Katie Hopkins

[Notch7]

Monroe certainly leads an interesting life

If you stick your head above the parapet, you get attacked……

There are certainly a lot of hateful people in the world who enjoy attacking her.

Anybody that campaigns against poverty is attacked by the right…..Reform voters will no doubt despise her.

Ironically she is hated by the far left as well… they accuse her of being phoney.

 

[Notch7]

Didn’t know she was a Lezza at the time though

I believe she identifies as trans now.

 

[Notch7]

Jack Monroe is actually a pseudonym her actual name is Melissa Hadjicostas

 

[MNW67]

Jack Monroe is actually a pseudonym her actual name is Melissa Hadjicostas

Googling appears to show that she has actually changed her name.

 

[noseall]

I’ve heard of her before. She's been on Saturday kitchen a few times. The last time I remember her being on there she tried a bit of crude double entendre with Matt Tebbut. It stopped him in his tracks. I’ve not seen her on there since. Comes from Southend I think. Didn’t know she was a Lezza at the time though.

Did you know she has a (biological) son?

 

[motorbiking]

I doubt liar MBK will revisit this thread.

I can see you are still struggling with all of it.

- The defamation was due to mistaken identity - you got that wrong
- the take down request and offer not to sue was complied with- you got that wrong
- That offer was revoked after 38 minutes- you got that wrong
- The barbed offer of apology and donation was not a good faith offer - you got that wrong
- It was amended by Monroes lawyers - 3 days later - you got that wrong
- It was revoked without further correspondence, despite partial compliance - you got that wrong
- an open offer is an offer that can be submitted as evidence in court. - you had no idea
- Hopkins IVA enabled her to dodge most of Monroes legal fees. - you had no idea

Still at least you've made a new friend.

 

[noseall]

- The defamation was due to mistaken identity - you got that wrong
- the take down request was complied with- you got that wrong
- That offer was revoked after 38 minutes- you got that wrong
- The barbed offer of apology and donation was not a good faith offer - you got that wrong
- It was amended by Monroes lawyers - 3 days later - you got that wrong
- It was revoked without further correspondence, despite partial compliance - you got that wrong
- an open offer is an offer that can be submitted as evidence in court. - you had no idea
- Hopkins IVA enabled her to dodge most of Monroes legal fees. - you had no idea

All irrelevant lying waffle and does not explain this....


This is still just as big a billy bullshít as when you first typed it...

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

More lies

Folk can read here (your own words boyo) just what a pathetic liar you are.....
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...
Click to expand...
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.

More embarrassment for you here......

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

Yep. One letter then retraction

38 minutes my arse.

You are a dishonest and hopeless liar. YOUR OWN POSTS expose you as such.

 

[noseall]

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.

Made up on the spot. 38 minutes my arse.

 

[motorbiking]

Made up on the spot. 38 minutes my arse.

7:36PM - 8:14PM it is all in the judgment. 38 minutes

The only one telling lies is you.

“I’m asking you nicely to please delete this lie Katie, and if I have to ask again it will be through my lawyer.” is an offer
"public apology +£5k to migrant rescue & I won’t sue. It’ll be cheaper for you and v. satisfying for me.” is a bad faith offer

what is it you don't understand, apart from all of it?

 

[Notch7]

The defamation was due to mistaken identity

no

The barbed offer of apology and donation was not a good faith offer

what you mean is: Hopkins didnt like the thought of having to give money to a migrant charity

doesnt make it a "not good faith offer"

the take down request and offer not to sue was complied with

no it wasnt

there was no offer not to sue

despite partial compliance

what you actually mean is: non compliance

Hopkins IVA enabled her to dodge most of Monroes legal fees

thats a lie

you clearly dont know about IVAs

oh dear

 

[motorbiking]

How much were Monroes legal fees and how much did Hopkins pay? Do you know?

Katie Hopkins files for individual voluntary arrangement 'to avoid bankruptcy' after losing thousands in libel damages to food writer Jack Monroe

Katie Hopkins has filed for an individual voluntary arrangement, reportedly to avoid bankruptcy after losing a major libel case to food writer Jack Monroe. The former Mail Online columnist and LBC presenter was told to pay £24,000 in libel damages and £107,000 in legal costs to author Monroe...

pressgazette.co.uk

“I have been paid in full, but many of her creditors, including my lawyer, will not be paid what they are owed.

I wonder what is meant by will not be paid in full.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

How much were Monroes legal fees and how much did Hopkins pay? Do you know?

Katie Hopkins files for individual voluntary arrangement 'to avoid bankruptcy' after losing thousands in libel damages to food writer Jack Monroe

Katie Hopkins has filed for an individual voluntary arrangement, reportedly to avoid bankruptcy after losing a major libel case to food writer Jack Monroe. The former Mail Online columnist and LBC presenter was told to pay £24,000 in libel damages and £107,000 in legal costs to author Monroe...

pressgazette.co.uk

I wonder what is meant by will not be paid in full.

I bet the vast majority of the £500,000 fees and costs, and all of Monroe's award £24,000 was paid.

Inside Katie Hopkins' five-bedroom £950k mansion sold after expensive High Court libel case loss.

Monroe tweeted:"For the want of apology a trial was lost For the want of a trial a job was lost For the want of a job another was lost For the want of another an income was lost For the want of an income a house was lost And all for the want of an apology."

Inside £950k mansion Katie Hopkins sold after High Court loss

The impressive home being sold by Exeter's controversial celeb

www.devonlive.com

Hopkins opinion on people in debt:

 

[MNW67]

How much were Monroes legal fees and how much did Hopkins pay? Do you know?

I wonder what is meant by will not be paid in full.

Is there any way of telling from the insolvency register?

It might be something to do with how CFAs work.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Is there any way of telling from the insolvency register?

It might be something to do with how CFAs work.

Monroe was keen to ensure that Hopkin's children were not impacted by any risk of Hopkins self-induced poverty.
But £950,000 from the house sale will go a long way to meeting all Hopkin's debts.

Monroe's legal fees were £107,000, and damages were £24,000.
But an IVA is agreed with the creditors when set up.
But Hopkins own legal costs were reported to be more than twice that of Monroe's.
Then there will be the IVA ongoing admin fees on top.

 

[MNW67]

Monroe's legal fees were £107,000, and damages were £24,000.
But an IVA is agreed with the creditors when set up.
But Hopkins own legal costs were reported to be more than twice that of Monroe's.
Then there will be the IVA ongoing admin fees on top.

It's all a bit confusing.
Monroe was awarded legal costs of £107,000, but I don't think that was all her legal costs.
Both parties had CFAs. Buy we don't know the terms or how much legal costs they covered.