Katie Hopkins

[noseall]

It took Monroe 45 minutes to retract her offer of an apology and correction to escalate to a demand

Nonsense.....

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."

and again...

I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.” The blogger, who is understood to be seeking £50,000 in damages plus costs, told the court that Hopkins’s messages had led to abuse from others on Twitter, including death threats.

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense.....

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."

and again...

I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.” The blogger, who is understood to be seeking £50,000 in damages plus costs, told the court that Hopkins’s messages had led to abuse from others on Twitter, including death threats.

Are you suggesting the information in the judgement is incorrect?

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting the information in the judgement is incorrect?

No, just you and your made up bullshit.
Are you suggesting Jack Monroe is incorrect?

 

[motorbiking]

No, just you and your made up bullshit.
Are you suggesting Jack Monroe is incorrect?

So we agree that the detail in the Judgement is correct and anything said after in an interview, that disagrees with the judgement may not be. - yes?

If you could kindly count how many minutes are between: 7:36PM and 8:14PM

7.36pm: “I’m asking you nicely to please delete this lie Katie, and if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.” (With a link to the First Tweet)
At 8.14pm Ms Monroe tweeted again, this time using Ms Hopkins’ Twitter handle: “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.”

I make it 38 minutes - you?

and then how many minutes later is 9.47pm

I make it 93 minutes - you?

This BTW was the evidence Monroe gave to the court. I suspect her BBC interview was not under oath.

 

[noseall]

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly

More lies.

 

[noseall]

This BTW was the evidence Monroe gave to the court. I suspect her BBC interview was not under oaoath.

Irrelevant

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

Lies.

More lies.

back to grizzling then..

Irrelevant

Lies.

More lies.

her evidence given in court is irrelevant?

 

[noseall]

her evidence given in court is irrelevant?

No, just your made up bullshít.
Nor is the judgement privvy to everything she said or did leading up to the court proceedings...

'Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

I believe Jack Monroe v's your lies, boyo yes.

 

[motorbiking]

No, just your made up bullshít.
Nor is the judgement privvy to everything she said or did leading up to the court proceedings...

'Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

Lies.

More lies.

I believe Jack Monroe v's you lies, boyo yes.

I believe her testimony under oath, the court transcript, her lawyers, the judge, not some BS interview you found on the beeb which disagrees, with what she told the court.

But you can keep grizzling if you want.

Nor is the judgement privvy to everything she said or did leading up to the court proceedings...

She deleted a lot of it. Something the Judge also commented on. But they were able to establish the timing and order of the tweets and they were able to ascertain that Hopkins had mistaken Monroes identity. Sucks for you that and sucks for your BS argument. Nosenout does like to keep tell lies. Over and over again.

 

[noseall]

I believe her testimony under oath, the court transcript, her lawyers, the judge,

I believe it too. And it does not say this either...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

I do however believe Jack Monroe v's Billy Bullshít MBK, yes...

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

Care for a dollp of contrition contrition with that humble pie?

 

[motorbiking]

I believe it too. And it does not say this either...


Lies.

More lies

I do however believe Jack Monroe v's Billy Bullshít MBK, yes...

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

Care for a dollp of contrition contrition with that humble pie?

Oops the Guardian article disagrees..

Shortly after Hopkins’s original message, Monroe tweeted in response: “I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of ****.”

Monroe later sent a second message asking Hopkins to apologise: “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology + £5K to migrant rescue and I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v satisfying for me.”

Hopkins deleted the first tweet but, said Bennett, “she did not apologise or retract the allegation even though she knew it was false”. Shortly afterwards, the Mail columnist tweeted: “Can someone explain to me – in 10 words or less – the difference between irritant @PennyRed and social anthrax @MsJackMonroe.”

poor Nosenout, hung by his own link. So which is correct the guardian or the beeb? Or shall we just go on what was written in the judgement.

 

[noseall]

Oops the Guardian article disagrees..

Shortly after Hopkins’s original message, Monroe tweeted in response: “I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of ****.”

Monroe later sent a second message asking Hopkins to apologise: “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology + £5K to migrant rescue and I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v satisfying for me.”

Hopkins deleted the first tweet but, said Bennett, “she did not apologise or retract the allegation even though she knew it was false”. Shortly afterwards, the Mail columnist tweeted: “Can someone explain to me – in 10 words or less – the difference between irritant @PennyRed and social anthrax @MsJackMonroe.”

Where does the Guardian disagree?
It's a clip relating to the aftermath of the twitter spat?

This is still lies...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

This is still true....

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

 

[motorbiking]

Where does the Guardian disagree?
It's a clip relating to the aftermath of the twitter spat?

This is still lies...


Lies.

More lies.

This is still true....

Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."
read more

“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

read more

Not according to the Judgement.

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet,

How odd, that is exactly what Hopkins did at 9:47PM

"She blocked me immediately instead of responding,"

After deleting her tweet. as requested, but not before the below:

"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'

that happend before the deletion and just 38 minutes after her initial request.

Here it is again..

At 7.33pm Ms Monroe tweeted in these terms: “I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of s**.” (With a screenshot to the First Tweet)
Ms Monroe tweeted again at 7.36pm: “I’m asking you nicely to please delete this lie Katie, and if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.” (With a link to the First Tweet)
At 8.14pm Ms Monroe tweeted again, this time using Ms Hopkins’ Twitter handle: “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.”

You see the difference it makes?

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting the information in the judgement is incorrect?

Let's look at that too shall we:

Nowhere in the judgement does it say this - anywhere....

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

I too have read the judgement and your timeline is way off boyo. The evening of May 18th when the contentious tweets were posted. May 21st when theis letter was sent...
A letter of complaint was sent promptly by Ms Monroe’s solicitors, Seddons. On 21 May 2015 they wrote to Ms Hopkins c/o STH Management. They said, among other things: “… the words were highly defamatory of Ms Monroe and have caused a huge amount of stress and trouble. Despite those tweets being made by Ms Penny, it is clear that you thought they had been made by Ms Monroe. Quite clearly your followers, who number over half a million, shared the confusion that you promoted and consequently Ms Monroe was subjected to a torrent of abusive and vile comment. When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake you decided not to take action but instead aggravated the position by tweeting (at 9:47pm)…” The letter requested a correction and apology, an undertaking not to repeat this or similar tweets about Ms Monroe, payment of a “substantial donation” to a charity of Ms Monroe’s choice, and payment of legal costs. The form of correction and apology Ms Monroe wanted was spelled out: “A tweet to be sent at a date and time to be agreed, ‘I was confused about identity. I got it wrong. @MsJackMonroe I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to charity at her request.’”


Then this...

There was no reply to that letter. But 12 days later, on Tuesday 2 June 2015, at 6.58am Ms Hopkins tweeted “@MsJackMonroe I was confused about identity. I got it wrong.” She did nothing else, until after Seddons wrote again on 4 August 2015. Seddons’ letter noted that there had been no reply to theirs of 21 May. It said that all previous offers were withdrawn and that proceedings were being prepared and would be served on Ms Hopkins personally unless she nominated solicitors. This evidently prompted Ms Hopkins to instruct Kingsley Napley, who wrote on 14 August 2015:

45 minutes my arse

 

[motorbiking]

Let's look at that too shall we:

Nowhere in the judgement does it say this - anywhere....





I too have read the judgement and your timeline is way off boyo. The evening of May 18th when the contentious tweets were posted. May 21st when theis letter was sent...
A letter of complaint was sent promptly by Ms Monroe’s solicitors, Seddons. On 21 May 2015 they wrote to Ms Hopkins c/o STH Management. They said, among other things: “… the words were highly defamatory of Ms Monroe and have caused a huge amount of stress and trouble. Despite those tweets being made by Ms Penny, it is clear that you thought they had been made by Ms Monroe. Quite clearly your followers, who number over half a million, shared the confusion that you promoted and consequently Ms Monroe was subjected to a torrent of abusive and vile comment. When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake you decided not to take action but instead aggravated the position by tweeting (at 9:47pm)…” The letter requested a correction and apology, an undertaking not to repeat this or similar tweets about Ms Monroe, payment of a “substantial donation” to a charity of Ms Monroe’s choice, and payment of legal costs. The form of correction and apology Ms Monroe wanted was spelled out: “A tweet to be sent at a date and time to be agreed, ‘I was confused about identity. I got it wrong. @MsJackMonroe I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to charity at her request.’”


Then this...

There was no reply to that letter. But 12 days later, on Tuesday 2 June 2015, at 6.58am Ms Hopkins tweeted “@MsJackMonroe I was confused about identity. I got it wrong.” She did nothing else, until after Seddons wrote again on 4 August 2015. Seddons’ letter noted that there had been no reply to theirs of 21 May. It said that all previous offers were withdrawn and that proceedings were being prepared and would be served on Ms Hopkins personally unless she nominated solicitors. This evidently prompted Ms Hopkins to instruct Kingsley Napley, who wrote on 14 August 2015:

45 minutes my arse

Read paragraph 17.

Ms Monroe tweeted again at 7.36pm: “I’m asking you nicely to please delete this lie Katie, and if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.”
At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins.