Why Jack Monroe Is A Far Better Person Than Kate Hopkins

Thorin wrote:

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

You are conflating it all again...


Please read my last post...

Not conflating anything:


Summary of Conclusions 82.

My main conclusions are these. The First Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom. The Second Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of the fact that in the course of an anti-government protest there had been vandalisation by obscene graffiti of the women’s war memorial in Whitehall, a monument to those who fought for her freedom. These are meanings with a defamatory tendency, which were published to thousands. Their publication not only caused Ms Monroe real and substantial distress, but also harm to her reputation which was serious, albeit not “very serious” or “grave”. Ms Monroe is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation, which I assess at £24,000. There is no need for any injunction. 

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

The first tweet was removed and was explained that it was a mistake by hopkins and was sent in error, within 2 hours...


Monroe had called Hopkins 'a piece of shit' already before removal and message of error by hopkins... and then afterwards demanded that £5000 be paid 'or else!'...


This was all before Hopkins sent the 'social anthrax' tweet... and that was only sent as an angry response to the 'pay £5000 or else' threat that Monroe had sent to her...



Of course the first tweet by Hopkins was wrong... she admitted such by deleting it and sending the message admitting her mistake...


But that does not justify Monroe demanding '£5000 paid or else'... as that is a form of 'blackmail/extortion'...

What if JH had apologised but not sent £5000 to the charity? Would Monroe have gone ahead with the libel case?

Tommy Monk wrote:The first tweet was removed and was explained that it was a mistake by hopkins and was sent in error, within 2 hours...


Monroe had called Hopkins 'a piece of shit' already before removal and message of error by hopkins... and then afterwards demanded that £5000 be paid 'or else!'...


This was all before Hopkins sent the 'social anthrax' tweet... and that was only sent as an angry response to the 'pay £5000 or else' threat that Monroe had sent to her...



Of course the first tweet by Hopkins was wrong... she admitted such by deleting it and sending the message admitting her mistake...


But that does not justify Monroe demanding '£5000 paid or else'... as that is a form of 'blackmail/extortion'...

You are just repeating the same piss poor defense

So again

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 also based off this had a right to give Kate the opportunity to eat humble pie and do the right thing by apologising and donating to charity

How you can even post up a defense here when Kate was in the wrong and the first Tweet was the cause to all this, is simply astounding

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.

Even the judge disagrees with you poor defense Tommy


This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.

Hopkins first tweet was directed at her by mistake and removed in 2 hours, and she sent a message explaining that it was a mistake.


Hopkins second 'social anthrax' tweet was an angry response to Monroe’s demand for £5000!


Hopkins made a mistake and then acted to put it right.


Monroe could have acted graciously and left it there... but didn't...she was vindictive throughout...


And she has form for being nasty online...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848092/So-cruel-hypocrite-SARAH-VINE-describes-food-writer-Jack-Monroe-sent-heartless-tweet.html

It does not matter that she removed the tweet 2 hours later.

The damage was done and she was given the option out of court of settling this, of which she arrogantly refused to do so and faced the consequences of doing so.

She never acted to put it right. As she refused to apologize and failed to settle out of court

If she had of acted, she would have apologized and settled out of court.

On all counts, Kate Hopkins lost because of her blatant arrogance and I am glad she did. 

Now if Jack has been libelous to Kate, then why has she not taken her to court?

Being abusive is one thing, making false accusations, is another matter all together.

What is still astounding, is you are still defending Kate, when she was 100% in the wrong.

Thorin wrote:It does not matter that she removed the tweet 2 hours later.

The damage was done and she was given the option out of court of settling this, of which she arrogantly refused to do so and faced the consequences of doing so.

She never acted to put it right. As she refused to apologize and failed to settle out of court

If she had of acted, she would have apologized and settled out of court.

On all counts, Kate Hopkins lost because of her blatant arrogance and I am glad she did. 

Now if Jack has been libelous to Kate, then why has she not taken her to court?

Being abusive is one thing, making false accusations, is another matter all together.

What is still astounding, is you are still defending Kate, when she was 100% in the wrong.

What damage was really done by the first tweet, that was removed/deleted after 2 hours, and where hopkins had sent the subsequent, clearly worded public declaration message, admitting that the tweet was wrong and that it was sent by mistake...!?


I'm not defending a wrong by hopkins...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:It does not matter that she removed the tweet 2 hours later.

The damage was done and she was given the option out of court of settling this, of which she arrogantly refused to do so and faced the consequences of doing so.

She never acted to put it right. As she refused to apologize and failed to settle out of court

If she had of acted, she would have apologized and settled out of court.

On all counts, Kate Hopkins lost because of her blatant arrogance and I am glad she did. 

Now if Jack has been libelous to Kate, then why has she not taken her to court?

Being abusive is one thing, making false accusations, is another matter all together.

What is still astounding, is you are still defending Kate, when she was 100% in the wrong.

What damage was really done by the first tweet, that was removed/deleted after 2 hours, and where hopkins had sent the subsequent, clearly worded public declaration message, admitting that the tweet was wrong and that it was sent by mistake...!?


I'm not defending a wrong by hopkins...

The damage felt by the victim and her reputation when accused of this false charge. 
You are basing this not off reason but a defense of Kate.
So let me put it to you this way.
Which you are failing to even try to understand how you would feel when accused of something most people rightly view as a despicable crime.
Lets see how much empathic intelligence you have.

How would you feel, if a child was raped and you were publicly accused of this online, where your family friends, work colleagues etc saw this?

Then all the friends and people that know your work colleagues, friends and family has seen this and within two hours, thousands have seen this.

Now tell me honestly?
How would you feel Tommy, after such an accusation?

Would you do nothing?

Accept only an explanation and no public apology, to right the wrong done?

Would you also offer to them a chance to pay the NSPCC £5k to avoid any libel court action?

You are defending Kate

Hopkins removed the tweet within 2 hours, and sent a declaration admitting it was wrong and was sent by mistake...

That should have been an end of it.

Twitter is full of twits... a platform of twats... and this was just one of the millions of spats...

I don't really care... I'm not even on there... so no taste for any case brought through 'no win - no fee'!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Hopkins removed the tweet within 2 hours, and sent a declaration admitting it was wrong and was sent by mistake...

That should have been an end of it.

Twitter is full of twits... a platform of twats... and this was just one of the millions of spats...

I don't really care... I'm not even on there... so no taste for any case brought through 'no win - no fee'!!!

So how can you claim to know what damage was done?

Even more so when you do not care?

You just rendered your own argument redundant

I knew you would make a piss poor excuse out of answering my questions

Too easy.

I suggest you read again and understand the law Tommy


Even the judge disagrees with you poor defense Tommy


This case has been about the particular tweets complained of by this claimant against this defendant. It may have little wider significance. But I cannot leave it without making two observations. The first is that the case could easily have been resolved at an early stage. There was an open offer to settle for £5,000. It was a reasonable offer. There could have been an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996. Such an offer attracts a substantial discount: up to half if the offer is prompt and unqualified. Such an offer would have meant the compensation would have been modest. The costs would have been a fraction of those which I am sure these parties have incurred in the event. Those costs have largely been incurred in contesting the issue of whether a statement which on its face had a defamatory tendency had actually caused serious harm.