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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

I think that was a household with a lots of very damaged souls in it, despite the twinkly vanilla-scented fug portrayed by TV.

Does nobody else see the irony of posters descending to personal spite and invective towards anyone who isn't calling for deification (NL) and public flogging (CS), when NOBODY here has any factual knowledge? Just some photographs and emails.

None of you know them, yet are willing to shriek on NL's behalf, when she has maintained absolute silence.

They are slick professionals, remember his fortune was made on manipulation of public perception.

There are some sadly over-invested and gullible-sounding posters on this thread.

Well, lots of MNetters are in the media business and might well know more than they are prepared to let on it public.

But that is by the by. Going on what is in the public domain, the timeline and the allegations tell their own story.

Whether it is the complete story is another thing entirely.

Speculating that their household was full of damaged souls is, well, just speculation.

IME I think it's fair to assume that several tragic early deaths of close family members, divorce and the blending of families, all leave some damage on those involved.

All done in a pretty constant media spotlight.

I bow to your superior judgement.

You might well be right. who knows?

But that is not what is at stake here.

A woman's reputation. A man's pride.

Mixed in with some sticky fingered employees and a whole lot of emotion.

But interesting how the man gets the accuse the woman back handedly with impunity in the law, while she is unable to defend her reputation in law.

I would myself be surprised if this were a, um, happy accident for CS.

But I am aware that is also pure speculation.

Yes, brickorcleat, it's so damn mysterious why MNetters might "shriek" (the way women do, natch) in defense of a woman who was publicly strangled by her ex-husband, without knowing much more than that. Very odd. You'd think we'd be slower to rush to judgement about the poor man. It must be so difficult for him to cope with being a violent man. And to think that as a result, we might be suspicious of his motives in alleging, in libel-protected court proceedings, that his victim was a habitual coke-snorter who took the drugs with her own daughter! Truly, it beggars belief.

does CS have social media minions too?

oops home, just got that!

Mathanxiety.

I believe you're right - that Saatchi's agenda is directed straight at his ex wife .. to ruin her reputation as a mother and proffessional.

There is a hashtag 'teamNigella' on Twitter and apparently she rewarded supporters with a Holiday Hotcake recipe this week.

Madamedefarge - yes the way Nigella has got drawn into this case to in effect stand accused herself looks very much like a backhanded slap across the face by Saatchi.

That is what it seems like to me too.

But if it is all true, I think that one person or several people we are forgetting in all of this is the children. The drugs part that will have affected them if it is true, and the whole broken marriage bit played out in the media spotlight.

Well said BrickorCleat

Actually believing that allegations are at this stage just allegation and having a zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence, is not in fact the same as being gullible or calling for any of the parties involved in this to be deified.

HTH.

Believing that a woman has the right to live without being subjected to violence by a man she lives with, is not the same as believing that that woman is a goddess or beyond criticism.

It is simply being a decent human being, actually.

Yes - the point is not that she was a 'domestic goddess' therefore CS must be wrong, but that whether or not her life was always just like the dinner parties on her TV show is irrelevant to DV.

Yes I sense his power the way he has influenced the press. The general public are not daft these days, and see through this kind of manipulation - see that he's a bit of an arse.

Latest DM rticle seems to say that in court CS is denying any knowledge of any drug use now and that his abuse of her in the restaurant was nothing to do with any form of drug use suspicions. So is he now backtracking???

Today's evidence changes things. Saatchi says he has no evidence his wife too drugs (so the drugs idea could just be something hatched up by the sisters who worked for NL from when she was with her first husband as the children's nanny). Saatchi saying he still loves her and the NL left him in part because she felt too controlled and wanted a "free pass" to do as she wanted.

There are not many ways he can hurt her as NL is asking for no money from him and there are no young children of the marriage to argue over so his only weapon against her is adverse press coverage but I am not so sure the trial is about this. Those sisters seem to have the syndrome the servants of the rich often get in thinking somehow they are also entitled to the same standard of living.

Friend of mine works with lots of TV chefs. Apparently no-one has a bad word to say about Nigella. If she really were an addict, there would be gossip in the industry but there ain't.

Saatchi, on the other hand, has a caution for assault.

And his 'mates' have been ranting and throwing about all sorts of extraordinarbizarreizarre attacks on Nigella for months, trying to influence journalists.

Satchi says he had no knowledge of his wife's alleged daily drug use with her children.

How could he not know if it were true? Where was he supposed to be each eveing while Nigella was hoovering down the Colombian?

And did he not spot the signs? It's not as if an advertising mogul, an expert in all things media, with a keen interest in the art world (and close relationship with Damian Hirst) could be clueless about coke!!!!

"Those sisters seem to have the syndrome the servants of the rich often get in thinking somehow they are also entitled to the same standard of living."

It is common practice among the rich to give their domestic servants benefits in kind rather than larger salaries (which attract tax and NI). It is not the fault of servants if their employers have such hazy boundaries.

I agree.

The sisters were told to put reasonable household expenses on CS's company credit cards. His accountants would have seen what was being spent. No doubt CS was informed if it was considered unusual.

Hr took no action fo a very long time. I suspect he didn't care (until recently).

Let us also remember that CS and NL, not the Italian sisters, are responsible for the chaotic boundaryless household that the press reporting of the case would have us believe was the nature of the CS-NL establishment. Servants are in a difficult position when not managed properly.

It sounds as if the Grillo sisters overstepped somewhat - but the fact that the overstepping continued for a very long time and the boundaries were unclear in the first place makes it all very hard to unravel.

He was a very generous husband... £1.2 million annual household costs, no questions asked.