Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

What offer? She is warning her.

The offer comes at 8:14....

(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.” Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB)

Nope it's an offer and a reasonable one too.

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

The obvious offer is delete the tweet or I take legal action.

This on the other hand is a different offer and not one made in good faith.

"public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.

It was later changed by the letter before action for obvious legal reasons.

 

[noseall]

This is the amendment to this 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.”

Where is the offer? She is asking her to delete a tweet. There is no offer.

She complied with the first offer

KH deleted the tweet AFTER JM made her offer at 8:14.

 

[noseall]

Nope it's an offer and a reasonable one too.

Nope it is not an offer. She's asking her to delete a tweet.

Here is the offer...
(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.”

 

[motorbiking]

Where is the offer? She is asking her to delete a tweet. There is no offer.

The offer - Delete the tweet or I take legal action.

KH deleted the tweet AFTER JM made her offer at 8:14.

That is not what the judgement says:
(5) At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins. So either she thought 38 minutes was enough time to comply or she changed what she wanted.

She's asking her to delete a tweet.

In order to avoid legal action. It's an offer to avoid legal action.

Had she said: "Please delete this." It would have been a request.

But she didn't - she added "if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.". So there is a clear consequence of failure to comply with the offer being made to right the wrong.

 

[noseall]

The offer - Delete the tweet or I take legal action.

Nonsense. It is not an offer. It is a demand

That is not what the judgement says:
(5) At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins. So either she thought 38 minutes was enough time to comply or she changed what she wanted.

Irrelevant. It wasn't an offer, but a demand.

In order to avoid legal action. It's an offer to avoid legal action.

Nonsense. The tweets ran consecutively, with the latter 8:14 tweet stating the terms of her offer.

Had she said: "Please delete this." It would have been a request.

But she didn't - she added "if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.". So there is a clear consequence of failure to comply with the offer being made to right the wrong

More waffle. JM made the offer at 8:14. The judgements says so

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense. It is not an offer. It is a demand

with consequences - hence an offer do x or I do y.

Irrelevant. It wasn't an offer, but a demand.

nonsense - a demand: Nosenout stop posting lies and boll@x. An offer: Delete your lies and boll@x or get banned.

Nonsense. The tweets ran consecutively, with the latter 8:14 tweet stating the terms of her offer.

It took JM 3 minutes to respond to the first tweet and a further 3 minutes to state her terms. Are you seriously suggesting a change 38 minutes later is an AND. That is stupid, even by your standards.

More waffle. JM made the offer at 8:14. The judgements says so

made up nosenout boll@x

 

[noseall]

with consequences - hence an offer do x or I do y.

Not an offer.

nonsense - a demand: Nosenout stop posting lies and boll@x. An offer: Delete your lies and boll@x or get banned.

Not an offer.

It took JM 3 minutes to respond to the first tweet and a further 3 minutes to state her terms. Are you seriously suggesting a change 38 minutes later is an AND. That is stupid, even by your standards.

Irrelevant.

made up nosenout boll@x

Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

Dollop of contrition with that humble pie?

 

[motorbiking]

Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

"was" past tense. The term Open Offer does not have the ordinary meaning you think. It means it was not made without prejudice. The open offer is as per the letter of claim. It was withdrawn. An open offer is not an open ended offer.

There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996.
Nobody is suggesting she should not have made an offer.

 

[noseall]

There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996.
Nobody is suggesting she should not have made an offer.

Not what I said or what you lied about.

The offer was made at 8:14 pm, the Judge and the judgement says so. Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

It was not amended or rapidly retracted.

Hopkins had ample time to respond and it was a 'reasonable' offer. The judge says so.

Her offers were sincere, protracted and ongoing for months.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

The offer was made at 8:14 pm, the Judge and the judgement says so.

Nonsense.

The open offer was made in the letter of claim.

It is an open offer, because it was not made without prejudice to legal action. That is what is meant by "open offer". It can be included as evidence in court. it does not mean "open ended offer" which a bell end builder like you would not be expected to know. Open as in not closed.

 

[noseall]

The open offer was made in the letter of claim

Nope. Not what the judgement says.....Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

It is an open offer,

There was no offer until 8:14pm 18th May 2015

because it was not made without prejudice to legal action. That is what is meant by "open offer" it does not mean "open ended offer" which a bell end builder like you would not be expected to know.

Waffle.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

Sincerity.
“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.”
More sincerity...

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]."

Monroe added: "I've got a lot of compassion for her actually.

 

[motorbiking]

Nope. Not what the judgement says.....Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

There was no offer until 8:14pm 18th May 2015

Waffle.


Lies.

More lies

Sincerity.
“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.”

so before I rip the p*** out of you even more. You are trying to argue that when the Judge used the term "Open Offer" to settle for £5000 and that it was a reasonable offer. He was referring to:

(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.”

and not the substantially different offer made by the claimants solicitor of 21May 2015. and that he meant "open ended", not the normal legal meaning of "Open Offer" as in admissible evidence.

If the tweet was the offer, and it was "a reasonable offer" why did Monroe's lawyers amend it in their Open Offer of 21st of may?

 

[noseall]

so before I rip the p*** out of you even more. You are trying to argue that when the Judge used the term "Open Offer" to settle for £5000 and that it was a reasonable offer. He was referring to:

and not the substantially different offer made by the claimants solicitor of 21May 2015. and that he meant "open ended", not the normal legal meaning of "Open Offer" as in admissible evidence.

If the tweet was the offer, and it was "a reasonable offer" why did Monroes lawyers amend it in their Open Offer of 21st of may?

Irrelevant waffle (again).

The judge confirms that the offer (£5'000 etc) was reasonable. This was made at 8:14pm. There is no other (£5k) offer mentioned by the judge, or in the judgement transcript, that occurred before that. You can read it here.....Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

 

[motorbiking]

Irrelevant waffle (again).

Why don't you toddle off and google "open offers in civil litigation". Oh look this lawyer has done the heavy lifting for you.

Compromising Claims, Offers of Settlement and Part 36

www.gabyhardwicke.co.uk

3. ‘Without Prejudice’ Offer​

This is a valid offer, but cannot normally be used in arguments about costs at the end of proceedings.

4. An ‘Open’ Offer​

This is an offer that can be shown to the trial judge during proceedings and will only rarely be used. It is sometimes used to show that the person making the offer is being eminently reasonable.

Well-pitched offers of settlement can be vitally important, whether you are a claimant or a defendant. If an offer is attractive enough, it may well be accepted and this will see an end to the claim on acceptable terms. If it is not accepted, it can still help on the issue of costs. An offeree should think twice about pursuing their case where there is a real risk that they will not beat the offer.

Now lets go back to the barbed offer made by Monroe.

“Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.”

Based on what you have now learned, does that sound like an open offer which is reasonable? If so why was it amended, within just a few days? what does CPR PAP say about time limits on offers? Perhaps you might want to google "bad faith part 36 offers". and see what parallels you find.

 

[noseall]

nonsense - a demand:

Correct. The offer came at 8:14 pm.

Here's a thing. If you type into a search engine, ANY search engine and ask the question - did Jack Monroe make an offer to Katie Hopkins before the court proceedings, guess what hits it will give you.

CLUE: none will point towards this....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)

A = 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.

The judge even talks about the offer here....Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies