Katie Hopkins

[noseall]

You see the difference it makes?

See the post above. You need to read these judgements more thoroughly as well as what the Jack Monroe actually said and did...

'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]."

“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.

 

[noseall]

Read paragraph 17.

Ive read it. It mentions nothing about a rapid retraction. It mentions nothing about being insincere. It does not say she retracted her offer either.

I've also read this....

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]

From the judgement:
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.

The time between the request to delete and the demand for a donation was 38 minutes. The original request was to delete the lie. It was fully complied with, within 2hrs 11 mins.

The first offer was genuine - delete or I take legal action. Having had a think about it, she then enhanced the offer to require a donation to a charity she knew Hopkins would find toxic.

Now off you toddle to read up on CPR PAP part 36 offers, then let me know what you learn.

Hopkins of course escalated the whole thing with her cretinous reference to social anthrax and nobody has any sympathy for her and what that led to.

Regarding the letter before claim. The offer was made, it was partially complied with and the offer then retracted (4th August). Up until that point Hopkins had the ability to make an offer of amends under section 2 of the defamation act. It looks like she was as stubborn as she is nasty and it cost her, her house. Oh well never mind.

 

[noseall]

So summing up

Initial tweets....11 May 2015

letter detailing proceedings... 4th August 2015

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
45 minutes my arse. And this is an even bigger whopper..

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

1 defamatory tweet at wrong person
2 denial from person
3 request to delete or legal action
4 request enhanced to require donation
5 request 3 complied with
6 stupid toxic tweet escalating
7 blocking
8 retaliation attack by claimant
9 letter before claim - correct the facts, apologise and pay
10 partial compliance - facts corrected, no apology or payment
11 offer withdrawn
12 judgement for the claimant with most of her costs awarded.

Hopkins errors:
she could have killed it with an offer of amends and a smaller offer of compensation.

 

[noseall]

From the judgement:
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.

You are posting up the tweet exchange, nothing more. Nowhere does it say that proceedings were going ahead and the chance for apology is withdrawn. nowhere.

Howver the judgement does go on to say...



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.’” Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment 21. 22. 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:

 

[noseall]

1 defamatory tweet at wrong person

Started 11 may 2015

11 offer withdrawn

..and letter sent on August 4th.

45 minutes my arse.

 

[motorbiking]

Started 11 may 2015

..and letter sent on August 4th.

45 minutes my arse.

38 minutes actually,

This is an offer:

“I’m asking you nicely to please delete this lie Katie, and if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.”

 

[noseall]

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

Lies.

More lies.

ok back to grizzling in circles then. Do you think 38 minutes is a reasonable time limit to comply?

 

[noseall]

38 minutes actually,

Where does it say after 38 minutes that she was withdrawing her offer?

 

[noseall]

ok back to grizzling in circles then.

No answer the question.

Where after 38 minutes does she say she's withdrawing her offer?

Quite clearly the August 4th exchange is when she loses patience...

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.’” Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment 21.


22. 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:

 

[motorbiking]

Where does it say after 38 minutes that she was withdrawing her offer?

Paragraph Seventeen (17). jeez how many times.

Sec 3 and 4.

(3) 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)

(4) 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 are aware that Hopkins complied with the request in 3, within 2 hours and 11 minutes?

 

[noseall]

ok back to grizzling in circles then. Do you think 38 minutes is a reasonable time limit to comply?

Are you saying the subsequent offers were lies and the judgement you so cherish is wrong?

 

[noseall]

Paragraph Seventeen (17). jeez how many times.

Yes. Monroe is threatening with her lawyers. The offer to apologise is still there and is being talked about in the following paragraphs. It's not withdrawn until August 4th. Can you not read?

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 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.