Katie Hopkins

[Hibbyradge]

She was sued by Jack Monroe and she lost. Monroe wins £24000, but Hopkins' also has to pay Montoe's legal costs.

I'm not sure which legal firm she used, but they're costing Hopkins £300k. On top of that there will be Hopkins' own legal fees.

I considered posting this in the good news stories thread, but it's even better than that.

[lyonhibs]

She was sued by Jack Monroe and she lost. Monroe wins £24000, but Hopkins' also has to pay Montoe's legal costs.

I'm not sure which legal firm she used, but they're costing Hopkins £300k. On top of that there will be Hopkins' own legal fees.

I considered posting this in the good news stories thread, but it's even better than that.

Who's Jack Monroe??

Either way, great news. Had "sued" been replaced by "shot" we'd have been looking at a Carlsberg Friday immediately.

[Hibbyradge]

QUOTE=lyonhibs;4973113]Who's Jack Monroe??

Either way, great news. Had "sued" been replaced by "shot" we'd have been looking at a Carlsberg Friday immediately.[/QUOTE]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Monroe

[RyeSloan]

Maybe Obama should do the same to Trump!

[Pretty Boy]

I was about to post my usual 'just ignore her' when I read what she says but this is good news.

[snooky]

Who's Jack Monroe??

Either way, great news. Had "sued" been replaced by "shot" we'd have been looking at a Carlsberg Friday immediately.

:agree: I'm having a "David-Gray-header" moment here :greengrin

[wpj]

Great news, obnoxious idiot who thinks she is relevant.

[Scouse Hibee]

Who's Jack Monroe??

Either way, great news. Had "sued" been replaced by "shot" we'd have been looking at a Carlsberg Friday immediately.

Who's Katie Hopkins?

[Colr]

Who's Jack Monroe??

Either way, great news. Had "sued" been replaced by "shot" we'd have been looking at a Carlsberg Friday immediately.

She makes **** food but is poltical about it.

Pseudo working class lesbian. Sort of like a Chicken George for the chattering classes.

[johnbc70]

Horrible woman who deserves everything she gets. I can't work out if she really is that bad or if it's all an act to make headlines and therefore publicity and ultimately money for herself.

[Hibrandenburg]

Horrible woman who deserves everything she gets. I can't work out if she really is that bad or if it's all an act to make headlines and therefore publicity and ultimately money for herself.

Bit of both, she's an odious human being and used that in her business model. Problem is, to stay ahead of the game she constantly needs to increase the outrage caused by her statements. It can't and won't end well for her.

[CropleyWasGod]

Great news, obnoxious idiot who thinks she is relevant.
The thing is, she IS relevant. The fact that she is given airtime, and that people react (this thread being an example) , are a reflection of her relevance.

We may not like it, but her persona (genuine or professional troll) is a reflection of modern society and its soundbite culture. As such, she is very relevant.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[northstandhibby]

Bit of both, she's an odious human being and used that in her business model. Problem is, to stay ahead of the game she constantly needs to increase the outrage caused by her statements. It can't and won't end well for her.

Its all about 'Shock-jock' sensationalism for the likes of Hopkins. The US has had them for many years. Its all very controlled and connived with the callers chosen beforehand and the 'Shock-jock'ensures its combative and belligerently hawkish in nature instead of moderate reasoned debate.

I suppose one has the choice of listening or not, certainly not my cup of tea but hey ho two in a row!!!

glory glory

[snooky]

To think I used to like her. She's gone right downhill since "Those Were The Days".

[Hibbyradge]

To think I used to like her. She's gone right downhill since "Those Were The Days".

I think you're a bit muddled. Those were the days was Anthony.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think you're a bit muddled. Those were the days was Anthony.
Him that was in Psycho?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Him that was in Psycho?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Nah, that was Norman.

[Future17]

She was sued by Jack Monroe and she lost. Monroe wins £24000, but Hopkins' also has to pay Montoe's legal costs.

I'm not sure which legal firm she used, but they're costing Hopkins £300k. On top of that there will be Hopkins' own legal fees.

I considered posting this in the good news stories thread, but it's even better than that.

No chance.

[Hibbyradge]

No chance.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-legal-bills-cost-300000-high-court-battle-jack-monroe-war-memorial-vandalism-a7623636.html%3famp


:dunno:

[ronaldo7]

Simply Brilliant. Whilst extracting the urine from Hopkins, they're raising cash for the Trussell trust.

https://t.co/hF9XAzVDbH

[johnbc70]

Simply Brilliant. Whilst extracting the urine from Hopkins, they're raising cash for the Trussell trust.

https://t.co/hF9XAzVDbH

For once I am liking one of your links! Horrible woman.

[Future17]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-legal-bills-cost-300000-high-court-battle-jack-monroe-war-memorial-vandalism-a7623636.html%3famp


:dunno:

Fair play (and obviously I can't really argue without evidence) but I'd be amazed by that. That would be £150,000 per side (on average) for a £24,000 case. That equates to 500 billable hours at a £300 hourly rate (notwithstanding counsel's involvement).

For a case which is, on the face of it, so straightforward, those amounts are outrageous and raise big questions about access to justice for all.

[Hibbyradge]

Fair play (and obviously I can't really argue without evidence) but I'd be amazed by that. That would be £150,000 per side (on average) for a £24,000 case. That equates to 500 billable hours at a £300 hourly rate (notwithstanding counsel's involvement).

For a case which is, on the face of it, so straightforward, those amounts are outrageous and raise big questions about access to justice for all.

The Sun reckons Hopkins' liability might top £500k.

"After a hearing Mr Justice Warby ruled in Monroe’s favour, finding the tweets caused Monroe “serious harm”.

He awarded her £16,000 damages for the first tweet and £8,000 for the second.

Ex-Sun columnist Hopkins was also ordered to pay £107,000 of Monroe’s costs in the next 28 days.

Yet legal blogger David Allen Green said Monroe’s lawyers will be claiming a total of more than £300,000.

Hopkins will also have to pay her own lawyers’ fees, which are likely to match that sum."

Also, she has been ordered to pay tfe first £107k to Monrie's sokicitirs in the next 28 days.

I've no idea how legal fees are calculated, but I do know that the plebgate libel case incurred around £3 million in fees. I was expected that Mitchell would have to pay "only" £1.5m because he engaged his solicitors on a no win no fee basis.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about access to justice for all.

[RyeSloan]

Fair play (and obviously I can't really argue without evidence) but I'd be amazed by that. That would be £150,000 per side (on average) for a £24,000 case. That equates to 500 billable hours at a £300 hourly rate (notwithstanding counsel's involvement).

For a case which is, on the face of it, so straightforward, those amounts are outrageous and raise big questions about access to justice for all.

Legal fees are ridiculous and this is just another example of why there is no such thing as justice for all, no where near it.

If you have deep enough pockets you can use the courts, if not tough luck.

There is of course little demand for change as the vested interests that benefit from this cozy situation have a powerful voice in the corridors of power.

[Smartie]

Whilst I'm happy and chuckling at the thought of Hopkins' misfortunate there is a slightly unnerving side to it.

Unfortunately there is an appetite for the kind of bile she spews forth, and I can only imagine what she'll be like having to work hard to earn upwards of half a million quid's worth of legal fees.

We might be about to get subjected to a whole lot more of her poison.

[snooky]

Whilst I'm happy and chuckling at the thought of Hopkins' misfortunate there is a slightly unnerving side to it.

Unfortunately there is an appetite for the kind of bile she spews forth, and I can only imagine what she'll be like having to work hard to earn upwards of half a million quid's worth of legal fees.

We might be about to get subjected to a whole lot more of her poison.

She might be tempted to keep it in the jar now though. :take that

[Future17]

The Sun reckons Hopkins' liability might top £500k.

"After a hearing Mr Justice Warby ruled in Monroe’s favour, finding the tweets caused Monroe “serious harm”.

He awarded her £16,000 damages for the first tweet and £8,000 for the second.

Ex-Sun columnist Hopkins was also ordered to pay £107,000 of Monroe’s costs in the next 28 days.

Yet legal blogger David Allen Green said Monroe’s lawyers will be claiming a total of more than £300,000.

Hopkins will also have to pay her own lawyers’ fees, which are likely to match that sum."

Also, she has been ordered to pay tfe first £107k to Monrie's sokicitirs in the next 28 days.

I've no idea how legal fees are calculated, but I do know that the plebgate libel case incurred around £3 million in fees. I was expected that Mitchell would have to pay "only" £1.5m because he engaged his solicitors on a no win no fee basis.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about access to justice for all.

I'm not massively surprised about Hopkins' legal fees, as I would imagine she has insurance in place to mitigate the cost of this type of legal action. Monroe's fees, on the other hand, I just can't wrap my head around. I don't know anything about her, but to get into something like this with a potential liability of circa £600,000 if unsuccessful seems crazy.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not massively surprised about Hopkins' legal fees, as I would imagine she has insurance in place to mitigate the cost of this type of legal action. Monroe's fees, on the other hand, I just can't wrap my head around. I don't know anything about her, but to get into something like this with a potential liability of circa £600,000 if unsuccessful seems crazy.

It does seemike a big risk. I guess they would have agreed a "no win, no fee" deal with their legal team. As they're a journalist, they may also have insurance, but most likely, would have known that they were almost certain to win.

Read their Wikipedia page. It'll explain why I'm using non gender specific language.

[speedy_gonzales]

It does seemike a big risk. I guess they would have agreed a "no win, no fee" deal with their legal team. As they're a journalist, they may also have insurance, but most likely, would have known that they were almost certain to win.

Read their Wikipedia page. It'll explain why I'm using non gender specific language.
Sort of wish I hadn't now! In her own words she's a "lefty, liberal, lezzer cook" and "genderqueer". Having what I thought was a healthy D&I awareness this individual does seem to be have been through it all. I can't think of too many transgender people that go through with childbirth as well, that must have been a huge pressure on them and indirectly led to their life of poverty.

[Hibbyradge]

Sort of wish I hadn't now! In her own words she's a "lefty, liberal, lezzer cook" and "genderqueer". Having what I thought was a healthy D&I awareness this individual does seem to be have been through it all. I can't think of too many transgender people that go through with childbirth as well, that must have been a huge pressure on them and indirectly led to their life of poverty.

Are they poor? :dunno:

[speedy_gonzales]

Are they poor? :dunno:
They claimed to be, that's how the first book started. Perhaps their poverty was relative to their upbringing,,,,

[21.05.2016]

Vile woman who makes a living from spouting her hate-filled and bigoted views. Everybody is entitled to their opinion but its like she goes out of her way to be as controversial as possible. As horrible as she is, I actually don't think she means some of the things she says, she just wants to say things that will provoke the most reaction to get herself into the spot light. Best thing would be for the media to blank her and stop giving her the attention she so badly craves.


I cringe when I listen to her. So far up her own arse and a witch that for some reason believes she is better than everyone else.

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40057165

Broadcaster Katie Hopkins is to leave her show on LBC "immediately", the national talk radio station has said.


After Hopkins made the comments, another LBC presenter, James O'Brien, described on air the "shame" he felt about sharing a platform with her
.
He called Hopkins "a monstrous self-publicist" who "employs the most vile of thoughts and language in a desperate attempt to stay relevant and get noticed".


i think that's the best description anyone can describe of this vile woman :agree:

i wonder which other media outlet will sign her up next (apart from mail online)

[snooky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40057165

Broadcaster Katie Hopkins is to leave her show on LBC "immediately", the national talk radio station has said.


After Hopkins made the comments, another LBC presenter, James O'Brien, described on air the "shame" he felt about sharing a platform with her
.
He called Hopkins "a monstrous self-publicist" who "employs the most vile of thoughts and language in a desperate attempt to stay relevant and get noticed".


i think that's the best description anyone can describe of this vile woman :agree:

i wonder which other media outlet will sign her up next (apart from mail online)

I tend to agree with Mr O'Brien's assessment.
Spot on.

[wpj]

Apparently she is on Fox news tonight to explain why we need a Trump in Britain odeous old boiler

[ronaldo7]

It seems that some others at LBC were rather overjoyed at the news.:greengrin

There were "massive cheers and applause" in the newsroom after confirmation was received that she would be leaving, according to Amol Rajan, the BBC's media editor.

[lyonhibs]

I still maintain that the only time I really want to see that creature's name in press is immediately adjacent to the phrase "maimed by tiger" or similar.

However, this is a start.

[Mr White]

I still maintain that the only time I really want to see that creature's name in press is immediately adjacent to the phrase "maimed by tiger" or similar.

However, this is a start.

There might be an animal cruelty aspect to that though. I'd settle for "shot into the centre of the sun" or "crushed by falling piano" for some suitably macabre yet cartoonish karma.

[weecounty hibby]

She is a horrible excuse for a human being. Although I absolutely agree with freedom of so each it should really be accompanied with an IQ test. Well done for LBC dumping her. It's just a pity that some more of the more right wing media will keep allowing her to spit her bile.

[easty]

She is a horrible excuse for a human being. Although I absolutely agree with freedom of so each it should really be accompanied with an IQ test. Well done for LBC dumping her. It's just a pity that some more of the more right wing media will keep allowing her to spit her bile.

She got the job at LBC by being the very person she was eventually sacked by them for being. If that makes sense.

[grunt]

She got the job at LBC by being the very person she was eventually sacked by them for being. If that makes sense.


Well done for LBC dumping her. Indeed. No praise due to LBC at all, IMO. She's hateful, and she gives licence to others to spout their own hate. What a society we've become. Sad.

[heretoday]

Columnists like her and Kelvin Mackenzie sort of perform a role in the media though, don't they? They're spouting hate all the time until they, themselves, become hate figures and have to be got rid of to save their employers' faces.

They're richly rewarded. They obviously keep a lot of readers happy and sell papers etc. So it's just a matter of time before someone else steps up to fill their roles and continue the pattern.

[grunt]

Columnists like her and Kelvin Mackenzie sort of perform a role in the media though, don't they? They're spouting hate all the time until they, themselves, become hate figures and have to be got rid of to save their employers' faces.

They're richly rewarded. They obviously keep a lot of readers happy and sell papers etc. So it's just a matter of time before someone else steps up to fill their roles and continue the pattern.What does that say about life in the 21st century? We richly reward people who spout hate. God help us all.

[WeeRussell]

The word c***, personified.