OneMoreFarang

This is a nice summary

I watched part of the court case and I listened and watched. You could still try the same. The videos are out there. The conclusion should be obvious.

She played the victim who never did anything wrong. And she failed miserably. He didn't have to act.

This court cases wouldn't have happened without her wrong accusations. He lost his jobs and income because of her baseless accusations. I am sure Johnny is not proud of everything he did in his life and I am sure he would have been happier not to see all this in court. But it was his only chance to clean his name and to be able to continue a "normal" life again.

One a good actor and one a terrible and deluded actor.

Don't pretend people are guilty only because someone accuses them. If person A thinks person B assaulted them then person A should go to the police, preferably right away after it happened. If there is evidence then person B will be prosecuted. And if there is enough evidence then person B will be punished. And until there is a verdict then stay with the long tradition that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The current drama, and many others, wouldn't exist if people would look at facts and not just accusations. If Amber had evidence that Johnny hit her then she should have told the police. But that is not what she did. Instead she told everybody what a bad guy he is and the media reported it and Johnny was suddenly the bad guy and he lost his jobs and his income. All because of accusations. It's time to reverse this crazy trend that accusations are enough to ruin someone else life - without any consequences for the accuser who makes up these accusations. And additionally it's time that some people, especially feminists, learn, that there are male and female abusers and victims. It should be obvious but it seems many feminists still think if they just repeat often enough that all women always tell the truth that we should somehow believe them. If those feminists want to move forward and if they want to be takes seriously in the future then I suggest they publish something like this: Amber obviously lied. She is guilty. Some woman do lie. Don't believe all of them. Listen to people who claim they have been abused, encourage them to go to the police. And let the justice system do it's job.

Did he get those 10 million? Will he ever get them? It seems Amber has money problems and it doesn't seem to me that she will make much money in the future.

Are you serious? All those pictures which I publish here I re-publish. They are already on the internet. I don't add new pictures of people to the internet. Sometimes I add pictures of food which I made myself - without any people. And sometimes I make pictures of pretty girls with not so many clothes. I ask them if they allow that and I don't publish any of them anywhere. They are my private "memories" - like those old fashioned pictures many of us had many years ago.

We? Maybe that is the case for you. Personally I just don't want to be in lots of pictures and videos. I like my privacy. I guess for some people who post their whole life on fb that is difficult to understand.

Maybe it's just my YouTube feed. But it seems more and more men are fed up with this and they stand up and don't accept all the MeToo c r a p anymore.

He won the case and he won the public. I don't think he can win more. I am pretty sure he will get lots of roles again and soon that chapter of his life is behind him. There is no point for him to keep this in the news. It's done. He won.

It is biased - like any other source. In general the Guardian is still my favorite news source. Not perfect but better than many others. But with this trial they failed. At least one news article not long ago reported maybe 10% of the facts. And only the facts which were good for Amber. It must have somehow missed the 90% in favor of Johnny. And the opinion piece today is about as bad as it gets. At least it was clearly marked as opinion and it wasn't from any of their usual contributors.

He risked to expose a lot of bad behavior from himself. And she made lots of videos and pictures from him in bad situations. He appears like an individual with lots of problems. But beating up women is not part of that behavior. She tried from the beginning until the end to present herself as the good person who never did anything wrong. She didn't even admit that she didn't donate the money to the children even if it was clear on record that she didn't donate it. She is delusional. On top of that she is a bad actor. Why should anybody hire her? Who wants to see her?

Anybody who gets paid enough. With her behavior you can't blame the lawyer for losing.

But who would hire her? Imagine she would say in such a movie: Give it to me, harder! And then the guys do just that. And then she will sue them and the producer and director and everybody else for treating her like a dog. No, that is not a good idea.

So just ignoring all the industry insiders views that were quoted in the story...quelle surprise I regularly read The Guardian because they are often a reliable source. But sometimes they are just one sided and they publish only half truth and crazy opinions. And they know the opinions are crazy. That is why they don't allow any reader comments. I am sure it is always possible to find "experts" with any opinion anybody wants to find. Just talk to 20 people and one of them will say what you want to hear. And then publish only that one opinion and ignore all the others. Unfortunately that is what the Guardian allowed to happen in this case.

Basically you are right. But did you expect this verdict from the jury in these MeToo times? Personally I was sure that she was guilty. But I was not sure at all that the jury would have the same verdict - with all jury members having the same verdict. I guess she thought she could get away with her lying because of MeToo and everybody should believe all women. But her acting was just too bad. She lied to badly that it was impossible not to see it. Imagine if she would have been a little smarter. Maybe admit directly that she didn't jet donate the money to the children and maybe a few humble words that she also made mistakes. I guess then that verdict could have been very different... Good that she is so stupid and full of herself. She ruined herself.

I saw some of the trial and I think it was obvious that she was lying all the time. And there was no prove at all that he hurt her - what she claimed. So from what I saw she was very much guilty and he was innocent. But in these MeToo times I was not so sure that the jury would vote for him. But they did. He won almost on any count. She made up the stories, she wanted to destroy him and she did it deliberately. He won. Great. But then it is fascinating/sad how some people see this trial. I read this opinion this morning and I was shocked how ignorant and one sided some people can be. The Amber Heard-Johnny Depp trial was an orgy of misogyny | Moira Donegan | The Guardian When will those feminist understand that they will never get the support from many men as long as they claim all women are always right and all men are always wrong. Even for feminists that shouldn't be so difficult to understand. Imagine a feminist would write something like this: Often women are abused but sometimes it is the other way around. Sometimes they abuse men and then they lie. We should always fight for the truth regardless of the gender of the involved people. I am sure feminist could win over lots of people if they would admit that not all men are wife beaters and not all women are innocent. But it seems many feminists are so brainwashed that that possibility never crosses their mind. Sad.

I hope they use the same law with all those YouTubers who run around and publish the faces of anybody who is near their camera.

I wander how many people here really vote about political opinion. Like this is liberal politics that that is conservative. For me it looks like that family name does this person have? How is his/her father? How corrupt do I think is this or that person? For me personally the first question would be: How competent and honest is this candidate? If then more than one candidate is left then I can start thinking about possible difference in what they promise they will do.

I wonder what their crime was. Like i.e.: - not giving enough to their superiors - intrusion into illegal business which was run by another officer - standing up again one more senior organized crime member?

I suggest let him select the helmet. Maybe he wants some cool color or that latest in-brand. The most important thing is that he wears a helmet at all. If you buy one for him which he doesn't really like then maybe he won't wear it - at lest when you are not looking...

My one is about 70. She doesn't make me feel anything. She just wants her money.

There are established solutions.

Apart from the little fact that it wouldn't be enforced I wonder what smokers who own a condominium should do. Should they just decide to stop smoking? Or should they go 20 times a day to the street to smoke? Or maybe they need a "cleanroom" with special filter system in their unit so that they can smoke? I never smoked but I am realistic. Lots of (older) people do smoke. It was fashion some time ago. And most of these people can't just quit. If smoking is really so bad then don't sell cigarettes. And don't sell alcohol. And don't allow fast food and maybe no driving and no this and no that. This world is going nuts.