• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

spunko

Katie Hopkins - an expensive lesson

Recommended Posts

A very expensive "lesson". Can't stand Jack Monroe - she makes me feel nauseous - but for those who don't think libel can happen to them and tear your life apart over a few innocuous words on a screen, definitely one to read and take heed of.... 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/16/katie-hopkins-applies-for-insolvency-to-avoid-bankruptcy-after-jack-monroe-twitter-costly-libel-case

Katie Hopkins applies for insolvency agreement to avoid bankruptcy

Controversial commentator Katie Hopkins has applied for an insolvency agreement in a bid to avoid bankruptcy following a costly libel case involving the "food writer" Jack Monroe.

Last year, the broadcaster was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages and legal costs after she sent tweets in 2015 which falsely implied Monroe backed the defacement of war memorials by protestors. Monroe originally asked for Hopkins to apologise and donate £5,000 to a migrants’ charity or she would sue. But Hopkins – who had confused Monroe with the columnist Laurie Penny – refused to back down, resulting in a costly court case, with the commentator forced to pay £24,000 in damages and a substantially larger sum in legal costs.

Meanwhile, her mainstream media career collapsed. She parted ways with Mail Online, for whom she had written a regular column, in late 2017, only a few months after losing her LBC radio show when she called for a “final solution” in response to the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. She now works for Canadian outlet Rebel Media.

Hopkins, who has already had to sell her Devon home, applied for an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) in May, a filing on the Individual Insolvency Register shows. Monroe told the Guardian that the agreement, which will allow Hopkins to avoid bankruptcy and manage the long-term repayment of her debts, was recently formally agreed following discussion with creditors.

 

---

A bit silly of Katie Hopkins not to just retract her comments which were made in error. Although a bit cunty of Jack Monroe by the same token to push on with this, the effect on her children who are innocent, will be costly indeed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DTMark said:

"It couldn't happen to a nicer person"

:)

The inability to admit you were wrong and simply issue an apology and retraction can cost dearly. Bye Katie.

I've just read on another website that she did apologise - but refused to pay the £5000 donation to a migrant charity. Understandable/commendable if true. However an easy cop out would have  been to pay it to any charity as most of them are pro-migrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DTMark said:

"It couldn't happen to a nicer person"

:)

The inability to admit you were wrong and simply issue an apology and retraction can cost dearly. Bye Katie.

I've never really understood the bile against her. The fact that shes referred to as "controversial" yet the same article draws no comment over the lesbian lady claiming to be of no gender who sued her.. well, if anything I find that much more controversial. They are alike more than they care to admit I suspect, both thriving on creating controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spunko said:

I've just read on another website that she did apologise - but refused to pay the £5000 donation to a migrant charity. Understandable/commendable if true. However an easy cop out would have  been to pay it to any charity as most of them are pro-migrant.

She might not have had the £5000! A gigging journalist with huge overheads having to be seen on the ground, in the right places as the news happens. We all know a celebrities networth (à la Kate Price/Kerry Katona) is based on a multiple of last years paycheque and for KH that paycheque dried up last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The libel laws are here being used in an overly heavy-handed way.  I don't approve.  IMO libel is about real damage caused to real people, not about salacious tittle-tattle. 

I appreciate that JM has suffered some harm, but she's not affected now, and almost certainly wouldn't have been if the tweetstorm had been allowed to die a natural death.  Furthermore, the judgement was clear that the damage was minor and only awarded £24k. The only winners here are the lawyers, who are the ones that have actually bankrupted (the very stupid) KH.

I'd note that JM's glee is sickening given that it is based on someone else suffering misfortune, and she'd be well advised to significantly more magnanimous in victory.

Edited by dgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, longtomsilver said:

She might not have had the £5000! A gigging journalist with huge overheads having to be seen on the ground, in the right places as the news happens. We all know a celebrities networth (à la Kate Price/Kerry Katona) is based on a multiple of last years paycheque and for KH that paycheque dried up last year.

Don't think she's short of a few bob, or wasn't...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-katie-hopkins-five-bedroom-11879232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spunko said:

I've never really understood the bile against her. The fact that shes referred to as "controversial" yet the same article draws no comment over the lesbian lady claiming to be of no gender who sued her.. well, if anything I find that much more controversial. They are alike more than they care to admit I suspect, both thriving on creating controversy.

I did, for a time, follow her on Twitter and quite frankly she was more than "controversial", she was deliberately divisive and inflammatory. My take was that she was as racist as most of the opinion-piece writers in The Guardian which is why I don't read them either.

My impression of her is that she wants to have arguments. Just for their own sake. A mouth on legs.

I offer as evidence her taking part in The Apprentice and then withdrawing when it was likely that she would win. She didn't even want the job, she just wanted to be on television and for people to look at and hear her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DTMark said:

I did, for a time, follow her on Twitter and quite frankly she was more than "controversial", she was deliberately divisive and inflammatory. My take was that she was as racist as most of the opinion-piece writers in The Guardian which is why I don't read them either.

My impression of her is that she wants to have arguments. Just for their own sake. A mouth on legs.

I offer as evidence her taking part in The Apprentice and then withdrawing when it was likely that she would win. She didn't even want the job, she just wanted to be on television and for people to look at and hear her.

I certainly find her tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, spunko said:

I've never really understood the bile against her. The fact that shes referred to as "controversial" yet the same article draws no comment over the lesbian lady claiming to be of no gender who sued her.. well, if anything I find that much more controversial. They are alike more than they care to admit I suspect, both thriving on creating controversy.

I confess I have never heard of Jack Monroe. Her wikipedia page details her work experience before becoming a journalist

Quote

Monroe left home and began working in a chip shop before going to work as a call handler for Essex County Fire and Rescue. After having a child, Monroe was unable to arrange the work around childcare responsibilities, and was unable to negotiate adjustments to their working pattern to make continued employment feasible. Monroe resigned the post after serving between 2007 and 2011.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spunko said:

Ongoing court case or I wouldn't mention it but surgeon with three houses, four kids in public school.

Renovating, expensively, £1.1m house with £850k mortgage on it.

Accused of insurance fraud to raise money because effectively bust.

Apparent wealth these days is often nothing of the kind.

Just now, Hopeful said:

I confess I have never heard of Jack Monroe. Her wikipedia page details her work experience before becoming a journalist

 

Waste of space found a niche doing woe is me stories for the Guardian combined with being a skint person's Delia Smith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

Let's turn it around. Monroe accuses Hopkins of throwing some bacon at a mosque, getting her mixed up with some EDL woman. Hopkins demands an apology and a £5000 donation to Britain First or the Rebel Media. 

Universal outrage and Twitter and Mumsnet explode due to the number of angry middle class leftists going on there to complain. 

I can understand that Hopkins could have apologised but I don't see why she should be compelled to pay money to a charity she obviously does not support; the money should have been paid to Monroe who could then do what she wanted with it - perhaps got some more tattoos. Compelling Hopkins to pay to a migrant charity was clearly an attempt to rub her nose in defeat. 

I did wonder if the judge could have overridden that request as it could be unduly political.

The other thing that stinks here is that it costs IIRC ~£50k to launch a libel action in the UK and there is no legal aid for it. Given that Jack Monroe is likely a benefits fiend she must have had some financial support - from who? Perhaps there was a crowdfunding campaign circulated on 38 Degrees or some other Marxist hellhole. One can only wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DTMark said:

I did, for a time, follow her on Twitter and quite frankly she was more than "controversial", she was deliberately divisive and inflammatory. My take was that she was as racist as most of the opinion-piece writers in The Guardian which is why I don't read them either.

My impression of her is that she wants to have arguments. Just for their own sake. A mouth on legs.

I offer as evidence her taking part in The Apprentice and then withdrawing when it was likely that she would win. She didn't even want the job, she just wanted to be on television and for people to look at and hear her.

I'm no fan either. Some of her tweets were sub-imbecilic and just plain unpleasant. I don't take any pleasure in her being taken to the cleaners though however it's yet another good reason to avoid Twitter.

I've heard Monroe talk, she's a hysterical halfwit. Her appearance on Question Time some months ago was atrocious to listen to.

A plague on both their houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.