And I love the lot of you - frauen, herren, therren, lads, guys - Sir, Madam, Neuter (Kryten quote!).
Have been active online since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and I have never met a nicer bunch of people. Can't believe that we all get on, no matter the political spectrum/individual beliefs etc, no drama and everyone is respectful. I love you, you mendacious, nefarious ninnies!
I actually like the way the piece is written. It makes her sound like a narcissistic knob. I especially like ‘The police, she says, have advised her…’ I imagine the ‘she says’ was written with a roll of the eyes. Maybe I just think that because she is a narcissistic knob though
Police - "Ms Monroe, we see no evidence of a crime being committed here, there's no role for us. If you're that concerned, we suggest you hire your own protection".
Jack - "The police have advised me to hire a bodyguard".
I would eat a pumble and some overnight tinned carrot oats, if that's not how that actually went.
This is actually a very very interesting article in a lot of ways, particularly as you can tell the journalist thought she was a complete tit so challenged her on a few things and just let her to run her mouth off. it’s full of nonsense, pettiness, unpleasantness and downright lies. She comes across as a right arse.
There’s some pretty damning stuff in here, some of it a bit upsetting re her son and pets, so click with care.
Writer and cook Jack Monroe has turned politician, standing as an independent. She talks Labour’s future, the PM’s punk wardrobe and dating with Rosamund Urwin
www.standard.co.uk
PS It’s also very clear from this why she didn’t say a word when her local MP was killed in his constituency.
Ok my dudes, I’ve had a chance to have a quick read through the judgment. Spoilering for length and because this is OLD NEWS to some/for anyone who wants to skip past. Apologies for any typos and Yankee Doodle dandy spelling of words I didn’t catch. On my telefono typing
So this is from the Judge’s summary. The Hopkins/Penny stuff actually kicked off the day before this. This is where KH brought Jack into it (Note Jack’s behaviour here- anything look familiar?!)Jack demands that KH deletes the tweet, massively amplifies it, keeps gloating and pushing the issue. Note that KH did in fact delete the first of her two tweets about Jack and eventually posted a super perfunctory tweet @ Jack into it and saying she got it wrong but not apologizing. Legal case proceeded from here.
Dodgy claims and deletions
So (again, anything sounding familiar?!) as part of her case for harm and therefore damages, Jack claims to have received a “torrent” of vitriol including “vile and abusive comments” and “death threats” as a result of KHs Tweets. Here’s the thing though; these types of tweet have “for the most part have been deleted”.
Therefore, Jack produced little evidence of this. She provided “a selection of abusive tweets” some of which the judge notes were clearly nothing to do with KHs posts, and others of which seemed “unlikely” to have been so. So basically she struggles to produce much in the way of abusive tweets and what she does cobble together the Judge isn’t buying that it’s to do with KH.
Jack’s own Twitter had inconveniently thrown any evidence (or not) of these mystery abusive tweets into the North Sea deleted these types of tweet (or not, everything had been deleted it was impossible to know if it had ever been there in the first place- or not) by Jack setting up a deletion function then “forgetting about” it. The judge notes this.
Jack also makes claims about the large of people who saw KHs tweet/commented/retweeted it etc, but as she demanded KH (and KH actually did) delete this tweet, the judge does note all the analytics info and evidence is lost.
Damages, more deletion
Ultimately, as you know, Jack won a relatively small judgment, £24,000 total. (the Judge notes max possible was £300,000). Basically, the Judge notes here that part of the issue is with the way “the defence has been conducted”, ie if KH had given a fuck and shown up to testify/engaged with her defence team appropriately in any part of the case, or actually said sorry long before it got to court, things might have been different. As has been noted elsewhere here, the Judge also comments that this should have been resolved long before it got to court (and not wasted a shit ton of time and money). Nobody came out of this looking good, though in the aftermath, in the eyes or people who exalted Jack for ‘sticking it to’ Hopkins she became a bizarre lefty hero.
The Judge had the below to say at the very end. (note here’s the ref to KHs analytics I described above). Judge is clearly unimpressed with Jack though. “Difficulties over disclosure” of evidence ESPECIALLY ON JACK’S SIDE. Judge doesn’t go into whether they think that was deliberate or not “I am not able to attribute responsibility for that on the basis of the evidence, and I do not”, but says that regardless, litigants are responsible for producing evidence and not going on sprees to mass get rid of s whether accidentally or on purpose.
Also says attorneys need to keep their clients in line and make sure they don’t LITERALLY destroy evidence (or evidence of lack of evidence for that matter, like evidence OR NOT of alleged “abuse and death threats”)
Caveat again that my background isn’t UK law . Jack and her case come across poorly throughout. Hopkins’s was worse. MY PERSONAL TAKE is the Judge took on board that she was from a military round the edges family so KH claim was more hurtful to her feelings. Had KH bothered at any time to engage, it would not have gone that way though and should never have gone to court. Judge was clearly unimpressed with both parties.
Jack would NEVER get away with this again. She has much, much more form for threatening legal action, exacerbating situations, amplifying them to her hundreds of thousands of followers etc, exhalting in what she might win. What didn’t seem to be a pattern at the time of her continuing to poke at KH and amplify matters is certainly one these days and any legal team or Judge would have evidence of that.
Finally, she certainly hasn’t taken on board the part of the ruling that says she shouldn’t delete potential evidence. So she should be very wary of following this ‘clever playbook’ that got her to her last triumph, because it was an idiotic one.
Edit: the link to the whole ruling again so all in one place.
Just a rambling thought from an OG poor (moi) Jacks insistence that she “only rents” the big posh shitty bungalow is such a middle class giveaway for me. No one in my family other than my nan and one uncle owns a house. Not one other person. And there’s LOADS of us. If one of my family members rents a nice house and we say “ooh this is nice” the response is not “but I don’t OWN it”
Owning a house is an anomaly for most actual poors. But JM relies on this massively as Personal POV proof.
I find the whole awards thing so odd, I personally suspect that she turned up despite it being made clear that others weren’t comfortable with it. Then when she wasn’t having smoke blown up her ass by everyone else there she had a chaos.
I don’t know but I’m autistic (according to Jack we all share identical and forensic traits) and I would honestly rather flake and lose out for something I’d pre paid for than be five minutes late, just in case that made everyone there judge me, I could never walk into that place after all this shit has gone down!
There is no way I could face Tommy Fingers and his mates after I’d excused them of plagiarism.
If I put myself in her shoes (nightmare tbf) I would send someone else to collect it or thank the organisers and ask for it to go to someone else, she has absolutely no shame at all. It’s quite startling to me honestly.
Only Jack could win an award and spend the interview whining and lying about being abused to the extent she requires a bodyguard. For clarity I'm not saying she doesn't get any abuse on Twitter but the idea that there are armies of trolls hiding in the shrubs outside the shitty bungalow is a laughable narc fantasy.
Christ that Stephen Bear thread is something else. It's a shame really as he used to have quite a nice arse before he turned it into the flag of Japan.
Back on topic, I was just thinking this morning that Jack could still so easily make it all go away, all she has to do is admit she fucked up, and will make amends - the remaining squigs would still fawn over her. However, this would mean giving away some of her sweet grifted cashos, and she therefore cannot even entertain the idea.
I don’t believe she’s a drinker at all and never was. Drinkers tweets and writing are all over the shop. Hers, though very angst-ridden teenager from the 90s, are coherent, not and never were drunk shite.
Her issue, IMO, is coke. But people are more sympathetic to alcoholics than drug addicts for many reasons. So AA is a terrific shield for her, wether she attends or not.
She posted a picture of herself in a restaurant garden captioned something like 'socialising with fellowship group. Other diners were amazed we could be so raucous and having so much fun with no alcohol'.
Jack is a minor celebrity. Presumably the location was local. It would only take a couple of people at the venue to recognise her, later read her post and think 'oh hang on - wasn't so-and-so sitting with her?'
She's so full of shit. Who sits in a restaurant looking at other diners and gasping in amazement if they're not drinking? I couldn't even tell you who was or wasn't drinking at my own table when I'm out in a large group.
I was wondering if her cryptic tweet about horrendous 24 hours preceded by wonderful 24 hours might be hinting that she hit the bottle at the awards. She’d sure get a lot of sympathy for falling off the waggon, could blame the ‘trolls’ and start her journey to sobriety all over again.
Entirely possible. Or, she went round to her parents house to boast about her award and found THAT MAN in the kitchen teaching her receptive Mam how to cook perfect roast potatoes (that Fingers Kerridge was helpfully peeling), while the rest of the family clapped and cheered and Nigella called her Mam “tender one” as she watched it all on Zoom.
That or she found out that her assaulted Ian Duncan Smith adoring brother has been offered a presenting segment on Saturday Kitchen and a Guardian column. Or her “little brother” came on his weekly trip to pick up her washing and ironing for Mam to do, and when he brought it back the grey pov jumper had a massive ironing burn hole in the front.
Or, as already suggested, the shelf fell down again.
Oh, and if anyone’s wondering what to have for dinner tonight and has a spare 38p kicking around the place, The Abominable SnowCook has Saturday night sorted for you.
Sorry, I mean Saturday Night Dinner
Raw and burned broccoli, oily barley, some sort of strange semi-translucent creamy repugnance she’s claiming is raita and the saddest greasy wilted flat-as-a-pancake spring onion you’ll (hopefully) ever see. Dinner, anyone?!
ETA Jack's follower count peaked at 571.4k and has now dropped to 571.3k
She'd gained about 400 definitely organic followers in the last 24 hours
As soon as they stop pumping new ones in it starts visibly dropping
www.standard.co.uk
. Jack and her case come across poorly throughout. Hopkins’s was worse. MY PERSONAL TAKE is the Judge took on board that she was from a military round the edges family so KH claim was more hurtful to her feelings. Had KH bothered at any time to engage, it would not have gone that way though and should never have gone to court. Judge was clearly unimpressed with both parties.
has Saturday night sorted for you.
