#UK trial

[anthroxlove]

Johnny’s controlling anger and jealousy over Amber’s movie roles. 

[lookmyskinisfallingoff]

Is Amber Heard a victim?

people will spin the wheel as much as they can to get their desired result, Amber Heard has to be shown as a victim or all the money and time people spent praising her will be for nothing. Most of the public turned on her due to her own testimony on the stand, exaggerated accounts with no medical records to back her claims (she never signed her HIPPA form so those were never brought in) and photoshopped pictures she had the nerve to upload multiple versions up of the same pictures for different dated incidents she claimed had happened. 

The trial was televised after it was requested and granted by the previous judge that was on the case, it was to allow actual transparency between the court and public so everyone could see everything without the need for MSM misconstrue evidence and testimony to the public.

I understand a lot of people are worried about the implications of this case on future cases with abuse but people should understand and remember that this was a defamation case that dealt with accusation of abuse from one person to another. If this was a criminal trial and the evidence we had seen during the 6 weeks were used then Amber would still have lost and gone to prison for however long they’d send her....probably for a couple of months due to good behavior. 

A lot of activist and “woke” heads are on trying to find ways to defend this woman and her legal team but it was clear with the evidence she presented she lied to the public. Audio tapes came from her and were played for people to hear, her trying to gaslight people on the stand when we clearly heard her attack Depp on tape and berate him and belittling him to start fights. 

Her expert witnesses like  Forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes and  Dr. David R. Spiegel, unethical behaviors towards Depp was troubling, ignoring physical evidence and diagnosing Depp based off the characters he’s played in film only.....come to the conclusion Depp did it because you watched him in Sweeney Todd?? Ed Wood? Pirates of the Caribbean?? Dawn Hughes use of gender based language and refusing to answer if she’s ever treated hetero couples where the male was the victim of IPV and agreeing Amber has PTSD because she said so? incorrectly use your testing forms, didn’t vet to see if anything amber said was true to you from previous behavior from her personal doctor? 

Her medical records she claims were not admitted into evidence? therapist notes that were hearsay and could not be used in court, she has yet to supply her legal team with her actual medical records to show medical treatment for her alleged physical injuries. 

Amber Heard had her acting coach testimony that was previously used in the UK trial play in court, her coach said she can’t cry when acting and unfortunately for Amber, allowing this in actually worked against her. Amber’s testimony was uncomfortable for me to watch, not because of the sexual assault she claimed but odd details random things that had nothing to do with her injuries but how obvious it was that she was lying. She didn’t cry, she couldn’t cry, she wiped her face repeatedly while no tears flowed down her face. She made the faces you make when tears are to come out but nothing flowed out, her constant touching, rubbing of the eyes and face seemed like she was trying to create irritation to create tears for her testimony.....was a strange thing to watch honestly. 

After her testimony, her credibility was completely destroyed and she did that all to and by herself, not because she spoke for abuse victims but because she lied and couldn’t keep up with her lies anymore. Most of the public have shown their disgust and distain for Amber Heard after her testimony and did not hold back from the online roasting of Amber Heard, it was much and many but so were the roast of the men accused of abuse during the height of #metoo with no complaints before.  

 I’ve seen a lot of articles online labeling this trial as the end of #metoo, devastating to other abuse victims and will silence them in the future if they speak out against their abuser(s) but when you ask these people how does that happen you get blocked or harassed by checkmarks. Nothing about this case will change anything regarding #metoo, it is exactly like it was before this trial, ran by those of the Hollywood powerful and used for profit. The right for abuse victims to speak out will still be here, all it’s done was put a little light on male abuse victims and hopefully, starting the conversation in hearing their stories. 

[whistle-free]

Why is the UK trial not relevant to the US trial?

It's a misconception that Johnny Depp was suing Amber heard in the UK trial, and that his loss meant he was proven guilty of having abused Amber Heard. It's due to these misconceptions that many don't understand why the UK verdict was considered not relevant to the Virginia case. We'll also be going over why the UK wasn't considered to be a fair trial by the Judge of the Virginia case, Judge Penny Azcarate.

Firstly, the UK case was against The Sun, a tabloid magazine, not Amber Heard. Amber heard was only a witness in the UK case, and in fact couldn't be a party to the case as she was not the writer, editor, or publisher of The Sun's article, which Johnny Depp had alleged to have defamed him.

There was also a significant difference in how each case was heard. In the US the case was heard before a jury who had to come to an unanimous decision after hearing all the evidence. In that trial Amber Heard was a party to the claim and therefore subject to discovery.

In the UK the case was heard before one single judge. In that trial Amber heard was not a party to the claim and therefore not subject to discovery, more on why this is important in a bit.

In the UK case Judge Justice Nicol ruled that The Sun's allegations calling Johnny Depp a "wife beater" were "substantially true." However, there's an unfortunate understanding barrier happening here in the way each court uses language.

The way the phrase "substantially true" was used in the UK verdict was not meant in the way that many would believe it to mean, which would be "this definitely happened. It's actually the equivalent to saying "more likely than not," or the preponderance of the evidence standard in the US, which means that you only need to be 51% sure that it's more likely than not that the party did the things they have been accused of. This is similar in the way the court interprets "actual malice" only to mean a person made a statement which they knew was not true, as opposed to the layperson's understanding of the term to mean a person made a statement in a vindictive manner.

Why is this important? Because "substantially true" is not the same as "true beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard for proof in this ruling is only that the judge had to find that it's more likely than not (again, only needed to be 51% sure) that an event occurred.

Furthermore, this was a libel case, or civil trial, and no one is "found guilty" in a civil case. This means Johnny was not found guilty of having abused Amber Heard. The ruling only meant that this judge was 51% sure that 12 of the 14 acts of domestic violence alleged could have occurred, and therefore The Sun hadn't slandered Johnny Depp.

This ties into why the UK trial was not considered justice in the US, but before we get into that it's worth reiterating that AH was only a witness in the UK case. Because AH was only a witness, she was not subject to the same evidentiary rules as the Sun, the other party in the case. This means that JD's side could not gather any potentially damaging evidence (texts, etc.) against AH's claims from her, but AH could provide whatever evidence and testimony for the Sun's case as she wished as she was their witness. AH also wasn't cross examined regarding her testimony of certain abuse incidents [¶240], which is important in trial as it tests a person's narrative and sees how it holds up to pressure.

In addition to this, there was a lot of evidence that wasn't allowed in, such as expert testimony. No phycologists, no one from Hollywood to explain damages, and no doctors were allowed to be brought in to weigh in on evidence. Certain witness testimony, like that of Depp's former partners, Venessa Paradis and Winona Ryder, also weren't allowed in.

There were also issues of credibility in the UK trial and possibly hypocrisy in judgement. (UK Verdict here. Paragraphs referenced below with "¶")

One such matter involved the Australian preceding about illegally importing dogs into Australia in which AH pled guilty.

A series of emails [¶129-133] showed AH was asking Kevin Murphy to persuade Kate James to make a false statement on the matter of the Australia proceedings.

The judge ruled in this matter that because Kevin Murphy was willing to make a false statement in the Australian preceding [¶139-143] that made him less credible in saying it was AH who pressured him to do so, and therefore his statements didn't have an affect on AH's credibility. [¶147 . iv]

This is despite AH having pled guilty to the offense and the series of emails showing AH was trying to persuade others to make false statements on the matter.

In another matter where AH wrote to homeland security claiming Savannah McMillen was not unlawfully working for her, which was alleged to be a lie, AH's former assistant Kate James testified to confirm that the letter was untrue and even included a check written to McMillen as proof that she was employed by AH. [¶109-115]

If one did view this as AH having lied to Homeland Security then this would be a significant concern against her credibility. Also, Kate James would be one to know if McMillen was employed by AH. However, the judge decided that because Kate James had been fired she would not be a credible source to this claim. This goes against the Judge's earlier declaration of approaching evidence on the case where he says that someone giving evidence under oath made them a more reliable witness. * This is related to the matter where the Judge ruled that AH's own admissions to violence [¶171] held no weight as they were heard in an audio tape and not in court under oath [¶175].

In [¶203] the judge accepts that evidence of AH having a quick temper was not evidence that her temper would lead to violence.

However, the judge then later took evidence that JD and AH had an argument on a plane about her role with James Franco [¶239-241] to be evidence that JD would have then kicked AH in the back. Or, stated plainly, as evidence that JD's temper would lead to violence.

AH's claim that JD had kicked her was refuted by Stephen Deuters [¶247, ¶258] and Jerry Judge in their witness statements. However, the judge discounted both their statements saying that because they were employed by JD their loyalties lied with him. [¶265 . iv]

The judge decided to rely on texts [¶257] over witness testimony [¶265], which again went against the Judge's earlier declaration that he considered that witness testimony under oath was more reliable.

Issue was taken with this as the judge took hearsay evidence (the texts) over two witness statements, and seemingly did so only when it was favorable to AH.

In short, AH's actions didn't seem to have an affect on her own credibility. However, other's actions, even when done under pressure of AH, had an affect on their own credibility when testifying to AH's credibility.

In contrast, JD's actions did have an affect on his own credibility, but other's actions, even when shown to be credible witnesses themselves, were determined not to be credible when testifying for JD as their loyalties lied with them.

Otherwise, the judge desired evidence from witnesses speaking under oath, but only seemed to favor said evidence when it was in AH's favor.

It was for these reasons that the UK trial was not considered to be justice by Judge Azcarate, who wrote in an 11 page opinion letter that she was not persuaded by Heard’s argument that Depp “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the U.K. action.

[ukelele-boy]

Headcanon that the stronger a deity is, the more likely they will lose themselves/their sense of self to their domain.

Ex: I am a god of the sky - > I AM the sky.

I'm thinking about Apollo coming back after pulling from the chaos itself to reform his divinity. Him coming back much stronger due to it but also experiencing the Loss Of Self when using too much of his powers, on the verge of losing rational thought and becoming the element itself. Him with his freshly minted identity after the trials struggling a lot since its not quite established yet.

I was very inspired by the "I feared huge parts of my identity would shake loose if I stopped clinging to Artemis" stuff in TON.

But yeah that was a long winded way to say:

I wanted more whump.

Specifically the "Apollo's mind going where am I who am I and someone hugging him to get him to come back to himself" type.

Something like Apollo going up into flames and losing who he is:

"I felt my powers flicker, and I gritted my teeth, sweat beading my brow.

I needed to save her!

Light shot from my hand, and I saw the monster stumble from the strength of it. And then I felt a certain weightless as the world fell away.

I was burning, a bright ball up in the sky, I was the sun...the light traveling space, and I needed to save someone...but I couldn't remember why. Or even what I was."

[uranianrights]

Operation Spanner/The Spanner Case really makes me feel insane because it was so relatively recent and, as far as I understand, the law has not changed nor has anyone received apologies or pardons

Summary taken from here:

In the 1980s, it was discovered that there was an underground culture of sadomasochism amongst gay men in the UK which was seen as unacceptable, and so the Obscene Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police were assigned to investigate and make arrests. This became known as Operation Spanner, and it ran across 3 years during which 100 men were questioned by police. Out of these men, 43 were named in an official report, and 16 were taken to court on charges of assault and unlawful wounding. [...] In September 1989, 16 men were charged with over 100 offences. During the trial, it was revealed that these occasions of assault related to consensual, private sadomasochistic sex sessions held across 10 years. One of the defendants was a 42-year-old man from Welwyn Garden City, who faced 6 charges of conspiracy to assault and grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on himself and others. The House of Lords ruled that consent was not a legal defence for causing actual bodily harm in Britain, but the cases led to a national debate about how consent was defined and how far the government should intervene in sexual encounters between consenting adults." Because of the judgement that consent was not a defence, the men pleaded guilty and they were convicted in November 1990. The prosecutor described the defendants’ behaviour as “brute homosexual activity in sinister circumstances, about as far removed as can be imagined from the concept of human love” and these comments were picked up by the British Press, who described the men as torture gangs and perverted. The men were sentenced to between 12 months and 4 ½ years in prison, but 5 of them appealed the sentences in 1992. Whilst the Lord Chief Justice upheld the convictions, he conceded that the men were not aware that their acts were criminal and so reduced their prison sentences to 6 months or less.

The men since appealed once more in Britain and once to the European Human Rights Court, receiving rejections both times. From what I understand, the law under which these men were convicted has not been changed since 1989, either.

There's a reason there are leathermen at Pride and there's a reason queer people recoiling from the inclusion of kink are shooting themselves in the foot. There's no way to disentangle the legal history of homosexuality or transness (laws against "crossdressing" in particular) from the legal history of kink.

A full history of the case and related documents can be found here.

[timetravellingkitty]

peeks out cause it's safe now you guys were really weird about Depp v Heard

[literallyjusttoa]

Me n @ukelele-boy passing by each other as we walk our lester and Apollo respectively

[veruneedy]

[burningvelvet]

Let me tell you about John “Foul-Weather Jack” Byron, Captain James Cook, a doctor named James Lind, and also a different doctor named James Lind, and how they all knew each other, helped to cure scurvy, and inadvertently helped to inspire Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein (1818) and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) -- a long-winded history ramble

John Byron next to a first edition copy of Frankenstein.

John joined the Royal Navy at 14 and by the ripe old age of 17 had proved himself by surviving a deadly shipwreck off the coast of Chile. The voyage was part of George Anson's famous circumnavigation of the globe done to seize Spanish ships. Only 188 men of the original 1,854 crew members survived; several, including Byron, were taken as prisoners by the Spanish. Recollections of the voyage were sensationalized and it was depicted in stories like William Cowper’s poem The Castaway. John Byron published his own successful memoir, The Narrative of the Honourable John Byron (1768).

The novel's full title deserves attention for it's 18th century pre-Byronic melodrama: "The Narrative of the Honourable John Byron (Commodore in a Late Expedition Around the World) Containing an Account of the Great Distresses suffered by Himself and his Companions on the Coast of Patagonia from the Year 1740, till their Arrival in England, 1746. With a Description of St. Jago de Chili, and the Manners and Customs of the Inhabitants. Also a Relation of the Loss of the Wager Man of War, one of Admiral Anson's Squadron." I can only imagine that had his grandson Lord Byron's memoirs been published instead of burned, their title would have borrowed from his grandfather's by including something similar to "Containing an Account of the Great Distresses suffered by Himself . . ." but I digress.

I do not digress. The beginning of his preface opens with this gem (I've swapped the 18th-century "long s" for a regular one):

"But here I must say, I have been dubious of the partiality of my friends; and, as I think, justly fearful lest the world in general, who may perhaps find compassion and indulgence for a protracted tale of distress, may not give the same allowance to a luxurious imagination triumphing in a change of fortune, and sudden transition from the most dismal to the gayest scenes in the universe, and thereby indulging an egotism equally offensive to the envious and censorious."

Which brings to mind Francis Cohen's criticism of Lord Byron's Don Juan: “Lord B. should have been grave & gay by turns; grave in one page & gay in the next; grave in one line, & gay in the next. And not grave & gay in the same page, or in the same stanza, or in the same line… we are never drenched & scorched at the same instant whilst standing in one spot" (letter to John Murray, 16 July, 1819). And (not the most entertaining part, but to keep things brief) part of Byron's retort: "I will answer [Cohen] who objects to the quick succession of fun and gravity — as if in that case the gravity did not (in intention at least) heighten the fun. His metaphor is that ‘we are never scorched and drenched at the same time!' Blessings on his experience!" (letter to John Murray, 12 August, 1819).

John went on to be considered one of the greatest naval commanders of his era, commanding several ships as captain during the Seven Years’ War and beating the French as leader in the Battle of Restigouche. He later set the record for fastest global circumnavigation at the time while commodore, became a notable explorer, became a commander at multiple Royal Navy stations, and was appointed Governor of Newfoundland in Canada for three years. According to Wikipedia, “his actions nearly caused a war between Great Britain and Spain.”

It seems like he basically just did whatever the hell he wanted. We can see that the apple really doesn't fall too far from the tree. Everyone in the Byron family was kind of crazy. See: psychologist Kay Jamison's Touched By Fire, a novel on the mental illness of famous writers, half of which is focused on Lord Byron (as it should be) and includes an extensive psychological analysis of his whole family tree, which in a short summary brings me back to my previous point: everyone in the Byron family was kind of crazy.

John's health declined after sustaining storm-induced injuries and an unsuccessful attack against the French at the Battle of Grenada. He died at 62 with six living children. His grandson, the poet Lord Byron, borrowed inspiration from John's life and the shipwreck descriptions in his memoir while he was writing the shipwreck sequence in his magnum opus Don Juan.

In an epistle to his half-sister (Epistle to Augusta) Byron mentions their grandfather thus:

"A strange doom is thy father's son's, and past / Recalling, as it lies beyond redress; / Revers'd for him our grandsire's fate of yore— / He had no rest at sea, nor I on shore. / If my inheritance of storms hath been / In other elements, and on the rocks / Of perils, overlook'd or unforeseen, / I have sustain'd my share of worldly shocks, / The fault was mine; nor do I seek to screen / My errors with defensive paradox; / I have been cunning in mine overthrow, / The careful pilot of my proper woe."

On to the Scottish doctor James Lind! He's important because he developed the theory that citrus fruits treated scurvy, and in attempting to prove so he conducted the world's first ever official clinical trial. In his tests, he used the survivors from this famous shipwreck. This likely included Byron himself, being one of the few survivors and having reported the healing effects of citrus in restoring men who were on the verge of death. Needless to say, the discoveries and implications of Lind's clinical trial had an unprecedented impact on the fields of nutrition and medicine, and all of history, particularly in the Caribbean. In 1753 he published his Treatise on Scurvy.

Lind's theories on scurvy influenced the famous Captain James Cook, who implemented these ideas and proved their efficiency by how few men he lost to scurvy compared with every other Captain at the time. When Cook circumnavigated the world on his first voyage, no one died of scurvy. This didn't help with malaria and dysentery, which nearly wiped out his whole crew at one point on a journey to Indonesia. Aside from Anson's shipwreck, Cook's voyages were the other major instance of what I would call "social experiments at sea, or, fuck around and find out: scurvy edition" which led to the development of scurvy research.

As an aside, there is a famous town in Australia named Byron Bay. That town was named by Captain Cook in 1770 as a tribute to John Byron. Cook was sailing around on the HMS Endeavour doing even crazier colonial shit, and he likewise died as the result of his sea travels. He was killed in a scuffle on Hawaiʻi Island which transpired after he had casually tried to kidnap King Kalaniʻōpuʻu-a-Kaiamamao in broad daylight, planning to ransom him out of revenge for the theft of one of his boats, although Cook himself had stolen their sacred wood first after they had been so nice to him. This is what I've gathered from reading a bit about the confusing affair, but the main point is that Cook got what was coming to him. The Journals of Captain Cook were published to major success, contributing to the history of English travel narratives. But Cook is a pretty well-known historical figure so I can't go into his chaotic life any more than this, lest I be writing forever.

Lord Byron in an Albanian oufit he bought while traveling for 2 years, & Captain Cook thinking about navigation. The backgrounds make them look part of the same painting, no?

Back to the Linds: interestingly enough, the scurvy-studying physician James Lind had a younger cousin who was also a physician named James Lind, as well as a scientist/philosopher/teacher. While teaching at Eton, this Lind became a tutor and mentor of a young Percy Bysshe Shelley, and had such an impact on him that Shelley refers to Lind in several of his works. Shelley especially enjoyed Lind’s experiments regarding galvanism - the study of bringing things to life with electricity. It is widely believed by scholars that Shelley’s conversations and rememberances about Lind at Lord Byron's Villa Diodati were some of the primary inspiration for Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein (1818).

For further reading on Shelley's Lind: The real Doctor Frankenstein? by Christopher Goulding via Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Lind's Wikipedia page has a section devoted to Frankenstein.

Percy Shelley described his Lind:

". . . exactly what an old man ought to be. Free, calm-spirited, full of benevolence, and even of youthful ardor: his eye seemed to burn with supernatural spirit beneath his brow, shaded by his venerable white locks, he was tall, vigorous, and healthy in his body; tempered, as it had ever been, by his amiable mind. I owe to that man far, ah! far more than I owe to my father: he loved me, and I shall never forget our long talks, where he breathed the spirit of the kindest tolerance and the purest wisdom . . ."

A tie-in to vampire literature: Lind is also thought to be an influence on Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897), which was influenced by (Lord Byron’s doctor) John Polidori’s novel The Vampyre, the first ever vampire novel, which was inspired by Lord Byron’s short vampire story Augustus Darvell, which was written at the same time as Frankenstein during their infamous ghost story competition at Villa Diodati. Augustus Darvell was inspired by Byron's travels through Eastern Europe, and was likely in part inspired by (another famous Romantic poet) Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s gothic poem Christabel, which Byron terrified Percy Shelley with after reading it aloud at the Villa Diodati, and which Byron loved so much that he helped Coleridge publish it through his own publisher. Christabel began in 1797 but wasn't published until 1816 for this reason.

To continue on vampires: Byron's enemy, the famous poet Robert Southey (who Byron roasted in Don Juan, among other works, and basically cancelled him as a result) also wrote a poem called Thalaba the Destroyer (1801) which is sometimes considered to be the first true depiction of a vampire in English literature. He also wrote it while traveling. Shelley (and Keats) both loved this poem, and so it also *could have* inspired some of the conversation at the Villa Diodati if Shelley had related the vampire theme to Christabel or Darvell. Southey is also the first English writer to write on Haitian zombi folklore, which would later become the zombie of modern horror. Southey was also reportedly in love with Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, the mother of Mary Shelley and philosopher who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), one of the most influential proto-feminist texts.

I relate these connections to demonstrate how small the literary world was at the time; so small that all the writers pretty much knew each other. In 1801, the English population was about 11 million, and in 1899 had grown to around 37 million due to industrialization (source: Black, Joseph, et al. "British Literature: A Historical Overview." The Broadview Anthology of British Literature, Broadview Press, vol. B, 2010, p. 70).

That's nearly the current population of London alone, but around 75% of that 11 million English population in 1801 was rural, whereas at the end of the century the national population was about 75% urban (source: same as prior), again due to industrialization. London in the early 19c was much less populated than today, and the amount of people who were educated or even merely literate was also much smaller than today. So really, it makes sense that all of the artists/writers/scientists/aristocrats knew each other. But it's still insane to see examples of how small the world really is and always has been.

The front-facing portrait is of Scurvy Lind, the shadow portrait is of Galvanism Lind.

The Shelleys: the King and Queen of Romanticism.

Southey, Coleridge, Polidori, Stoker: some early Kings of Vampirism (as represented in popular British literature).

[stellarwaffles]

Hi again! If you are still taking requests... Haha you probably know what I'm going to say...but can you draw Apollo?

Thank you! It's me @ukelele-boy

Woe, Apollo be upon ye!

[anthroxlove]

all 14 allegations of abuse + the evidence and the findings from the Depp UK libel trial explained

It took me a long time to make this video because I actually did read all of the testimony and the entire 129-page judgment. I'm explaining the verdict and the evidence Justice Nicol considered in the UK libel claim Johnny Depp lodged against The Sun newspaper. The claim was ultimately dismissed because Justice Nicol found that 12 of 14 allegations of abuse were proven.

[lookmyskinisfallingoff]

If you don’t know the details on the verdict or the evidence then i suggest looking through the trial completely. It’s all there for the public to view on YouTube and the Virginia Court site online, Depp won because he was able to prove he didn't abuse this woman, Amber won 1 count because of Adam Waldman statement that was not proven completely in the trial because he also blamed the publicist and her associates in helping her start and enact this hoax from the beginning. HE NEVER ABUSED THIS WOMAN. The info we have now, you should update your knowledge on the case if you’re gonna keep throwing that Judge in the pocket NGN’s biased UK verdict around all the time.

[whistle-free]

it's a shame that your posts don't have more traction. you're the only blog i could find that talks about this whole case objectively by simply looking at the evidence. unfortunately the posts with thousands of notes are spreading so much misinformation and people are just running with it. it's gotten even worse with the unsealed documents. i haven't seen a single post mentioning whitney heard telling jennifer howell that amber cut johnny's finger off yet there are so many posts with a lot of traction talking about the revenge p*rn jd suppodedly wanted to use against amber in the trial. it's very evident that most people don't understand these legal documents since there's a reason a lot of these claims didn't make it into the actual trial. either way this has already gotten too long but it's just so frustrating and i simply wanted to thank you for all the research and work you're doing.

That's actually why I made this blog, as I also couldn't find other blogs doing so, and actually I'm afraid that's also likely why this blog doesn't get more traction.

You see, people are more likely to spread reactionary content, as it's just more interesting. They like to see information that already confirms their biases because it's satisfying to see something and be like "See! I KNEW I was right!"

When the truth actually lies somewhere in the middle, it's not quite as satisfying, and people are less likely to share it around as it just isn't going to appear as interesting or scratch that bias itch.

As for the content that does clear up information in favor of one side or another, I believe it's because people just don't want to sit and read something that's longer, and that would likely be my fault for the way I've presented it. I understand it can be boring to most.

I've been trying to think of a way to present the information in a way that's both factual and interesting, but I'm not sure how to do it without having to resort to giving it that reactionary spin, which is what I was trying to avoid with this blog for the sole reason that, regardless of if something is true and backed up with sources, if you present it in a reactionary way (especially if it swings more in favor of one side than the other) the supporters of the opposition just will not hear it because it's presented in a way that's attacking them, and that's what I want to avoid because it doesn't help anyone.

I agree with you that most people aren't understanding the legal documents, but more so because most every article is cherry-picking and piecemealing together information that they've taken from other articles over and over, all without having anyone actually read those documents before publishing their articles.

So, both sides (though admittedly I've mostly seen it coming from one at the moment) are going to latch onto whatever they can that supports their beliefs and claim it evidence that the other is in the wrong all without actually understanding the source or context.

And thank you. It's nice to know all my research is being appreciated even if it's just by a few at the moment lol.

If you'd like to help spread the information a reblog does wonders to help get it in front of more eyes, but I'll also accept advice on how to make it more digestible to a wider audience lol

[ukelele-boy]

Apollo: we all sometimes have to do things we don't want to. For example, reliving your formulative childhood trauma of fighting a giant snake to the death. ✨😬

Apollo: that's when we tell ourselves, chin up babygirl (Sob).

[beldaroot]

please consider donating to pal_action! they're one of the few direct action groups that have led to the divestment from many israeli companies.

[hacash]

that shit you see smeared over Boris Johnson? that’s the droppings of alllll those chickens coming home to roost