Anyone following the Amber and Johnny trial?

[AnnieK]

the upshot was that you used your experience to weight the argument in your favour. This is just a typical response of the group think brigade trying to force opinions down peoples throats

Ah thanks BOTs. Don't most people draw on personal experience when forming opinions?

Probably the first and last time I will share anything personal on here. Wasn't looking for any kind of sympathy but to have it thrown at me like that is pretty low, even for this place. Lol.

Wouldn't mind, I thought I'd be quite unbiased as I said I believe her to be as equally abusive in that relationship.

[ThomasC]

I assume anything deleted was aimed at me? Nice.

It will certainly be the last time I share anything on this forum.

Nothing has been deleted yet, I deleted my own quotes as it wasn't meant to cause offence and obviously it has with Niamh.

Niamh are still up as she quoted it.

I'm taking it you haven't took it the way it was meant seeing as you already thought it had been deleted?

[Vanessa]

I really don't like that Elaine has been slagging off the jury and the judge.
She's showing no class at all. And she's ruining Amber changes if she appeals. :facepalm:

[ThomasC]

Ah thanks BOTs. Don't most people draw on personal experience when forming opinions?

Probably the first and last time I will share anything personal on here. Wasn't looking for any kind of sympathy but to have it thrown at me like that is pretty low, even for this place. Lol.

Wouldn't mind, I thought I'd be quite unbiased as I said I believe her to be as equally abusive in that relationship.

Quite a few people sympathised with you when you posted it, me included. It wasn't thrown at you at all. All I said was that you had said maybe if you'd experienced it to suggest unless you experience it you may not know it's like and o strongly disagreed with that saying it's crap....not your situation, the point you were making.

I haven't thrown it in your face.

I disagreed with your point. That's it. You can read more into it if you want.

[Kate!]

As someone who has experienced DV personally both mental and physical I've been reluctant to comment in this thread but I'd like to say one thing. It seems to me they are both as guilty as each other and the amount of damages awarded in this case is an appalling waste. They should be made to go into rehab and never darken each others doors again.

[AnnieK]

Really not ****ing interested.

Funny now though how because the verdict went one way, already people who HAVE experienced stuff are being told their experiences and opinions are crap. However, watching a trial by tv makes you a ****ing legal expert.

Classy...

Its just bull****

[AnnieK]

Really not ****ing interested.

Funny now though how because the verdict went one way, already people who HAVE experienced stuff are being told their experiences and opinions are crap. However, watching a trial by tv makes you a ****ing legal expert.

Classy...

Its just bull****

[ThomasC]

I never said your experiences and opinions are crap....your point was crap that you have to experience it to know that it must feel a certain way.........blown out of context massively.... You need to back out of a conversation on DV, serious debates even if this is how you feel as you're too sensitive and I would understand why

And you bought it up, you used it to make a point in your favour.

Pleaseeeeeee.

Now throwing a hissy fit. 'probably the first and last time I mention anything personal on here'.... Well you used it to make your point now using it as a sword.

Goodness grief.

I can't cope. I'm taking some time away, I've heard it all now.

Peace out

[ThomasC]

I never said your experiences and opinions are crap....your point was crap that you have to experience it to know that it must feel a certain way.........blown out of context massively.... You need to back out of a conversation on DV, serious debates even if this is how you feel as you're too sensitive and I would understand why

And you bought it up, you used it to make a point in your favour.

Pleaseeeeeee.

Now throwing a hissy fit. 'probably the first and last time I mention anything personal on here'.... Well you used it to make your point now using it as a sword.

Goodness grief.

I can't cope. I'm taking some time away, I've heard it all now.

Peace out

[Vanessa]

I think people can watch the trial and make up their own mind. That's what I did anyway.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think we will ever all agree on this topic. It's too divisive.

[Kate!]

I think Annie is right though. Unless you've experienced DV in any shape or form you aren't as well equipped to speak about it as those who have suffered it.

[Vanessa]

I have my own experience on the subject, bur I don't like to talk about it.
I think most of us have experienced abuse of some kind in our lives. Maybe growing up or in relationships?

[Kate!]

I have my own experience on the subject, bur I don't like to talk about it.
I think most of us have experienced abuse of some kind in our lives. Maybe growing up or in relationships?

I'm ok with sharing my experiences. It's quite therapeutic.

[Vanessa]

I'm ok with sharing my experiences. It's quite therapeutic.

I wish I could, but I'm so used to keeping it to myself now.

[Kate!]

I wish I could, but I'm so used to keeping it to myself now.

My pm is always open to you sweetheart.

[Vanessa]

My pm is always open to you sweetheart.

Aw thanks. That's nice of you :blush:

[Vanessa]

Amber is appealing. So this is not the end of it.
I can't cope with another trial :fist:

[Kate!]

Amber is appealing. So this is not the end of it.
I can't cope with another trial :fist:

She's an attention seeker of the highest degree.

[GoldHeart]

I really don't like that Elaine has been slagging off the jury and the judge.
She's showing no class at all. And she's ruining Amber changes if she appeals. :facepalm:

There's something really OFF about Elaine,I didn't like how she spoke to the witnesses .

[Vanessa]

There's something really OFF about Elaine,I didn't like how she spoke to the witnesses .

It's very unprofessional. I'm really disappointed in her. I thought she was better than this.

[GoldHeart]

It's very unprofessional. I'm really disappointed in her. I thought she was better than this.

It felt like Elaine and what's his name ( the other lawyer), were so desperate that they played dirty. And now they've lost ...its sour grapes.

[rusticgal]

Amber is appealing. So this is not the end of it.
I can't cope with another trial :fist:

It’s just a process…it was inevitable.

[user104658]

Amber is appealing. So this is not the end of it.
I can't cope with another trial :fist:


Thankfully, the appeal is not trial by jury and is highly unlikely to be broadcast.

[Vanessa]

Thankfully, the appeal is not trial by jury and is highly unlikely to be broadcast.

Thank god for that!

[GoldHeart]

Thankfully, the appeal is not trial by jury and is highly unlikely to be broadcast.

Why is she claiming to suddenly be BROKE,yet she wants to appeal. She doesn't want to pay for anything. But she will have paid her lawyers I assume,or was it Elon Musk again :whistle:.

[Vanessa]

Why is she claiming to suddenly be BROKE,yet she wants to appeal. She doesn't want to pay for anything. But she will have paid her lawyers I assume,or was it Elon Musk again :whistle:.

If she's appealing she will have to pay the full amount.

[bots]

a lot of these celebs don't have the liquidity (ready cash) to pay for stuff like this. 10 million in the bank is wasting the money

[user104658]

It's very unprofessional. I'm really disappointed in her. I thought she was better than this.


I honestly agree that some of her cross examination of witnesses was absolutely abysmal but please let’s not go down the route of “Camille great lawyer” either - she made sarcastic comments and rolled her eyes at witnesses and the other legal team throughout. For a trial with so much money flying around, the legal teams were unfathomably amateurish and… well… at times frankly petty.

It’s really completely separate to the abuse allegations and libel trial but the way the entire trial itself was conducted was absolutely abysmal. An absolute joke, from the judge to both legal teams to the conduct of the jury (especially since the end of the trial, don’t know if anyone been keeping up to date with that - leaking documents, attempts to sell jury notes for thousands of dollars etc)

[Vanessa]

I honestly agree that some of her cross examination of witnesses was absolutely abysmal but please let’s not go down the route of “Camille great lawyer” either - she made sarcastic comments and rolled her eyes at witnesses and the other legal team throughout. For a trial with so much money flying around, the legal teams were unfathomably amateurish and… well… at times frankly petty.

It’s really completely seIrhparate to the abuse allegations and libel trial but the way the entire trial itself was conducted was absolutely abysmal. An absolute joke, from the judge to both legal teams to the conduct of the jury (especially since the end of the trial, don’t know if anyone been keeping up to date with that - leaking documents, attempts to sell jury notes for thousands of dollars etc)
I think Rottenborn was much better.

[GoldHeart]

a lot of these celebs don't have the liquidity (ready cash) to pay for stuff like this. 10 million in the bank is wasting the money

AH manages to find money when it suits her though,funny that .

[hijaxers]

Amber is appealing. So this is not the end of it.
I can't cope with another trial :fist:

How can she afford to appeal ? Who is she appealing to ? she appeals to no one at all ~ Liar

[Vanessa]

How can she afford to appeal ? Who is she appealing to ? she appeals to no one at all ~ Liar

She doesn't have that kind of money. Unless Elon Musk is paying...

[GoldHeart]

She doesn't have that kind of money. Unless Elon Musk is paying...

Sugar Daddy money from Musk .

[user104658]

If the appeal is confirmed then her legal representation has taken it - which means either they think she can pay them, or they have a reasonable belief that they’ll win on appeal. Those are really the only two options.

[rusticgal]

Why is she claiming to suddenly be BROKE,yet she wants to appeal. She doesn't want to pay for anything. But she will have paid her lawyers I assume,or was it Elon Musk again :whistle:.

Didn’t she get 8m from the divorce settlement?…plus she must have made decent money from her own career. I guess she will be made Bankrupt :shrug:

[Liam-]

Didn’t she get 8m from the divorce settlement?…plus she must have made decent money from her own career. I guess she will be made Bankrupt :shrug:

Even if she declares bankruptcy, she’ll still owe Johnny that money

[Alf]

Any announcements on season 2 yet or maybe a Christmas special?

[rusticgal]

Even if she declares bankruptcy, she’ll still owe Johnny that money

I know….I guess she will have to pay it in instalments :shrug:

[Liam-]

I know….I guess she will have to pay it in instalments :shrug:

If she really can’t afford it, they can put a condition on her property and all future earnings she earns, the system will get the money off of her somehow

[Vanessa]

Doesn't she have to pay the amount in full before the appeal can go ahead?

[user104658]

Even if she declares bankruptcy, she’ll still owe Johnny that money


If she declares bankruptcy, as I understand it, she only has to pay the $350,000 punitive damages after bankruptcy, not the $10mil compensatory. He’d get some of the compensatory from her estate at the point of bankruptcy which would include the $2million he owes her (he would get that back essentially).

They can’t chase her for more than $350k after bankruptcy. Sorry if that makes you sad.

[user104658]

Doesn't she have to pay the amount in full before the appeal can go ahead?


She has to surrender the funds but they would go into a bond (I.e. Depp doesn’t see a penny until after the appeal is done, at which point it would be paid to him if the original verdict is upheld).

The fact that they apparently are appealing suggests that she does have the money.

[rusticgal]

She has to surrender the funds but they would go into a bond (I.e. Depp doesn’t see a penny until after the appeal is done, at which point it would be paid to him if the original verdict is upheld).

The fact that they apparently are appealing suggests that she does have the money.


Wouldn’t it just suggest she has the money to appeal in the hope she wins the appeal and may not have to find that money??

[Zizu]

She has to surrender the funds but they would go into a bond (I.e. Depp doesn’t see a penny until after the appeal is done, at which point it would be paid to him if the original verdict is upheld).

The fact that they apparently are appealing suggests that she does have the money.


Maybe she says she has the money

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[user104658]

Wouldn’t it just suggest she has the money to appeal in the hope she wins the appeal and may not have to find that money??



Maybe she says she has the money

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It has to go into a bond before the appeal.

[bots]

she obviously has sufficient assets to put up as surety against any outstanding sum. This sort of stuff happens all the time

[Beso]

I’m fairly sure that she knew EXACTLY which buttons to press - given they’d been together a while ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

She should have smacked him in the mouth for kicking the cupboards like a sad old man.

[GoldHeart]

She should have smacked him in the mouth for kicking the cupboards like a sad old man.

I thought you acknowledged it was wrong to hit your partner, if he's such a "sad old man" then why did she marry him.

[Beso]

I thought you acknowledged it was wrong to hit your partner, if he's such a "sad old man" then why did she marry him.

She likes sad old men:shrug:

[GoldHeart]

She likes sad old men:shrug:

And it's perfectly ok for her to slap him for it !??, what a healthy mindset :notimpressed: .

[Beso]

And it's perfectly ok for her to slap him for it !??, what a healthy mindset :notimpressed: .

She should have smacked his bottom like you would a petulant child.

[ThomasC]

She should have smacked him in the mouth for kicking the cupboards like a sad old man.

Wouldn't have been the first time.

You've been slating him since day dot and been supporting her then contradict your whole stance in one sentence.

You obviously do condone violence it seems

[Vanessa]

It's not ok for a woman to hit a man.
Women can be abusive as well, but unfortunately the law protect them. The law needs to change.

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUZBAANXEAAvbBD?format=jpg&name=small

With the Jeff Beck band
live in Glasgow last night

[Beso]

Not that I have to defend anything I say on here to anyone, but I would like to add.


If any male member of my family, or any partner of a female member of my family acted like depp in that video in front of their partner...well, Im sorry to all you precious ones ....but they would be getting slapped, no questions asked.

[GoldHeart]

Not that I have to defend anything I say on here to anyone, but I would like to add.


If any male member of my family, or any partner of a female member of my family acted like depp in that video in front of their partner...well, Im sorry to all you precious ones ....but they would be getting slapped, no questions asked.

Because slapping someone silly, always solves the problem ... what a clever sprite idea :crazy::facepalm:

[Beso]

Because slapping someone silly, always solves the problem ... what a clever sprite idea :crazy::facepalm:

Did I say silly? . You're exaggerating.:nono:

[user104658]

https://thegeekbuzz.com/news/lawyers-predict-grounds-for-amber-heard-appeal/

[GoldHeart]

https://thegeekbuzz.com/news/lawyers-predict-grounds-for-amber-heard-appeal/

I really don't think she has a strong case

[user104658]

I really don't think she has a strong case


There’s even more dodgy stuff coming out about the trial by the day. She definitely has a case.

[Liam-]

She probably can’t even afford to appeal if she can’t afford to pay the award

[GoldHeart]

There’s even more dodgy stuff coming out about the trial by the day. She definitely has a case.

Ohhhh good job the Nancy Drew's & inspector cluedo's are on the case then

[user104658]

She probably can’t even afford to appeal if she can’t afford to pay the award


They’ve already announced they plan to appeal. Sorry if that makes you sad.

[Beso]

She probably can’t even afford to appeal if she can’t afford to pay the award

Just another financially poor, battered woman..



Who cares though, huh, the guy can act.

[ThomasC]

She probably can’t even afford to appeal if she can’t afford to pay the award

Well allegedly she stayed on a 22,000 dollar a month home whilst the court case was on so I don't know how her lawyer can say she can't afford to pay Depps awarded fees...

She does have 7 million of his money though so who knows what to believe.

[GoldHeart]

Well allegedly she stayed on a 22,000 dollar a month home whilst the court case was on so I don't know how her lawyer can say she can't afford to pay Depps awarded fees...

She does have 7 million of his money though so who knows what to believe.

Because she doesn't want to part with a penny . You know what happened with the lies regarding charity donations. She's stingy , aswell as a huge liar.

[user104658]

Well allegedly she stayed on a 22,000 dollar a month home whilst the court case was on so I don't know how her lawyer can say she can't afford to pay Depps awarded fees...

She does have 7 million of his money though so who knows what to believe.


“His money”? You think that divided funds in a divorce settlement are still rightfully the property of the financially better-off partner at the time of separation?

[ThomasC]

“His money”? You think that divided funds in a divorce settlement are still rightfully the property of the financially better-off partner at the time of separation?

Legally, no... My opinion, under the circumstances, no way.

Her supposed lavish lifestyle she has been living, but can't uphold her donation, sorry "pledge" to two charities. That was the divorce settlement agreement. That tells me enough about the type of person she is.

She also wanted spousal support at the time :joker:

She was reportedly earning 10,000 a month, but requested spousal support of 44,000 for basic spending

[user104658]

Legally, no... My opinion, under the circumstances, no way.

Her supposed lavish lifestyle she has been living, but can't uphold her donation, sorry "pledge" to two charities. That was the divorce settlement agreement. That tells me enough about the type of person she is.


I don’t think it was part of the agreement, it was just something she said she was going to do, then didn’t (for whatever reason). She was under no obligation to donate the money to charity so I don’t see what business it is of anyone else’s that she didn’t go ahead with the donation (or why). Seems it was a pretty good call to hold onto it, since Depp would have sued her regardless.

[ThomasC]

I don’t think it was part of the agreement, it was just something she said she was going to do, then didn’t (for whatever reason). She was under no obligation to donate the money to charity so I don’t see what business it is of anyone else’s that she didn’t go ahead with the donation (or why). Seems it was a pretty good call to hold onto it, since Depp would have sued her regardless.

Ah right, nice to see you defend such lovely business.

Well he didn't sue her for 13 months after having the money and she wouldn't have known that.

There's a lot you can lie about, but lying about donating to charity, why would you do such a thing...just shows her true colours.

Could ask yourself what of anyones business the whole trial is, bit then what would we be discussing it for so......quite irrelevant

[user104658]

Ah right, nice to see you defend such lovely business.

Well he didn't sue her for 13 months after having the money and she wouldn't have known that.

There's a lot you can lie about, but lying about donating to charity, why would you do such a thing...just shows her true colours.

Could ask yourself what of anyones business the whole trial is, bit then what would we be discussing it for so......quite irrelevant


The whole trial has massive implications for victim’s rights and the reporting of domestic violence… divorce settlements and charity donations are really no one else’s business.

I’m not “defending” not giving a pledged donation per se, but I’m also not going to pretend to have any insight into why the pledged donations weren’t made. It would be total guesswork. I also don’t think it’s a particular problem if someone simply changes their mind about a donation… and I’d apply that to anyone. I appreciate that that’s purely a matter of opinion though.

None of it has any bearing on this libel/domestic violence case, of course.

[Liam-]

Her ‘donation’ held massive weight for the judge over here according to his own report, so seeing as now we know that was a mahoosive lie, it’s very relevant as a matter in these cases

[user104658]

Her ‘donation’ held massive weight for the judge over here according to his own report, so seeing as now we know that was a mahoosive lie, it’s very relevant as a matter in these cases


What makes it relevant to Depp’s libel claim against Heard?

[GoldHeart]

What makes it relevant to Depp’s libel claim against Heard?

It makes everything relevant actually

[ThomasC]

The whole trial has massive implications for victim’s rights and the reporting of domestic violence… divorce settlements and charity donations are really no one else’s business.

I’m not “defending” not giving a pledged donation per se, but I’m also not going to pretend to have any insight into why the pledged donations weren’t made. It would be total guesswork. I also don’t think it’s a particular problem if someone simply changes their mind about a donation… and I’d apply that to anyone. I appreciate that that’s purely a matter of opinion though.

None of it has any bearing on this libel/domestic violence case, of course.

If you watched the trial and the parts where this is discussed in depth then it wouldn't be total guess work at all.

It does having bearing because it factors into whether she is a trustworthy person and if she's going to lie about that then what else can she lie about. It was part of the very messy divorce settlement in a marriage she claims was sexually and physically abusive so why would it not be relevant?. You can't just come to a conclusion without discussing all the events that led up to that op-ed article. It's called foundation.

[user104658]

It makes everything relevant actually


“Everything”? I don’t actually know what you’re talking about with this one sorry.

If you watched the trial and the parts where this is discussed in depth then it wouldn't be total guess work at all.



It does having bearing because it factors into whether she is a trustworthy person and if she's going to lie about that then what else can she lie about. It was part of the very messy divorce settlement in a marriage she claims was sexually and physically abusive so why would it not be relevant?. You can't just come to a conclusion without discussing all the events that led up to that op-ed article. It's called foundation.


So your contention is that people should always be assumed to be liars (and thus likely to be guilty of libel) if it can be proven that they’ve ever been dishonest?

That’s a pretty high bar I have to say, but each to their own I suppose. I don’t think that’s how the legal system actually works but we’ll see what happens I suppose.

[GoldHeart]

You do know TS , if someone promises to do something and then DOESN'T then how can anyone take them seriously again?? . Especially when that same person parades on TV talking about how 'good they are ' ,for giving money to charities to help other victims / less fortunate people.

This was clearly done to gain sympathy and she never had any intention of donating the money. She sat on her ass on the money ,she had 13 months to do it . She can't blame JD on this one.

[user104658]

You do know TS , if someone promises to do something and then DOESN'T then how can anyone take them seriously again?? . Especially when that same person parades on TV talking about how 'good they are ' ,for giving money to charities to help other victims / less fortunate people.

This was clearly done to gain sympathy and she never had any intention of donating the money. She sat on her ass on the money ,she had 13 months to do it . She can't blame JD on this one.


I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

[GoldHeart]

I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

:facepalm: But the difference being ...how many of us would publicly LIE about donating money to charity, it was clearly done to give herself a' halo image' . It's a pretty decieving thing to do , and it doesn't look good . I honestly think she's a selfish person.

And now the fact she's claiming to be poor ,is another tactic to get out of paying or to not pay the full amount. This woman has been living in luxury ,for the past 6 weeks in some fancy expensive home. There's no way she's struggling financially.

Plus she still has the money from the divorce settlement that she NEVER donated. She just wants to keep everything. She's selfish & greedy. I wonder if she'll beg Musk to help her.

[user104658]

:facepalm: But the difference being ...how many of us would publicly LIE about donating money to charity, it was clearly done to give herself a' halo image' . It's a pretty decieving thing to do , and it doesn't look good . I honestly think she's a selfish person.

I honestly don’t mean to be flippant here but … so what? Where is the idea that only good people can be domestic abuse victims coming from? A lot of people who end up in troubled relationships are troubled people.

And now the fact she's claiming to be poor ,is another tactic to get out of paying or to not pay the full amount. This woman has been living in luxury ,for the past 6 weeks in some fancy expensive home. There's no way she's struggling financially.

Plus she still has the money from the divorce settlement that she NEVER donated. She just wants to keep everything. She's selfish & greedy. I wonder if she'll beg Musk to help her.

She can’t just say “don’t have it sorry lol” and then not pay it - they can look into her finances, it doesn’t rely purely on what she says she has, there’s be no point in lying. Obviously people can’t get away with avoiding court fines by just playing poor. That would be a pretty useless system.

There is of course a pretty big gap between “struggling financially” and “having over $10 million dollars in liquid assets immediately available”.

[GoldHeart]

I honestly don’t mean to be flippant here but … so what? Where is the idea that only good people can be domestic abuse victims coming from? A lot of people who end up in troubled relationships are troubled people.



She can’t just say “don’t have it sorry lol” and then not pay it - they can look into her finances, it doesn’t rely purely on what she says she has, there’s be no point in lying. Obviously people can’t get away with avoiding court fines by just playing poor. That would be a pretty useless system.

There is of course a pretty big gap between “struggling financially” and “having over $10 million dollars in liquid assets immediately available”.

This isn't just lying about giving £100 to charity, which would be pocket change to her anyway. This is a really huge amount. which makes it worse.

Legally they're supposed to pay, but i'm sure i've heard of cases where people still haven't paid the damages that they owe.... and a long time has past . whether it's due to claiming bankruptcy or what i don't know .

Either way SHE HAS the MONEY , we all know that.

[bots]

This isn't just lying about giving £100 to charity, which would be pocket change to her anyway. This is a really huge amount. which makes it worse.

Legally they're supposed to pay, but i'm sure i've heard of cases where people still haven't paid the damages that they owe.... and a long time has past . whether it's due to claiming bankruptcy or what i don't know .

Either way SHE HAS the MONEY , we all know that.

all these comments on her pledge to charity are purely vindictive. People change their minds all the time. That's life

[ThomasC]

“Everything”? I don’t actually know what you’re talking about with this one sorry.




So your contention is that people should always be assumed to be liars (and thus likely to be guilty of libel) if it can be proven that they’ve ever been dishonest?

That’s a pretty high bar I have to say, but each to their own I suppose. I don’t think that’s how the legal system actually works but we’ll see what happens I suppose.

It's not as black and white as that otherwise there wouldn't have been a 6 week trial, but I strongly disagree that the divorce settlement has nothing to do with the trial. ...and no it is innocent until proven guilty, she was found guilty of a lot of stuff with the evidence.

A guy testified from ACLU who said that the only money received was from Elon Musk on behalf of Amber Heard.

Amber had said she has donated the money,
In 2018, Heard appeared on Dutch talk show RTL Late Night and said: ‘$7million in total was donated – I split it between the ACLU and the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. I wanted nothing.’

There's video of her saying it. When asked about this in court she admitted she hadn't paid anything. Took her a while and she said she used pledge and donate interchangeable when we all know they mean two different things. She said she couldn't because she was being sued despite Depp not sueing her until 13 months later. .....and he only sued her back in 2018 because of allegations she made about him.

So yeah I think it does have relevance.

Other factual evidence

1) Heard admitting on audio to hitting Depp. Taunting him telling him how he should feel, telling him that she didn't punch him, she hit him.....telling him he's fine. She goes on saying she started a physical fight and telling him to grow up

2) Audio clip, Amber admitting to throwing pots and pans at Depp.

3) Audio clip, Amber taunting him telling him to tell the world and see who believes him.

4) Audio clip, Johnny asking for space, saying he wants to see his daughter. Amber Heard being very histrionic

5) pictures of Depps face, scratched saying Amber came at him with her nails

6) faeces in bed.
Depps security guard testified that Amber left this in his bed and that it was a joke gone wrong

7) make up that Heard claimed to have used during their relationship to cover up bruises seems to have been a lie. The company of the product came forward and said the product wasn't released Until 2017

8) Depps severed finger although I will admit that this can't be 100% proved in evidence so how it actually happened we don't know, one word against another.

9) Edited photos of bruises. Claimed to be taken at different times but same time stamp and file name.

10) TMZ footage where Amber tipped off papps so they knew where she'd be, file getting restraining order. Pictured with bruise on face as came out court. Not there next day when papped. This footage/tip to TMZ was verified to be from Heard because of the time it came in and when it was published, 15 minutes, and that could only be if it came from the copyright holder.

11) Many, many others who did not see these bruises and injuries.

12) inviting others to Johnny's apartment,,,remember that her and her sister lives their rent free.

13) divorce settlement which we've already discussed.

[ThomasC]

I’m not saying it’s a good thing to do but I don’t live in make-believe land where anyone is perfect, in fact I don’t even expect people to be particularly “good” most of the time.

Her being dishonest about this has nothing to do with the DV claim to me. I don’t believe for a second that you, me or ThomasC could claim that we’ve never been dishonest about anything in our lives. Show me anyone who would and I’ll show you the real liar.

Of course I have been dishonest in my life, but saying I've donated to charity when I know full well I haven't then change my story later on and lie again to say I couldn't pay because I was being sued, no fecking way. It's sick in my opinion. If you change your mind, fine, but don't lie about it. She says the money meant nothing to her,,,really.

[ThomasC]

all these comments on her pledge to charity are purely vindictive. People change their minds all the time. That's life

Don't put people into your own brackets.

I've been dishonest in life, I'm sure we all have. I wouldn't lie about giving money to dying children and to support abused women. If she wanted to change her mind then she should have just said, she didn't. She went on national TV and said outright she had donated 7 million to charity. Lie. Then when questioned on this she makes out pledge and donate are the same thing and she hasn't paid because of the legal fees with Depp sueing her...he didn't sue for 13 months later after she made allegations.

[user104658]

There’s a lot to work through here but honestly I keep coming back to the same overall message, which is what I keep coming back to a lot with this thread (and the social media on this);

“If he did hit her, it’s OK because she provoked him, and it’s justified because she’s not a good person [with evidence of her doing stuff]”.

I don’t think this is an uncommon mindset, in fact I know it isn’t because there’s been some study into the correlation between the extent that victims are believed, and their perceived “innocence” or “worthiness” (these papers broadly come under the heading of “The Imperfect Victim” if you’re inclined to look up the concept).

I find it a pretty loathsome mindset to be honest, no “poor behaviour” justifies violence and even mutual abuse is still abuse. She should still be able to speak out about it. As I’ve said before; if he has a different view or recollection of their relationship, there’s never been anything stopping him from publishing a counter-narrative.

[ThomasC]

There’s a lot to work through here but honestly I keep coming back to the same overall message, which is what I keep coming back to a lot with this thread (and the social media on this);

“If he did hit her, it’s OK because she provoked him, and it’s justified because she’s not a good person [with evidence of her doing stuff]”.

I don’t think this is an uncommon mindset, in fact I know it isn’t because there’s been some study into the correlation between the extent that victims are believed, and their perceived “innocence” or “worthiness” (these papers broadly come under the heading of “The Imperfect Victim” if you’re inclined to look up the concept).

I find it a pretty loathsome mindset to be honest, no “poor behaviour” justifies violence and even mutual abuse is still abuse. She should still be able to speak out about it. As I’ve said before; if he has a different view or recollection of their relationship, there’s never been anything stopping him from publishing a counter-narrative.

Absolutely not. I don't condone any violence, but will always try and understand the psychology to it....what makes that person reach that level of 'crisis'. Maybe it's my job which has made me think like that. As I will try to understand why Heard has blatantly lied about certain stuff... My personal take, and it's one that some will disagree on, is because she has traits of HPD, BPD. ...or at least part of the reason.

She should be able to speak about it, but someone else should be able to sue against it too. These sort of accusations ruin people's lives, regardless of whether a celebrity or not. It's either going to ruin the accused or ruin the abused....or both...

[user104658]

The ability to successfully sue someone speaking about abuse is functionally no different to saying that people can't speak about abuse, the requirement for some sort of concrete proof might as well be saying "Yeah you can speak about it, but you must first ride to the lollipop kingdom atop a unicorn and ask permission from the leprechaun king".

At the very least the burden of proof needs to be substantially higher than it was in this trial, and it should be assessed by legal and domestic violence experts and not a jury of peers. I have my misgivings about trial by jury in general but that's a different discussion and I can see why jury trials exist to mitigate things like authoritarianism and corruption. But I don't think it's appropriate for DV. Nor was the public nature of the trial - the judge's decision to allow it to be televised is hugely questionable.

[bots]

the judge knew it would be a media circus and you have to wonder what the motivation was behind televising it. I'm fine with jury trials though

[user104658]

the judge knew it would be a media circus and you have to wonder what the motivation was behind televising it. I'm fine with jury trials though

It was supposedly because of the number of people trying to access the courtroom, as obviously the public are allowed to "spectate".

I think she failed to consider "the internet element" though, and how significantly that could potentially influence proceedings.

[Beso]

When some jurors are coming out to say they were influenced by he internet element then you know there is a massive chance of his being a mis trial

[Liam-]

The judge chose to televise it to lessen the burden on the courtroom because she knew it was going to draw a large number of eyes

[user104658]

The judge chose to televise it to lessen the burden on the courtroom because she knew it was going to draw a large number of eyes

I think she failed to consider the modern-day impact of this though, i.e. the TikTok meme snowball effect and the large amounts of editing/manipulation of the footage on YouTube. The situation with a televised high-profile trial isn't the same now as it was even 3 years ago... let alone the last time there was a celebrity trial of a similar scale (decades since there was anything that got THIS much attention).

[GoldHeart]

AH failed because of her lies ,she kept digging a bigger hole each time.

[Niamh.]

Non violent hero back in court for assault [emoji849]

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/06/10/62a29e3ee2704e98a18b45ca.html

[Beso]

Non violent hero back in court for assault [emoji849]

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/06/10/62a29e3ee2704e98a18b45ca.html

Brave man, the last person to civily sue him hasnt been seen since.

[thesheriff443]

Non violent hero back in court for assault [emoji849]

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/06/10/62a29e3ee2704e98a18b45ca.html

His defence was he couldn’t hit any one, he got a bad finger, remember.

[Zizu]

It reads like just one more chancer ... trying it on .. 4 years later .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThomasC]

Non violent hero back in court for assault [emoji849]

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/celebrities/2022/06/10/62a29e3ee2704e98a18b45ca.html

I find it quite odd and a coincidence that this has come out just now.

Apparently another script supervisor has proof it never happened.

[user104658]

“Everyone else is liars except Johnny Depp reeeee!!!”

:joker:

In other news, there’s talk that he might drop the money he was awarded in the Heard case if she agrees not to appeal (so the civil judgement would stand, but she wouldn’t have to pay him anything).

Tells me one of two things. Either he thinks she has a decent chance on appeal, OR he’s just basically admitting that the point of the trial was to publicly shame her and not about the money and he considers it “job done”.

Some of the anti-Heard mob will not be happy though… the pitchfork sad sacks don’t just want Depp vindicated, they want to see her punished as well. Some of the MRA crowd will likely even turn on Depp for being “weak” and not following through, if this does go ahead. Because a big part of Depp’s support base in this trial doesn’t give two hoots about Johnny Depp, they came to watch a witch trial and they want to see the punishment.

[ThomasC]

“Everyone else is liars except Johnny Depp reeeee!!!”

:joker:

In other news, there’s talk that he might drop the money he was awarded in the Heard case if she agrees not to appeal (so the civil judgement would stand, but she wouldn’t have to pay him anything).

Tells me one of two things. Either he thinks she has a decent chance on appeal, OR he’s just basically admitting that the point of the trial was to publicly shame her and not about the money and he considers it “job done”.

Some of the anti-Heard mob will not be happy though… the pitchfork sad sacks don’t just want Depp vindicated, they want to see her punished as well. Some of the MRA crowd will likely even turn on Depp for being “weak” and not following through, if this does go ahead. Because a big part of Depp’s support base in this trial doesn’t give two hoots about Johnny Depp, they came to watch a witch trial and they want to see the punishment.

It tells me that it was actually never about the money. He could have sued a lot more than 50 million, does he really need the money? No he doesn't. Does Amber Heard, yes probably very much so. What it was about more than anything was clearing his name which he has done. He'd be doing her a favour if he dropped the money as isn't she suppose to be broke? I don't think Johnny is that bothered either way as his name has been cleared which is what it was all about for him. As soon as he'd done his part he was in the UK moving on with his life.

[GoldHeart]

It tells me that it was actually never about the money. He could have sued a lot more than 50 million, does he really need the money? No he doesn't. Does Amber Heard, yes probably very much so. What it was about more than anything was clearing his name which he has done. He'd be doing her a favour if he dropped the money as isn't she suppose to be broke? I don't think Johnny is that bothered either way as his name has been cleared which is what it was all about for him. As soon as he'd done his part he was in the UK moving on with his life.

I pretty much agree with this.

But I still think she's lying about being broke.

[Alf]

Here's a snippet from an Amber Heard Interview

I shouldn't laugh, she looks troubled.


1536754773000593414

[user104658]

Here's a snippet from an Amber Heard Interview

I shouldn't laugh, she looks troubled.


1536754773000593414

She's repeatedly condeded throughout this entire saga that Depp is a far better actor than her - which he objectively IS and people should really take into account when weighing up "who is more convincing in court". Of course he's convincing ... he's a good actor with a long and successful career:shrug:

[user104658]

What it was about more than anything was clearing his name which he has done. He'd be doing her a favour if he dropped the money as isn't she suppose to be broke? I don't think Johnny is that bothered either way as his name has been cleared which is what it was all about for him.

His name hasn't been cleared. The people who believed him at the beginning of the trial still believe him now, the people who didn't still don't, absolutely nothing has changed other than it getting more publicity. The idea that Depp now has unilateral support is a lie, there always has been (and still is) plenty of support for Amber Heard, it just doesn't get as much publicity. If anything, he drew an absolute BOATLOAD more attention to the allegations. It was about publicly shaming her. And yes, that part he did achieve.

As soon as he'd done his part he was in the UK moving on with his life.

Yes he was in the UK where there was (and still is) a court judgement against him over the same issue (which still stands regardless of events stateside). Bit odd that he likes being in the UK so much.

[ThomasC]

She's repeatedly condeded throughout this entire saga that Depp is a far better actor than her - which he objectively IS and people should really take into account when weighing up "who is more convincing in court". Of course he's convincing ... he's a good actor with a long and successful career:shrug:

Well she certainly wasn't convincng. Probably why most people do not believe her. Her acting was bloody atrocious. She can turn it on like clockwork and very badly too, histrionics very badly, but not a single tear. ....despite everything she has said she feels no ill will towards him though even though he raped her with a bottle and did all this disgusting stuff to her.

Nah, still dont believe very little that comes out her mouth.

[ThomasC]

His name hasn't been cleared. The people who believed him at the beginning of the trial still believe him now, the people who didn't still don't, absolutely nothing has changed other than it getting more publicity. The idea that Depp now has unilateral support is a lie, there always has been (and still is) plenty of support for Amber Heard, it just doesn't get as much publicity. If anything, he drew an absolute BOATLOAD more attention to the allegations. It was about publicly shaming her. And yes, that part he did achieve.



Yes he was in the UK where there was (and still is) a court judgement against him over the same issue (which still stands regardless of events stateside). Bit odd that he likes being in the UK so much.

You can believe what you like and I will believe what I like along with many others :hee:

[GoldHeart]

She's repeatedly condeded throughout this entire saga that Depp is a far better actor than her - which he objectively IS and people should really take into account when weighing up "who is more convincing in court". Of course he's convincing ... he's a good actor with a long and successful career:shrug:

For goodness sake TS , can't you see AH is digging herself a bigger hole here .

[ThomasC]

For goodness sake TS , can't you see AH is digging herself a bigger hole here .

She's certainly milking it.

She needs to be careful here if she wants to appeal it as this interview she is doing could come back to haunt her.

You don't see a need for Johnny to do an interview....oh wait, he's busy getting on with his life

[Crimson Dynamo]

She is continuing to show that the jury got it right

[ThomasC]

She is continuing to show that the jury got it right

It's way too soon, why do an interview now?

Isn't she continuing to slander his name? Continue to defame him despite the outcome...like I say if she does appeal this is not good.

I just can't deal with the overly false facial expressions.

Ridiculously insincere. You don't need to be a good judge of character to realise that. It's like a rat up a drain pipe, just stinks.

If she really wanted to do an interview she could have let things die down a bit and then people may even respond better.

She destroys any type of credibility if she had any to start with.

I've read so many comments from men and women who have genuinely suffered and they don't buy it either. Lots from those who were Amber supports and believed her to start with, but no longer do.

People will go on about the sun trial, but evidence certain evidence wasn't allowed in the UK trial and visa versa....thankfully this time Johnny got to have his say

She comes across as a true narcissist who can't admit fault

[user104658]

You can try to claim that there’s no support for Amber Heard all day long but it won’t make it any more true. Yes Johnny Depp has the bigger support base but Amber Heard also has a large support base, and MANY of those people are survivors of domestic abuse.

“All the abuse survivors I’ve spoken to think she’s an evil liar too!!! No one believes her!” Isn’t really going to cut it as an argument. Many people believe her. Many people can see Depp for what he is (a nasty aggressive drunk). He pretended all the way through the trial that he was no longer a drunk - that’s been debunked now too. Still the same guy.

As you say Thomas and as I already said - people believe what they believe and that hasn’t changed. Some people believe her. Some people believe him. I acknowledge that many people believe and support Depp. You on the other hand seem to want to continually insist that “no one” believes and supports Amber Heard but unfortunately for you, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true :joker:

[user104658]

My two cents on why she did the interview? Because she knows it’ll “press his buttons” and she wants him to know that even though he won the court case he’ll never truly win, because he’ll always be a frustrated bitter old boozehound. I bet his cupboard doors suffered when he saw she was still talking about him. Hope he didn’t lose another finger :worry:.

[GoldHeart]

She's certainly milking it.

She needs to be careful here if she wants to appeal it as this interview she is doing could come back to haunt her.

You don't see a need for Johnny to do an interview....oh wait, he's busy getting on with his life

She doesn't care about being careful, she even rudely referred to the witnesses as 'randos' or 'randoms' .

[ThomasC]

You can try to claim that there’s no support for Amber Heard all day long but it won’t make it any more true. Yes Johnny Depp has the bigger support base but Amber Heard also has a large support base, and MANY of those people are survivors of domestic abuse.

“All the abuse survivors I’ve spoken to think she’s an evil liar too!!! No one believes her!” Isn’t really going to cut it as an argument. Many people believe her. Many people can see Depp for what he is (a nasty aggressive drunk). He pretended all the way through the trial that he was no longer a drunk - that’s been debunked now too. Still the same guy.

As you say Thomas and as I already said - people believe what they believe and that hasn’t changed. Some people believe her. Some people believe him. I acknowledge that many people believe and support Depp. You on the other hand seem to want to continually insist that “no one” believes and supports Amber Heard but unfortunately for you, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true :joker:

I've never said there's no support for Amber Heard, those are your words.

Of course she will have some support. I just struggle to find much support and I read a lot of comments and have done since the trial started. If you want to link me to a video with comments where there is lots of Amber support then please do just in case I have missed it.

How has it been debunked? Show me evidence he is a drunk other than 6 cans of Stella which is quite normal for a guy who's just got his life back

My two cents on why she did the interview? Because she knows it’ll “press his buttons” and she wants him to know that even though he won the court case he’ll never truly win, because he’ll always be a frustrated bitter old boozehound. I bet his cupboard doors suffered when he saw she was still talking about him. Hope he didn’t lose another finger :worry:.

:joker::joker::joker:

I've heard it all now. Press buttons, yes exactly the lady she is :joker::joker: such a serious matter that she finds the need to press buttons,,,hmmm OK. Who is it doing an interview? Amber, not Johnny. I really don't think he's bothered now, he's busy touring whilst she is doing an interview.

He has won. He's won in the public domain and he's won in a trial he was ACTUALLY part of. You changed your tune btw from saying he hasn't won in previous posts of yours.

[rusticgal]

Well she certainly wasn't convincng. Probably why most people do not believe her. Her acting was bloody atrocious. She can turn it on like clockwork and very badly too, histrionics very badly, but not a single tear. ....despite everything she has said she feels no ill will towards him though even though he raped her with a bottle and did all this disgusting stuff to her.

Nah, still dont believe very little that comes out her mouth.

I agree with everything you said here..

[user104658]

I've never said there's no support for Amber Heard, those are your words.

Of course she will have some support. I just struggle to find much support and I read a lot of comments and have done since the trial started. If you want to link me to a video with comments where there is lots of Amber support then please do just in case I have missed it.

…video comments? Do you mean on YouTube/TikTok etc. of issues surrounding the trial? That’s not the sort of support I’m talking about, I mean support from actual adults who understand the serious issues at play, not YouTube comment trogs and teenagers laughing at “funny” court meme moments and simping for Depp and/or his lawyer.

She has plenty of support from domestic violence advocacy groups and victims of DV in places where adult conversations are taking place.

“Video comments” indeed. It at least explains why you’ve come to the conclusion that the support is near-unilaterally for Depp.

How has it been debunked? Show me evidence he is a drunk other than 6 cans of Stella which is quite normal for a guy who's just got his life back

It’s not “normal” for a supposedly-recovering alcoholic who has claimed that he’s now sober though is it. It would of course be deemed a relapse. If he ever actually stopped.




I've heard it all now. Press buttons, yes exactly the lady she is :joker::joker: such a serious matter that she finds the need to press buttons,,,hmmm OK. Who is it doing an interview? Amber, not Johnny. I really don't think he's bothered now, he's busy touring whilst she is doing an interview.

He has won. He's won in the public domain and he's won in a trial he was ACTUALLY part of. You changed your tune btw from saying he hasn't won in previous posts of yours.

I said he hasn’t won? The trial? Obviously he “won” the trial, the jury ruled in his favour. Whether or not it sticks depends on the outcome of any appeal but I’ve obviously never denied the outcome of the televised trial :think:.

On the wider definition of him “winning” though - as has been said, it wasn’t really about the money for Depp. Some think it was about “clearing his name”, I counter that it was about “making her hit the wall, hard” (Depp’s own words), shaming her, getting her to shut up and having the final word. I think Amber Heard knows Johnny Depp far better than you or I do, and thus she knows this, and thus she knows it’ll piss on his picnic if she continues to talk about it. He gets the trial win but he doesn’t get the win that he wanted; he doesn’t get to dominate her.

I hope she writes a book about him :). But I hope he buys the paperback version - too risky to have him throwing around a hardback during the inevitable wine-tantrum.

[ThomasC]

…video comments? Do you mean on YouTube/TikTok etc. of issues surrounding the trial? That’s not the sort of support I’m talking about, I mean support from actual adults who understand the serious issues at play, not YouTube comment trogs and teenagers laughing at “funny” court meme moments and simping for Depp and/or his lawyer.

She has plenty of support from domestic violence advocacy groups and victims of DV in places where adult conversations are taking place.

“Video comments” indeed. It at least explains why you’ve come to the conclusion that the support is near-unilaterally for Depp.



It’s not “normal” for a supposedly-recovering alcoholic who has claimed that he’s now sober though is it. It would of course be deemed a relapse. If he ever actually stopped.






I said he hasn’t won? The trial? Obviously he “won” the trial, the jury ruled in his favour. Whether or not it sticks depends on the outcome of any appeal but I’ve obviously never denied the outcome of the televised trial :think:.

On the wider definition of him “winning” though - as has been said, it wasn’t really about the money for Depp. Some think it was about “clearing his name”, I counter that it was about “making her hit the wall, hard” (Depp’s own words), shaming her, getting her to shut up and having the final word. I think Amber Heard knows Johnny Depp far better than you or I do, and thus she knows this, and thus she knows it’ll piss on his picnic if she continues to talk about it. He gets the trial win but he doesn’t get the win that he wanted; he doesn’t get to dominate her.

I hope she writes a book about him :). But I hope he buys the paperback version - too risky to have him throwing around a hardback during the inevitable wine-tantrum.

Yes I have read lots of comments from adults and the majority support Depp. I don't use Tiktock and have watched very reliable sources including legal channels. I don't deny there is support for her, but it's really underwhelming. I'm happy to be proven wrong here because maybe I'm just going mad. A lot of people understand it quite clearly so that just doesn't wash with me. You're going to have Depp fans who will believe him no matter what though, that's just obvious, but there will be a lot who objectively don't believe her not because they're a fan of Depp, but because that is their opinion based on everything they have seen.

He doesn't get to dominate her? Do you really think he wants anything more to do with her? He wanted to clear his name. I would understand why he would want to shame her and for her to hit the wall hard, not in the literal sense, if I had been accused of what he has.

All this interview is damage her even more. She said she wants to move on with her life and for this to be over. Now, as you describe, she is trying to press buttons and piss him off...which I find quote laughable for you to come out with as it just shows how petty, fame hungry, insincere money grabber she is.

I really don't think she's pissing Depp off, most probably a lot of the public. She loves him remember and feels no bad for him

[Liam-]

She’s further proving herself to be a very disturbed and delusional person, it looks like she’s almost bordering on being obsessed with Johnny and she’s really walking the thin line of redefaming him in these interviews which could cause her even more trouble than she’s already in, someone in her circle needs to sit her down, have a word with her and stop enabling someone who very obviously needs some serious help and I really hope she gets it and reflects on the damage she has done to Johnny and herself.

[user104658]

You mean the support she has is underwhelming in comparison to the support that Johnny Depp has. She has a lot of support, he happens to have far more for various reasons. I’m sure SOME are just people who on balance believe him, that would be reasonable - but the vast majority are mindless, often very young,“#JusticeForJohnny” drones who copy-pasted their opinion from the latest YouTube video on the subject.

So does she have lots of support? Yes, by numbers, as much as if not far more than most domestic abuse victims.

Does she have lots of support when weighed against Depp’s? No. Depp is more popular than Heard by orders of magnitude. That’s not in dispute, but it also means nothing, other than throwing the result of a JURY DECIDED trial into serious question.

Imagine putting the most popular kid in class up against the kid no one likes and then deciding who’s the more truthful of the two on the result of a vote from the other kids. A quick way to find out precisely nowt.

[user104658]

She’s further proving herself to be a very disturbed and delusional person, it looks like she’s almost bordering on being obsessed with Johnny and she’s really walking the thin line of redefaming him in these interviews which could cause her even more trouble than she’s already in, someone in her circle needs to sit her down, have a word with her and stop enabling someone who very obviously needs some serious help and I really hope she gets it and reflects on the damage she has done to Johnny and herself.


Or she should keep talking about her experiences to anyone who will listen, to back up the millions of victims of DV who never get justice and to let women know that they don’t have to be silenced by legal bullying. Just another interpretation of course.

Repeating things already covered in the trial can’t be deemed further defamation. If anything they did her a favour by insisting on the long drawn out circus clownery.

Sorry if that makes you sad.

[GoldHeart]

Or she should keep talking about her experiences to anyone who will listen, to back up the millions of victims of DV who never get justice and to let women know that they don’t have to be silenced by legal bullying. Just another interpretation of course.

Repeating things already covered in the trial can’t be deemed further defamation. If anything they did her a favour by insisting on the long drawn out circus clownery.

Sorry if that makes you sad.

What else is there for her to talk about?, these interviews do her NO favours. Especially when she scoffs at the witnesses and calls them 'randos'. She just sounds bitter for losing,she does not sound like a DV victim ...she never has .

The interviewer has even run circles around her,and made her look more foolish. She says she still has "love" for the bloke that
supposedly abused her with a bottle?!? Seriously, more like she's still obsessed with him.

[Niamh.]

What else is there for her to talk about?, these interviews do her NO favours. Especially when she scoffs at the witnesses and calls them 'randos'. She just sounds bitter for losing,she does not sound like a DV victim ...she never has .

The interviewer has even run circles around her,and made her look more foolish. She says she still has "love" for the bloke that
supposedly abused her with a bottle?!? Seriously, more like she's still obsessed with him.

What does a Domestic Abuse victim sound like?

[user104658]

Does her no favours with who? Those who have already made up their mind that Depp is a pure and delicate snowflake who wouldn’t harm a fly? I don’t think that’s the aim.

[user104658]

What does a Domestic Abuse victim sound like?


Inappropriate Jack Sparrow style responses to questioning and chuckles, smirks and fist-bumps with the lawyers in court… apparently.

[ThomasC]

You mean the support she has is underwhelming in comparison to the support that Johnny Depp has. She has a lot of support, he happens to have far more for various reasons. I’m sure SOME are just people who on balance believe him, that would be reasonable - but the vast majority are mindless, often very young,“#JusticeForJohnny” drones who copy-pasted their opinion from the latest YouTube video on the subject.

So does she have lots of support? Yes, by numbers, as much as if not far more than most domestic abuse victims.

Does she have lots of support when weighed against Depp’s? No. Depp is more popular than Heard by orders of magnitude. That’s not in dispute, but it also means nothing, other than throwing the result of a JURY DECIDED trial into serious question.

Imagine putting the most popular kid in class up against the kid no one likes and then deciding who’s the more truthful of the two on the result of a vote from the other kids. A quick way to find out precisely nowt.

So the vast majority of people are mindless because they don't believe Amber? Really? Often very young? Yes some, but don't kid yourself. It has been watched by a huge audience, they're not all mindless young fans of Johnny Depp. I wouldn't consider myself mindless, a fan or that young. It's just a screwed analysis of the real situation as much as you want to believe it's spotty teenagers with an obsession for Depp.

I would add that a jury decided trial can sometimes be fairer because rather than one judge deciding you have several people. I think it's insulting to insinuate that they broke the law by not doing their duty after giving up so much time to be there. They also found Depp guilty on one account so again I think it makes it more credible.

The US has stronger free speech protection so if anything the odds were not in Depps favour to start. Evidence was able to be presented in the US that the UK court did not allow.

[Niamh.]

Inappropriate Jack Sparrow style responses to questioning and chuckles, smirks and fist-bumps with the lawyers in court… apparently.

Oh yes, silly me

[ThomasC]

What does a Domestic Abuse victim sound like?

Each case will be different and has many facets.

A lot of myths of how one should present who has experienced DV.

I know you haven't watched much of proceedings, but I genuinely do not believe her for many reasons. Neither do I think he's an angel, far from it, but I can't logically work my head around black and white evidence.

Her whole body language and emotions is off imo though. I can spot a fake and false person a mile off and yet I consider myself to be extremely open minded and like to analyse what makes an individual tick. Probably my job, but I look at the psychology and there is always a reason someone is the way they are.

[ThomasC]

I think she became besotted with him. Massively and deeply fell in love, but a very toxic love that was really unhealthy. I don't think she could deal with him not being there. He wanted space and she couldn't cope with that. Even now, I still think she absolutely idolises him and would probably take him back if he would let her. Love can be blinding and I always think of being unable to see the wood through the trees when love takes over and you become irrational, manic, obsessive and controlling.

If she does have BPD then she will struggle to relate to others. She will view the world differently and have issues forming and maintaining friendships/relationships. She will be emotionally unregulated.

[user104658]

So the vast majority of people are mindless because they don't believe Amber? Really?

No no I think the majority of people commenting on these videos are mindless and are just repeating what they’ve heard elsewhere. That’s why you’ll see the exact same “revelations” with the exact same phrasing cropping up time after time.

The tide of that then favours one type of video and one type of analysis over the other (in this case, often MRA rhetoric or even directly from MRA accounts) and that in turn furthers more videos along the same lines. That’s how these viral algorithms work. Once a zeitgeist narrative takes off it quickly starts to look like the only narrative m. It’s an illusion.


I would add that a jury decided trial can sometimes be fairer because rather than one judge deciding you have several people. I think it's insulting to insinuate that they broke the law by not doing their duty after giving up so much time to be there. They also found Depp guilty on one account so again I think it makes it more credible.

A jury of experts maybe, a jury of “peers” I’m afraid I just disagree, you can see above with the silly “that’s not what victims sound like” comments that average people simply don’t understand the nuances of abuse scenarios and are confused if it doesn’t look “like what they would expect” … when it very rarely does.

I didn’t say anything about them breaking the law or not doing their duty but to suggest that jury verdicts are infallible is of course just false; appeals exist (and are regularly won) for a reason. People have been put on death row for decades only to be found innocent because of some new emerging evidence. That’s an extreme example and murder trials usually go the “right way” because of the burden of proof required, but civil cases are a whole other matter. There’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” stipulation. One side just have to be anecdotally convincing; as we saw.

The US has stronger free speech protection so if anything the odds were not in Depps favour to start. Evidence was able to be presented in the US that the UK court did not allow.

The odds were always clearly stacked in Depp’s favour and more so with it being a televised jury trial. If you look back you’ll find me stating without very little doubt that Depp would unfortunately win the trial. I wasn’t surprised in the slightest by the outcome.

I would point out that there was evidence in the US trial that was not in the UK trial but also that evidence that was allowed in the UK trial was suppressed from the US trial (with not particularly good explanations). You might also want to look into why the trial was held in Virginia and. It California, despite neither Heard nor Depp having any significant link to Virginia. Which arguable should not even have been allowed and is likely to form part of the appeal - the Virginia Supreme Court May decide that the trial should never have taken place there in the first place.

He wouldn’t even have got to trial in California. Hence why they went window shopping for a state to hold the trial in.

[ThomasC]

No no I think the majority of people commenting on these videos are mindless and are just repeating what they’ve heard elsewhere. That’s why you’ll see the exact same “revelations” with the exact same phrasing cropping up time after time.

The tide of that then favours one type of video and one type of analysis over the other (in this case, often MRA rhetoric or even directly from MRA accounts) and that in turn furthers more videos along the same lines. That’s how these viral algorithms work. Once a zeitgeist narrative takes off it quickly starts to look like the only narrative m. It’s an illusion.




A jury of experts maybe, a jury of “peers” I’m afraid I just disagree, you can see above with the silly “that’s not what victims sound like” comments that average people simply don’t understand the nuances of abuse scenarios and are confused if it doesn’t look “like what they would expect” … when it very rarely does.

I didn’t say anything about them breaking the law or not doing their duty but to suggest that jury verdicts are infallible is of course just false; appeals exist (and are regularly won) for a reason. People have been put on death row for decades only to be found innocent because of some new emerging evidence. That’s an extreme example and murder trials usually go the “right way” because of the burden of proof required, but civil cases are a whole other matter. There’s no “beyond reasonable doubt” stipulation. One side just have to be anecdotally convincing; as we saw.



The odds were always clearly stacked in Depp’s favour and more so with it being a televised jury trial. If you look back you’ll find me stating without very little doubt that Depp would unfortunately win the trial. I wasn’t surprised in the slightest by the outcome.

I would point out that there was evidence in the US trial that was not in the UK trial but also that evidence that was allowed in the UK trial was suppressed from the US trial (with not particularly good explanations). You might also want to look into why the trial was held in Virginia and. It California, despite neither Heard nor Depp having any significant link to Virginia. Which arguable should not even have been allowed and is likely to form part of the appeal - the Virginia Supreme Court May decide that the trial should never have taken place there in the first place.

He wouldn’t even have got to trial in California. Hence why they went window shopping for a state to hold the trial in.

Completely disagree that people commenting on videos are mindless and just repeating what they have heard elsewhere. People can form their own opinions which they have done. Yeah there will be sheep and some will jump on bandwagon.

The jury were looking at evidence though, not at how one reacts although yes that would come into it.

Like I say I think the interview is damaging for appeal so soon after the case has ended too.

[user104658]

I think she became besotted with him. Massively and deeply fell in love, but a very toxic love that was really unhealthy. I don't think she could deal with him not being there. He wanted space and she couldn't cope with that. Even now, I still think she absolutely idolises him and would probably take him back if he would let her. Love can be blinding and I always think of being unable to see the wood through the trees when love takes over and you become irrational, manic, obsessive and controlling.


Sure. And this is a classic scenario for the start of abusive or mutually abusive relationships. :shrug:

All of the evidence of the trial points to them being possessive and controlling of each other, they’re both on record talking about how they had an “intense and passionate relationship”. But then we’re asked to make the logical leap that she was physically abusive, but he - someone with a proven record of violence and aggression and massive substance abuse problems - never laid a finger on her?

You apparently pride yourself in seeing the realistic path Thomas, the phrase “pull the other one, it plays jingle bells” comes to mind when I hear people suggest that Johnny Depp was a passive participant in this “intense relationship”. I think your bull**** detector must be broken on that one.

[ThomasC]

Sure. And this is a classic scenario for the start of abusive or mutually abusive relationships. :shrug:

All of the evidence of the trial points to them being possessive and controlling of each other, they’re both on record talking about how they had an “intense and passionate relationship”. But then we’re asked to make the logical leap that she was physically abusive, but he - someone with a proven record of violence and aggression and massive substance abuse problems - never laid a finger on her?

You apparently pride yourself in seeing the realistic path Thomas, the phrase “pull the other one, it plays jingle bells” comes to mind when I hear people suggest that Johnny Depp was a passive participant in this “intense relationship”. I think your bull**** detector must be broken on that one.

No the evidence presented in the US trial did not show them being possessive and controlling of each other. It showed Amber being the possessive and controlling one.

I'm not on about what proven record he has or what paparazzi he punched etc. I'm on about what I saw in THIS trial and the evidence in THIS trial.

Yes she was physically abusive, FACT and proven. Show me some evidence that he was physically abusive towards her?

[user104658]

People can form their own opinions which they have done.

On YouTube comments? Maybe 1 in 20 being generous. A huge chunk of them aren’t even people, they’re repost bots.

The jury were looking at evidence though, not at how one reacts although yes that would come into it.

They weee also (admittedly from a couple of them post-trial) looking at Social Media or discussing the Social Media coverage with family members. A point of appeal.

One juror also openly stated that he made up his mind very quickly, based entirely on their behaviour on the stand … which is not even remotely the job or a juror. Another point of appeal. A few of the jurors got a little too chatty after the trial.

Like I say I think the interview is damaging for appeal so soon after the case has ended too.

Maybe, I still understand why she did it and strongly disagree that Depp wont care. We all saw his texts. He’d have to have had a personality transplant to not be irked that she’s still talking about him.

[user104658]

No the evidence presented in the US trial did not show them being possessive and controlling of each other. It showed Amber being the possessive and controlling one.

I'm not on about what proven record he has or what paparazzi he punched etc. I'm on about what I saw in THIS trial and the evidence in THIS trial.

Yes she was physically abusive, FACT and proven. Show me some evidence that he was physically abusive towards her?


I’m not sure how much clearer I can be that my assessment of who I believe in this case and why has little if anything to do with the outcome of the trial? A three ring circus in a kangaroo court. I’m not interested. I listened to a believable account of an abusive relationship and I saw with my own eyes videos of an abusive man, and text messages of a violent individual. I believe that Amber Heard has the right to talk openly about that. I don’t care what Ted from Virginia thinks of that? It has zero bearing on my opinion. I’m not asking for Depp to be charged.

[ThomasC]

On YouTube comments? Maybe 1 in 20 being generous. A huge chunk of them aren’t even people, they’re repost bots.



They weee also (admittedly from a couple of them post-trial) looking at Social Media or discussing the Social Media coverage with family members. A point of appeal.

One juror also openly stated that he made up his mind very quickly, based entirely on their behaviour on the stand … which is not even remotely the job or a juror. Another point of appeal. A few of the jurors got a little too chatty after the trial.



Maybe, I still understand why she did it and strongly disagree that Depp wont care. We all saw his texts. He’d have to have had a personality transplant to not be irked that she’s still talking about him.

Nope not just YouTube, conversations in real life, videos of other lawyers, high degree professionals etc.

His texts that he sent in the moment? I think he's too busy to care imo.

Good luck with her appeal I guess.

[ThomasC]

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be that my assessment of who I believe in this case and why has little if anything to do with the outcome of the trial? A three ring circus in a kangaroo court. I’m not interested. I listened to a believable account of an abusive relationship and I saw with my own eyes videos of an abusive man, and text messages of a violent individual. I believe that Amber Heard has the right to talk openly about that. I don’t care what Ted from Virginia thinks of that? It has zero bearing on my opinion. I’m not asking for Depp to be charged.

Yeah and most of that abuse was from her
Everything she has done is well timed, just like this interview, she couldn't wait.

We've been through the text messages and the cupboard in depth as it's the only two things that you can really draw on from a 7 week trial with very little regard to all the other evidence submitted

[user104658]

Yeah and most of that abuse was from her
Everything she has done is well timed, just like this interview, she couldn't wait.

We've been through the text messages and the cupboard in depth as it's the only two things that you can really draw on from a 7 week trial with very little regard to all the other evidence submitted


Even you just said “most”. If you’re not saying “all” then the outcome of the trial was incorrect. The trial wasn’t to decide “who was worse”.

[ThomasC]

Even you just said “most”. If you’re not saying “all” then the outcome of the trial was incorrect. The trial wasn’t to decide “who was worse”.

I think we've been through this before too in which I admitted that the text messages were wrong and that him smashing cupboards up was violent...but I also said that I don't think that constitutes being labelled a domestic abusive because you've had enough of how you have been treated. I don't use the word so flippantly like some may do because you've had an argument with your spouse. Are we saying that I would be a domestic abuser and be labelled as such if I had a partner and had a huge argument one evening so I smash up some cupboards in a rage and start swearing? No and I don't think most people would see it like that, I would say most would probably say DV is sustained and regular.

The op -ed article accused him of sexual abuse.

You think that Amber Heard is telling the truth so I ask you for evidence that Johnny Depp sexually assaulted her and was physically abusive?

Does none of the evidence that proves factually she is a liar not matter? Does taking no responsibility mean something to you? At least Johnny was able to admit his wrongdoings.

[GoldHeart]

Oh yes, silly me

I really don't understand why people think JD is seen as some 'saviour' ,non of us defend his behaviour or his addiction problems. But we can see through AH's lies . And these interviews she's doing now is just burying herself further.

I already said it was ugly how everything is out there from both sides. But I still don't think JD ever physically abused her,which was what this whole trial was about after all. It wasn't about Saint & sinner .

[user104658]

I think we've been through this before too in which I admitted that the text messages were wrong and that him smashing cupboards up was violent...but I also said that I don't think that constitutes being labelled a domestic abusive because you've had enough of how you have been treated. I don't use the word so flippantly like some may do because you've had an argument with your spouse. Are we saying that I would be a domestic abuser and be labelled as such if I had a partner and had a huge argument one evening so I smash up some cupboards in a rage and start swearing? No and I don't think most people would see it like that, I would say most would probably say DV is sustained and regular.

This is the difference between branding a person and describing an action though; she did not say “Johnny is a domestic abuser”, she said she has experienced abuse in a relationship. The letter can be true (experiencing incidences of abuse) without the former being true (that the other partner is GENERALLY abusive). From what I saw and heard, it’s pretty clear that elements of control and emotional abuse were present from both of them in quite a sustained and regular manner. In terms of things getting physical this seems to have been more rare, and worsened later into the relationship. It’s worth noting that some of Depp’s exes - whilst defending him and saying he was never violent — HAVE described him as being at times jealous/controlling (e.g. unhappy about them talking to other men at parties).

Would I brand you an abuser if you smashed the place up and swore at a partner? No. Would I recognise those as acts that are abusive…? Sorry but yes. These actions can be explained and I’m not saying that anyone who has ever lost their cool should be forever condemned, but it shouldn’t be excused or defended either. It can be recognised as explainable but wrong. I think there are many explanations for Depp’s behaviour. I think looking at it all of this aside, his life has been full of abuse and trauma from the start and I have sympathy for that. It just doesn’t change my opinion on his relationship with Heard.

The op -ed article accused him of sexual abuse.

You think that Amber Heard is telling the truth so I ask you for evidence that Johnny Depp sexually assaulted her and was physically abusive?

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that people need to have physical evidence of sexual assault to talk about having been sexually assaulted. This is a known and massive issue; there is RARELY physical evidence of sexual assault and so having that as a requirement for speaking out is dangerously inappropriate.

FWIW my thoughts on the bottle incident;

- I believe it happened, most likely the bottle neck rather than the “whole bottle so it would have done massive damage” story that people have used as evidence that it didn’t happen.

- I think he was probably heavily inebriated at the time and MAY have believed that their “passionate argument” had turned into a weird but consensual sexual act, as by all accounts, their sex life was somewhat like that. That’s not really relevant though. Plenty of sexual assaults occur without the perpetrator realising that it wasn’t consented to. It’s still an assault, as I would hope we all know.

- it’s feasible that he either doesn’t remember or that his memory of the entire incident is murky, as by all accounts he was up to the eyeballs in booze at the time.

That’s all opinion based but there is NO physical evidence either of it happening OR of it not happening. All there is is their conflicting individual statements. As is the case with 99% of sexual assault claims.

Does none of the evidence that proves factually she is a liar not matter? Does taking no responsibility mean something to you? At least Johnny was able to admit his wrongdoings.

We’ve discussed this part before too; proving that someone has told unrelated lies is not proof that other things they have said are also lies. It simply doesn’t logically follow. It understandably may affect how likely someone is to TRUST that persons word but it means nothing beyond that in terms of likelihood.

Depp has admitted some of his wrongdoings and has avoided others. There are also verifiable lies told by Depp and his team. Again it’s not really relevant.

[ThomasC]

This is the difference between branding a person and describing an action though; she did not say “Johnny is a domestic abuser”, she said she has experienced abuse in a relationship. The letter can be true (experiencing incidences of abuse) without the former being true (that the other partner is GENERALLY abusive). From what I saw and heard, it’s pretty clear that elements of control and emotional abuse were present from both of them in quite a sustained and regular manner. In terms of things getting physical this seems to have been more rare, and worsened later into the relationship. It’s worth noting that some of Depp’s exes - whilst defending him and saying he was never violent — HAVE described him as being at times jealous/controlling (e.g. unhappy about them talking to other men at parties).

Would I brand you an abuser if you smashed the place up and swore at a partner? No. Would I recognise those as acts that are abusive…? Sorry but yes. These actions can be explained and I’m not saying that anyone who has ever lost their cool should be forever condemned, but it shouldn’t be excused or defended either. It can be recognised as explainable but wrong. I think there are many explanations for Depp’s behaviour. I think looking at it all of this aside, his life has been full of abuse and trauma from the start and I have sympathy for that. It just doesn’t change my opinion on his relationship with Heard.



I fundamentally disagree with the idea that people need to have physical evidence of sexual assault to talk about having been sexually assaulted. This is a known and massive issue; there is RARELY physical evidence of sexual assault and so having that as a requirement for speaking out is dangerously inappropriate.

FWIW my thoughts on the bottle incident;

- I believe it happened, most likely the bottle neck rather than the “whole bottle so it would have done massive damage” story that people have used as evidence that it didn’t happen.

- I think he was probably heavily inebriated at the time and MAY have believed that their “passionate argument” had turned into a weird but consensual sexual act, as by all accounts, their sex life was somewhat like that. That’s not really relevant though. Plenty of sexual assaults occur without the perpetrator realising that it wasn’t consented to. It’s still an assault, as I would hope we all know.

- it’s feasible that he either doesn’t remember or that his memory of the entire incident is murky, as by all accounts he was up to the eyeballs in booze at the time.

That’s all opinion based but there is NO physical evidence either of it happening OR of it not happening. All there is is their conflicting individual statements. As is the case with 99% of sexual assault claims.



We’ve discussed this part before too; proving that someone has told unrelated lies is not proof that other things they have said are also lies. It simply doesn’t logically follow. It understandably may affect how likely someone is to TRUST that persons word but it means nothing beyond that in terms of likelihood.

Depp has admitted some of his wrongdoings and has avoided others. There are also verifiable lies told by Depp and his team. Again it’s not really relevant.

Please, we all know that op-ed was about him. She even slipped up and said so.

Yeah I would imagine there could be elements of him feeling jealous and controlling at parties, I mean look at how big he has become. I feel like naturally you may feel jealous. She claims he was violent, physically and sexually so there's a big difference.

Yes abusive acts, not am abusive. I agree with that point and as I have said before the texts and cupboard video were instances that were abusive, bit do not feel like he is an abuser through and through.

You can speak out against sexual abuse without evidence, but expect to be questioned if the other party contests that and has evidence to the contrary.

Yes, there are conflicting individual statements, heaps of them. Not just regarding one incident either. I don't understand why so many would perjure themselves either. ...and no it's not just conflicting statements, testimonies.... There's audio evidence, there's picture evidence..... Not just the bottle incident, but proving a very different story to the one Amber tells.

You say that a lot of stuff isn't relevant, but that's your opinion that it's not relevant. In regards to the jury yes, maybe, because it's the evidence they are looking at... But to most people, of course it's relevant how much you can trust ones word as to whether you believe them. Can a constant liar be domestically abused, yes course they can.... But when you add it all together, body language, crocodile tears, timings of when she has done such things, IE file for restraining order, charity money and the excuses with that, her very recent interview etc, then the evidence, bruises one day, not the next, audio files, time stamped photos which apparently were different pictures, all the witness testimonies.... So when you add everything together, as a human being you draw your own opinion.....it's certainly not linear and unrelated lies certainly has a bearing on the OVERALL opinion. ..why? Because if one will make up such other lies, what else are they willing to lie about...you combine this with everything else we've heard and I come to my conclusion. You come to yours.

[user104658]

The thing is, I can understand people looking at Amber Heard and wondering if her character is in question. She's had a messy past and been a messy person; there's a reason she was attracted to Depp in the first place. She does come across as odd. It's hard to see her as likeable. I get all of that.

The flipside I don't understand is the blinkered response to Depp who by all reasonable objective accounts is also an absolute ****ing car crash. As I said above, I have sympathy for him ... it sounds like his childhood was absolutely horrendous. Both of his parents were genuinely abusive people and cruel. Then he went down a route of Hollywood alcohol and drugs which never takes anyone anywhere good either... but it's all viewed - in my observations of this trial - through foot-thick rose tinted glasses. He quite clearly (despite claims to the contrary) has constant and ongoing demons and severe substance abuse problems. Frankly I'll be surprised if he doesn't put himself in an early grave, he's clearly still drinking pint goblets of wine for breakfast and six pints for lunch, and contrary to the claims that this is normal behaviour, it isn't anything resembling normal for an alcoholic who is claiming to have sobered up - it'll kill him. It doesn't tend to go particularly well for men in their 50's in general and if you look at pictures of him from a few years back, he's looking decidedly ... puffy ... these days.

Like I said I do have sympathy for Depp and a very complicated, messy and by all accounts rather unhappy life. I read a very lengthy Rolling Stone interview with him a while back ... put it this way, the man's misery has very little to do with Amber Heard, he was in personal crisis before he'd even heard her name and has rarely been out of it.

So yeah ... I have sympathy, but if we're assessing people on character (which we apparently are), it's on balance of probabilities HIGHLY unlikely that Johnny wasn't as much a part of this train-crash relationship as Heard and probably more. He's a very troubled man. And it's not because of Amber. It's just that simple really.

Edited to add - he also habitually surrounds himself with Hollywood's monsters, rapists and paedophiles. Where are the question marks over that?

[ThomasC]

The thing is, I can understand people looking at Amber Heard and wondering if her character is in question. She's had a messy past and been a messy person; there's a reason she was attracted to Depp in the first place. She does come across as odd. It's hard to see her as likeable. I get all of that.

The flipside I don't understand is the blinkered response to Depp who by all reasonable objective accounts is also an absolute ****ing car crash. As I said above, I have sympathy for him ... it sounds like his childhood was absolutely horrendous. Both of his parents were genuinely abusive people and cruel. Then he went down a route of Hollywood alcohol and drugs which never takes anyone anywhere good either... but it's all viewed - in my observations of this trial - through foot-thick rose tinted glasses. He quite clearly (despite claims to the contrary) has constant and ongoing demons and severe substance abuse problems. Frankly I'll be surprised if he doesn't put himself in an early grave, he's clearly still drinking pint goblets of wine for breakfast and six pints for lunch, and contrary to the claims that this is normal behaviour, it isn't anything resembling normal for an alcoholic who is claiming to have sobered up - it'll kill him. It doesn't tend to go particularly well for men in their 50's in general and if you look at pictures of him from a few years back, he's looking decidedly ... puffy ... these days.

Like I said I do have sympathy for Depp and a very complicated, messy and by all accounts rather unhappy life. I read a very lengthy Rolling Stone interview with him a while back ... put it this way, the man's misery has very little to do with Amber Heard, he was in personal crisis before he'd even heard her name and has rarely been out of it.

So yeah ... I have sympathy, but if we're assessing people on character (which we apparently are), it's on balance of probabilities HIGHLY unlikely that Johnny wasn't as much a part of this train-crash relationship as Heard and probably more. He's a very troubled man. And it's not because of Amber. It's just that simple really.

Edited to add - he also habitually surrounds himself with Hollywood's monsters, rapists and paedophiles. Where are the question marks over that?

I don't think I have a blinkered response and neither do a lot of people. Of course he's no angel, he did wrong in this relationship too, but I think he was pushed to it and we don't know exactly the reason as to why he sent those texts or was violent in that video towards the cupboards. Context is huge and yet we just don't know of. What we do know, though, is that she physically assaulted him and then tried to tell him how it felt....she taunted him and basically said tell people what I've done and see who believes you....see has tipped off the press to capture her bruises which then disappear the next day (factual evidence), coincidentally coinsiding with the release of aquaman too and at the height of metoo, she has doctured pictures (factual evidence), she appeared on the lateshow where she was suppose to have horrific injuries (none observed) including a cracked lip, she outright lies on another programme saying she had already donated the money, she took pictures of him in extreme states, ...I don't need to go on.

She still loves him though right, feels no bad will? She says she wants to just move on with her life but does an interview so soon after split over a week? Her responses are just bizarre too and thought out, not natural, saying coming from someone who made people believe he had scissors for fingers.....saying that freedom of speech was from the Greeks,,,,the pauses, the body language, the lip nuances, the eye rolling rate.

The difference being Johnny has openly admitted fault to his wrongdoings. He hasn't denied having an issue with drink and drugs, but Amber has lied. That is just a fact, through and through on stand. ...so no I don't think it is viewed through thick tinted glasses at all, you disagree, that's fine.

Clearly still drinking pint goblets and 6 cans of Stella. You say clearly, from what? Nothing clear about it. A video where he poured himself a mega pint and then after the trial had 6 cans of stella. Yeah I wouldn't say that is normal for a recovering alcoholic, but Johnny doesn't contest his drug and drink problems. It's an illness and relapse is a very big issue. So your point is?

Your last part about who he surrounds himself with and his friends with, well a lot of people are friends with those type of people who might not actually know that they have done those horrendous things... I mean look at Jimmy saville, he used charity work to do what he did... Johnny is going to have loads of connections working in the film industry, Harvey Weinstein for one so of course he's going to habitually surround himself by people like that, but was he to know?

[user104658]

I don't think I have a blinkered response and neither do a lot of people. Of course he's no angel, he did wrong in this relationship too, but I think he was pushed to it and we don't know exactly the reason as to why he sent those texts or was violent in that video towards the cupboards. Context is huge and yet we just don't know of. What we do know, though, is that she physically assaulted him and then tried to tell him how it felt....she taunted him and basically said tell people what I've done and see who believes you....see has tipped off the press to capture her bruises which then disappear the next day (factual evidence), coincidentally coinsiding with the release of aquaman too and at the height of metoo, she has doctured pictures (factual evidence), she appeared on the lateshow where she was suppose to have horrific injuries (none observed) including a cracked lip, she outright lies on another programme saying she had already donated the money, she took pictures of him in extreme states, ...I don't need to go on.

You said you watched the trial so I don’t know why you’re seeming things that are circumstantial evidence to be hard evidence. She may have tipped off the press to photograph her with visible bruising perhaps hoping to later use it as evidence
- that’s irrelevant as there’s no evidence either way to know if the bruises were fake on day one and gone on day 2, or simply left showing in day 1 and covered on day 2. It’s not hard to cover bruising with make up. People often quote the “No cracked lip” nonsense when anyone who has ever had a bust lip knows that most of the injury is often internal (where the lip is punctured by the teeth) and doesn’t show on the outer lip. There ARE pictures that show clear swelling on one side. They’re brushed off as fake because there’s no visible cut.

The evidence of photo doctoring is only evidence that the photo was “opened and re-saved” on a certain date; that doctoring could have been to change the contrast/vibrancy of the image which would make bruising stand out as more obvious but is NOT the same as photoshopping on bruising. I took extensive photos of the injury to my foot last summer where there was extensive bruising - trust me it is extremely hard to show the extent of bruising in photos. I’d look at my foot and see that it was a total mess, then in the photo it looks like minor bruising. Extremely frustrating when you’re trying to document a serious injury. So yes I did up the contrast to make it look more like could be seen with the naked eye. Regardless - you can believe either way why they weee edited, what’s NOT “hard fact” is that bruises were added to the photographs. It is actually a fact that the experts forensically examining the photographs could NOT prove that anything had been added - only that the file had been opened and re-saved on a certain date. Not why.

She still loves him though right, feels no bad will? She says she wants to just move on with her life but does an interview so soon after split over a week? Her responses are just bizarre too and thought out, not natural, saying coming from someone who made people believe he had scissors for fingers.....saying that freedom of speech was from the Greeks,,,,the pauses, the body language, the lip nuances, the eye rolling rate.

That’s US TV interviews for you. Not much more to say there. Yea I imagine the whole thing was scripted and rehearsed not spontaneous. But that’s just how they do it. US interviews are crap :shrug:.

The difference being Johnny has openly admitted fault to his wrongdoings. He hasn't denied having an issue with drink and drugs, but Amber has lied. That is just a fact, through and through on stand. ...so no I don't think it is viewed through thick tinted glasses at all, you disagree, that's fine.

No he said he was now sober… it was a large part of establishing his trustworthiness with the jury. You’re willfully ignoring that he lied about that. Again you’re stating as fact “Johnny told the truth and Amber lied” (objective) which is not accurate; what you mean is “I believe Johnny but I don’t believe Amber” (entirely subjective).

Clearly still drinking pint goblets and 6 cans of Stella. You say clearly, from what? Nothing clear about it. A video where he poured himself a mega pint and then after the trial had 6 cans of stella. Yeah I wouldn't say that is normal for a recovering alcoholic, but Johnny doesn't contest his drug and drink problems. It's an illness and relapse is a very big issue. So your point is?

My point is that he’s an aggressive drunk who claimed to now be sober, but has demonstrated since that he is definitely not sober. I think that’s very relevant.

Your last part about who he surrounds himself with and his friends with, well a lot of people are friends with those type of people who might not actually know that they have done those horrendous things... I mean look at Jimmy saville, he used charity work to do what he did... Johnny is going to have loads of connections working in the film industry, Harvey Weinstein for one so of course he's going to habitually surround himself by people like that, but was he to know?

He’s still pals with Manson and he openly defended Polanski after his crimes were known. “He didn’t know” doesn’t cut it here as an excuse; he is openly friends with other violent men.

[user104658]

Evidence emerging of Team Depp paying off/intimidating a whole list of potential witnesses (other women that Depp has been aggressive towards) by the way, for those who wondered “why there weren’t many witnesses if that’s what he’s like”.

Perched for the appeal personally.

[ThomasC]

Well I can see the appeal going really well for her seeing as she was found guilty of defemations to then continue to defame him so soon after the trial has ended. She might have had more of a chance or more support if she had waited.

I don't get it. She said this has been so traumatic for her yet so eager to sit down and carry it on. She said she just wanted to move on with her life. Obviously not.

[Niamh.]

Evidence emerging of Team Depp paying off/intimidating a whole list of potential witnesses (other women that Depp has been aggressive towards) by the way, for those who wondered “why there weren’t many witnesses if that’s what he’s like”.

Perched for the appeal personally.Ohhhh interesting

[ThomasC]

Evidence emerging of Team Depp paying off/intimidating a whole list of potential witnesses (other women that Depp has been aggressive towards) by the way, for those who wondered “why there weren’t many witnesses if that’s what he’s like”.

Perched for the appeal personally.

We'll go around on circles with this as we have done quite a lot.

We disagree on how we feel.

Do you have a link to this?

I highly doubt his witnesses though were paid considering the implications of purjury, most of whom were just doing their job....for example, the guy who did his deposition from his car and started driving because he didn't want to be late for work.

I also don't think such a credible law firm such as brown rednick would risk their reputation by paying off and being complicit in such. I think they would already have come out too way before this trial, I could be wrong though.

[ThomasC]

I'm just thankful that the majority believe the whole thing for what it is. You can dispute that, but it's the truth.

Amber has some support, yes, but most can see through the act.

[ThomasC]

It's about time men are given recognition for the same issues women face in regards to these matters.

There is such an imbalance.

I hope more men can come forward on the belief that they will be believed and you don't have to just suffer on silence because you're a man and are suppose to be strong, not talk about your feelings.

[Liam-]

I find it disgusting that a tv station is dedicating so much time to allow an abuser to continue publicly abusing and defaming her victim, it’s awful but again like I said before, it’s the advantage of being a woman, because you can be certain that if Johnny has lost the case, he wouldn’t have been invited on to continue telling his side.

He needs to think about getting a restraining order tbh, she is obviously obsessed with him and having someone that clearly disturbed being determined to continue to harass you can become even more torturous than she’s already been to him, he’s actually trying to move on with his life after having his name cleared and she doesn’t like him not even slightly acknowledging her, she’ll never leave him alone and that’s incredibly worrying

[user104658]

It's about time men are given recognition for the same issues women face in regards to these matters.

There is such an imbalance.

I hope more men can come forward on the belief that they will be believed and you don't have to just suffer on silence because you're a man and are suppose to be strong, not talk about your feelings.

I hope they don't come forward without at least 10 witnesses and years of physical evidence, or they'll get sued. Right?

[user104658]

I find it disgusting that a tv station is dedicating so much time to allow an abuser to continue publicly abusing and defaming her victim, it’s awful but again like I said before, it’s the advantage of being a woman, because you can be certain that if Johnny has lost the case, he wouldn’t have been invited on to continue telling his side.

He needs to think about getting a restraining order tbh, she is obviously obsessed with him and having someone that clearly disturbed being determined to continue to harass you can become even more torturous than she’s already been to him, he’s actually trying to move on with his life after having his name cleared and she doesn’t like him not even slightly acknowledging her, she’ll never leave him alone and that’s incredibly worrying

She wrote one OpEd that didn't even specifically name him after they had separated for years.

"She is obsessed with him and cannot stand to be out of his thoughts for one second and he needs a restraining order in case she murders him!!!"

:joker: give your head a little wobble Liam.

[user104658]

Inside the twisted MRA mindset of a Depp truther :joker:

https://i.imgur.com/B9CMuu2.png

[Liam-]

Also, notice that during the trial she acted absolutely horrified when Camille said she wanted to be seen as a victim, ‘ive never said I’m a victim!!’ because she wanted to seem humble and put together and now that she’s lost and needs to cling to any semblance of relevancy and sympathy from the ‘believe all women despite all evidence and facts, no matter the cost’ horde, she now very happily refers to herself as a victim because it’s convenient to tying to rebuild her nuclear reputation, it’s so transparent it’s painful

[ThomasC]

I hope they don't come forward without at least 10 witnesses and years of physical evidence, or they'll get sued. Right?

It hasn't stopped hundreds of women doing so already.

She wrote one OpEd that didn't even specifically name him after they had separated for years.

"She is obsessed with him and cannot stand to be out of his thoughts for one second and he needs a restraining order in case she murders him!!!"

:joker: give your head a little wobble Liam.

She admitted it was about him. Who else was it about then?

I think she is obsessed with him, she's admitted she's still in love with him and feels no bad for him. Did you listen to any of the audio recordings? Where he wanted space and yet she kept coming for him? Saying to him you don't escape the fight, you escape the solution.

I find it disgusting that a tv station is dedicating so much time to allow an abuser to continue publicly abusing and defaming her victim, it’s awful but again like I said before, it’s the advantage of being a woman, because you can be certain that if Johnny has lost the case, he wouldn’t have been invited on to continue telling his side.

He needs to think about getting a restraining order tbh, she is obviously obsessed with him and having someone that clearly disturbed being determined to continue to harass you can become even more torturous than she’s already been to him, he’s actually trying to move on with his life after having his name cleared and she doesn’t like him not even slightly acknowledging her, she’ll never leave him alone and that’s incredibly worrying

Agreed.

[ThomasC]

Also, notice that during the trial she acted absolutely horrified when Camille said she wanted to be seen as a victim, ‘ive never said I’m a victim!!’ because she wanted to seem humble and put together and now that she’s lost and needs to cling to any semblance of relevancy and sympathy from the ‘believe all women despite all evidence and facts, no matter the cost’ horde, she now very happily refers to herself as a victim because it’s convenient to tying to rebuild her nuclear reputation, it’s so transparent it’s painful

Yeah Camille definitely struck a nerve then, she got bit angry.

She massively wants to be believed. She would have been sensible to wait at least 6 months and then do an interview of she felt it necessary. She has just added fuel to an already huge fire.

[Liam-]

Sorry but the whole ‘it didn’t even name him!’ Thing is such a disingenuous argument, she was sued for defamation by implication, she didn’t have to use his name, because it was written to be obvious who she was referring to, without specifically naming him like come on

[user104658]

Sorry but the whole ‘it didn’t even name him!’ Thing is such a disingenuous argument, she was sued for defamation by implication, she didn’t have to use his name, because it was written to be obvious who she was referring to, without specifically naming him like come on

I didn't say it wasn't about him or that it means it wasn't grounds for the defamation suit (my argument against the defamation case is that for something to be defamation it has to be false, and I believe that Johnny Depp is an aggressive drunk who likes to kick and hit objects and people).

I brought it up as a counter to your absolutely ludicrous suggestion that he needs a restraining order against her because she might come after him, like the plot of a low-budget soap opera :laugh:. Illustrative of the bizarre logical leaps made by Depp truthers, as I posted above.

[Liam-]

Yeah Camille definitely struck a nerve then, she got bit angry.

She massively wants to be believed. She would have been sensible to wait at least 6 months and then do an interview of she felt it necessary. She has just added fuel to an already huge fire.

She’s proving everything Dr. Curry said about her and her diagnosis to be correct in real time, she’s behaving exactly like Curry said someone with her diagnosis is highly likely to, it’s a shame that certain people are so deeply buried in their dogma that they’d rather put all facts aside to relentlessly stand by their points than admit when someone does something wrong and needs proper help.

[user104658]

She’s proving everything Dr. Curry said about her and her diagnosis to be correct in real time, she’s behaving exactly like Curry said someone with her diagnosis is highly likely to, it’s a shame that certain people are so deeply buried in their dogma that they’d rather put all facts aside to relentlessly stand by their points than admit when someone does something wrong and needs proper help.

And if there's anything that really serves as outright proof in a DV case, it's a mega-pint of junk Armchair Psychology clumsily gleaned from a paid expert witness.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://img.maximummedia.ie/joe_co_uk/eyJkYXRhIjoie1widXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvbWVkaW Etam9lY291ay5tYXhpbXVtbWVkaWEuaWUuczMuYW1hem9uYXdz LmNvbVxcXC93cC1jb250ZW50XFxcL3VwbG9hZHNcXFwvMjAyMl xcXC8wNlxcXC8wMTIyMTMwNVxcXC9kZXBwMi5qcGdcIixcIndp ZHRoXCI6NjQwLFwiaGVpZ2h0XCI6MzYwLFwiZGVmYXVsdFwiOl wiaHR0cHM6XFxcL1xcXC93d3cuam9lLmNvLnVrXFxcL2Fzc2V0 c1xcXC9pbWFnZXNcXFwvam9lY291a1xcXC9uby1pbWFnZS5wbm c_aWQ9MGE4OTc2MWQwYTNjNmY1MWY3ZDZcIixcIm9wdGlvbnNc IjpbXX0iLCJoYXNoIjoiMzExYTU3MjdlZGI0NDNmMDBlNWFkNG Q5Mjk4NTRjYWU2M2M3MjhiNiJ9/depp2.jpg

[ThomasC]

And if there's anything that really serves as outright proof in a DV case, it's a mega-pint of junk Armchair Psychology clumsily gleaned from a paid expert witness.

Clumsily?

I found her to be extremely intelligent, articulate and knew her job inside out. Whereas the other one didn't even administer the tests properly.

[user104658]

Clumsily?

I found her to be extremely intelligent, articulate and knew her job inside out. Whereas the other one didn't even administer the tests properly.


I’d take a psych analysis from a paid witness with a massive pinch of salt in the first place - a courtroom is CLEARLY no place for any sort of “diagnosis” to be taking place, I’m sure you’ll agree. It’s also not an actual diagnosis it’s observational guesswork; not something that will appear anywhere on her medical records, and thus it is not an official diagnosis.

But no, when I said “clumsily gleaned” I was talking about Liam’s clumsy armchair interpretation of the already-suspect expert witness statement.

[Beso]

Each case will be different and has many facets.

A lot of myths of how one should present who has experienced DV.

I know you haven't watched much of proceedings, but I genuinely do not believe her for many reasons. Neither do I think he's an angel, far from it, but I can't logically work my head around black and white evidence.

Her whole body language and emotions is off imo though. I can spot a fake and false person a mile off and yet I consider myself to be extremely open minded and like to analyse what makes an individual tick. Probably my job, but I look at the psychology and there is always a reason someone is the way they are.

Would this fake and false person you can spot a mile away by their actions be the same bi polar disordered person you could spot by their actions a mile away just a few pages back?

[ThomasC]

I’d take a psych analysis from a paid witness with a massive pinch of salt in the first place - a courtroom is CLEARLY no place for any sort of “diagnosis” to be taking place, I’m sure you’ll agree. It’s also not an actual diagnosis it’s observational guesswork; not something that will appear anywhere on her medical records, and thus it is not an official diagnosis.

But no, when I said “clumsily gleaned” I was talking about Liam’s clumsy armchair interpretation of the already-suspect expert witness statement.

Diagnosis, psychological diagnosis are observational guesswork. That's why a lot of tests include 'observational' in them for example DISCO and ADOS in regards to autism diagnosis for example. Psychological disorders are subjective based on the assessor although they try to minimise this as much as possible. It's not like a broken arm, which isn't just observational it's physically visible through sight, both looking and x-ray.

Yes, a big pinch of salt but I just found Dr Curry very credible in what she was saying whether it be true or not...as in she knows her onions

Would this fake and false person you can spot a mile away by their actions be the same bi polar disordered person you could spot by their actions a mile away just a few pages back?

Remind me who you're referring to?

[Niamh.]

I wonder where he got that idea from [emoji848]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jamie-spears-wants-britney-to-sit-for-a-deposition-about-misconduct-allegations-against-him?via=FB_Page&source=TDB

[user104658]

I wonder where he got that idea from [emoji848]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jamie-spears-wants-britney-to-sit-for-a-deposition-about-misconduct-allegations-against-him?via=FB_Page&source=TDB

"Legal abuse" is sadly nothing new but yes it's going to become even more common now that abusive men have seen how easy it was to shame, ridicule and abuse Amber Heard via the courts and social media.

A horribly common tactic for abusive men to use against their ex-partners is to start legal proceedings around things like finances or child access... not because they think they even have any chance of winning... but purely because they know it'll make them anxious and upset.

[ThomasC]

I wonder where he got that idea from [emoji848]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jamie-spears-wants-britney-to-sit-for-a-deposition-about-misconduct-allegations-against-him?via=FB_Page&source=TDB

It's not a new concept.

If you have the money to afford the legal costs if someone has defamed you and you have evidence to the contrary then you are entitled to do so.

Most can't afford it though or would want to go through the stress of it.

[user104658]

It's not a new concept.

If you have the money to afford the legal costs if someone has defamed you and you have evidence to the contrary then you are entitled to do so.

Most can't afford it though or would want to go through the stress of it.

Are you pretending to believe that Jamie Spears didn't get the idea to pursue Britney for defamation from the extremely-high-profile Depp/Heard court case?

It doesn't have to be a "new concept" for him to have gotten the idea from that - to have been emboldened by the outcome, and to have seen the social media effect of it on Amber Heard.

I think probably you do know that.

...THANKFULLY in this case I think what Jamie Spears has failed to consider is that he is NOT by any stretch of imagination charismatic pirate rogue Johnny Depp, and Britney Spears has been adopted as a darling of the zeitgeist who will be protected at all costs.

His optics on social media will be absolutely awful.

Which, really, highlights what a farce the whole thing is. You can predict the outcome before one word is uttered based purely on the popularity of the participants.

[bots]

with jamie spears it was 100% predictable that he would try something after he lost his cash cow

[Liam-]

The stretching to blame Johnny Depp for women getting sued in completely irrelevant situations is sending me, I think it’s time some people take a step away from the internet and let their brains cool down for a bit

[user104658]

The stretching to blame Johnny Depp for women getting sued in completely irrelevant situations is sending me, I think it’s time some people take a step away from the internet and let their brains cool down for a bit

You don't think a successful high profile defamation lawsuit is likely to prompt further defamation lawsuits? Or are you just pretending to believe that. It's not about "blaming Johnny Depp" per se it's not really Johhny Depp's fault that this is possible, however, his case did prove that it IS possible. The fault lies more with the crappy Virginia court system that entertained this nonsense in the first place than with Depp himself. If it had been chucked out of court before going to trial, as it should have been, that would have sent a message to the likes of Jamie Spears and Brad Pitt with his grapes, that they shouldn't waste their time. Instead the message they got was the opposite. Validation of their toxic MRA nonsense.

[ThomasC]

Are you pretending to believe that Jamie Spears didn't get the idea to pursue Britney for defamation from the extremely-high-profile Depp/Heard court case?

It doesn't have to be a "new concept" for him to have gotten the idea from that - to have been emboldened by the outcome, and to have seen the social media effect of it on Amber Heard.

I think probably you do know that.

...THANKFULLY in this case I think what Jamie Spears has failed to consider is that he is NOT by any stretch of imagination charismatic pirate rogue Johnny Depp, and Britney Spears has been adopted as a darling of the zeitgeist who will be protected at all costs.

His optics on social media will be absolutely awful.

Which, really, highlights what a farce the whole thing is. You can predict the outcome before one word is uttered based purely on the popularity of the participants.

No I'm not pretending. Just saying it's not a new concept.

You don't think a successful high profile defamation lawsuit is likely to prompt further defamation lawsuits? Or are you just pretending to believe that. It's not about "blaming Johnny Depp" per se it's not really Johhny Depp's fault that this is possible, however, his case did prove that it IS possible. The fault lies more with the crappy Virginia court system that entertained this nonsense in the first place than with Depp himself. If it had been chucked out of court before going to trial, as it should have been, that would have sent a message to the likes of Jamie Spears and Brad Pitt with his grapes, that they shouldn't waste their time. Instead the message they got was the opposite. Validation of their toxic MRA nonsense.

MRA is your favourite subject. If I got a pound everytime you mentioned it I would be rich now.

I actually think if it gives a platform to others who have been abused to speak out then it's a good thing.

It's not the case with Jamie spears

[bots]

i said way back when Britney regained control that we hadn't heard the last from Jamie Spears, so I don't personally think his going to court was influenced by Depp

[Liam-]

All I got from that is that you believe he shouldn’t have been allowed to fully share his side of the story, effectively silencing him, which is funnily enough what you Amber stans are claiming is happening to her, it’s sad how much hostility and unfairness men are faced with today simply for being men, do better, he deserved his day in court to give his full version of events and he got it, the law was followed and he won.

If people believe that they have been defamed then they have the legal right to do something about it if they have the resources to do so, that’s the law, the law doesn’t stop working just because a woman is being accused of something, no matter how much you lot want that to be the case, sorry if that makes you sad.

Also, Brad Pitt isn’t suing for defamation, it’s a contract dispute, still Johnny’s fault though right? Cause **** men

[ThomasC]

i said way back when Britney regained control that we hadn't heard the last from Jamie Spears, so I don't personally think his going to court was influenced by Depp

Some Amber supporters will believe anything. I mean, they believe her.

Shock horror that a man might want to defend himself when accused of allegations. :conf:

Yet, if a woman claims certain allegations we are just meant to believe her because, what, she's a woman?... And women are abused more than men even though a lot of men don't come forward because it would make them less of man....

It's alright having all this feminism... I am on support of women's rights also, but I am equally in support of men's rights too. If women want equality then they should expect to be treated the same as men or have equal opportunities to them.... This doesn't happen in reality. Women's rights are pushed so far down our throats that men are often overlooked

[Liam-]

MRA is your favourite subject. If I got a pound everytime you mentioned it I would be rich now.

I actually think if it gives a platform to others who have been abused to speak out then it's a good thing.

It's not the case with Jamie spears

It’s all they have, in their minds anybody that doesn’t automatically believe all women or don’t blindly support women in every instance ever, belongs to some online, woman hating cesspit, it’s laughable and completely demonstrates why the more extreme side of the feminist movement is often laughed at and not taken seriously

[user104658]

i said way back when Britney regained control that we hadn't heard the last from Jamie Spears, so I don't personally think his going to court was influenced by Depp

I think you're right that there was no way he was going to let her go but the specifics of him suddenly deciding that a defamation case is the way to do that, and right now, is too much of a coincidence for me personally. Yes I think he's probably been trying to think of ways to return to court - but I think the Depp trial has probably served as kindling for the method. And that's what I'm talking about above, really. It's not that it's going to be prompting random men who were just going about their day into suddenly starting legal proceedings. It's just shone a light on a "possible path" to doing so.

"Hmmmm how can I get this back in court... how can I get this back in court... how can I still win this... hmmmmm"

*Depp vs Heard, Depp wins, everyone collectively cums their Jack Sparrow boxers*

"AHA! Defamation!!"

It sets precedent - not legal precedent as obviously precedent for libel already exists - but precedent in the immediate mindset of the public.

[ThomasC]

It’s all they have, in their minds anybody that doesn’t automatically believe all women or don’t blindly support women in every instance ever, belongs to some online, woman hating cesspit, it’s laughable and completely demonstrates why the more extreme side of the feminist movement is often laughed at and not taken seriously

Yep, I agree with a lot of what you say and the points you make in numerous cposts

[user104658]

All I got from that is that you believe he shouldn’t have been allowed to fully share his side of the story, effectively silencing him, which is funnily enough what you Amber stans are claiming is happening to her, it’s sad how much hostility and unfairness men are faced with today simply for being men, do better, he deserved his day in court to give his full version of events and he got it, the law was followed and he won.

No no he should have every right in the world to talk about it and put his story into the public domain. He just shouldn't have been able to sue over it. As she also had every right to talk about it. It's not rocket science is it?

[ThomasC]

I think you're right that there was no way he was going to let her go but the specifics of him suddenly deciding that a defamation case is the way to do that, and right now, is too much of a coincidence for me personally. Yes I think he's probably been trying to think of ways to return to court - but I think the Depp trial has probably served as kindling for the method. And that's what I'm talking about above, really. It's not that it's going to be prompting random men who were just going about their day into suddenly starting legal proceedings. It's just shone a light on a "possible path" to doing so.

"Hmmmm how can I get this back in court... how can I get this back in court... how can I still win this... hmmmmm"

*Depp vs Heard, Depp wins, everyone collectively cums their Jack Sparrow boxers*

"AHA! Defamation!!"

It sets precedent - not legal precedent as obviously precedent for libel already exists - but precedent in the immediate mindset of the public.

Didnt even know who jack sparrow was until you have started going on about it.

You love to believe that those who don't believe her are massive jack sparrow/Johnny Depp fans and it's just not true. Some are, of course but it has attracted such a big audience that to suggest it's because he's this world godly loved character is the reason he's getting most of the support is just not true imo

[user104658]

It’s all they have, in their minds anybody that doesn’t automatically believe all women or don’t blindly support women in every instance ever, belongs to some online, woman hating cesspit, it’s laughable and completely demonstrates why the more extreme side of the feminist movement is often laughed at and not taken seriously

Not "anybody" Liam, just you. When you start posting MRA stuff like "still Johnny’s fault though right? Cause **** men :bawling: :bawling:"

Although to be fair ThomasC has you well and truly trumped with;

If women want equality then they should expect to be treated the same as men or have equal opportunities to them.... This doesn't happen in reality. Women's rights are pushed so far down our throats that men are often overlooked

If you want me to stop talking about MRA's, you'll need to stop spouting this sad, toxic butthurt MRA claptrap. Until then I will continue to call it what it is.

[ThomasC]

No no he should have every right in the world to talk about it and put his story into the public domain. He just shouldn't have been able to sue over it. As she also had every right to talk about it. It's not rocket science is it?

It's not rocket science either that if you defame someone you can also be sued

[user104658]

to suggest it's because he's this world godly loved character is the reason he's getting most of the support is just not true imo

Of course it's at the very least partically true, another huge section of his support is the "Finally a spotlight has been shone on life's real victims; men :hee:" MRA crowd but I'm not allowed to talk about that :worry:.

You'll soon see this of course when Jamie Spears gets basically no public support because he isn't the cool sexy option. He'll still get plenty of that Men's Rights support though.

[Liam-]

It's not rocket science either that if you defame someone you can also be sued

No that’s not how it works! Women are allowed to say whatever they want about men and face no consequences for it, even if they’re lying through their teeth and any attempt at consequences is sexist!

[ThomasC]

Not "anybody" Liam, just you. When you start posting MRA stuff like "still Johnny’s fault though right? Cause **** men :bawling: :bawling:"

Although to be fair ThomasC has you well and truly trumped with;



If you want me to stop talking about MRA's, you'll need to stop spouting this sad, toxic butthurt MRA claptrap. Until then I will continue to call it what it is.

Bull****. You're the one who has a massive thing about MRA and it being crap. Why are 77% of suicides men? Child custody rights, domestic violence, more higher risk jobs, more likely to be homeless, expected to fight for country, FGM and male corcumsticion, etc etc.

You keep calling it what YOU THINK it is.

If there is to be true equality then both men's and women's right need to be discussed.... Yet whenever someone comes up with something which favoures the man or on support off you scream MRA and try make out it doesn't exist and that it's crap.

[ThomasC]

Of course it's at the very least partically true, another huge section of his support is the "Finally a spotlight has been shone on life's real victims; men :hee:" MRA crowd but I'm not allowed to talk about that :worry:.

You'll soon see this of course when Jamie Spears gets basically no public support because he isn't the cool sexy option. He'll still get plenty of that Men's Rights support though.

I don't agree with that quote, but what I do agree with and think is right is that it opens the discussion to a very real problem. Men get abused too, not just women. Not allowed to talk about it? You mention it at any opportunity you can Hun.

Well if Jamie spears does sue then it will be down to a judge/jury.

[Liam-]

I love and respect women wholeheartedly, what I don’t love and respect is people who use their gender as a shield from accountability which is precisely what Amber Heard is doing, trying to make the conversation about a bigger issue, when it is purely about her own actions, to me, is a clear example of weaponising her gender, which should be indefensible, but clearly not for the radfems

[user104658]

I've a few reddit forums you guys might be interested in? Maybe a Jordan Peterson TikTok or three?

[ThomasC]

As an example, all about women's personal spaces with trans using toilets.

Where's the discussion here on whether men feel comfortable with trans entering male toilets? Where's the media discussion?

There hasn't been one.

Equality has become so one sided and it's actually offensive to then say that men's activism or someone who also wants equality for men as well as women is just crap.

[user104658]

I love and respect women wholeheartedly

You do not

not for the radfems

Exhibit A. You like women who behave how you want them to behave. You hold those who don't in clear disregard, and sometimes contempt. This is clear in the Trans Rights threads, and it's clear in this one.

[ThomasC]

I've a few reddit forums you guys might be interested in? Maybe a Jordan Peterson TikTok or three?

Don't even use TikTok. Rarely use Facebook or Twitter and not one to watch love island either.

I'll let you continue to use Reddit as you obviously quite like it

[user104658]

As an example, all about women's personal spaces with trans using toilets.

Where's the discussion here on whether men feel comfortable with trans entering male toilets? Where's the media discussion?

There hasn't been one.

Equality has become so one sided and it's actually offensive to then say that men's activism or someone who also wants equality for men as well as women is just crap.

A trans man entering a men's toilets is at FAR more risk than any of the men in that toilet.

The situation is not equal. You're pushing an argument that is practical nonsense.

[ThomasC]

I love and respect women wholeheartedly, what I don’t love and respect is people who use their gender as a shield from accountability which is precisely what Amber Heard is doing, trying to make the conversation about a bigger issue, when it is purely about her own actions, to me, is a clear example of weaponising her gender, which should be indefensible, but clearly not for the radfems

Good job that very few believe her really. Not all common sense is lost :joker:

[user104658]

Don't even use TikTok. Rarely use Facebook or Twitter and not one to watch love island either.

I'll let you continue to use Reddit as you obviously quite like it

I didn't say you use it, I said you might like me to direct you to some of the Jordan Peterson whining on there because a lot of what you're saying is straight out of his "Waaaaah but men work in sewers and fight wars!" playbook.

[Liam-]

Good job that very few believe her really. Not all common sense is lost :joker:

The only people who believe her at this point either didn’t watch the trial, or those that did watch the trial and just refuse to believe that a man can be telling the truth about a woman wronging him in the way that she did and will always believe women no matter the evidence, facts or reason, just because, no two ways about it in my eyes

[ThomasC]

A trans man entering a men's toilets is at FAR more risk than any of the men in that toilet.

The situation is not equal. You're pushing an argument that is practical nonsense.

I'm not pushing it, I just used it as an example, maybe not the best one. ...but you've missed my point on whether other men would feel comfortable with it which forms a basis over the big discussion that women have an issue with in trans using their spaces


Another example would be custodial rights which is way more favoured towards the woman.

[ThomasC]

I didn't say you use it, I said you might like me to direct you to some of the Jordan Peterson whining on there because a lot of what you're saying is straight out of his "Waaaaah but men work in sewers and fight wars!" playbook.

Don't even know who Jordan Peterson is :conf:

[user104658]

Don't even know who Jordan Peterson is :conf:

I didn't say you did; I said you'd like what he has to say. Very similar views to yours. You should look him up.

[user104658]

Another example would be custodial rights which is way more favoured towards the woman.

While you're looking things up, look up "parental alienation" - a legal tactic used by (proven) abusive men to gain access to their children who they have previously emotionally and physically abused, and to force their mothers (sometimes with police intervention) to send their kids to these abusers for the weekend.

I'm sure you'll be all for it.

[user104658]

The only people who believe her at this point either didn’t watch the trial, or those that did watch the trial and just refuse to believe that a man can be telling the truth about a woman wronging him in the way that she did and will always believe women no matter the evidence, facts or reason, just because, no two ways about it in my eyes

Or people who understand what domestic abuse can look like and that it's rarely clear-cut, and what an aggressive drunk looks like in videos they've seen with their own eyes.

You are patently incorrect about "the only people who believe her" by the way, and in assuming that it's a small number of people. Only on crappy Social Media ... maybe that's your barometer.

[ThomasC]

I didn't say you did; I said you'd like what he has to say. Very similar views to yours. You should look him up.

I have my own views. I don't need to look him up, I have no interest.

While you're looking things up, look up "parental alienation" - a legal tactic used by (proven) abusive men to gain access to their children who they have previously emotionally and physically abused, and to force their mothers (sometimes with police intervention) to send their kids to these abusers for the weekend.

I'm sure you'll be all for it.

That last sentence is uncalled for. Disgusting. ...because I'd advocate an abused child going to stay with their abuser. I have dealt with quite a few safeguarding concerns, ones that I have raised myself, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me and what I'd be up for!

[ThomasC]

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.

[Alf]

In other news. Joe Biden's daughter wrote in her diary that her dad took showers with her when she was a child.

Just the President of the USA probably being an insestious paedophile.

[user104658]

I have my own views. I don't need to look him up, I have no interest.

OK then I guess you'll just have to take it on trust that your views on this aren't new or unique... they fly around the internet on a daily basis. From MRA gurus like Jordan Peterson.



That last sentence is uncalled for. Disgusting. ...because I'd advocate an abused child going to stay with their abuser. I have dealt with quite a few safeguarding concerns, ones that I have raised myself, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me and what I'd be up for!

You suggested the child custody issues in the UK are heavily slanted towards women which is demonstrably and patently false. They're slanted towards the person who has been the primary caregiver in that child's life which tends to be the mother. Child access issues are skewed in favour of the father's wishes so heavily that it's bordering on criminality. Children have been abused - and in some thankfully very rare incidents, killed - thanks to court-ordered access for violent fathers. You will find no such stats for mothers. Arguing that the situation is not gendered is at best unscientific and not supported by the data at all... at worst it's a straight up lie based in bias.

[user104658]

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.

You're a healthcare assistant who likes to pretend to be a medical professional, Thomas. Let's not start comparing paperwork. I don't share mine.

[ThomasC]

You're a healthcare assistant who likes to pretend to be a medical professional, Thomas. Let's not start comparing paperwork. I don't share mine.

I'm not a healthcare assistant. :conf::conf:

[user104658]

I'm not a healthcare assistant. :conf::conf:

You're not a medical professional, you work in health/social care at a sub-professional level (Nursing Assistant, HCA, HCSW, somewhere in that band-4-ish region). On the job training, not degree-certified in psychology or any form of healthcare, probably believe that "all you need is experience and it's just as valuable", bit of a chip on your shoulder about it.

[ThomasC]

OK then I guess you'll just have to take it on trust that your views on this aren't new or unique... they fly around the internet on a daily basis. From MRA gurus like Jordan Peterson.





You suggested the child custody issues in the UK are heavily slanted towards women which is demonstrably and patently false. They're slanted towards the person who has been the primary caregiver in that child's life which tends to be the mother. Child access issues are skewed in favour of the father's wishes so heavily that it's bordering on criminality. Children have been abused - and in some thankfully very rare incidents, killed - thanks to court-ordered access for violent fathers. You will find no such stats for mothers. Arguing that the situation is not gendered is at best unscientific and not supported by the data at all... at worst it's a straight up lie based in bias.

My point that I was trying to make is that often the woman will win custodial battles and actually the child can be used as a weapon in such cases. The mother might be the primary caregiver because they haven't allowed that child access to their father or restricted it.

Edit; you say no stats there have been two very big case file reviews that I know of where a baby or child has died at the hands of their mother from abuse.

You're not a medical professional, you work in health/social care at a sub-professional level (Nursing Assistant, HCA, HCSW, somewhere in that band-4-ish region). On the job training, not degree-certified in psychology or any form of healthcare, probably believe that "all you need is experience and it's just as valuable", bit of a chip on your shoulder about it.

Oh right, thanks for telling me my own occupation and skill level along with my professional qualifications. I have included that within my CV. Thank you for your service :joker:. And I'm not banded btw

[user104658]

Oh right, thanks for telling me my own occupation and skill level along with my professional qualifications. I have included that within my CV. Thank you for your service :joker:. And I'm not banded btw

The thing is Thomas, I don't actually care what you do or don't do. I know that you work in healthcare, I'm certain that it's not as a certified medical professional, but I think you sometimes use your healthcare work to indicate medical or mental health qualifications that you simply don't have.

The point it, it's completely irrelevant to any discussion we're having on a forum like this; like I said, I don't share paperwork or talk about specifically WHAT I currently do at all for that very reason. But if you didn't want to start a dick-measuring contest, you probably shouldn't have said;

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.

:shrug:

[user104658]

My point that I was trying to make is that often the woman will win custodial battles and actually the child can be used as a weapon in such cases. The mother might be the primary caregiver because they haven't allowed that child access to their father or restricted it.

Edit; you say no stats there have been two very big case file reviews that I know of where a baby or child has died at the hands of their mother from abuse.

Where the mother was previously known by authorities to be abusive but had court-ordered unsupervised access to the child against the wishes of their primary caregiver? I didn't say children have never been harmed by abusive mothers. I said KNOWN abusive fathers are often granted unsupervised, over-night access to children on the grounds of parental alienation (which you have succinctly described in the bit in bold above).

The reason that the mother is usually the primary caregiver is that they're far more likely to have given up work to be the primary carer ... which is another discussion entirely, and not particularly the "fault" of either partner, just a sad quirk of patriarchal norms.

The point remains that the reason custody is usually granted to women is because they are in 90% of cases the child's usual primary carer and this causes the least disruption, NOT "because they are female". It's an overly-simplistic way of looking at it.

[ThomasC]

The thing is Thomas, I don't actually care what you do or don't do. I know that you work in healthcare, I'm certain that it's not as a certified medical professional, but I think you sometimes use your healthcare work to indicate medical or mental health qualifications that you simply don't have.

The point it, it's completely irrelevant to any discussion we're having on a forum like this; like I said, I don't share paperwork or talk about specifically WHAT I currently do at all for that very reason. But if you didn't want to start a dick-measuring contest, you probably shouldn't have said;



:shrug:

Again, you do not know what qualifications I have.

I have opinions. It's very pot kettle considering some of the stuff you come out with on this forum.

You basically said that I would be up for sticking children abused by their fathers back with them which is what prompted me to refer to personal circumstances in which I have raised safeguarding issues to rebutt that absolutely outrageous thing you said. You were out of order imo!

I wouldn't have even mentioned my personal experiences dealing with safeguarding if it wasn't for your comment

I don't see anything wrong with me drawing from my own experiences to use as opinions on debate.... You certainly do!

There's no dick measuring at all, you pissed me off which is why I retaliated because what you said was disgusting and a personal attack on my character

[user104658]

Again, you do not know what qualifications I have.

I have opinions. It's very pot kettle considering some of the stuff you come out with on this forum.

You basically said that I would be up for sticking children abused by their fathers back with them which is what prompted me to refer to personal circumstances in which I have raised safeguarding issues to rebutt that absolutely outrageous thing you said. You were out of order imo!

I wouldn't have even mentioned my personal experiences dealing with safeguarding if it wasn't for your comment

I don't see anything wrong with me drawing from my own experiences to use as opinions on debate.... You certainly do!

There's no dick measuring at all, you pissed me off which is why I retaliated because what you said was disgusting and a personal attack on my character

Like I said I don't care what your qualifications are or aren't or what your job is; that's really the point. I wasn't the one who brought up your qualifications, or mine. That was you. I didn't claim to know what your qualifications ARE, either, I took a guess based on what you've said on here. I do know what they aren't though. I know you aren't certified health or mental health professional.

[ThomasC]

Where the mother was previously known by authorities to be abusive but had court-ordered unsupervised access to the child against the wishes of their primary caregiver? I didn't say children have never been harmed by abusive mothers. I said KNOWN abusive fathers are often granted unsupervised, over-night access to children on the grounds of parental alienation (which you have succinctly described in the bit in bold above).

The reason that the mother is usually the primary caregiver is that they're far more likely to have given up work to be the primary carer ... which is another discussion entirely, and not particularly the "fault" of either partner, just a sad quirk of patriarchal norms.

The point remains that the reason custody is usually granted to women is because they are in 90% of cases the child's usual primary carer and this causes the least disruption, NOT "because they are female". It's an overly-simplistic way of looking at it.

No where the mother has just used it for other reasons.....like a disagreement with the dad for a plathora of reasons that aren't abuse. Weaponising the child.

And of course it's wrong of known abusers are granted that, I don't deny that.

I do think that men's rights can be put to one side though....like you say 90% of the time women get custody, but not black and white and how many times is it going to be that it's not within the best interests of the child, it's actually the best interests of the mother as she uses the child as a pawn against the father.

I think it can be because they're female, but o agree with your point about them being the primary caregiver and hence court's ruling in this favour... However. I think a lot will be clever enough to know that as they're female and the mother of that child that they know they can do exactly this and use it as a weapon... So yes it is because they're female, but also because theyre the mother.

[ThomasC]

Like I said I don't care what your qualifications are or aren't or what your job is; that's really the point. I wasn't the one who brought up your qualifications, or mine. That was you. I didn't claim to know what your qualifications ARE, either, I took a guess based on what you've said on here. I do know what they aren't though. I know you aren't certified health or mental health professional.

What is your point?

Whether I am certified or not?

You sound like the one with the chip on your shoulder.

[ThomasC]

And btw I didn't bring up any qualifications


You just wanted a chance to tell me what I do for livingyou obviously do care what qualifications I have.

I have dented your ego because I said you work at home and make comments from an armchair making out to be an expert.

I do apologise.

Have a nice day I need to go out. Lol

[user104658]

What is your point?

Whether I am certified or not?

You sound like the one with the chip on your shoulder.

No my point is that I don't care either way and that it was you who brought it up ... you said I was an "armchair expert" and talked about your "actual experience" (which you won't actually go into any detail on, but that's sort of moot since we're already saying it doesn't matter).

And btw I didn't bring up any qualifications


You just wanted a chance to tell me what I do for living you obviously do care what qualifications I have.

Yes you did... Here I'll quote it again I guess :shrug:

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.


I have dented your ego because I said you work at home and make comments from an armchair making out to be an expert.

I do apologise.

Have a nice day I need to go out. Lol

Oh yes it's my ego that's in trouble here :joker:. Have a fine day :wavey:

[ThomasC]

No my point is that I don't care either way and that it was you who brought it up ... you said I was an "armchair expert" and talked about your "actual experience" (which you won't actually go into any detail on, but that's sort of moot since we're already saying it doesn't matter).



Yes you did... Here I'll quote it again I guess :shrug:






Oh yes it's my ego that's in trouble here :joker:. Have a fine day :wavey:


Ummm, I never mentioned qualifications so I have no idea where you've got that from or why you're bringing what qualifications I may or may not have into question. What I said was that I have dealt with safeguarding concerns, that is not a qualification, that is an experience.

Maybe the heat has got to you today.

[user104658]

Ummm, I never mentioned qualifications so I have no idea where you've got that from or why you're bringing what qualifications I may or may not have into question. What I said was that I have dealt with safeguarding concerns, that is not a qualification, that is an experience.

Maybe the heat has got to you today.

Ah so it IS a tedious "experience trumps qualifications :hmph: " claim. You sure you're not a HCSW? That's definitely a classic HCSW line of thinking :laugh:.

[ThomasC]

Ah so it IS a tedious "experience trumps qualifications :hmph: " claim. You sure you're not a HCSW? That's definitely a classic HCSW line of thinking :laugh:.

Don't try and turn it around or put words on my mouth

You said I brought qualifications into it and I never did so actually this whole conversation was avoidable.

Regardless of what position I or anyone within health and social care holds, there's no brownie points for holding a higher position so get off your high horse and stop being an arrogant twerp.

[user104658]

Don't try and turn it around or put words on my mouth

You said I brought qualifications into it and I never did so actually this whole conversation was avoidable.

Regardless of what position I or anyone within health and social care holds, there's no brownie points for holding a higher position so get off your high horse and stop being an arrogant twerp.

There's literally no way for you to make it me who brought your job (or mine) into this, it was quite blatantly you who brought it up. I can quote it for a third time if you want?

You're what I would call an 'arm chair expert'. Works at home and has lots of time on his hands.

Whereas I ACTUALLY deal with safeguarding concerns and take appropriate action.

:shrug:

iZlpsneDGBQ

[ThomasC]

There's literally no way for you to make it me who brought your job (or mine) into this, it was quite blatantly you who brought it up. I can quote it for a third time if you want?



:shrug:

iZlpsneDGBQ

I didn't bring your job into it I said you were an arm chair expert, because, you know, you have an opinion on everything and like to bang on about MRA a lot and I said you work from home which you have openly admitted you do.

And I bought my experience, not my job as such, I said that I actually deal with safeguarding concerns.... This was after you, very patronisingly and arrogantly told me to Google what something was and how you were sure I'd be up for seeing children go back to their abusers.

You then proceed to tell me what my occupation is and what qualifications I do or don't have.

[user104658]

I didn't bring your job into it I said you were an arm chair expert, because, you know, you have an opinion on everything and like to bang on about MRA a lot and I said you work from home which you have openly admitted you do.

And I bought my experience, not my job as such, I said that I actually deal with safeguarding concerns.... This was after you, very patronisingly and arrogantly told me to Google what something was and how you were sure I'd be up for seeing children go back to their abusers.

You then proceed to tell me what my occupation is and what qualifications I do or don't have.

You didn't bring my job into it, just where I work from and passed comment on having too much time on my hands.

You didn't bring your job into it, just your workplace experience and what you do in your job.

Come on, this is extremely flimsy. I think you know you brought "jobs into it" and you're trying to find a way to make that not true... this is the disadvantage of forum discussions over spoken conversations though; you can't revise what you said and pretend to have been misheard or that your words have been changed or misprepresented ... the post is still right there. I hadn't said anything at all about your job until you mentioned both mine, and yours.

I'm not sure why you made that choice, but you did, if you didn't want that to be part of a discussion, you shouldn't have mentioned it? I'm happy enough to not mention it again since as I've said multiple times - I don't think it's relevant. I genuinely don't care what you do for a living.

[ThomasC]

You didn't bring my job into it, just where I work from and passed comment on having too much time on my hands.

You didn't bring your job into it, just your workplace experience and what you do in your job.

Come on, this is extremely flimsy. I think you know you brought "jobs into it" and you're trying to find a way to make that not true... this is the disadvantage of forum discussions over spoken conversations though; you can't revise what you said and pretend to have been misheard or that your words have been changed or misprepresented ... the post is still right there. I hadn't said anything at all about your job until you mentioned both mine, and yours.

I'm not sure why you made that choice, but you did, if you didn't want that to be part of a discussion, you shouldn't have mentioned it? I'm happy enough to not mention it again since as I've said multiple times - I don't think it's relevant. I genuinely don't care what you do for a living.

I made that choice, as I said in my last post, because you outrageously said what you said.

"While you're looking things up, look up "parental alienation" - a legal tactic used by (proven) abusive men to gain access to their children who they have previously emotionally and physically abused, and to force their mothers (sometimes with police intervention) to send their kids to these abusers for the weekend.

I'm sure you'll be all for it."

I then made the comment about you being an armchair expert because of your arrogance in that post and telling me whilst I'm looking things up, to suggest I have no understanding around such matters and you're in the right......

I then said you have loads of time on your hands as seeing as you work from home,,,which is public knowledge, you openly and happily admitted it on here...

You insult me and are inflammatory by saying I'd be right up for it.

I then mention that I actually have dealth with safeguarding concerns because of the relevance to your post and suggested ignorance by saying 'whilst you're looking things up'.

So I think that fairly and reasonably explains why I said what I said.

[GoldHeart]

In other news. Joe Biden's daughter wrote in her diary that her dad took showers with her when she was a child.

Just the President of the USA probably being an insestious paedophile.

He should have said he'd date his daughter instead like what Trump said :whistle:.

She never said Biden abused her, and how old was she ?. Is it also 'innaproriprate' when mother's take baths with their small children ? .

I don't know much about Biden's daughter,but it sounds like she's got quite a few issues. But if she's been sexualised from an early age then that's disturbing.

[user104658]

I made that choice, as I said in my last post, because you outrageously said what you said.

"While you're looking things up, look up "parental alienation" - a legal tactic used by (proven) abusive men to gain access to their children who they have previously emotionally and physically abused, and to force their mothers (sometimes with police intervention) to send their kids to these abusers for the weekend.

I'm sure you'll be all for it."

I then made the comment about you being an armchair expert because of your arrogance in that post and telling me whilst I'm looking things up, to suggest I have no understanding around such matters and you're in the right......

I then said you have loads of time on your hands as seeing as you work from home,,,which is public knowledge, you openly and happily admitted it on here...

You insult me and are inflammatory by saying I'd be right up for it.

I then mention that I actually have dealth with safeguarding concerns because of the relevance to your post and suggested ignorance by saying 'whilst you're looking things up'.

So I think that fairly and reasonably explains why I said what I said.

I would say, it's not a good idea to bring your qualifications (or experiences) into a discussion if you don't want to have those qualifications (or experiences) called into question, especially if you actually have nothing at all to back them up. You claimed that you have workplace experience of handling safeguarding, I questioned your level of experience for making that claim because it shouldn't be true unless 1) you actually are professionally qualified to do that (everything you've said about your work in the past makes me think you aren't) OR your experience of "dealing with safeguarding" is simply identifying where there might be a safeguarding issue, and passing that on to someone who is qualified to make a safeguarding assessment.

Like I said... again... no I didn't need to call your work or qualifications (or experiences) into question but if you're going to use them to bolster your position in a discussion, you have to expect it? Otherwise I could just say I'm the king of all knowledge, sent from on high by Odin to educate the lowly peoples of TiBB and you'd just have to accept my claim.

[ThomasC]

I would say, it's not a good idea to bring your qualifications (or experiences) into a discussion if you don't want to have those qualifications (or experiences) called into question, especially if you actually have nothing at all to back them up. You claimed that you have workplace experience of handling safeguarding, I questioned your level of experience for making that claim because it shouldn't be true unless 1) you actually are professionally qualified to do that (everything you've said about your work in the past makes me think you aren't) OR your experience of "dealing with safeguarding" is simply identifying where there might be a safeguarding issue, and passing that on to someone who is qualified to make a safeguarding assessment.

Like I said... again... no I didn't need to call your work or qualifications (or experiences) into question but if you're going to use them to bolster your position in a discussion, you have to expect it? Otherwise I could just say I'm the king of all knowledge, sent from on high by Odin to educate the lowly peoples of TiBB and you'd just have to accept my claim.

You're very selective what parts of my post you pick out and then just ignore the rest where you see fit.

Safeguarding assessment? :laugh: I won't even explain why this is sort of laughable, but I wouldn't expect you to understand anyway.

It wasn't to bolster a position, it was to come back to you with your rude disregard and condescending remarks about whilst I'm at it to Google this like you're some smart arse when I'm not wet behind the ears myself.

A) I mentioned nothing about qualification YOU did.

I hardly even went on depth about my experiences other than saying I've dealt with safeguarding concerns.

[user104658]

You're very selective what parts of my post you pick out and then just ignore the rest where you see fit.

Safeguarding assessment? :laugh: I won't even explain why this is sort of laughable, but I wouldn't expect you to understand anyway.

It wasn't to bolster a position, it was to come back to you with your rude disregard and condescending remarks about whilst I'm at it to Google this like you're some smart arse when I'm not wet behind the ears myself.

A) I mentioned nothing about qualification YOU did.

I hardly even went on depth about my experiences other than saying I've dealt with safeguarding concerns.


But I don’t believe you. I think you’re unqualified support staff pretending to have more experience than you actually have. I don’t even really mean that to be offensive, I’m just being blunt.

[ThomasC]

But I don’t believe you. I think you’re unqualified support staff pretending to have more experience than you actually have. I don’t even really mean that to be offensive, I’m just being blunt.

Don't believe me with what?

I have not entertained you with my qualifications

You've just guessed which you are entitled to do as you are entitled to believe whatever you think my job may or may not be.

What I think you are being is condescending to anyone who would hold that role as you clearly view them in disregard.

I see absolutely no reason to bring qualifications into the mix and you have shown your true colours by doing so. I have met others who believe they are more than something because they have a degree and think they are more knowledgeable or entitled because they've just come out of university after 3 years

I never questioned your job just that you work from home then you bring qualifications into the mix to try and degrade me.

Anyway, I don't know why I'd lie about having more experience than I have. All I said was that I've dealt with safeguarding concerns.. I purposely didn't elaborate for specific reasons

I've never actually once listed my work experiences on here as I wouldn't find the need to....but as it's a forum people do tend to talk about and use within posts personal experiences or situations

You've just made it into a huge thing.

And it's not offensive, I don't know you :joker: although I would say your general attitude towards those in support roles might be seen as offensive as they do a really good job and we'd be lost without them. Underpaid and overworked and the building blocks to more senior roles.

[bots]

would you 2 give it a rest please, its completely boring to everyone else. Take it to PM

[ThomasC]

would you 2 give it a rest please, its completely boring to everyone else. Take it to PM

Ewww no thank you.

I will refrain as I am an upstanding member of this community.

[Niamh.]

Well said Dakota!

https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Farts-entertainment%2Ffilms%2Fnews%2Fdakota-johnson-johnny-depp-finger-b2111179.html%3Futm_content%3DEchobox%26utm_medium %3DSocial%26utm_source%3DFacebook%23Echobox%3D1656 452510&h=AT0uPqNFFUBSSddAbna0ePYRRszht0DuiOQxRuadUS8GxpgS dTvElJuWy2PJQJWvoX3MbppwiUABQ741Toh0gflC3Z_Oy8B-VNKUOrhGg7mtwJhdxzRlTugdVWum9nVSzA

[Niamh.]

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/amber-heard-opinion-changing

[Vanessa]

Johnny Depp has just signed a new deal with Dior and is currently filming a French movie. Wonderful! :love:

[bots]

https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/amber-heard-opinion-changing

i think opinions will change over time, i just hope it doesn't take 20 years

[Beso]

The woman must be wholly a victim and must demonstrate her victimhood by not participating in anything at all – literally just being a passive recipient of violence






Ain't that the truth.

People are so shallow.

[Niamh.]

i think opinions will change over time, i just hope it doesn't take 20 years

It probably will though unfortunately

The woman must be wholly a victim and must demonstrate her victimhood by not participating in anything at all – literally just being a passive recipient of violence






Ain't that the truth.

People are so shallow.

Indeed, the "perfect" victim

[Liam-]

I’m not surprised celebrities are unliking it, anybody that has publicly shown support for Depp after he was vindicated in a court of law, has been attacked by neurotic Heard supporters that can’t stand the fact the abuser they support lost the case, it’s scary stuff.

The MSM’s coverage of this entire story and trial has been shockingly appalling though, from start to finish, thank god the trial was live streamed and there are independent reporters and lawyers out there that covered it without an agenda, that actually told the truth based on facts and evidence, rather than emotion based nonsense only meant to serve their own agenda

[Niamh.]

Never saw this video either at the time

"https://twitter.com/k4mil1aa/status/1554536104061050885?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Vanessa]

I’m not surprised celebrities are unliking it, anybody that has publicly shown support for Depp after he was vindicated in a court of law, has been attacked by neurotic Heard supporters that can’t stand the fact the abuser they support lost the case, it’s scary stuff.

The MSM’s coverage of this entire story and trial has been shockingly appalling though, from start to finish, thank god the trial was live streamed and there are independent reporters and lawyers out there that covered it without an agenda, that actually told the truth based on facts and evidence, rather than emotion based nonsense only meant to serve their own agenda
I'm jusr glad he won his case and is now working again.
For me justice has been served.
The Amber supporters online have been very abusive to anyone not sharing their opinions.
I've seen it myself on twitter as well.
Well done to Dior for standing by Johnny. They just renewed his contact.

[Liam-]

There’s also an audio recording of her admitting to doing it on the night of the incident, but couldn’t be used because there was the voice of a guy who’s now dead on it

[Beso]

There’s also an audio recording of her admitting to doing it on the night of the incident, but couldn’t be used because there was the voice of a guy who’s now dead on it

Link?

[Niamh.]

"https://twitter.com/k4mil1aa/status/1554536908608262145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 2, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Niamh.]

Link?

Hear say your Honour!

[Liam-]

I actually haven’t got the energy to argue over this all over again tbh, the court proved who was lying, she won’t win her appeal, the trial was as fair as it possibly could have been, the only people still concerned about it are the ones that are adamant that women can do no wrong, so there’s literally no point even engaging with the topic anymore :laugh:

[Niamh.]

I actually haven’t got the energy to argue over this all over again tbh, the court proved who was lying, she won’t win her appeal, the trial was as fair as it possibly could have been, the only people still concerned about it are the ones that are adamant that women can do no wrong, so there’s literally no point even engaging with the topic anymore :laugh:

The court in the UK proved he abused her though so.........

Regarding the BIB, I don't think women can "do no wrong". There's a lot of evidence backing up the fact that he was abusive towards her, that doesn't mean I think she's a great person or never hit him or fought with him however painting him as the absolute victim in light of all the evidence that says otherwise is wrong imo

[Vanessa]

I’m not surprised celebrities are unliking it, anybody that has publicly shown support for Depp after he was vindicated in a court of law, has been attacked by neurotic Heard supporters that can’t stand the fact the abuser they support lost the case, it’s scary stuff.

The MSM’s coverage of this entire story and trial has been shockingly appalling though, from start to finish, thank god the trial was live streamed and there are independent reporters and lawyers out there that covered it without an agenda, that actually told the truth based on facts and evidence, rather than emotion based nonsense only meant to serve their own agenda

I actually haven’t got the energy to argue over this all over again tbh, the court proved who was lying, she won’t win her appeal, the trial was as fair as it possibly could have been, the only people still concerned about it are the ones that are adamant that women can do no wrong, so there’s literally no point even engaging with the topic anymore :laugh:
This! :clap1:

[Beso]

The court in the UK proved he abused her though so......

Was that the untelevised trial:hehe: