Katie Hopkins

[ffsear]

None of them cover the kind of libel or defamation we're talking about.

Let me clarify. Ffsear is saying that Hopkins' insurance (if it exists) will still cover her in this situation. If you look at any ruling on a libel case with libel insurance it's quite clear that the policies will not cover you for factual errors.

comes under Media Liability

A type of errors and omissions (E&O) liability insurance designed for publishers, broadcasters, and other media-related firms. The policies are typically written on a named perils basis and cover the following broad areas: defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of copyright, and plagiarism.

media liability coverage - Insurance Glossary | IRMI.com

 

[8den]

I just Googled "defamation insurance" and they were the first results. It's very well known and has been a thing for as long as I can remember.

What kind of defamation are we talking about then?

It's about intent. You must have car insurance policy and you pay a premiere because you're a professional driver, but if you get behind the wheel drunk, your extra premium won't give you extra coverage.

Some examples of where liability insurance has been used on TV programs I've worked on. On one show a music producer cleared a particular song, however when it came to the mix, by accident, the same song by a different artist was used. Once you can demonstrate that you did not malicious intent to use the song without paying for it, your insurance covers the cost.

In the Hopkins instance, she said something demonstrably untrue, about a recognised person, and furthermore was given ample opportunity to retract the claims.

See this

My libel victory underlines the need for journalists to check their facts | Sarah Thornton

 

[8den]

[

comes under Media Liability

A type of errors and omissions (E&O) liability insurance designed for publishers, broadcasters, and other media-related firms. The policies are typically written on a named perils basis and cover the following broad areas: defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of copyright, and plagiarism.

media liability coverage - Insurance Glossary | IRMI.com

Did you read that before copying and pasting it.


"errors and omissions"

This insurance will cover you for accidental instances of all of the above, the clue is "errors"

If you accidentally plagiarise, if you accidentally breach copyright, accidentally breach privacy, if you accidentally defame someone.

If an overworked sub editor puts up the wrong photo next to the wrong headline and you accidentally accuse an innocent man of murder, your insurance company will only stop laughing at you long enough to show you the door out of his office. You're paying for that. If your sub editor got his photo from the official police incident report, then your insurance will cover you.

Or try, say, sampling the Beatles, and then try and use your copyright/plagiarism insurance. Or take photos up Kate Middleton's skirt and try and use your insurance to pay for the invasion of privacy legal team.

 

[Spymaster]

It's about intent. You must have car insurance policy and you pay a premiere because you're a professional driver, but if you get behind the wheel drunk, your extra premium won't give you extra coverage.

Some examples of where liability insurance has been used on TV programs I've worked on. On one show a music producer cleared a particular song, however when it came to the mix, by accident, the same song by a different artist was used. Once you can demonstrate that you did not malicious intent to use the song without paying for it, your insurance covers the cost.

In the Hopkins instance, she said something demonstrably untrue, about a recognised person, and furthermore was given ample opportunity to retract the claims.

See this

My libel victory underlines the need for journalists to check their facts | Sarah Thornton

Ok, but none of that negates the fact that it's possible to insure against defamation claims.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

 

[ffsear]

[


Did you read that before copying and pasting it.


"errors and omissions"

This insurance will cover you for accidental instances of all of the above, the clue is "errors"

If you accidentally plagiarise, if you accidentally breach copyright, accidentally breach privacy, if you accidentally defame someone.

If an overworked sub editor puts up the wrong photo next to the wrong headline and you accidentally accuse an innocent man of murder, your insurance company will only stop laughing at you long enough to show you the door out of his office. You're paying for that. If your sub editor got his photo from the official police incident report, then your insurance will cover you.

Or try, say, sampling the Beatles, and then try and use your copyright/plagiarism insurance. Or take photos up Kate Middleton's skirt and try and use your insurance to pay for the invasion of privacy legal team.

No.

Errors and omissions is a "class" of insurance that contains a wide range of different policies. The same way that Cargo and Hull both come under the "Marine" class of insurance. That does not mean they insure the same thing.

You're taking it word for word. Its a little more complicated then that.

 

[8den]

Ok, but none of that negates the fact that it's possible to insure against defamation claims.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue.

I'm pointing out that ffsear claim's that IF Hopkins was sensible enough to invest in this insurance (and if she was sensible enough to invest in it, she would have been sensible enough not to do something like this in the 1st place) it still wouldn't indemnify her in this case.

 

[8den]

No.

Errors and omissions is a "class" of insurance that contains a wide range of different policies. The same way that Cargo and Hull both come under the "Marine" class of insurance. That does not mean they insure the same thing.

You're taking it word for word. Its a little more complicated then that.

No it's not. The principal here is "duty of care". Hopkins completely failed in her duty of care as a "journalist" by not making a cursory effort to fact check what she tweeted before she wrote it. Furthermore it's compounded by the injured party repeatedly pointing out the error. That's what her alleged insurers would say to her while they tore up their non-existant contract.

 

[Spymaster]

No it's not.

He's right though.

You are misunderstanding what is meant by Errors and Omissions Insurance.

 

[ffsear]

No it's not. The principal here is "duty of care". Hopkins completely failed in her duty of care as a "journalist" by not making a cursory effort to fact check what she tweeted before she wrote it. Furthermore it's compounded by the injured party repeatedly pointing out the error. That's what her alleged insurers would say to her while they tore up their non-existant contract.

What are you on? Duty of care relates to negligence! This is not a matter of negligence, its a matter of liable/slander. Learn the difference!

 

[8den]

What are you on? Duty of care relates to negligence! This is not a matter of negligence, its a matter of liable/slander. Learn the difference!

And no libel or insurance policy will cover you if you if it's not accidental libel or defamation through negligence.

If I wrote an article talking about "ffsear the well known dog fucker" & accidentally showed you, who (as we all know) are an entirely different ffsear, who (to the best of our knowledge) does not carnally enjoy dogs, such insurance may well apply.

However, if I wrote an article declaring you, ffsear, had been intimately aware of several neighbouring dogs and if I clearly identified you as said dog fucker. You might rightfully sue, and unless I could prove this in court, I could not show that as a journalist, I had taken my duty of care, to write what I know is true and therefore no policy would cover me.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Just to clarify, in this hypothetical case are we to take it that dog fucking is wrong?

 

[8den]

Just to clarify, in this hypothetical case are we to take it that dog fucking is wrong?

Also, the defence might argue "would an unfounded accusation of dog fucking hurt ffsear's reputation among upstanding citizens"? (in this case, the posters of urban)

 

[8den]

x

 

[DaveCinzano]

Is a rutting Bassett Hound sitting on your mouse?

 

[DaveCinzano]

‘Mouse’ is, of course, a euphemism

 

[DaveCinzano]

Not to be confused with a euphonium

 

[DaveCinzano]

You can blow the latter without ending up on a register

 

[teqniq]

It blows in a lowish register by default.

 

[xenon]

So Katie Hopkins fucks dogs?
I knew it. She seems the type. Although that might of been a different Katie Hopkins.

 

[8den]

You can blow the latter without ending up on a register

It blows in a lowish register by default.

Neither of you grasp the scale of this problem.

It's been orchestrated.

 

[xenon]

Although the famous Katie Hopkins who let's be honest probably doesn't fuck dogs, is giving a bad name to that other Katie Hopkins who did fuck a dog. It's terrible

 

[8den]

Although the famous Katie Hopkins who let's be honest probably doesn't fuck dogs, is giving a bad name to that other Katie Hopkins who did fuck a dog. It's terrible

She did promise to run through west london with a pork sausage up her arse if Khan became Mayor.

Maybe it's a fetish...

 

[DaveCinzano]

Although the famous Katie Hopkins who let's be honest probably doesn't fuck dogs, is giving a bad name to that other Katie Hopkins who did fuck a dog. It's terrible

Wait what? Who fucked the dog, the real Katie Hopkins, the fake robot one, or ffsear? Or did 8den fabricate the whole canine clusterfuck?

 

[DaveCinzano]

I'm starting to doubt there even is a dog.

What breed is this so-called dog, 8den?

 

[teqniq]

 

[8den]

I'm starting to doubt there even is a dog.

What breed is this so-called dog, 8den?

For legal reasons, the alledged dog is simply referred to as "Ms Y". Not that we're saying there is a dog. But if there was, which we aren't strictly saying there is.


Clear?

 

[xenon]

I'm starting to regret the whole Katie Hopkins Fucks dogs thing up. Not that one.


I think it was a St Bernard, consenting Saint Bernard . Not that one.

 

[teqniq]

She did promise to run through west london with a pork sausage up her arse if Khan became Mayor.

Maybe it's a fetish...

Maybe it's a sausage dog.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe it's a sausage dog.

So what you're actually saying is that the dog fucked her up the arse, in lieu of a pork sausage being stuck up there?

 

[kabbes]

ffsear, I take it back about you not knowing about insurance.

You are still wrong here though.

The standard exclusion in E&O goes along the lines of

• Malicious, dishonest, criminal or illegal acts, including intentional violation of any law, regulation, statute or ordinance

That's because it isn't intended to cover the moral hazard of you doing the fuck you want because you are covered.

Look at the exclusions in this example of a libel extension clause:

http://openspace.ace-ina.com/policy_wordings/Documentation/Policy Wordings/UK/03 Casualty/1 - Primary/PRIMARY LIABILITY CLAUSE BANK (CasPrim, medEQUIP, Offshore Liability policies)/LIBEL AND SLANDER EXTENSION - PL - L83 (to 30-04-09).pdf

Now look at exclusions b and e and tell me Hopkins would still be on coverage.

For that matter, look at conditions 1 and 3.

There is no way an insurer is paying for this.