the thread has been created into the response to the allegation she took drugs and that her daughter had access to them. There are a large number of threads dedicated to discussing NL and CS relationship - the alleged domestic violence, the police caution, those pictures etc. This isn't another one of those threads
You are right. This particular thread was created in order to gloat at the fall from a pedestal of a person who works hard at what she does very well, but had the huge misfortune to get involved with a really loathsome man.
This vile man seized the opportunity offered, inexplicably, by the court, to fling at his ex wife whatever mud he thought would stick, out of sheer spite and vindictiveness, and also because of a massive miscalculation that he would succeed in dragging her name through the dirt in the court of public opinion.
The beauty of accusing her of all sorts of offences against motherhood and womanliness and wifeliness in the context of a trial of other people (concerning money he cared so little about over the course of a whole decade he never asked about it or even knew how his accounts were managed) is that while ostensibly Nigella is not the person on trial, all attention is on her and the question of whether she used drugs and if so how often. Moreover, any accusation can be levelled at her -- anything at all that her former nearest and dearest can dream up and present to the idiot judge and to the press, from using drugs, to leaving drugs lying around, to teaching her children to snort coke, to sneezing in the souffle she served her guests, and she has absolutely no recourse to a suit for libel. You can see from Caruthers' post how useful the 'bad character' quirk of the criminal justice system has been to Saatchi. It is a knock down, drag out character assassination that is going on here. Anyone who thinks CS suddenly found it within him to care through all of this about his money and how it got spent in such huge gobs over the years needs their head screwed on.
My basic objection to this is the implication that unless a woman is a perfect victim, a man's domestic violence against her doesn't really count. It's cancelled out by her behaviour, the only women who are entitled not to be attacked by their male partners, are perfect ones. And we know there's no such thing as a perfect woman.
I agree with this post from Basil.
It seems there are posters here who think women deserve what they get by way of abuse?
Please tell me I am wrong in inferring this from some recent posts.