Are Guinea pigs rodents?All rodents are interchangeable tenderstem x
Are Guinea pigs rodents?All rodents are interchangeable tenderstem x
Much bigger than the Hopkins case...
You need to knit your ownWhy has Carlin got a hat? I haven't got a hat. This is Jollof rice all over again.
Exactly it's all nonsense. One barrister unless you have a KC and a junior. And they wouldn't necessarily be involved at this point anyway!Who has a team of barristers (multiple). I’m a legal adjacent Frau and even serial killers normally just have one. Potentially a junior if it’s a long case. But she’s launching a civil case? So for pro bono would have to be in the public interest? So high profile legal eagles are going to get involved over a Twitter spat? Who are these non-partial police officers fighting our Jackie’s corner? What are the researchers researching? I hope the poor paralegals aren’t getting paid in slop.
just ignore me anyway. It’s all bleeping bollocks. This is making me TIRED
I suspect it was her good pals Jack Daniels and Charlie Snow.Still catching up but I’m wondering if the friends she had round hers were part of a fellowship house group thing? And so then are people (like that one @Brian Butterfield knows) sort of outing themselves as AA members by tweeting that it was good to see her? Does the AA have house groups?
Did you see him on masked singer?Oh I do like Martin Kemp. He’s so smiley.
Fraus, I had to take a BUS home tonight which took almost an hour, so decided to read Tattle rather than looking at the lovely coastal view . I couldn't log in as I couldn't remember my password but when I got to this post I laughed so hard that the thirst-worthy man sitting next to me actually got up and moved. I am DEAD reading it again. @Lazarus you are fabulous.Out here doing the Lord’s work once more. This is clearly a compulsion for me; I will not be answering any questions.
Thank you.
View attachment 1899742
View attachment 1899743
View attachment 1899745
View attachment 1899746
The ultimate defence for libel/defamation is truth.Would she even have a case against Anderson anyway? He said “she’s taking money off some of the most vulnerable people in society and making an absolute fortune on [sic] the back of people.”
Is that actually a defamatory statement lol?
Dear Heart, the comments about settling the case for £5k was a criticism of Hopkins, not JackGoing back to the abuse, we should remind ourselves of the judgment in Hopkins Vs Monroe. She admitted she is addicted to Twitter and the judge said she is frequently
abusive.
View attachment 1899499
Following the judgement, she didn’t stop using Twitter and admitted in a guardian interview that she had loads of socks too
View attachment 1899505
Anyway, back to the judgement. She repeatedly alleges she received a torrent of abuse but provides zero evidence of this. She says it’s because she deletes them.
View attachment 1899506
View attachment 1899507
The judge is unimpressed by this and makes it very clear is problematic, particularly if someone is seeking to litigate in future. He also seems to imply that this could have all been avoided.
View attachment 1899514
If I were Jack’s lawyer, I would tell her that she is in danger of being perceived as a vexatious litigant
Poor thicko Jack imagines that the VILE TROLLS will all be shaking like shitting dogs at the thought of one of her team seeing their tweets and feeling the full force of the law as a result.Exactly it's all nonsense. One barrister unless you have a KC and a junior. And they wouldn't necessarily be involved at this point anyway!