Katie Hopkins

[Deleted member 323070]

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

Then stop defending Hopkins offensive behaviour.

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

An escalation, an afterthought, a modification?
I would consider it as an afterthought. An escalation would require an allowable and stated time lapse before the escalation was enacted.

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

She clearly ignored some salient requests from Monroe, and it cost her dearly.

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

Or maybe she was hoping that Monroe would not follow up on her requests for deletion and an apology.
For how many months was she having dinner, or sitting in a dark room shouting at the ceiling?

This illustrates that you are Himmy.

Your incoherent ramblings are of no concern, but for amusement, please provide your reasoning for this assumption.
This will be fun.

How very interesting, but irrelevant.

It was an analogy to show that an addition or modification to a request does not disappear and can be ignored, because it was added some short time later.

CPR PAP compliancy applies to court procedure. The offence was given before compliance with court procedure is required.
Similarly, a modified shopping list would occur before any compliance with court procedure was considered.

 

[noseall]

I think it would be hard to believe after all this debate that nosenout wasn’t aware the first request was a take down and it was complied wiwith.

Why do you always insist on posting stuff I have not queried.
Let's look at theses lies...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

If Monroe 'rapidly retracted ' her offer (38 mins), explain how Hopkins still had the opportunity to end proceedings three days later, as mentioned in paragraph 19, 20, 21?
21st May 2015
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.’”

You are a pathetic liar.

 

[MNW67]

Eh?

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

I don't know why! I know almost nothing about her.

Except it's not about her recipes.

There seems to be a lot of hatred. Probably some social media influencer nonsense. Presumably, something led Katie Hopkins to make those comments. They seem to be on opposite sides.

Just found this:

Why Jack Monroe cuts through

The success of a tweet is usually determined by how many ‘likes’ it gets. Food writer and activist Jack Monroe is often divisive, and hasn’t been shy to reveal that she is on the receiving end of a lot of hate – but she gets a lot of likes too.

www.prweek.co.uk

 

[motorbiking]

Then stop defending Hopkins offensive behaviour.

I haven't. I have repeatedly called her behaviour cretinous.

Your incoherent ramblings are of no concern, but for amusement, please provide your reasoning for this assumption.
This will be fun.

Bye Himmy.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

This illustrates that you are Himmy.

Your incoherent ramblings are of no concern, but for amusement, please provide your reasoning for this assumption.
This will be fun.

Bye Himmy.

What a shame I was eagerly anticipating some fun.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't know why! I know almost nothing about her.

Except it's not about her recipes.

There seems to be a lot of hatred. Probably some social media influencer nonsense. Presumably, something led Katie Hopkins to make those comments. They seem to be on opposite sides.

Just found this:

Why Jack Monroe cuts through

The success of a tweet is usually determined by how many ‘likes’ it gets. Food writer and activist Jack Monroe is often divisive, and hasn’t been shy to reveal that she is on the receiving end of a lot of hate – but she gets a lot of likes too.

www.prweek.co.uk

She was wronged, I will cut her some slack for that, people get angry in the heat of the moment. Her interviews have a rather rose tinted view of history. Calling someone a piece of sh** is not asking nicely. Stating that you will get satisfaction from humiliating them by forcing them to donate to a charity they would find toxic, is a barbed offer. You could argue Monroe knew the sort of stubborn belligerent idiot Hopkins was and played her like a fiddle. She deleted much of her own retaliatory abuse. Hopkin's "brand" is to be an outspoken distasteful commentator at best. She lost her house Monroe lost more, it seems, both at their own hands.

 

[motorbiking]

Why do you always insist on posting stuff I have not queried.
Let's look at theses lies...

Lies.

More lies.

If Monroe 'rapidly retracted ' her offer (38 mins), explain how Hopkins still had the opportunity to end proceedings three days later, as mentioned in paragraph 19, 20, 21?
21st May 2015
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.’”

You are a pathetic liar.

still grizzling you'll give yourself an ulcer.

 

[noseall]

still grizzling you'll give yourself an ulcer.

Answer the question please....

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

If Monroe 'rapidly retracted ' her offer (38 mins), explain how Hopkins still had the opportunity to end proceedings three days later, as mentioned in paragraph 19, 20, 21?
21st May 2015
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]

Answer the question please....


Lies.

More lies.

If Monroe 'rapidly retracted ' her offer (38 mins), explain how Hopkins still had the opportunity to end proceedings three days later, as mentioned in paragraph 19, 20, 21?
21st May 2015
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.’”

answered dozens of times.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

She (Hopkins) lost her house Monroe lost more, it seems,

Please explain.

 

[noseall]

answered dozens of times.

No, you have posted the twitter back and forth (paragraph17) Monroe didn't rescind the offer there either. Just the opposite.

Please explain that if the offer was 'rapidly retracted' after 38 minutes, how come the offer for Hopkins to apologise and end proceedings, was just as apparent three days later....?

 

[motorbiking]

No, you have posted the twitter back and forth (paragraph17) Monroe didn't rescind the offer there either. Just the opposite.

Please explain that if the offer was 'rapidly retracted' how come the offer for Hopkins to apologise and end proceedings, was just as apparent three days later....?

This is a reasonable offer:

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.”

A reminder that it was fully complied with.

The demand for an apology was not sincere. It was linked to terms that Hopkins would have found unacceptable.

in bold:

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.”

This was a bad faith offer, there is an intention to seek revenge/humiliation etc. "v. satisfying for me." and its an amendment to the original offer (delete otherwise I'm instructing lawyers). Given that Hopkins complied with the first offer and Monroe persisted. The first offer was obviously retracted and replaced with the above.

Her lawyers knew it was not a good faith offer, which is why they amended it to:

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.’”

What is the deadline for accepting the offer?
What did Hopkins do 12 days later?

Tuesday 2 June 2015, at 6.58am Ms Hopkins tweeted “@MsJackMonroe I was confused about identity. I got it wrong.”

Where was the follow-up letter asking her to comply with the other requirements?
What other elements necessary for it to be a compliant offer are missing? google part 36 offers, I'm done educating you.

Then without further correspondence, the offer is withdrawn.

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

That is a very strange way to conduct a genuine attempt to settle.

Of course the Judge made his ruling on the basis that Hopkins was entirely free to make any alternative offer under section 2 of the defamation act, but chose not to. Monroe didn't get a full award either. Lawyers get paid, everyone else loses. who'd have thought.

 

[noseall]

This is a reasonable offer:

A reminder that it was fully complied with.


in bold:


This was a bad faith offer, there is an intention to seek revenge/humiliation etc. "v. satisfying for me." and its an amendment to the original offer (delete otherwise I'm instructing lawyers). Given that Hopkins complied with the first offer and Monroe persisted. The first offer was obviously retracted and replaced with the above.

Her lawyers knew it was not a good faith offer, which is why they amended it to:



What is the deadline for accepting the offer?
What did Hopkins do 12 days later?


Where was the follow-up letter asking her to comply with the other requirements?
What other elements necessary for it to be a compliant offer are missing? google part 36 offers, I'm done educating you.

Then without further correspondence, the offer is withdrawn.


That is a very strange way to conduct a genuine attempt to settle.

Of course the Judge made his ruling on the basis that Hopkins was entirely free to make any alternative offer under section 2 of the defamation act, but chose not to. Monroe didn't get a full award either. Lawyers get paid, everyone else loses. who'd have thought.

Not a single line in that text states she has rescinded her offer.

Again, please explain that if she rescinded her offer after 38 minutes, how come the offer was still there three days later?
Where is the text saying she has rescinded her offer after 38 minutes?
How was Hopkins still able to end proceedings with an apology etc, three days later?
Please answer this question? Either Hopkins still had the offer to end proceedings or she didn't?
Paragraphs 19, 20, 21 clearly states she does and the offer to end hostilities is still there, days (months) later.

 

[noseall]

This is a reasonable offer:

A reminder that it was fully complied with.


in bold:


This was a bad faith offer, there is an intention to seek revenge/humiliation etc. "v. satisfying for me." and its an amendment to the original offer (delete otherwise I'm instructing lawyers). Given that Hopkins complied with the first offer and Monroe persisted. The first offer was obviously retracted and replaced with the above.

Her lawyers knew it was not a good faith offer, which is why they amended it to:



What is the deadline for accepting the offer?
What did Hopkins do 12 days later?


Where was the follow-up letter asking her to comply with the other requirements?
What other elements necessary for it to be a compliant offer are missing? google part 36 offers, I'm done educating you.

Then without further correspondence, the offer is withdrawn.


That is a very strange way to conduct a genuine attempt to settle.

Of course the Judge made his ruling on the basis that Hopkins was entirely free to make any alternative offer under section 2 of the defamation act, but chose not to. Monroe didn't get a full award either. Lawyers get paid, everyone else loses. who'd have thought.

Show me the line of text (after 38 mins) that rescinds her offer?
Show me the line of text (after 38 mins) that removes the ability for Hopkins to apologise and end proceedings?

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

Not a single line in that text states she has rescinded her offer.

Her actions suggest otherwise.

If I say I want £100 for a cement mixer and then you say done, If I then say oh and your van. Do you think the offer of £100 still stands? Surely you aren't that stupid.

Again, please explain that if she rescinded her offer after 38 minutes, how come the offer was still there three days later?

The offer changed. Given it have been complied with and yet the threats continued. It clearly had been rescinded and replaced with new demands.

Do you think Hopkins had the option of:

A - Delete the tweet or
B - Leave the tweet and make an apology + 5k to migrant rescue.

it was not a pick one scenario. If it was, given Hopkins complied with A - why did Monroe continue?

Where is the text saying she has rescinded her offer after 38 minutes?

The offer was amended.

How was Hopkins still able to end proceedings with an apology etc, three days later?

She always had the ability to kill proceeding - Section 2 of the Defamation Act - Offer of Amends. This was available right up until proceedings had been issued.

Please answer this question? Either Hopkins still had the offer to end proceedings or she didn't?

Hopkins' rights are irrelevant of any offer on or off the table, from the claimant.

Paragraphs 19, 20, 21 clearly states she does and the offer to end hostilities is still there, days (months) later.

20 - a different offer
21 - offer retracted.