A ridiculous piece on the BBC website. This extract should give you a flavour of it:
“In 2022, Depp won a defamation case against Heard after a U.S. jury found she had made up allegations of domestic abuse against him. Depp’s victory was a huge comeback for the Pirates of the Caribbean star. Two years before, a UK court had found that Depp had abused Heard on 12 occasions.”
The UK court “found” no such thing. It was a juryless trial and a single judge decided to believe Heard, not Depp.
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Right. The case was against a newspaper because of its reporting. So the test wasn’t about the abuse but whether the Newspaper had the right to publish a story. Like so many Americans he was badly advised to take a case against a British Newspaper because they don’t have to prove the story was true, but that they believed it to be accurate from a source, in this case a Newspaper report from the NY Times. Inevitably the result is spun as if it was a trial about the abuse or not itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just one small clarification: in UK libel law the burden is actually on the publisher to prove that what they wrote was substantially true. They don’t just need to show they “believed” it — they must satisfy the judge on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not). That’s a far lower bar than the beyond reasonable doubt test in a criminal case. In Depp’s UK trial, the judge decided The Sun met that lower threshold, which is not at all the same as a jury finding Depp guilty of abuse.
LikeLiked by 3 people