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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

Good decision :).

Thank you, MN. I think it is worth every single one of us to reread Math's post from time to time, to remind ourselves how easy it is to be manipulated by a master of the art.

Thank you very much AmyMumsnet :)

It's a truly wonderful article by Victoria Coren Mitchell: a hesped that makes its mark. It also demonstrates with a terrible poignancy how context really, really matters. It's one thing to say "no I won't get on your motorbike" or "no I won't try cocaine" when it's just your friend who's asked. But when your friend is dying, and when your friend is clinging to life, and when you love your friend desperately with all your heart and all your might, it's obvious that your resolve may wobble.

Separately: am I right in thinking that there's a recognised pattern among many abusers, whereby they become more enraged and abusive as their shortcomings in comparison to a previous partner become obvious?

Math and Basil Yr posts on this thread are SPOT ON If i could hit a like button for them...i would

Thank you Math, Basil and mumsnet for reconsidering. Wonderful posts.

Have been away from the thread -- the family picked a good time to come down with some sort of flu...

Thanks to AmyMumsnet. Also, Basil, you put it better then I did.

Aw shucks Math, you know that's not true but thanks anyway.

I thought the trial was adjourned to today, but there has been no reporting of it. I wonder if reporting restrictions have now been, belatedly, imposed?

There have been quite a few news stories about it, Beryl - one of the other assistants was giving evidence for the prosecution.

Bonsoir - I doubt the business reached the threshhold for an audit.

most business owners keep separate cards for home and work expenditure some might - in bigger companies. Small companies there is often a horrible overlap of private and business and the accountant will often be left trying to work out what on the credit cards is personal or business (bitter experience). When in doubt I assume personal myself and I suspect most accountants do the same.

CS may not have thought he paid back the personal stuff because money didn;t physically change hands but whet most likely happened is that personal stuff paid by corporate credit card would have been posted to a Diretcors Loan account and that account would have been cleared at year end when the dividends were declared.

Of course I don't know thats what happened but its most common.

Just checked Companies House - Conarco Ltd is noted as "TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL" which means it is too small to require an audit.

I'm following the live updates on the Daily Record site and the line of questioning is simply bizarre. The defence seem intent on going through every single item of expenditure from the house. I think they are trying to create the impression that the spending in the household was profligate - £7k for a bespoke sofa etc.

Actually, from the PA's evidence, Nigella comes across as quite a caring generous individual - for example, she gave one of her PA's her Donna Karan coat, saying it looked nicer on her than it did on Nigella.

I don't understand that line of reasoning Beryl. One can be as profligate as one likes with one's own money.

Angela I agree wholeheartedly! but I can't see the point they are trying to make otherwise other than parading the household expenditure for public consumption.

Probably coded message to the jury to punish the nasty spendthrift rich people with a verdict of not guilty.

The line of reasoning is supposedly to show all the PAs could spend as they chose but that is not what the other PA has said nor NL nor CS. They said they were generous but that people had to ask - no authority to put the PAs personal things on the card as everyone ought to have realised anyway. I don't think the current questioning is working very well nor the attempts to suggest the PAs were at each other's throats.

Nor is bringing up how much was spent on flowers going to help very much.

They also said NL will appear on Oprah which sounds very unlikely to me as NL has never spoken to the press about her divorce ever and said in court last week what she said about the divorce and drugs under oath was her last word on it, so that has also made the defence look a bit silly to me.

The fact one other PA was surprised one of the sisters went to NY for a weekend (if you earn £22k a year you don't go to NY for weekends) and that the sisters had expensive clothes and bags they pretended they brought on Ebay is pretty damning.

Juliet, true, although their salary was on top of board - I think one was earning £27K and the other £25k? Which is about £1700 a month net, with absolutely no rent, bills, day to day travel and presumably not much food to shell out on.

I think they had a pretty good deal, but, it seems, they felt they were 'owed' more.

Who usually pays for defence lawyers in a case like this?

I was wondering the same thing. QC's don't come cheap.

I imagine they pay for their own defence lawyers unless they're entitled to legal aid (don't know what the threshold for legal aid is, though).

I'm not sure what the legal aid threshold is, although presumably they are now unemployed?

I would assume that if they lose the case they would have no ability to pay their lawyers and presumably they don't have much cash to pay up front.

(Some of the 'evidence' e.g. Nigella appearing on Oprah just seems a bit out there - just wondering where they found the defence team)

Aren't you automatically appointed a legal team if you are charged with a crime? If you have the funds, you can pay for your own preferred lawyers but, otherwise, someone is found for you. This is a criminal case - think of all the other defendants that are tried who don't have the funds to retain a silk from a prestige firm but still have representation.

I'm not sure but I think legal aid cuts are more likely to affect people involved in civil cases such as family law or where an individual or group can effectively be bullied by a corporation or entity able to afford a huge legal team which the other side cannot.

I'm not sure but not be surprised if we (the tax payer) ultimately is footing the bill for the defence costs. If so then if they lose I would hope we could seize the designer handbags, remains of the money and other items to pay back the state. CS and NL can have what is left back through a civil damages claim after.