It's unpleasant (as I suspect Ms Monroe is), but is it libellous?
Is there a specific untruth it is telling, or is a matter of opinion?
Ms Monroe won her case because - basically - Katie Hopkins thought she was someone else and carelessly made the assertion that she had been involved in, or publicly condoned, the desecration of the memorial. Libel needs specificity.
So, I can say that David Cameron is a windbag and a cancer on society and that the way he used his son to gain sympathy sickened me. But those are just my opinions. I can't libel someone with those.
Oh, I agree. I haven't been following the libel case, and I don't think Katie Hopkins is any more pleasant than Jack Monroe. I'm just suspicious of the latter's rise to prominence. I find it difficult to believe that a talented and resourceful person can't find a way to ensure her son is well fed. Nutrition in infancy and childhood is so important - poor food and not much of it when young could seriously blight someone's future health.
Comments
new thread