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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

I am surprised this got as far as court. Given he had agreed a repayment plan.

You have to ask what is it that he wants? Surely not the £700k. They had already agreed to try and pay it back. (and fwiw I think they were guilty of being absorbed into their employers lifestyles to the point of forgetting the money was not actually theirs, rather than an active desire to steal, but that is just my opinion).

The fact he is has facilitated this court case, and has released 'information' into the public domain under the privilage of the the court case speaks volumes.

indeed mellow, the percentage roll down is derisory. Which they agreed to pay back. why take them to court then?

He is a man who is so furious at losing control of the woman who was utterly in thrall to him that he will do whatever it takes to take her down.

No caring parent would put their child, or stepchildren through a vile court case to gain points against their ex spouse.

Worried about DSCs and drug taking? Call SS. Not the papers. Not the courts.

I think it's horrific that people on MN and in the media (Allison Pearson I'm looking at you) are making excuses for his violence.

It doesn't matter if Nigella is a coke addict in terms of the DV. He accepted a caution, I don't believe for one moment he would have done that if he hadn't been certain that in a court of law he would have been found guilty. Now that he's made lurid enough allegations about Nigella, we can decide that as she's not a perfect victim, we can all say that she provoked him and it's understandable that his response to her drug use (if it existed) was violence, rather than removing himself and his daughter from an unhealthy environment and ensuring that Nigella's children were also kept safe.

People are just so desperate to find an excuse as to why men physically abusing women is OK. It's not. If your wife's a druggie, you have various choices, eg:

a) leave her
b) strangle her
c) inform SS and ask for support
d) insist she goes to rehab
e) put her in the priory
f) send the kids away to be cared for by grandparents/ aunts etc while you do relationship counselling and she does rehab
etc. etc. etc.

A number of those courses could be taken by abusers and non-abusers alike. Only one of them could be taken by an abuser. Saatchi took that course.

I worked somewhere once where some employees stole from the employer, not much a few thousand pounds. One day, they were driven away in police cars and they ended up in jail. It is a very serious matter.

This case is about alleged unauthorised spending.

I am not sure we know what the deal was or why it was turned down.

Bloody hell, it would have taken Elisabetta 112 years to pay the money back, according to that deal. Why didn't she take it? What am I missing?

Total derailment but can I just say what a wonderful example of the sheer fucking greed of rich people it is, that those women were paid such paltry sums of money in London by people who are obscenely rich and yet still begrudge their secretaries a decent wage?

What was their annual rent in London, I wonder? What percentage of their wage did it account for?

How shameless the rich are.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

I believe they lived in house, Basil. Hence my belief that after a decade or so they kind of forgot they were not actually the earners of the huge amounts of money floating around.

You're right Swedish.

"At first Miss Lawson and Mr Saatchi were willing to keep employing the sisters while they paid the money back, but called the police when the girls rejected the offer. Francesca even told Mr Saatchi ‘it would be humiliating to live in the house on less pay and she would rather go to jail’.

.....

A meeting was arranged where both sisters admitted extensive personal expenditure and were thanked for their honesty, the jury was told, and Francesca said that she wanted to pay the money back.

But at a further meeting in July last year, the tone changed and both women refused to continue working on a reduced salary.

After a final attempt by Mr Gajjar to find an amicable solution, in August 2012 the sisters were arrested.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514395/Nigella-Lawson-described-habitual-criminal-court.html

For instance, in my business, I could only afford to pay the minimum wage. I knew staff stole from me, dipped their sticky fingers in the till. I had to make judgements about which staff I kept on despite this knowledge as they were great with the customers.

Not a happy place to be. They all knew I took home no money. But catering is like that.

But I was pragmatic.

Which is not to condone the actions of their staff. But I do understand how understanding of expenses use can go very wrong, especially over a long period of time, and especially in very rich households.

'we are off to Italy for a long weekend, we will pick up the kids from their mates in Puglia and bring them home'

'Marvellous darling, have a fun time. Pick yourself up something nice when you are in Milan'

Plane tickets then booked on company credit card, first class. Credit card used in fancy shop in Milan.

I do also think that if you were at one point happy to accept a repayment plan, and to continue to employ these people, then to go off piste and push for a criminal case with the police (who will have no choice but to investigate) suggests other motives other than horror at being ripped off.

We were shocked when these employees were jailed. One was young and it was a first offence and it was not a lot of money. We were told the company took it very seriously and they wanted to make an example of what would happen to any other employees who attempted it.

Indeed Claig. And I do get that. But people living as part of your family for a long time, who have become habituated to a (rather bonkers) level of household expenditure might well be cut adrift from their 'morals' as it were.
Not excusing it. Just can see how it could happen.

Madame, I agree with you. They may also have believed that they had authorisation and we will have to wait and see if they are innocent.

And maybe felt they had authorisation which is not dependent on keeping silent about possible drug usage by NL.

I remember one employer who employed their teenage son as a temp during the summer holidays.

I would sometimes take him and the other little uns out for lunch, nothing fancy.

She would then say thank you, put it on expenses.

Which bloody infuriated me. I took them out as a treat on me, not to please her. And the idea that that would be a reasonable business expense made me furious. (I was their financial manager at the time!)

Needless to say I did not claim it. But sadly the kids actually ended up thinking I was just a patsy for the boss.

The key thing is was there or was there not authorisation and who was required to give the authorisation, I think.

Ah right. So they got living costs in lieu of payment, that sounds as if they were actually rather well paid then- it's living costs that take the largest percentage of most people's wage.

Yes I can see how they would get confused about not actually having the right to spend this money.

However one thing confuses me: is their defence that Nigella gave them permisison to use CS business card as long as they didn't tell him about their coke habit? Why wouldn't she give them her own business card so that he would never know?

indeed claig. And that is where the confusion can set in.

They clearly had authorisation to use the credit cards.

What they were supposed to use those cards for is the key. Again, having worked with people like this they would often say, oh, pop it onto the card...

Because it just did not matter to them.

I am interested in why CS decided that the grey area of personal expenditure on the card became theft. He clearly did not thing so in the first instance.

Basil, yes, a bit of an elephant in the room. Not like she couldn't afford it!

Yes, it seems that it was Saatchi company money, which explains this

Miss Lawson briefly threatened to withdraw from giving evidence, it was said, but changed her mind after Mr Saatchi threatened to sue her for £500,000 he said he was owed as a result of the alleged fraud and his legal costs."

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

These press reports seem to contain different amounts though, so it is difficult to know what is true.

I just don't understand why she would have used his card instead of her own. She's loaded in her own right and she could have kept it totally secret from him.

"I am interested in why CS decided that the grey area of personal expenditure on the card became theft. He clearly did not thing so in the first instance."

We don't know the details of what changed and why.

"A meeting was arranged where both sisters admitted extensive personal expenditure and were thanked for their honesty, the jury was told, and Francesca said that she wanted to pay the money back.

But at a further meeting in July last year, the tone changed and both women refused to continue working on a reduced salary.

After a final attempt by Mr Gajjar to find an amicable solution, in August 2012 the sisters were arrested."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514395/Nigella-Lawson-described-habitual-criminal-court.html

You are wrong, Claig, if you think this case is any longer about unauthorised spending on the part of the sisters.

The court has been very effectively hijacked by Saatchi, who is using this case and the court and the judge as vehicles for his own agenda, which is ruining his former wife's reputation as a mother and as a professional working in the media. A comprehensive, full frontal attack in every area that is important to her, in other words.

The person on trial here is Nigella Lawson. The verdict on the matter the sisters are charged with will reflect on her credibility. CS has bet the farm, so to speak, that he is the one who will be believed and that Nigella will be publicly humbled if the sisters are found not guilty (because by extension, their version of NL turning a blind eye to hide a drug habit would be given credibility). Hopefully, this PR stunt of his will backfire on him the way his previous attempts to defame and humiliate Nigella did.