Katie Hopkins

[Munroast]

That’s a scary thought

Personality has an awful lot to do with politics, great salesmen just have a personality that draws people in.

Look at the difference between Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they both had the same hymn sheet, but Boris could sell it, Truss not at all. Keir Starmer speaks well and clearly but he lacks the personality that draws people in, I find watching him is like watching the weather, I tend to drift off quite quickly

it is a major flaw in western democracies in that we choose our leaders on how charismatic they are before how good at their jobs they are.

 

[Brigadier]

it is a major flaw in western democracies in that we choose our leaders on how charismatic they are before how good at their jobs they are.

What we all need is a charismatic yet humble person in charge.

Someone who can rouse both the voters and their own MPs, colleagues, civil servants etc, but for the better of the many, not for the few.

 

[motorbiking]

The Katie Hopkins Vs Jack Monroe case has nothing to do with mistaken identity.


If it was mistaken identity, Hopkins would’ve simply tweeted: “ I am terribly sorry, my tweet was aimed xyz person.”
But she didn’t, she doubled down

Pete01
Motorbiking
Etc
Etc

Are simply using it as a deflection

It was only mentioned half a dozen times or more in the judgement. Etc etc.

 

[noseall]

many of those who voted for trump did so cause they rather fancied him

 

[noseall]

It was only mentioned half a dozen times or more in the judgement. Etc etc.

So was a lot of irrelevant fluff. Have you ever been to court?

 

[noseall]

The Katie Hopkins Vs Jack Monroe case has nothing to do with mistaken identity.


If it was mistaken identity, Hopkins would’ve simply tweeted: “ I am terribly sorry, my tweet was aimed xyz person.”
But she didn’t, she doubled down

Pete01
Motorbiking
Etc
Etc

Are simply using it as a deflection

Correct.

 

[motorbiking]

So was a lot of irrelevant fluff. Have you ever been to court?

Please share what you think was irrelevant fluff in the judgement. Do you think judges are paid by the word?

 

[noseall]

the judgement.

..is great if you want to read the court waffle.

However this...

The Katie Hopkins Vs Jack Monroe case has nothing to do with mistaken identity.


If it was mistaken identity, Hopkins would’ve simply tweeted: “ I am terribly sorry, my tweet was aimed xyz person.”
But she didn’t, she doubled down

Pete01
Motorbiking
Etc
Etc

Are simply using it as a deflection

...is spot on.

Hopkins brought the case upon herself. The RWR gobshite was given the chance to apologise and make amends. She did neither. Notch is exactly right when he says this was the turning point in the dispute. Nothing to do with mistaken identity, why she decided to sue, no matter how many times it was mentioned.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Nonsense.

But Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted.

You mean Hopkins refused to apologise?

 

[motorbiking]

..is great if you want to read the court waffle.

However this...

...is spot on.

Hopkins brought the case upon herself. The RWR gobshite was given the chance to apologise and make amends. She did neither. Notch is exactly right when he says this was the turning point in the dispute. Nothing to do with mistaken identity, why she decided to sue, no matter how many times it was mentioned.

Nonsense.

You mean Hopkins refused to apologise?

So no irrelevant fluff then. Just more grizzling from nosenout.

 

[noseall]

So no irrelevant fluff then.

Lot's of it is yes. Have you ever been to court? The repetition is mind numbing.

However, the reason she decided to sue had nothing to do with the mistaken identity thing. It was Hopkins doubling down AFTER, that tipped the balance. Monroe was reluctant from the outset.

 

[motorbiking]

Lot's of it is yes. Have you ever been to court? The repetition is mind numbing.

However, the reason she decided to sue had nothing to do with the mistaken identity thing. It was Hopkins doubling down AFTER, that tipped the balance. Monroe was reluctant from the outset.

If only you’d said that in post 71. She sued because she had been defamed. Nobody has said anything to contradict that.

The reason she was defamed was due to mistaken identity.

Seems we got there in the end.

 

[noseall]

She sued because she had been defamed.

Defamed? That was the outcome of the court case.

She sued because Hopkins refused to apologise...

Jack Monroe, a food writer and activist, sued columnist Katie Hopkins for libel in 2017. The case arose after Hopkins falsely accused Monroe on Twitter of vandalizing a war memorial or condoning such behavior. Hopkins had mistaken Monroe for another writer, Laurie Penny, who had commented on the vandalism of a memorial during an anti-austerity protest. Monroe requested an apology and a donation to charity, but Hopkins refused, leading to the lawsuit.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If only you’d said that in post 71. She sued because she had been defamed. Nobody has said anything to contradict that.

The reason she was defamed was due to mistaken identity.

Seems we got there in the end.

You certainly are getting there.

Stop the swerving

 

[noseall]

You certainly are getting there.

Stop the swerving

Would she have sued if Hopkins had apologised and donated etc? No. But this wasn't in the judgement so MBK is lost, poor old duffer.

 

[motorbiking]

Defamed? That was the outcome of the court case.

No the defamation was never denied. The damages were disputed. It was common ground that Hopkins had posted what she posted and that it was not true.

The argument was over the harm caused.