Nigella lawson drug allegations

[999tigger]

The Inland Revenue IMO should investigate this case a little more closely, If the expenditure was authorized (which is the judgement of the trial) then it formed part of their salary and should have been subject to Tax and National insurance (and Employers National Insurance payments). I think their defense opens up a whole new can of worms for them.

 

The judgment in the trial did not quite say the spending was authorised. It actually said there wasnt enough evidence to convince the jury that it wasnt authorised beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I imagine there might be a tussle with the tax authorities in terms of the money being a benefit in kind or whether it was individual gifts and not a salary. It would seem a big old mess. If the grillos sell their story to the media then it will be disgusting.

 

I think big chumks of this were just engineerd by a very spiteful bitter Charles Saatchi.

[frank ryan]

god you're a vindictive lot aren't you - they robbed a load of wonga, had a ball & got away with it - good on 'em I say. rich scumbags don't always win it seems, just nearly always - the grillos have further big pay cheques to come from the tabloids and I for one will be revelling in saatchi's and nigella's misery when the stories are published. don't suppose we'll be seeing nigella's voluminous buzzies on the telly much now, which is a shame - she can spend the rest of her life off her 'ead in her beautiful house, rustling up perfect suppers for her society friends who won't eat anything cos they're too coked up to to be hungry. great fun.

[Pritt Stick]

Gotta disagree with you there, Mr Ryan. I'd like to see 'em hit for £150 k in tax. I DO agree with you, however, in taking some guilty pleasure (I'd have got schadenfreude in there somewhere but was fearful it would make me sound like a ****** - but I managed it anyway as you can see) in Lawson's and Saatchi's misery.

[frank ryan]

Gotta disagree with you there, Mr Ryan. I'd like to see 'em hit for £150 k in tax. I DO agree with you, however, in taking some guilty pleasure (I'd have got schadenfreude in there somewhere but was fearful it would make me sound like a ****** - but I managed it anyway as you can see) in Lawson's and Saatchi's misery.

 

I bet saatchi's got moolah ferreted away in tax havens somewhere, it's his type that should have the revunue on their tails not these 2 gorgeous chancers - don't feel guilty about the pleasure pritt, slurp it up - think about nigella, the fragrant, high born nation's darling, sitting in bed with her mascara all over her face, charlie encrusted on her petit perfectly formed little nose, a half smoked spliff and a near empty bottle of voddy in her hand.

 

she is so arrogant, typical of the rich, now demanding a change in the law to protect people like her from being robustly examined in court - she gave her side of the story and the jury didn't believe her, they considered her a liar.

 

if there's further legal action - how about prosecuting her for possession of class A's and perjury - the rozzers say they aren't charging her with drug offences, so we can presume that cocaine is now legal, unless you're tulisa who is common enough to go to jail.

[Pritt Stick]

Nice post, Mr Ryan. Re the back end of para 1...... You should write for a magazine!

[taxman]

I bet saatchi's got moolah ferreted away in tax havens somewhere, it's his type that should have the revunue on their tails not these 2 gorgeous chancers - don't feel guilty about the pleasure pritt, slurp it up - think about nigella, the fragrant, high born nation's darling, sitting in bed with her mascara all over her face, charlie encrusted on her petit perfectly formed little nose, a half smoked spliff and a near empty bottle of voddy in her hand.

 

 

Now you've got me all aroused

[frank ryan]

Now you've got me all aroused

 

....her voluminous orbs rising and falling with each deep, sensual breath, she turns her perfect face, ink black eyes clouded with desire and whispers 'come to me.......'

[whinge]

I bet saatchi's got moolah ferreted away in tax havens somewhere, it's his type that should have the revunue on their tails not these 2 gorgeous chancers - don't feel guilty about the pleasure pritt, slurp it up - think about nigella, the fragrant, high born nation's darling, sitting in bed with her mascara all over her face, charlie encrusted on her petit perfectly formed little nose, a half smoked spliff and a near empty bottle of voddy in her hand.

 

she is so arrogant, typical of the rich, now demanding a change in the law to protect people like her from being robustly examined in court - she gave her side of the story and the jury didn't believe her, they considered her a liar.

 

if there's further legal action - how about prosecuting her for possession of class A's and perjury - the rozzers say they aren't charging her with drug offences, so we can presume that cocaine is now legal, unless you're tulisa who is common enough to go to jail.

 

There isn't much evidence to bring a drugs bust. Isn't using a monor offence or are all those druggies around town about to get a month or two in Dartmoor. Unless they can prove she was supplying I'm not sure there is a case.

The tax angle on the sisters is certainly an interesting one. I once had to pay tax on a Christmas hamper I was given as a gift. There again I wouldn't rule out Saatchi bringing a civil claim. The burdon of proof is rather less as OJ Simpson found out.

[frank ryan]

Nice post, Mr Ryan. Re the back end of para 1...... You should write for a magazine!

 

I had a go at professional writing many years ago, but I wasn't earning enough to cover the luxuries like somewhere to live and food.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2013 at 11:52 ----------

 

There isn't much evidence to bring a drugs bust. Isn't using a monor offence or are all those druggies around town about to get a month or two in Dartmoor. Unless they can prove she was supplying I'm not sure there is a case.

The tax angle on the sisters is certainly an interesting one. I once had to pay tax on a Christmas hamper I was given as a gift. There again I wouldn't rule out Saatchi bringing a civil claim. The burdon of proof is rather less as OJ Simpson found out.

 

she confessed to possession of class A drugs - that's a max of 7 years in prison. If she shared a line with anyone (which is highly probable) with or without money changing hands, she is also guilty of supply - max life imprisonment. perhaps the grillos will enlighten us on who elses noses were powdered at the lawson mansion.

 

she is no more or less of a criminal than any other druggie who's been nicked for possession - either charge her or don't charge anyone else.

 

re that psycho saatchi - I think he'll do well to cut his losses, accept that he didn't win this one and keep a better eye on his vast fortune in the future. if he takes a civil action, he might win, but the fabulous grillo sisters haven't got the brass to pay back, so he'd just be putting himself in the spotlight again with no prospect of benefitting

[whinge]

I had a go at professional writing many years ago, but I wasn't earning enough to cover the luxuries like somewhere to live and food.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2013 at 11:52 ----------

 

 

she confessed to possession of class A drugs - that's a max of 7 years in prison. If she shared a line with anyone (which is highly probable) with or without money changing hands, she is also guilty of supply - max life imprisonment. perhaps the grillos will enlighten us on who elses noses were powdered at the lawson mansion.

 

she is no more or less of a criminal than any other druggie who's been nicked for possession - either charge her or don't charge anyone else.

 

re that psycho saatchi - I think he'll do well to cut his losses, accept that he didn't win this one and keep a better eye on his vast fortune in the future. if he takes a civil action, he might win, but the fabulous grillo sisters haven't got the brass to pay back, so he'd just be putting himself in the spotlight again with no prospect of benefitting

 

Well not exactly. She confessed to having taken (what she thought was) class A drugs. The penalty for being caught in possession of class A is a sentence of UP TO 7 years. But of course that is for the serial offender who gets pulled for the 5th time carrying a kilo of crack. There is no quantity involved here nor could the police specify an amount, so not only couldn't they make a case but they couldn't even say how much of what drug she may or may not have taken. Perhaps she stuck a pinch of talc up her hooter. That is all the evidence there is against her unless they have done a search of the house and found something tangible. As far as I am aware the 50 year chemical experiment that is Keith Richards has spent a total of 24 hours behind bars for his well publicised consumption of every type of narcotic on the planet.

I have no idea how much dosh the Grillos have. If they nicked £800 grand they are likely to have some decent assets somewhere. I don't really see what Saatchi has to loose and I can imagine that he would get some degree of satisfaction in showing he wasn't an easy touch.