witness or not.

Upthejunction1: "Remember both come from a high privileged background, have never wanted for anything in their spoilt lives"

I may be wildly speculating here, but I'm pretty sure that Nigella has wanted for her dead husband not to be dead. And there's no amount of money that can buy away that grief.

Being vile about people because they are rich still makes the person being vile a cunt.

John Diamond was, by all accounts, a wonderful man. It is too awful for words that his grieving widow and children have suffered so horrendously in the aftermath of his death.

Yes sauce.

Saatchi must have lawyers who know what they are doing. It seems he discovered the spending before the photographs in the restaurant and the divorce.

Person with tragic background and unsupportive home life suffers from addictive habit is also hardly a new story, although generally told in less glamorous circumstances.

LaLa, if CS believes NL was complicit in the fraud, I believe he can make a civil claim against her regardless of the criminal trial.

I worked in journalism for many years and know a lot of people who were friends with JD - I never heard anything but good things about him before and after his death.

So, even if she married him for his money, he married her for her youth. tit for tat.

And I don't know if I believe that she married him for his money. It sounds like he was hovering before JD even died. I think some women (a lot of women) fear being single so much, they need to be married or they feel like they don't exist. I'm not wealthy or famous and I still see it in the women around me. Not friends. But I can imagine she was clinging to a passing raft more than marrying money.

How do you know who did the hovering? These people travel in circles unlike the rest of us. They're addicted to money, fame, glamour and publicity, especially as it's all within their reach. Good luck to them.

But If NL did feel she needed to marry why not her window cleaner? 'Passing raft'. More like huge, luxury yacht full of jewellery, Champers and Caviar to me.

Is it possible to stick my head above the parapet and comment I'm not pro drug, nor pro domestic violence? I'm not sure how one justifies the other in any way, and I question either position that Saatchi had any right to lay a hand on his (ex)wife irrespective of wether she snorted the gobi deserts worth of coke up her nose or not. Nor do I think being a victim of dv in any way absolves someone of the guilt of being involved in a criminal undertaking that destroys lives.

All this taken with a huge dose of salt because the only thing the public has to go on are the public pictures of the abuse. As far as anyone knows Nigella Lawson is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, and unless something is proven one way or another should enjoy the benefit of the doubt. As to this Saatchi character, absolutely, undeniably and categorically he was in the wrong to lay so much as a finger on her. As to his motivations bringing this up in court? I could not possibly comment, I don't know the man.

P.S. Why do you think this other silly, Sloane - ranger cow is hanging around him now?