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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

'Nigella was then left reeling by Mr Saatchi’s ‘cruelty’ after he announced in The Mail on Sunday that he would be seeking a divorce.
In a final, crushing act of emotional control, he released an extraordinary statement to say that the marriage was over — without giving her any warning of his intentions.
Nigella has now moved out of their home and has rented an apartment with her son Bruno.'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2381436/EXCLUSIVE-Nigella-Lawson-Charles-Saatchi-divorce-tomorrow--SHE-filed-legal-papers.html From the DM.

You are right, Claig. Despite his public threats to divorce her (clearly he thought losing him would be a disaster for her and she might beg him to reconsider) Nigella was the one to file papers in the end.

Belize I do have the OP's posts highlighted- but in purple!

Secondrow I'm glad I'm not just seeing things. Odd though, innit? Never had that before on any other thread.

Sorry for diversion, I will bugger off now :)

Thanks, I didn't know about that bit in the Daiy Mail. If it is in the Daily Mail then it needs to be treated seriously.

Unless everyone was keeping very detailed records of spending on the CCs, I think it will be hard to prove exactly what was business related and what was personal spending. Since nobody seems to have been keeping a close watch on what was being spent for almost ten years, including the accountant, it will be even harder to figure that out.

If I were CS I would be going after the accountant, as he most likely has professional insurance to cover this sort of disastrous malpractice, but clearly CS has other fish to fry here.

math, I think the Grillos turned down a deal to slly pay the money back befoe the photos. I don't think the case about the spending had any ulterior motive.

I have also been wondering whether it was malpractice on the accountant's part or not.
Even if they didnt tell the Lawsons, they could have written it somewhere I would have thought. At least then, they would have informed them. Up to the Lawsons whether they read it or not.

But £700,000 must be a bit small fry to the Lawsons.

that was meant to be

slowly pay the money back

'But £700,000 must be a bit small fry to the Lawsons.'

I find that hard to believe. Only MPs would think that £700,000 expenses was small fry.

Looks like a very laisse fair attitude all round, with a lot of money being thrown about. It does sound as if there was a bit of an implicit threat being made to both CS and NL by the assistants with their 'going legal' defense, but that was after the fraud/over spending was discovered.

He is suuposed to be worth somewhere between £100 million and £135 million. Mrs Lawson about £30 million. [all according to the internet]

So yes, £700,000 has to be small fry.

They sold a house for about £28 million.

Wow, £100 million.

A quick Google of Charles Saatchi suggests his monthly income is over $2M, so yes 700k over 10 years is really not that much in comparison (Nigella's not short either, she's supposed to be worth about $15M)

Claig the sisters did agree to pay back the money but then CS changed the deal. According to the court case so far:

• CS personally met the sisters and agreed a course of action regarding repayment June/July 2012. All was said to be amicable.
• Then he changed his mind.
• Then the accountant was sent to the sisters with a new "deal"
• They refused the new deal and were arrested in August 2012 - not because there was anything new but because they would not agree to CS/the accountant's new terms.

The "drugs" defence was only submitted in October 2013 after someone had spread various rumours about NL on the web and by email and at the same time CS wrote his email to NL which somehow or other ended up in the "bad character" evidence file. Again,

Thanks, teej, I didn't know the deal had changed.

A court case is on oath, so I think people are truthful unless the evidence proves otherwise.

NOddy and Lemon....BUT WE DON'T KNOW THIS IS TRUE!

At this moment in time it is purely an allegation by her xh in an email to her, conveniently protected by legal proceedings.

I would personally be surprised if NL had not done the odd line or two in her career. I would not care to moralise on that one.

But the accuse her of feeding A class drugs to her children is so utterly abhorrant. Especially when you are doing it while knowing it is protected against normal libel laws.

How can she retrieve herself now?

He has played it brilliantly.

But, and in this case I think the affection the public holds her in is actually a good thing, is that folk are less likely to simply take his word for it when it comes to besmirching her name and reputation.

Especially when she has no recourse in law to take him to task for his allegations.

If you know that NL has taken drugs with her children lemon, then I suggest you go to the police and report it. Otherwise, don't spout opinion as fact on an open forum. You lay yourself and MN open to legal action.

claig, MPs earn considerably less than CS or NL monthly. If £700k is going to disappear ove a longish period of time is it much more likely to go unnoticed with their incomes, than MPs, who earn much less than £100k a year to pay t hemselves, their staff and maintain a constituency office than the £2m CS earns a month.

Madame you are right about MPs. I was only joking about them.

Great blog post on the MN blogs about this today:

samambreen.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/understanding-the-domestic-abuser/

What in god's name does he do to bring in £2m per month

Art dealing and collecting isnt it?
He moves in the top art circles of the world.

Yes Basil. A thoughtful piece that reminds us of what the real issues are here.

It's a bit like the way Elton John didn't notice money missing from accounts for years, I guess. But it does make it a bit rich to sue Nigella for 300K. I might as well threaten to sue one of my former friends for £2.99.