Well surely now, after all that, it would too embarrassing for her *not* to sue? Surely??? I mean we all know she’s a world champion at conveniently forgetting things she is supposed to do but this, surely surely, has to be seen through…
Was she looking in a mirror when she tweeted that?I like it when it's just blue tics being snippy to each other and I don't have to do any squigging....
View attachment 1264800
I dunno, I'm putting money on today featuring a Cooper pic and a "Pies are only pies if they have a top and bottom" debate.Well surely now, after all that, it would too embarrassing for her *not* to sue? Surely??? I mean we all know she’s a world champion at conveniently forgetting things she is supposed to do but this, surely surely, has to be seen through…
She identified as a woman with a biro more recently than NB, no?Jack was assigned female at birth and identifies as non-binary. She accepts she presents as female and accepted they or she as pronouns. Around 2011 she changed her name to Jack Monroe. We deliberately don’t use her deadname as although we are “sad hausfraus” we do actually have basic respect for LGBTQ+ people and respect their wishes, where they are clear and consistent.
Just beautiful
Brambly mice?She has a whole legal team?
FTFYI would put money on LJC thanking her lucky stars tonight. Talk about dodgingabullet. An atom bomb
What goes around comes around and the KH case strangely will also be the undoing of JM. The sheer arrogance since she won that …..Whilst I agree that it is a bit of a stretch to claim that someone saying you are rich damages your reputation for being poor: rather like the leper, in Life of Brian, complaining that Brian curing his leprosy has damaged his ability to beg.
Her whole claim is of doubtful merit, not least because her reputation is in large part built on fighting the 'white wingers'... something this case clearly does (and it might well be argued she provoked (to boost her reputation) with her "white, privileged, male" comments). Being offended by the offending comments from the offending parties also bolsters, rather than, diminishes her reputation (it's not hard to find people praising and defending her for her valiant works of selfless devotion - see Christopher Hitchen's documentary on Mother Theresa) (And, she's neither the first of the only person to make recipes for budget food, and none of them received the kind of adulation she does).
The problem is that the second test is damage to financial and/or commercial arrangements.
And it might be the case that she has some sort of financial or commercial arrangement with the food banks distributing her recipes (and indeed those not distributing her recipes), or for promoting their services, or for boosting their public profile, etc, (chuggers don't work for free) and these comments may make those organisations less likely to renew that arrangement - at which point she does have a claim for damages.
And this case gets interesting, especially in light of Mr Anderson's full comment, "I'm giving my time & my money to help the people in Ashfield. She's taking money off some of the most vulnerable in society"
Also the bit she doesn't understand is in the Katie Hopkins trial, she was the unknown underdog, and that by the time of that trial a lot of people were sick of Katie Hopkins, and her schtick. And in this case she is in the position of Katie Hopkins.
Brambly mice?
Thank you for this - v interesting. We have the tweets print screens here that directly contradict a lot of these points around proving loss & it’s not just a pay out for hurt feelings. Reassuringly the screenshots are enough for Alice Evans’ court case so hopefully that works.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
1525181671351496704. The canal has everything scraped so let us know if you need it huns This was exactly my thought. She’s seen how much Mail acreage Rooney/Vardy are getting and thought she can build a better grifting profile if she gets herself a tasty libel case.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.
Is that the winter fuel allowance squig?
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?