Mel Gibson needs a woman

Biggins · 13-07-2010 11:14AM

Morlar wrote: »

How do you know she is wealthy ? Do you think she is worth the few hundreds of millions he is ?

Has he been convicted of that or accused of that (honestly don't know btw)?

So you have to have "few hundreds of millions" to be wealthy?
She is wealthy by her own right and work.

Yes, he stands accused in court of domestic violence and part of that battering that he gave her, was medical evidence and a recording of he hitting her twice while she was holding his child.
He even confirms it later in another recording and even states "You deserved it!"

Morlar · 13-07-2010 11:19AM

Biggins wrote: »

So you have to have "few hundreds of millions" to be wealthy?
She is wealthy by her own right and work.

You don't know the state of her finances anymore than I do so your working from your own assumption.

I would say in all likelihood her finances to not approach the level of his.

So yes the difference in wealth COULD be a factor here.

Reading between the lines I take it he has not been convicted of anything in relation to this woman at this point.

I am not a fan of the whole celebrity culture anyway but I was not able to listen to more than a minute of that recording. Whatever way you look at it a gross, manipulative and cynical violation of someone's privacy imo.

Ginny · 13-07-2010 11:26AM

He's been dropped by his agent too now.

geeky · 13-07-2010 11:30AM

Morlar wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it a gross, manipulative and cynical violation of someone's privacy imo.

It is, but it's the lesser of two evils in this instance. Gibson is threatening to kill her, saying she 'deserved' to get hit while holding her child, and behaving in a manner that suggests he needs serious therapy.

aDeener · 13-07-2010 11:32AM

greenmachine88 wrote: »

I never knew he was so craaaaaaaaazzzzzzyyyyyy

his nipples hurt when you twist them

Morlar · 13-07-2010 11:35AM

Does your spidey sense not go all tingly when you realise you are being spoon fed selective pieces of information from one side of an argument at all ?

Ginny wrote: »

He's been dropped by his agent too now.

That means absolutely nothing in my view. PR pandering and no more. Has anyone heard of Roman Polanski being dropped by his talent agency for that child rape conviction he carries ?

geeky · 13-07-2010 11:38AM

Morlar wrote: »

Does your spidey sense not go all tingly when you realise you are being spoon fed selective pieces of information from one side of an argument at all ?

His lawyers initially claimed she was lying about everything, and started painting her as sites like TMZ, then piped down when the tapes started leaking. That's the reason we're only getting one side of the story at this juncture - because Mel's team have been caught out in lies.

Morlar · 13-07-2010 11:49AM

geeky wrote: »

His lawyers initially claimed she was lying about everything, and started painting her as sites like TMZ, then piped down when the tapes started leaking. That's the reason we're only getting one side of the story at this juncture - because Mel's team have been caught out in lies.

I see, so it's really his fault that she decided to secretly record private heavily emotional conversations and then release edited versions to the internet.

geeky · 13-07-2010 11:55AM

Morlar wrote: »

I see, so it's really his fault that she decided to secretly record private heavily emotional conversations and then release edited versions to the internet.

No, I'm explaining why we're only getting one side of the story at this juncture. Perhaps you should read posts before responding or shifting the subject.

I'd like to think I wouldn't have leaked them in her position but, if you actually read some of the stuff put out about her, I can see why she did it. In any case, the judge has hauled her up in front of court for it, so she's getting any come-uppance she deserves on this.

I know there are two sides to every story, but IMO she was entirely right to record conversations. Her former boyfriend was assaulting her (by his own admission on this tape) and making threats against her life. He also had massive resources to combat her in court unless she had hard and fast evidence to prove it. Would you not have done the same in her position?

Morlar · 13-07-2010 12:04PM

geeky wrote: »

No, I'm explaining why we're only getting one side of the story at this juncture. Perhaps you should read posts before responding or shifting the subject.

I did read the posts before responding and am not shifting any goalposts actually.

Personally I think this whole train wreck of a hello-style nightmare story belongs in the courts and not the media. If it can be proven some unknown person from his legal team leaked something unspecified to an unknown publication then they should be given a massive fine - in the multiples of millions. I'd say the same for her for releasing those recordings.

Brendog · 13-07-2010 12:11PM

"They may take our lands, but they'll never take our Freeedddddooooooommmmmmm"

- Mel Gibson on Jews

geeky · 13-07-2010 12:41PM

Morlar wrote: »

I did read the posts before responding and am not shifting any goalposts actually.

All due respect, but I explained why my 'spider sense' isn't 'tingling' at the one-sided nature of the information flow, and you put words in my mouth

Morlar wrote: »

Personally I think this whole train wreck of a hello-style nightmare story belongs in the courts and not the media. If it can be proven some unknown person from his legal team leaked something unspecified to an unknown publication then they should be given a massive fine - in the multiples of millions. I'd say the same for her for releasing those recordings.

I'd agree with you there (though maybe not in the scale of the fine!) - both legal teams have behaved very poorly.

General Zod · 13-07-2010 12:41PM

a mel Gibson drunk rant podcast would break the internet.

Biggins · 13-07-2010 12:47PM

Morlar wrote: »

...wealth COULD be a factor here.

...I am not a fan of the whole celebrity culture anyway but I was not able to listen to more than a minute of that recording. Whatever way you look at it a gross, manipulative and cynical violation of someone's privacy imo.

...So could aliens and Arthur Scargill, lets throw them out too with as much evidence to make such claims!

However instead we could let the facts as exposed for themselves stand first.
There is the now many episodes of Gibson willing to go off on a rant/rage, lashing out at women, male and female cops, abusing them and being racist.
Then we have further recorded later more material that gives an indication into the still ongoing state of his mind.

Frankly, so far I say her case for his instability holds much more, more water than his case for justifying his rages, clear racism, possible more violence and made (recorded) threats.

As for her "behaving badly" for recording him!
PLEASE tell me how is woman who is supposed to be abused - be able to prove she is being so without attempting to make such evidence as recording herself, getting it for a judge/jury?
If this was your daughter being abused, would you say she was wrong to record her abuser doing it for evidence for a judge?

the_monkey · 13-07-2010 01:46PM

f*cking c*nt recording this, she is in his f*cking house and she threatens to call the cops ?

f*cking c*nt ...

Morlar · 13-07-2010 02:14PM

Biggins wrote: »

As for her "behaving badly" for recording him!

You are basing your assessment on one sided parts of information surreptitiously recorded and then released by one person in a dispute.

Releasing the tapes to the internet/media has nothing whatsoever to do with defending yourself from anything except not enough publicity (and or not enough money). Cases like this one (and the heather mills mcartney v p.mc one) belong in the courts and not in the media. If one side of the dispute is selectively putting parts of private information into the public realm there should be consequences for that which go beyond a telling off from a judge.

As for the. . . . a) money, b) arthur scargill or c) space aliens - I will leave it up to you to decide which is the more likely of those 3.

Biggins · 13-07-2010 02:16PM

Morlar wrote: »

You are basing your assessment on one sided parts of information surreptitiously recorded and then released by one person in a dispute...

So its been proven then that she actually leaked the recordings? Link?

Morlar wrote: »

...As for the. . . . a) money, b) arthur scargill or c) space aliens - I will leave it up to you to decide which is the more likely of those 3.

Aaa... none? Seeing as NONE of them has come up! Imagine that!
...But lets taint a person with money reasons anyway... Its all too easy!

Morlar · 13-07-2010 02:20PM

Biggins wrote: »

So its been proven then that she actually leaked the recordings? Link?

The suggestion that this woman who surreptitiously recorded her private conversations with a celebrity could have had anything to do with their entering the public domain - obviously a outlandish notion. Riiiight.

Biggins · 13-07-2010 02:25PM

Morlar wrote: »

The suggestion that this woman who surreptitiously recorded her private conversations with a celebrity could have had anything to do with their entering the public domain - obviously a outlandish notion. Riiiight.

Aaa... A person trying to prove she was being abused (celeb or not - what fcking difference should that make!) recorded some of the abuse.
And your right its not an outlandish idea - nor is it an idea that his side might have done it to try and taint her as equally reprehensible and thus taint anything she might give in evidence in court!
...Equally possible!

...Meanwhile we will just have to rely on what is actually recorded and reported in the more substantial papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post who give great credence to her story more so than his and his apparently still ongoing antics.

Morlar · 13-07-2010 02:31PM

Biggins wrote: »

his side might have done it ...
...Equally possible!

I think for the 2nd time today we can agree to disagree on which is the far more likely and credible scenario here.

Biggins · 13-07-2010 02:35PM

Morlar wrote: »

I think for the 2nd time today we can agree to disagree on which is the far more likely and credible scenario here.

True.

One thought lingers in my mind however.
If the man actually managed to behave himself a bit more decently, he wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
Regardless of who now is more culpable, its clear the man needs a higher degree of mental health I think.

geeky · 13-07-2010 02:45PM

Biggins wrote: »

True.

One thought lingers in my mind however.
If the man actually managed to behave himself a bit more decently, he wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
Regardless of who now is more culpable, its clear the man needs a higher degree of mental health I think.

I think anyone can agree on that.

For what it's worth, Morlar, it looks like she's being done for contempt of court.

Biggins · 13-07-2010 05:06PM

geeky wrote: »

...For what it's worth, Morlar, it looks like she's being done for contempt of court.

In fairness to Molar (and I stand rightly corrected), it looks he was right about her being responsible for releasing the material or someone connected with her.
Anyone with mental issues such as Mel I think obviously has, don't need the exacerbation of having them exposed in public more so.
That still don't excuse what he did over a period of time but if there are underlying issues he needs to address, he should do so and stop with the abuse of others in the meanwhile.

moonpurple · 13-07-2010 05:48PM

hard going..turned it off, sly lady recording this cracker

Oafley Jones · 13-07-2010 06:17PM

Saw this comment on Digg and laughed....

RAGE*GASP*GASP*GASP*GASP*GASP*RAGE*

ricero · 13-07-2010 06:26PM

still gotta love the mel gibson hes a hero

13-07-2010 07:36PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27By7VSTx78

The Trilogy is complete,nice to see Mel giving the "wetbacks" a shout out :pac:

Nodin · 13-07-2010 10:20PM

I know whats supposed to happen when you give them enough rope, but I had no idea that the conclusion could involve choosing the site and scaffold construction as well.

JerryHandbag · 13-07-2010 11:06PM

the_monkey wrote: »

f*cking c*nt recording this, she is in his f*cking house and she threatens to call the cops ?

f*cking c*nt ...

He does say that word so well to give him his dues. The C word I mean. The way its meant to be said.

Pauleta · 13-07-2010 11:14PM

These clips are brilliant :pac:

Mel Gibson needs a woman

Comments