Katie Hopkins

[motorbiking]

So now we rely on ChatGPT or Google AI to tell us what happened?

Forget the judgement, the lawyers, the judge - we've got nosenout and ChatGPT, what could go wrong.

What a bellend.

The judge even talks about the offer here....Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

The offer in the letter of complaint. I wonder why the judge included paragraph 20, which set out the details of the Open Offer, if he was going to rely on a tweet. as the "open offer".

 

[noseall]

So now we rely on ChatGPT or Google AI to tell us what happened?

Only if you want to look more foolish.

Forget the judgement, the lawyers, the judge

I'd rather not. Paragraph 83 and the Judges comments about the offer are succinct.

- we've got nosenout and ChatGPT, what could go wrong.

MBK.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

 

[motorbiking]

The only one looking stupid is you.. again
the only one lying is you.. again

 

[noseall]

Why don't you toddle off and google "

I just did. All the hits say there was a £5'000 donation to be paid to a charity, a retraction and an apology (8:15). Oddly none mention ANYTHING about any other supposed offers prior to it...?

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

 

[noseall]

Waffling but on board here I see....

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.

Plenty of made-up waffle but no back tracking to para' 17 yet..

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 You will see the letter before action timing, the offer and when it was withdrawn.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

Yep, still squirming but on board and no mention of para' 17 yet...

Read 19-21.

And then this happens....

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.

Ahh, I can see where you went down the MBK made up bullshít rabbit hole, right here.

Tweet 2.1 does not demand an apology, and there is no offer. She asks her to take down a tweet is all. And from thereafter, the MBK bullshít flows unabated.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.

 

[noseall]

Read 19-21.

If only you had read it yourself, lol.

 

[noseall]

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

Yep. One letter then retraction

Argue with your RWR buddies as they are on the same intelligence level as you boyo.

Happy squirming.

 

[motorbiking]

Have you worked out what an open offer is yet?
Do you have some understanding of the concept of Bad Faith offers?
What have you learned about Part 36 offers?
What are the elements of a part 36 offer and are they present in any of the tweet?

 

[noseall]

Have you worked out what an open offer is yet?
Do you have some understanding of the concept of Bad Faith offers?
What have you learned about Part 36 offers?

Waffle.


Read above boyo.

Happy squirming.

 

[noseall]

Have you worked out what an open offer is yet?

Have you eaten that humble pie with a dollop of contrition yet?

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to want to discuss litigation procedures without understanding litigation procedures.

 

[motorbiking]

Argue with your RWR buddies as they are on the same intelligence level as you boyo.

Happy squirming.

If I said @MNW67 was twice as smart as you - it would be a massive insult to him

 

[noseall]

You seem to want to discuss litigation procedures without understanding litigation procedures.

Are you full yet or do you want more.....

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

 

[motorbiking]

back to grizzling in circles

 

[noseall]

back to grizzling in circles

Circles you say, beats crawling up your own arsehole I guess....

Waffling but on board here I see....

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.

Plenty of made-up waffle but no back tracking to para' 17 yet..

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.

Yep, still squirming but on board and no mention of para' 17 yet...

Read 19-21.

And then this happens....

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.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I can see where you went down the MBK made up bullshít rabbit hole, right here.

Tweet 2.1 does not demand an apology, and there is no offer. She asks her to take down a tweet is all. And from thereafter, the MBK bullshít flows unabated.

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies.


What made you hallucinate the apology thing? I can see where you made the point of no return though.