[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

Not denying that at all.

I thought we were on about misogny.

Sexism and misogny differ.

Misogny is a hatred towards women. Sexism can lead to misogny....

For example, women should not wear boys clothes
That could be an opinion and would be sexism, but it doesn't mean that person hates women.

You're hyper-focused on the idea that it means "hatred" - it can simply mean disdain or prejudice. I agree that there's a subtle difference between sexism and outright misogyny but I think where you're placing that line is too far to the extreme. No one is denying that there's a difference between an old bloke in the pub with a few outdated misogynistic views, and a hardcore Redpill misogynist posting borderline extremism on Reddit. But likewise, there's a similar difference between someone's inappropriately racist/homophobic granny and a jackbooted neo-nazi. It doesn't mean granny isn't racist or a homophobe.

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They SHOULD be obvious (both libel cases tossed in the bin) however due to all the "justice for Johnny" crap and how aggressive that fan base is, and that realistically there's no way the jurors are not aware of the social media storm around this, I have a distinct worry that they'll essentially be intimidated into favouring Depp.

There's a reason (a very good reason) that the Heard team filed a motion to have the juror's names kept confidential for 12 months following the end of the trial.

Out of interest, how much of the trial have you watched?

Yeah some of the fan base is aggressive and a lot of comments are just uncalled for and disgusting... Then you'll have people, like myself, no fan of either who has formed an opinion based on evidence.

Would that just not be standard? To keep them confidential for a period of time?

She has admitted she wrote the op-ed and when you look at the timing of it how could it be about anyone else?

[ThomasC]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You're hyper-focused on the idea that it means "hatred" - it can simply mean disdain or prejudice. I agree that there's a subtle difference between sexism and outright misogyny but I think where you're placing that line is too far to the extreme. No one is denying that there's a difference between an old bloke in the pub with a few outdated misogynistic views, and a hardcore Redpill misogynist posting borderline extremism on Reddit. But likewise, there's a similar difference between someone's inappropriately racist/homophobic granny and a jackbooted neo-nazi. It doesn't mean granny isn't racist or a homophobe.

I'm not hyper focused on it I just say that as it's easier to say that then type it all out. I admitted earlier on in the thread and agreed with you that it was indeed those other things too

[Alf]

Someone there dressed up as Jack Sparrow

Youtube video

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by ThomasC

Out of interest, how much of the trial have you watched?

Yeah some of the fan base is aggressive and a lot of comments are just uncalled for and disgusting... Then you'll have people, like myself, no fan of either who has formed an opinion based on evidence.

Would that just not be standard? To keep them confidential for a period of time?

She has admitted she wrote the op-ed and when you look at the timing of it how could it be about anyone else?

I've seen plenty of it - the question was never "did she write it about him", this was bizarrely suggested as some sort of "gotcha" a few days ago ... she openly admitted it was about him right at the beginning of the trial.

The question is, is there enough doubt to say that what she wrote could be true. She does not have to prove that it IS true, there only has to be enough to say that it COULD be true. We are in big, biiig trouble if people can no longer speak out about abuse without fear of being sued for libel unless they have "concrete" proof.

The facts of the case are incredibly basic...

- They clearly had a messy, violent and controlling relationship all round (recorded evidence of both being manipulative, controlling and aggressive)

- She wrote about a messy relationship


...it's not libel. They had a messy relationship. And in terms of damages against him - they'd have been FAR less if he'd just left it all alone, but he didn't he tried to sue The Sun (and failed) and that opened a massive can of worms that led to this.

[Toy Soldier]

Here's how it SHOULD work, imo, if he truly has lost earnings because of what she wrote.

1) She should be allowed to have her say.

2) He can dispute it and give his side in the press, too.

3) It's down to the studios/employers who they believe and what they do with that information

4) If the studio ditches someone because of an unproven accusation and that person feels that to be wholly unjustified, they should then sue the studio/employer for making that decision i.e. unfair dismissal.

The only reason it's complicated in Hollywood is because the studio's bottom line depends on the image and popularity of the actor. But there shouldn't be different rules on whistleblowing just "because it's an actor and their image in more important than for most people".

[Alf]

I think it's started.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Alf

I think it's started.

We are taping it....otherwise I wont get anything done

[parmnion]

Amber will be ok, she has Hitler on her side.

https://youtube.com/shorts/DGsATMaaLBo?feature=share

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Amber will be ok

...not so sure about that.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

...not so sure about that.

Shes been good tv, BB coming back soon.

[Toy Soldier]

https://twitter.com/jmxcix/status/15...Blha0r5Og&s=19

Wups! Silly Camille.

[parmnion]

Proof in the pudding....and what a pudding she is.

Thank you camille, you just blew it.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Proof in the pudding....and what a pudding she is.

Thank you camille, you just blew it.

I doubt it'll make any difference to a jury outcome (they'll have made up their minds long ago at this point) however it is quite the freudian slip.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Proof in the pudding....and what a pudding she is.

Thank you camille, you just blew it.

Amazing how you ignore all the mistakes & slip ups from AH & her legal team though.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Amazing how you ignore all the mistakes & slip ups from AH & her legal team though.

In terms of the legal process the entire thing has been an absolute circus all round (both teams) - from Depp's lawyer leaking info and getting kicked out of the trial, to bad questioning, to Camille in general (who is somehow lauded as this ace lawyer when she's been sarcastic and unprofessional throughout, playing up to giggling onlookers in the peanut gallery like Depp himself, so likely a deliberate tactic). Heard's lawyer seems nervous and under-confident when she should have been fighting fire with fire. All utter rubbish.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Amazing how you ignore all the mistakes & slip ups from AH & her legal team though.

Nothing to say on the slip up?

Plenty to say about me though!!
Bog off.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In terms of the legal process the entire thing has been an absolute circus all round (both teams) - from Depp's lawyer leaking info and getting kicked out of the trial, to bad questioning, to Camille in general (who is somehow lauded as this ace lawyer when she's been sarcastic and unprofessional throughout, playing up to giggling onlookers in the peanut gallery like Depp himself, so likely a deliberate tactic). Heard's lawyer seems nervous and under-confident when she should have been fighting fire with fire. All utter rubbish.

Heard's lawyers are like flustered wasps & completely unprepared & amateurish , and Elaine has been extremely rude to witnesses by objecting literally everything to the point where it's unwatchable & embarrassing.

And she has accused witnesses of only coming forward to get their ' 15 minutes of fame'. I would rather have Depp's team than Heard's who seem to play dirty when they're losing.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Shes been good tv, BB coming back soon.

please no, she needs to be locked up in a isolation cell and the key thrown away

a mentally ill woman like her is a danger to society



her on CBB would make me not follow that until she's evicted

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Heard's lawyers are like flustered wasps & completely unprepared & amateurish , and Elaine has been extremely rude to witnesses by objecting literally everything to the point where it's unwatchable & embarrassing.

You realise that this has been a huge part of Camille's tactic too, right? There have been literally thousands of memes about it (celebrating it).

[Toy Soldier]

Describing it as "unwatchable" is an interesting choice of words, too. Is this reality TV to you?

[Alf]

Do you see and take this as real life or do you see and take it as a television drama?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

Do you see and take this as real life or do you see and take it as a television drama?

I think the sad truth is that it's being spoonfed to the public as a trashy episode of Judge Judy, but it actually has very real consequences.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You realise that this has been a huge part of Camille's tactic too, right? There have been literally thousands of memes about it (celebrating it).

She hasn't objected as much as Heard's team, before a witness even speaks they're shouting OBJECTION. I saw a bit where Elaine didn't even know why she was objecting, she was hmm and argh ing. And then her excuse was. " if they keep talking" .

But overall I hate the constant OBJECTIONS, who ever is doing it ,as it makes the trial nearly unwatchable.

[Nicky91]

Amber ''Ratface'' Heard



gross looking evil woman