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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

Oh, math has been deleted

MN, your rules are your own business, but if you deleted it because you were spooked by accusations of defamation I'm free any time to give you a lesson.

Have they all been deleted?

I agree, lovely article. JD sounds wonderful and very much missed.

Just the last one. I thought it was a very astute and calm assessment of the way controlling people skilfully manipulate their partners and wider society. In that respect it was extremely useful and should have stayed.

I couldn't detect a personal attack on any other poster.

Lovely article. I may have something in my eye. I remember reading his columns as he was dying. Wonderful writing.

The deletion of Math's post is absurd.

math did say that some posters were being 'played' by CS.

She didn't name names and I don't take that to be a personal attack, but as I said, I don't make the rules here.

I've posted that separately in case it gets deleted because I'd like my other post to stand.

Obviously that's not up to me.

But I think what math said about the skilfulness control freaks show in manipulating the opinion of others is very useful to those who are lucky not to be with someone like that.

Shame on you for deleting math's post, MN. It was an excellent post and plinkyplonk's reporting of it was entirely unwarranted.

Thanks for linking to that article, hackmum. I've read John Diamond's book about having cancer and that is exactly how I'd imagined him :)

Very odd decision to remove Math's post.

Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, from the Twittersphere and beyond, Nigella is emerging triumphant. The mud flung by that sad, spiteful little man and his cronies is not sticking.
In fact, according to a poll in the Sunday Times today, many people think even more highly of NL as a result of recent events. Furthermore, PR genius is Mark Borkowski is arguing that the trial & scandal may well even boost NL's career in the U.S.

If you run a site it's simpler just to take down if someone objects rather than spend ages going into who was right or wrong.

Anyway I think most people know NL is doing pretty well and that if CS has been briefly the press against her that simply reflects badly on him. NL said in court under oath that she believed her husband was behind some of the drug stories which were getting out but I am not sure what evidence she has of that. It would certainly not surprise many people. As she is claiming no money from him and they have no children together there are not many other ways he might hurt her and presumably he would like to as he seems to feel so hurt that she has rejected him through, one assumes, his conduct towards her.

If anyone has won the PR battle it is NL, not CS despite his brilliance at that and much else.

Yes, Math's post was insightful, measured and very informative for those who want to think about it.

I don't understand why Matha's post was deleted, she didn't have a personal attack and I'm not sure if anything she posted was libellous.

I think she said some really important things and they need to stand so I'm going to try and say it again in a way that hopefully avoids breaking whatever rule Matha's supposed to have broken.

It is incredibly easy for a manipulative, abusive man to trash the reputation of his female victim because people are incredibly willing to give men the benefit of the doubt about their behaviour, even if that behaviour includes proven, known violence and incredibly willing to believe the worst of women about their behaviour, even if they know that the man is promoting a specific view of that woman in order to punish her for her non-compliance. Misogyny is still out there and when it comes to domestic violence, it jumps up and down in full view.

It's how abuse dynamics work and everyone should be aware of this but they're not. Most people witness it in action on Facebook or the bad-mouthing of women once the relationship has broken down. We don't know if that's happening here but given that Saatchi has been violent to Nigella in public and accepted a police caution for that violence (which is an admission of guilt) it is reasonable to bear in mind that he might employ the other classic tactics of an abuser.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is actually male abuser projection.

If you run a site it's simpler just to take down if someone objects rather than spend ages going into who was right or wrong.

Shall we test that theory juliet? I'll report your post and we'll see what solution MN finds simplest?

Agree Nigella has won the PR battle. She was very courageous, honest and ethical. Well done to Nigella, she will rightly gain even more affection than she already had. Good luck to her.

That's my take on M's argument btw, I don't want to attribute anything to you you might not think Matha.

I think that Math's post did have a personal attack in it, or even more than one. I could be wrong.

I don't recall seeing any personal attack in Math's posts.

However, my view is that, no matter what the subject matter, there will always be some posters who will try to make it all about them, and will perceive personal attacks everywhere.

Perhaps MN might want to explain their decision?

I don't know about that I just read it a tarring all victims of dv with the same brush and the person that replied was tring to say she's been there and gas got over it thank you very much. I could be wrong it seems ages ago.

Loved that article. I remember his columns and seeing him dancing with Nigella

Has not gas!

If I were being petty I would ask MN to delete all judgemental comments about NL taking drugs infront of her children. However, as others have said I think she has won the PR battle anyway.

Hi everyone,

It appears we were a little hasty in deleting mathanxiety's post.

We'd like to apologise for that - we've now reinstated it.

Sensible decision!

Thanks

Good job Mumsnet

Good on you Mumsnet.

Great article by Victoria Coren.

Thanks MNHQ for reinstating math's post. I think it brilliantly deconstructs the underlying issues here.

Juliet, can you explain in what sense CS is not abusive? In light of the fact that he accepted a caution for assault?