egg

That makes sense actually. Can't think who it was against, but Tella played as a kind of auxillary RWB with the right CB shifting over to RB a lot. It worked as well.

It's not that good.

Because he's here this season and is the best we have.

Ditto. Perhaps Redmond LWB? Could also be Stephens at LB. Odd nonetheless.

Blimey SOG, the OJ reference is desperate. I deal with court findings and domestic abuse cases for a living. I know the burden of proof. I know the mental gymnastics performed by the Judge to arrive at a verdict. We have a really strong court system. I've yet to meet a High Court Judge who doesn't have a brain the size of a small city. Sure, the Depp decision could have been wrong, but it hasn't been appealed, thus it stands and must be respected. On one hand you say that it shouldn't be ignored, but on the other hand you are saying exactly that. You're all over the place in your desperation to support Depp and condemn Heard, and frankly I have no time for anyone who tries hard to argue the case for someone who's been found to have abused a woman. There's been talk of Heard lying and/or exaggerating. I can't speak for the USA court, but over hear that doesn't necessarily matter. I'll give you a bit of actual English law and after that I'll leave it. Lying - It is not uncommon for witnesses to tell lies in the course of a fact-finding investigation and a court hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). Exaggeration - The court must be vigilant to the possibility that one or other party may be seeking to gain an advantage in the battle against the other. This does not mean that allegations are false, but it does increase the risk of misinterpretation, exaggeration, or fabrication (Re W (Children)(Abuse: Oral Evidence) [2010] UKSC 12). I could go on but this is boring AF and I know that you'll come back and defend Depp, for whatever reason.

Chestnut

It's pointless asking me hypothetical questions about evidence I've not heard. In any event, I've said that i have no interest in dipping my toe and playing judge in this trial. I'll leave that to you and Hypo. Who is right or wrong here I don't care. All I know is that there's been one trial and Depp lost. Bizarrely you and Hypo seem to think that a High Court verdict, after hearing all the evidence should be ignored. Odd imo, unless you don't respect our judicial system. Here's a good article on the issue. People throwing flowers at the bloke after he was found to have headbutted the woman ffs. Perhaps consider some of the findings that have actually been made against Depp, then explain why you're so keen on defending him. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amber-heard-johnny-depp-fans-memes-reddit-b2076329.html

No wind up mate. Genuinely non plussed with blokes who feel qualified to say that a high court judge must be wrong and that Amber Heard must be wrong and Johnny Depp correct. Anyway, you get back to playing judge, I'll go walk the dog.

That's exactly what you are suggesting. You said "I watched the evidence with my own eyes and drew my own conclusions. I'd suggest always doing that if you get the opportunity rather than trusting in the infallibility of a single judge". That's you saying that your judgement is the right one rather than a judge who heard the evidence. No misinterpretation from me. Just backtracking from you.

Blimey. Can't imagine how it must have felt to have been driving, hearing that siren, and then seeing and seeing and hearing that. All of a sudden your nightmare becomes a reality, and you probably realise that life will never be the same again. Awful.

This discussion began on a thread about Rooney/Vardy. That's being heard in the High Court by a single judge. That judge is hearing the evidence and will determine it by the civil standard. I suspect most people will respect the judgement, bar the loser. The Depp libel case was also heard in the High Court by a single judge, yet your view is that we should forget that judges finding. Instead you prefer your own analysis from watching on the telly. No disrespect, but you've got a bloody high opinion of your judgement. I have no need to watch it. I'm no amateur judge, and an experienced High Court judge has done the job already. It's you that wants to judge these two, not me. American lawyers coach their clients. They're allowed to and do so. English lawyers can't and don't. It's pretty obvious that an actor / actress will play to the audience in a TV trial. I'll stick to accepting the analysis of the evidence of a high court judge rather than a bloke on a football forum.

There's nothing close minded about respecting the considered judgement of a high court judge who sat through the evidence. Frankly, it beggars belief that you feel that your opinion from watching some of the USA media circus trial should count for more than that of the high court judge. As to the legal processes, in the USA witnesses are coached and, in this case, literally play to the cameras. In our high court there can be no coaching and people don't play to the cameras. Thus, I'd take the evidence in our court much more at face value than what is being shown on the telly.

So you think that your judgement from watching a bit on the telly is more credible than a high court judge who sat through the evidence?!? I know who I have more respect for. I'll leave the discussion there mate.

I respect our High Court. They heard evidence and decided the matter. I have no interest in a trial by media, and certainly won't judge either of them myself based on snippets. As matters stand, she said he'd abused her and findings have been that he did.

He is saying he was defamed by an article which all but singled him out as a domestic abuser. He is denying that he is. Heard says that he was. The High Court found that he was - a finding of fact is essentially a guilty verdict in the civil court. That you don't like the process, doesn't change what has happened. Depp essentially seeks to reverse those findings and show himself not to be an abuser of Heard.

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?