I don't normally discuss matters like this, but the photos of Charles Saachi and his wife Nigella Lawson at a restaurant are attracting comments, so I thought that I would add my take to the mix.
Raven saw the photos before me and made the point that Nigella is adopting a classic submissive posture in most of the shots and it looks to me as if she is entering sub-space in some of them as well. Given the age difference between them, I reckon that this relationship is one of daddy-daughter and I am rather surprised that nobody else has pointed that out.
The good Raven then went on to say that she thought that Saachi was a prize chump for arguing with Nigella in public and should have damned well known that a public figure like her would attract the photographers whatever she does, so he should not have got involved in this public spat.
My view is that the devil is in the narrative that the press seems to want to create. They could have presented the photos as an example of "Naughty Nigella and a provocation too far," or something similar. When Anita Ekberg was spanked by her then husband in 1971, the noise was enough to awaken the dead and six Rome police arrived at the door to find out what the racket was all about. Once they knew that it was just a wife being spanked by her husband they left and the Times reported the story as "Shades of La Dolce Vita," an obvious play on the title of Ekberg's most famous film.
So why is Charles Saachi being presented as a villain? Probably because he is a multi-millionaire and doing over an oligarch is seen by the middle class chatterers who write for the press these days as a good in itself.
That is a pity because there is a world of difference between a battered wife and one who behaves as Nigella seemed to be doing in those photos.
Anyone got any opinions?