Katie Hopkins

[Spymaster]

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 ...

To coin a cliché, this post should be taken out and shot!

... she's a nasty, vicious shitcunt.

Agreed.

 

[weltweit]

I just checked out Hopkins's twitter feed, the court decision doesn't seem to have slowed her output, she is still churning it out, presently attacking the "Ginger Dwarf of the North" ..

 

[DaveCinzano]

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

 

[8den]

I just checked out Hopkins's twitter feed, the court decision doesn't seem to have slowed her output, she is still churning it out, presently attacking the "Ginger Dwarf of the North" ..

Best to ignore her from now on. She's desperate for attention to pay her fees.

Worse case scenario if she does become destitute over this, I'm sure Jack Monroe can offer her some budget catering tips. (nicked off some clever sod off twitter)

 

[DotCommunist]

I just checked out Hopkins's twitter feed, the court decision doesn't seem to have slowed her output, she is still churning it out, presently attacking the "Ginger Dwarf of the North" ..

safe behind the Mails massive massive libel fund.

 

[Spymaster]

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

I don't need to. A couple of posters here have been claiming that there's "no way" that defamation insurance (assuming she had it) would cover her costs. That might be the case, but so far nothing has been posted here to categorically support that claim.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Im no exeprt, but im pretty sure that you cant get insurance to cover the potential legal costs of you deliberately cunting someone off on the internet - anymore than you can get health insurance to cover the medical bills resulting from deliberately setting fire to your own bollocks.

 

[Spymaster]

We'll have reached a sorry state of affairs if we can't have a bunfight on a Hopkins thread!!!

 

[brogdale]

safe behind the Mails massive massive libel fund.

Exactly; the cost of brand building and (Overton) window moving. Would probably be tax deductible if they pay any.

 

[killer b]

Im no exeprt, but im pretty sure that you cant get insurance to cover the potential legal costs of you deliberately cunting someone off on the internet - anymore than you can get health insurance to cover the medical bills resulting from deliberately setting fire to your own bollocks.

I'd imagine most private health plans would cover self-harm wouldn't they?

 

[Treacle Toes]

I just checked out Hopkins's twitter feed, the court decision doesn't seem to have slowed her output, she is still churning it out, presently attacking the "Ginger Dwarf of the North" ..

Of course she's keen to pretend that this case hasn't bothered her in the slightest. I don't believe her for one second.

 

[8den]

I don't need to. A couple of posters here have been claiming that there's "no way" that defamation insurance would cover her costs. That might be the case, but so far nothing has been posted here to categorically support that claim.

No ffsear claimed that everything would be covered by her liability insurance, and I said there's no insurance that would cover that type of libel, and we got a few links to general media insurance policies who clearly state they wouldn't cover this.

 

[8den]

I'd imagine most private health plans would cover self-harm wouldn't they?

That'd be under mental health.

This would be like if Hopkins' was a doctor and she stabbed someone and then expecting her medical insurance to cover it.

 

[Spymaster]

No ffsear claimed that everything would be covered by her liability insurance, and I said there's no insurance that would cover that type of libel ...

You said that but you didn't evidence it. So far it's just a claim made by 8den on the internet. You also didn't qualify what you meant by "that type of libel".

... and we got a few links to general media insurance policies who clearly state they wouldn't cover this.

I missed those. Can you quote the relevant bits.

 

[teqniq]

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?

It was merely speculation ociffer, honest.

 

[Pickman's model]

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

yes, an experienced barrister would be "similar"

 

[Spymaster]

yes, an experienced barrister would be "similar"

Probably. They do go on to define it as someone "to be mutually agreed upon by the insured and the company".

 

[8den]

You said that but you didn't evidence it. So far it's just a claim made by 8den on the internet. You also didn't qualify what you meant by "that type of libel".
.

In that it will cover libel and defamation where it is shown to be accidental or in that journalist made a genuine error while showing due care and attention.

 

[existentialist]

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

She probably didn't feel she had a choice. 1, because she doesn't strike me as someone who would find it easy to deliver a wholehearted mea culpa, and 2. because if she may have felt that if she backed down on this, she'd be forever backing down.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It was merely speculation ociffer, honest.

Of what breed was the speculated-upon dog?

 

[Wilf]

Only on urban, part 94:

Only on urban could you find a discussion of journalism and insurance intertwined, double helix fashion, with an exploration of sex with out canine chums.

 

[Libertad]

Only on urban, part 94:

Only on urban could you find a discussion of journalism and insurance intertwined, double helix fashion, with an exploration of sex with out canine chums.

And hide the sausage.

 

[Wilf]

And hide the sausage.

I think that if you check your policy exclusions...

 

[Spymaster]

In that it will cover libel and defamation where it is shown to be accidental or in that journalist made a genuine error while showing due care and attention.

It was clearly accidental initially. She thought it was someone else. That's the absolute epitome of "an accident"!!!

 

[Spymaster]

She probably didn't feel she had a choice. 1, because she doesn't strike me as someone who would find it easy to deliver a wholehearted mea culpa, and 2. because if she may have felt that if she backed down on this, she'd be forever backing down.

And 3. the lawyers said she could win.

 

[8den]

It was clearly accidental initially. She thought it was someone else. That's the absolute epitome of "an accident"!!!

She made no effort to verify her source or identify Munroe before making her accusation, she failed her duty of care.

 

[8den]

And 3. the lawyers said she could win.

And they did.

 

[Spymaster]

She made no effort to verify her source or identify Munroe before making her accusation, she failed her duty of care.

Now you're just making stuff up. Kabbes posted a list of exclusions to a defamation policy, none of which would seem to prevent a claim being made in this case. You need to evidence your case with some exclusions that would, not just keep banging on about stuff that you firmly think is true.

Show me: a) what was her "duty of care"? b) how she failed in it, c) that it would preclude her claiming costs on a defamation insurance policy (if she had it) ...

With links and stuff, rather than just thumping the table.

 

[Spymaster]

She made no effort to verify her source or identify Munroe before making her accusation, she failed her duty of care.

You keep saying this!

Show me a policy clause where it defines and excludes "failing in duty of care" with respect to defamation. Is it even legally defined?

 

[Spymaster]

She made no effort to verify her source or identify Munroe before making her accusation ...

But she did subsequently admit that she was wrong.