A reminder that you are responsible for what you post on NSC and tweet.

[redoubtable seagull]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The £24K damages seems paltry compared to the costs the judge has awarded. £107K.

That's £131K just to insult someone!!

£65.5K per tweet! Ouch.

[fataddick]

The 107k costs is what Hopkins has to pay inmediately. The remainder will be due once all costs have been calculated. Monroe's lawyers have already said the final total will be over 300k. That's just Monroe's costs - Hopkins' own costs will presumably be similar. Overall cost (damages plus both sets of costs) to Hopkins of that tweet will likely be between 500k and 800k, ie around 25% of her total (2.75m) net worth. It's worth noting that Monroe was willing to settle out of court for 5k and an apology but Hopkins turned it down like the idiot she is. PS why are people using 'she' and 'her' when referring to Monroe? Jack is non-binary transgender and the personal pronoun 'they'/'their' is the correct one to use.

[Swillis]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

PS why are people using 'she' and 'her' when referring to Monroe? Jack is non-binary transgender and the personal pronoun 'they'/'their' is the correct one to use.

FFS, she's a woman. Non binary transgender, what a load of bollocks!

[maltaseagull]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is good advice. Can you help further with some (hypothetical) examples relevant to NSC that are "emotive" and would also approach the line that Katie Hopkins crossed...?

"Defamatory" is the key, isn't it? How does that get defined and used in theory and in practice?

Some of the political discussions may need to be reviewed.
some very dodgy insults from the left wingers.

[vegster]

Is it ok to say that Theresa May is a duplicitous, brainless and soulless automaton ? just checking like,

[Theatre of Trees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The £24K damages seems paltry compared to the costs the judge has awarded. £107K.

That's £131K just to insult someone!!

What is more Hopkins actually intended to insult somebody else. The costs are the price of her ego refusing to contemplate she was wrong.

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

AS much as Katie Hopkins was due something like this given her approach to Twitter, Jack Monroe didn't exactly arrive at the High Court like some naive Twitter innocent. She was guilty herself of some pretty disgusting Tweets that were every bit as defamatory and hurtful as Hopkins and was extremely lucky that her target never sued her.

So let Monroe's 'victims' sue. (Why haven't they?) Personally I had a good laugh that Hopkin's nasty bullying shite has cost her over £100K. The judge told her not to publish 'fake news' . . . . I nearly crashed the car, laughing, when I heard that, on R5, on he way to the game this afternoon. 'Alternative facts' schurely, m'lud?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some of the political discussions may need to be reviewed.
some very dodgy insults from the left wingers.

Really? Is loony a left winger?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

FFS, she's a woman. Non binary transgender, what a load of bollocks!

Move with the times. We are what we want to be.

[JC Footy Genius]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

JC? Do you mean our lord and saviour Jesus Christ?

He's a regular on NSC, just has a different username.

Not that different