Gransnet forums

News & politics

Hopkins gets her come-uppance 😃

(185 Posts)
MawBroon Fri 10-Mar-17 21:46:49

An expensive display of arrogance, £24K damages plus over £100K costs.
I believe that she turned down several opportunities to apologise.

Jane10 Fri 10-Mar-17 21:56:11

Glad to hear it. Mind you its all publicity for her. I'd rather she just quietly went away. Nasty piece of work that she is.

Luckygirl Fri 10-Mar-17 22:01:53

I've had to google her - never heard of her.

Ana Fri 10-Mar-17 22:02:25

I expect most of it will be paid by her publicists.

Grannybags Fri 10-Mar-17 22:05:34

I'm sure she's loving the publicity

Rigby46 Fri 10-Mar-17 22:16:27

She is utterly, utterly vile and Jack was right to take her on. She will love the publicity I'm sure but what she tweeted had to be challenged and Jack was prepared to do it. This is the second time she's been involved in a libel case but her paper, the sainted DM, had to cough up last time.

vampirequeen Fri 10-Mar-17 23:47:45

She won't care. Her employers will pay it because the more notorious she is the more she is worth to them.

Hopehope Sat 11-Mar-17 00:09:49

I too cannot stand this Woman,and she looks just what she is, as Jane10 said. A nasty piece of work. Well done Jack Good on ya smile

Scooter58 Sat 11-Mar-17 00:55:54

Vile,Vile Woman,well done Jack Monroe 👍

whitewave Sat 11-Mar-17 07:20:50

Hopkins isn't quite one of us as Her Maj would say.

Jane10 Sat 11-Mar-17 07:30:56

Might we be sued for publicly slagging her? Should we ask GNHQ to remove this thread?

thatbags Sat 11-Mar-17 07:39:20

KH is a professional provocateuse. It's her job and what she's paid to do because she has a natural 'talent' for it. In theory, I think a few characters like this in society are a healthy sign but it's still rotten for the Jack Monroes that she catches in her net.

Rigby46 Sat 11-Mar-17 07:41:10

'Slagging off' someone who has just lost her second libel case is not libellous - it's commenting on her behaviour. KH can tweet all she wants about how much she dislikes Jack as that's an opinion, but what she tweeted about her behaviour was a lie( as it was with the Muslim family). Also Jack has a reputation that can be harmed whereas KH is turning into a serial libeller

Ankers Sat 11-Mar-17 07:46:58

Personally I dont think the comments on this thread up to now are potentially libellous[unlike a post two or three days ago which might be]. Though I am not an expert.

Rigby46 Sat 11-Mar-17 07:47:59

I think the existence of KH is a sign of disease in society - there are many many healthy ways to provoke but her bullying, cruel, bilious approach is not one of them. Fortunately two of her recent targets have been able to afford the risks of suing. The Independent is reporting today that the legal fees will reach £300k - I'm just sorry that she can afford to pay them. The DM had to pay the fees for the previous case

Ankers Sat 11-Mar-17 07:48:09

I am not sure of gransnet policy on "slagging people off".
On mumsnet there seemed to be a weird one I thought.

Ankers Sat 11-Mar-17 07:50:03

Is she a "product" though? A "brand".

We dont know if the DM didnt want her to apologise, so to get more publicity for her, and thereby it?

Ankers Sat 11-Mar-17 07:50:40

There are still plenty of posters even on grasnnet, who ask "who is Katie Hopkins"?

whitewave Sat 11-Mar-17 07:52:11

rigby I couldn't agree more. There is such a nasty element in the UK.

Anya Sat 11-Mar-17 08:15:23

This is a disease of society Rigby - you are correct.

Anya Sat 11-Mar-17 08:15:46

WW it's not just the UK.

Anya Sat 11-Mar-17 08:34:45

Re her losing the case HALLEFUUCKINGLUJAH!!

Ankers Sat 11-Mar-17 08:37:12

Regarding a nasty element in the UK, it is always best to start with ourselves first.

Anya Sat 11-Mar-17 08:40:15

Somewhere between saint and sinner lies a happy medium.

MawBroon Sat 11-Mar-17 08:43:17

There is nothing (so far grin ) on this thread that constitutes libel unlike KH's tweet which has landed her in this sh*t. Expressing an opinion is not expressing a fact and for Internet libel to stand up in court there has to be "evidence of a false and unprivileged statement of fact which is published with fault meaning as a result of negligence or malice and is designed to damage the reputation of a person or a company "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society".
The same principles apply broadly in Scotland which of course has its own legal system