Can you claim sobriety if you're off your substantial tits on woefully misplaced self-importance? I hope OH has got her a multipack of Yakult and some wild garlic to keep her on the straight and narrow.
Jack Monroe #304 Very middle class
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Jack Monroe Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don’t think she is on a high anymore. Her brain, such as it is, has finally kicked in. She deleted the PayPal tweet. I’m willing to bet she hangs about anonymously for a few hours then starts to prune her the rest of her tweets. It’s too late though Jack, much much too late.
I'm going for an attack of the invisible death threats that no one will ever be charged or even questioned over because they'll never be reported to the police.
I think she’s just Q at the moment (quarrelsome).
I’m too scared of missing something to go to bed.
K I'm gonna need someone to do a quick TL
R for this chaos. I've been here for it and I still don't think I have all the facts. 
Edit why is TLDR changing to an emoji
Edit 2 : ahhhh it's the colon D
So does TL;DR work?
R for this chaos. I've been here for it and I still don't think I have all the facts. Edit why is TLDR changing to an emoji
Edit 2 : ahhhh it's the colon D
So does TL;DR work?
I was going to do my accounts tonight
Am grunking but omg what a beautiful chaos! The last thread was like a gift from the golden goose. If there is a court case then I'm going as a toy train so I can trip Jack up and then she'll fall on her Mediterranean arse. Everyone will then clap and cheer.
Not Jack, but maybe relevant.
I'm going as Katie Hopkins, so I can wave and smile at Fack from the gallery.
Even she must realise that the Hopkins case has long gone and a cabal of fraus now keep her every tweet so that should this exact scenario happen she cannot go on a deleteathon? She’s thick. So so thick.
I’m on the last episode of Bridgerton. Am I safe to leave after this? #stress
Ahh yes! Matthew Wright!
Behind the John Leslie trial: 18 years in the showbiz wilderness
As John Leslie is cleared of sexual assault, Tristan Kirk looks back at how the former Blue Peter presenter's career went off the rails
so ive been reading the transcript from the Katie Hopkins case and ive copied the most interesting (to me) points below-
" unless serious harm to reputation can be established an injury to feelings alone, however grave, will not be sufficient. "
" Section 1 requires the claimant to prove as a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement complained of has caused or will probably cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation " (how is her barrister planning to prove this....)
"...... it is open to the claimant to call evidence in support of his case on serious harm and it is open to the defendant to call evidence to demonstrate that no serious harm has occurred"
"What matters, when considering transience, is not the period of time for which a person is exposed to the message but the impact the message has"
"It is said to be remarkable, bearing in mind how uninhibited people are on Twitter, that there is nothing indicating that a person changed their position in respect of Ms Monroe as a result of the tweets"
"My conclusion is that “torrent” (of abuse) is probably something of an overstatement, and much of what is relied on cannot be shown to be causally linked to the tweets complained of"
" It is also suggested, in mitigation, that readers of these media would have realised that “the claimant considered that she could make £5,000 in damages because of the tweets” (sic). This last contention seems to me offensive in its formulation, implying that compensation would be some kind of gain for the claimant."
" There are some unsatisfactory aspects to Ms Monroe’s evidence on this point. The tweets themselves have for the most part been deleted, by means of an automatic deletion app which she installed one night but then seems to have forgotten about for a while. We have ended up with a selection of abusive tweets. Some of these clearly do not arise from the matter complained of. Others seem unlikely to do so. Generally, causation is problematic. "
" The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it. "
if anyone fancies having a read
" unless serious harm to reputation can be established an injury to feelings alone, however grave, will not be sufficient. "
" Section 1 requires the claimant to prove as a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement complained of has caused or will probably cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation " (how is her barrister planning to prove this....)
"...... it is open to the claimant to call evidence in support of his case on serious harm and it is open to the defendant to call evidence to demonstrate that no serious harm has occurred"
"What matters, when considering transience, is not the period of time for which a person is exposed to the message but the impact the message has"
"It is said to be remarkable, bearing in mind how uninhibited people are on Twitter, that there is nothing indicating that a person changed their position in respect of Ms Monroe as a result of the tweets"
"My conclusion is that “torrent” (of abuse) is probably something of an overstatement, and much of what is relied on cannot be shown to be causally linked to the tweets complained of"
" It is also suggested, in mitigation, that readers of these media would have realised that “the claimant considered that she could make £5,000 in damages because of the tweets” (sic). This last contention seems to me offensive in its formulation, implying that compensation would be some kind of gain for the claimant."
" There are some unsatisfactory aspects to Ms Monroe’s evidence on this point. The tweets themselves have for the most part been deleted, by means of an automatic deletion app which she installed one night but then seems to have forgotten about for a while. We have ended up with a selection of abusive tweets. Some of these clearly do not arise from the matter complained of. Others seem unlikely to do so. Generally, causation is problematic. "
" The second point is that there have been difficulties over disclosure especially on the claimant’s side, of which others should take note. The deletion of the First Tweet, at Ms Monroe’s request, meant the Twitter Analytics were unavailable. And Ms Monroe’s Twitter records were extensively deleted. I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not. What I can say is that this highlights in the Twitter context the responsibility of a litigant to retain and preserve material that may become disclosable, and the responsibility of a solicitor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the client appreciates this responsibility and performs it. "
if anyone fancies having a read
So was Jack...or so she will claim.
Go as Michael Fabricant and see if she'll give the wig back.
I have lost track of who Jack is suing.
I think she may also be suing Lozza Fox, and the Reclaim Party. But because of the significant 2 hour time difference between the UK and Israel the papers won't be
In the post until Sunday.
In addition her personal lawyer may or may not work for dog biscuits.
Last edited:
This right here is all the proof Lozza etc need.
- Status