Withnail
Full Member
Ohhh goddamit.I know I was just making a bad pledged/ donated joke.
Ohhh goddamit.I know I was just making a bad pledged/ donated joke.
That's a pity, I think many of her supporters would have pledged a lot of money to it.
That's a pity, I think many of her supporters would have pledged a lot of money to it.
I didn't complain about being called a pillock?I think it's a bit like defamation. If it's true, on balance, then you're probably ok. Also mild insults tend not to cause warnings from what I've seen. Nobody's really getting a warning for a term like 'pillock' but you can also say 'your post is a cnut/twat' so there are grey areas as always. Personally, I'm not going round calling people names where I can help it, unless I'm joking.
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.@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.
Oh shit, I missed the part about someone being banned!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.
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.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 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.I didn't complain about being called a pillock?
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.I didn't say you did. 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.
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.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.
He claimed he was impartial , if he was then he wouldn't be hiding right now.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.
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 watched almost all of it. A jurors job in that instance is to believe she was lying about that, and assess anything else she said on its own merits. It's not a strange notion.
I didn't watch it. Was this jury told that?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.
Oh now its a general rule? Sorry I must have not got the memo, not sure why you're leaping to the defence of someone when I politely said that someone who is a staff of this forum shouldn't be breaking rules - wasn't arsey, just simply pointed that out.
And I don't really care if you've heard worse in church, we're not in church are we? We're on a forum that has a rule of not attacking the poster, and I've never seen a poster call another a cnut in anger, whereas calling someone a prick when you're having a debate shouldn't be allowed fullstop, staff or not.
My line of suggesting someone who is a staff member of this forum follow the rules of this forum isn't being weird.
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.I didn't watch it. Was this jury told that?
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.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.".
Welcome back.2 days ago, my life, the life of my children, the lives of those closest to me, and also, the lives of the people who for many, many hours have supported and believed in me were forever changed.
All in the blink of an eye.
False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the forum, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although charges were never brought against me. It had already traveled around the Caf twice within a nanosecond and it had a seismic impact on my life and my Caf career.
And 2 days later, @Raoul gave me my life back. I am truly humbled.
Veritas numquam perid.
Truth never perishes.
#JusticeForMichaelRed
#FinallyUnbanned
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
If a trial judge made those errors it is open to an appeal court to grant an appeal or even a new hearing.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.
He is an author of a media law textbook. If anything he gives newspapers a lot of leeway.That analysis makes the UK judge sound like a proper stan for Heard.
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.
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.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.
He makes a very compelling argument.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.
That judge is a character.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.
The judge managed to embarrass himself and has made the UK courts look like a joke.That judge is a character.
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.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.
It's almost like she forgets that everyone saw her testimony as it was televised.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.