Katie Hopkins

[noseall]

keep grizzling - liar

Show me where I have lied?
Show where she retracted her offer after 38 mins, even though it was still on the table weeks later. see paragraphs 19, 20, 21.

Show where the offer was insincere even though Monroe kept trying to resolve, in the months leading up to the court date. See interview excerpts.

He won't.
He can't.
Lying despicable scumbag as per.

 

[motorbiking]

Post #373.

Hopkins ignored all Monroe's' attempts to reach out. Is a lie.

It’s funny how you never post your sources. Are they news articles and wiki pages? We have the judgement. No need to post alternative opinions.

 

[noseall]

We have the judgement. No need to post alternative opopinions.

Correct. It clearly states the offer apologise/retract/pay charity etc is still apparent up till August.
Please show where she retracts the offer after 38 mins and explain why it's still there in August.
He can't, he won't.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[noseall]

Hopkins ignored all Monroe's' attempts to reach out. Is a lie

Show it then. Show where Hopkins apologised/retracted/paid charity

Lying despicable scumbag as per.

 

[noseall]

It’s funny how you never post your sources.

The Guardian piece you mean...
“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.” The blogger, who is understood to be seeking £50,000 in damages plus costs, told the court that Hopkins’s messages had led to abuse from others on Twitter, including death threats.
Or do you want me to link you to the BBC interview where she says pretty much the same thing I.e.

'Make a donation'​

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".
"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that. In the months that followed, I made several offers to her to make an apology [without receiving one]."

You are a lying scumbag and your posts are worthless.

 

[motorbiking]

Show it then. Show where Hopkins apologised/retracted/paid charity

Lying despicable scumbag as per.

read Paragraph 17, cause 3 and clause 5. and then tell me If Hopkins complied with the demand?
Then read Paragraph 20 and 21 and tell if Hopkins partially complied with the demand?

Hopkins ignored all Monroe's' attempts to reach out.

Is a lie - she did not ignore all attempts. Further the two legal teams spent several 100k trying to reach a conclusion. That is not ignoring all attempts to reach out.

The Guardian piece you mean...
“I did not want to be here today. I have offered several times though my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”

There is no obligation to sue someone who defames you. No obligation to instruct a letter of claim. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to. The tweet had been deleted in under 2 hours and 11 minutes as requested. It was the cretinous escalation that triggered the claim.

Monroe said Hopkins had initially been asked to delete her tweet, but "she didn't respond to me being nice".

She deleted it. 38 minutes is not a reasonable time to give someone to action a demand.

"She blocked me immediately instead of responding," Monroe said.
"So then I said, 'Make a donation and it goes away.'
"And she didn't respond to that.

Neither align with her testimony. As we know Hopkins complied with the request to delete the tweet. She did it within 2 hours and 11 minutes.

Keep going in circles if you want.

 

[Notch7]

There is no obligation to sue someone who defames you

There is no obligation to defame somebody

The tweet had been deleted in under 2 hours and 11 minutes as requested

Hopkins made one tweet, then instead of apologising doubled down

It was the cretinous escalation that triggered the claim

Yes, a Cretinous escalation by Hopkins

 

[motorbiking]

There is no obligation to defame somebody


Hopkins made one tweet, then instead of apologising doubled down


Yes, a Cretinous escalation by Hopkins

Agreed.

 

[Notch7]

She deleted it. 38 minutes is not a reasonable time to give someone to action a demand

Why?

If you cause harm to others, you take a risk.

It’s no good saying “I’m sorry judge , I just hit him, I didn’t know It would kill him, it’s unreasonable of you to charge me with manslaughter



Jack Monroe faced a massive onslaught of hatred from Katie Hopkins putrid followers, spewing their bile.

 

[noseall]

read Paragraph 17, cause 3 and clause 5. and then tell me If Hopkins complied with the demand?
Then read Paragraph 20 and 21 and tell if Hopkins partially complied with the demand?

You are answering questions no one has asked. However, the offer for Hopkins to apologise stood until August 4th.

Please show where she retracted the offer.

Please explain why the offer was still on the table months later.

Is a lie - she did not ignore all attempts. Further the two legal teams spent several 100k trying to reach a conclusion. That is not ignoring all attempts to reach out.

Hopkins ignored all requests to apologise/retract/pay charity. She did none of those. Her lawyers must have been having a ball.

There is no obligation to sue someone who defames you. No obligation to instruct a letter of claim. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to. The tweet had been deleted in under 2 hours and 11 minutes as requested. It was the cretinous escalation that triggered the claim.

Irrelevant. You are answering questions no one has asked.

She deleted it. 38 minutes is not a reasonable time to give someone to action a demand.

She deleted what? The offer for Hopkins to retract/apologise/pay charity was still on the table until August. Monroe did not remove the offer. It clearly states that in paragraphs 19, 20, 21.

This is still utter bollax...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

As we know Hopkins complied with the request to delete the tweet. She did it within 2 hours and 11 minutes.

You are answering questions no one has asked.

Monroe did not rapidly remove the offer for Hopkins to apologise/retract/pay a charity.

The offer was sincere and was sincere for months after the tweet spat in May 2015.

You are a disgusting liar.

 

[noseall]

Hopkins ignored all Monroe's' attempts to reach out. Is a lie.

Really. Hopkins came up with a counter offer? When? Show the dates

She apologised/retracted/paid the charity donation - when? Show the dates.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[MNW67]

Why?

Maybe Hopkins didn't even see the request in those 38 minutes?

 

[noseall]

read Paragraph 17, cause 3 and clause 5. and then tell me If Hopkins complied with the demand?

Hopkins didn't comply throughout the whole process leading up to the trial.

Maybe Hopkins didn't even see the request in those 38 minutes?

She had Months to comply?

What about the letter sent soon after the twitter spat?

21 may 2015...
The letter requested a correction and apology, an undertaking not to repeat this or similar tweets about Ms Monroe, payment of a “substantial donation” to a charity of Ms Monroe’s choice, and payment of legal costs. The form of correction and apology Ms Monroe wanted was spelled out: “A tweet to be sent at a date and time to be agreed, ‘I was confused about identity. I got it wrong. @MsJackMonroe I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to charity at her request.’”

 

[MNW67]

She had Months to comply?

What about the letter sent soon after the twitter spat?

We are talking about different points. I am glad Hopkins lost. But I am interested in the legal landscape in the social media age.

Hopkins posted her first tweet. A few minutes Monroe asked her to remove it, or she would escalate. Then, 38 minutes later, Monroe escalated to demanding not just removal, but an apology and a donation. That doesn't seem a long time to me. But maybe, in the age of social media, it was sufficient. This small time frame is the only part I am interested in at the moment. I don't want to discuss what happened months afterwards.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Maybe Hopkins didn't even see the request in those 38 minutes?

I suspect that her many followers did, and made her aware of it.
Similarly, I'm sure that Monroe didn't routinely follow Hopkins, in case she tweeted anything unacceptable, but was alerted to the tweet by one of her many followers.