Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

She is a sad, sad person who will stoop to anything to get her name in print. I believe that "What goes around, comes around!" and only time will tell..........

The blue shawl that Saint Katie is wearing in her tweet is a symbol of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, not of Jesus. She isn't very accurate, is she? No wonder she gets her accusations wrong if that is the usual level of the research she puts into her twittering. Not only libellous but sloppy journalism too.

I think I summarised it well enough Ankers ??

Is she a tad bonkers?

Oh gosh.

This is her response on twitter....

Free speech, she us free to say what she thinks no matter how unpleasant or cruel, this time it wasn't an opinion it was an accusation .

I never condone violence MawB though in the case of KH it might be a case of 'me? I nefer saw nofink officer!'

This is the link that mumsnet uses.
www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/news/brief-guide-tort-defamation/

And as we know Anya ( spiritualists may wish to take cover) you should always strike a happy medium ?

There is nothing (so far ) on this thread that constitutes libel unlike KH's tweet which has landed her in this sh*t. Expressing an opinion is not expressing a fact and for Internet libel to stand up in court there has to be "evidence of a false and unprivileged statement of fact which is published with fault meaning as a result of negligence or malice and is designed to damage the reputation of a person or a company "in the estimation of right-thinking members of society".
The same principles apply broadly in Scotland which of course has its own legal system

Somewhere between saint and sinner lies a happy medium.

Regarding a nasty element in the UK, it is always best to start with ourselves first.

Re her losing the case HALLEFUUCKINGLUJAH!!

WW it's not just the UK.

This is a disease of society Rigby - you are correct.

rigby I couldn't agree more. There is such a nasty element in the UK.

There are still plenty of posters even on grasnnet, who ask "who is Katie Hopkins"?

Is she a "product" though? A "brand".

We dont know if the DM didnt want her to apologise, so to get more publicity for her, and thereby it?

I am not sure of gransnet policy on "slagging people off".
On mumsnet there seemed to be a weird one I thought.

I think the existence of KH is a sign of disease in society - there are many many healthy ways to provoke but her bullying, cruel, bilious approach is not one of them. Fortunately two of her recent targets have been able to afford the risks of suing. The Independent is reporting today that the legal fees will reach £300k - I'm just sorry that she can afford to pay them. The DM had to pay the fees for the previous case

Personally I dont think the comments on this thread up to now are potentially libellous[unlike a post two or three days ago which might be]. Though I am not an expert.

'Slagging off' someone who has just lost her second libel case is not libellous - it's commenting on her behaviour. KH can tweet all she wants about how much she dislikes Jack as that's an opinion, but what she tweeted about her behaviour was a lie( as it was with the Muslim family). Also Jack has a reputation that can be harmed whereas KH is turning into a serial libeller

KH is a professional provocateuse. It's her job and what she's paid to do because she has a natural 'talent' for it. In theory, I think a few characters like this in society are a healthy sign but it's still rotten for the Jack Monroes that she catches in her net.

Might we be sued for publicly slagging her? Should we ask GNHQ to remove this thread?