Yesterday evening, after a long day’s travelling and attending meetings, Zelo Street repaired to a prestigious central London address to enjoy a few drinks, take in some small but perfectly formed canapés, and chat on a variety of subjects to some of the other attendees. As there was a significant number of lawyers in the room, there was inevitably some reaction to the latest pontifications of pro-am motormouth Katie Hopkins.
Viewers may want to look away now
Ms Hopkins, having proved too poisonous even for the Super Soaraway Currant Bun, and then having lost Mail Online several hundred thousand pounds in damages and costs after a family she targeted in one of her columns instructed Messrs Carter, Ruck to take the publication to the cleaners, finally came personally unstuck when writer and campaigner Jack Monroe sued her over two defamatory Twitter excursions.
But by yesterday, Hatey Katie had decided that she had been wronged: as the BBC has reported, “Speaking on Radio 4's The Media Show, she said the bar has been set ‘too low’ after being sued for libel by food writer Jack Monroe … The TV personality went on to say that a ‘new world of defamation law’ had been opened up and she felt very strongly about appealing against the decision”. This was weapons grade bullshit.
Jack Monroe - sound person
The only world of defamation law that she saw opened up was the one which already existed: the only new thing about it was that it was applied to her. Oh, and TV personality my arse - to fulfil that job description, you need a personality in the first place.
Back at Ms Hopkins’ comments, Press Gazette has a fuller version of her pronouncements: “I will not be changing the way that I operate on Twitter [as a result of the ruling]. I will be looking to try to appeal this judgement because I believe the defamation bar could be far higher … Where it now stands, the bar is too low. Where it currently sits after this judgment, which is pertinent to my good self, is far too low”.
Pertinent to her good self. Good to see Ms Hopkins still has the same worldview - the one that extends only as far as Herself Personally Now. This, and her total lack of self-awareness, were typified by her also telling “I would prefer that that’s how we operate on social media, in a grown up manner”. Starting with Herself growing up a little.
So, after all that, what was the totally off-the-record, unattributable and non-binding opinion of a legal eagle with a good understanding of the Monroe v Hopkins case? Would Hatey Katie be appealing? In a word, no she wouldn’t. In a few more words, the idea was totally lacking in credibility, it wasn’t going to happen. Ms Hopkins had more pressing matters.
What those? Well, for starters, there was the question of costs. Taking the amounts she will have to pay to Mx Monroe and their team, damages, and the costs of her own side, Katie Hopkins is likely to be on the hook for around £650,000. Appealing would merely expose her to a far bigger legal bill.
When the Evening Standard claims “Katie Hopkins 'very likely' to appeal against Twitter libel ruling”, forget it. And, press people, try not calling that “Celebrity News”. Because she isn’t one.
I heard this interview on the way home in the car and it just sounded like so much bluster. All the questions she was asked were followed by so much diversion, she must have been taking lessons from Kellyanne Conway.
Looks like Krusty Flopkins will be short of a few bob in the next couple of years does anyone know of a decent cookbook full of meals for a couple of quid a go that she could use to help feed her children through this difficult time?
Well, I, and I would guess quite a few others, don't find her appealing. At all.
"I will not be changing the way that I operate on Twitter"
Errrrm... about that: http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/katie-hopkins-apologises-to-southend-news-network-for-fraud-allegation/
Seems she will be changing the way she works on twitter by quickly retracting false statements.
Just think, any money she might have made from her "book" will now, more than likely, be going to the Lawyers and to Jack Monroe... Happy days... laughing out very loudly.
As a self-proclaimed "public figure," will Katie Gobshite be publishing her tax returns?
If she can afford to cough up 650 big ones it raises some interesting questions......
A bar-room lawyer writes: Sensible and sane people who are going to appeal a judgement say so but generally do not comment further for the obvious reason Katie sailed very close to the wind to repeating the defamation by her inferences. And she did it on radio.
The costs of an appeal alone will be similar to her defense costs and there isn't a lawyer in town who would touch an appeal without cash up front.
I would assume lawyers for the plaintiff would also demand Katey pay into court, as is often done in these cases, at least the costs to date and also demand she prove she could cover all costs if she lost an appeal. Thye may even demand a lien on any property she owns.
Katie is finding that libel is for the very very rich and that isn't here right now.
I was surprised the plaintiff took the action in a case I thought difficult to win but good for her. She has struck a blow against hate.
There will be no appeal.
This made "my goodself" laugh. What numpties these so called celebrities are. How "oneself" wishes being famous for being famous had existed when "onesself" was younger so "my good self" could have taken advantage
Evening Standard had a double-page spread interview with/about her today. Strange lady. You do idly wonder what her children make of it all.
It's on the ES website if anyone feels they must.
Post a Comment