Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

Still lying.

Nope - the evidence is there for you to see, you just like to ignore it.

It took Monroe 45 minutes to retract her offer of an apology and correction to escalate to a demand for £5k to be donated to cause Hopkins would find toxic. Then again after Hopkins partial compliance with her letter before action, the offer of settlement was withdrawn, just a few weeks later.

If you had any knowledge of litigation protocol, you'd be aware of the obligation when making offers, the time limits for those offers and the form they must be made. But you are clueless.

Had Hopkins apologised at that point and retracted, nothing further would’ve happened, there was no need for a donation to charity

She'd have to have been pretty quick as less than 45 minutes later the demand was there.

However Hopkins did have the ability to kill the claim under section 2 of the defamation act.

 

[Notch7]

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

I notice you still can’t provide any evidence it was mistaken identity.

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

it will certainly you to stop being dishonest.

Tweet 1: Hopkins to Monroe
Tweet 2: Monroe reply to Hopkins saying no she had not abd would not deface memorials
Tweet 3: Hopkins to Monroe: another poisonous tweet implying Monroe had either defaced or approved of defacing.
Tweet 4: Monroe to Hopkins asking for money to charity.

Monroe did not ask for any money in her initial response
Monroe only asked for money following Hopkins 2nd inflammatory response.



I am sure Motorbiking will do the decent thing and admit he is WRONG

 

[motorbiking]

I notice you still can’t provide any evidence it was mistaken identity.



it will certainly you to stop being dishonest.

Tweet 1: Hopkins to Monroe
Tweet 2: Monroe reply to Hopkins saying no she had not abd would not deface memorials
Tweet 3: Hopkins to Monroe: another poisonous tweet implying Monroe had either defaced or approved of defacing.
Tweet 4: Monroe to Hopkins asking for money to charity.

Monroe did not ask for any money in her initial response
Monroe only asked for money following Hopkins 2nd inflammatory response.



I am sure Motorbiking will do the decent thing and admit he is WRONG

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.

 

[Notch7]

Nope - the evidence is there for you to see, you just like to ignore it

There is no evidence at all anywhere that shows it was mistaken identity.

In any case mistaken identity whether true or not is immaterial to the case……a fact you keep refusing to admit

It took Monroe 45 minutes to retract her offer of an apology and correction to escalate to a demand for £5k to be donated to cause Hopkins would find toxic

No

Monroe escalated because Hopkins, instead of apologising and retracting in fact doubled down and made another tweet implying Monroe supported vandalising.

£5k to be donated to cause Hopkins would find toxic

Yes highly amusing, Monroe trapped her, fekking funny.

Hopkins deserved it 100%

If you had any knowledge of litigation protocol, you'd be aware of the obligation when making offers, the time limits for those offers and the form they must be made. But you are clueless.

Boring attempt at an ad hominem used for deflection.

Hopkins, instead of apologising, doubled down that’s what prompted Monroe to demand the £5000

Stop trying to be clever it’s not working, I’m too sharp for your little devious tricks Old Bean

 

[Notch7]

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.

Thank you for posting the full detail……which 100% supports what I said.

Monroe requested an apology and retraction nothing more
Monroe only escalated to demanding money to a charity AFTER Hopkins toxic doubling down reply


I will accept an apology and a £5000 donation to the Labour Party

 

[motorbiking]

Thank you for posting the full detail……which 100% supports what I said.

Monroe requested an apology and retraction nothing more
Monroe only escalated to demanding money to a charity AFTER Hopkins toxic doubling down reply


I will accept an apology and a £5000 donation to the Labour Party

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.

 

[motorbiking]

Thank you for posting the full detail……which 100% supports what I said.

Monroe requested an apology and retraction nothing more
Monroe only escalated to demanding money to a charity AFTER Hopkins toxic doubling down reply


I will accept an apology and a £5000 donation to the Labour Party

incorrect. Hopkins did not make her escalating tweet until over an hour after Monroe demanded her donation.

 

[motorbiking]

There is no evidence at all anywhere that shows it was mistaken identity.

It's only a chippie, builder and semi retired car mechanic who claim it wasn't. The claimant, the defendant, the judge and all the lawyers involved as well as anyone who bothered to read and understand the judgement or comment on it disagrees.

In any case mistaken identity whether true or not is immaterial to the case……a fact you keep refusing to admit

It actually does make a difference - see section 2 of the defamation act also pointed out in paragraph 83 in the Judgement under "Observations"

Monroe escalated because Hopkins, instead of apologising and retracting in fact doubled down and made another tweet implying Monroe supported vandalising.
Hopkins, instead of apologising, doubled down that’s what prompted Monroe to demand the £5000

incorrect - the demand for donation happened before Hopkins reply, within 40 minutes of her first demand.

Boring attempt at an ad hominem used for deflection.

Knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules relating to pre-action protocol (CPR PAP), is kinda relevant when discussing... pre-action conduct in civil procedures.

Stop trying to be clever it’s not working, I’m too sharp for your little devious tricks Old Bean

As sharp as wooden spork that has been left out in the rain it would appear.

 

[Notch7]

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.

thank you for highlighting that you are wrong

 

[Notch7]

It's only a chippie, builder and semi retired car mechanic who claim it wasn't. The claimant, the defendant, the judge and all the lawyers involved as well as anyone who bothered to read and understand the judgement or comment on it disagrees.

stop wriggling and squirming, you are embarrassing yourself


the claimant, the judge and all the lawyers arent questioning whether it was or was not mistaken identity because it had nothing to do with the legal case

nobody has asked for evidence whether it was actually mistaken identity or not..............because its not material to the case

 

[Deleted member 323070]

you've literally just made up your own version.

stop wriggling and squirming,

Are you two reliving the Hopkins - Monroe experience?

 

[Odds]

I preferred

 

[motorbiking]

stop wriggling and squirming, you are embarrassing yourself


the claimant, the judge and all the lawyers arent questioning whether it was or was not mistaken identity because it had nothing to do with the legal case

nobody has asked for evidence whether it was actually mistaken identity or not..............because its not material to the case

other than the ability to make an "Offer of Amends" under section 2 of the Defamation Act as pointed out in the observations, you mean. You could try googling it - here you go.. this explains it. https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/our-services/defamation/offer-of-amends/

The reference to the mistake is mentioned more than half a dozen times in the judgement and a references included in the observation that there was an early remedy available because.... It was a mistake.

nobody has asked for evidence whether it was actually mistaken identity or not

I notice you still can’t provide any evidence it was mistaken identity.

There is no evidence at all anywhere that shows it was mistaken identity.

thank you for highlighting that you are wrong

The damp spork is working hard I see.

 

[MNW67]

Wasn't it Jack Monroe's solicitor who first claimed it was a mistake? And even suggested wording to that effect?

 

[motorbiking]

Wasn't it Jack Monroe's solicitor who first claimed it was a mistake? And even suggested wording to that effect?

There is an argument that the second offending tweet from Hopkins, was a suggestion of a mistake. "Can anyone tell me the difference..". There was also zero attempt from Hopkins defence to prove the allegation,

Its only the usual forum idiots who are arguing otherwise.