Slashdot Mirror


Blogger Wins Libel Damages Over Columnist's Tweets (bbc.co.uk)

eionmac shares a report that details a legal battle in which a food blogger won thousands of dollars in libel damages "after a row over two tweets." BBC reports: Food blogger Jack Monroe has won 24,000 British pounds damages, plus legal costs, in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets. Ms Monroe sued the writer over two war memorial tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation. Ms Hopkins posted tweets in May 2015 asking her if she had "scrawled on any memorials recently." Ms Monroe said that meant she had either vandalized a war memorial or "condoned or approved" of it. Mr Justice Warby also ordered Ms Hopkins -- a columnist for the Mail Online -- to pay an initial 107,000 British pounds towards the campaigner's legal costs within 28 days. He ruled that the tweets had caused "Ms Monroe real and substantial distress" and she was entitled to "fair and reasonable compensation."

115 comments

  1. Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad finan by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.

  2. Re:Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do the litigants have gender confusion, or does BeauHD? Jack Monroe is Ms Monroe?

    There's a picture of Jack Monroe right at the top of the article. I don't think there is any confusion about her gender. Although she looks like her father was the Heat Mister.

  3. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    Depends... from what I hear, a lot of the Fleet Street periodicals each have a massive cash stockpile that's earmarked for nothing but libel suits (they tend to attract 'em, as you might have guessed). Maybe she got a piece of that dosh from her employer? Not entirely sure, though - it would depend on whether or not she was posting in her capacity as a columnist or not. If not, then she's likely fscked.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  4. Re:Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do the litigants have gender confusion, or does BeauHD?

    Jack Monroe is Ms Monroe? She told herself what?

    This comment is just lazy... the name of the food blog is "A Girl Called Jack".

  5. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect that Mr. Trump has approximately nothing to do with British civil courts, let alone this particular lawsuit.

    Seriously dude, let it go. Not everything in the news is orange-tinted...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. No idea who these people are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But someone who works for the Daily Mail got fucked and I approve of that.

    Captcha: Cholera. How fitting.

  7. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody should fix that. Obama should sue Trump for libel over that wiretapping tweet.

  8. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Megol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "you guys"? How about growing up and ignore posts you don't like? This story wasn't about bashing the white house madman (I can back up that characterization with facts so it isn't a biased opinion), there were only one post mentioning Trump at all (so no, "you guys" doesn't apply) etc.

  9. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

    The sad thing is that her shitty newspaper had probably come out better off from the whole affair. The Mail's main products are outrage and vitriol. Nothing like a good "snowflakes and their hurt feelings over a tweet" story that can be dragged out for years.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lost. get over it. Or are you going to bitch about this until the day you die?

  11. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    They would not have a case since in the US a person would have to reasonably believe it is true to meet the standard. IOW it can't be obvious bat shit crazy ramblings like Trump's tweets.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  12. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I suspect that Mr. Trump has approximately nothing to do with British civil courts, let alone this particular lawsuit.

    For the moment, anyway.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Re:Gender Confusion by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Not very good at English are you?

  14. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we really need you guys talking anymore? Can't we just ASSUME "smoking = CANCER" and just move on?

    Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

    This is called normalization.

  15. Re:Pronouns? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Food blogger Jack Monroe

    Yes, her name is Jack. No, she didn't used to be a guy.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  16. Re:Gender Confusion by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    The picture caption lists both names. No idea if the woman in the picture is one or the other.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  17. Snarky comments now = serious damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I weep for the future of civilization...

    1. Re:Snarky comments now = serious damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more satirical comics for the British.. Oh wait, now I get why the British have had so much strife with the French during the ages.

  18. Re:Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did you even look at the pictures on the article?

    A lot of women named Jacqueline/Jacquelyn/Jacalyn go by Jackie, Jac or Jack for short.

  19. Re:Gender Confusion by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Does the article say that? I don't see it during a quick once-over.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  20. For those who don't know... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those blissfully unaware of the existence of Katie Hopkins, she's a former UK Apprentice contestant and all-round pretty shitty human being, who now makes her living out of being "controversial," and is one of the most widely hated "celebrities" in the country. Five minutes with her would make spending the whole night with Piers Morgan seem pleasant by comparison.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re: For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as with the Victorians, the "freaks" are both more human and more moral than the gawpers and the riders of the moral high horse. People like you, for instance

    2. Re:For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A *failed* contestant from The Apprentice. The imbecile couldn't even outsmart her opponents in that window-licking contest. She's the typical sort of scumbag clickbait troll that the UK tabloids employ for their websites. I've never heard of this blogger before but if she makes the Heil think twice about employing that bile-spitting barely literate failure then she's OK in my book.

    3. Re:For those who don't know... by janfany · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't see why she can't take you to court, receive 24,000 quid and stick you with a 107,000 quid bill for that comment. It seems at least as bad as the one she made and in your case it's deliberate. But then we know the law is an ass.

    4. Re:For those who don't know... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Because it's a) my opinion (also that of many, many, many other people) and b) true.

      I can shout as loudly as I want that I think Katie Hopkins is a shit stain on the boot of humanity and has an ugly, black soul, but I would never (for several reasons, the least of which is being sued by the sour-faced shit-stirring hate-monger) suggest that she condones the desecration of war monuments, or the torture of animals, or the skewering of babies on spikes, because none of those things are true (to the best of my knowledge).

      Oh, and c), because it would probably make it ten times easier for anyone else she libels in the future to win against her in court.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, she doesn't subscribe to the wishy washy lib-left MSM nonsense and pretend uncontrolled immigration hasn't destroyed the country and the vast majority of those entering the UK do not possess skill or education and are a massive strain on the limited resources. Furthermore, she does not pander to the must not called out muslims for their hypocrisy.

      She may be a gobby cow, but she went to Sandhurst - that's a military school of excellence. Her epilepsy cost her a military careers.

      The fact a nobody "food blogger" can win £25,000 for a mis-tweet (yes, it was the wrong @) for something that existed for a few hours says more about the lib-left gen-ME snowflakes, and the UK's terrible libel laws, than a calls a spade a spade pundit.

    6. Re: For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack Monroe had a regular column in The Guardian, hardly "a nobody".

    7. Re:For those who don't know... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      For those blissfully unaware of the existence of Katie Hopkins, she's a former UK Apprentice contestant and all-round pretty shitty human being, who now makes her living out of being "controversial," and is one of the most widely hated "celebrities" in the country. Five minutes with her would make spending the whole night with Piers Morgan seem pleasant by comparison.

      She's basically a professional right wing troll, so I imagine the majority of the slashdot audience will be on her side.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re: For those who don't know... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      As "they" had a child, I think it is a pretty much given that "they" are a female. God, that pronoun use is clumsy.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  21. Re:Pronouns? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    The submission could have mentioned that. With all the gender bending in the news now, it made the post almost unreadable, because we were all trying to figure out which "Ms" it was talking about.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  22. Re:Gender Confusion by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

    Very few women go by the name "Jack".

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  23. Re:My predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3) One of them is you

  24. Re:Gender Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    If it's recognisable as a woman, it's not Katie Hopkins. She looks more like a horse.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  25. Glad I Live in America by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Talk about ridiculously thin skinned. 107,000 British Pounds for what amounts to an insult... Talk about a broken system. In the free world with freedom of speech, we tweet back "You're an ass." then block the person and move on with our lives.

    By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Glad I Live in America by jaa101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."

      The dictionary is the wrong book. Judges are going to go by the legal statutes which define what libel is. They only need to fall back on dictionaries if the statutes don't themselves define a term and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the laws of England spend pages and pages defining what libel is. I wouldn't blame the judge in this case either; the politicians wrote the laws.

    2. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, she was entitled to "fair and reasonable compensation" of 24000 pounds. Her lawyer is entitled to the unfair and unreasonable compensation of 107000 pounds :O

      $125,000 to argue about 2 tweets? Dayam, How many hours can one study and talk about a couple lines.

      Ok, the whole thing does sound kinda silly.

    3. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Need I remind you about your brave and fearless leader?

    4. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."

      British libel laws have always been this crazy, which is why they're something of a magnet for such laws.

    5. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the free world

      Sorry, I'm confused. I thought you lived in America.

    6. Re:Glad I Live in America by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the free world with freedom of speech

      You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.

      It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel

      Funny. Experts in the legal system seem to disagree with you. Which is good because you clearly don't understand how speech can be interpreted in different ways. If you think you need to explain things in perfect legalese in order to defame someone then man have you got a narrow view of how the legal world works. Careful that this doesn't bite you.

    7. Re:Glad I Live in America by janfany · · Score: 1

      I agree. Glad I no longer live in the UK, although I'm not sure that Australian judges are more sensible. Don't see why you are so touchy about people expressing their dislike of your views tho'. For the record, anyone who dislikes, disagrees with, or cares to insult me, is perfectly within their rights to do so and will receive no harm from me. I don't have to choose to get upset about it and nor should anyone else. And you may rate this any damn way you please.

    8. Re: Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexc PT of course that such a libel suit would not be won In the US

    9. Re:Glad I Live in America by Raenex · · Score: 2

      You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.

      Zero, huh? Are you really that stupid or myopic? Libel is a limit on free speech. Its damages are enforced by the government. If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said you might feel differently. But as long as the people you disagree with are getting sued and losing, you defend it.

    10. Re:Glad I Live in America by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its damages are enforced by the government.

      Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.

      If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said

      See you do know what free speech is, but you seem to not realise why it has nothing to do with this case. Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.

    11. Re:Glad I Live in America by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      She was able to demonstrate that she suffered a financial loss because of the tweets. She got 24k to cover the loss, the rest is her lawyer's fees.

      That's the law. Write something untrue that costs someone else money, and you owe them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judges will use statutes, case law, and their own interpretation.

      My guess is the UK has an act similar to one in Australia where you can't insult someone in public in various ways (yes, you do NOT have free speech in Australia, and you can be sued over someone's hurt feelings there).

    13. Re:Glad I Live in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 125,000 pounds, not dollars!

      So at 125 pounds per hour that's 1000 hours of work for this case.

    14. Re:Glad I Live in America by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      That's 125,000 pounds, not dollars!

      So at 125 pounds per hour that's 1000 hours of work for this case.

      Sounds like an old lawyer joke.

      Successful lawyer. I mean this guy is kicking his career into high gear. By the time he's 20 he has a mansion, Rolls, property in the Maldives. Everything is going great, he's now 25 and in tip top shape thanks to his workout trainers. He dies of a heart attack just before he's supposed to get married. Now he's talking to St. Peter. He says - NO Fucking way man! I'm in tip top shape and very young. Why the hell did I die right before getting married!

      St. Peter looks confused. He looks though his books... Says there must be a big mistake! For lawyers we go by your billing time. According to your billing, you must be at least 105. So how can you be just 25?

      Same thing here. I don't understand how they could award anything like this. I bet all of us have endured far worse and we get - *ZERO* Suck it up and shut up.

    15. Re:Glad I Live in America by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.

      I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.

      Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.

      Actually, beyond ignorant, I'm going to go with stupid. Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case? Where did the proceedings take place? How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?

      Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government? Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?

    16. Re:Glad I Live in America by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case?

      In a civil case? The loser.

      Where did the proceedings take place?

      In any case? No one gives a shit.

      How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?

      The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.

      Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government?

      hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.

      Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?

      Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.

      I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.

      hahahhahahahahahahahahah

    17. Re:Glad I Live in America by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In a civil case? The loser.

      So you're saying that the judge in this case is not a government employee paid salary, and not handling this case as part of his salary?

      In any case? No one gives a shit.

      Are you saying it didn't take place in a courthouse, built and paid for by the government to handle such matters?

      The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.

      Why would that be, if the government had nothing to do with it?

      hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.

      You need to look in a mirror.

      Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.

      How can this happen, if there is no government involvement? How else do you think you could be forced out of that much money by insulting somebody on Twitter?

    18. Re:Glad I Live in America by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Let me say two things clearly:

      1. Blame shifting, ignorance, deflections and a strawman does not an argument make.
      2. You are dense. Please stay out of legal topics in future since you have absolutely no idea how it functions.

      That is all.

    19. Re:Glad I Live in America by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Let me say this clearly: You are knowledgeable enough to know there's a difference between criminal law and civil law. But your knowledge is too superficial to realize that they are both government processes. That's why you won't answer my questions, because they expose your shallow knowledge like wiping away dust with a finger.

    20. Re:Glad I Live in America by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I thought even libertarians agreed that you'd have to have some sort of legal process to enforce contracts, etc?

      Whether you call it "paying tax to the government" or "a compulsory private insurance arrangement" you've got to pay for a legal system and have enforcement capabilities somewhere/somehow.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Glad I Live in America by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      That drivel may get you modded up on /. but in America, where we have freedom of speech, there is a much higher libel/slander threshold than in the UK. This is well documented and known by anyone who knows WTF they are talking about. The net result is to stifle legitimate free speech in the UK and leave it's citizens ignorant of key facts because people and the media fear lawsuits.

      http://www.npr.org/sections/pa...
      http://saperlaw.com/2010/02/24...

      Any time you can sue an entity for libel when it is not a clearly defined statement asserting fact that is demonstrably false, you reduce your freedom of speech for everyone. Libel and slander laws by definition are limits on freedom of speech. That you don't understand that that simple fact puts you squarely in the ignorant or troll category. Experts in the UK legal system may disagree with me, but the entire premise of my post is that UK freedom of speech and libel laws are substandard in quality and US freedom of speech is the gold standard that the UK should push for.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    22. Re:Glad I Live in America by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      If I were making a legal argument, you would be correct, but I am making a logical, moral argument (which highlights the brokenness of the UK freedom of speech). Laws are a reflection of moral will combined with state force. In representative government, the laws are the moral will of the people. If I lived in the UK, I would start a movement to push the government to pass laws to protect free speech similar to the freedom that Americans have. If the laws change, then the Judges will have to go by the new legal statute.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    23. Re:Glad I Live in America by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Libertarians believe in limited government, of which civil law is a part of. I'm not saying there shouldn't be government involvement, only that it's an idiotic claim to say this isn't a free speech issue or doesn't involve the government.

  26. Re: Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the other ones Wikipedia, both are complete weirdos.

  27. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by Zocalo · · Score: 2

    Not 100% sure either, but I think this is entirely on Hopkins. If she was acting in an "official capacity" and using a Daily Mail specific account then the lawsuit would have probably been brought against the paper based on past incidences of a similar nature in the UK, including one for a column of Hopkins' that was a £150k loss for the Daily Mail. Making an employer liable for what an employee does on their own personal account - even if apparently in an "offfical capacity" - seems like a slippery slope no employer - and especially not the Daily Mail with its outspoken and hate-filled staff - is going to want to even walk up to, let alone step foot on.

    It's probably no surprise that the Daily Mail doesn't seem in any rush to report on this story though; a shame, because the lies and spin they'll no doubt put on this is likely to be some of their "best" work.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  28. Re:Gender Confusion by jaa101 · · Score: 1

    A lot of women named Jacqueline/Jacquelyn/Jacalyn go by Jackie, Jac or Jack for short.

    If they went by "Jack", the name of her blog wouldn't be "A Girl Called Jack". It's like the song "A Boy Named Sue".

  29. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just until that lunatic is fired back off to civilian life

  30. Re:Gender Confusion by TWX · · Score: 0

    Other than the subject of this article, please cite two examples where "Jack" is demonstrated as a woman's name or nickname.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  31. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.

    Most of the country is glad she didn't.

  32. Re:Gender Confusion by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain why "Kelly boy" is used to refer to a girl (presumably one named Kelly)?

  33. Re: Gender Confusion by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    There is a female Jack in Riddick and in Mass Effect

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  34. Re: Pronouns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jack Monroe has spoken about a fluid gender identity quite extensively. The nickname Jack reflects that

  35. That's bullshit by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not libel, that's censorship.

  36. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You made that up. Or your prof at Trump-U did.

  37. Re:My predictions by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I'm stocky, not fat.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  38. Just. Fucking. Wow... by chaboud · · Score: 1, Informative

    The trick is that, however much of an ass she may be, the "defamer" in this case just tweeted at the wrong handle on accident. And with some language that one would really have to stretch to take to be an explicit assertion of vandalism.

    And that's libelous? And worth 24k quid? God help us.

    1. Re: Just. Fucking. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holmes was asked to apologise and pay a mere £5000 to charity. She chose not to so only has herself to blame. Sad!

    2. Re:Just. Fucking. Wow... by michael_wojcik · · Score: 0

      Yes. UK libel laws are a regressive nightmare.

  39. Re: Pronouns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta watch out for that gender fluid stuff, it's pretty toxic.

  40. Re:Pronouns? by Altrag · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with "gender bending" and everything to do with overuse of pronouns. The article would have had the same problem if her name was Susan. The parts that were confusing came after already referring to the women as "Ms. Hopkins" and "Ms. Monroe."

  41. Re:Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Ms. Hopkins will be suing you soon to recoup her losses. Your horse comment has caused her real and substantial distress and she is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation.

  42. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by janfany · · Score: 1

    What is important is that it stinks when the courts accord themselves a major lottery win for penalising some poor bugger who made a silly mistake. As for the woman (or whatever, according to some of the comments) who couldn't simply accept an apology, I can only hope that she experiences the same viciousness in her life that she's shown toward this unfortunate. Someone who is less vulnerable than her present victim. Meanwhile I hope the bloody money chokes her.

  43. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The article is about someone getting in trouble over inflammatory remarks on Twitter, it's not a Trump bash, it's topical.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  44. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Meh. I had to listen to people whine about Obama for 8 years. At least you won't have to listen to people like me whine about Trump for more than 4 years.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  45. Re: Gender Confusion by TWX · · Score: 1

    So a science-fiction movie that twists normal constraints to seem different in the future, and a science-fiction movie that twists normal constraints to seem different in the future.

    Examples of real people would be nice. I'd even accept if those real people were named after fictional universes, provided enough time has passed for a degree of public notoriety. An example of that would be the name Madison, which was inspired by the movie Splash and became a popular and common girl's name.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  46. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary bashing was a major sport on this site before the election, and even for about a month afterwards, many posts modded up and even entire stories run here. I didn't see even one comment from your side complaining about that.

  47. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attacking and trying to discredit the media inconvenient to you isn't something new.

  48. Re: Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A transgender horse.

  49. Britain hates free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The judge ruled that the tweet "meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom".

    No it doesn't. It means Hopkins said that but it was found not to be true. Hopkins walks away from this looking like a fool. Monroe has been vindicated but she does not need to be paid all that money for damage to her reputation because her reputation has not been damaged.

    This would not happen in America because of 1st Amendment protection: There has been a discussion by two public figures and the discussion has been resolved.

    Not only does Britain hate free speech, but even criticizing this verdict could see you sued by the judge and fined or jail for contempt of court.

    1. Re:Britain hates free speech by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      even criticizing this verdict could see you sued by the judge and fined or jail for contempt of court.

      No. It couldn't.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  50. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

    Hopkins revels in personal attacks and makes up her facts to fit her views. There was another libel case recently when she - and her employers - had to shell out far more than in this case.

    --
    Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  51. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

    I don't think that was the choice offered.

    --
    Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  52. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by michelcolman · · Score: 2

    I wish they'd libel me, too.

  53. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Raenex · · Score: 1

    In typical Trump fashion, he exaggerates his claims to focus attention, but the Obama administration was, in fact, investigating Trump's campaign ties to Russia. Or I guess the last 4 months of constant news coverage regarding leaks from the "Deep State" involving wiretaps and other info is just my imagination.

  54. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Raenex · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be so sure. Bush got re-elected, even though the left hated him, and he bungled the Iraq war. And very few people thought Trump had a chance of winning in the first place.

  55. Re:Pronouns? by Raenex · · Score: 0

    Yes, her name is Jack. No, she didn't used to be a guy.

    Oh noes, you just misgendered them: "Monroe, who was assigned female at birth, identifies as non-binary transgender and goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she". [2]".

    If you live in Ontario, please report your violation to the Human Rights Commission. Thanks.

  56. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    the daily mail is not media, its shit infected toilet paper

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  57. Re: If Trump has proven anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is pretty common knowledge actually.

  58. Re: Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I rally hate it what assholes speak for "half the country" fuck you!

  59. Re:Gender Confusion by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No idea if the woman in the picture is one or the other.

    The one with goat legs, horns and an inverted pentagram inscribed on her forehead is the one who works for the Daily Mail (Hopkins).

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  60. Re:Gender Confusion by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Yet WIkipedia describes Monroe as 'non-binary transgender [who] goes by singular they pronouns, rather than "he" or "she".'...? Whatever that means...still, "girl" does not appear a proper designation for people who reject their own girliness.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  61. Deceptive summary. Editors feminist-hate-baiting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Ms Monroe comes from a family with military connections - her father was in the British Army for seven years, while one of her brothers is a flying officer in the RAF. ...which paints Jack Monroe's successful libel charge on a whole different light.

  62. Re: Gender Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My female partner of 30 years is known by family and friends as Jack.
    There have been amusing times when discussing " my partner Jack" has been interpreted by some as to make me out to be gay. I can live with peoples ignorance of what is acceptable and what is not. Gave up arguing with small minded people a long time ago.

  63. Re:Gender Confusion by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    It's like the song "A Boy Named Sue".

    Or a cowboy-actor called Marion.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  64. Re:Breaking News - Apprentice failure makes bad fi by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity"

    Ha ha ha, that would have made her spit babies bones (meaning she'd have had to make a nice baby fricassee to swallow the bones ; she'd have had the recipe and materials to hand).

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  65. Re:Gender Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Did you graduate from DeVry international law school in the same class as AK Marc and Wijnowski?

    1) Thorley v Kerry (1812)

    2) Defamation Act 2013 26.2.

    3) Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  66. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The right hates Trump too. I've been registered Republican since 2008, and Libertarian Party before that.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  67. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Raenex · · Score: 1

    And yet he still get elected. He even got elected after that horrible October surprise and calls for him to step aside.

  68. Re:If Trump has proven anything... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I can't determine which is which in your characterizations, as they both apply to both of the candidates. /sarcasm

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?