Jack Monroe #304 Very middle class

[Malkiavelli]

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…

 

[Ninch55]

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

Was she looking in a mirror when she tweeted that?

 

[colouredlines]

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…

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.

 

[Lazarus]

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.

She identified as a woman with a biro more recently than NB, no?

 

[Ninch55]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YES

View attachment 1264902

Just beautiful

 

[Captainmouse]

She has a whole legal team?

Brambly mice?

 

[jordishaw]

The 'buy me a house' glee from Jack last night was very risky, because a surprising number of people who still regard Jack as having taken down Hatie Kopkins and thus a good thing believe that Jack donated the winnings to charity (specifically, refugee charities) because that's what they said they would do.

 

[Captainmouse]

I would put money on LJC thanking her lucky stars tonight. Talk about dodging a bullet. An atom bomb

FTFY

 

[Fruitjack]

Surely she’s got a big kickyball game to be excited about?

 

[Griftymcgriftface]

Woke up thinking I imagined the whole chaos from yesterday but I haven’t.
I’m looking forward to the bit in the trial where the socks get exposed.
My money is on Chelsea fan sock being a definite
Someone mentioned they think there id a Scottish themed one too.

 

[Terrible]

She’s really only well known now because of the KH trial, and she’s not as well known as she thinks she is. Twitter fame has only got her this far after all this time - its opened doors, certainly, got her DKL and Patreon, and a flurry of donations last night, but none of that is sustainable. There’s screenshots now so she can’t delete. Can’t produce the VBI, or her tax returns, or tell us where the Teemill money is, can’t deny her begging and her lies and her bad tempered late night rants and deletes and shopping sprees. Can’t delete evidence of high paying jobs (or magic up any evidence of all the good works she’s supposedly done). Her flying monkeysquiggs (sycophants and psychopaths, her words m’lud) probably aren’t going to support her forever, and I don’t think Lorraine is going to buy her an orangery.

 

[Geetbo]

She very obviously doesn’t realise that if Hopkins had turned up at court she probably would have lost.

 

[Fruitjack]

The problem is, that so many people quite rightly hate Fox et al, and they’ll automatically be on her side. So even though they’ve never heard of her she’ll get loads more followers and fans and they won’t be forensic about her.

 

[It’s The Truman Show]

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.

What goes around comes around and the KH case strangely will also be the undoing of JM. The sheer arrogance since she won that …..

 

[BubbleDuck]

Brambly mice?

 

[Griftymcgriftface]

As an NI frau I remember Arlene Foster’s defamation trial against Dr Christian and the reasons she won such a large pay out.
She didn’t go onto twitter drawing attention to it and gloating about how many views and what she would do with the money etc
Her legal reps asked for it to be deleted which was ignored.
He then proceeded to refuse to engage properly with the courts but did play the mental health card when challenged.
his mental health claims were refuted by his own pod casts and behaviour online.
If I remember correctly He has now tired to grift from the LGBT community I I believe for an appeal, trying to play up against Arlene’s old party (DUP) links

 

[heretoreaditall2019]

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

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.

The tweet ID of the deleted tweet soliciting PayPal donations for her case is/was 1525181671351496704. The canal has everything scraped so let us know if you need it huns

What’s the saying all pigs rolling around in swill? They all deserve each other. The idea Jack could be made a millionaire out of this is laughable. She’s absolutely obsessed with other people’s money, why not go and earn some of your own hun?!

ETA - looking up the tweet by ID here (https://www.bram.us/2017/11/22/accessing-a-tweet-using-only-its-id-and-without-the-twitter-api/) it still appears, but I can’t see it on her profile? How odd…?

 

[GoLando]

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.

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.

 

[Cucumberthunder]

View attachment 1265184

Is that the winter fuel allowance squig?

 

[Lumpyspaceprincess]

How do we think her printer ink is keeping up?