Charles Saatchi is now using the media to abuse Nigella Lawson

By ROSIE WATERLAND

In June this year, Nigella Lawson was physically abused in public by her husband, Charles Saatchi.

In the months since then, Saatchi’s behaviour has become increasingly desperate.

Now that Nigella has filed for divorce, he no longer has direct access to his victim, so he has moved on to battering her through the media.

This week, he proactively called giant international news site, The Daily Mail, to claim that Nigella had ‘abandoned’ his 18 year old daughter, her step-daughter.  And you won’t believe what he did next. The Daily Mail reports:

“…Saatchi brought Phoebe to the telephone in Italy, where they are on holiday, for her to read out a brief statement that she volunteered to the Mail. With her voice trembling slightly, she said: ‘The statement is: “Nigella has not spoken to me since she left our house on that Sunday when the newspaper story appeared. She has behaved in a very cold-hearted way. She has been my mother since I was seven or eight and has just abandoned me.” That’s it.'”

The guy who is accused of abusing her Saatchi added to the journalist:

“However disappointed Nigella may have been with me as a husband, I’m heartbroken that Phoebe has been totally abandoned in this way.”

When approached with the public words of her step-daughter, Nigella refused to comment.

Which pretty much makes it obvious that she’s a cold-hearted bitch. At least, that’s the message being pushed by The Daily Mail, who have become complicit in helping Saatchi emotionally abuse his ex-wife further by regurgitating his nasty slurs.

Throughout their most recent article, there is a bizarre focus on her career and her ‘ambition’ and how that must be the mitigating factor behind why she left (or even why the abuse occurred), rather than, you know, just wanting to escape her abuser.

Cos business ladies be bitches. ICY bitches.

First, it’s established that Saatchi is totes sad because he only chokes ladies sometimes and all this bad press is really unfair you guys:

“He is said to be seething that, after ten years of marriage, most of it happy, Nigella hasn’t uttered a single word in his defence.”

Oh. Well. Most of it was happy (right up until he choked her in public).

How could she not go out of her way to tell everyone what a top bloke he was during all those times he wasn’t choking her? Why is she being so nasty?

Because she’s a savvy business woman whose career is more important to her than ANYTHING, that’s why.

Especially that lovely family man and poor misunderstood ex-husband who loves her so much:

“In fact, Nigella, 53, whose own lucrative television image as a flawless and desirable Domestic Goddess can hardly have been helped by her being seen as a victim of domestic violence, has, in all this time, said nothing publicly about the incident to anyone…

… For Nigella Lawson this is probably a sensible business strategy as she continues her assault on the huge American market, having conquered Britain. She is in Los Angeles making the second series of the ABC-networked reality cookery TV show The Taste, in which she both stars and is joint executive producer…

…Her silence is torturing Charles,’ says one of his friends. Surely she must realise this.”

WHAT an awful woman – insisting on keeping quiet and refusing to engage with her abuser as he tries to publicly humiliate her. She is TORTURING him. And obviously her choice to keep quiet and try to carry on with her life has nothing to do with the trauma she endured at being a battered woman and everything to do with ‘business strategy’.

And guess what else, you guys? Not only is Nigella being a total nasty ice-queen after the divorce, turns out the whole marriage breakdown was her fault as well, because AMBITION. Referring to the year before the divorce:

‘Nigella seemed to be a bit distracted at times,’ says a Saatchi friend. ‘We put it down to her ambition to become a superstar, you know, to conquer America and become the transatlantic goddess. She’s certainly worked very hard at it and deserves success.’

Ohhh, so their marriage breakdown had everything to do with her being distracted and nothing to do with her being abused in public. Got it.

The article then gives up any pretense that this is a straight forward case of abuse by likening the whole situation to a mysterious riddle that has yet to be solved:

“There is one other puzzle. About a year ago, in an interview, Nigella described herself as: ‘Very, very conflict averse . . . I go a bit ice maiden. I withdraw.’

Yet she certainly had not withdrawn six days after the ‘choking’ incident, because Charles and Nigella were back at Scott’s, having dinner with a group of friends. Ostensibly, at any rate, all was well.

But that was before those reputation-scarring paparazzi pictures dropped on the nation’s breakfast tables.

One is entitled to wonder: if that hadn’t happened, would they still be together now? And would Phoebe’s shattered world still be in one piece?”

Are you freaking kidding me? This woman was abused. There are photos to prove it. She continues to be abused, and there are numerous articles on The Daily Mail’s website to prove it.

There is no ‘puzzle’. The word ‘choking’ in choking incident should not be put in snide inverted commas.

What she did in the days after her abuse and the way she handled her split from her abuser is her business. If the ‘reputation-scarring’ photos going public helped give her the strength she needed to leave a man that CHOKED HER then that’s her business.

And finally, one is not ‘entitled’ to wonder anything. Not a damn thing. This woman was the victim of abuse. How she handles that abuse is nobody’s business. Especially not the business of a media organisation who continue to give free and sympathetic coverage to her abuser.