What I think makes the difference between Katie Hopkins apologising and "getting away with it" is that she seems to have made a negligent mistake about the identity of the person, which is easy to retract, and she was offered an opportunity to retract and apologise, which she declined to do, whereas Bercow had not made a mistake about the person involved and wasn't asked to apologise but to .
A factor in the "getting away with it" is what steps you've taken to rectify the situation once the person you have made a comment about has complained. IIRC that's a factor that any judge is going to be interested in. If Katie Hopkins had immediately retracted the tweet, publically said she was mistaken, undertaken to be more careful in future and used her time on LBC or her Daily Mail column to uniquivocally set the record straight then a trial judge is likely to ask Monroe what her problem is and suggest to her that her complaint has been answered in full and speedily. The relatively low damages are also a problem - a not huge loss to a not huge reputation and a situation where the complainant didn't seem very hurt or upset or suffering from consequential loss.
Try suggesting that Bastard, Inc (a Delaware corporation), the owners of Wholesome Goodness Food and Drink (Scotland) Ltd, have deliberately poured toxic waste in to the River Spey and their CEO Mr Bastard McBastard the Third laughed when he saw the cost savings and see how far your apology gets you.
Or try suggesting that Bastard McBastard the Third sexually assaulted you in private when you were 17 and auditioning for his film, Toxic Whisky Galore. Would you like to repeat your (unfounded) allegation in public and be sued for millions or would you like to sign this NDA, pocket $100k and leave dozens of other innocent and vulnerable teenagers to their fate?
Re: Katie Hopkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow
What I think makes the difference between Katie Hopkins apologising and "getting away with it" is that she seems to have made a negligent mistake about the identity of the person, which is easy to retract, and she was offered an opportunity to retract and apologise, which she declined to do, whereas Bercow had not made a mistake about the person involved and wasn't asked to apologise but to .
A factor in the "getting away with it" is what steps you've taken to rectify the situation once the person you have made a comment about has complained. IIRC that's a factor that any judge is going to be interested in. If Katie Hopkins had immediately retracted the tweet, publically said she was mistaken, undertaken to be more careful in future and used her time on LBC or her Daily Mail column to uniquivocally set the record straight then a trial judge is likely to ask Monroe what her problem is and suggest to her that her complaint has been answered in full and speedily. The relatively low damages are also a problem - a not huge loss to a not huge reputation and a situation where the complainant didn't seem very hurt or upset or suffering from consequential loss.
Try suggesting that Bastard, Inc (a Delaware corporation), the owners of Wholesome Goodness Food and Drink (Scotland) Ltd, have deliberately poured toxic waste in to the River Spey and their CEO Mr Bastard McBastard the Third laughed when he saw the cost savings and see how far your apology gets you.
Or try suggesting that Bastard McBastard the Third sexually assaulted you in private when you were 17 and auditioning for his film, Toxic Whisky Galore. Would you like to repeat your (unfounded) allegation in public and be sued for millions or would you like to sign this NDA, pocket $100k and leave dozens of other innocent and vulnerable teenagers to their fate?