Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Katie Hopkins

Sort yourself out fella. The point was you referred to the words of a stones song, and in the context of referring to a woman's perceived beauty/age I thought it poor on the grounds of they being a mysogenistic group of multimillionaires who wrote some very poor taste lyrics. Just move on, as this must be boring for others
Yeh, and in the course of doing so you've included a strawman and a number of lies. Perhaps you could recognise this, apologise, and move on. Also, the only people I've met said fella are plod. Catch yourself on.
 
So does time, which the rolling stones observed could destroy a woman's face
This is the piece I was talking about, , is when you quote the stones about time destroying a woman's face, I think that is retro sexist shite, illustrated by the photo of wizened old Keith Richards a man that time has also not been kind to. It's the point of - what relevance is Hopkins looks to anything?
I don't really know what you're going on about, so end of this from me
 
Yeh, and in the course of doing so you've included a strawman and a number of lies. Perhaps you could recognise this, apologise, and move on. Also, the only people I've met said fella are plod. Catch yourself on.
Plod??? What you on about ? things have moved on from Dixon of dock green. But from where I come from, we don't accuse eachother of being a "straw man" whatever the fuck vocabulary that is either. Plod. - it makes me think of some old Ealing comedy. And no I'm not old bill
 
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?
 
Nonsense. The initial comment didn't, it simply observed that Hopkins looks older than she is. That's not judging her, it's a factually accurate observation of the type made daily by millions without comment. The only judgement made was subsequently by existentialist who suggested that hate aged people, but that didn't seem to bother anyone.
Oh yeah, context-free observation with no overtone of suggested humour, judgement or any other actual reason to make the comment. Absolutely, mate.
 
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?

She's been ordered to make a downpayment on the costs pending a decision on the full amount. The lawyers are asking for 300k, according to a tweet.
 
Oh yeah, context-free observation with no overtone of suggested humour, judgement or any other actual reason to make the comment. Absolutely, mate.
Agree with you entirely, there's no place for comments on her appearance regardless of how much of a monster she is - and regardless of willing she is to be personal about all kinds of people (Ebola nurses, Bob Crow, take your pick). I'm pretty certain I've made comments about Trump's hair, is that any different? Probably, yes, I think so. It goes to his vanity and the way his extreme self regard has morphed into a project that will fuck the poor of America and beyond. But then have I/we been thinking that every time we've taken the piss, probably not. As always, its about context and blurred lines - however there's no conceivable way Hopkin's appearance should have come into this discussion.
 
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?
Yes, but Hopkins' lawyer lost so that means that Monroe's did win and the fee becomes due.
 
let's just sit back and remember the big picture.

Hopkins has been shown to be an idiot and it's probably going to cost her a third of a million pounds.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha.
 
I don't understand the claims of £300k+. According to the Guardian's story this morning, all lawyers were on no win, no fee. So Hopkin's own costs will be zero and Munroe's will be whatever she has been awarded, no more (i.e. £104k). Unless I've missed something out?

I read it as neither Hopkins nor Monroe would have to pay their own lawyer's fees if they lost as both sides were confident that costs would be awarded if they won, therefore Hopkins has to pay Monroe's lawyer's fees. Presuming Hopkins' lawyers weren't so confident in winning that they didn't offer to underwrite the costs of losing...

So £24k damages. And costs of £100k for now whilst they work out the full costs that are due.
 
This is the piece I was talking about, , is when you quote the stones about time destroying a woman's face, I think that is retro sexist shite, illustrated by the photo of wizened old Keith Richards a man that time has also not been kind to. It's the point of - what relevance is Hopkins looks to anything?
I don't really know what you're going on about, so end of this from me
You jumped in here looking for a barney.

You've been shown up about the brown sugar lyrics you quoted so gleefully. You've been shown up putting words in other people's mouths. You haven't looked at the context of the post.

Perhaps you could simply apologise and we can all move on. Don't bother replying and we'll just take it as read that you regret your dishonesty.
 
I'm sure Monroe's lawyer was on the case.
Man that's a shit excuse, how did she pay so much for such shit legal advice?
Surely a decent lawyer would have said "probably should just give five grand to charity and say sorry"
How do you know that isn't exactly what the lawyer recommended?
 
Back
Top Bottom