Katie Hopkins

[Deleted member 323070]

I'll answer your question.

Hopkins was rather unlucky as well as stupid ( and nasty). The whole CFA framework for Defemation cases was overhauled just a few months later. Recoverable success fees were scrapped 6 April 2019. Up until that point the law firm mounting the claim or defence could charge enhanced fees for a win, to mitigate the risk of being paid not much for a loss.

Your interpretation of MNW67's question is just your interpretation of his question, and nothing more.
IMO, your interpretation is incorrect and a diversion about the evolution of CFA.
I had already answered MNW67's question, and he appeared satisfied with my response because he did not pursue its.

So discussion of a CFA is an irrelevant diversion.

From what?

I am just interested!

From the overall outcome.

 

[noseall]

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

What is 38minutes? You mean 2.5 months surely?

“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

Is not an offer. She asks her to delete a tweet. Nor has anyone mentioned it was an offer (including you in earlier posts but I'll get to that), not the Judge or the judgement, internet searches, commentators. Only you have proclaimed it was an offer and only changing your story mid-thread, with an outright lie.

"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

...is the offer, correct. The judge says so. Read paragraph 83 of the judgement.

 

[noseall]

The only one telling lies is you.

I'm glad you mentioned lies. I'm going go over this one post at a time.

When I asked you to explain this bullshít....

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

...you said this in post #239 (pg 16.) when discussing the offer...

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. Etc blah blah. It is not a genuine offer for a financial settlement. Of course I can ask you to pay me and I can suggest I will donate the money. That is entirely different. Then after your partial compliance, I then retract the offer and sue for damages.

I correctly said you were making stuff up and nothing in your blarney explained either a rapid retraction or insincerity from JM. To which you replied in post #241 (pg.17) ...

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.

Still blarney involved, but you doubled down on your 'read 19 -21' thing. However, it says nothing about a rapid 38 minute retraction in any of the judgement paragraphs 19-21. It clearly says that the offer was withdrawn in August, 2.5 months after the spat.

So I pressed again and in post #243 (pg17) you said...

Read 19-21.

Guess what, surprise surprise a 38 minute retraction is still not there. In fact it clearly states that the offer was withdrawn on August 4th, roughly 2.5 months after the spat.

Then on the same page MNW67 asks you about the judgement paragraphs 19-21 and says this...

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

To which you replied, (in agreement to the 2.5 month period)....

Yep. One letter then retraction

So, summing up - all of the above posts, you mention paragraphs 19-21, as a pointer towards a rapid retraction of JM's offer. You change your story later in the thread (when pressed) but I'll get to that other MBK bill bullshit, after you have explained the above. So were you lying then or are you lying now? And can you explain any of the above posts, why you said them and where in those paragraphs does JM rapidly retract her offer after 38 mins in paragraphs 19-21 in the judgement?

 

[motorbiking]

Oh dear still struggling with… all of it.

Will boyo ever give up? We know he won’t.

You dishonestly pretend to not understand. It’s the only way you can pretend to be right.

Keep pretending.

 

[noseall]

Oh dear still struggling with… all of it.

Will boyo ever give up? We know he won’t.

You dishonestly pretend to not understand. It’s the only way you can pretend to be right.

Keep pretending.

Answer the questions boyo if you have a spine, you pathetic lying scumbag.

Posts #239 to #248, you made a clear reference to paragraphs 19-21 of the judgement.

You acknowledged MNW 67 also, in reference to the offer, in regards to the 2.5 month offer period.

Later you changed your story and began lying in earnest, but I'll get to that.

So, we're you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[motorbiking]

Answered dozens of times. You pretend not to understand. Either you are unbelievably stupid, more stupid than even I give you "credit" for or you are dishonestly pretending. You conveniently dismiss anything that explains your misunderstanding of law as "irrelevant waffle".

It was a case of mistaken identity. All the lawyers, the Judge, the claimant and the defendant agreed.
38 minutes from first offer, to new offer - its a fact as clear as day.
An offer intended to humiliate "v. satisfying for me" is a bad faith offer.
amended by her law firm 3 days later, for good reason - its also a fact.
Partially complied with 12 days later - a fact
withdrawn - a few weeks after that
an open offer is an offer that can be submitted as evidence - its a fact
Pete01 was right - a fact.

Answer the questions boyo if you have a spine, you pathetic lying scumbag.

What is curious is how you seem to be exempt from the forum rules?

It seems Pete01 was right again.

 

[fillyboy]

What is curious is how you seem to be exempt from the forum rules?

It seems01 Pete was right again.

Indeed.

 

[Notch7]

All the lawyers, the Judge, the claimant and the defendant agreed

they didnt agree, they just didnt disagree because it wasnt relevant and thus they didnt bother to find out whether it was true or not

An offer intended to humiliate

what is humiliating about being asked to give money to a migrant charity?

oh you mean it was humiliating for Hopkins because she had built a name for inciting hatred against vulnerable migrants and her racist, bigoted base (note: Lirefighter, a forum member, says he thinks Hopkins is great) wouldnt be best pleased.

 

[motorbiking]

they didnt agree, they just didnt disagree because it wasnt relevant and thus they didnt bother to find out whether it was true or not

they only mentioned it half a dozen times.

what is humiliating about being asked to give money to a migrant charity?

oh you mean it was humiliating for Hopkins because she had built a name for inciting hatred against vulnerable migrants and her racist, bigoted base (note: Lirefighter, a forum member, says he thinks Hopkins is great) wouldnt be best pleased.

good enough attempt at answering your own question. So we agree Hopkins would have found the offer toxic, Monroe would likely have known this and found it "very satisfying". Monroe's lawyers would have seen this as a costs risk and given they were operating on a conditional fee bases , needed to amend it, which they did.

 

[noseall]

Answered dozens of times

You haven't explained your lying posts? I.e....

When I asked you to explain this bullshít....

The demand for an apology was not sincere.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly retracted

...you said this in post #239 (pg 16.) when discussing the offer...

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. Etc blah blah. It is not a genuine offer for a financial settlement. Of course I can ask you to pay me and I can suggest I will donate the money. That is entirely different. Then after your partial compliance, I then retract the offer and sue for damages.

I correctly said you were making stuff up and nothing in your blarney explained either a rapid retraction or insincerity from JM. To which you replied in post #241 (pg.17) ...

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.

Still blarney involved, but you doubled down on your 'read 19 -21' thing. However, it says nothing about a rapid 38 minute retraction in any of the judgement paragraphs 19-21. It clearly says that the offer was withdrawn in August, 2.5 months after the spat.

So I pressed again and in post #243 (pg17) you said...

Read 19-21.

Guess what, surprise surprise a 38 minute retraction is still not there. In fact it clearly states that the offer was withdrawn on August 4th, roughly 2.5 months after the spat.

Then on the same page MNW67 asks you about the judgement paragraphs 19-21 and says this...

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

To which you replied, (in agreement to the 2.5 month period)....

Yep. One letter then retraction

So, summing up - all of the above posts, you mention paragraphs 19-21, as a pointer towards a rapid retraction of JM's offer. You change your story later in the thread (when pressed) but I'll get to that other MBK bill bullshit, after you have explained the above. So were you lying then or are you lying now? And can you explain any of the above posts, why you said them and where in those paragraphs does JM rapidly retract her offer after 38 mins in paragraphs 19-21 in the judgement?


Answer the questions boyo if you have a spine, you pathetic lying scumbag.

Posts #239 to #248, you made a clear reference to paragraphs 19-21 of the judgement.

You acknowledged MNW 67 also, in reference to the offer, in regards to the 2.5 month offer period.

Later you changed your story and began lying in earnest, but I'll get to that.

So, we're you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[noseall]

It was a case of mistaken identity. All the lawyers, the Judge, the claimant and the defendant agreed.

Nonsense.

38 minutes from first offer, to new offer - its a fact as clear as day.

Nonsense. And the judgement and everyone else watching knows this is an MBK lie, corroborated by your previous posts which you refuse to explain.

An offer intended to humiliate "v. satisfying for me" is a bad faith offer.

Nonsense. JM tried to settle in the months leading up to the trial. Is was better than a good faith offer. Even the judge and the judgment (Read paragraph 83 of the judgement) said it was reasonable.

withdrawn - a few weeks after that

2.5 months form offer to withdrawal. There was no rapid withdrawal of the offer before that, and you know it.

Now tell us why you made no mention of this made-up offer of yours in posts #239 - #248?

Because you are a spineless lying scumbag.

 

[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.

I think folk can see where you began making up your bullshít.

Rapidly withdrawn my arse.

the demand for an apology was not sincere.

Lies.

Monroe’s offer was not sincere and rapidly withdrawn

More lies.

 

[motorbiking]

You keep posting the same Boll@x, round and round we go. Now there is even more Nosenout boll@x.

Nonsense. JM didn't consider suing until after 2.5 months.

2.5 months ? You really are stupid:
On 18 May 2015 - the tweet
On 21 May 2015 - letter of claim.

Nonsense. And the judgement and everyone else watching knows this is an MBK lie, corroborated by your previous posts which you refuse to explain.

1st offer: delete or I take legal action
2nd offer: apologise and pay or I take legal action - not good faith offer. Also noting that the 1st offer had been complied with at that time
3rd offer: the open offer from the lawyer. A toned down version of the above - this is the offer the judge refers to - it is a part 36 open offer to settle

Nonsense. JM tried to settle in the months leading up to the trial.

4 August 2015 - "All previous offers are withdrawn". I wonder what the legal mean of "all previous offers are withdrawn". Legal proceedings were issued December 2015. Yep.. right up to the trial over a year later.. oh wait.. "all previous offers are withdrawn".

Nonsense.

2.5 months form offer to withdrawal. There was no rapid withdrawal of the offer before that, and you know it.

Nonsense. JM tried to settle in the months leading up to the trial.

make your mind up

Now tell us why you made no mention of this made-up offer of yours in posts #239 - #248?


Because you are a spineless lying scumbag.

you're such a sweet talker.

 

[noseall]

You keep posting the same Boll@x, round and round we go. Now there is even more Nosenout boll@x.

2.5 months

Correct.

Twitter spat 18th May.

Offer withdrawn 4th August.

1st offer: delete or I take legal action

The only offer occurred at 8:14 pm i.e... 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.”
The tweet prior to that was asking KH to take down a tweet. The judge makes reference to the offer here...page 83 of the judgement

Now kindly explain your posts i.e. Posts #239 to #248. He can't he won't.

Either you were lying then or you are lying now. So which it?

This was a classic MBK billy bullshít whopper....


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

 

[motorbiking]

You keep posting the same Boll@x, round and round we go. Now there is even more Nosenout boll@x.

Correct.

Then finally we got there.

You cannot argue that "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 not an offer. It seems essential to your argument. how unfortunate.