Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Katie Hopkins

8den said:
Or shall I dumb it down a bit more?
Click to expand...
No need. I'd rather that you just do as you've been repeatedly asked and provide evidence that she would have failed in this duty of care.

I'm bored with this now and you're just blustering, so please refer to posts #803, 807, 827, and 831.
 
Spymaster said:
No need. I'd rather that you just do as you've been repeatedly asked and provide evidence that she would have failed in this duty of care.

I'm bored with this now and you're just blustering, so please refer to posts #803, 807, 827, and 831.
Click to expand...

If. Hopkins. Had. This. Insurance. She. Would. Have. Had. A. Duty. Of. Care. To. Check. If. Something. Was. True. Before. Publishing. It.
 
Spymaster said:
Prove. It.

I'd agree that she would have a duty not to knowingly libel someone but you're going much further than that.
Click to expand...

It's practically impossible to prove the negative in a case such as this, but, assuming Kabbes' sample policy is an industry standard, why wouldn't para g exclude her from cover for the tweets?
 
Spymaster said:
Prove. It.
Click to expand...

Yeah No.

I'd agree that she would have a duty not to knowingly libel someone but you're going much further than that.
Click to expand...

No that's' the cut and dry of it.

Why wouldn't this particular policy apply a duty of care to Hopkins? From the insurer's point of view that'd be lunacy, they'd be on the hook for ANYTHING Hopkins said.

A "Duty of Care" is standard legal definition, that you'll find in every insurance policy you've ever taken. Whether it's house/personal/car/libel insurance you have a duty of care to adhere to take reasonable steps when performing certain acts that may potentially harm others. It'd be extraordinary for Hopkin's contract NOT to have this.

You're asking me to prove that Hopkins' insurance, (which may or may not have had existed) has a clause in it that allows her to libel someone and she does not need to adhere to a standard principle of tort law?

You may as well ask me what unicorn tears taste like, or what dragon farts smell like?
 
8den said:
Yeah No.



No thats the cut and dry of it.

Why wouldn't this particular policy apply a duty of care?

A "Duty of Care" is standard legal definition, that you'll find in every insurance policy you've ever taken. It's a basic legal principal. Whether it's house/personal/car/libel insurance you have a duty of care to adhere to take reasonable steps when performing certain acts that may potentially harm others. It'd be extraordinary for Hopkin's contract NOT have this.

You're asking me to prove that Hopkins' insurance, (which may or may not have had existed) has a clause in it that allows her to libel someone and she does not need to adhere to a standard principle of tort law?

You may as well ask me what unicorn tears taste like, or what dragon farts smell like.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Show us a clause that equates to what you are saying, ffs! (i.e. that her "duty of care" to the insurance company extends to checking that everything she writes is true).

That's what you are arguing.
 
Show us a clause that equates to what you are saying, ffs! (i.e. that her "duty of care" to the insurance company extends to checking that everything she writes is true).[/QUOTE]

You want me to show you a clause in a document that may or may not exist?
 
8den said:
Show us a clause that equates to what you are saying, ffs! (i.e. that her "duty of care" to the insurance company extends to checking that everything she writes is true).
Click to expand...

You want me to show you a clause in a document that may or may not exist?[/QUOTE]

I want you to produce evidence that what you're saying is true and not just something that you've made up, as is my suspicion.

Kabbes produced a document that showed that if someone knowingly libels someone else they wouldn't be covered. You should be able to do something similar to support your assertion that 'if the insured does not check that what they are writing is true, they are not covered', or even simply something that defines the extent of "duty of care" in relation to defamation insurance. Or, anything close to that!!!
 
Spymaster said:
I want you to produce evidence that what you're saying is true and not just something that you've made up, as is my suspicion.

Kabbes produced a document that showed that if someone knowingly libels someone else they wouldn't be covered. You should be able to do something similar to support your assertion that 'if the insured does not check that what they are writing is true, they are not covered', or even simply something that defines the extent of "duty of care" in relation to defamation insurance. Or, anything close to that!!!
Click to expand...

But it was in her knowledge; she knew that LP had defended the desecration of war memorials; that knowledge is not negated by her sloppy misattribution to Jack Munroe.
 
8den said:
Yeah No.



No that's' the cut and dry of it.

Why wouldn't this particular policy apply a duty of care to Hopkins? From the insurer's point of view that'd be lunacy, they'd be on the hook for ANYTHING Hopkins said.

A "Duty of Care" is standard legal definition, that you'll find in every insurance policy you've ever taken. Whether it's house/personal/car/libel insurance you have a duty of care to adhere to take reasonable steps when performing certain acts that may potentially harm others. It'd be extraordinary for Hopkin's contract NOT to have this.

You're asking me to prove that Hopkins' insurance, (which may or may not have had existed) has a clause in it that allows her to libel someone and she does not need to adhere to a standard principle of tort law?

You may as well ask me what unicorn tears taste like, or what dragon farts smell like?
Click to expand...
Let's ask another legal eagle's opinion, diamond's
 
Furthermore Spymaster, Kabbes' document says:

Conditions applicable to this Extension
1. The Insured shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid Libel or Slander...
Click to expand...

The requirement to take all reasonable precautions is akin to what 8den refers to as the duty of care. Given she published without even the most basic fact check, Hopkins failed to take all reasonable precautions to avoid libel or sander, and so would have breached the first condition, meaning she wouldn't be covered if any applicable policy had similar terms (which it's alomst inconceivable that it wouldn't).
 
Last edited:
She's on the R4 media show, I don't often hear her speak (don't know why R4 is giving her air space tbh) - she's just vile isn't she! 'I think the defamation bar is as low as my labia'... She's slimy and vulgar and how the hell the presenter put up with her I don't know.
 
wiskey said:
She's on the R4 media show, I don't often hear her speak (don't know why R4 is giving her air space tbh) - she's just vile isn't she! 'I think the defamation bar is as low as my labia'... She's slimy and vulgar and how the hell the presenter put up with her I don't know.
Click to expand...
she's there as the bailiffs are waiting outside her home
 
Rutita1 said:
Hatie speaks... Self serving, self assured and full of fucking shit. Apparently on twitter it's different, cos no-one believed her.

BBC Radio 4 - Radio 4 in Four, Katie Hopkins: “The word sorry is used too much nowadays”

The bar is set as low as her labia apparently? She's going full on Milo now with such crass ohhhhhhhhhhhh aren't I edgy bollocks.
Click to expand...

'Hatie' sounds too much like 'Haiti'. Isn't fair to associate the two, the latter's been through enough as it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

likesfish
katy hopkins fails at tweeting
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
maomao
maomao
Back
Top Bottom