Katie Hopkins

[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?

I'm glad you mentioned the reference the Judge made to the offer i.e...83 of the judgement. Where he said "... I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000...."

He mentions no other offer in the judgement notes, because none exist there. The internet can only find one offer and that's the £5k/apology/donation. In fact if I asked anyone to read that judgement, they would all point towards the only offer there i.e... 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 hilarious thing is YOU YOURSELF pointed to pages 19-21 when asked about a supposed rapid removal of the offer(see the above post). You are quite specific.

So, were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[noseall]

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

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

Explain your own fugging posts then boyo. You are a renowned lying scumbag that has been caught out yet again. Have a spine and explain your own posts, FFS. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[motorbiking]

I'm glad you mentioned the reference the Judge made to the offer i.e...83 of the judgement. Where he said "... I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000...."

He mentions no other offer in the judgement notes, because none exist there. The internet can only find one offer and that's the £5k/apology/donation. In fact if I asked anyone to read that judgement, they would all point towards the only offer there i.e... 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 hilarious thing is YOU YOURSELF pointed to pages 19-21 when asked about a supposed rapid removal of the offer(see the above post). You are quite specific.

So, were you lying then or are you lying now?

Finally you answer.

So just before I show how stupid you are...again

When the Judge says "There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer." He is referring to “Dear @KTHopkins, public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.”

This is your position. yes / no

 

[motorbiking]

Its gone quiet again.

 

[noseall]

Finally you answer.

Will you?

Explain these posts please....# 239, 241, 243, 285.

Were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[motorbiking]

I'm glad you mentioned the reference the Judge made to the offer i.e...83 of the judgement. Where he said "... I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000...."

He mentions no other offer in the judgement notes, because none exist there. The internet can only find one offer and that's the £5k/apology/donation. In fact if I asked anyone to read that judgement, they would all point towards the only offer there i.e... 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.”

I think we can conclude that is what Nosenout believes, because he said it enough times.

What Nosenout is completely unaware of is the difference between Open Offers - those that can be included as evidence of an offer in court and taken account of by a judge and without prejudice offers, which cannot.

it is a general principle of litigation that offers made between individuals without the benefit of legal advice are without prejudice offers, even if they are not explicitly marked "without prejudice", (google it). Monroe made a number of offers to Hopkins as summarised below:

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

All were within a few minutes of the defamatory tweet, which itself was deleted within 2 hours 11 minutes.

All of these offers, were rapidly amended, enhanced and some of them also deleted as well as complied with etc. None of them were "Open Offers", admissible in court as offers. They were all without prejudice because it is inconceivable that Monroe had obtained legal advice in 15 and 38 minutes respectively. There aren't many defamation lawyers who work out of hours.

It is therefore impossible for any vaguely competent law professional (e.g. a judge) to regard these as Open Offers.

Poor Nosenout - wrong again. sorry about that, as in sorry not sorry.

Maybe finally he can understand why there were discussions about Offers and offers, in parallel.

 

[motorbiking]

its gone quiet again

 

[noseall]

I think we can conclude that is what Nosenout believes, because he said it enough times.

Explain your own contradictory posts please.


Either you were lying then or you are lying now.

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. Etc blah blah. It is not a genuine offer for a financial settlement. Of course I can ask you to pay me and I can suggest I will donate the money. That is entirely different. Then after your partial compliance, I then retract the offer and sue for damages.

No doubt you will suggest the above is irrelevant nonsense.

And then this...

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.

And this..

Read 19-21.

This one...

Yep. One letter then retraction

And this...

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)

Please address these posts YOU made, in response to the supposed rapid withdrawal of the offer. Either you were lying when you made them or you are lying now. Which is it?

 

[motorbiking]

It’s neither.

Do you accept you didn’t understand what an open offer is ?

 

[noseall]

It’s neither.

Which lying version are you sticking with, regards your responses to questions regarding a rapid withdrawal of the offer? Is it the former or the latter?
If the latter, please explain why you lied in your earlier posts?

If the latter, please show a reference anywhere that mentions 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.” being an offer, other than in your own head. Please explain why no commentators, internet, judgement or judge mentions this when discussing JM's offer.

You are a disgusting lying scumbag.

 

[motorbiking]

I’m sure you’ve googled it and I’m sure you are angry because you’ve been made to look silly. But you did it all by yourself.

Of course the judge was not referring to the tweet when he commented on the open offer.

 

[noseall]

made to look silly.

Can you please just explain your posts in question to the rapid removal of her offer?

I don't need to tell you the ones. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[Deleted member 323070]

This is your position. yes / no

Its gone quiet again.

its gone quiet again

Do you accept you didn’t understand what an open offer is ?

You are asking a closed yes or no question which is carefully composed to divert the discussion.
Then you complain that your question goes unanswered, and you go off in another direction trying to prove you were always correct, when you weren't.

 

[noseall]

You are asking a closed yes or no question which is carefully composed to divert the discussion.

He's talking to himself.

I pointed out the Judge made reference to JM's offer in his comments i.e. £5k etc, and that nowhere on the face of the planet, does anyone corroborate his made up version. He also lied through his teeth regards 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) ...liar MBK claimed more than once that she demanded an apology (posts #303, 306 pg21).

The poor old duffer can't seem to address his own lies though. The bloke is a nutter.

,

 

[motorbiking]

You are wrong. It’s a simple as that.