Tuesday, 23 July 2013


PR guru Richard Hillgrove
Charles Saatchi gave Nigella Lawson a "publicity pay off" rather than make any cash settlement for a divorce.

“Mr. Saatchi, who signed a pre-nup, was willing to humiliate himself in a global 'domestic abuse' scandal rather than settle any cash payment at the time of divorce”, says Hillgrove who has represented the PR for Duncan Bannatyne OBE, Simon Woodroffe OBE and James Caan.

“The notion that a paparazzi photographer would be allowed to stick a camera lens  through the window of Scotts of Mayfair for over 30 minutes and photograph a 'domestic attack' made in full light of day with passing waiters, management and customers is preposterous,” says Hillgrove.

“Nigella Lawson was perfectly made up and perfectly in view of the pre-arranged camera”.

“Mr. Saatchi was well aware of the camera and also that he needed to stage something akin to Sir Anthony Hopkins in 'Silence of the Lambs' to gain media traction”.

“No one, whether a wife abuser or not, would engage is such prolonged, theatrical assault in public unless playing to an audience”, says Hillgrove.

“The result was a 'publicity gift' for Ms. Lawson, who is promoting her TV series in America”.

“The scenes of the predatory monster are virtually comical”.

“Mr. Saatchi countered the potential reputation damage with juxtaposing messages and statements to limit the damage post PR-sting”.

“Ms. Lawson had nothing to say afterwards because she didn't wish to give the game away as opposed to being petrified and in hiding. Far from it”.

Backmasking PR attempts such as "I was getting snot from her nose … I wanted to fish it out" are pure genius as is the statement from Saatchi stating that "obviously I'm not enough for her".

This creates a paralysis in the media with the overall publicity effect being achieved, but no one ultimately knowing what to think nor who to blame.

Soon-to-be-divorced Nigella Lawson is to bring her US hit cookery contest ‘The Taste’ to the UK.

The chef and presenter will return to Channel 4 for the first time in a decade, with her shows appearing on BBC2 since 2006.


  1. Nice crackpot theory but also complete and utter bollocks. Most people did know what to think- ie: Saatchi is an arrogant old bully, and knew who to blame- ie: Saatchi. The scenes were't 'comical', they were of a man choking his wife and covering her mouth while she was blatantly desperately scared and upset.

    Perhaps your little conspiracy theory is a 'genius' 'backmasking' PR stunt to help diminish the seriousness of Saatchi's actions and the rightful soiling of his brand it has led to.

  2. More likely it is a PR backmasking (horrid term!) stunt for Hillgrove to climb on the back of a global story, to revive his own fading reputation.

  3. I called this immediately. My girlfriend agreed. interesting that someone actually in PR called it too.

    1- He get's to come off as the tough psyco businessman - strengthens his persona in the world of big money power creeps

    2- She gets to play the damsel in distress, magazines, talk shows - or maybe not because i don't think she's that good-a lier. but either way it presents her as the under-dog and victim prior to her new book, tv show blah blah blah.

  4. The only think i would say is that there is NOW WAY she would not take a cash payment off that guy - he's swimming in multi-milllions.

    this would have been on top of the deal. some people say.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This is a joke, right? Or a cynical attempt to boost your media profile? Because if it isn't either of those then I'd love to hear your theories on 9/11 and the moon landings...

    Photographers have zoom lenses and those photos could have been taken from 200m away. Numerous people witnessed the event just as described. People, especially elderly cantankerous people, often do stupid things in public without thinking of the consequences.

    Finally your whole premise just doesn't make any sense at all. Not even a little bit. Why would Saatchi do something that makes him appear to be an evil villain, get cautioned by the police(!) just to give his soon to be ex wife a bit of publicity for her TV show? In return for an agreement not to pursue for alimony? Doesn't make sense. She is probably a lot richer than he is! And how is this good publicity for either of them? No one wants all the publicity for their new TV show to be all about domestic violence.

    You as well say Chris Brown and Rhianna staged their domestic violence incident to boost her chances at the Grammys. It's a nutty conspiracy theory.

    Regardless, I hear the Lawson is consulting m'learned friends and I suspect you will soon be printing a lengthy and contrite retraction accepting how barking mad this is and probably giving her your house and most of your business in damages.

    I assume you have a lawyer (and if you don't please get one...) but the difference between you and the other media commentaters that have said plenty about this without being sued is that you have said things that are untrue, libellous and defamatory and you are going to get your ass sued off for it.

    I wish I could wish you good luck, because god knows you'll need it, but I hate this kind of nutty conspiracy theory, especially when it is so transparently an attempt to piggyback onto someone's personal family tragedy for your own publicity purposes. So I kinda hope you do go to court and get nailed to the wall.

  7. Nobody "stuck a camera lens through the window of Scotts of Mayfair for over 30 minutes". The couple were sitting OUTSIDE, where they always sit because of Saatchi's smoking habit. Schillings are on to you now so best of luck being sued by a muli-millionaire. The photographer, Jean-Paul, might be consulting lawyers too soon. Oh, I suspect Nigella puts a bit of make-up on when she goes out to lunch in London. Like most women, I guess.

  8. Factually inaccurate. They were sitting outside the restaurant, not inside so it was easy for someone to take shots. Lawson had no make up on and hadn't had her hair done - far from perfectly made up. The shots are clearly not posed from the context of the location from where the photographer shot. Total made up silliness.

  9. The hat is hiding the lobotomy scar, yes?