Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

No, and it doesn't answer the question though. Mere inaccurate speculation. No truth in it what so ever.

Made up waffle.


Made up waffle.

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 You will see the letter before action timing, the offer and when it was withdrawn.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.

 

[noseall]

There we go, back to being dumb again.

Ok show where in the judgement that this happened...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

or this...

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

Show a line of text from any of the people involved (both sides) where this happened..

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

 

[motorbiking]

Read 19-21.

 

[noseall]

Read 19-21.

I've read it. The judgement does not say it was rapidly retracted, nor does it say it was insincere. You made both of those up to suit your agenda.

 

[MNW67]

If you read 19 - 21 in the judgement. You will see the letter before action timing, the offer and when it was withdrawn.

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

There was no reply to that letter. But 12 days later, on Tuesday 2 June 2015, at 6.58am Ms Hopkins tweeted “@MsJackMonroe I was confused about identity. I got it wrong.” She did nothing else, until after Seddons wrote again on 4 August 2015. Seddons’ letter noted that there had been no reply to theirs of 21 May. It said that all previous offers were withdrawn and that proceedings were being prepared and would be served on Ms Hopkins personally unless she nominated solicitors.

 

[MNW67]

If Hopkins had added the second bit, which was:

I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to charity at her request.

Then it seems it would have been settled.

 

[noseall]

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 You will see the letter before action timing, the offer and when it was withdrawn.

Yep, read it. Nowhere does it say it was rapidly withdrwan or that it was insincere.

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

Standard MBK waffle and irrelevant to the case.

 

[motorbiking]

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

Yep. One letter then retraction

 

[motorbiking]

I've read it. The judgement does not say it was rapidly retracted, nor does it say it was insincere. You made both of those up to suit your agenda.

Pete was correct. Its that simple.

 

[MNW67]

Yep. One letter then retraction

It sounds like you think there should have been at least one more warning.

 

[noseall]

Pete was correct. Its that simple.

Only in your head.

 

[motorbiking]

It sounds like you think there should have been at least one more warning.

Are you familiar with the pre-action protocol, civil procedure rules? You can form your own opinion.

 

[noseall]

Then it seems it would have been settled.

..However Hopkins refused and then Monroe decided to proceed.

 

[motorbiking]

Only in your head.

keep grizzling.

 

[noseall]

keep grizzling.

Grizzle this...

Monroe asked for a retraction via Twitter and was blocked by Hopkins. Monroe asked Hopkins to make a public apology and give £5,000 to "migrant rescue" as a settlement to prevent the matter going to court.[4] Hopkins did neither, and the matter proceeded to court.