Ohhh goddamit.
Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp | Depp wins on all 3 counts
- Thread starter Reapersoul20
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
I didn't complain about being called a pillock?
I simply raised the point about a staff member on this forum calling another poster a prick, and to me, calling someone a prick isn't within the rules, or the "general" rules as @NotThatSoph has hinted.
Also, @NotThatSoph you're going off a serious tangent there, why are you going on about completely different things? Also, if an officer (Jippy) was getting drunk in the park (calling a poster a prick on redcafe) then you'd rightly question it wouldn't you?
Main thing is here, I suggested a staff member he should maybe not break the rules on the site that he's a staff member of - I wasn't even the one he called a prick, so it really doesn't bother me that much, but I can guarantee you that I'd get a warning for calling someone a prick, and maybe banned of it was a staff member.
@RacingClub i didnt actua complain about being a pillock! I wasnt even called a prick, again, just pointed out that a staff member calling a poster a prick isn't a good thing.
@KirkDuyt you're also well liked and respected on here tbf, while I tend to keep myself to myself, except when I suggest not calling a poster a prick.
I know you weren't , I was just aware that another member had being banned from this thread for telling someone they were "being fecking stupid" , when they were "being fecking stupid" and then you got called a Pillock by a poster that's constantly calling everyone a misogynist (while they complain about the lack of moderation) , then you complained (rightly in my eyes) for the "condescending prick" insult and I didn't think you were weird to question it.
Oh shit, I missed the part about someone being banned!
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant with that comment! I generally don't reply to people when I have loads of posters commenting on the same post!
Sod all that nonsense, I'm more interested in the rather amusing fact that @shamans has taken this harder than Heard herself!
I mean at least she made a statement.
I mean at least she made a statement.
The fact that @shamans hasn't said anything at all is far more embarrassing for himself then coming out admitting he got it wrong or any of the bullshit he spouted in this thread. In saying nothing he's made it into a thing, which will follow him around the caf forever. Good for him.
I didn't say you did and it wasn't my intention to suggest it. I was speaking generally and used pillock as it came up. I could have said prat but that's a running joke. Jerk is also seemingly fine which was news to me at the time.
If you do feel any comments are out of line by all means report the post.
Off topic but pillock is such an underrated put down
Tbh today isn't really a day for me to be engaged in conversation on the caf! I should step away, and it's just been pointed out again that there's some weird things being allowed to slide and some others not in this thread.
So I’ll definitely not be replying anymore.
To be fair we don't know what's been reported or what hasn't or how many cumulative warnings any particular posters has which as far as I know often precedes a banning.
@shamans How you doing bud?
He claimed he was impartial
, if he was then he wouldn't be hiding right now.Is this thread now caftardos v mods/scoutos?
Who got violated by a bottle?
Anyones finger tips been sliced off?
Anyone pledged anything?
Who got violated by a bottle?
Anyones finger tips been sliced off?
Anyone pledged anything?
Um, that's just demonstrably false. The jury is literally told in their instruction that they can choose to discount all the testimony of a witness if that witness is found to have lied.
I didn't watch it. Was this jury told that?
Yes. I can't imagine a jury that isn't. The judge told them on more than one occasion. Nobody forces a witness to lie on the stand, so you can't just lie and lie and lie and then expect to be trusted when you finally tell the truth.
A very common legal term taught in law is "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" which is a latin phrase that translates as "false in one thing, false in everything.".
Rottenborn said himself in closing that all there needed to be was one case of Depp abusing Heard. If that was all that was needed to award Heard the win, and Heard was actually telling the truth about being abused, it makes no sense for her and her team to go out of their way to lie and falsify evidence. Just tell the simple truth, warts and all.
All the unnecessary lies made it very easy to reach the jury's verdict. Heard was either not abused at all or wanted to paint herself as solely an innocent victim and not an instigator, or, most likely, both. In the end she couldn't eat nor have her cake.
It's all gone a bit Petty in here again
I think some people in here need to have a lie down!
I think some people in here need to have a lie down!
Welcome back.
I don't think it's simple, in the op-ed she wrote "sexual violence", those are exact words. Doesn't make sense saying any violence would be enough.
And Attorneys do lie. In Rottenborn's closing statement he showed texts that JD sent it to Bettany and said these texts were sent to AH. And they "won in UK" (The Sun won, not AH team).
Judge Penny said they didn't have to follow instructions so jurors could take whatever both sides said as grain of salt.
For anyone still clinging to the UK verdict as some kind of proof of Depp's violence, give this a watch. It's what I was saying much earlier in this thread & being lambasted for but maybe hearing it from a barrister will carry more weight.
feck me, that UK judge is shamans
Yea, the fact that people to cling to his ruling as gospel, despite the judgement being so demonstrably corrupt, is really worrying when considering people's ability to do independent research. Imagine considering audio tapes as not real evidence because the people in the audio didn't take an oath for the tape.feck me, that UK judge is shamans
He's not corrupt. High Court judges make bad decisions all the time. They are only human. Your ire should be focused on the Court of Appeal judge who refused permission to appeal.
In my opinion, I disagree. If you look through his whole judgment you will see time after time after time where he bends the rules to fit a verdict he was always going for. He should have recused himself to begin with given his personal ties to the case & even then went to a dinner party with the key witness in Amber Heard during the trial. I don't expect you to analyze over 100 pages of judgement & to go through the thousands of pages of evidence but there's nothing that could convince me otherwise. The court of appeal judge wasn't at fault btw, Johnny didn't have an appeal denied because it didn't even go as far as to letting him make an appeal. The reason being that in order for an appeal to even be considered you really need to enter new evidence, not just dispute the judgement of the current evidence.
That analysis makes the UK judge sound like a proper stan for Heard.
If a trial judge made those errors it is open to an appeal court to grant an appeal or even a new hearing.
Perhaps we disagree on the language. For me the appeals judge wasn't interested in engaging with the trial judge's judgment. They seemingly wanted it to end and go away.
Again if there was apparent bias the appeals court could have got involved, even when no actual bias is provable.
I don't think the trial judge is particularly amazing from his past record. However given the make up of the Queen's Bench even if he did refuse himself you won't necessarily get any better.
He is an author of a media law textbook. If anything he gives newspapers a lot of leeway.
To be honest the fact people would actually take anything the Sun writes as true was enough for me anyway
I wonder would the UK judge also lose his credibility after this? I mean, we can all now view 100 hours of US trial to see how ridiculous Amber sounds and how blatant she lies, yet the UK judge still trust her words fully back then in favour of other "real" evidences (ie audio recordings), which looks like a joke now.
He makes a very compelling argument.
I'd be interested if any Caf barristers feel the same way.
That judge is a character.
The judge managed to embarrass himself and has made the UK courts look like a joke.That judge is a character.
Ol' Heardaroo is now running her mouth saying she doesn't blame the jury for their verdict, considering all the bought-and-paid-for "randos" that falsely testified on behalf of Depp, completely ignoring the fact that her own testimony alone was enough to lose her the case. The self-awareness is off the charts.
She’s also completely missing the point about how Johnny Depp won in the court of public opinion because he was likable and willing to admit his own shortcomings.
If she was any kind of intelligent she would adopt some of that herself.
It's almost like she forgets that everyone saw her testimony as it was televised.
If it had been a closed court then she might get away with this post trial PR approach. As it stands, she just looks even more narcissistic.
The Guardian's coverage of the trial, and series of articles in the aftermath, were disgracefully bad.