Nigella Lawson above the law (laws for the rich and laws for the poor ? )

[johncar54]

Especially with my police background, I am not one who would normally contribute to the line ‘one law for the rich and another for the poor’ but the statement by the Met Police that no criminal action will be taken against Nigella Lawson, who in the Grillo case on oath admitted to using drugs, seems perverse.

People are often prosecuted on the grounds of their confession (just to police not on oath) with very little other evidence. In the Lawson case the two Italian women said they saw, what they thought were drugs ‘all over the house’ and there is the evidence of her ex-husband who sent the ‘off her head on drugs’ email.

Mark Stephens, a UK lawyer, said on TV this morning, that one reason for no action was ‘the historic’ nature of the offence meant a prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Many of the Jimmy Savile’s circle have, and are, being prosecuted (correctly so in my opinion) for ‘historic cases’ on much the same weight evidence.

If prosecuted Nigella Lawson might say her confession was untrue, but then she would be open to a charge of perjury in the Grillo case !

The only thing which I see as a ‘problem’ down the line, is that in a UK court a witness can be obliged to make a statement which could incriminate them, whereas a defendant cannot. That could be grounds for an action in the EU courts.

[KeithD]

You only get done these days for supplying, not using. Class A users just get a warning, then another warning, then another, and so on :icon_lol: So it is just a waste of police time dealing with her.

Remember, according to Liberals users are victims as well! :crazy:

[johncar54]

Well I have been retired 25 years and do not visit UK but I understand this still applies :-

QUOTE :-

Legal status
Cocaine and crack are controlled as Class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is illegal to be in possession of either crack or cocaine or supply them to other people. Maximum penalties for possession are 7 years imprisonment plus a fine and for supply life imprisonment plus a fine.

It may be when thou say people are ‘warned’ that you may mean ‘cautioned’. In order for a person to be cautioned they must accept they are guilty. If they say the are not, then it is either 'no action' or prosecution.

If one accepts a caution for drugs (certain other offences too), I suspect that visiting USA may be a problem.

[gWaPito]

I wouldnt compare Lawson's own personal drug use to that of Saville's decades of child abuse.
Her tv career is down the toilet...this is now what she will be remembered for..not her sensual cookery programmes which delighted many over the years she's been on

She brought it on herself in the first place..I have no sympathy for her. Most of these celebs get away with it. Lawson didn't..like Profumo, she will pay the price

[grahamw48]

I agree Mark.

How could she be taken seriously when everyone will be wondering whether she's got the coke mixed up with the corn flour ? :cwm25:

[KeithD]

She's a massive hit in the USA, and they couldn't give a crap if she snorted during the show. As long as she still has big titties for the men, and shows the women how to cook, it won't damage her there. The other thing in this country is down to how the press react, and so far they have been backing her.

[tiger31]

Well I have been retired 25 years and do not visit UK but I understand this still applies :-

QUOTE :-

Legal status
Cocaine and crack are controlled as Class A drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is illegal to be in possession of either crack or cocaine or supply them to other people. Maximum penalties for possession are 7 years imprisonment plus a fine and for supply life imprisonment plus a fine.

It maybe when thou say people are ‘warned’ that you may mean ‘cautioned’. In order for a person to be cautioned they must accept they are guilty. If they say the are not, then it is either 'no action' or prosecution.

If one accepts a caution for drugs (certain other offences too), I suspect that visiting USA may be a problem.

well I agree with the not the public interest camp there are far more criminal activities going on right now than wasting time chasing nigella what use would it do for petes sake ?

[tiger31]

She's a massive hit in the USA, and they couldn't give a crap if she snorted during the show. As long as she still has big titties for the men, and shows the women how to cook, it won't damage her there. The other thing in this country is down to how the press react, and so far they have been backing her.

:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[tiger31]

I loved watching her shows and this palarva won,t change a thing she just is fantastic the way she comes across on camera

[grahamw48]

If I see any more damned cooking programmes on TV, I swear I'll throw it through the bloody window :xxaction-smiley-047 ... so no loss. :NoNo:

[les_taxi]

She is fit for her age so she is ok with me :biggrin:

[Ako Si Jamie]

A celebrity snorting charlie isn't uncommon. I wonder if she got it from Tulisa?:Erm:

[joebloggs]

but she wasn't on trial, what has her taking drugs got to do with 2 women who spent over £600,000 on company credit cards, i think they said she let them use the cards because they didn't say nothing about her drug taking ? sounds dodgy to me ..

even if she did say that, i think the other PA's were spending less than £8k a month while these spent up to £40k a month :yikes: surely they have to be responsible and accountable for their actions, and have good reasons why they spent £40k a month :cwm25:

[johncar54]

what has her taking drugs got to do with 2 women who spent over £600,000 on company credit cards

In any trail the defence will always seek to show that any prosecution witness may not be a truthful, honest person. The risk the defence takes is that if they question the character of a prosecution witness they stand a chance that the judge will permit evidence of the defendants past being entered into evidence. If the defendant has a snow white past then that is not a risk, if however, they have any blots (example maybe convictions for dishonesty). Presumably the Grillo sisters had no blots on their previous characters, so their team could call into question Nigella's character without any risk that it would jeopardise the character of the defendants.

In this case showing that Nigella may not have been as respectable as she appeared, meant that the jury would consider her evidence in that light. It is normal practice in any trial.

Sorry but most people would take not take at face value anything a drug addict says. That is why her alleged drug taking (which she admitted) was important to the defence case.

N.B. I am not expressing any personal opinion, just explaining the law and trail practice in the UK in answer to Joe's question.

[tiger31]

what has her taking drugs got to do with 2 women who spent over £600,000 on company credit cards

In any trail the defence will always seek to show that any prosecution witness may not be a truthful, honest person. The risk the defence takes is that if they question the character of a prosecution witness they stand a chance that the judge will permit evidence of the defendants past being entered into evidence. If the defendant has a snow white past then that is not a risk, of however, if they have any blots (example maybe conversations for dishonesty). Presumably the Grillo sisters had no blots on the previous character.

In this case showing that Nigella may not have been as respectable as she appeared, meant that the jury would consider her evidence in that light. It is normal practice in any trial.

Sorry but most people would take not take at face value anything a drug addict says. That is why her drug taking was important to the defence case.

N.B. I am not expressing any personal opinion, just explaining the law and trail practice in the UK in answer to Joe's question.

You are expressing an opinion because you called her a drug addict, have you any proof of that? she has denied being a drug addict and watching her t.v shows she clearly is not an addict. Mr Saatchi is a very powerfull man and control freak which came out in the trial. He clearly set out to destroy her character to make himself look the hard done by victim. Your views in my opinion are clearly outdated

[joebloggs]

the Grillo sisters have alleged that Lawson had permitted their personal use of a private company credit card resulting in spending claimed, on the following day, to be £685,000 between them,[14] in return for non-disclosure to Saatchi of Lawson's purported use, for at least ten years, of cocaine and cannabis (Class A and B drugs respectively) and her unauthorised use of prescription drugs.[12] The defence counsel for Elisabetta, Anthony Metzer, QC, said that while the arrangement was not verbalised, it amounted to a "tacit understanding".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Grillo_and_Grillo

[gWaPito]

If I see any more damned cooking programmes on TV, I swear I'll throw it through the bloody window :xxaction-smiley-047...so no loss. :NoNo:

Just as well I haven't got the TV habit. .I'll watch the odd documentary and maybe a bit of news. .that's if I'm home. . ...oh I forgot, the boys programmes when they are here. .that's it.

It was reported that Lawson had already been dropped by a US TV station on the strength of her coke habit. :Erm:

[joebloggs]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527712/Its-not-Grillo-sisters-face-civil-action-Charles-Saatchi-credit-card-spend-considering-legal-action-own.html

:icon_lol:

well i can see why the defence didn't use their father as a character witness :cwm24:
their father spent 15yrs in prison - jailed over a notorious 1981 kidnapping

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527290/Mafia-past-Grillo-sisters-father-Mob-member-Michele-jailed-15-years-brutally-kidnapping-fashion-designers-sister.html

John, I'm sure they changed their defence reasons.

[johncar54]

Tiger
you are expressing an opinion because you called her a drug addict ,have you any proof of that ? she has denied being a drug addict and watching her t.v shows she clearly is not an addict

What I said was:-

Sorry but most people would take not take at face value anything a drug addict says. That is why her alleged drug taking (which she admitted) was important to the defence case.

She Admitted on oath to taking drugs, that was either the truth or perjury..

As I said I am (still) not expressing a personal opinion-

[Terpe]

...Her tv career is down the toilet...this is now what she will be remembered for..not her sensual cookery programmes which delighted many over the years she's been on...

Don't agree at all.

The 'Nigella brand' has always had a little bit of naughtiness and mischief mixed in.
This will not impact her career one bit. IMHO

It was exactly the same with Kate Moss, which was a whole lot more scandalous.

Drug scandal helped 'Cocaine Kate' Moss earn more money, says her agent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1319258/Kate-Moss-told-model-agent-drug-scandal-All-press-good-press.html)

[tiger31]

nigella is a strong woman she,ll get over this and hope she finds a guy who will respect her more than her ex did. I will be a fan anyway :biggrin:

[Michael Parnham]

Don't agree at all.

The 'Nigella brand' has always had a little bit of naughtiness and mischief mixed in.
This will not impact her career one bit. IMHO

It was exactly the same with Kate Moss, which was a whole lot more scandalous.

Drug scandal helped 'Cocaine Kate' Moss earn more money, says her agent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1319258/Kate-Moss-told-model-agent-drug-scandal-All-press-good-press.html)

Her program's are still being shown on UK TV watched one yesterday cooking turkey! :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Arthur Little]

Her program's are still being shown on UK TV watched one yesterday cooking turkey! :xxgrinning--00xx3:

:icon_lol: ... having almost "cooked her own goose" already, ... :anerikke: ... one would've thought that, by yesterday, she might've possibly gone "cold turkey"!

[Arthur Little]

:icon_lol: ... having almost "cooked her own goose" already, one would've thought that, by yesterday, she might've possibly gone "cold turkey"!

:yeahthat: ... I mean vis~a~vis her [purported] drug-taking habit!

[gWaPito]

Much like John comparing child abuser Savile with casual coke user Lawson. Kate Moss when she was found out was young free single and without child. After all its what hip models and rock stars do. ..not old middle aged women.

Like Keith said. ..The Yanks will be lapping this up. ..no doubt she'll use her new found notoriety to her financial advantage such as these types operate.
I remember now why I don't watch TV. .it's all a waste of life

Just my opinion :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Maybe I'll change my tune when watching TV is all I can do :-)

[Dedworth]

A repulsive woman along with her ex husband and the 2 Italian sisters, I've never felt the need to watch any of her programmes and find it pathetic that the papers have devoted so much space to all this tripe.

She should be done for the drugs hopefully they'll nab her with enough to make it a dealing charge.

[johncar54]

Gwapito: Much like John comparing child abuser Savile

To clarify it for those who failed to understand what I said about ‘historical cases’.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer interviewed on TV this morning, said, to bring a charge, the CPS would need to to prove possession, which they could because she admitted that on oath, and that it was in the public interest, but the ‘historical nature’ in her case, meant it could not be in the public interest.

My comment about the ‘Jimmy Savile circle’ was not comparing the cases, but was to highlight that the ‘historical’ nature of those cases was not a bar to prosecution, so why should the same criteria not apply Nigella.

[andy222]

The law is a ass and always will be. Just my opinion. And dont forget you are talking about the daughter of an ex Tory MP. :wink:

[gWaPito]

Gwapito: Much like John comparing child abuser Savile

To clarify it for those who failed to understand what I said about ‘historical cases’.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer interviewed on TV this morning, said, to bring a charge, the CPS would need to to prove possession, which they could because she admitted that on oath, and that it was in the public interest, but the ‘historical nature’ in her case, meant it could not be in the public interest.

My comment about the ‘Jimmy Savile circle’ was not comparing the cases, but was to highlight that the ‘historical’ nature of those cases was not a bar to prosecution, so why should the same criteria not apply Nigella.

Point taken John. .Please accept my apologies :icon_sorry::xxgrinning--00xx3:

[gWaPito]

The law is a ass and always will be. Just my opinion. And dont forget you are talking about the daughter of an ex Tory MP :wink:

And a mother who lets her prepubescent kids smoke weed and even worse, smoke tobacco.

Nothing hip and cool about that. If that would of been one of us, our kids would of been in care right now.

[Terpe]

Much like John comparing child abuser Savile with casual coke user Lawson. Kate Moss when she was found out was young free single and without child. After all its what hip models and rock stars do. ..not old middle aged women.


:doh

[gWaPito]

:doh

I forgot to add. .'old middle aged women with impressionable kids' but that didn't seem to bother her as she let her kids join in the fun. .that's if today's papers are to be believed.

No doubt, if any are spouting lies I'm sure the Lawson camp will take them to court. Let's see what unfolds. :icon_lol::xxgrinning--00xx3:

We're just making sense of the day Peter :heartshape1::biggrin:

[grahamw48]

I would just like to point out that I watch very little TV.

Thankyou...carry on. :biggrin:

[Arthur Little]

And a mother who lets her prepubescent kids smoke weed and even worse, smoke tobacco.

Whilst on the subject of comparisons, Mark ... :Smokin: tobacco may well be deemed hazardous to health. But it is most certainly NOT a criminal act :nono-1-1: ... unlike smoking so-called "weed"!

[KeithD]

Smoking weed has been decriminalised .... just like shoplifting :smile:

[grahamw48]

Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah. :NoNo:

[gWaPito]

Whilst on the subject of comparisons, Mark ... :Smokin: tobacco may well be deemed hazardous to health. But it is most certainly NOT a criminal act :nono-1-1: ... unlike smoking so-called "weed"!

Smoking tobacco is a bit more than hazardous Arthur. .. it's a known killer. If not to yourself it'll be those around you.

I knew of a woman who died of lung cancer. .she didn't smoke. ..it was her heavy smoking husband was caused her death. This happened when i was twelve..friend of the family...Anyway, that's another story.

My point is. .Ms Lumpy Lawson allowed her under age kids to buy £70 worth. ..caring parenting don't ya think. ...I certainly don't

[Michael Parnham]

Well, she's still cookin 7pm this evening on channel 4 ! :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Dedworth]

A swift rethink by the Met Police over this slatterns drug abuse :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Police have said they are reviewing Nigella Lawson’s admission in court that she took drugs.

The TV cook revealed during the fraud trial of her two former assistants that she had taken cocaine – a class A drug.

Lawson said she had taken the drug with her late husband John Diamond when he found out he had terminal cancer, and again in July 2012 when she claimed to have been ‘subjected to intimate terrorism’ by her former husband Charles Saatchi.

Scotland Yard said on Friday they would not look into the issue at this stage, but would review the case if new evidence came to light.

However, a statement released by the force last night said a ‘specialist team from the Metropolitan Police Service will examine the evidence emerging as part of a review into this matter’.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/22/police-review-nigella-lawsons-cocaine-admission-4240085/

[gWaPito]

Well, she's still cookin 7pm this evening on channel 4 ! :xxgrinning--00xx3:

No doubt topping the bill with Brookside Says it all really :cwm25:

I wonder why they didn't provide subtitles with Brooky...They would of had more viewers if they had

[johncar54]

Gwapto, No problem mate

[Arthur Little]

Smoking weed has been decriminalised ....

... perhaps in the US, yes ... :iagree:. But in :Britain: it's still illegal.

[johncar54]

Dedworth,,,,, Police have said they are reviewing Nigella Lawson’s admission in court that she took drugs….

They revised what this said because it was so unprofessional and so ill considered. or even not considered.

I really cannot believe how stupid some of the police spokespeople are these days, and that includes the Commissioner of the Met Police.

[Michael Parnham]

What a waste of taxpayers money making such a big issue of Nigella, what about using that money to round up the thousands of hardened druggies on the UK's street corners and night clubs every night!:Erm:

[gWaPito]

Dedworth,,,,, Police have said they are reviewing Nigella Lawson’s admission in court that she took drugs….

They revised what this said because it was so unprofessional and so ill considered. or even not considered.

I really cannot believe how stupid some of the police spokespeople are these days, and that includes the Commissioner of the Met Police.

They must of read your initial post John :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[gWaPito]

What a waste of taxpayers money making such a big issue of Nigella, what about using that money to round up the thousands of hardened druggies on the UK's street corners and night clubs every night!:Erm:

No point Michael, they've no money...Lawson can at least contribute to their benevolent fund :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[Dedworth]

What a waste of taxpayers money making such a big issue of Nigella, what about using that money to round up the thousands of hardened druggies on the UK's street corners and night clubs every night!:Erm:

She fancies herself as a "Celebrity" and enjoys people taking notice of her - I might even watch one of her cookery shows if it came from HMP Holloway :biggrin:

[gWaPito]

She fancies herself as a "Celebrity" and enjoys people taking notice of her - I might even watch one of her cookery shows if it came from HMP Holloway :biggrin:

:icon_lol::xxgrinning--00xx3:
She'll no doubt have the little chicks queuing up to keep their ears warm at night...A tongue sandwich, anyone?

[Ako Si Jamie]

No doubt topping the bill with Brookside Says it all really :cwm25:

I wonder why they didn't provide subtitles with Brooky...They would of had more viewers if they had:biggrin:

Brookside finished years ago. I grew up with that programme too. Remember the first ever episode and the first ever scene featuring Bobby and Sheila Grant played by Ricky Tomlinson & Sue Johnston.

1982 was the year. Countdown was another show launched on C4 at that time with the introduction of Carol Voorderman who was very shy & quiet back in those days. How things have changed! :cwm3:

[grahamw48]

Brookside ?

Welcome to the 21st century Mark. :laugher:

[gWaPito]

Thank you Jamie Graham...I was being my normal sarcastic self for a change :biggrin:

[grahamw48]

Ah you'll tell us anything. :biggrin:

[gWaPito]

Alright then :biggrin:

[Michael Parnham]

Poor Mark, they do give you some stick sometimes! :xxgrinning--00xx3: