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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

Yes Jellycat it is starting to pee me off as well - in all the papers. Bet he IS wetting himself with glee

Sorry Jellykat with a k.

You mean, other than the DV, what is the evidence for DV?

There is more to DV than physical assault.

Yes, well I'm bound to meet a Lord Snot' are on my estate in Bermondsey aren't I? Would you like Proof of that too?? Plenty of window cleaners and mini cab drivers mind you..
Well there you go, then. She travels in different circles than the window cleaner, etc. No big surprise she would marry someone she has been to dinner parties and so on with. Also no big surprise she married Jewish men.

sloppydrawers - there have been various photos over time of him acting in an agressive manner towards her. Also lots of verbal comments (another form of DV) which are meant to humilate and put her down.

The throat grabbing remains reprehensible.
The nose tweaking was always bizarre.

img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01751/SNN2507CV--620_1751826a.jpg

Justresting I'd go on the complete bollocks angle simply because this is one of the most bizarre justifications for throttling someone I have ever heard:

'holding her throat to assist her focus and regain attention'

It's also in complete contradiction of the Saatchi 'I had absolutely no idea there was any drug taking going on until after everything blew up' line, or the blackmail angle either - how could the aides blackmail Nigella if the drug taking was common knowledge? Plus why would someone who was very anti-drugs leave their child in the care of someone who was an addict and who encouraged their own children of a similar age to smoke dope/snort coke? Aren't most parents of teens fairly watchful of potential signs of drug taking? I know it's a common concern in my circles.

None of it makes much sense to me. Not the possibility that Nigella may (or may not) have a problem with / enjoy drugs, but the response of physical violence rather than professional support (couldn't he just have easily blackmailed her into going to the Priory or something?) these are extraordinarily rich people with access to resources normal families can't even dream of.

'It's also in complete contradiction of the Saatchi 'I had absolutely no idea there was any drug taking going on until after everything blew up' line'

"In a statement taken from the art collector on Monday, he said: "During our marriage I was unaware that Nigella took drugs. It is only during the breakup that I became aware she had been taking drugs whilst we were married – although I was not aware of the scale of the problem. I believe it was in about June 2013, at the time of the well publicised incident at Scott's restaurant – around the same time I was told about her drug use by my daughter Phoebe. It was confirmed by other people in and around the household."

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

Well exactly, so the line that he was physically attempting to help his drug addled partner is a bit of an odd one. But it's all total speculation anyway isn't it?

Anyone who believes that a man who works in advertising doesn't know his wife has a coke addiction is deluded

'the line that he was physically attempting to help his drug addled partner is a bit of an odd one'

Was he helping or checking?

"Hillgrove news" is not a news site, it is a blog written by a PR man with links to.... oh guess who?

And what Odd said ^^

And Claig would you really check whether your partner had a "clean" nose in public in that way - unless of course you had planted the photographer to try to put this very story in the public domain in the first place. So many people accused her of setting up CS with the photographer. What if it was him and his plan backfired; people asked wtf is CS doing rather than why is he looking up her nose?

It seems to have been an argument. About what? Did he know about the allegd drug use bee the meal? I doubt he would have planted the photographer.

As far as I can understand, his interest was to pursue the case against the Grillos. The Grillos lawyer said the case should be dropped because CS and NL were "at loggerheads", and

"The court was also told that Mr Saatchi’s solicitors sent a letter to Miss Lawson’s solicitors on October 17 this year in which Mr Saatchi threatened to sue his ex wife for the money allegedly stolen by the Italian sisters after she had made it clear she was reconsidering whether to give evidence."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10478140/Nigella-Lawson-is-a-habitual-criminal-court-hears.html

I'm quite prepared to believe CS is a nasty, horrible bastard. But if NL was/is a coke head? I'm one of many people who know what a absolute living hell that is? Everyday you're tearing your hair out trying to get them to see the damage their lies, denial, habit, is doing to your children, your relationship, as well as their own life in every way imaginable. And for them to ignore it, lie to you and carry on? I know it sounds shocking but in my case there was violence on both sides as part of the day to day toward the end.

Well luckily they have enough dosh topay for other people to bring up children....any other person ie poor would have ss in and taking children away,,{or not},the rich do what they want and people think it is not so bad....boring people,non story could not care less.....they could give some dosh to help others...am sure they do {not}.....they are human and rich and will do what they like.Depressing and dull and probably not unusual.

Doobydoo, they are real people

This is not just about dosh. There is alleged fraud, there has been a divorce and there is the public reputation of two high profile individuals etc

The odd thing is he isn't saying

"Nigella suffered from this addiction for many years, we tried many things to help her, but in the end our relationship was another casualty of her habit".

he is saying (as far as I can see) that during their ten year marriage he had no idea that she used drugs.

I think the whole situation is so far outside most people's frame of reference that it is impossible to conjecture what was going on in their relationship behind closed doors, except that it was all a bit odd.

In a court of law, the truth must be told. Evidence given must be truthful.
That is why this court case is so important.

My guess is that Saatchi wants to pursue the case and does not want it called off or to fall apart as he has presumably incurred legal costs etc and

"Mr Saatchi threatened to sue his ex wife for the money allegedly stolen by the Italian sisters after she had made it clear she was reconsidering whether to give evidence"

Is it an important court case?

Beyond the fact that the press are interested because the people involved are famous, does it really matter?

I am no longer sure he is as bad as has been painted.

He has allegedly been defrauded, he has been divorced, his public reputton as been damaged and now he is in a court case to recover money that was allegedly stolen and Nigella seemingly "made it clear she was reconsidering whether to give evidence"

Sorry about these typos. My wireless keyboard is playing up? Do they just deteriorate over time? Maybe I need to buy a new one.

sloppydrawers I'm sure living with an addict is terribly distressing. I find it upsetting enough trying to get dh to stop smoking and imagine that is very trivial in comparison. However if we are to believe what Saatchi has said in public (which may be very far from the truth) then he did not know she had a coke habit, so I don't see how he could have gone through hell about it.

Of course it might be that the throat chocking episode was because he had just found out and was confronting her (public places are sometimes recommended for difficult conversations) but there would still be little excuse for losing his rag in such a physical way, and why would he not have given that as his defense when it happened, or when she filed for divorce? Plus if it was so commonly known I would imagine that the paps would have started throwing rumours around a long time ago given that they were effectively stalking the pair of them.

'Is it an important court case?'

Yes, because of what further things may come out in evidence. They are high profile famous people.

'why would he not have given that as his defense when it happened'

Maybe because he wanted to protect Nigella.