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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

The drugs thing. I don't most care or judge. An awful lot of the people I know have taken coke, including me once or twice in my foolish youth. I would never touch it now for ethical reasons as well as, obviously, having small children that need me to be there for them and financially able to care for them. Her kids are practically adults and she can afford it. I don't doubt the whole social circle was covered in snow TBH, it is advertising and media.
My take on the whole thing is that now he can now longer bully her physically and emotionally in their home he is doing it through the courts. Vile loathsome man.

They could have paid for private education for themselves or others, bought a house...

They might still have some shiny objects to sell?

"The converse is not to give any perks. Is that better?"

No, saragossa2010. The converse is to pay them a declared legal wage commensurate with the responsibilities they have.

According to the Telegraph, Francesca Grillo took CS and NL's children on holiday up to five times a year and that is why her credit limit was increased to £100,000 per month - to cover the cost of the holidays. It is not reasonable to pay a pittance to someone who has been with the family for more than a decade and takes sole responsibility for three teenagers on holidays across the globe 5x a year.

I agree with Bonsoir, she is spot on.

Expenses can be used as a subtle form of control in many cases. It is better to pay everything upfront in a larger salary which is transparent and taxable.

It could be argued that our MPs can also be controlled via expenses. They were told such and such is within the rules and then years later embarrassing expenses can be revealed to the press or may even be threatened to be revealed.

I saw a TV programme about an EU MEP form one of the Baltic countries who said he refused to claim some of the EU expenses that he was told he was entitled t and which are very, very generous, because he felt that to do so would compromise his independence at a later stage. He felt it was a means of control over his future voting and independence.

Once you have taken the bait, then you are hooked and are no longer completely free.

References Golddigger.

References are a very effective means of control, even if you step outside the work sphere you are in. Tesco's would want references from Saatchi.

I actually think they should be abolished altogether, I see no reason a modern marketplace needs them.

Agree with all of that except the you are hooked and are no longer completely free bit.
People have choices.
And their choices are hardly that bad are they.

'I actually think they should be abolished altogether, I see no reason a modern marketplace needs them.'

You are right Basil. I think in Italy it is illegal to give or ask for them, not sure exactly. But they can harm applicants chances if someone has fallen out with their employer for whatever reason.

I agree that references are a means of control
But in their case they have so much knowledge that they probably have much more hold on cs and Nigella than the other way round.

'except the you are hooked and are no longer completely free bit'

Once you have made the choice to accept gifts, to help yourself to someone else's money if authorisation has not been granted, or once you have claimed some expenses, as some MPs did, then your choices can later be revealed and in some cases you can end up in prison as some MPs did.

In some cases, you either then toe the line or do the time.

Oh yes. Once you have stole, that is a different thing altogether.

Yes, well his s teh fine line between waht was authorised and what wasn't.

MPs were told that many things were within the rules, only to find out years later that they would be embarrassed when newspapers slashed what they believed was OK all over the front pages for their electors to see.

this is the fine line

newspapers splashed

sorry for typos, wireless keyboard playing up

A salary and a contract are upfront and authorised.

I don't know whether things such as hearsay and say so and informal agreements have the force of a formal authorisation.

Taking an employee to court because they misappropriated funds does not imply that you wouldn't give them a fair reference if they hadn't stolen from you.

I think the problem here is that when you employ somebody to look after your children for a long time the line between family member and friend becomes hazy.

I suspect that if cs rather than the accountant had discovered the missing money they would have been quietly let go, the children no longer needing chaperones. However, because the spending was on a company credit card it became the accountant's business.

No, merrymouse, it was Saatchi himself who discovered what was going on and asked his staff to investigate.

"Their alleged fraud came to light when Mr Saatchi discovered one of the sisters had ordered a cab to take her to a polo match in Berkshire and put it on his ComCab account. He asked his staff to look into the matter and they uncovered what has been described as a four-year “free for all” of spending by the Italian sisters on holidays and designer goods."

and it turned out to be even worse than that

"Charles Saatchi had to change the pin codes for a personal taxi account after he discovered his children’s friends were ordering cabs for themselves at his expense , a court has heard."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10483620/Saatchis-childrens-friends-discovered-ordering-taxis-on-his-expenses-court-hears.html

Saatchi is a busy man, he probably didn't look closely into some expense details as he had his mind on bigger things, but no one deserves to be taken for a mug.

And frankly this whole court case risks embarrassing Saatchi and his family and Nigella in some of the details that may come out in court, but he probably believes it is a point of principle.

I agree that this court case is potentially very embarrassing - a lot of filthy linen!

I cant make up my mind whether cs minds the embarassment or not.
Probably much more doesnt like the amount of time it takes out of his life
Busy, rich people are very time concious.
Time is money to them.

This is what Saatchi said in court

Speaking in a quiet voice, Mr Saatchi said: ‘I am utterly heartbroken to have lost Nigella, and I wish the last year had never happened. So if you think this process is giving me any pleasure – you’re mistaken. I hate it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515426/I-adore-Nigella--Im-broken-hearted-lost-Charles-Saatchis-emotional-confession-tells-court-doesnt-know-took-drugs-gives-HIS-version-throttling-incident.html

I believe that he wished 2013 had never happened.
A deal was appaently offered to the Grillos. The deal was one between a rock and a hard place, but still it was a deal to avoid prosecution.

The whole thing is a disaster and a mess and I think he wishes it had never come to all of this.

Whether it was Saatchi or the accountant who first questioned the expenditure, all personal expenditure should have been separated from business expenditure and declared as Saatchi's income taken from the business (taxable) and/or his employee's income (subject to tax and NI).

It was all the accountant's business, the auditor's business and subsequently HMRC's business.

Yeah, you know, Saatchi has been a company director of several companies for years and years and knows the rules on this sort of stuff.

It is simply peculiar at the very least, that he was running such a financially disorderly household.

Lawson's father was Chancellor of the Exchequer FFS.

And she has her own company.

Both of them would have been very aware of the need to have some clarity on expenses, purely because of HMRC rules. It strains credulity that it's easy to become confused because you've just got so much money you don't notice that the hired help has been robbing you for years. At the least every March when you do your end of year accounts, discrepancies would have had to be accounted for. But actually, in a company, every quarter the finance people go through stuff carefully.

It is just very confusing.

No, as far as I understand it, he broke no rules.

Some of the expenditure was for the company and some wasn't. His accountant separated out which was which and Saatchi reimbursed the company, as far as I understand it.