Katie Hopkins

[noseall]

We are talking about different points.

I'm talking about MBK's lies I.e.

the demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

Monroes offer was (officially) rescinded on August 4th. However, she continued "in the months that followed" to try and get Hopkins to see sense. Monroe never wanted court. She sincerely saught an out of court solution. Hopkins was having none of it.
Hopkins never apologised.

 

[MNW67]

I suspect that her many followers did, and made her aware of it.
Similarly, I'm sure that Monroe didn't routinely follow Hopkins, in case she tweeted anything unacceptable, but was alerted to the tweet by one of her many followers.

Things sure have changed!

 

[noseall]

Hopkins posted her first tweet. A few minutes Monroe asked her to remove it, or she would escalate. Then, 38 minutes later, Monroe escalated to demanding not just removal, but an apology and a donation. That doesn't seem a long time to me.

What doesn't seem like a long time? Monroe simply made it clear what would happen if she did not apologise. Why should the time taken to make that decision have any bearing?
Once Monroe made Hopkins aware that if she didn't apologise, then it would involve court etc, she had months to apologise etc.

 

[MNW67]

What doesn't seem like a long time? Monroe simply made it clear what would happen if she did not apologise. Why should the time taken to make that decision have any bearing?

Thirty eight minutes doesn't seem a long time to give someone to respond to a demand.

Maybe Hopkins didn't even see it. Maybe she was in the shower and/or having a big poo.

 

[noseall]

Thirty eight minutes doesn't seem a long time to give someone to respond to a demand.

What to you on about? The offer stood for months.
Sent May 21st..
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.’”

It wasn't rescinded until August 4th. Even after that Hopkins could have apologised and ended it all. She refused.
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

Maybe Hopkins didn't even see it. Maybe she was in the shower and/or having a big poo.

For two months and the months that followed leading up to the trial?

 

[noseall]

Thirty eight minutes doesn't seem a long time to give someone to respond to a demand.

How long do you think Hopkins had to respond to Monroes offer to apologise and keep the spat out of court? Be honest?

Here are the notes to help. Relevant timeline paragraphs 17 - 21.

 

[MNW67]

How long do you think Hopkins had to respond to Monroes offer to apologise and keep the spat out of court? Be honest?

Here are the notes to help. Relevant timeline paragraphs 17 - 21.

I am not interested in any of that at the moment. All I have been talking about is the thirty eight minutes on 18 May:

7.20 Hopkins makes first tweet about Monroe

7.33 Monroe tweets first reply

7.36 Monroe asks for tweet to be deleted

8.14 Monroe asks for an apology and a donation

All I am asking is whether others think Hopkins was given enough time between 7.33 and 8.14 to remove her first tweet. It feels like I am asking a very simple question and I am not sure how to make it any clearer.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I am not interested in any of that at the moment. All I have been talking about is the thirty eight minutes on 18 May:

7.20 Hopkins makes first tweet about Monroe

7.33 Monroe tweets first reply

7.36 Monroe asks for tweet to be deleted

8.14 Monroe asks for an apology and a donation

All I am asking is whether others think Hopkins was given enough time between 7.33 and 8.14 to remove her first tweet. It feels like I am asking a very simple question and I am not sure how to make it any clearer.

How long between 18 May and the start of the court case is more relevant.

 

[noseall]

All I am asking is whether others think Hopkins was given enough time between 7.33 and 8.14 to remove her first tweet

Why? What difference does that make?

. It feels like I am asking a very simple question and I am not sure how to make it any clearer.

It feels like you are asking an irrelevant question.



8.14 Monroe asks for an apology and a donation

Why do you think she asked her to do this? What were the consequences if she didn't? See if you can guess?

 

[noseall]

How long between 18 May and the start of the court case is more relevant.

A long time.

Hopkins could have ended court proceedings. She had ample time (months, years?). She chose not to.

 

[MNW67]

Why? What difference does that make?

It feels like you are asking an irrelevant question.

Because at 7.36, Monroe asked Hopkins to take down the tweet, otherwise she would escalate.

Presumably, if Hopkins had removed it, then things would have ended there.

But by 8.14 Hopkins had not complied.

As a result, Monroe escalated.

I am simply interested in whether people think that was a fair amount of time to give Hopkins to remove the first tweet. It is just something that interests me. I am not wanting to re-litigate the whole case.

 

[noseall]

Because at 7.36, Monroe asked Hopkins to take down the tweet, otherwise she would escalate.

She threatened to sue unless she apologised, correct.

Presumably, if Hopkins had removed it, then things would have ended there.

Correct.

But by 8.14 Hopkins had not complied.

No, correct. The threat to sue was still there. As was the option for Hopkins to apologise. The option to apologise and end the hostilities lasted way longer than 38 minutes. In fact Hopkins had months, to apologise and end proceedings.

As a result, Monroe escalated.

She threatened to sue unless Hopkins apologised. That has been established. The offer remained on the table for months. Hopkins could have apologised and ended it in that timeframe. Monroe didn't actually start the ball rolling until August. May through to August is ample time to apologise.

I am simply interested in whether people think that was a fair amount of time to give Hopkins to remove the first tweet.

Why? The offer to end court proceedings lay with Hopkins and remained so for months.

 

[MNW67]

She threatened to sue unless she apologised, correct.
Correct.
No, correct.

I can see now where we have been talking at cross purposes. You don't seem to have realised that 8.14 was the first time that Monroe had asked for an apology. Before that she had simply asked for a deletion.

 

[Notch7]

I am simply interested in whether people think that was a fair amount of time to give Hopkins to remove the first tweet

I think that depends on what would’ve happened had Katie Hopkins responded after Jack Monroes demand and apologised sincerely.

If Jack Monroe had pursued the demand, then in that scenario the time period was not fair.


But given that Katie Hopkins did not apologise and in fact doubled down, meant in my opinion she had no intention of apologising whatever the time period.


Also the time period might’ve been short, but things happen very fast on Twitter, I bet Jack Monroe would’ve faced a torrent of abuse from Hopkins followers within minutes of her first defamatory tweet.


In any case, if you do something that could lead to being sued, you only have yourself to blame

 

[MNW67]

Also the time period might’ve been short, but things happen very fast on Twitter, I bet Jack Monroe would’ve faced a torrent of abuse from Hopkins followers within minutes of her first defamatory tweet.

This is the issue I was interested in discussing.