Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Who's Actually On Trial?
With all these revelations coming out, it makes it sound like it's Nigella Lawson who's on trial.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Twenty20. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The revelation that she was coked off her head when she wrote her books should come as no surprise to anyone who has tasted one of her recipes.
The defence are trying to show that Nigella's drug taking led to her permitting the sisters to spend what they wanted.
I am sure this prosecution was misguided. It is doing both Nigella's and Saatchi's reputations a great deal of harm. They should have just sacked them and written off the money to experience. As it is, they will probably lose more money in the long run. The Domestic Goddess characature does really work when we learn she is frequently spaced out on the white powder.
The defence are trying to show that Nigella's drug taking led to her permitting the sisters to spend what they wanted.
I am sure this prosecution was misguided. It is doing both Nigella's and Saatchi's reputations a great deal of harm. They should have just sacked them and written off the money to experience. As it is, they will probably lose more money in the long run. The Domestic Goddess characature does really work when we learn she is frequently spaced out on the white powder.
to say that she was coked off her head is surely too strong, she said she had taken it, you make her sound like a junkie, if she was how could she get through the day, let alone make the cookery shows. and quite frankly its Saatchi who has shown himself in a more than poor light, those photo's of him with his hands on her neck were awful, what sort of man would do such a thing. No one comes out of this well at all. If Saatchi did give them cards to go and buy goods why did he not check on this, called balancing your account, no ordinary person would hand someone their cards, or is it that he has so much money he didn't care.
Don't see the point in running this 'she is a cokehead' line. First, you'd get the defendants to play this up. Then you'd ask them "That would ruin her if it got out wouldn't it ? And you knew she was a cokehead." [ Line: you knew she'd never stop you. She daren't lest...] Or run that she never knew,in her state, exactly what you were up to. Then you take them through items, asking "Did you ask her whether you could buy this/ get this cash ? Was it essential to you? Why did you need it?"
Have not been following the case that closely, but I have seen precious little evidence to suggest she is a "cokehead". I have seen some people claim she is, but those making the claim are on trial, and I reckon their only defence is to traduce the reputations of those they stole from in an effort to elicit sympathy.
"The revelation that she was coked off her head when she wrote her books should come as no surprise to anyone who has tasted one of her recipes. "
Not entirely sure what that means - I have tried meals cooked to Nigellas recipes, and cannot quite see why I should assume that the person making the recipe was coked off her head- They were actually pretty tasty :)
"The revelation that she was coked off her head when she wrote her books should come as no surprise to anyone who has tasted one of her recipes. "
Not entirely sure what that means - I have tried meals cooked to Nigellas recipes, and cannot quite see why I should assume that the person making the recipe was coked off her head- They were actually pretty tasty :)
@Fred Well, he might now "Saatchi denies that she was a cokehead."
It was his email they read out in court referring to her as "higella" though wasn't it? His allegations that her and her daughter were "off their heads" on coke all the time. And him that wrote; "“you Higella on the other hand poisoned your child with drugs and trashed her life”"
He has since apologised, but I am not clear what he is apologising for exactly; Just the fact that the email was made public, it seems to me, rather than the allegations themselves.
It was his email they read out in court referring to her as "higella" though wasn't it? His allegations that her and her daughter were "off their heads" on coke all the time. And him that wrote; "“you Higella on the other hand poisoned your child with drugs and trashed her life”"
He has since apologised, but I am not clear what he is apologising for exactly; Just the fact that the email was made public, it seems to me, rather than the allegations themselves.