Katie Hopkins

[noseall]

And 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 It said that all previous offers were withdrawn and that proceedings were being prepared and would be served on Ms Hopkins personally unless she nominated solicitors.

 

[motorbiking]

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

The judgement was because Hopkins did not make an offer of amends under section 2 of the defamation act.

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 It's not withdrawn until August 4th.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 no read?

The offer was a request to delete the defamatory post. It was fully complied with within 2 hours 11 minutes.

The amendment was not intended to be a sincere offer. Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.

What have you learned about offers in civil procedures?

And 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 It said that all previous offers were withdrawn and that proceedings were being prepared and would be served on Ms Hopkins personally unless she nominated solicitors.

yep partial compliance to the previous request.

 

[noseall]

38 minutes actually,

Nonsense. Read 20.

Then read 21.

 

[MNW67]

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 It's not withdrawn until August 4th.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.

I think the point being made is that in a little over half an hour, Jack Monroe's request escalated from simply deleting the offending tweet to an apology and a donation. The question might be, was that a reasonable amount of time to allow the Hopkins to comply.

 

[noseall]

The offer was a request to delete the defamatory post. It was fully complied with within 2 hours 11 minutes.

The amendment was not intended to be a sincere offer. Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.

Irrelevant to these lies...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

It says in in the judgement right here...

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.’”

 

[motorbiking]

I think the point being made is that in a little over half an hour, Jack Monroe's request escalated from simply deleting the offending tweet to an apology and a donation. The question might be, was that a reasonable amount of time to allow the Hopkins to comply.

exactly.

and the second point is the amended offer was not intended to be a genuine offer and certainly not part 36 compliant.
Neither was the offer in the letter of claim, which was partially complied with.

Hopkins had the ability to make an offer of amends under sec 2 of the defamation act, right up until that point.

But with Nosenout, we have to focus on the basics.

 

[noseall]

I think the point being made is that in a little over half an hour, Jack Monroe's request escalated from simply deleting the offending tweet to an apology and a donation. The question might be, was that a reasonable amount of time to allow the Hopkins to comply.

May 11th through to August 4th? Yes.


And then this...

'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 this..
These proceedings have been a nightmare,” Monroe told the court. “It has been an 18-month, unproductive, devastating nightmare.

“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.”

 

[noseall]

and the second point is the amended offer was not intended to be a genuine offer and certainly not part 36 compliant.
Neither was the offer in the letter of claim, which was partially complied with.

Utter bollax.

 

[motorbiking]

Utter bollax.

Only in your head.

 

[motorbiking]

May 11th through to August 4th? Yes.


And then this...

'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 this..
These proceedings have been a nightmare,” Monroe told the court. “It has been an 18-month, unproductive, devastating nightmare.

“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.”

Not according to the judgement and her testimony.

38 minutes is all she gave Hopkins to comply.

 

[noseall]

Only in your head.

Nonsense. Monroe's offer to Hopkins (apologise and donate) still stood up till August 4th, it says so in the judgement - paragraphs 19, 20 and 21.

She continued to reach out to her afterwards, leading up to court....



These proceedings have been a nightmare,” Monroe told the court. “It has been an 18-month, unproductive, devastating nightmare.

“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.”

​

'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]."

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[noseall]

Not according to the judgement and her testimony.

38 minutes is all she gave Hopkins to comply.

Liar.

 

[noseall]

Not according to the judgement and her testimony.

38 minutes is all she gave Hopkins to comply.

Explain what is happening in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21, then. The offer to apologise and retract is still there.

 

[MNW67]

May 11th through to August 4th? Yes.

I was just interested in the period immediately following Hopkins first tweet about JM. Monroe replied saying she would be happy for Hopkins simply to delete the post. But then, a little over half an hour later, she is asking Hopkins for an apology and a £5K donation. Was a little over half an hour a reasonable amount of time to allow Hopkins to delete her first tweet.

 

[noseall]

I was just interested in the period immediately following Hopkins first tweet about JM. Monroe replied saying she would be happy for Hopkins simply to delete the post. But then, a little over half an hour later, she is asking Hopkins for an apology and a £5K donation. Was a little over half an hour a reasonable amount of time to allow Hopkins to delete her first tweet.

It takes a few seconds to delete a tweet.

It actually took the moron Hopkins a few seconds longer to double down and aggravate the situation

Months later on 4th August the offer to apologise and retract was withdrawn. Up till then, it was still on the table. Read paragraphs 19, 20 and 21.