I’m away to perv over Miguel for a bit!
And there she goes, deleting tweets again. Hasn't learned much has she?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
Oh wow @linzilou , this bit in particular, it’s déjà vu all over again." 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."
I thought you were talking about me there!!It's libel season. Ole Grifty McGriftface has seen the Depp/Heard and Vardy/Rooney cases, and thought 'I want some of that'...unfortunately journos - especially ones in Fleet Street for 25 years - are as hard as fucking nails. They don't back down. In fact it's likely they'll step towards it. Jack has been waiting to sue someone for a couple of years - it's her biggest earner, monetary and publicity wise.
its almost like she never learnsOh wow @linzilou , this bit in particular, it’s déjà vu all over again.
Luckily for you my lawyer is Jewish. Rrright ok.
What an idiot Jack is. That could really be read in a different way.Luckily for you may lawyer is Jewish. Rrright ok.
I thought she'd gone to bed.This is what I mean, sorry I'm exhaustedJack in theory could use this to show defamation has worked even though its all sweet little lies View attachment 1265110
I shit you not, this was the advert I got in that article.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 railswww.standard.co.uk
judges arnt daft, jack and her stupid squigs think they have cracked some code to break the English legal system- if she wanted to present that as evidence, the other guys (lawrence etc) could simply ask for proof that the particular squig has ever interacted with her before,This is what I mean, sorry I'm exhaustedJack in theory could use this to show defamation has worked even though its all sweet little lies View attachment 1265110
Jack - and I say this seriously - Seek urgent help.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?