Also in the news

[MPH]

46 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

I hope she gets help, she clearly has some form of personality disorder. I have found the whole coverage of her in particular really distasteful though. This whole thing was pretty grim, I hated the constant latest daily clip of Depp playing to the crowd. The fact these things get broadcast is daft and it's hilarious this has gotten way more coverage than Ghislaine's trial

 

 

 

and yet the interesting thing is, she won a very similar course case  in the British legal system just a couple of years ago.

[marbles]

48 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

and yet the interesting thing is, she won a very similar course case  in the British legal system just a couple of years ago.

It really wasn’t similar, was it?

Thought the case was against the papers.  The judge had some kind of relationship to the papers, and several pieces of important evidence were thrown out.  
Could be remembering wrong though, so correct me if I am.

[MPH]

15 minutes ago, marbles said:

It really wasn’t similar, was it?

Thought the case was against the papers.  The judge had some kind of relationship to the papers, and several pieces of important evidence were thrown out.  
Could be remembering wrong though, so correct me if I am.

 

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676

[Scotch]

48 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676

That article is missing two very key things. 

 

The UK trial allowed hearsay evidence where the US one didn't. So basically it considered someone saying something that someone else apparently said without no way of knowing if that was true or not. 

 

Secondly, and more importantly, the judge was biased AF. He should never have been allowed to sit on that case. His son worked for Rupert Murdoch, his son was also pals with the guy who wrote the article in question. His wife's friend hosted dinner parties that Amber Heard attended and the company that the judge used to work for was the very same one that was representing the Sun. 

 

IMO, Depp is an addict and addicts aren't very nice people. He's definately no angel but I don't believe for a single second that he physically abused her much less raped her with a bottle, where as we know for an absolute fact that she DID hit him on numerous occasions. 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, marbles said:

I just don’t see it that way @Finnegan

If anything, this case highlighted the problem with social media, public perception and the justice system.

In the past, when a woman came out and said “he did this too me” - the man was instantly judged and punished in the media.  
Would be nice if we lived in a world where people looked at the facts before jumping to conclusion.  Will we ever? No.  But maybe this case will make some take pause and think.

 

Honestly, if anyone did set back how victims are treated  - it’s Amber with her lying and fabricating evidence.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is accurate.

 

How many times were the lines "you must have done something to provoke him" or "boys will be boys" uttered, or implied, in a courtroom, the media and out in the wider world? To say nothing of the fact  Marital rape was only outlawed in the UK in 1991 and the US in 1993! 

 

To imply that society automatically and instantly believed women in cases of domestic violence is incorrect now and in the past even more so. That in this particular case the woman abused more doesn't make that less so.

 

WRT this particular case, it's two horrendous people, one (Heard) a bit more horrendous than the other, so I feel little need to take a side or show much interest.

[MPH]

7 minutes ago, Scotch said:

That article is missing two very key things. 

 

The UK trial allowed hearsay evidence where the US one didn't. So basically it considered someone saying something that someone else apparently said without no way of knowing if that was true or not. 

 

Secondly, and more importantly, the judge was biased AF. He should never have been allowed to sit on that case. His son worked for Rupert Murdoch, his son was also pals with the guy who wrote the article in question. His wife's friend hosted dinner parties that Amber Heard attended and the company that the judge used to work for was the very same one that was representing the Sun. 

 

IMO, Depp is an addict and addicts aren't very nice people. He's definately no angel but I don't believe for a single second that he physically abused her much less raped her with a bottle, where as we know for an absolute fact that she DID hit him on numerous occasions. 

 

 

well there were was amber hear’s sister who testified that Depp hit her and also hit Amber on numerous occasions… but you need to asses wether her sister would make all that up

 

 

Personally I think both of them are as bad as each other.

[marbles]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is accurate.

 

How many times were the lines "you must have done something to provoke him" or "boys will be boys" uttered, or implied, in a courtroom, the media and out in the wider world? To say nothing of the fact  Marital rape was only outlawed in the UK in 1991 and the US in 1993! 

 

To imply that society automatically and instantly believed women in cases of domestic violence is incorrect now and in the past even more so. That in this particular case the woman abused more doesn't make that less so.

 

WRT this particular case, it's two horrendous people, one (Heard) a bit more horrendous than the other, so I feel little need to take a side or show much interest.

So, I guess Depp got fired from Fantastic Beasts franchise because…… they didn’t believe Amber ??

And Amber get her job on Aquaman because….

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

So, I guess Depp got fired from Fantastic Beasts franchise because…… they didn’t believe Amber ??

And Amber get her job on Aquaman because….

As per above:

 

To imply that society automatically and instantly believed women in cases of domestic violence is incorrect now and in the past even more so. That in this particular case the woman abused more doesn't make that less so.

 

Edit: by "women" above, infer "all women" or "women in general", for sake of clarity.

Edited 4 June 2022 by leicsmac

[marbles]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As per above:

 

To imply that society automatically and instantly believed women in cases of domestic violence is incorrect now and in the past even more so. That in this particular case the woman abused more doesn't make that less so.

Not sure what you mean with this.

I mention things to show the media, and public believed Amber, but you still just say “no”

 

What am I missing?  I am genuinely confused by your argument 

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles

[leicsmac]

Just now, marbles said:

Not sure what you mean with this.

I mention things to show the media, and public believed Amber, but you still say “no”

 

What am I missing?

Apologies for the lack of clarity, then. I'll elaborate:

 

When you said "In the past, when a woman came out and said “he did this too me” - the man was instantly judged and punished in the media" above, I thought it implied that the media believed all women or women in general as a matter of course (rather than just Ms Heard) in cases like this, something that is empirically untrue. If that's an incorrect implication, please do clarify.

[marbles]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Apologies for the lack of clarity, then. I'll elaborate:

 

When you said "In the past, when a woman came out and said “he did this too me” - the man was instantly judged and punished in the media" above, I thought it implied that the media believed all women or women in general as a matter of course (rather than just Ms Heard) in cases like this, something that is empirically untrue. If that's an incorrect implication, please do clarify.

Ok.  It seems we are kind of talking about the same thing.

You think (other than this case) that the public/media do not believe the accuser.

I think they do (as in this case).

 

Maybe you are more exposed to stories of people who make accusations, and not believed.  While I on the other hand am exposed to stories like this one, and others involving different accusations like Chad Lesko, or the Duke Lacrosse Team - all falsely accused and wrongly convicted by the media.  

Does it mean you or I are wrong? No.  Just means we are both partially correct.

 

 

Edited 4 June 2022 by marbles

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, marbles said:

Ok.  It seems we are kind of talking about the same thing.

You think (other than this case) that the public/media do not believe the accuser.

I think they do (as in this case).

 

Maybe you are more exposed to stories of people who make accusations, and not believed.  While I on the other hand am exposed to stories like this one, and others involving different accusations like Chad Lesko, or the Duke Lacrosse Team - all falsely accused and wrongly convicted by the media.  

Does it mean you or I are wrong? No.  Just means we are both partially correct.

 

 

That's about the size of it, then.

 

Personally, I think the conviction rate (as well as simple arrest rate) of DV and rapes and other crimes against women compared to other crimes judged by a jury of the public supplies enough empirical evidence to support my point of view on this one. I can't quite get my head around the idea that society *didn't* have a overall bias against women in this regard in the past, and a lesser (but still noticeable) one now. Of course, it's not Earth-is-flat objective territory and it's subject to a lot of opinion, but there's a lot of evidence out there to back this up.

 

NB. For every Chad Lesko there is a Brock Turner (yes, he was convicted, but the punishment hardly fit the crime).

Edited 4 June 2022 by leicsmac

[fox_favourite]

Personally, that whole case shows how people are obsessive over celebrities and their lives, and it gets on my wick. Why did need to be so public? Why do we have to follow all the little details on their life? The whole thing was a circus. I guess it was lighter news then the rest of the world at the moment, 

 

But it’s given the wrong impression to younger people who are easily influenced that this is how to behave, how life should be. The culture is rotten. 
 

Just my rant that I maybe wrong in, but I just hate it. Lack of sleep makes Fox_Favourite a grumpy fox. 
 

To add - Influencers isn’t a job and shouldn’t be something to aspire to be. Love island, only way is Essex and such like should be banned for creating a false way of the world. And no, you don’t look attractive with lips that resemble a rubber dinghy stuck to your face nor does anyone need to say ‘like’ and ‘OMG’ in every sentence. There I said it. Right, need sleep

Edited 4 June 2022 by fox_favourite

[marbles]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

That's about the size of it, then.

 

Personally, I think the conviction rate (as well as simple arrest rate) of DV and rapes and other crimes against women compared to other crimes judged by a jury of the public supplies enough empirical evidence to support my point of view on this one. I can't quite get my head around the idea that society *didn't* have a overall bias against women in this regard in the past, and a lesser (but still noticeable) one now. Of course, it's not Earth-is-flat objective territory and it's subject to a lot of opinion, but there's a lot of evidence out there to back this up.

 

NB. For every Chad Lesko there is a Brock Turner (yes, he was convicted, but the punishment hardly fit the crime).

Just an fyi

I wasn’t talking about conviction rate - only public/media opinion.  Big difference.

I was also referencing big cases that hit mainstream media.

 

But I do agree with you about conviction rates, especially in cases or rapes.  Defense attorneys are given way to much freedom when going after the victim.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

Just an fyi

I wasn’t talking about conviction rate - only public/media opinion.  Big difference.

I was also referencing big cases that hit mainstream media.

 

But I do agree with you about conviction rates, especially in cases or rapes.  Defense attorneys are given way to much freedom when going after the victim.

Fair enough, that's a much more nebulous discussion that we'd probably still not see eye to eye on, but it is a discussion.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516

 

Truth is the first casualty of authoritarianism.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Personally, that whole case shows how people are obsessive over celebrities and their lives, and it gets on my wick. Why did need to be so public? Why do we have to follow all the little details on their life? The whole thing was a circus. I guess it was lighter news then the rest of the world at the moment, 

 

But it’s given the wrong impression to younger people who are easily influenced that this is how to behave, how life should be. The culture is rotten. 
 

Just my rant that I maybe wrong in, but I just hate it. Lack of sleep makes Fox_Favourite a grumpy fox. 
 

To add - Influencers isn’t a job and shouldn’t be something to aspire to be. Love island, only way is Essex and such like should be banned for creating a false way of the world. And no, you don’t look attractive with lips that resemble a rubber dinghy stuck to your face nor does anyone need to say ‘like’ and ‘OMG’ in every sentence. There I said it. Right, need sleep

Lots to agree with here

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Personally, that whole case shows how people are obsessive over celebrities and their lives, and it gets on my wick. Why did need to be so public? Why do we have to follow all the little details on their life? The whole thing was a circus. I guess it was lighter news then the rest of the world at the moment, 

 

But it’s given the wrong impression to younger people who are easily influenced that this is how to behave, how life should be. The culture is rotten. 
 

Just my rant that I maybe wrong in, but I just hate it. Lack of sleep makes Fox_Favourite a grumpy fox. 
 

To add - Influencers isn’t a job and shouldn’t be something to aspire to be. Love island, only way is Essex and such like should be banned for creating a false way of the world. And no, you don’t look attractive with lips that resemble a rubber dinghy stuck to your face nor does anyone need to say ‘like’ and ‘OMG’ in every sentence. There I said it. Right, need sleep

Are you prepared to stand for office ??  I’ll vote for you ! 

[HighPeakFox]

I know there's been a court case, but it really has little to do with me, and I don't think I really know either person better, or am qualified to have a valid opinion on them as human beings.

 

Why am I writing anything at all? A fair question. I suppose I am reflecting on how something like this exists almost to distract us, or to split our energies, and I return to my position that it is largely better/healthier for me to not spend my time on matters beyond my control - and when I see you, my kindred spirits, on here diverted by something such as this case and at the same time struggling with your own day to day existence, I want to do what I can to say something caring, to encourage good people to spend their precious energy on the important matter of their own lives.

 

I guess that's why I'm writing - I've just had the best 4 days away, and I want you all to have your best days too.

[LiberalFox]

There's definitely an interpretation that both are toxic people and that neither one held power over the other, rather both are fueling the situation due to their shared need of attention. I don't like the idea of televised trials. She's been found liable for defamation but neither this case or the case involving The Sun were directly about the relationship from a legal sense. 

Edited 4 June 2022 by LiberalFox

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61701465

 

Little bit of tit for tat from this side of the world.

[String fellow]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-61707872

 

Boko Haram have been at it again. Sadly, not shocking anymore. Vile people.

[TrentFox]

Is there a reason why d-day didn’t get a single mention on any news channel today, (and I’ve watched a lot)? Has it been cancelled or am I  losing my mind …… 

[HighPeakFox]

9 hours ago, TrentFox said:

Is there a reason why d-day didn’t get a single mention on any news channel today, (and I’ve watched a lot)? Has it been cancelled or am I  losing my mind …… 

Maybe the 78th anniversary wasn't considered significant reason. 

[yorkie1999]

On 04/06/2022 at 03:30, marbles said:

So, I guess Depp got fired from Fantastic Beasts franchise because…… they didn’t believe Amber ??

And Amber get her job on Aquaman because….

Johnny depp's not bothered, he was round steven grahams house last night.