6Foot2 Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Link: Jack Monroe wins Katie Hopkins libel tweet case - BBC News Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets. Ms Monroe sued the writer over two war memorial tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation. Hopkins posted a message in May 2015 asking her if she had "scrawled on any memorials recently". Ms Monroe said that meant she had either vandalised a war memorial or "condoned or approved" of it... Katie Hopkins, taken down a peg or two and out of pocket to the tune of £24,000. Friday is brightening up!
6Foot2 Posted March 10, 2017 Author Posted March 10, 2017 Link: Jack Monroe wins Katie Hopkins libel tweet case - BBC News Food blogger Jack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets. Ms Monroe sued the writer over two war memorial tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation. Hopkins posted a message in May 2015 asking her if she had "scrawled on any memorials recently". Ms Monroe said that meant she had either vandalised a war memorial or "condoned or approved" of it... Katie Hopkins, taken down a peg or two and out of pocket to the tune of £24,000. Friday is brightening up!
elsiegee40 Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Link: Jack Monroe wins Katie Hopkins libel tweet case - BBC News Katie Hopkins, taken down a peg or two and out of pocket to the tune of £24,000. Friday is brightening up! Should have been more money. £24k won't make much impact on her sadly
elsiegee40 Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 Link: Jack Monroe wins Katie Hopkins libel tweet case - BBC News Katie Hopkins, taken down a peg or two and out of pocket to the tune of £24,000. Friday is brightening up! Should have been more money. £24k won't make much impact on her sadly
localzuk Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 I wonder if I can get her to libel me so I can get £24k? Would be a great deposit for a house. 1
localzuk Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 I wonder if I can get her to libel me so I can get £24k? Would be a great deposit for a house. 1
6Foot2 Posted March 10, 2017 Author Posted March 10, 2017 Link: https://twitter.com/alanknox/status/840211538262790144/photo/1 Just started the Katie Hopkins diet. Lost twenty-four thousand pounds already.
6Foot2 Posted March 10, 2017 Author Posted March 10, 2017 Link: https://twitter.com/alanknox/status/840211538262790144/photo/1 Just started the Katie Hopkins diet. Lost twenty-four thousand pounds already.
Arthur Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 £24k won't make much impact on her sadly Total costs of £300,000+ in addition to the £24k damages plus Katie's own legal costs should make her think twice (perhaps?). https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/840227323907567616 Katie Hopkins would have been a lot better off if she had made a public apology... https://twitter.com/BHA_Hawkins/status/840242552041267200
Arthur Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 £24k won't make much impact on her sadly Total costs of £300,000+ in addition to the £24k damages plus Katie's own legal costs should make her think twice (perhaps?). https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/840227323907567616 Katie Hopkins would have been a lot better off if she had made a public apology... https://twitter.com/BHA_Hawkins/status/840242552041267200
Arthur Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Link: www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf
Arthur Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 Link: www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf
elsiegee40 Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 The observations of the judge make interesting reading. Ms Monroe didn't help her own case Observations 83. 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. 84. The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it.
elsiegee40 Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 The observations of the judge make interesting reading. Ms Monroe didn't help her own case Observations 83. 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. 84. The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it.
Arthur Posted September 16, 2018 Posted September 16, 2018 Katie Hopkins Has Applied For An Insolvency Deal To Avoid Bankruptcy Far-right media personality Katie Hopkins has applied for an insolvency arrangement in a bid to avoid bankruptcy after she lost a libel case over tweets which wrongly implied a food writer had supported the vandalism of a war memorial. Last year, Hopkins was found to have libelled Jack Monroe in two tweets which suggested that she supported a war memorial being vandalised with anti-Tory graffiti. The court ordered Hopkins to pay £24,0000 in damages to Monroe and £107,000 in legal costs within 28 days. Over this weekend, Monroe sent a series of tweets that revealed Hopkins had applied for an insolvency arrangement to pay the rest of her debts called an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA). https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1041007558457217024
elsiegee40 Posted September 16, 2018 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) This Tweet of hers from 2014 is doing the rounds And spoof site Southend News Network has a JustGiving which looks at first glance like it’s raising money to help her. In reality, it’s raising money for food bank The Trussell Trust which has received the “wrath of her Twittery” in the past https://www.justgiving.com/justiceforkatiehopkins Edited September 17, 2018 by elsiegee40 4
Arthur Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) This Tweet of hers from 2014 is doing the rounds Here's the link to the tweet... https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/445713197870628864 Maybe it will go viral if retweeted enough? Edited September 17, 2018 by Arthur
6Foot2 Posted September 17, 2018 Author Posted September 17, 2018 ...Maybe it will go viral if retweeted enough? 1,282 Retweets at the time of posting this reply.
Andrew_C Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 And spoof site Southampton News Network has a JustGiving which looks at first glance like it’s raising money to help her. In reality, it’s raising money for food bank The Trussell Trust which has received the “wrath of her Twittery” in the past https://www.justgiving.com/justiceforkatiehopkinsFAKE NEWS! SouthEND News Network. (All power to them!) 1
elsiegee40 Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) FAKE NEWS! SouthEND News Network. (All power to them!) I think daughter living in Southampton must have prompted this autocomplete! Whoops! Edited September 17, 2018 by elsiegee40
Lonix Posted September 17, 2018 Posted September 17, 2018 Katie Hopkins would have been a lot better off if she had made a public apology... She would have to admit being wrong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now