Why Jack Monroe Is A Far Better Person Than Kate Hopkins

That's what I call a generous winner. Good for him.

Jack is a girl.

I think Jaqueline.

Didn't Monroe make a rather awful remark about David Cameron?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jack-monroe-david-cameron-uses-stories-about-his-dead-son-as-misty-eyed-rhetoric-to-legitimise-nhs-9879063.html

Angry Andy wrote:Jack is a girl.

I think Jaqueline.

Jack is still a generous winner.

Angry Andy wrote:Jack is a girl.

I think Jaqueline.

Andy, how Eddie refereed to Jack was fine.


Monroe, who was assigned female at birth, identifies as non-binary transgender and goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Monroe

Hopkins sent a tweet to her by mistake... and removed/deleted it shortly after, having realised her error... Hopkins also tweeted her to explain that it was a mistake, by way of apology.


Any decent person would have said 'ok, no problem' and let it go... rather than demanding '£5000 be paid, or else!'...

Filth-minded shock "jocks" and "slags", the likes of Katie Hopkins, often have 'Indemnity Insurance' cover included in thir contracts these days, helping to cover their arses in cases such as this...

If some empty-head soulless piece of trash like Hopkins wants to make a living out of being an obnoxious racist/neo-nazi/alt.right mouthpiece for the ugly side of humanity, it pays to have some kind of 'contingency plan' in place..

Or else have the bulk of your assets hived off and hidden away elsewhere.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Filth-minded shock "jocks" and "slags", the likes of Katie Hopkins, often have 'Indemnity Insurance' cover included in thir contracts these days, helping to cover their arses in cases such as this...

If some empty-head soulless piece of trash like Hopkins wants to make a living out of being an obnoxious racist/neo-nazi/alt.right mouthpiece for the ugly side of humanity, it pays to have some kind of 'contingency plan' in place..

Or else have the bulk of your assets hived off and hidden away elsewhere.

Tough insurance to get, tho, Wolf. You know and I know that insurance companies are looking for profit. If someone gets a reputation for repeatedly being a risk, it's a good bet that indemnity insurance is unavailable...like seniors trying to get health insurance.

The off-shore idea would appeal to them.

Tommy Monk wrote:Hopkins sent a tweet to her by mistake... and removed/deleted it shortly after, having realised her error... Hopkins also tweeted her to explain that it was a mistake, by way of apology.


Any decent person would have said 'ok, no problem' and let it go... rather than demanding '£5000 be paid, or else!'...

I always thought an apology should include the words "I am sorry" and "I apologise". Words that Flopkins admits she refuses to utter.

Tommy Monk wrote:Hopkins sent a tweet to her by mistake... and removed/deleted it shortly after, having realised her error... Hopkins also tweeted her to explain that it was a mistake, by way of apology.


Any decent person would have said 'ok, no problem' and let it go... rather than demanding '£5000 be paid, or else!'...

Yes, I thought that was a bit odd. Was the demand for £5000 to be sent to charity sent quite quickly? I don't think most people would even think of demanding money at that point.

Apparently, Monroe received nasty tweets from random people, but isn't that the fault of the people who posted them? I wonder if the woman who had actually condoned desecration of memorials received nasty tweets.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Filth-minded shock "jocks" and "slags", the likes of Katie Hopkins, often have 'Indemnity Insurance' cover included in thir contracts these days, helping to cover their arses in cases such as this...

If some empty-head soulless piece of trash like Hopkins wants to make a living out of being an obnoxious racist/neo-nazi/alt.right mouthpiece for the ugly side of humanity, it pays to have some kind of 'contingency plan' in place..

Or else have the bulk of your assets hived off and hidden away elsewhere.

There's nothing racist or "alt right" about disapproving of the desecration of war memorials. What's your view of that kind of thing?

Are you calling KH a slag, and what do you mean by "jocks"? Are you having a go at the Scots?

Isn't this Twitter thing a bit absurd? Monroe has apparently instructed her followers not to be mean to Katie Hopkins. It's like people latch on to someone and hang on to their every word or something, and then have to be told what they should or shouldn't say like a bunch of children. Social media eh?

The other issue is how absurdly expensive it is to take someone to court for libel. I doubt most ordinary people would do it.

For anyone who's interested, here is the full account and judgement of the court case. It's pretty long but it does contain a lot more detail than the accounts in the press.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

Are you trying to dismantle Monroe's claim?
And do you condone or condemn Hopkins comments?
The court found in favour of Monroe, btw.

Angry Andy wrote:Are you trying to dismantle Monroe's claim?
And do you condone or condemn Hopkins comments?
The court found in favour of Monroe, btw.

Me?

I don't think I've tried to dismantle the claim. I've posted the full court judgement, I've made a comment about Twitter in general, and I've said that the demand for money to be sent to charity was a bit odd.

Here's what I think. A mistake was made when KH addressed the wrong person. I'm not sure why she brought the subject up again after several days, but the context of that is missing. It took KH two hours or so to delete the tweet, but it's possible that she was away from her computer or something. What she should have done was delete the tweet, apologise for the error, and made it clear that Monroe had never condoned the desecration of war memorials. She could have named the person who she meant to address in order to clarify the situation. She made it worse by lumping the two women together instead of apologising.

I'm not particularly impressed by Monroe publically saying she feels sorry for KH really. I think she should have said nothing.

Thanks Rags. I think we have some closure on rhis saga. A lesson for Hopkins.
Be nicer to people.

Angry Andy wrote:Thanks Rags. I think we have some closure on rhis saga. A lesson for Hopkins.
Be nicer to people.

Yes, or at least she should admit her mistakes at the time. I think she made the same error that a lot of people make - they think that saying something on Twitter or any other social media doesn't count and that it's a free for all. There are lessons here for a lot of people. It's so easy to make what they think is a throwaway remark, but they should think about what they're saying, and make sure they can back it up.

There are other issues with social media. There's a lot of bullying going on, particularly relating to young people, which can even result in suicides, and so far I don't think that many people have been held accountable for that, but that could change.

Greenie for that.

Angry Andy wrote:Greenie for that.

Cheers!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Thanks Rags. I think we have some closure on rhis saga. A lesson for Hopkins.
Be nicer to people.

Yes, or at least she should admit her mistakes at the time. I think she made the same error that a lot of people make - they think that saying something on Twitter or any other social media doesn't count and that it's a free for all. There are lessons here for a lot of people. It's so easy to make what they think is a throwaway remark, but they should think about what they're saying, and make sure they can back it up.

There are other issues with social media. There's a lot of bullying going on, particularly relating to young people, which can even result in suicides, and so far I don't think that many people have been held accountable for that, but that could change.

Katie Hopkins has always been a gob on a stick.   It's what she gets paid for, and I doubt she loses any sleep over what cock ups she makes.     I don't always agree with her views but sometimes I do.    I really think social media is very much  a double edged sword.  Great for some things, terrible for others.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, or at least she should admit her mistakes at the time. I think she made the same error that a lot of people make - they think that saying something on Twitter or any other social media doesn't count and that it's a free for all. There are lessons here for a lot of people. It's so easy to make what they think is a throwaway remark, but they should think about what they're saying, and make sure they can back it up.

There are other issues with social media. There's a lot of bullying going on, particularly relating to young people, which can even result in suicides, and so far I don't think that many people have been held accountable for that, but that could change.

Katie Hopkins has always been a gob on a stick.   It's what she gets paid for, and I doubt she loses any sleep over what cock ups she makes.     I don't always agree with her views but sometimes I do.    I really think social media is very much  a double edged sword.  Great for some things, terrible for others.

Yes, she's always been like that, but giving an opinion which is distasteful to others is one thing, and libelling someone is another thing. She just needs to pull back a bit and think before she says something because this mistake proved to be very costly for her. I don't know what would have happened if she had just owned up straight away and apologised for the mistake, but it would probably have been OK. Maybe her pride got in the way or something.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Katie Hopkins has always been a gob on a stick.   It's what she gets paid for, and I doubt she loses any sleep over what cock ups she makes.     I don't always agree with her views but sometimes I do.    I really think social media is very much  a double edged sword.  Great for some things, terrible for others.

Yes, she's always been like that, but giving an opinion which is distasteful to others is one thing, and libelling someone is another thing. She just needs to pull back a bit and think before she says something because this mistake proved to be very costly for her. I don't know what would have happened if she had just owned up straight away and apologised for the mistake, but it would probably have been OK. Maybe her pride got in the way or something.  

Basically she's an oik.

Original Quill wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Filth-minded shock "jocks" and "slags", the likes of Katie Hopkins, often have 'Indemnity Insurance' cover included in thir contracts these days, helping to cover their arses in cases such as this...

If some empty-head soulless piece of trash like Hopkins wants to make a living out of being an obnoxious racist/neo-nazi/alt.right mouthpiece for the ugly side of humanity, it pays to have some kind of 'contingency plan' in place..

Or else have the bulk of your assets hived off and hidden away elsewhere.

Tough insurance to get, tho, Wolf.  You know and I know that insurance companies are looking for profit.  If someone gets a reputation for repeatedly being a risk, it's a good bet that indemnity insurance is unavailable...like seniors trying to get health insurance.

The off-shore idea would appeal to them.

I don't know about US law and I'm assuming that the position here remains roughly the same under the provisions of our most recent 2013 (I think) Defamation Act, but it was always held that the publisher of a libel was as equally liable in law as the author of a libel.

As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, it would be my assumption that Hopkins is covered by the general libel indemnity insurance held by the newspaper or broadcast medium employing her on a freelance basis - unless she has a far deeper pocket than I imagine and has somehow found a company or underwriter willing to take a risk, given her reputation. She (or her literary agent) would, of course, seek the inclusion of a suitable clause in any work contract she signs.

The old definition of defamation - that someone had been "...held up to hatred, ridicule and contempt in the eyes of a right thinking person..."- has probably been re-worded in more modern times (I'm going back about 60 years!) but I guess the principle is still the same.

Makes one thankful for the anonymity afforded by sites such as this, I imagine, given some of the allegations that are flung about!

At least the law has progressed well beyond what I was told by my media law tutor all those years ago, when he cited a case from the first part of the 20th century where an aggrieved public figure sued a journalist for defamation, and instructed that writs should also be served not only on the editor of the newspaper as well but also the sub-editor who signed off the offending page, the print room manager on duty, the dispatch department foreman...and even the poor old guy selling copies of the newspaper from a barrow outside St Pancras railway station, on the basis that they had all played a part in publishing the scurrilous article!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tough insurance to get, tho, Wolf.  You know and I know that insurance companies are looking for profit.  If someone gets a reputation for repeatedly being a risk, it's a good bet that indemnity insurance is unavailable...like seniors trying to get health insurance.

The off-shore idea would appeal to them.

I don't know about US law and I'm assuming that the position here remains roughly the same under the provisions of our most recent 2013 (I think) Defamation Act, but it was always held that the publisher of a libel was as equally liable in law as the author of a libel.

As I mentioned elsewhere yesterday, it would be my assumption that Hopkins is covered by the general libel indemnity insurance held by the newspaper or broadcast medium employing her on a freelance basis - unless she has a far deeper pocket than I imagine  and has somehow found a company or underwriter willing to take a risk, given her reputation. She (or her literary agent) would, of course, seek the inclusion of a suitable clause in any work contract she signs.

The old definition of defamation - that someone had been "...held up to hatred, ridicule and contempt in the eyes of a right thinking person..."- has probably been re-worded in more modern times (I'm going back about 60 years!) but I guess the principle is still the same.

Makes one thankful for the anonymity afforded by sites such as this, I imagine, given some of the allegations that are flung about!

At least the law has progressed well beyond what I was told by my media law tutor all those years ago, when he cited a case from the first part of the 20th century where an aggrieved public figure sued a journalist for defamation, and instructed that writs should also be served not only on the editor of the newspaper as well but also the sub-editor who signed off the offending page, the print room manager on duty, the dispatch department foreman...and even the poor old guy selling copies of the newspaper from a barrow outside St Pancras railway station, on the basis that they had all played a part in publishing the scurrilous article!

I have a problem with that anyway. After all, no right-thinking person should behave in that manner anyway. The people who harassed Monroe after the tweet could hardly be called "right thinking", especially as they were only going on a tweet by KH.

Fred M wrote:The old definition of defamation - that someone had been "...held up to hatred, ridicule and contempt in the eyes of a right thinking person..."- has probably been re-worded in more modern times (I'm going back about 60 years!) but I guess the principle is still the same.

Defamation is as defamation does.  As with any plaintiff's cause, the idea is like American football: the linebacker gathers the entire backfield in his arms, then throws them out one-by-one until he finds the one with the ball.

In law, the idea is to throw them out one-by-one until you find the one with the deep pockets.  Unless, as I believe with the Hulk Hogan case, the idea is to put the defendant out of business.  Still, you don't toss out the one with the money unless you are a fool.

In America, of course, we have the First Amendment to contend with. But that's over on the liability side, not indemnity.

Katie Hopkins is likely to appeal the court ruling on the grounds that there's no evidence that any harm resulted from the Tweet.

She said: “It is very likely that we will appeal and the grounds for that appeal will be the fact that no evidence of harm was produced in the court … there is absolutely no evidence that anybody believed the tweet that I wrote.”

Monroe was not awarded full costs, but, since both legal teams were on a no-win-no-fee basis, Monroe will not have to pay. Hopkins’s side has been ordered to make an interim payment of £107,000 within 28 days. The final costs figure has yet to be assessed.

I must say - why would anyone just believe what she said?

I don't understand the bit about costs. Why won't Monroe have to pay some of the costs? She won so won't she have to pay some of her own legal costs?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/15/katie-hopkins-jack-monroe-libel-ruling-bbc-mailonline

No evidence?

She was accused online, where countless supporters of Kate believed her.

That is all that is needed to be proved

Simple check of comments can prove this.

Hope she goes to court and again losing thousands more. Its a nothing short of what she deserves.

This is what happens to those who spout unfounded claims.

Wasn't the 2nd tweet in response for the demand for £5000...?


Also the judge said quite clearly that Monroe failed the requirements of disclosure, and that many of her tweets had been deliberately deleted before case got to court...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Wasn't the 2nd tweet in response for the demand for £5000...?


Also the judge said quite clearly that Monroe failed the requirements of disclosure, and that many of her tweets had been deliberately deleted before case got to court...

So?

She had every right to ask her to donate to charity.

The second tweet was just as bad..

At no point did she even apologise, when she knew she was wrong, by deleting that tweet.

Hopkins sent the tweet to her by mistake... she realised and deleted the tweet 2 hours after sending it... she also sent another tweet explaining that she had made a mistake...


It was pretty low for Monroe to then try to effectively 'blackmail' Hopkins into handing over £5000!


Wouldn't you be pissed off by that...?

The original tweet was deleted and message sent explaining mistake... the matter should have ended there...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Hopkins sent the tweet to her by mistake... she realised and deleted the tweet 2 hours after sending it... she also sent another tweet explaining that she had made a mistake...


It was pretty low for Monroe to then try to effectively 'blackmail' Hopkins into handing over £5000!


Wouldn't you be pissed off by that...?

The original tweet was deleted and message sent explaining mistake... the matter should have ended there...

She made a further defamatory tweet.

She had every right to offer her a better option that going to court.

I think she was too nice. I would have just taken her to court and yet she offered her a better option.

One that would be free of court fees, lawyers etc.


Not sure how you constitute that as blackmail, when it would have benefited Kate Hopkins to do so.

She never apologised for her mistake

That is all you need to know that Kate is scum

Monroe wanted an apology first and foremost, and suggested a charitable donation.
The last thing Hopkins is - charitable.
And she refuses EVER to apologise for ANYTHING.
The mess is of her own making.

A demand for money, 'or else', is a form of 'blackmail/extortion', isn't it...!?

Hopkins subsequent tweet was an angry response to that!

Tommy Monk wrote:
A demand for money, 'or else', is a form of 'blackmail/extortion', isn't it...!?

Hopkins subsequent tweet was an angry response to that!

Well what is worse Tommy......?

£5,000 to charity or over £100K lost in court?

Clearly you seem to be thinking, she had no right to ask this, based on her having no case.

She won in court, so she had the law on her side, so again how is it blackmail, when she was doing Kate a favour?

She arrogantly refused to accept the nice gesture and am glad. As it came back to bite her truly in the arse

Tommy is obsessed with proving Hopkins innocence -something even her expensive lawyer couldnt manage.
Give up Tom
Hopkins fucked up.
She was taken to court.
She lost.
Move on.
She will give plenty more ammunition for her targets to take her to court over.
Try again when that happens.

The second tweet wasn't really libel - it was just opinion.

Raggamuffin wrote:The second tweet wasn't really libel - it was just opinion.

Really?

So you are basing this on your own opinion.

Tommy Monk wrote:
A demand for money, 'or else', is a form of 'blackmail/extortion', isn't it...!?

Hopkins subsequent tweet was an angry response to that!

I think the problem was the charity which Monroe wanted KH to give money to. It was for refugees I think, and KH had already given her opinion on them. She was hardly likely to agree to that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
A demand for money, 'or else', is a form of 'blackmail/extortion', isn't it...!?

Hopkins subsequent tweet was an angry response to that!

I think the problem was the charity which Monroe wanted KH to give money to. It was for refugees I think, and KH had already given her opinion on them. She was hardly likely to agree to that.

Against Refugees?

I wonder if she agrees with previous UK Policy, where it restricted Jewish Refugees to the UK and Palestine in the 1930's and 1940's?
Or is this only applicable racially or religiously to Kate?

There's not much difference between calling someone a "piece of shit" and calling someone "social anthrax" really.

Angry Andy wrote:Tommy is obsessed with proving Hopkins innocence -something even her expensive lawyer couldnt manage.
Give up Tom
Hopkins fucked up.
She was taken to court.
She lost.
Move on.
She will give plenty more ammunition for her targets to take her to court over.
Try again when that happens.

Spot on.

The award wasn't just about the first mistaken tweet that was sent and then removed after 2 hours and where message acknowledging/explaining her mistake was then sent, by way of an apology...


This was about Hopkins later 'social anthrax' tweet to Monroe, after Monroe had demanded '£5000 or else!'...

Tommy Monk wrote:
The award wasn't just about the first mistaken tweet that was sent and then removed after 2 hours and where message acknowledging/explaining her mistake was then sent, by way of an apology...


This was about Hopkins later 'social anthrax' tweet to Monroe, after Monroe had demanded '£5000 or else!'...

You are just repeating yourself now in the hope of having he last word, will some how make you right.

You are as seen wrong

Tommy Monk wrote:
The award wasn't just about the first mistaken tweet that was sent and then removed after 2 hours and where message acknowledging/explaining her mistake was then sent, by way of an apology...


This was about Hopkins later 'social anthrax' tweet to Monroe, after Monroe had demanded '£5000 or else!'...

Yes, the second tweet was just opinion. Monroe called KH a "piece of shit" before that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
The award wasn't just about the first mistaken tweet that was sent and then removed after 2 hours and where message acknowledging/explaining her mistake was then sent, by way of an apology...


This was about Hopkins later 'social anthrax' tweet to Monroe, after Monroe had demanded '£5000 or else!'...

Yes, the second tweet was just opinion. Monroe called KH a "piece of shit" before that.

And?

She had just been wrongly accused of something she did not do.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's not much difference between calling someone a "piece of shit" and calling someone "social anthrax" really.

You just made that up

I could take it as calling someone socially harmful or destructive

Didge... you miss the point I am making...


The first tweet was sent to monroe by mistake, it was removed/deleted after 2 hours, and a message of explanation of it being a mistake was also sent by way of apology...


In my opinion, that was the start and finish of that exchange... and therefore should be considered as one separate case...

Then there is the demand for '£5000 or else' from Monroe which I think should be considered as case 2, possible criminal intent of 'blackmail/extortion/demanding money with menaces' etc...

Then Hopkins 'social anthrax' tweet in response to threat of 'blackmail' etc... seen as case 3...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you miss the point I am making...


The first tweet was sent to monroe by mistake, it was removed/deleted after 2 hours, and a message of explanation of it being a mistake was also sent by way of apology...


In my opinion, that was the start and finish of that exchange... and therefore should be considered as one separate case...

Then there is the demand for '£5000 or else' from Monroe which I think should be considered as case 2, possible criminal intent of 'blackmail/extortion/demanding money with menaces' etc...

Then Hopkins 'social anthrax' tweet in response to threat of 'blackmail' etc... seen as case 3...

You should have stopped when she failed to apologize after 2 hours of falsely accusing someone of no wrong.

So an explanation without an apology, is meaningless.

What you think is irrelevant here Tommy

Monroe, had every right to sue based on this libel and offered her a get out clause and saving her going to court, costing a fortune.

She was so arrogant, that she did not even turn up in court, let alone apologize or take up Monroe's generous offer.

You are not a judge or understand the law and so your opinion on this is based on your like of Kate and not reason. The tweets and the problem all stem from one core problem.
Kate falsely accusing Monroe.
It could have stopped at this point with a simply apology and donation to charity, which she could easily afford.

So all the fault is with Kate and you are offering up poor excuses.

I dont even agree with most of Monroe's Politics either.

Anyway, you are again repeating yourself.

I hope Kate does appeal and loses further money through costs.

Night