The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
Not correct. Republic was not on the menu in 2014. A definite error of memory; you must be getting pardonably emotive today.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.
My mum once got in on the Trooping rehearsal (or one of these big events anyway, i can never remember). She was in London with one of her many acolytes and demanded of an official looking fella what was going on. Anyway, a bit of Ma Woolie badgering and probing later it turns out he was a key bloke and sat them up front to watch. She'd have loved today much more than me. I'd rather she was still here and i was watching her make a cake.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
In what way are they wrong on a factual basis? AIUI it was found she falsely alleged that Depp was violent towards her, out of malice, while accepting that it was not done for political reasons (which she's rather shot herself in the foot over with her statement afterwards) so finding partially for her in the counter suit.
Am I wrong in this understanding? I will admit I haven't followed it closely.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
There's quite an amusing photo of the Queen and St Boris at one of their weekly audiences, where she looks somewhere between tickled and aghast.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
There's quite an amusing photo of the Queen and St Boris at one of their weekly audiences, where she looks somewhere between tickled and aghast.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Very impressed. I was looking to do it, but most flights that are advertised are simulators or flying next to a Spitfire. The actual real thing costs a lot. I am going to do a Pitts Special flight. The only actual flying I have is in gliders and it was so long ago I don't even know where my log book is and anyway I didn't have much time.
At my local airport you can learn to fly (starting from zero) on a Tiger Moth, which I always felt would be the romantic way to do it...
A quick musing anyway for Jubilee Day. Confess I’m not getting much buzz but that’s because I’m lurking indoors. The pomp & ceremony of such an occasion is far more impactful in the flesh, something I discovered last week when I was at the Menin Gate in Ypres – surprisingly written “leper” in the local language – for the ceremony they do at 8pm every single day without fail to honour the WW1 dead of Flanders Fields.
It wouldn’t have been much on tv but being there it really was. The Last Post was played, a la Montgomery Clift, followed by the famous “they will not grow old as we who are left …” reading, then it was over to the Protestant Boys Flute Band for the closeout. From the description you might imagine a group of angelic young choirboys playing something sweet and gentle but no, these were fully grown men of military bearing, albeit slightly out of shape, and their music was loud and martial, the eponymous flutes being accompanied by a big bass drum.
After the ceremony this PBFB, now joined by some severe looking blokes in orange bibs, did a noisy march back from the Gate to the town square (maybe 600m) with the crowd (inc me) following in lockstep behind, the drum banging louder and louder as we went. Not my cup of tea at all, yet I got quite swept up in it. If right there and then I’d have come across some nefarious popery I’d probably have glowered at it and said something. As soon as it all stopped I was myself again, thankfully, rooting for a border poll and Irish unification, but the experience did make me appreciate the power of this sort of thing.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
No, in the US case (and the UK one) Heard's team could produce no evidence of the abuse, no medical records, no pictures and in fact Depp's team produced pictures of her the day after the dates she claimed to have been punched in the face by Depp without a single mark or blemish. It was all lies. She simply made up that Depp beat her or abused her in any way. They didn't just do it the one time either, they did it for all of the claims, that's why the jury found in his favour. I've been in a few scraps in my life and been punched in the face before, that doesn't disappear overnight and they had expert testimony from doctors who said the same.
There were also some quite fantastical claims that he attacked her with a broken wine bottle yet can produce no evidence of scars or marks from being attacked with broken glass.
I think the clinching moment was when she claimed to have used a type of make up to cover up the blemishes, yet it wasn't invented for two years after the date she claimed to have used it.
Without any evidence it's completely wrong to say that they abused each other. Again, the jury and judge also agreed after seeing the (lack of) evidence for Heard's claims.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
A republican came on here and said "Republic. Now." just as the celebrations were about to start.
I said "Dick" because it was a remarkably dickish thing to do. Whatever your views on the monarchy (and, yes, I am a fan) this bank holiday is to celebrate the lifetime achievement of a lady who's given our country over 70 years of dedicated service. Indeed, one who's served the whole world. See Barack Obama's tribute, who I'm sure you'd agree is no monarchist.
It's not a day to piss all over that - which so many republicans seemingly can't help themselves doing - because they are frustrated and fearful such events will make the monarchy more popular and want to assert themselves.
You need to take a look at all the facts in future before posting such comments, and possibly take a look in the mirror too.
And it's absolutely no coincidence that the people that have gone around "liking" all these posts are the usual suspects: the arch-Left-wing, ultra-Remain and Corbynista herd.
This all comes as a package - and it's a package of been embarrassment and self-hatred of this country.
I should look in the mirror? What? I have posted nothing but praise for today. The only disappointment is people like you trying to ruin it.
Read, re-read and then read my post again until you understand it - clearly you have basically reading comprehension difficulty.
I wasn't the one ruining it. I have and am enjoying. I was objecting to the republicans who were trying to do so with their shotgun negs and sledging. As I've spelt out and evidenced on here in black and white.
Clearly, you're too stupid to recognise and understand this. So I will simply ignore you from here on in.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I don't think it's fair to say that, there's no evidence of it. As you may have realised, the trial has been compulsive viewing for my wife over the last couple of weeks while we've both been home.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
You've heard a spitfire?
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Very impressed. I was looking to do it, but most flights that are advertised are simulators or flying next to a Spitfire. The actual real thing costs a lot. I am going to do a Pitts Special flight. The only actual flying I have is in gliders and it was so long ago I don't even know where my log book is and anyway I didn't have much time.
At my local airport you can learn to fly (starting from zero) on a Tiger Moth, which I always felt would be the romantic way to do it...
I'm past that stuff now, I just want someone to scare the willies out of me. Although I am going to do some track driving and although I have good hand eye coordination I have appalling all round coordination (don't get near me when I'm sailing, it is a disaster waiting to happen) so I am getting some much needed lessons from my cousin who is an ex racing driver and who owns a 600 bhp Ferrari.
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
A republican came on here and said "Republic. Now." just as the celebrations were about to start.
I said "Dick" because it was a remarkably dickish thing to do. Whatever your views on the monarchy (and, yes, I am a fan) this bank holiday is to celebrate the lifetime achievement of a lady who's given our country over 70 years of dedicated service. Indeed, one who's served the whole world. See Barack Obama's tribute, who I'm sure you'd agree is no monarchist.
It's not a day to piss all over that - which so many republicans seemingly can't help themselves doing - because they are frustrated and fearful such events will make the monarchy more popular and want to assert themselves.
You need to take a look at all the facts in future before posting such comments, and possibly take a look in the mirror too.
And it's absolutely no coincidence that the people that have gone around "liking" all these posts are the usual suspects: the arch-Left-wing, ultra-Remain and Corbynista herd.
This all comes as a package - and it's a package of been embarrassment and self-hatred of this country.
I should look in the mirror? What? I have posted nothing but praise for today. The only disappointment is people like you trying to ruin it.
Read, re-read and then read my post again until you understand it - clearly you have basically reading comprehension difficulty.
I wasn't the one ruining it. I have and am enjoying. I was objecting to the republicans who were trying to do so with their shotgun negs and sledging. As I've spelt out and evidenced on here in black and white.
Clearly, you're too stupid to recognise and understand this. So I will simply ignore you from here on in.
Good day.
Prat. You really do have anger problems. I fully comprehended your post and you have been whinging all day about this stuff and ruining it for everyone. Go boil your head.
LOL. Ask the average middle-class Russian in a big city what they think of sanctions - why all the branded shops are closed, why they can’t buy Western currencies at the exchanges, why their credit cards don’t work abroad any more?
The more weapons to the Ukranians the better, great to see Biden and Johnson stepping up with medium-range offensive rockets this week.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
Very impressed. I was looking to do it, but most flights that are advertised are simulators or flying next to a Spitfire. The actual real thing costs a lot. I am going to do a Pitts Special flight. The only actual flying I have is in gliders and it was so long ago I don't even know where my log book is and anyway I didn't have much time.
At my local airport you can learn to fly (starting from zero) on a Tiger Moth, which I always felt would be the romantic way to do it...
Older colleague of mine used to go gliding and sometimes flew a Tiggie. I once asked him what it was like, and his reply stuck in the memory. It was an easy plane to fly, but difficult to fly *accurately* - very much intentional when preparing pilots for e.g. Spitfires. (But DYOR.)
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Except all the 'evidence' has come from her and has not been corroborated. Which, when she has been shown to be a proven liar, means that the jury were perfectly entitled to assume she was lying about this as well. I certainly don't think there is any reason to say the jury 'got it wrong'. All the more so since the judge directed them that if there was any evidence or any belief on their part that he had committed any abuse at any time towards Heard then they would have to find against him. So the Jury not only didn't think he was as bad as he was painted by Heard, they actually concluded he had not committed any abuse at all.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Except all the 'evidence' has come from her and has not been corroborated. Which, when she has been shown to be a proven liar, means that the jury were perfectly entitled to assume she was lying about this as well. I certainly don't think there is any reason to say the jury 'got it wrong'. All the more so since the judge directed them that if there was any evidence or any belief on their part that he had committed any abuse at any time towards Heard then they would have to find against him. So the Jury not only didn't think he was as bad as he was painted by Heard, they actually concluded he had not committed any abuse at all.
We also have recorded evidence straight from her own mouth that she physically abused him. Yes strangely all the domestic abuse advocates aren't celebrating the victim Depp getting just damages. Because most of them don't care about abuse, they just don't like men.
LOL. Ask the average middle-class Russian in a big city what they think of sanctions - why all the branded shops are closed, why they can’t buy Western currencies at the exchanges, why their credit cards don’t work abroad any more?
The more weapons to the Ukranians the better, great to see Biden and Johnson stepping up with medium-range offensive rockets this week.
Let us know how those middle-class Russians who can no longer buy Mars Bars can influence the war in Ukraine. Putin can get his own Mars Bars smuggled in diplomatic bags. There is a difference between saying some sanctions are useless or even counter-productive, and wanting Russian tanks rolling up The Mall.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Think if you read the papers you will find it is factual and in the records.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I didn't follow the trial enough to say what I'd have done if I'd been on the jury. Can't relate to the glee at her losing and being hit with massive damages though. Not sure what people who feel that are celebrating.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.
Devon verges are always red white and blue in May (scarlet campion, * of bethlehem and cow parsley, bluebells. Much the best time of year, its all manky and tired by July
One of my recent knitting projects was unintentionally in a patriotic red, white and blue, as those happened to be the yarns we had to hand in the right amounts for test knitting a friend's new shawl pattern, Overmorrow. As a set of colours they do go very well together.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
you should be born and living in the country
Why not Scots living abroad (however defined)?
Don’t they have a stake in their country?
depends what they are abroad for, if they have emigrated permanently then they have no stake whatsoever.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
you should be born and living in the country
Why not Scots living abroad (however defined)?
Don’t they have a stake in their country?
I think Malcolm may prefer them to be in the Hairyan race.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
You've heard a spitfire?
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Git.
Some of us have only flown gliders and Cessnas. It’s more fun flying on your own though
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*
No, not for me. Tho that is a sweet moment: putting them to bed
For me, the terrible moment comes somewhere around 10-12 - and is in fact a sequence of moments - when they lose that perfect innocent childish unselfawareness, and the adult begins to emerge. They look at a toy, or a doll, or their favourite book - and they thrust it away. They do not need help to get to sleep. The door is shut. You hear the first troubled sigh of teenagerdom, which lies just ahead
I found it piercing, and quite saddening, but unavoidable of course, and something comes along to replace it. Sort of
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.
Devon verges are always red white and blue in May (scarlet campion, * of bethlehem and cow parsley, bluebells. Much the best time of year, its all manky and tired by July
One of my recent knitting projects was unintentionally in a patriotic red, white and blue, as those happened to be the yarns we had to hand in the right amounts for test knitting a friend's new shawl pattern, Overmorrow. As a set of colours they do go very well together.
If that shade of wool doesn't have a name, can I suggest 'Passport Blue, the Smell of Freedom?
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I didn't follow the trial enough to say what I'd have done if I'd been on the jury. Can't relate to the glee at her losing and being hit with massive damages though. Not sure what people who feel that are celebrating.
I agree that there is nothing to celebrate, it is just a tragedy. But perhaps we might be going past the idea that anyone can identify as a victim, and victims must always be believed. That would be a long overdue step forward.
On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
“ 180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place”
once it gets to vonc it’s the other way around, make your mind up time for fence sitters, there needs to be a reason to keep him, the appeal of a fresh start being best option to dig the party out if this hole, so it’s about Boris starting on zero and getting to 180 with a message he is best to get the party out the hole.
Is he really?
But there are so many negatives with sticking with Boris to fight back, as proved by his last press conference and yesterdays Mumsnet interview - Partygate is getting worse not better, he looks more like unapologetic liar now than ever before.
So how does he counteract that with strong arguments to keep him?
I’m happy to bet he is going to go loud on Brexit - BREXIT NOT SAFE IN THE HANDS OF THESE REBELS.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
That wasn’t my point.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Except all the 'evidence' has come from her and has not been corroborated. Which, when she has been shown to be a proven liar, means that the jury were perfectly entitled to assume she was lying about this as well. I certainly don't think there is any reason to say the jury 'got it wrong'. All the more so since the judge directed them that if there was any evidence or any belief on their part that he had committed any abuse at any time towards Heard then they would have to find against him. So the Jury not only didn't think he was as bad as he was painted by Heard, they actually concluded he had not committed any abuse at all.
Which goes back to the key point from the coverage of the likes of the BBC and the Guardian that essentially says the jury got it wrong. She admitted she lied in court and got caught out on multiple occasions telling untruths. I agree with @MaxPB that the real losers are the genuine victims of domestic abuse whose claims will be more prone to dismissal.
Wally91 1 contribution Shocking Nov 2021 • Solo This place is full of mutants & I wouldn’t get served because I had green & white striped trainers on then got called a dirty fenian and was asked to leave
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
You've heard a spitfire?
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Git.
Some of us have only flown gliders and Cessnas. It’s more fun flying on your own though
Not if I'm flying it isn't. My main memories of flying a glider was trying to overtake a tug from the right, left, above and below as I over reacted to the higher speed. God knows what the pilot thought I was doing. The other was thinking I had really cracked the winch launch (it was so easy) only to find the instructor taking over the controls as he did a field landing because the winch hadn't changed gear properly and we couldn't do a circuit as we were too low. Incompetence doesn't cover it.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I don't think it's fair to say that, there's no evidence of it. As you may have realised, the trial has been compulsive viewing for my wife over the last couple of weeks while we've both been home.
There were a number of witnesses in the UK case weren't there, who testified to having seen him being rough.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.
US verdict - she lied about him abusing her. UK verdict - the Sun didn't lie when it said he abused her. Which is more likely correct? I don't know. A single judge can be eccentric and produce perverse verdicts. A celebrity televised US trial can become a circus and produce perverse verdicts.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I didn't follow the trial enough to say what I'd have done if I'd been on the jury. Can't relate to the glee at her losing and being hit with massive damages though. Not sure what people who feel that are celebrating.
I agree that there is nothing to celebrate, it is just a tragedy. But perhaps we might be going past the idea that anyone can identify as a victim, and victims must always be believed. That would be a long overdue step forward.
The abuse victim here has been Depp. That he got justice is a thing to celebrate, even if the original abuse was horrible.
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.
Devon verges are always red white and blue in May (scarlet campion, * of bethlehem and cow parsley, bluebells. Much the best time of year, its all manky and tired by July
One of my recent knitting projects was unintentionally in a patriotic red, white and blue, as those happened to be the yarns we had to hand in the right amounts for test knitting a friend's new shawl pattern, Overmorrow. As a set of colours they do go very well together.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I didn't follow the trial enough to say what I'd have done if I'd been on the jury. Can't relate to the glee at her losing and being hit with massive damages though. Not sure what people who feel that are celebrating.
Her problems were:
(1) She was demonstratably a liar - such as her claim to have donated the $7m she got from the divorce to charity. As a general rule, being caught telling massive whoppers tends to dent ones credibility.
(2) She was clearly abusive. Now, I don't know about your relationship, but (for example) crapping in the marital bed to get one over one's husband is not somerthing one does.
That casts massive doubt on (a) whether there was any actual abuse, and (b) if there was abuse whether it was in any way - you know - caused by her. Put those together with the consequences for Depp's career from the allegations, and I think it's pretty easy to see why the jury found as they did.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I don't think it's fair to say that, there's no evidence of it. As you may have realised, the trial has been compulsive viewing for my wife over the last couple of weeks while we've both been home.
There were a number of witnesses in the UK case weren't there, who testified to having seen him being rough.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
Naah the 5m punitive was knocked down to 350k which is the legal max
Why the invalid award has to be made then reduced rather than not made in the first place is anyone's guess
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
you should be born and living in the country
Why not Scots living abroad (however defined)?
Don’t they have a stake in their country?
depends what they are abroad for, if they have emigrated permanently then they have no stake whatsoever.
They may have a haggis in their country, rather than a steak......
The Guardian is not allowing any comments on its bluntly one-sided article on the topic, I see. On a typical day of the Guardian's tribal backing of Amber Heard, and the Mail's tribal hatred of Meghan Markle, the Queen looks like an example of how to stand above the fray.
The Guardian is not allowing any comments on its bluntly one-sided article on the topic, I see. On a day of the Guardian's tribal backing of Amber Heard, and the Mail's tribal hatred of Meghan, the Queen looks like an example of how to stand above the fray,
The Guardian comes from the position the woman is always right and the man is always wrong. It is as simple as that.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I didn't follow the trial enough to say what I'd have done if I'd been on the jury. Can't relate to the glee at her losing and being hit with massive damages though. Not sure what people who feel that are celebrating.
Her problems were:
(1) She was demonstratably a liar - such as her claim to have donated the $7m she got from the divorce to charity. As a general rule, being caught telling massive whoppers tends to dent ones credibility.
(2) She was clearly abusive. Now, I don't know about your relationship, but (for example) crapping in the marital bed to get one over one's husband is not somerthing one does.
That casts massive doubt on (a) whether there was any actual abuse, and (b) if there was abuse whether it was in any way - you know - caused by her. Put those together with the consequences for Depp's career from the allegations, and I think it's pretty easy to see why the jury found as they did.
Also she was caught on tape admitting she hit him. And caught blaming him for making her hit him. Evidence not allowed at the UK trial.
The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
You've heard a spitfire?
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Git.
Some of us have only flown gliders and Cessnas. It’s more fun flying on your own though
Not if I'm flying it isn't. My main memories of flying a glider was trying to overtake a tug from the right, left, above and below as I over reacted to the higher speed. God knows what the pilot thought I was doing. The other was thinking I had really cracked the winch launch (it was so easy) only to find the instructor taking over the controls as he did a field landing because the winch hadn't changed gear properly and we couldn't do a circuit as we were too low. Incompetence doesn't cover it.
Areotows are easy after a couple of goes. Just keep your aircraft nose pointed at the tail of the aircraft in front - the one with the rope connecting you!
Winch launches take a bit more practice (but are cheaper and faster), you have to understand the nuances of your winch, and work out when it’s good and when it’s failing. As I’m sure your instructor made clear after you “landed out” in the wrong field!
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
That is a point, isn't it? Might she now face perjury charges in this country?
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
I don't think so. Personally, I think the evidence is that he was physically "rough" towards her, but that it was part of a cocreated dynamic where she was every bit as bad as (and probably worse than) him.
I don't think it's fair to say that, there's no evidence of it. As you may have realised, the trial has been compulsive viewing for my wife over the last couple of weeks while we've both been home.
There were a number of witnesses in the UK case weren't there, who testified to having seen him being rough.
Would you want to lie under oath in the US? I certainly wouldn't. They lied for her here because they know there's not going to be any punishment. Heard and her friends are extremely unreliable witnesses and once again, the Depp team demolished all the claims of abuse with actual evidence. Heard could only produce a he said she said in response. I mean one of the claims was that she was attacked by Depp with a broken wine bottle. That will leave permanent scars and it's a simple exercise of a medical exam by her own doctor to produce evidence of said attack. She didn't because it didn't happen, whatever her friends may have testified in the UK court.
If Heard and her team were able to produce a single shred of evidence for her claims of being abused the jury would have ruled against Depp. She and they couldn't because the abuse never happened, it was all lies and her friends witness statements were all lies as well. The judge in the UK fell for it and now as @MrEd said, the CPS won't pursue perjury charges against Heard because they won't want to show up the judge who was hoodwinked.
So has anyone worked out who these ringers pretending to be England are? The person pretending to be Jimmy this morning was a very good facsimile but these openers are taking the piss. No one is going to believe this.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
Punitive damages are capped in Virginia at 350k. also 2mil of for her claim net 8.3 mil
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*
No, not for me. Tho that is a sweet moment: putting them to bed
For me, the terrible moment comes somewhere around 10-12 - and is in fact a sequence of moments - when they lose that perfect innocent childish unselfawareness, and the adult begins to emerge. They look at a toy, or a doll, or their favourite book - and they thrust it away. They do not need help to get to sleep. The door is shut. You hear the first troubled sigh of teenagerdom, which lies just ahead
I found it piercing, and quite saddening, but unavoidable of course, and something comes along to replace it. Sort of
What about the moment when they realize you're not superman you're just a bloke and quite a dodgy one too?
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mix
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexuals
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.
Peter Cook was satirising the summing-up, the day afterwards. On Norman Scott: ‘He is a crook, a fraud, a sponger, a whiner and a parasite. But of course, he could still be telling the truth.’ Fun fact: the pink oboe line was given to Cook by Billy Connolly. Other fun fact: Scott did indeed seem to be a sponger, a whiner and a parasite.
Another fun fact - Tom Baker has a line along the lines of "I gave a thorough blow on my pink oboe" in "Doctor Who and the Pescatons". I had the LP as a child but the line rather passed me by at the time.
So has anyone worked out who these ringers pretending to be England are? The person pretending to be Jimmy this morning was a very good facsimile but these openers are taking the piss. No one is going to believe this.
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans Orthodoxy
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.
$13M
I thought it was $15m in damages (which, by the way, does not sound unreasonable given he basically hasn't worked since the article), plus she will have had to pay her lawyers millions.
It was $10 million in compensation and $5 million in punitive damages. But the judge then had to inform the court that under Virginia law punitive damages are always capped at £350,000 so the actual award to Depp was $10.35 million. Not sure what happens about costs.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Neither Welby nor Andrew will be there, the sermon will be given by the Archbishop of York.
Note Andrew not only was banned from the balcony earlier today but failed to even make the back window unlike the Sussexes and his daughters and husbands
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
I am sure she prefers a lively narcissist who encourages illegal parties to be held during her husbands funeral. The engaging stories and quips will more than make up for that.
Tell me again, Prime Minister, that engaging story about what you were doing the night before my husband’s funeral.
Well Bozo was in Chequers but all the mice (staff) in No 10 were playing / drinking because the Big Cat / Dog was away.
Comments
She'd have loved today much more than me. I'd rather she was still here and i was watching her make a cake.
Am I wrong in this understanding? I will admit I haven't followed it closely.
Now, I have to admit I didn’t follow the trial at all, so I’m playing catch-up.
But as far as I can tell, she implied he was a domestic abuser, and what evidence we have suggests that he was (and that so was she, and that she’s also a liar).
This also seems to be the opinion of some random lawyers I know.
Cairns did, on far flimsier evidence.
It wouldn’t have been much on tv but being there it really was. The Last Post was played, a la Montgomery Clift, followed by the famous “they will not grow old as we who are left …” reading, then it was over to the Protestant Boys Flute Band for the closeout. From the description you might imagine a group of angelic young choirboys playing something sweet and gentle but no, these were fully grown men of military bearing, albeit slightly out of shape, and their music was loud and martial, the eponymous flutes being accompanied by a big bass drum.
After the ceremony this PBFB, now joined by some severe looking blokes in orange bibs, did a noisy march back from the Gate to the town square (maybe 600m) with the crowd (inc me) following in lockstep behind, the drum banging louder and louder as we went. Not my cup of tea at all, yet I got quite swept up in it. If right there and then I’d have come across some nefarious popery I’d probably have glowered at it and said something. As soon as it all stopped I was myself again, thankfully, rooting for a border poll and Irish unification, but the experience did make me appreciate the power of this sort of thing.
There were also some quite fantastical claims that he attacked her with a broken wine bottle yet can produce no evidence of scars or marks from being attacked with broken glass.
I think the clinching moment was when she claimed to have used a type of make up to cover up the blemishes, yet it wasn't invented for two years after the date she claimed to have used it.
Without any evidence it's completely wrong to say that they abused each other. Again, the jury and judge also agreed after seeing the (lack of) evidence for Heard's claims.
I wasn't the one ruining it. I have and am enjoying. I was objecting to the republicans who were trying to do so with their shotgun negs and sledging. As I've spelt out and evidenced on here in black and white.
Clearly, you're too stupid to recognise and understand this. So I will simply ignore you from here on in.
Good day.
So jealous.
No, hang on.....
At least he won’t have to worry about the sweats.
If if goes it spoils everything? All bets will be off?
Just waiting for the legs to heal fully.
I would love him to stay as Labour have an opportunity then for a landslide.
But I care about this country more. So for that reason he must go.
The more weapons to the Ukranians the better, great to see Biden and Johnson stepping up with medium-range offensive rockets this week.
I’ve no idea how he got planning permission.
Don’t they have a stake in their country?
Certainly not the Queens Arms in the New Town of Edinburgh. Maybe somewhere south of the border.
Some of us have only flown gliders and Cessnas. It’s more fun flying on your own though
For me, the terrible moment comes somewhere around 10-12 - and is in fact a sequence of moments - when they lose that perfect innocent childish unselfawareness, and the adult begins to emerge. They look at a toy, or a doll, or their favourite book - and they thrust it away. They do not need help to get to sleep. The door is shut. You hear the first troubled sigh of teenagerdom, which lies just ahead
I found it piercing, and quite saddening, but unavoidable of course, and something comes along to replace it. Sort of
once it gets to vonc it’s the other way around, make your mind up time for fence sitters, there needs to be a reason to keep him, the appeal of a fresh start being best option to dig the party out if this hole, so it’s about Boris starting on zero and getting to 180 with a message he is best to get the party out the hole.
Is he really?
But there are so many negatives with sticking with Boris to fight back, as proved by his last press conference and yesterdays Mumsnet interview - Partygate is getting worse not better, he looks more like unapologetic liar now than ever before.
So how does he counteract that with strong arguments to keep him?
I’m happy to bet he is going to go loud on Brexit - BREXIT NOT SAFE IN THE HANDS OF THESE REBELS.
Will it work? Has he anything else to say?
Wally91
1 contribution
Shocking
Nov 2021 • Solo
This place is full of mutants & I wouldn’t get served because I had green & white striped trainers on then got called a dirty fenian and was asked to leave
All a bit silly when you write it down
(1) She was demonstratably a liar - such as her claim to have donated the $7m she got from the divorce to charity. As a general rule, being caught telling massive whoppers tends to dent ones credibility.
(2) She was clearly abusive. Now, I don't know about your relationship, but (for example) crapping in the marital bed to get one over one's husband is not somerthing one does.
That casts massive doubt on (a) whether there was any actual abuse, and (b) if there was abuse whether it was in any way - you know - caused by her. Put those together with the consequences for Depp's career from the allegations, and I think it's pretty easy to see why the jury found as they did.
Why the invalid award has to be made then reduced rather than not made in the first place is anyone's guess
Winch launches take a bit more practice (but are cheaper and faster), you have to understand the nuances of your winch, and work out when it’s good and when it’s failing. As I’m sure your instructor made clear after you “landed out” in the wrong field!
Edit: I used to be good friends with the guys who made this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aumO0ZHwAro
If Heard and her team were able to produce a single shred of evidence for her claims of being abused the jury would have ruled against Depp. She and they couldn't because the abuse never happened, it was all lies and her friends witness statements were all lies as well. The judge in the UK fell for it and now as @MrEd said, the CPS won't pursue perjury charges against Heard because they won't want to show up the judge who was hoodwinked.
What a shame….
Or hasn't that happened yet?
Note Andrew not only was banned from the balcony earlier today but failed to even make the back window unlike the Sussexes and his daughters and husbands