egg

I didn't. The High Court made findings against Depp. Do you think that we should ignore those?

I never suggested that she alone was the victim. I'm not judging him. Our High Court have and they found that he abused her. Despite that, she's portrayed as the bad one. I struggle to comprehend why anyone would side with the proven abuser. Sure he may have been a victim too, but that does not alter the accuracy of her saying that she was a victim, which is the solitary issue in the current case. Your comment "For example, if he did assault her, what if it was only after a long period of provocation from her. Does he then become the “victim” who was fighting back?" completely misunderstands the law and issue. If he was upset at being treated badly and had a pop at her, that's an assault. If he used reasonable self defence in the moment, it's not an assault. Again, the High Court heard evidence and found in her favour. I'll debate the issue no more and would invite you to read the High Court judgment. The findings are clear. I'm sorry what you've been through, but you can't let that cloud your judgment of actual the findings that have already been made against Depp.

fodder

Gang

This case isn't to do with whether Depp was a victim. He's suing cos he says she wasn't, essentially trying to appeal an English high court decision in another jurisdiction. I deal with domestic abuse cases, men are frequent victims, but unless your point is that Depp was justified in treating her like shit cos she was horrible to him, I'm struggling to see what point your trying to make in this particular case. As a former crown prosecutor, I thought you'd know better.

Wind

Yep. Litigation should be a last resort.

If you followed our high court case you'll find she was proved to be a victim. Does "gave as good as she got" suggest that you think she deserved what she got? The point is that "she got it" so it's not inaccurate to suggest that she was a victim. That Johnny may have "got it" doesn't alter, or justify, what he did to her.

We function perfectly well as we are, whatever the blood lines of our monarch. How other countries function is irrelevant - a case for change of such magnitude isn't based on comparison with other countries. It's based on need.

W hat harm does she do? What would be the benefit of not having her?

It's a wind up account mate, I've dipped in and won't engage further.

Let's see how it plays out, but the south coast is very vulnerable imo, and a bot of a sitting duck given the russian naval resources. The donbas is much easier to defend.

I agree with that. I was initially all for "doing more" which was an emotional reaction. In truth, all we could possibly do that we we're not is supply more weapons, training, and find a way to live without any russian oil or gas immediately.

Yep, and the Ukraine economy. It'll be a disaster. Hopefully it won't happen, but a Mariupol type siege on Odessa will see it fall I'd imagine.

We were safe ages ago Are you Twar?

An overlooked point. The country has been fucked by Russia. If they seize Odessa, that coast and keep what they have seized they essen landlock Ukraine and it's economy is obliterated. The west are highlighting where Russia has failed, but it's had success and ain't finished yet.

Odessa won't be long imo. They want complete control of that western Ukraine coastline to landlock the remnants of Ukraine. Although they haven't taken as much of the country that the west assume they anticipated taking by now, don't underestimate how much of the massive Ukraine they have taken. Even if they retreat to the ore invasion borders, they've caused all sorts of destruction to the country and its people.

Nope, not sure of your point. We're safe, have been for ages, but have been shocking for ages as well. If we were on 37 points or less, you'd have a point, but we're not.

You mean the Amber Heard who the High Court found was the victim of all sorts of abuse, or the attention seeking Vardy? I know it's off topic, but I can't get my head around the criticism of a proven victim of domestic abuse.

Chicken

Cheers, an interesting read.

Not better for me, but he's no less effective there. People's argument for KWP on the right is that he can get to the byeline, but he offers a lot coming inside. On topic, Small ain't ready, so a loan makes sense.

Yep, although he was applauded on here from walking away to come from Everton cos he was ambitious and wanted first team football.

Agreed. I can't see what we could offer him (apart from wages) to turn his head. In his shoes I'd stay there.

But that avoids my question. It's not "a blinder" if he's fined and has to resign. He'll be shown as a hypocrite , who the tories will say, resigned as a consequence. If he's not fined though, different story. As you say, it's a bold move and I'd hate to see him go as Labour have a bit of momentum now and I'd hate to see the opposition weakened.