Katie Hopkins

[8den]

christ urban hair splitting.

These last two pages have been about whether Hopkins

A) Had insurance.

B) Said insurance would cover her liability.

But there's no evidence Hopkins had said insurance and as demonstrated, there's no way an insurance company would feel obliged to honour Hopkins using it to cover her costs.

 

[DotCommunist]

she should take it all out in tenners then post a vid of herself bathing in it while going 'Katie's money, feels so good on mah skin' like cartman.

 

[ffsear]

But there's no evidence Hopkins had said insurance and as demonstrated, there's no way an insurance company would feel obliged to honour Hopkins using it to cover her costs.

I agree, no evidence that she actually had insurance. But i just think you'd be fucking mental to take a 22 month legal battle all the way to the high court if you didn't have insurance company picking up some of the costs. Then again, she is fucking mental

 

[8den]

I agree, no evidence that she actually had insurance. But i just think you'd be fucking mental to take a 22 month legal battle all the way to the high court if you didn't have insurance company picking up some of the costs. Then again, she is fucking mental

Oh thank god, he's beginning to get it.

Kate Hopkins had (NHS) surgery to remove part of her brain earlier this year (no really) and doctors are amazed to discover that Lobotomys appear to not effect I.Q. in either direction.

 

[Spymaster]

What do you mean by this: this case has lowered the bar regarding what constitutes "serious harm" in libel cases.

Again, read the judgement. It goes into complex detail as to what is "serious harm" and what is just 'hurt feelings'.

Which of course it doesn't as the judge quite rightly pointed out that the harm was not serious.

No, you're wrong. And so is the Guardian piece that you got that from:

In this case, however, the issues on serious harm have developed, and the evidence and argument has spawned a reasonably complex set of interlocking or overlapping sub-issues. This is mainly due to the way that the case for Ms Hopkins has been pleaded and pursued. There are no less than 11 main issues. I have reached the clear conclusion that the Serious Harm requirement is satisfied, on the straightforward basis that the tweets complained of have a tendency to cause harm to this claimant’s reputation in the eyes of third parties, of a kind that would be serious for her.

 

[Dogsauce]

I agree, no evidence that she actually had insurance. But i just think you'd be fucking mental to take a 22 month legal battle all the way to the high court if you didn't have insurance company picking up some of the costs. Then again, she is fucking mental

I dunno, suddenly everyone is talking about Katie Hopkins. Isn't that the sort of thing she wants? Probably cheap for the money as it'll enhance her profile and career. Plus she gets to play the victim, and enhance her edginess, 'the truth they don't want you to hear' and all that shite.

 

[kabbes]

Well she rejected the 5k on Twitter. Which I don't think is classed an actual claim. It would be notice of a circumstance that could give rise to a claim. Do we actually know what the claimats lawyers actually asked for when the wrote to Hopkins lawyers? I'm guessing it would have been a lot more once the lawyers (the real winners here!) got involved.

If she was insured, as soon as she received an offer of any kind, she would have had to have placed it in the hands of the insurers.

 

[killer b]

300 grand on a libel case isn't a cheap profile raising.

We probably should stop talking about her tho

 

[Spymaster]

I agree, no evidence that she actually had insurance. But i just think you'd be fucking mental to take a 22 month legal battle all the way to the high court if you didn't have insurance company picking up some of the costs.

Unless perhaps you were confident of winning and had a barrister telling you that you would.

 

[8den]

300 grand on a libel case isn't a cheap profile raising.

We probably should stop talking about her tho

Napkin maths, I think she'll need to roughly sell half a million copies of her new book just to cover the costs of this trial, which means it'd need to be one of the best sellers of the year. Unlikely.

 

[Spymaster]

If she was insured, as soon as she received an offer of any kind, she would have had to have placed it in the hands of the insurers.

Who would've told her to speak to a lawyer (QC) if she wanted to defend the action, according to the terms you posted earlier.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who would've told her to speak to a lawyer (QC) if she wanted to defend the action, according to the terms you posted earlier.

to a barrister, who may or may not be a queen's counsel. you don't have to be a qc to be a good barrister

 

[Pickman's model]

Napkin maths, I think she'll need to roughly sell half a million copies of her new book just to cover the costs of this trial, which means it'd need to be one of the best sellers of the year. Unlikely.

if there is a great shortage of toilet paper she may be onto a winner.

 

[Spymaster]

to a barrister, who may or may not be a queen's counsel. you don't have to be a qc to be a good barrister

No, but the terms that Kabbes posted earlier require the advice of "a QC or similar".

 

[kabbes]

Who would've told her to speak to a lawyer (QC) if she wanted to defend the action, according to the terms you posted earlier.

The insurers would absolutely not just leave it up to her as to whether or not she takes an offer on the table. If you have casualty insurance then once the claim is reported, the insurer effectively becomes you from a legal perspective. You give up the right to make those kind of decisions, pretty much.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Again, read the judgement. It goes into complex detail as to what is "serious harm" and what is just 'hurt feelings'.


No, you're wrong. And so is the Guardian piece that you got that from:

How on earth does this lower the bar?

I have reached the clear conclusion that the Serious Harm requirement is satisfied,

on the straightforward basis that the tweets complained of have a tendency to cause harm to this claimant’s reputation in the eyes of third parties, of a kind that would be serious for her.

Anyone reading Hopkins' tweet would be disgusted that the daughter of a Falklands veteran approves of the defiling of war memorials, which would satisfy serious harm.

The fact that the tweet was removed in a relatively short space of time meant that the level of harm that actually did result was not so serious.

Hence the relatively low award of £24k.

 

[Spymaster]

The insurers would absolutely not just leave it up to her as to whether or not she takes an offer on the table.

Of course not. They'd involve lawyers. In this case "a QC or similar".

 

[Spymaster]

Anyone reading Hopkins' tweet would be disgusted that the daughter of a Falklands veteran approves of the defiling of war memorials, which would satisfy serious harm.

A minute ago you were saying that it didn't.

... as the judge quite rightly pointed out that the harm was not serious

 

[not-bono-ever]

Why does everything have to descend to pedantry ? let us all be united in the joy of katey shitkins being publicly humiliated

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

A minute ago you were saying that it didn't.

Did you read the whole of post #765?

The fact that the tweet was removed in a relatively short space of time meant that the level of harm that actually did result was not so serious.

Hence the relatively low award of £24k.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Why does everything have to descend to pedantry ? let us all be united in the joy of katey shitkins being publicly humiliated

We have capacity for pedantry and schadenfreude, ta.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Multitasking skillz

 

[8den]

Of course not. They'd involve lawyers. In this case "a QC or similar".

Oh for fucks sake, can we just quit with the pedantic navel gazing, ffsear was wrong, and it's baffling what point you're trying to make still.

 

[DotCommunist]

Why does everything have to descend to pedantry ? let us all be united in the joy of katey shitkins being publicly humiliated

and she almost certainly not insured anyway, she's an arrogant prick who's used to talking shit about people and getting away with it. Looks like its cost her this time.

 

[Spymaster]

Did you read the whole of post #765?

Yes. It's a bollocks post that contradicts itself.

The extent of the harm is either serious (enough to satisfy the requirement) or it isn't (and the requirement, and therefore the action, fails).

There is no requirement as to HOW SERIOUS the "serious harm" should be

 

[Spymaster]

Oh for fucks sake, can we just quit with the pedantic navel gazing, ffsear was wrong, and it's baffling what point you're trying to make still.

He may have been wrong to assert that insurers would definitely be involved but nothing has been posted to categorically confirm that they weren't/aren't.

 

[8den]

So we're all in agreement that her hypothetical insurance will not cover her costs.

 

[Spymaster]

So we're all in agreement that her hypothetical insurance will not cover her costs.

I don't think we are.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yes. It's a bollocks post that contradicts itself.

No, the tweet was bad enough to cross the threshold of serious harm. The fact that the actual harm caused was not so serious was more luck than judgement. Had serious harm resulted the damages would likely have been far greater than £24k, but the judge would not let Hopkins off with no damages cos she's a nasty, vicious shitcunt.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

So we're all in agreement that her hypothetical insurance will not cover her costs.

All except spy, who I think should present us with other examples of insurance that exempt us from the consequences of our criminal behaviour.