Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
jonny deep
Comments
-
11 -
Lost his wife beater libel case.0
-
Oh, thanks for that. I knew there must have been a reason I got picture of him and added a Stella Artois logo to his t-shirt.Covered End said:Lost his wife beater libel case.21 -
Yes, perhaps a little subtle for some.Chizz said:
Oh, thanks for that. I knew there must have been a reason I got picture of him and added a Stella Artois logo to his t-shirt.Covered End said:Lost his wife beater libel case.0 -
seems he needs to cut down on the booze and Peruvian talc, AND keep his slappy hands to himself around his lady friends1
-
Lots of his past lady friends have said he'd never laid a finger on them (in that kind of way) Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of course but this woman he married doesn't seem quite the ticket to me.Lincsaddick said:seems he needs to cut down on the booze and Peruvian talc, AND keep his slappy hands to himself around his lady friends6 -
No doubt that she is fucking mental aswell, but from what I've heard/read he's pretty bang to rights this time around.charltonbob said:
Lots of his past lady friends have said he'd never laid a finger on them (in that kind of way) Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of course but this woman he married doesn't seem quite the ticket to me.Lincsaddick said:seems he needs to cut down on the booze and Peruvian talc, AND keep his slappy hands to himself around his lady friends0 -
Evidence proven on 12/14 charges, including video evidence.0
-
Obviously i'm not the judge but from i've read i don't know how he decided the way he did. Seemingly ignored all the evidence from a ton of witnesses including nurses and police and disregarded recordings of her admitting abusing him. There are zero recordings of him abusing/hitting her. She's a complete wrong un and i think was even arrested for violence against another ex. He's never even been accused of anything and many of his ex's came out to say this.CAFCsayer said:
No doubt that she is fucking mental aswell, but from what I've heard/read he's pretty bang to rights this time around.charltonbob said:
Lots of his past lady friends have said he'd never laid a finger on them (in that kind of way) Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of course but this woman he married doesn't seem quite the ticket to me.Lincsaddick said:seems he needs to cut down on the booze and Peruvian talc, AND keep his slappy hands to himself around his lady friends
The Sun is also acting like winning the libel case is proof that he did beat Amber Heard, with that total prick Dan Wootton waffling on about how he stands with Amber etc, when in reality all it seems to mean is that the judge doesn't consider it libel to accuse him of it.
Wootton is all cocky now but he wasn't too sure during the trial, he refused to take the stand and didn't turn up to a single day of the trial. Now he's acting like he's a hero and a 'voice' against domestic abuse. Fuck off and take your scum paper with you.7 -
Giggs “hold my beer”.9
- Sponsored links:
-
He did beat her. In a libel trial, I doubt that much interest is given to how much she beat him too (which she clearly did), instead the focus would be around if the claims that he hits his wife are true.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Obviously i'm not the judge but from i've read i don't know how he decided the way he did. Seemingly ignored all the evidence from a ton of witnesses including nurses and police and disregarded recordings of her admitting abusing him. There are zero recordings of him abusing/hitting her. She's a complete wrong un and i think was even arrested for violence against another ex. He's never even been accused of anything and many of his ex's came out to say this.CAFCsayer said:
No doubt that she is fucking mental aswell, but from what I've heard/read he's pretty bang to rights this time around.charltonbob said:
Lots of his past lady friends have said he'd never laid a finger on them (in that kind of way) Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of course but this woman he married doesn't seem quite the ticket to me.Lincsaddick said:seems he needs to cut down on the booze and Peruvian talc, AND keep his slappy hands to himself around his lady friends
The Sun is also acting like winning the libel case is proof that he did beat Amber Heard, with that total prick Dan Wootton waffling on about how he stands with Amber etc, when in reality all it seems to mean is that the judge doesn't consider it libel to accuse him of it.
Wootton is all cocky now but he wasn't too sure during the trial, he refused to take the stand and didn't turn up to a single day of the trial. Now he's acting like he's a hero and a 'voice' against domestic abuse. Fuck off and take your scum paper with you.
They were, so he loses the case.
A criminal trial, in my opinion would probably not see him or her convicted, or possibly both of them!3 -
This is just the libel case - its not a legal decision that either Depp or Heard are/aren't domestic abusers. That is a different case entirely.1
-
It's pretty conclusive that he is a 'wife beater' - the judge's ruling couldn't have been much more damning. I'm unclear how any appeal can win?thenewbie said:This is just the libel case - its not a legal decision that either Depp or Heard are/aren't domestic abusers. That is a different case entirely.
0 -
Why did Depp bother, if he is guilty of the papers claim?
Depending on where the abuse took place, could both him and his Mrs now face criminal prosecution, even if neither want to press charges0 -
The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.0 -
he probably bothered because any 'suspicion' of wife beating could make him unemployable and a hate figure .. he almost certainly needs the adoration and fame despite all the millions he has made from (e.g.) Pirates of the Caribbeani_b_b_o_r_g said:Why did Depp bother, if he is guilty of the papers claim?
Depending on where the abuse took place, could both him and his Mrs now face criminal prosecution, even if neither want to press charges0 -
I could understand that logic if he was innocent, but he weren't. So, purely talking about his reputation here, surely he'd have been better to just let the reports go?Lincsaddick said:
he probably bothered because any 'suspicion' of wife beating could make him unemployable and a hate figure .. he almost certainly needs the adoration and fame despite all the millions he has made from (e.g.) Pirates of the Caribbeani_b_b_o_r_g said:Why did Depp bother, if he is guilty of the papers claim?
Depending on where the abuse took place, could both him and his Mrs now face criminal prosecution, even if neither want to press charges0 -
I listened to a senior media lawyer on Radio London discussing the case and the Judge's decision was pretty damning against Depp. There seemed to be a considerable amount of evidence according to the judgement - we should be concentrating on the issue of domestic abuse not on our dislike of the Sun.ColinTat said:The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.
2 -
To call him a domestic abuser (something that this case has not done) is a pretty big accusation. It's clear both of them were physical in both loving ways and violent ways. Something that went on for quite some time. She even cut his finger tip off!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to a senior media lawyer on Radio London discussing the case and the Judge's decision was pretty damning against Depp. There seemed to be a considerable amount of evidence according to the judgement - we should be concentrating on the issue of domestic abuse not on our dislike of the Sun.ColinTat said:The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.
Depp however is painted worse than Heard by the media because he's the male.
That's equality of sexes right there...4 -
I listened to Mark Stephens who is a senior media lawyer talking about the case this morning and he said the judge was damning of Depp in his judgement - it was his libel case not Heard's. I haven't read through the legal judgement but I'm happy to listen to the views of Stephens.Dazzler21 said:
To call him a domestic abuser (something that this case has not done) is a pretty big accusation. It's clear both of them were physical in both loving ways and violent ways. Something that went on for quite some time. She even cut his finger tip off!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to a senior media lawyer on Radio London discussing the case and the Judge's decision was pretty damning against Depp. There seemed to be a considerable amount of evidence according to the judgement - we should be concentrating on the issue of domestic abuse not on our dislike of the Sun.ColinTat said:The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.
Depp however is painted worse than Heard by the media because he's the male.
That's equality of sexes right there...
The evidence was pretty conclusive by all accounts. Domestic abuse needs to be condemned whoever perpetrates it.
If the verdict is unfair then I imagine Drop will win on appeal but I won't hold my breath.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I'm not saying the verdict is unfair, I am saying the media portrayal ignoring Heards abuse of Depp is unfair.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to Mark Stephens who is a senior media lawyer talking about the case this morning and he said the judge was damning of Depp in his judgement - it was his libel case not Heard's. I haven't read through the legal judgement but I'm happy to listen to the views of Stephens.Dazzler21 said:
To call him a domestic abuser (something that this case has not done) is a pretty big accusation. It's clear both of them were physical in both loving ways and violent ways. Something that went on for quite some time. She even cut his finger tip off!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to a senior media lawyer on Radio London discussing the case and the Judge's decision was pretty damning against Depp. There seemed to be a considerable amount of evidence according to the judgement - we should be concentrating on the issue of domestic abuse not on our dislike of the Sun.ColinTat said:The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.
Depp however is painted worse than Heard by the media because he's the male.
That's equality of sexes right there...
The evidence was pretty conclusive by all accounts. Domestic abuse needs to be condemned whoever perpetrates it.
If the verdict is unfair then I imagine Drop will win on appeal but I won't hold my breath.
Neither sound like the kind of people you'd want a relative dating.0 -
I heard Stephens on the news as well opining confidently that any appeal would be refused. Stephens wasn't involved in the court proceedings but in a couple of hours had managed to digest a 129 page judgement and give opinion on the chances of appeal. As a fellow solicitor, I'm very impressed. Most of us would need a lot more time to read and research before being able to give a considered view. Of course, Stephens is the go to guy for news channels when they want a strident view. It helps that he hasn't been instructed on a big case for 10 years or so. The last one I remember him doing was Julian Assage.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to Mark Stephens who is a senior media lawyer talking about the case this morning and he said the judge was damning of Depp in his judgement - it was his libel case not Heard's. I haven't read through the legal judgement but I'm happy to listen to the views of Stephens.Dazzler21 said:
To call him a domestic abuser (something that this case has not done) is a pretty big accusation. It's clear both of them were physical in both loving ways and violent ways. Something that went on for quite some time. She even cut his finger tip off!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I listened to a senior media lawyer on Radio London discussing the case and the Judge's decision was pretty damning against Depp. There seemed to be a considerable amount of evidence according to the judgement - we should be concentrating on the issue of domestic abuse not on our dislike of the Sun.ColinTat said:The balance of probability. A much easier bar in civil cases. Hence why it seems in the US so many civil cases get overturned if you can afford an appeal: I know it's a UK libel case and these aren't often appealed due to cost.
Frankly if the best evidence was the video of him having an utterly pathetic tantrum, then I do wonder how the majority of assaults were proven past the balance of probability. On the other side if it is appealed, the ability of Depp to throw money at this libel case makes me question any 'new' evidence he provides. Agree with Chris. Dan Wootton and The Sun claiming any moral victory whilst the Murdoch empire loves to employ toxic morally repugnant people is true slime. Roger Ailes for supper and sexual harrasment Mr Murdoch.
Depp however is painted worse than Heard by the media because he's the male.
That's equality of sexes right there...
The evidence was pretty conclusive by all accounts. Domestic abuse needs to be condemned whoever perpetrates it.
If the verdict is unfair then I imagine Drop will win on appeal but I won't hold my breath.3 -
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf
Court's deicsion. Paragraph 580 worth a read - too filthy to copy and past here.2 -
Oof - Good description of Southall in the second half of that line!
I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market ...
1 -
But who took a shit in the bed? That's the big question...2
-
People really text stuff like that?Jints said:https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf
Court's deicsion. Paragraph 580 worth a read - too filthy to copy and past here.
My messages are all "You watching the football?" and "need me to grab anything for dinner on the way home?" etc.
2 -
She's not stupid is she. Five minutes on her knees with the richest, most lawyered up man on the planet was clearly time well spent.Jints said:https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf
Court's deicsion. Paragraph 580 worth a read - too filthy to copy and past here.0 -
On her knees, slightly to the side, by all accounts.SantaClaus said:
She's not stupid is she. Five minutes on her knees with the richest, most lawyered up man on the planet was clearly time well spent.Jints said:https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.pdf
Court's deicsion. Paragraph 580 worth a read - too filthy to copy and past here.1 -
It’s a good point, I wasn’t really aware of the allegations before the case - I’m guessing many were similar to me in that respect. If he had just left it then, if anyone brought it up in the future, he could just say it was a load of bollocks but he’s forced the issue here and it’s gone against him.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
I could understand that logic if he was innocent, but he weren't. So, purely talking about his reputation here, surely he'd have been better to just let the reports go?Lincsaddick said:
he probably bothered because any 'suspicion' of wife beating could make him unemployable and a hate figure .. he almost certainly needs the adoration and fame despite all the millions he has made from (e.g.) Pirates of the Caribbeani_b_b_o_r_g said:Why did Depp bother, if he is guilty of the papers claim?
Depending on where the abuse took place, could both him and his Mrs now face criminal prosecution, even if neither want to press chargesI can only imagine that being a superstar for a long time can wreck your brain and you make decisions that normal folk wouldn’t.0 -
Let's be honest, the allegations came from the Sun newspaper. He could have said, he won't sue them because their credibility for honest reporting is so low it is pointless. It looks like he is probably a wife beater and she is possibly a husband beater. Both careers are damaged and we are reminded that money and success is not the secret to happiness.1
