The Grillo case (AKA Nigella & Saatchi)

[BerylStreep]

So the last thread on the Grillo case is full.

I have taken the liberty of starting a new one here for people's thoughts as the case unfolds.

But Mr Saatchi and Ms Lawson reported it?

Hmmm I'm thinking NG isn't too far fetched at the moment. They only need reasonable doubt. The whole thing is a ducking shambles.

If CS was charging all these personal expenses as company expenses then that is tax fraud isn't it?? Maybe he was in a tight spot with IRD and HAD to Claim his assistants were acting unlawfully. . The G sisters seem to be more in the fold of the family so would naturally be running up more personal cash type expenses. And ultimately more vulnerable.

The only reason I can see for reporting the incident would be to stand up to blackmail threats. No money will be recovered and I would guess that the whole thing has cost CS and NL more than was lost.

It does sound as though tracking of personal and business expenses and staff perks was very slap dash and HMRC should be down there pronto.

However, you would have to be a few bricks short of a load to translate "buy yourself a present" which is the kind of thing many men like Saatchi would say to a PA as "your salary is now limitless, spend whatever you want!".

I think the expenditure was more along the lines of "*!&%@ these people are dysfunctional, we can get away with anything!".

(The only reason I can see for reporting the incident would be to stand up to blackmail threats), or to use the trial as a blunt instrument to punish somebody.

One of the sisters said that NL and CS had dinner parties once a fortnight yet NL said that CS would only let her have a dinner party once every two years. I don't suppose it's an important detail, but one or other of them isn't telling the truth.

To be fair to CS he repaid all personal expenditure he says each month to the company.

I am guessing the dinner parties are the difference between a catered party (possibly largely for business purposes) and inviting friends round for a meal you cook yourself.

I am sure CS thought his accountants were doing something with his credit cards, but if the accounts were being managed properly he or nigella would have been going through the credit cards line by line assigning each item to employee benefits, business and personal.

Without being psychic there is no way a accountant can tell why a particular item has been purchased.

I noticed that too Ilovewhippets.
That is the sort of thing that is easily checkable. Many people, and many bills for them as a witness.
The Grillo sisters are giving lots of details. Cant see the point in them lying about something that is so easy to cooberate.

I think they may be found not guilty as there were not enough rules or guidelines to curtail their spending. I'm not sure they have anything to show for it either iykwim.

It seems the CS attitude is just fucking do it and I don't care about the Cost I want it done yesterday. So ££ for anyone isn't an issue. After many years at the receiving end of performing to those standards i might have been tempted to treat myself to a handbag too. Spending was out of control and no one was interested in cost or checks at all. We can look in now going ooooh that's a lot, but at the time it's just a number, just a flash of the card - sorted. None of it was real. If they weren't using an aledged an unseen speculative drug use of someone who has treated them very well over the years as a defence, I'd have sympathy for them. I think they have been, and are still being, used.

I very much agree with the blunt instrument line of thought.

I think there might also have been a policy of giving staff enough rope to hang themselves as a form of control.

I continue to think, as I have always done, that the Grillos should be found not guilty. The CS-NL establishment was so astoundingly badly managed that employees could not operate within it within the normal confines of behaviour.

On what planet does working for a badly managed organisation mean that you can take a company/employer provided credit card and just go shopping for yourself?

There is a difference between not being able to operate within it along normal confines of professional behaviour; and taking advantage of the dysfunction to line your own pockets. If the latter is proved to have been done then of course they are guilty.

Just because an organisation is badly managed does not entitle one to take the piss.

If the organisation is badly dysfunctional it becomes impossible to operate within it without oneself adopting dysfunctional behaviour. The issue here is who is responsible for imposing the dysfunction.

The issue here is who is responsible for imposing the dysfunction

Ah, bollocks. The issue here is did they believe they had permission to spend as they did, or did they know they had no such permission. Fairly simple issue, even if 'dysfunction' makes it slightly more factually complex than usual.

I think they can only be found not guilty

I'm very certain they thought they had permission. Giving the permission was dysfunctional management.

I don't agree. There are people who will steal from employers if they get the chance. Most of us don't. We had the same situation with my father with his dementia - one person taking, charging stuff to credit card etc perhaps thinking it was fine and others reporting it to us because they felt even if he was not going to object taking even a pencil etc is theft. and even if you feel someone is implying - there take it - as a matter of personal morality you still do not take it (or most of us don't).

Doesn't it come down to the law? Is being a completely dysfunctional household implied permission for limitless expenditure?

The main evidence of permission comes from the accused and a sacked ex-employee- wouldn't you need a little more evidence?

Well Bonsoir, that is as fine an apologists speech as I have heard recently. The boss wasn't keeping a check so I nicked all his stuff, so it was his fault guv, yer honour, and nothing to do with me.

You might as well say that a woman walking home on her own at night had been asking for it. Or that a man hitting his wife can't be blamed because she didn't stop him.

How are you very certain Bonsior?

I think they might struggle to find them guilty after reading the evidence of the ex finance assistant for Saatchi. She said that she was threatened with being accused of stealing petty cash and then forced out of her job.

She says she was given permission to take money for taxis home and then told if she didnt leave quietly she'd be accused of theft.

Now she may well have a grudge and be making it up but I think it might plant enough doubt to make a guilty verdict unlikely.

Never mind the fact that the household seems so chaotic as far as money Is concerned that no one seems to know who spent what on what.

The defendants sound so entitled. Fuck off - you did something wrong, don't try and hide behind someone else's drug use or shitty marriage.

When asked if she was the best dressed of NL's PAs, she said "it's in my blood" is being a thief in your blood too?

Viva. Yes, I saw that too. That is partly what made me think that the case may well not hold up.
She is an ex finance assistant, and finance is at the heart of this.