Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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 ?

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.

off for lunch

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

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

Oh stop it Ankers

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

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.

But they employ her as a person do they not?

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.

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

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

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

Now she's started on the McCanns!

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.

-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.

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