Katie Hopkins

[Deleted member 323070]

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

,

Maybe he's auditioning for the part of King Canute.

 

[noseall]

Here are the judges comments talking about JM's offer...

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But 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. It was a reasonable offer.

You can read them here in chapter 83.

 

[noseall]

, You are wrong. It’s a simple as that., )

Can you please address your posts you made when I first asked you to show where JM made a rapid withdrawal of her offer ( #239, 241, 243, 248, 285). Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Explain why you lied about her demanding an apology (#303, 306).

Explain why the judge makes no reference to your made up bullshít, 38 minute nonsense.

Explain why internet searches only show the £5k offer/retraction/donation offer.

 

[motorbiking]

Here are the judges comments talking about JM's offer...

This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But 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. It was a reasonable offer.

You can read them here in chapter 83.

What do you understand the judge meant when he said "There was an open offer"?

please feel free to google it.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

What do you understand the judge meant when he said "There was an open offer"?

please feel free to google it.

It was open to be accepted.
And it wasn't subjected to a NDA.

How is this (yet another) diversion relevant?

 

[motorbiking]

Hilarious… oh wait you’re serious.

Wrong answer I’m afraid. I did say you could google it.

Try “meaning of open offer in litigation”

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Hilarious… oh wait you’re serious.

Wrong answer I’m afraid. I did say you could google it.

There you go, a successful diversion. That's what you really wanted.

Now put an end to your diversion tactics, and either admit what the intention of your question really was, or provide either a link to, or an acceptable definition of an 'open offer'.
But you won't because you want the diversion to go and on.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Or you could just educate yourself. It’s rather arrogant to think you can interpret a case with zero knowledge don’t you think? Nosenout is happy to be stupid, but you I think have need to be right.

Still desperately wanting to continue the diversion, I see.

 

[noseall]

understand the judge meant

In JM v's Hopkins case? There was one offer and one alone. It was a reasonable offer. And that if KH had have taken her up on the offer, the case could have been resolved. The judge says so here.

And that 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.” is still not an offer, nor is not mentioned by anyone else other than you and is not mentioned on google or any other search engine anywhere, in relation to an offer (rapidly retracted or otherwise).

If you can show anywhere on the planet, other than in your imagination, where anyone anywhere decrees this 'her first offer that was rapidly retracted' I will eat my hat.

Anyhoo, back to previous billy bullshít, that you refuse to explain......

Can you please address your posts you made when I first asked you to show where JM made a rapid withdrawal of her offer ( #239, 241, 243, 248, 285). Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Explain why you lied about her demanding an apology (#303, 306).

 

[noseall]

Maybe he's auditioning for the part of King Canute.

I've been asking him to clarify since last Saturday. All he has done is squirm and deflect, in the hope he has made up something he can deflect and waffle with.

He is a lousy liar.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

I've been asking him to clarify since last Saturday. All he has done is squirm and deflect, in the hoe he has made up something he can deflect and waffle with.

He is a lousy liar.

Was that an intentional typo "ho?e", so that people can insert their own choice: "hope", "hole", or "home"?
Or was it a 'nod' to his continuous digging: "hoe"?

 

[motorbiking]

In JM v's Hopkins case? There was one offer and one alone. It was a reasonable offer. And that if KH had have taken her up on the offer, the case could have been resolved. The judge says so here.

The open offer in the letter of claim - I see you are no longer claiming it was a tweet - does this mean you finally admit you were wrong? How's the hat tasting? An apology would be sufficient.

And that 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.” is still not an offer, nor is not mentioned by anyone else other than you and is not mentioned on google or any other search engine anywhere, in relation to an offer (rapidly retracted or otherwise).

It along with the delete and say sorry and delete and say sorry + pay 5k are all offers not to sue in exchange for action. its clear for all to read.

If you can show anywhere on the planet, other than in your imagination, where anyone anywhere decrees this 'her first offer that was rapidly retracted' I will eat my hat.

The judgement paragraph 17. and then for the open offer and retraction Paragraph 19-21. The press and any commentators have rightly gone for the pile in on Hopkins. She could easily have made an offer of amends and her rather pathetic attempt at a defence is laughable. Cost her a lot of money, what a shame, maybe she'll learn, doesn't seem that she has.

Anyhoo, back to previous billy bullshít, that you refuse to explain......

Can you please address your posts you made when I first asked you to show where JM made a rapid withdrawal of her offer ( #239, 241, 243, 248, 285). Were you lying then or are you lying now?

As you've been told dozens of times Monroe made several offers all documented in paragraph 17. All rapidly modified or withdrawn, some complied with. The Open Offer paragraph 19 was also rapidly withdrawn - The letter of claim sets out a pre-litigation open offer, which was included as evidence. It is intended to protect the claimants costs and amend Monroe's bad faith offer. Google part 36 offers, you can read all about them. It was partially complied with 12 days later and withdrawn 2 months after that. It is almost unheard of in litigation practice to withdraw an offer without further correspondence. It was clearly intended to protect costs and not much more.

Explain why you lied about her demanding an apology (#303, 306).

I've provided the tweet Post 595

please upload evidence of the hat eating. Alternatively an apology to me and Pete01 who was also right all along.

 

[noseall]

The open offer

Yes. the only offer.

delete and say sorry + pay 5k are all offers

Is the only offer, yes.

As you've been told dozens of times Monroe made several offers

No. She made one offer 5k/retract/pay charity.

all documented in paragraph 17.

Correct, 8:15...) 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.

the Open Offer paragraph 19 was also rapidly withdrawn

Rapidly withdrawn my arse. Offer occurred 18th May.
Offer withdawn 2.5 months later (you said so yourself but I'll get to that)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


None of the above explains why you pointed towards paragraphs 19-21 when asked i.e.

Eh? Explain.

Eh? Explain.

You said this....

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.

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.

Then this....

Read 19-21.

Then this

Yep. One letter then retraction

Then this....

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

So, for the umpteenth time, either you were lying then or you are lying now, which is it? You haven't explained why this supposed rapid retraction (made up in your head) occurred over paragraphs 19 - 21 in which case it was 2.5 months (not rapid) or your later claim (started lying in earnest in post #306) when you suddenly invented a demand for an apology (which you still haven't explained) and a fictitious offer that is not even there.

Incidentally you still haven't shown a link, an internet hit, a Judgement, a Judge a commentator or human being on the planet making reference to 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.” ...as being an offer from JM. Please show someone ANYONE other than yourself refer to it as an offer, please?

He can't, he won't.

 

[noseall]

Was that an intentional typo "ho?e", so that people can insert their own choice: "hope", "hole", or "home"?
Or was it a 'nod' to his continuous digging: "hoe"?

Its a-hole. I think it's the massive a-hole liar MBK has dug himself into and he can't get out.

 

[noseall]

I've provided the tweet Post 595

Nonsense.

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.

You state quite clearly that in JM's second post (2.1 you labelled it) that 'Monroe to Hopkins demanding an apology'. I see no demand for an apology here, do you? Read your own text above.

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)

You really are a bad liar boyo. All this made up stuff in your head must be sending you a bit bonkers.