Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

And actually, I was now discussing points with Elegran, not you, but you are more than welcome, as is anyone at anytime, to join in.

It's not just a technical point - it's a legal point based on employment law. She's self employed and oh goodness me may have to pay increased NICs. I wonder if her libel costs are tax deductible ?

Rigsby, why bring a poster into this discussion , uncalled for

"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 grin "

What the hell are you on about! Firing your round of bull shit bullets hoping to drag somebody in I suspect.

You see Rugby you become worse than the topic once again.

You twist posts , you like using the term gofuckery on Gransnet surprised you have not brought that into your personal post towards me, I suppose there is plenty of time.

It's not just a technical point - it's a legal point based on employment law

I totally agree

^ She's self employed^

Agreed as far as I know.

But she is still employed, as a person, by the DM is she not? And therefore, she has an interest in the DM, and they have an interest in her.
They paid her legal fees apparently last time. No idea whether they will do the same again this time. It will be interesting to see what they do.

My guess is that they will pay them again.
She has carried on being employed by them.

Your line of argument is a commonly used one with regard to free speech, rigby, and I am sure it's one that many people agree with. What makes it not conclusive for me is that social mores change and things that in the past could not be said according to your rules can now be said, quite rightly. In science, for instance, things that were regarded as blasphemous and wicked at one time, because of the stranglehold religion and the law had on people's freedom of speech, are now common knowledge and banning utterances about them would be ridiculous as well as wrong.

All of which is just a diversion, a related diversion, from what KH said and the judgement that she must pay the costs. I don't know the whole story but if what she said damaged Jack Monroe's reputation, which is what's being said, then obviously, law or no law, what she did was wrong and it's right that she's having to pay for it.

Stop insisting on not understanding, ankers At 50+ you are too old to play that game any more.

Being freelance means that a newspaper which buys an article from KH is reponsible for checking it and passing on what she has written, and if she is sued, they will pick up the tab. What she writes for any other outlet - for pay or free - is not their reponsibity. They didn't ask her to, or buy wht she wrote, so why should they pay for the libels she utters outside their paper?

When you buy something made by a company, they have a responsibility for the thing they sell to you, but they are not responsible for what you buy or are given by anyone else. Not even if the thing bought is made by someone who also makes stuff for them. Otherwise you could buy a faulty kettle in one store and when it went wrong demand your money back from a different store completely, who just happen to stock irons made by the same manufacturer.

Katie Hopkins makes articles for the DM and they paid her expenses when she libelled someone in one of those. She also writes other stuff, and tweets independently of that - she is her own boss, not employed as an employee by anyone. She sells what she makes just like a kettle manufacturer.

It is not that I dont understand. It is that I am right!!!

They hire her{I got that from Gov Uk], which means that they employ her. They dont hire her as an employ. They hire her as freelance. Different rules.

That should read they dont hire her as an employee. They hire her as freelance. Different rules.

And as a freelance she is responsible for her own legal costs.

The writer of this piece thinks the judgement outrageous. For those who don't want to read the article, he's saying that KH deleted the 'libellous' tweet as soon as she realised she'd mistaken Jack Monroe for someone else. The writer's argument is that that should have been the end of it. He thinks British libel laws are draconian and says that if he sued every time someone said anything nasty or harmful about him, he'd never be out of the courts.

The writer is entitled to an opinion. Unfortunately, I don't always respect Brendan O'Neill's judgment. He's a writer who's sometimes on the border of being libellous and I guess he wants the right to continue.

Ankers You are not right.You don't appear to understand the legal concept of employment.

Oh but I am right.

and who is Jack Monroe? I think there was a thread about her once, she writes about eating on a budget I think.

She is self-employed and like many writers, writes as a free-lance which means the DM (or whoever) has no legal responsibility for what KH tweets as a private individual , unlike her articles for the newspaper for which the DM has legal responsibility, and a commensurately large legal department, one assumes. So what is there to misunderstand? Everybody else seems to grasp the distinction which is a simple enough one.
If she made a genuine mistake (as is possible) her intransigence and refusal to apologise right at the outset is what has led to this case.
Arrogance, pride, with an admixture of "any publicity is good publicity" , I think she got off lightly.

*Ankers <sigh> you are not.

She will have journalistic libel insurance so whatever the costs, it's unlikely it will come out of her own pocket.

Whatever is written online is subject to the same laws as any hard copy written word. MN has recently been in the news because a poster named a professional and wrote derogatory comments. Despite deleting the posts, they were retrieved and used as evidence.
It's generally best to be shrewd with whatever you write.

If you want to believe that Ankers go ahead! (sigh)

Yes Jalima she does write about cooking on a budget and about poverty in general. She's published a couple of books and had quite a following at one time.

I thought the whole court case was about a tweet and nothing to do with something written in the DM - I would have thought the DM would not publish something potentially libellous like that without checking first.

I think the point of the court case was that it was an accusation, not an opinion, that she refused several times to apologise and donate money to a charity of Jack Monroe's choice and that this court case could be one of many which may be brought in the future, if people are not careful, as an example of what is and is not allowable on Twitter and other social media sites.

People are much more careful with the published word than they are on social media where they may express their thoughts freely and it is posted without careful thought - and instantly goes around the world.

she is self employed - yes
she is freelance - yes

But according to Gov UK[I can link if I must] freelancers are hired.
Definition of hired is employed.

I understand it perfectly.

There were two court cases. This one had noting to do with anything written in the DM. This was a direct accusation made by Hopkins in a private capacity. She didn't delete it immediately. It was there long enough to be retweeted and for keyboard warriors to send Monroe further abusive tweets.

By the way, I knew I had heard of Brendan O'Neill. He was the person who wrote an article called 'If You Were Abused By Jimmy Savile, Maybe You Should Keep It to Yourself'. He and Hopkins are kindred spirits, albeit on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

No, it isn't Ankers, but I've learnt from experience that it's futile explaining anything to you.

Yes daphnedill - cooking on a budget! Why did I write 'eating^?
(but eating it too presumably )

I am aware by the way that she is not employed by the DM while she is tweeting.