Katie Hopkins

[MNW67]

How can someone get the wrong person and then tweet as if it didn't make any difference.

This is still the strangest part of it all for me.

It is widely accepted that this case started with mistaken identity. But what do they actually mean by mistaken identity.

Was it a mistake in that Hopkins somehow managed to type "MsJackMonroe" instead of "PennyRed". That seems very strange.

Or had she somehow decided that both were actually the same person.

Also what did she mean by "Grandma's medals".

These are all things that might have become clear if Hopkins had turned up at court to give evidence. But she chose not to.

 

[blup]

This is still the strangest part of it all for me.

What do they mean by mistaken identity.

Was it a mistake in that Hopkins somehow managed to type "MsJackMonroe" instead of "PennyRed". That seems very strange.

Or had she somehow decided that both were actually the same person.

Also what did she mean by "Grandma's medals".

We’ll never know but, to speculate, she saw them all as woke left wingers, in the same way that some of the brexxers on here lump everyone together who argues against them, completely missing - or just not being bothered about - the individuals quite distinct personalities.

These are all things that might have become clear if Hopkins had turned up at court to give evidence. But she chose not to.

Did she choose not to, or was she not needed because the lawyers were arguing the legal points and the basic facts were agreed?

 

[MNW67]

Did she choose not to, or was she not needed because the lawyers were arguing the legal points and the basic facts were agreed?

I don't know the answer. I could easily have got that wrong.

This is what the judgment says:

The trial has been short. The only oral evidence has been that of Ms Monroe, who has been cross-examined for the best part of a day. Mrs Hopkins has not given evidence. She relies on two witness statements made by her solicitor, Ms Harris, analysing a body of twitter records. Those statements have been admitted into evidence by agreement, without cross-examination, though without accepting the accuracy of the analysis. Ms Hopkins also relies on facts and documents that have been put before the Court by agreement.

 

[motorbiking]

How can someone get the wrong person and then tweet as if it didn't make any difference.

Because she’s a nutter?

 

[motorbiking]

She lost her case, that she knowingly made worse.

Some people are twisting and turning to state it differently

She did. She made it much worse.
She could have retracted it, she could have offered a low settlement that would have scuppered JMs CFA. She could have turned up in court and defended herself.

 

[motorbiking]

We’ll never know but, to speculate, she saw them all as woke left wingers, in the same way that some of the brexxers on here lump everyone together who argues against them, completely missing - or just not being bothered about - the individuals quite distinct personalities.

Did she choose not to, or was she not needed because the lawyers were arguing the legal points and the basic facts were agreed?

I don't know the answer. I could easily have got that wrong.

This is what the judgment says:

She should have turned up. That’s Judge speak for “I wasn’t able to hear your side of the story”.

But this is her choice and the judge gave her the appropriate penalty.

 

[martygturner]

As Monroe said herself all hopkins had to do is say sorry.... that hopkins did not shows you how far deluded the right wing can be... never admit a mistake....

She should have turned up. That’s Judge speak for “I wasn’t able to hear your side of the story”.

But this is her choice and the judge gave her the appropriate penalty.

That's not judge speak its a statement of fact... she failed to present herself for cross examination, if there is no cross examination then your brief cannot answer questions on your behalf as to what was in your mind.

actually the penalty was in line with the defamation a total of 34k... it was hopkins own legal fees that made her bankrupt ... 300k.

 

[motorbiking]

[

As Monroe said herself all hopkins had to do is say sorry.... that hopkins did not shows you how far deluded the right wing can be... never admit a mistake....

That's not judge speak its a statement of fact... she failed to present herself for cross examination, if there is no cross examination then your brief cannot answer questions on your behalf as to what was in your mind.

actually the penalty was in line with the defamation a total of 34k... it was hopkins own legal fees that made her bankrupt ... 300k.

Judge stated it would have been much less had Hopkins acted differently. But Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted. There was clearly no love between them. Both did damage to their case.

Was she made bankrupt? I understood she restructured her debts via an IVA.

 

[denso13]

As Monroe said herself all hopkins had to do is say sorry.... that hopkins did not shows you how far deluded the right wing can be... never admit a mistake....

It would have have hurt her brand if she had said sorry. She is only taken notice of because she is controversial, nothing else.

 

[martygturner]

[
Judge stated it would have been much less had Hopkins acted differently. But Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted. There was clearly no love between them. Both did damage to their case.

Was she made bankrupt? I understood she restructured her debts via an IVA.

I would suggest you read what the judge said... and your comment about Monroe is libel by the way.

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer.There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified.Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

 

[noseall]

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted.

Eh?

 

[Notch7]

It is widely accepted that this case started with mistaken identity. But what do they actually mean by mistaken identity.

Was it a mistake in that Hopkins somehow managed to type "MsJackMonroe" instead of "PennyRed". That seems very strange

I do not understand why it was accepted it was mistaken identity

It makes no sense that Katie Hopkins was tweeting about @pennyred and then made a post referencing @MsJackMonroe.

And her posts don’t make a direct accusation of defacing a statue.


And why was the mistaken identity even part of the story….Jack Monroe only threatened court action if she didn’t retract and apologise, the mistaken identity is not relevant

None of it makes sense.

 

[blup]

But Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted. There was clearly no love between them. Both did damage to their case.

Is defending yourself harming your case? Is retracting an offer harming your case when the lawyers take over and express things differently with the benefit of legal expertise? Everything Munro did suggests (to me) a mature attempt to knock the whole thing on the head without involving the lawyers.

 

[noseall]

Everything Munro did suggests (to me) a mature attempt to knock the whole thing on the head without involving the lawyers.

MBK made that bit up. He hates women, especially lefty, lesbian types that destroy RWR's.

 

[motorbiking]

I would suggest you read what the judge said... and your comment about Monroe is libel by the way.

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer.There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified.Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

We’ve already discussed this. Point 21 the original offer was retracted. I’ve already stated that a counter offer would have killed the case.