Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

I must admit on occasions she does say what an awful lot of people would like to say, but daren't! I can't say I like or dislike her, I do always read her articles in the DM.

"To see ourselves as others see us"

How true.

I dont understand why KH didnt apologise. Unless as I said before, the DM didnt want her too.
Yes she was on twitter at the time, but she is still employed by the DM,and has her "brand" to consider.

Perhpas KH just doesnt do sorry?

POGS I agree.

roses there's far more to JM than the DC issue. That was a bit one sided POGS. She has some redeeming features which is more than you can say about KH. The £24k is peanuts in libel damages terms which fairly reflects the content of the tweet. I think the judge was fairly scathing about her failure to apologise and donate £5k to a charity which JM had offered as a resolution. What KH tweeted was libellous and unnecessary - it's funny really that she'd muddled up JM with someone else in the first place - that meant an apology was even more necessary.

So where is the the line Rigsby? Who draws the line?

She's not employed by the DM - she's overpaid to write a regular column as a freelancer. The DM love KH's brand - the tweet is all part of it.

Well I draw my own lines based on social norms and mores and the ethical framework in which I exist and which are shared by many others

That still makes her employed by the DM, surely?

I don't read her, I do hear some things she has said because it is either on the news or repeated here.

What I have read I think it unkind and hurtful but it's her opinion

Fair enough Rigsby, I suppose she does the same as we all do.

-Ankers- no <sighs>. In this instance the difference is quite clear - writes a libellous article in DM which pays her for it , they are liable because they published it - she's just a rubbish so-called journalist for writing it. She sends a libellous tweet as an individual, she is liable ( and still a rubbish do called journalist for tweeting it). Both cases resulted from her getting her facts wrong which I think is particularly relevant.

Libel isn't about how unkind or hurtful a comment is, but how much it damages somebody's reputation. Jack Monroe has a public reputation. Although Hopkins deleted the comment when she realised the mistaken identity, it was retweeted, Hopkins refused to issue a disclaimer or apology and people believed the original tweet. Keyboard warriors sent Monroe hateful and threatening comments, because they believed what Hopkins had written. It's absolutely right that this kind of 'fake news' should be stamped on by the law. Even now, Hopkins is tweeting snide and nasty comments about the case.

Now she's started on the McCanns!

Think we all accept this was a libel case . As for the McCanns, they must have heard it all before , accused of neglect, murder, lies, what else could hurt more

I know that Rigby but you are missing the bigger picture, as well as they do employ her, whether she is freelance or not.

Good post dd . Strange POGS wasn't exercised by the fake news aspect - but then how could anyone right wing ie KH ever post fake news about someone left wing ie JM. As we know, all evil fake news is posted by evil left wingers ie dj

Technically, they buy the pieces she writes for them as a freelance journalist, they do not employ her. Tney are responsible for what she says in what they have commissioned from her and published, but not for what she says on her own behalf in a tweet.

But they employ her as a person do they not?

dd she regularly has a go at the McCanns - this is her latest shot but as we know all know she's the perfect mother. Your post ab made me wonder how the McCanns are affected every time they are attacked. Are they really hardened to it or does it still hurt them? Don't you think as well that this is a good example of how decency and human kindness in not attacking them trumps free speech? MN is very very quick in deleting threads/ posts attacking them even if not libellous and i think they are right. I just don't understand how anyone with a heart could carry this on - but then we are talking about KH.

If they dont, how can the BBC interfere with what Jenni Murray writes?

Oh stop it Ankers

That was re KH - re JM, by Jove you've got it

We are having a dicussion. Are you saying that your points are wrong now?

off for lunch