ntbbiggs
Neil B
ntbbiggs

I’d agree with that. I know you can largely obtain trial transcripts, but I suspect there is still value in video and audio recordings because of how certain cues are interpreted by people, but they should only be accessible to certain people, or particular circumstances. I’m morbidly curious what you do with a

It feels like the only people who benefit from televising a trial are the judges and lawyers. It’s just awful how easy it is to take snippets out of context, but who is actually going to sit down and watch all of it, while possessing the understanding of the subtleties and nuances of what is involved? A few law

I’ve just realised something amusing - in the UK, the losing party in a civil case pays for the court costs and legal fees for the other team. Depp effectively paid The Sun to have the right to call him a wifebeater.

Thanks for that, that’s my feeling too - if you don’t mind me asking what country are you from? I’ve been looking up the World Justice Project’s rankings* of countries and they have the US at 122/139 countries looked at in terms of how fair their civil justice system is for disadvantaged people, it’s the second sub

I haven’t watched it yet. I know the broad outlines of the case, I don’t know if I want to subject myself to the specifics!

That is how it works, but I’m not sure it should. It feels like it’s going to get confusing if there are similar incidents so people can’t quite attach the right witnesses testimony to the right event. Say there are incidents A-E. The Psychologist testifies A-E, Amber testifies about A-E, but then you get Person J who

I agree, I find Depp to be horribly gimmicky. He is one of those where you always feel like you can see him playing a role, you don’t ever forget you’re watching him playing the character, and then he got in to a period where the gimmicks became even more showy to point of the various celebrity impersonations

Hadn’t heard of 892, but I remember just how good Boyega was in Attack The Block so can’t wait to see him in a much more dramatic role

I don’t know that it is that sinister - a friend of mine is rabidly sharing this stuff, despite having had a partner who hit her with a pool cue and had restraining orders raised against him. You’d think her sympathies would be with the woman, or know the issues of women being believed in general. It feels like enough

I saw a great exchange on FaceBook - someone posted under a critical article of Depp that he was a good guy who visited children in hospital etc. The reply (which may not be immediately understandable to non-UK folks) from someone was “Jimmy Saville also visited children in hospital and did charity work”. If you don’t

I think it’s weird because it feels more about manipulating a jury, than about processing the evidence in the best way to reach a fair verdict. Depp’s evidence so far has largely been ‘ad hominem’ - “Look Amber is awful!”. It’s not about being hard to follow, it’s about questioning how it impacts the people who have

Except Depp hasn’t rebutted many specific instances, he has called witnesses that trash Amber’s character (like the psychologist his team paid for which feels like a massive conflict of interest), and witnesses to his supposed character. I’m not saying the trial isn’t being conducted correctly in terms of procedure,

It’s worse in that some of the testimony was allowed in the first place, like the neighbour and friend of Depp saying they didn’t hear anything - unless they live with the couple of every hour and every day, they’re probably not going to hear ANYTHING of incidents that occur in private behind closed doors (not to

We’ve all seen the third Pirates Of The Caribbean movie... Oh, and his performance as Willy Wonka...

Right... so objecting to the basic play in the authoritarian playbook, the violent suppression of dissenting opinion, is ‘boomerism’... Do you go out of your way to look like a moron, or does it just come naturally? Sorry you’re unable to understand reality and resort to witless buzzwords and condescension when people

It feels like a weird structure for a trial like this. She has basically had to sit through weeks of testimony that she is a liar, before she gets to present her specific allegations, which doesn’t seem like a fair way to adjudicate this. She only needs to be telling the truth about a few instances to justify what she

No, it’s just understanding that violence is no way to handle dissent. You’d have to be an utter simpleton to try and claim it was perceptive given how obvious it is...

Enjoy the view of your colon though, it really makes for fascinating conversations!

No, it’s just not a good idea to endorse violence as a way of limiting speech. All they have to say is YOUR speech is stochastic terrorism and then hit you, you’re not on the moral or intellectual high ground you think you are.

“Punch people you disagree with” is not a solution with any thought or wisdom behind, just

No, he deserves to have someone hijack the PA system and overdub him with fart noises, or a repeat of the Jamie Foxx “I’m your conscience” bit. Once you start saying it’s OK to assault people who say something you don’t like, it doesn’t just stop at it being OK to hit people who YOU disagree with

The fact that Depp lost in the UK, a system that is described as too friendly to defamation claims where it was that found that the paper had enough reason to believe that 12 of the 14 incidents occurred, is a pretty good reason to believe Depp is a bad guy. Along with his behaviour on set with the location manager.

It’