Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

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

That still makes her employed by the DM, surely?

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

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.

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

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.

POGS I agree.

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?

"To see ourselves as others see us"

How true.

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.

But ab it's not as simple as that - I think many of us make decisions daily about how we responsibly exercise free speech within the constrains of decency, politeness and acceptability and whilst of course there will not be complete agreement, I think there are some agreed parameters - it's not just a free for all

rosesarered

"Have never read anything by her, and who is Jack Monroe?"

Google her name with David Cameron/Sainsburys for an example.

I suppose it's as with all things in life some people find one persons views distasteful somebody else will find another's views distasteful.

I care not a jot for Katy Hopkins or Jack Munroe they both have the 'platform' to expound their views but I have to admit to thinking if what Katy Hopkins has written in this particular court case has cost her £24 grand plus then Lord knows what could be made of some of the comments even on Gransnet.

I thought Katy Hopkins had tweeted something far worse to be honest when I first heard about this . Perhaps a salutary lesson to be learned somewhere along the line!

This libel was not part of her job as it was on Twitter. The Independent says that her costs are £300K. She needed to know that there's a price to pay for the bile she spews.

I do know the difference between an opinion and libel,

what's to gain? For her it's well paid work, but who can decide how far free speech can be exercised , excluding libel. No one because what hurts one doesn't bother another

If she breaks the law again then she will pay the price again ( or her employers will.)
Have never read anything by her, and who is Jack Monroe?

Of course but I don't have to like what she is free to say - this thread is about the fact that she has broken the law twice.i think with the right to free speech goes the responsibility of deciding how far we will exercise that and what is to be gained in some situations by so doing even if it's not libellous.

Back to freedom of speech Rigby.

ab of course it is and more shame them and the DM and LBC for facilitating and encouraging this.

What she says is what some think

It's a sad world if she has become famous and presumably was wealthy from doing nothing more than being nasty.

I mean - what does she do exactly???

I have heard of her ( the Apprentice?) and the tweeter who won the case (vaguely) although I don't tweet and neither is on my radar usually.

However, I saw this on the news and believe the right verdict was reached. Free speech or freedom to express your thoughts in the written word are to be applauded and upheld but lies and false accusations should be retracted and an apology given.

Spiteful, stubborn and now looking stupid.

Well, if that's her passport photo she'd probably be turned away at passport control.

No offence intended to any Christian members.

She sees herself as saintly? Seriously delusional behaviour. Is that image not blasphemous? As others have pointed out though, it keeps her in the news and that's what it's all about.

I thought she was going to emigrate to USA if Trump became president......What happened. Won't he let her in?

And the sacred heart is a symbol of Christ Elegran