What was your position on Amber Heard & Johnny Depp

His Status and support certainly worked in his favour. I think she may have exaggerated her story. The charity donation or lack of was awful. But at the end of the day they were in a toxic relationship. I didn’t like the way he seemed to laugh through the trial.

I went to ONS.gov.uk and searched for conviction data but I got nothing remotely relevant. It asked if I wanted condition data. Baffling.

Convictions where there has been a false accusation. It is the conviction data on ONS.

I don’t understand what you are saying. What is conviction data? Can you give a citation please?

I haven't said that its equal, that is you projecting, your method of "proven and factual" is based on a flawed system which you are assuming is never wrong.
By your methodology any person that is not convicted did not do the crime.
We know this to be wrong.

I don't believe half of what she said she should have got divorced taken her money and left him to self destruct but nope she had to push and lie about him (I do believe she lied and expected people to believe her because he was an addict) attention seeking narcissistic behaviour she needed to be the one to "win" and she couldn't compete with him in the end

They bought out the absolute worst in each other he was a nasty drunk she was a cheat a liar and antagonist you could see in her recordings she attacked him till he reacted then she had her "evidence" he won because he threw it out there I'm not perfect I have an issue and all she did was "his fault I'm innocent" " his fault I'm innocent" they show her cheating and it's still " his fault" no accountability at all

Most of his ex girlfriends and wives say nice things about him and there is no need for them to lie kate moss is a clear example no bullshit straight to the point she had nothing to gain from lying about him

Nice deflection from answering.

It isn't bias when it is proven and factual. Of course we will never know the true numbers of either sex but they sure as hell are not equal and never will be. If the conviction levels were about 50/50 then I would say so but when males are in the high 90% and females in the single digits then the difference is staggering. and when you couple with certain male only crimes or crimes that only impact on females - femicide for one. And if you look at the data such as the missing 100 million females globally who are not alive because they are females so much so it has changed the global ratio then there isn't any denying who the main perpetrators are.

But keep on assuming it is equal by all means. It isn't biased when the facts are there.

Agreed. Will never forget "my dog stepped on a bee..."

I think that your bias is showing as we will never know the actual number of abusers of either sex as so many victims never report their abuser.

I do apply it to female perpetrators too. However there are less of them.

It is interesting logic as to why you think I wouldn't - why is that? And the same applies to women. However things like the quota are focused purely on letting men walk free to fudge data - is that ok?

That's an interesting leap in logic, If you are going to apply it to women then you should also be applying it to men.

But as has been said before about males that are not convicted.
"just because they didn't get a guilty verdict doesn't mean that they are innocent."

That is not incorrect, conviction data shows that men falsely accuse 175 times more than women. As they are the main perpetrators and of course perpetrators falsely accuse their victims of lying every time to get away with it. They frame themselves as the victim.

The conviction data proves it. It is there in black and white. Proven.

Do you honestly think that perpetrators are honest?

A leg up in her career and more money. Fame and fortune.

And I believed it....until I watched the trail.
She was like a dog with a bone
She lied, and lied and lied again.
She was no victim.

She could have walked away but she wanted to nail him to ground.

I think he's a drunken drug abusing scruff. Not sure what she saw in him in the first place.

I was team Amber until I watched the trial and listened to the tapes of her berating him, talking about hitting him and it being his own fault, saw copies of the injury reports she'd inflicted on him. He's a drunk and has a drug problem but she's an abuser and no intelligent person can listen to those tapes and think otherwise.

I believe her.

That is incorrect

being arrested for Domestic Abuse and punching your husband is a bit more than not being perfect

It's more of a Saudi publicity machine. If you listen to the Who Trolled Amber podcast (which takes no side in the relationship)
Jonny Depp has a deal with the Saudi government for film festivals and personal appearances. They bankrolled a PR offensive combined with their extensive troll farm operations.

She was caught out lying and was absolutely fake and narcissistic. No sympathy at all. The way she stared at the jury was contrived and creepy.

If something is entertaining it is fun. So you think she did it for fun?

You think she did it for fun and for attention? Do you know what attention anyone gets when they declare things like that? Negative. So she did it on purpose to get death threats and negative attention? Makes lots of sense.

Again ignoring the lies you told about me.

Where did I say she wrote it for people to laugh?

I think she wrote it for attention and entertainment. She got both.

This sums it up.

Women are falsely accused more often than men. 175 times more often. Men are the most likely to lie.

Do you say the same when a man says he is falsely accused and if not why not when men are the main source of false allegations and women the most likely victim.