Katie Hopkins
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
How was it ever thought that it wasn’t defamatory, or was in some way legally or morally defensible, to suggest someone in Munro‘s position supported or condoned the vandalism of a war memorial after the position was made clear is baffling.
She didn't think it mattered on Twitter and that she could get away with it.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,984
- Reaction score
- 3,069
- Country
It's quite simple, she thrives on bad press and calculated it would be good for her in the long run. If she wasn't controversial she wouldn't make any money. Simples...
because Monroe wanted her to give £5000 to a migrant charity -and the poisonous Hopkins couldnt do that, all her racist supporters like Pete01 would have abandoned her
Nonsense. Hopkins was given the chance to retract and was only threatened with court action if she did not. Hopkins CHOSE to go to court.
Lying human scum, your favourite MBK, and chip off the old block, eh.
I appreciate there are various legal defences available to journalists, and that she took legal advice - in fact I think she was represented on a no win no fee basis, so her lawyers took some risk - but why would a rational person taken it tnat far? Maybe she believed she was morally in the right and that Munro as someone who was cut from different cloth was somehow automatically bad or in tne wrong. Hopkins talks about wokeness but she seems to be as guilty of labelling as those she “attacks” for the same thing. Does she not realise that people are individuals and don't fit into the same political pigeon hole that right wingers create for them?
She may have been advised by her lawyers that the statements didn't amount to "serious harm".
Last edited:
I wonder how Hopkins came to mistake the identity in the first place. She already knew the Twitter username of the person who made the original tweet about the war memorial, which kicked all of this off. Did she simply look at photos of Laurie Penny and Jack Monroe and decide they were the same person.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,816
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
It will certainly be interesting to see what they come up with.
Equality Act doesn’t apply to an individual, typically.
Harassment act - maybe but needs a warning.
Malicious communication. / communications act. - needs to be grossly offensive. I think this one has some legs. There is some case law on this.
Pete01 is not right
Motorbiking is not right
the court case was not about mistaken identity
the court case was about Hopkins not apologising and retracting
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,816
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
Defamation law was tightened, it’s not enough to show something is defamatory, it must show serious harm. Hopkins argued this hadn’t been proven, to the necessary level.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,816
- Reaction score
- 5,356
- Country
Communications Act 2003
An Act to confer functions on the Office of Communications; to make provision about the regulation of the provision of electronic communications networks and services and of the use of the electro-magnetic spectrum; to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting and of the provision of...
Seems similar to the guy with the “nazi pug”. Also deemed grossly offensive. No comedy/parody defence accepted in this case.
Is this the post which everybody is arguing over? It seems pretty harmless and a good summary of the facts i.e. it all started with what Hopkins claims was mistaken identity and Hopkins should have apologised to stop it going to court.
- Status
