egg

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?

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