Katie Hopkins

[Lirefighter]

I bet Monroe, looking back, wished that she hadn't persued the matter at all.
It looks to me like he/she kind of went off the rails soon after and was all but penniless owing to drug and alcohol addiction.
It all seems to have backfired on him/her.

 

[MNW67]

I bet Monroe, looking back, wished that she hadn't persued the matter at all.
It looks to me like he/she kind of went off the rails soon after and was all but penniless owing to drug and alcohol addiction.
It all seems to have backfired on him/her.

I know almost nothing about her.

But a quick Google shows she is apparently extremely divisive. Not immediately obvious why, though.

 

[Lirefighter]

Me neither.
As with you, a quick Google search revealed that she/he is hopefully making amends, but things have been quite bad over the last few years.
Katie probably has a chuckle about it every now and then, I reckon.

 

[noseall]

I bet Monroe, looking back, wished that she hadn't persued the matter at all.

She wishes Hopkins had not made her hateful tweets - correct.

She didn't want to pursue the matter in court - correct, but Hopkins left her no choice. However, she had a target on her back the instant Hopkins put out her vile lies.

 

[noseall]

Katie probably has a chuckle about it every now and then, I reckon.

I bet. Over half a million down, had to sell her family home, publicly humiliated and beaten by a feminist lesbian, toxic and ousted from all mainstream media outlets. Constantly spewing hatred when ever she can.

Yeah, barrel of laughs.

 

[noseall]

But a quick Google shows she is apparently extremely divisive.

Eh?

Not everyone is going to like her recipes I guess. Food/taste is extremely idiosyncratic.

 

[noseall]

“Social anthrax” describes Katie Hopkins perfectly

Perfect tonic for the RWR.

 

[motorbiking]

Erm:

Monroe v. Hopkins - Global Freedom of Expression

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common challenges to address. To achieve its mission...

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

No need for an alternative version of the Judgement Himmy, the Judgement has been posted several times along with the time line.
It's only the forum idiots who dispute the facts.

 

[motorbiking]

KH spent a lot of money instead of apologising.

And still people (some) refuse to accept the basic fact

Who is refusing to accept this fact?

Its been said several times that she should have made an offer of amends.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

No need for an alternative version of the Judgement Himmy, the Judgement has been posted several times along with the time line.
It's only the forum idiots who dispute the facts.

And that version does not agree with your claim.

Ms. Monroe then posted three tweets in response to the First Tweet in which she denied any involvement in the vandalism, asked Ms. Hopkins to delete “this lie”, and requested that she issue a public apology. In one of the tweets,

Monroe v. Hopkins - Global Freedom of Expression

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common challenges to address. To achieve its mission...

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

But you claimed:

... the first request was a take down and it was complied with.

See the difference?
Even this forum idiot can see the difference. But you can't.
There's idiocy, which can be excused through ignorance, and there's blind refusal to accept the facts, which is inexcusable.

 

[motorbiking]

And that version does not agree with your claim.

Monroe v. Hopkins - Global Freedom of Expression

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to advance understanding of the international and national norms and institutions that best protect the free flow of information and expression in an inter-connected global community with major common challenges to address. To achieve its mission...

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu

But you claimed:

See the difference?
Even this forum idiot can see the difference. But you can't.
There's idiocy, which can be excused through ignorance, and there's blind refusal to accept the facts, which is inexcusable.

But the actual judgement does - Read the actual Judgement Himmy, Paragraph 17 has the timeline facts:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf

17.3 Takedown request 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.”
17.5 takedown request complied with " At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins."

 

[Deleted member 323070]

But the actual judgement does - Read the actual Judgement Himmy, Paragraph 17 has the timeline facts:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf

17.3 Takedown request 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.”
17.5 takedown request complied with " At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins."

You are conveniently ignoring other comments and tweets.
The real timeline, as contained in the judgement on page 1., not your abbreviated version.:

(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.”
(5) At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf

Any forum idiot can see that Monroe tweeted twice, the first one asking for a deletion, and the second one asking for deletion and a public apology.
Hopkins later complied with the first tweet and refused to comply with the request for a public apology.

But you prefer to ignore the facts. That is your choice, and you are free to behave in that manner.

 

[motorbiking]

Hopkins later complied with the first tweet and refused to comply with the request for a public apology.

Nobody is defending her refusal to make an offer of amends. But the fact remains. A takedown request was complied with, something you now understand, having read some of the actual judgement.. You're welcome btw.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Nobody is defending her refusal to make an offer of amends. But the fact remains. A takedown request was complied with, something you now understand, having read some of the actual judgement.. You're welcome btw.

But the request for apology, in the second tweet was not.
And the offending tweet was only deleted after the request for deletion was modified by requesting a public apology.
That public apology was never provided.

So the fact that a request for deletion was modified by the addition of a later request for a public apology is irrelevant.

Hopkins has several thousand followers. I'm sure that her followers would have, could have alerted her to a modified request.
She must also have been aware of the request for a public apology by the time she deleted the original offending tweet.

This illustrates how you intentionally abbreviate court judgements to present your argument as being accurate when in truth it is a distorted abbreviated version.

When my partner gives me a shopping list, but phones me in the shop to add something to the list, that they had forgotten, I don't ignore it, and claim it never existed.

 

[motorbiking]

But the request for apology, in the second tweet was not.

neither was the payment to a migrant charity, intended to humiliate Hopkins, nobody is saying otherwise,

And the offending tweet was only deleted after the request for deletion was modified by requesting a public apology.

That public apology was never provided.

irrelevant - it was complied with - do you think 38 minutes is enough time before an escalation?

So the fact that a request for deletion was modified by the addition of a later request for a public apology is irrelevant.

Its relevant when dismissing an argument that Hopkins ignored all of Monroe's requests - she didn't

She must also have been aware of the request for a public apology by the time she deleted the original offending tweet.

maybe, maybe not, maybe she was having dinner, maybe she was sitting in a dark room shouting at the ceiling.

This illustrates how you intentionally abbreviate court judgements to present your argument as being accurate when in truth it is a distorted abbreviated version.

This illustrates that you are Himmy.

When my partner gives me a shopping list, but phones me in the shop to add something to the list, that they had forgotten, I don't ignore it, and claim it never existed.

How very interesting, but irrelevant. Your shopping lists are not required to be CPR PAP compliant.