Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

Come in you lot!
Get right!

What doesnt follow MawBroon?

Elegran, you are not up to date with the posts.

Sorry Ankers, but the minute I see your name on a post, I am not inclined to join - life is too short

www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/freelancers-consultants-and-contractors

Note the word hire

Yes indeed, DD a three-year-old whose constant reply is "but why?" to every answer could learn a lot from ankers

I must remember not to hire a gardener on Ankers terms to mow my lawn for an hour a week - if he gets caught speeding going home he will expect me to pay the fine because I am responsible for everything he does wrong.

That doesn't follow for a start, or are you just in wind-up merchant mode today?

We employ people by the way. Including contractors.

Noooooooo!! Ankers if nothing else check out the difference in NI contributions if you really cannot understand the difference.

yes it is dd. Which bit dont you understand?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*Ankers <sigh> you are not.

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.

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

Oh but I am right.

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

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.

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.