FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Scotland

Well Amber...

Jump to newest
 

By *itty Jack Sparrow OP   Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

You'll remember this as the day day that you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Are you good for a tap then?

When is she paying you the £10million?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itty Jack Sparrow OP   Man
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Are you good for a tap then?

When is she paying you the £10million?"

She's pledged it... So probably never. Can give you taps aff though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My dog got stung by a bee

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itty Jack Sparrow OP   Man
over a year ago

Glasgow


"My dog got stung by a bee "

that face she pulled. She wanted to change her locks!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My dog got stung by a bee

that face she pulled. She wanted to change her locks! "

She’s made rip roaring cunt of it all. Didn’t follow the case closely, and it may have been Johnny having a better PR team, but every single clip I seen she really didn’t help her case!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Worst acting from her iv ever saw

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Worst acting from her iv ever saw "

That's saying something!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *scobar67Man
over a year ago

glasgow

Only saw clips of it on social media... What I did see though was her making a right arse of it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They'll be back together in 3 months.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itty Jack Sparrow OP   Man
over a year ago

Glasgow


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time."

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. "
Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it? "

Although in an earlier UK court case the judge ruled that in 12 out of 14 incidents he was satisfied that domestic abuse had taken place and it was substantially true that Heard was the victim.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tirling DarkCouple
over a year ago

Stirling

Wonder if the judge who heard the UK case is reconsidering his decision, nah, they never do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tirling DarkCouple
over a year ago

Stirling


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it?

Although in an earlier UK court case the judge ruled that in 12 out of 14 incidents he was satisfied that domestic abuse had taken place and it was substantially true that Heard was the victim.

"

The US case was in front of a jury, the UK case was heard by one judge. I'll go for trust in a jury trial anyday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it?

Although in an earlier UK court case the judge ruled that in 12 out of 14 incidents he was satisfied that domestic abuse had taken place and it was substantially true that Heard was the victim.

"

The UK judge was also apparently an old associate of Amber.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it? "

It had something to do with one of Johnny's witnesses trying to embarrass Amber by saying one of the times she phoned the police for something was a "hoax" which is defamation on her side, so it wasn't actually Johnny's fault.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So Johnny won the case and will get £10 million, amber also receives over £1 million as part of her case, what was the whole point of this trial by tv?

Total waste of time on 2 actors who should never have been given any air time.

The point was his name was tarnished and he wanted to clear it which he's obviously done. Most states in America broadcast the court room. It's deemed part of the right to a fair trial by increasing transparency. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see she was after his money and to tarnish his name but that didn't seem to work so why reward her with over £1 million ? Not exactly justice is it?

Although in an earlier UK court case the judge ruled that in 12 out of 14 incidents he was satisfied that domestic abuse had taken place and it was substantially true that Heard was the victim.

"

Which begs the question what happened then?

I think this whole trial will make victims not have trust in the justice system if one court thinks different from another court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itty Jack Sparrow OP   Man
over a year ago

Glasgow

In the UK case much of the evidence used in the USA one wasn't permitted by the judge. Our system is very geared towards protecting alleged victims of abuse and they get certain protections. All the therapy and psychological stuff wasn't permitted in the UK case. America is a much more Liberal system where pretty much anything goes unless illegal surveillance. Theta why this trial was much more in depth and being broadcast you could see her mannerisms etc in court.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She's made her bed, now she'll have to shit in it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ald EagleMan
over a year ago

Alloa

It’s highly likely that the U.K. case will be appealed and re-heard sue to the perjury by AH and the links the judge has with Rupert Murdoch and AH. She and her Lawyers have basically defamed JD, the Judge, the Jury etc already with their post verdict statements & interviews.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top