Katie Hopkins

[Treacle Toes]

In all the legal cases I've been involved with, I've never had a lawyer claim more than an 80% chance of winning even when they have said it is open and shut. To refuse a £5k payment to charity (£2k of which can be reclaimed in tax!) in the face of a genuine libel case coming your way is just insanity.

Arrogance and entitlement.

 

[brogdale]

i presume her contract with the Mail would have included any costs involved in opening the Overton window on behalf of the fascists.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

In all the legal cases I've been involved with, I've never had a lawyer claim more than an 80% chance of winning even when they have said it is open and shut. To refuse a £5k payment to charity (£2k of which can be reclaimed in tax!) in the face of a genuine libel case coming your way is just insanity.

The whole £5k could have been written off against tax, it's just an operating expense. She's lodged herself with HMRC as a journo, so she can probably write the whole £300k off too, but to do so of course you need to have the dough in the first place and at the end of the day it's still money clean out of her shitcunt pocket.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Just said on the radio she is going to fight it , take it further
Mind it did come from a caller on a phone in LBC
This seems the way of it now brexit and Gina miller house of lords/commons etc , Trumps "plans" being over ruled etc
Any do twitter ? any good

I think to have grounds for appeal she would have to show that the original trial was faulty in some way - evidence misrepresented/withheld from defence, m'leaned friend was pissed when he gave his summing up. So not going to happen basically. Its completely difference to Gina miller thing - that was a dispute over interpretation of the law - this was over weather jack munroe had been libelled.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Arrogance and entitlement.

Hubris? What hubris?

 

[kabbes]

The whole £5k could have been written off against tax, it's just an operating expense. She's lodged herself with HMRC as a journo, so she can probably write the whole £300k off too, but to do so of course you need to have the dough in the first place and at the end of the day it's still money clean out of her shitcunt pocket.

I'm not particularly familiar with business tax write-offs, but doesn't it amount to the same thing? I.e. A reduction in her profit, which would save her about £2k? (Except £1k because I forgot she will be paying corporate tax rates, not PAYE).

 

[Treacle Toes]

Hubris? What hubris?

Funny. I saw a interview with yianno-cunt today where he stated he was doing God's work.

 

[DaveCinzano]

She's lodged herself with HMRC as a journo, so she can probably write the whole £300k off too

Well, this from HMRC suggests definitely not the £24k.

7. Legal and financial costs

Accountancy, legal and other professional fees can count as allowable business expenses.

...You can’t claim for:

• ...fines for breaking the law

 

[maomao]

Well, this from HMRC suggests definitely not the £24k.

Did she 'break the law'? It was a civil matter surely.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Well, this from HMRC suggests definitely not the £24k.

I'm not particularly familiar with business tax write-offs, but doesn't it amount to the same thing? I.e. A reduction in her profit, which would save her about £2k? (Except £1k because I forgot she will be paying corporate tax rates, not PAYE).

Depends how she's set herself up. If she is a ltd company or an LLP then the company pays. Even if she's only employee/shareholder.

The bosses of Audi,BP etc. did not have to pay billions out of their own pockets. More's the pitty...

 

[kabbes]

Depends how she's set herself up. If she is a ltd company or an LLP then the company pays. Even if she's only employee/shareholder.

The bosses of Audi,BP etc. did not have to pay billions out of their own pockets. More's the pitty...

But it still comes back on her, because if she is the only shareholder then she's the only one taking the hit for the company's loss of earnings. Unless it's enough to declare bankruptcy for the company, of course.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

But it still comes back on her, because if she is the only shareholder then she's the only one taking the hit for the company's loss of earnings. Unless it's enough to declare bankruptcy for the company, of course.

Doesn't matter, if it is a Ltd or LLP she's an employee of her company, her employee has fucked up and saddled the outfit with a cost.

If that is the case it is still her money, just her untaxed dosh, which is still hers.

Hopefully she'll be a sole trader, in which cash she'll have to pay tax on the money before paying the fine.

Either way, I've not met even multi millionaires who wouldn't be pretty fucking upset at £300k being thrown down the pan.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Did she 'break the law'? It was a civil matter surely.

A libel can be criminally defamatory, and besides the law is not only the criminal law but also the civil.

 

[Southlondon]

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.

What a plum you are

 

[Pickman's model]

What a plum you are

Yeh. But at least I'm not a liar

 

[ViolentPanda]

The knives round the heart give me an idea

Pfft.
They gave me a boner!

 

[teqniq]

 

[DaveCinzano]

From yesterday but only just seen it:

 

[albionism]

Doubt The Mail will bail her out,having done so
previously for her talking vile shite.
Mail pays out £150,000 to Muslim family over Katie Hopkins column

 

[existentialist]

Doubt The Mail will bail here out,having done so
previously for her talking vile shite.
Mail pays out £150,000 to Muslim family over Katie Hopkins column

There's a difference: the Muslim stuff was in a column posted in their vile rag; this bollocks was posted directly to Twitter by the hate-filled bag of bile herself.

 

[killer b]

They won't bail her out because they didn't publish the libel, that's all. They didn't pay last time out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Spoof fundraising page 'for Katie Hopkins' legal fees' raises thousands for food banks

 

[ffsear]

She will be covered by Personal liability insurance.

 

[existentialist]

She will be covered by Personal liability insurance.

I've never had a good look at such insurance, but my suspicion is that you will be expected to exercise some level of due care to minimise risk. I wouldn't be surprised if such a policy had a provision requiring you to minimise the insurer's exposure by, for example, settling at a suitable point in proceedings. It certainly won't be a licence to play fast and loose with the libel laws and only involve the insurer when it's all gone south.

 

[kabbes]

Yes, at the very least the insurer would expect to be consulted during the process. It's very unlikely they would accept her turning down an offer of 5k!

Insurance may not even cover libel anyway.

 

[killer b]

There is now way this would have ended up in court if insurance had any involvement. Not the faintest chance.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Anyone who'd cover Katie Hopkins for libel damages is a total idiot tbh. You don't give insurance against stuff that's more likely to happen than not.

 

[Spymaster]

Defamation insurance to defend claims does exist but I reckon there'd be a clause enabling the insurer to cut someone lose if they turn down a settlement offer and then lose the case.

 

[not-bono-ever]

If Katie shitkins does not have PI cover, then she is fucked. If She did have PI cover - which given her *job* is pretty important - then she would not have been allowed to proceed with the case unless the insurer backed it and had a say in any costs accrued- these things are never open ended - given the opportunity to settle a measly £5K to avoid going to court would have been far more efficient for an insurer - its about a days work invoice for a QC.

I don think she had PI backing for this case- I cannot see any sensible insurer opting to back her for a hugely damaging and expensive hearing when it is blates obviously that she was bang to rights.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

In the same way that you have life assurance rather than insurance as you can't insure against an inevitable event, surely Hopkins can't have any kind of defamation insurance, her whole thing is defaming people.