Jack Monroe #304 Very middle class

[Griftymcgriftface]

I’m away to perv over Miguel for a bit!

 

[OwlRightsReserved]

In many ways, I'm actually glad it's complete turds like Martin Daubney and LFox who have produced this chaos, because I don't want decent folk* to have to waste their time on her. The three monkeys can throw tit at each other all they want.

*canal excluded, because you're all obviously decent people but I'm also glad you all waste time like I do on this total weapon.

 

[Darlingbitgauche]

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

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf

And there she goes, deleting tweets again. Hasn't learned much has she?

 

[Pavlova]

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 bleeping 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.

 

[Darlingbitgauche]

Also, I've noticed that some squigs have been commenting on Daubneys tweets to "prove" that it has swayed their opinion of Jack. Bit naughty that

 

[Sideboard Bob]

" 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."

Oh wow @linzilou , this bit in particular, it’s déjà vu all over again.

 

[Griftymcgriftface]

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 bleeping 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.

I thought you were talking about me there!!

But what about this bullshit here:

 

[Nonah]

the squig who was outraged that Lozza’ £5 was donated to TT ?

 

[linzilou]

Oh wow @linzilou , this bit in particular, it’s déjà vu all over again.

its almost like she never learns

 

[Veronicaaa]

View attachment 1264960

Luckily for you my lawyer is Jewish. Rrright ok.

 

[Darlingbitgauche]

This is what I mean, sorry I'm exhausted Jack in theory could use this to show defamation has worked even though its all sweet little lies

 

[Sideboard Bob]

Luckily for you may lawyer is Jewish. Rrright ok.

What an idiot Jack is. That could really be read in a different way.

 

[wibble]

This is what I mean, sorry I'm exhausted Jack in theory could use this to show defamation has worked even though its all sweet little lies View attachment 1265110

I thought she'd gone to bed.

 

[MancBee]

If Jack does back down I hope Daubney et al sue Jack. She needs someone to stand up to her and expose her for the charlatan she is.

 

[Mr Krabs]

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

www.standard.co.uk

I tit you not, this was the advert I got in that article.

 

[linzilou]

This is what I mean, sorry I'm exhausted Jack in theory could use this to show defamation has worked even though its all sweet little lies View attachment 1265110

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,
but mostly, the abuse they are all getting will out weigh anything that jack has received since her monkeys are flying to her defense.

 

[DinosaurSenior]

I call Matthew Wright..."Matthew Shite"... Tee hee!!!

 

[Veronicaaa]

View attachment 1264975

Jack - and I say this seriously - Seek urgent help.

 

[traumatised sideboard]

Mods can we please have judge wig hats for this thread?

 

[Sideboard Bob]

Oh, I don’t think she’s seen this yet, they call her a “tattooed wench”. (not watched it all yet, I think these guys are pricks, I’m team no one , or team Fraus).