Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

What do you mean by her faux pas?

oh dear it looks like we you are going to have to start from the beginning

 

[MNW67]

oh dear it looks like we you are going to have to start from the beginning

I'm at a loose end today!

 

[Deleted member 323070]

What do you mean by her faux pas?

an embarrassing or tactless act or remark in a social situation.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I'm at a loose end today!

I'm not.

 

[noseall]

everyone else got it apart from dumb and dumber and his new (old) fwiend.

What made you change your mind, mid thread?
At one stage you were in agreement with the 2.5 month/£5k offer, then abruptly, you invented an apology (outright lie) and changed to 38 minutes (outright lie).
I have shown the posts you agreeing I.e.
#239
#241
#243
#285
..yet you refuse to explain YOUR OWN posts. Why is that? In these posts you make reference to the judgement paragraphs 19-21.
So, we're you lying then or are you lying now?
Just explain Billy bullshīt, what could be easier?

 

[Notch7]

everyone else got it

yes we all get it: youve been lying for 40 pages

 

[motorbiking]

yes we all get it: youve been lying for 40 pages

about what?

 

[motorbiking]

What made you change your mind, mid thread?
At one stage you were in agreement with the 2.5 month/£5k offer, then abruptly, you invented an apology (outright lie) and changed to 38 minutes (outright lie).
I have shown the posts you agreeing I.e.
#239
#241
#243
#285
..yet you refuse to explain YOUR OWN posts. Why is that? In these posts you make reference to the judgement paragraphs 19-21.
So, we're you lying then or are you lying now?
Just explain Billy bullshīt, what could be easier?

You have suggested that the Observations the judge made in paragraph 83 are specifically referring to the tweet referenced in paragraph 17,4 and not the letter of complaint described in Paragraph 19? Is this still your position. i.e None of the other offers prior to that are relevant - correct?

 

[motorbiking]

about what?

gone awfully quiet

 

[motorbiking]

I wonder what Nosenout makes of this tweet. Looks like another offer..

 

[MNW67]

That's interesting. It went from "delete", to "delete and say sorry", to "delete, say sorry and donate £5k".

Don't judge me, but I think JM looks very striking in that photo. Pity about the tats.

 

[motorbiking]

Don't judge me, but I think JM looks very striking in that photo. Pity about the tats.

She reminds me of side show bob.

 

[MNW67]

She reminds me of side show bob.

This is a nice one:

 

[noseall]

You have suggested that the Observations the judge made in paragraph 83 are specifically referring to the tweet referenced in paragraph 17,4 and not the letter of complaint described in Paragraph 19? Is this still your position. i.e None of the other offers prior to that are relevant - correct?

Just address the fugging posts, for once.
Posts #239 to #248, you made a clear reference to paragraphs 19-21 of the judgement.

You acknowledged MNW 67 also, in reference to the offer, in regards to the 2.5 month offer period.

Later you changed your story (2.5 months became 38 minutes) and began lying in earnest.

I'll go through them again just for you...

Imagine it was you and I and our identities were known. Assume you defame me and I demand an apology and donation to the Reform Party of £5k. It is intended to humiliate you, as it’s well known that you cannot stand their cause. I then crow about how much fun I’m going to have owning you.

Plenty of made-up waffle but no back tracking to para' 17 yet..

There we go, back to being dumb again. If you read 19 - 21 in the judgement. You will see the letter before action timing, the offer and when it was withdrawn.

An offer of settlement that is intended to humiliate and seek revenge, is not an offer in good faith intended to settle the complaint.

Yep, still squirming but on board and no mention of para' 17 yet...

Read 19-21.

And then this happens....

WRONG

you've literally just made up your own version. Here is the correct version again:

(1) At 7.20pm Ms Hopkins posted the first tweet of which Ms Monroe complains (“The First Tweet”). It was in these words: “@MsJackMonroe scrawled on any memorials recently? Vandalised the memory of those who fought for your freedom. Grandma got any more medals?”
(2) At 7.33pm Ms Monroe tweeted in these terms: “I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of s**t.” (With a screenshot to the First Tweet)
(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.”
(6) At 9.47pm Ms Hopkins posted the second tweet of which Ms Monroe complains (“the Second Tweet”). It was in these terms:“Can someone explain to me - in 10 words or less - the difference between irritant @PennyRed and social anthrax @jack Monroe.”
(7) At some point that evening, I infer about this time, Ms Hopkins blocked Ms Monroe. That prevented Ms Monroe from communicating with her via Twitter.
(8) Later on 18 May 2015 the Claimant published the following on Twitter: “BA_DA_BOOM! It lies! It smears! It’s wrong! It panics! It blocks! It’s @KTHopkins everyone!” (With six pictures of a chicken)
(9) At 22:30 on 18 May 2015 the Claimant published the following on Twitter: “Gin o clock. Cheers. God isn’t it good sweet justice when a poisonous bully gets shown up for what it is and runs runs runs away.”

This is from the judgement not your made up version.

Your version corrected below:

Tweet 1: Hopkins to Monroe
Tweet 2: Monroe reply to Hopkins saying no she had not abd would not deface memorials
Tweet 2.1: Monroe reply to Hopkins demanding an apology
"Tweet 4": Monroe to Hopkins asking for money to charity.
"Tweet 3": Hopkins to Monroe: another poisonous tweet

It makes a difference.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ahh, I can see where you went down the MBK made up bullshít rabbit hole, right here.

Tweet 2.1 does not demand an apology, and there is no offer. She asks her to take down a tweet is all. And from thereafter, the MBK bullshít flows unabated.

More embarrassment for you here......

This part. Is two and a half months rapid in such cases.

Yep. One letter then retraction

More embarrassment here too....

You are invited to read paragraph 17-21. You will see that at no point did Hopkins claim a mistake had been made until after the letter before action.


It will also help you with the time line. 7:20 the tweet, 8:14 the claim. (incl 5k)

So which is it? Were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[motorbiking]

I've asked you a question. It will help everyone understand what it is you don't get.

You have suggested that the Observations the judge made in paragraph 83 are specifically referring to the tweet referenced in paragraph 17,4 and not the letter of complaint described in Paragraph 19? Is this still your position. i.e None of the other offers prior to that are relevant - correct?

Or are you just going to keep posting the same Nosenout boll@x?