|
If you have been accused of fraud, and expect to be convicted, then why would you not take the opportunity to tarnish the name of your former employer in the nastiest possible way by alleging habitual class A drug use?
|
|
Interesting post Mapmaker, how long do you expect to go down for?
|
|
Drug abuse is not "the nastiest possible " way. Slavery, child abuse and baby abuse are worse.. As is denying that Climate Change is occurring , being anti feminist and thinking cyclists are a danger to others and themselves.
|
Pity about the corroboration from the ex-husband.
And why do you think TV personalities are always rubbing their noses (eg. watch 'Star in an Affordable Car' or whatever it's called on TG) - coke use is rife amongst the upper echelons.
|
MM I take it that you are talking about the Grillo sisters .....and their employer Nigella.
I believe they did make that call but that her 'alleged ' drug use was originally deemed inadmissable evidence by the judge ....
Their defence is that she allowed them to spend on the cards in order to keep them from revealing her drug habit to her husband,
It is Charles Saatchi who is now putting the knife in to his ex and as his email and other evidence has come to light my understanding is that it has changed the judges view as to admissability of the drug taking allegations in this case......
It would appear to shed some light on the photo of him tweaking her nose at a restaurant .....and subsequent divorce....
All will no doubt be revealed in due course
|
>>Their defence is that she allowed them to spend on the cards in order to keep them from revealing her drug habit to her husband,
Odd. Blackmail isn't usually regarded very well by the courts! I wonder why it is being used as a defence here.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 27 Nov 13 at 17:04
|
>> >>Their defence is that she allowed them to spend on the cards in order to
>> keep them from revealing her drug habit to her husband,
>>
>>
>> Odd. Blackmail isn't usually regarded very well by the courts! I wonder why it is
>> being used as a defence here.
>>
That isn't blackmail.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 27 Nov 13 at 17:20
|
"If you don't let me have as much money as I want, then I'll tell your husband about your drug habit."
If this is not making an unwarranted demand with menaces, what then is blackmail?
|
>>If this is not making an unwarranted demand with menaces, what then is blackmail?
Where has it been reported that money was demanded?
The gist of what I have read has been more along the lines of:
"Here is a bunch of money if you don't tell anyone"
Totally legal, if ethically unsound.
|
>>
>> The gist of what I have read has been more along the lines of:
>>
>> "Here is a bunch of money if you don't tell anyone"
>>
>> Totally legal, if ethically unsound.
>>
That's my understanding too.
|
>> more along the lines of:
>> "Here is a bunch of money if you don't tell anyone"
Bear in mind Lygonos that that is an allegation made by people accused of misappropriating a large sum of money. Not saying there's nothing in it, but that's all it is at this stage.
|
>>Not saying there's nothing in it, but that's all it is at this stage.
Indeed - "They would say that, wouldn't they"
But if it constitutes 'reasonable doubt' they get off.
|
>> "They would say that, wouldn't they"
Not sure about that either. Takes people of a certain kind to rob someone, then slander or expose them to get away with it.
Saw a clip of those girls on the box looking a bit like two rabbits in the headlights. It's funny in a way. They jink and dodge a bit and then find themselves being trampled under a titanic struggle between two roaring behemoths, Godzilla and that other one whose name I forget.
|
>> tweaking her nose at a restaurant .....and subsequent divorce....
>> All will no doubt be revealed in due course
Hell hath no fury like a rich, successful egotist of either sex who has been publicly dissed. The roforofo fight seems to be all the rage. Compared to the biting and gouging of the Saatchis the 300 grand (or whatever) stolen by the fraudulent pas is a mere rat bite.
It isn't gentlemanly to expose
To all the contents of your ex's nose...
|
>>It isn't gentlemanly to expose
To all the contents of your ex's nose...
I larf.
|
........Bear in mind Lygonos that that is an allegation made by people accused of misappropriating a large sum of money. Not saying there's nothing in it, but that's all it is at this stage. ........
Actually it would appear that Charles Saatchi checked out the drug taking allegations and confirmed them with other family members........ hence his email to her and his fury that the sisters apparent theft of a large sum from his credit card would be thrown out due to her alleged habit and tacit acceptance of the spending.
He gives his evidence tomorrow, should be interesting......to paraphrase ....hell hath no fury like a massive ego scorned......
I know someone who worked for Saatchi at a very high level some years ago and he said that the only thing predictable about him was his unpredictability....
|
I can't remember everything I've read about this since the throttling incident, but it left me with the impression that Saatchi wanted to spare Lawson any further digging from then on - hence "accepting a caution" - in the normal way of things these big egos tend to fight things unless they are bang to rights, and I'm not sure that he was.
I haven't yet got a sense of him being vindictive. But we only get to see these things through coloured glass, so that might not be the case at all, and I had no real preconception or knowledge of his character.
|
|
She HAS got big boobies though. All is forgiven, Neh?
|
|
If the accused really were 'spending £50,000 a month on their [company] cards during four-year scam' (DM), it seems strange they weren't challenged earlier if it wasn't 'authorised'. I think I'd notice if that was happening on my card :)
|
Seems Nigella misses her ex.
I have heard reports of her shouting 'Charlie...Charlie, where's my Charlie...'
|
I was going to try Nigella's ham cooked in coke this Christmas.
Not so sure now!
|
Here's an episode of Ms Lawson's programme I just found out about:
youtu.be/bvYmGzIzMs0
|
>> Here's an episode of Ms Lawson's programme I just found out about:
Very good Lygonos, I liked that one
|
>> Very good Lygonos, I liked that one
I bet you would Wp... I'd like it too...
Can't help worrying a bit about Lygonos though. Isn't it a tiny bit sort of noncomformist to diffuse a clever bit of videoslander like that? Taking King Kong's part in effect?
Personally I'm a Godzilla man, and I don't care who knows it.
:o}
|
Sisters acquitted - not exactly great PR for Nigella:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25466909
|
I did like the quote of Mark Borkowski
" Seek not revenge, if you do so, dig two graves"
|
The whole thing is mind boggling.
Blackmail, or close to it, as a defence.
The staggering amounts of money involved. The implication that the Saatchis could have £600,000 stolen without noticing. Of of the sisters alleged to have spent £580,000 on herself.
|
Nigella Lawson is quoted as saying she is 'unsurprised' by the verdict. Personally I am a bit surprised. I expected the court to take a dim view of the unbelievably cynical 'defence', consisting essentially of an attempt to use private information to smear the Saatchis, and Nigella Lawson in particular, along with her children. Of course I know courts tend to take a dim view of recreational drug use too, and at least one very damaging email from the choleric Charles Saatchi was read out in court. In the event, po-faced superstitious disapproval of drug taking, which is a private matter, seems to have trumped any distaste the court may have felt for the behaviour of the defendants.
What a nasty bunch though, all of them actually except Ms Lawson's poor children. Money don't bring happiness innit?
|
>> What a nasty bunch though, all of them actually except Ms Lawson's poor children.
On reflection, I don't see her as particularly at fault either really. The Charles Saatchi email was what really dropped her in it. But the real villain of the piece is the defence counsel, unless you include the defendants who were clearly taking the pee at least, by what most people would call large-scale theft.
Yup, I'm on team Godzilla if I have to choose a team. I like pretty smiling women with a wicked twinkle in their eye. All she did was trust the staff who weren't trustworthy in any way. One of the many potential problems with having servants is that when push comes to shove they know a lot about you, and can be relied on to exaggerate and make you sound as sleazy and criminal as possible.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 21 Dec 13 at 01:03
|
One judge in one court case permitted certain allegations to be made against a celebrity 'victim'. Should we change the law to prevent this? No.
Did the allegations demonstrate that Nigella was not always in full control and that her evidence should be treated with care? The jury seemed to have thought so.
BTW. What was her father Nigel Lawson thinking about when he named his child a feminised version of his own Christian name?
|
|
Just wondering why this was deemed to be number one headline news....
|
|
'Cos she's a voluptuous MILF.
|
|
So is the egregious David Cameron still on "Team Nigella"?
|
>>
>> BTW. What was her father Nigel Lawson thinking about when he named his child a
>> feminised version of his own Christian name?
>>
Her siblings included Horatia and Thomasina and her niece is Domenica.
Obviously a family trait.
|
>> BTW. What was her father Nigel Lawson thinking about when he named his child a
>> feminised version of his own Christian name?
My grandparents did the same to my mother, she was their first born and they had wanted a boy, and to name him after Dad. Bit self regarding in my opinion, but there you go. Gave her a feminised, made up version of her father's name. It's been a bit of a bind for Mum over the years, but I think she's used to it by now........according to internet searches I've performed, 4 other people in the country have the same forename.
Silly idea, wouldn't do it myself. Although I wouldn't need to, Stephanie is a pretty much universally accepted female name.
|
>> >> What a nasty bunch though, all of them actually except Ms Lawson's poor children.
>>
>>
>> On reflection, I don't see her as particularly at fault either really. The Charles Saatchi
>> email was what really dropped her in it. But the real villain of the piece
>> is the defence counsel, unless you include the defendants who were clearly taking the pee
>> at least, by what most people would call large-scale theft.
>>
>> Yup, I'm on team Godzilla if I have to choose a team. I like pretty
>> smiling women with a wicked twinkle in their eye. All she did was trust the
>> staff who weren't trustworthy in any way. One of the many potential problems with having
>> servants is that when push comes to shove they know a lot about you, and
>> can be relied on to exaggerate and make you sound as sleazy and criminal as
>> possible.
>>
I'm another who thought the jury got it wrong, but I suppose if you throw enough mud around to confuse the issue your twelve good men and true will blanch at sending a couple of tarts to Bandyman's land for a ten stretch.
|
Meanwhile the "war on drugs" has stopped despite Nigella's admission of cocaine taking. A senior police officer has said she will not be prosecuted...
One law for the rich...
|
I assume this court case was authorised by the CPS and therefore paid for by us. Why didn't anyone in the CPS think this through?
I couldn't care less about the Lawson/Saatchi reputation, future career and earning potential. I do very much care when civil servants spend my money without having thought about the way the court case would pan out, or the line that the defence counsel would adopt.
|
>> I assume this court case was authorised by the CPS and therefore paid for by
>> us. Why didn't anyone in the CPS think this through?
>>
>> I couldn't care less about the Lawson/Saatchi reputation, future career and earning potential. I do
>> very much care when civil servants spend my money without having thought about the way
>> the court case would pan out, or the line that the defence counsel would adopt.
IIRC the usual test is for there to be a significant prospect of conviction. I cannot remember what the probability test is but clearly at least evens. If only certainties were prosecuted there'd be a massive and understandable outcry by victims.
I suspect the way this one went was probably not predictable. Either the prosecution witnesses were less credible than at first estimated or it is one of those random and utterly surprising verdicts juries occasionally produce. Ponting was the cause celebre of recentish past.
I'd go for the former. The armchair jury here have only heard parts of the evidence the media saw fit to publish/broadcast. In the print media that means the shocking/salacious and in broadcast highlights and summary. The jury saw the lot including the demeanour of witnesses and what exactly was said about how spending was (or was not) controlled or monitored. The judge would have directed them very carefully on the law and after eight hours they were agreed that the burden/standard of proof was not made out.
Which is very different from saying it's not fishy or that a civil action might have a different outcome.
|
>> Meanwhile the "war on drugs" has stopped despite Nigella's admission of cocaine taking. A senior
>> police officer has said she will not be prosecuted...
>>
>> One law for the rich...
The fact was effectively dragged out of her under oath. There is a good public policy argument not to prosecute under those circs, to do so will tempt witnesses to be less frank.
Obviously, if she fessed up to a murder the situation would be different but sniffing Charlie is fairly small beer in drug use terms.
|
Police ground has moved, they now say they'll 'examine emerging evidence'.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/22/nigella-lawson-police-review-cocaine-use
I don't think she'll be back in court any time soon though.
|
>> Police ground has moved, they now say they'll 'examine emerging evidence'.
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/22/nigella-lawson-police-review-cocaine-use
>>
>> I don't think she'll be back in court any time soon though.
>>
What a waste of time and money.
|
>> What a waste of time and money.
>>
Correct
|
>> Obviously, if she fessed up to a murder the situation would be different but sniffing
>> Charlie is fairly small beer in drug use terms.
>>
What about owning up to taking an ex-husbands's speeding points? Would that count as a serious offence - I mean something you could go to prison for ? :)
|
>> What about owning up to taking an ex-husbands's speeding points? Would that count as a
>> serious offence - I mean something you could go to prison for ? :)
Perverting the course of justice is, in the eyes of the law, considerably more serious than occasional cocaine use.
There would also be some sort of evidence trail including, at the least, the forms nominating the driver.
|
Two employees have acquired (roughly) £600k of 'stuff' from their employer. This is additional payment as a result of employment.
If these were indeed additional payments to the staff, then PAYE should have been applied to this and (applying a tax rate of 40% for the sake of argument) a further £400k paid to HMRC under PAYE by Mr & Mrs Saatchi.
As that seems a bit harsh on Mr & Mrs Saatchi, then maybe the employees should be taxed on their 600k of income, giving rise to a 240k tax bill - that one imagines they'd have no hope of paying.
|
Tarnishing your opponent in court - Robin O'Reliant
