Skip to content

Umm, no, not really

The strange, illogical, and unjust ruling has the effect of sanctioning Depp’s alleged abuse of Heard, and of punishing Heard for speaking about it. It will have a devastating effect on survivors, who will be silenced, now, with the knowledge that they cannot speak about their violent experiences at men’s hands without the threat of a ruinous libel suit. In that sense, women’s speech just became a lot less free.

Claims which a jury believes to be true remain just fine. It’s claims that a jury doesn’t believe to be true which have problems. Which is as it should be, no?

25 thoughts on “Umm, no, not really”

  1. A jury must decide on the evidence put in front of it and Heard’s case was very weak, her lawyers hopeless and her performance on the stand poor.

    In retrospect it would appear that the suit against the Daily Star that Depp lost was the perverse decision.

  2. Great result! She’s a horrible woman (bitch). Doesn’t the writer understand, women don’t matter anymore because if they did it would be transphobic.

    I’ll be enjoying the tears from all the right people the next few days. I was happy chuckling away this morning while hanging up my bunting and flags.

  3. @Ottokring: ’In retrospect it would appear that the suit against the Daily Star that Depp lost was the perverse decision.’

    Indeed, it rather casts doubt on our justice system, doesn’t it?

  4. At the moment it’s a draw with one win each. How about they find some other court to decide the winner?

  5. Wasn’t this just always a case of which actor could play the most convincing role as the “victim”?

  6. @ Julia M
    Yes, the British jury seemed to ignore the independent witnesses who reported that it was Heard who was a violent abuser. As we tend to follow US fashions a decade or so later, maybe our juries will recognise the possibility that gender-based violence can be in either direction (something those in the real world have always known) in a decade or so.

  7. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    My wifey works in the DA sector with abused (mainly) women. However, she did a thesis on male victims of DA, and it isn’t what you think it is. It isn’t weedy blokes getting a kicking from robust shotputting females. It’s fathers who know that if they report the abuse or foolishly retaliate, they won’t be believed, and will likely be made out to be the perpetrator and will lose their kids who will be left at home with a violent sociapath. So they have one option and one option only; to stand there and take it and hope for the best. It’s a lot more common than you think. Anyhow, I digress.

    As for the article / trial; wifey is much more knowledgeable in these matters and she, and to be fair all of her work colleagues who aren’t exactly inexperienced in recognising abusers, didn’t find Herd a believable victim, in fact they were leaving towards her being the actual abuser.

    But, hey, what the fuck does she know, she only lives the job 24/7, she doesn’t do anything saintly like write for the Guardian.

  8. “Ruling”?

    That the writer doesn’t know a jury decision from a ruling does not inspire confidence.

  9. Having read some of the coverage of the London case, I was amazed that it failed. Heard is an obviously toxic psycho.
    Not British justice’s finest hour.

  10. ” The strange, illogical, and unjust ruling…”

    Must’ve been watching a different trial from everybody else…

  11. ” The strange, illogical, and unjust ruling…” Must’ve been watching a different trial from everybody else…

    I’m guessing that for those following the Feminist directive #BeliveAllWomen then the “ruling” would have appeared strange, illogical and unjust. Then again, I never acquired a penchant for cognitive dissonance.

    Amber Turd’s facial expressions alone were worth the watch.

  12. It’s claims that a jury doesn’t believe to be true which have problems. Which is as it should be, no?

    See the Sussman trial in the US and get back to me.

  13. Dennis, Satan's Editor-In-Chief

    Perhaps not so strangely enough, Moria Donegan is being sued for defamation in relation to the “Shitty Media Men” list she compiled and then made public. She’s a nasty bit of work, that one.

  14. Indeed, it rather casts doubt on our justice system, doesn’t it?

    Not British justice’s finest hour

    Touching faith expressed in the comments. Touching and misplaced as recent perverse verdicts and laughable sentences concerning the Colston statue and extinction rebellion protests should have made abundantly clear. As for the “supreme court” don’t make me laugh.

  15. This year’s crop won’t bottle as any sort of Chardonnay. Might serve to sprinkle on chips. My recommendation for next year would be a harsh pruning & a pass on the muck spreading.

  16. Amber Turd’s facial expressions alone were worth the watch.

    They were fun.
    My favourite part was the doorman, being asked the same question twenty times by Heard’s legal team, while he was testifying. While say in his car. While vaping. While driving. Without a seatbelt.

  17. Haven’t watched more than 2 minutes of the trial (I never even cared much for Johnny Depp), but I imagine there were at least a few women on the jury. If Amber had much of a case, there was always the option of a hung jury, no? If even one of those women had extreme reservations about how Amber was being treated, or how much more weight Johnny’s testimony may have been given, she could have adamantly dissented.

    So, either those women were somehow intimidated into going against the MeToo movement (in Los Angeles, no less), or activists are just using that as yet another excuse for their failure.

    In other news, Jussie Smollett–after serving 6 days of his 150-day sentence–has a movie about an LGBTQ couple coming out soon on BET+. Proceeds from a musical single he released via Instagram post-trial will be donated to the Rainbow Push Coalition, a race-baiting organization that helps heroes like Jussie and donates to Rhodes Scholars like Biden.

    Looks like Amber could still have a future after this.

  18. Looks like Amber could still have a future after this.

    As what exactly? Her T&A have gone South as fast as her reputation and there are far cheaper, younger and attractive replacements coming to the market that don’t carry either her risk or her baggage.

    Even the “Aquaman 2” cape shit movie that she’s finished has been held hostage to this whole drama. If she’d won then they would have just pushed on and released it, but as it is now the whole project is contaminated. If the execs at Marvel movies aren’t doing the numbers over a recast and reshoot of her scenes then they need their heads examining.

    As for Amber Turd, sure, she might get a daytime movie or part in a soap opera managed by women who are prepared to look past her narcissism and BPD, but no man in Hollyweird would risk it. Far too toxic. Box office poison as they used to say.

  19. @John Galt

    Lemme tell you a little something called the grievance and grifting industry…

  20. C4 News took the same stance as Guardian:
    Amber Heard verdict is an attack on women

    @Harry
    +1 Plus men are embarrasded to admit/report it; also women are extremely vengeful

  21. @Ottokring

    Saw that, disapointing as she appeared to have become more sane. Her piece is irrational with it’s melding of several issues into one

    However, as we’ve seen with Melanie Phillips they can suddenly go batty. JHB seems to be at a crossroads, but veering towards batty

    The support from women for Depp was much larger than for Heard and Birchel asserts Depp supporters must be victims of domestic abuse – nuts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *