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

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

In fact I think CS was reported to be suggesting that as it was NL's PA, not his , that NL should repay Saatchi for these losses which presumably came out of his monies not NL's.

I was once married to a man who reminds me so much of Saatchi behaviour wise that it chills my blood.

Thank goodness she got away from him although escaping the damage these people inflict (and continue to try to inflict) takes longer. At least she didn't have children with him - lucky escape there.

If CS said that re losses, he's a nincompoop.

Today a whole morning of court time has been wasted dealing with the issue of DC apparently saying he supported NL in this. That is not really what the courts want to see from a Prime Minister when a case is in the middle of being heard.

Actual quote:

I ask “Are you on Team Nigella?” I expect him to stay out of it. Instead, he offers a direct answer.

“I am,’ he says. ‘I’m a massive fan, I’ve had the great pleasure of meeting her a couple of times and she always strikes me as a very funny and warm person, but I’m also an amateur cook and I like like her recipes. Nancy [Cameron’s nine-year-old daughter] and I sometimes watch a bit of Nigella on telly. Not in court, I hasten to add.’

I wouldn't say that's an endorsement of her case, he just says he likes her. And there's more to it than just this case, also her divorce.

so now the PM is involved? Well atleast if you can't afford the Christmas panto this year you can get live updates on this instead. Is DC maybe taking the role of Buttons?

In that case I think the judge is very wrong to criticise the prime minister. I really don't think that is commenting on the case at all and if the defence are seizing on that kind of thing to stop the case for half a day they probably realise they might well lose. Even so probably better if DC had not spoken about NL at all.

It's more about irresponsible soundbite reporting (which the PM should have been aware of, to be fair), than it is about what the PM actually said.

He shouldnt have said that he was on Team Nigella when a court case was happening. He should know lots better than that.

Nigella is a witness, not a defendant.

Judge said he shouldnt. My guess is that he knows better than us.

Judges are as opinionated as the rest of us. More so, probably.

But presumably he was making some sort of law judgement.

Presumably he had the defendants' lawyers screaming at him to try to get a total retrial so he had to she he'd dealt with the issue (he's told the jury to ignore the comment)

So people think it is ok for a prime minister [couldnt care less which party he is in], to say who he supports on a current court case?
Or is it only allowed if you happen to agree with what they say?

From their line of questioning and general behaviour, anyone would think the defence was acting on behalf of CS, not the Grillo sisters.

You would. It is quite odd.

The comment he made about Nigella was nothing to do with the case though, just that he liked her. Plus she's not on trial

If he 'd been asked if he was team Jeffrey archer during the perjury trial and him saying, "I think Jeffrey is a talented novelist", that would be ok and in that instance, archer was the defendant.

I agree DC isn't supporting or even commenting on a current court case. Nigella isn't on trial here and neither is her XH - she was a witness only.

(and I'm the first to say DC is a dickhead, but in this instance I don't think a "TeamNigella" comment has any relevance to the case. To her divorce maybe but that is done and dusted isn't it?).

Re the credit cards I'd love to see CS try to argue that his wife was responsible for HIS company's credit cards. Let's not forget that his own company accountant thought that the huge bills that were run up on the credit cards by these assistants, were in the scheme of things "insignificant" and not worthy of closer examination or mention.

Nigella has lost her husband and may be losing her career.

While the credibility of the defendants is in some way linked to that, they really aren't the same thing - you can support her, and still believe the defendants are not guilty.

I'm not clear if she has any personal stake in this trial anyway.

lalalonglegs: "Aren't you automatically appointed a legal team if you are charged with a crime?"

I think you're right. I don't know why I'd forgotten this, but yes, I think you can either have a solicitor appointed by the court or pay for your own solicitor, who will then brief a barrister. I should know this!

I was surprised at the judge's comments about Cameron. Nigella isn't on trial, so Cameron saying he likes her could only very tenuously be construed as support for the prosecution case.

Nigella's not on trial and Cameron's remarks have no bearing on the case, but there is still something slightly disturbing about the lack of discretion in his remarks. While a court case is going through, one would expect the Prime Minister to just STFU really as a general rule.

I think nigella is quite far from losing her career, in the uk anyway.

I suppose the only tenuous link to the pm's comment would be that if people respect nigella they are not impartial and more likely to convict the grillo's. there has been a lot of tenuous evidence in the defence case, so why not also make a tenuous complaint that the pm is influencing the jury?

Do we think that both Nigella and cs are against the Grillo sisters? Or just cs?

What do you mean by "against"? Believe that they committed a crime? I'm pretty sure Nigella thinks so, didn't she want to call the police initially?