Lawson/Saatchi Verdict

He's allowed a rant surely?

Yes, he is allowed a rant, but seems to have gone off at a tangent! And there must be other forums when his rant would seem more relevant surely?
So getting back to the original topic --- no, I am not surprised at the verdict, given that they were given pretty much free rein with the credit cards, the holidays they enjoyed were (presumably) taking the children away because the parents were too busy and the cards were signed off regularly without question for years. The wealth of the Saatchis was so great that this relatively "small" amount was not missed; I'm not saying this was right, but it seemed to be a given amongst the staff that they were allowed to spend as they wished as long as everyone was happy and the household ran smoothly. This whole court case only came about because Saatchi felt scorned.

Lona Fri 10-Jan-14 10:58:25 - wrote :
AAAHappyMan, if we want to concentrate on "this trivia", we will do.
If you don't like it, you are at liberty to look elsewhere for your rants entertainment.
Each to their own.
-------------
Most interesting comments:
*Oh to have been a member when you stood for election to 'speak' for the other contributors to this thread, and were mandated to invite contributors to go elsewhere for not being trivial
* What qualifies my contribution to be classed as a ''rant''?
* If you really do espouse ''Each to there own'' - then please do ''Live and let live'' lest you be analyzed as suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.

First time I've ever heard cognitive dissonance described as something you suffer from........

Returning to the OP - I increasingly feel it'd have been a triumph for British Justice if the case had never got to court. As others have pointed out, no ceiling was ever set on how much the Grim sisters could spend on the credit cards. Neither the accountant, or those who paid off the credit cards raised it as an issue till it had been going on so long, as to seem an accepted part of life in the household.
What a I do find increasingly distasteful is the way the Saatchi continues to drip feed allegations about Nigella to the media. He seems to forget, he accepted a caution for assaulting her, in a public place. By continuing his verbal assaults, in the public media, he only confirms he is a nasty bully, who will lie, or change his story to suit himself.

Where's that jings when we need her!

Saatchi is quoted in yesterday's DT as saying Nigella regularly did drugs in her children's presence over a period pf years. In court under oath he said he had no evidence that she had ever used illegal drugs.
Either he is slandering/libelling her now
OR
he perjured himself in court. The former is a civil offence, the latter criminal. For which should he be prosecuted ?

That's a valid point Soutra - but I don't think anything would be served by prosecuting him. Neither do I think anything will be served by "investigating' the accusations against Nigella.

He should have it officially pointed out to him that he is skating on thin ice, whether he is charged or not.

I suspect his narcism knows no bounds Elegran, and whilst I agree with you, he doesn't seem to understand that the normal rules of life, and law, simply don't apply to him.

@ whenim64 Sat 11-Jan-14 23:35:43
1.0.....Definition of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE : psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously
2.0..... Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information.
[Webster's ]
If that ain't suffering .....

I see what you're saying, HappyMan, but Cognitive Dissonance is a concept described to explain why humans try to harmonise opposing ideas and beliefs in their heads, so wouldn't this way of coping be something that is used to avoid suffering?

whenim64 : '' ... so wouldn't this way of coping be something that is used to avoid suffering? ''
Exactly !
Rather like using Quack treatments [Homoeopathy; prayer; .... ] to cure a serious disease. It gives comfort in the very short term, but the consequences are a disaster.

This suddenly seems awfully familiar… I remember the posts; it's just the name I forget.

Absent

absent-minded ?