Page 3 of 3
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 3:47 pm
by dyqik
pipette wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:12 pm
Her (inactive for over a year) Patreon alone is still making her (before fees) anywhere from £2,534 to £7,240
per month. That’s before any book deals, royalties, appearances, brand sponsorships and money just donated to her through PayPal.
https://www.patreon.com/jackmonroe
Before fees and expenses. Revenue to a individual's sole-proprietor business is not personal income.
£7k a month is about half of Boris's salary as PM, aside from other income.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 pm
by Stranger Mouse
dyqik wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 3:47 pm
pipette wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:12 pm
Her (inactive for over a year) Patreon alone is still making her (before fees) anywhere from £2,534 to £7,240
per month. That’s before any book deals, royalties, appearances, brand sponsorships and money just donated to her through PayPal.
https://www.patreon.com/jackmonroe
Before fees and expenses. Revenue to a individual's sole-proprietor business is not personal income.
£7k a month is about half of Boris's salary as PM, aside from other income.
Well bearing in mind Boris Johnson described the £27,500 per annum he used to get for the monthly 10 hours for his Telegraph column as “chicken feed” apparently Tories have a different view on what constitutes being rich.
I just listened to the full Lee Anderson interview- he actually says “I’m not rich she’s rich” which will be helpful for Jack’s lawyers I expect.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 pm
by Gfamily
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 pm
Well bearing in mind Boris Johnson described the £27,500 per annum he used to get for the monthly 10 hours for his Telegraph column as “chicken feed” apparently Tories have a different view on what constitutes being rich.
£27.5K would be chickenfeed, whereas he was on £275,000 annually
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:15 pm
by EACLucifer
Gfamily wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 pm
Well bearing in mind Boris Johnson described the £27,500 per annum he used to get for the monthly 10 hours for his Telegraph column as “chicken feed” apparently Tories have a different view on what constitutes being rich.
£27.5K would be chickenfeed, whereas he was on £275,000 annually
£27.5K annually for ten hours a month is an hourly rate of £229
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:16 pm
by Stranger Mouse
Gfamily wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 pm
Well bearing in mind Boris Johnson described the £27,500 per annum he used to get for the monthly 10 hours for his Telegraph column as “chicken feed” apparently Tories have a different view on what constitutes being rich.
£27.5K would be chickenfeed, whereas he was on £275,000 annually
Whoops.I wish I’d caught that within the edit window
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:17 pm
by Stranger Mouse
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:15 pm
Gfamily wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:00 pm
Well bearing in mind Boris Johnson described the £27,500 per annum he used to get for the monthly 10 hours for his Telegraph column as “chicken feed” apparently Tories have a different view on what constitutes being rich.
£27.5K would be chickenfeed, whereas he was on £275,000 annually
£27.5K annually for ten hours a month is an hourly rate of £229
Yeah I mistyped. It’s £275,000
ETA ie: over £2000 per hour
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 4:48 pm
by EACLucifer
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:17 pm
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:15 pm
Gfamily wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:12 pm
£27.5K would be chickenfeed, whereas he was on £275,000 annually
£27.5K annually for ten hours a month is an hourly rate of £229
Yeah I mistyped. It’s £275,000
ETA ie: over £2000 per hour
Yes, I was just adding that even if it were 27500, it still wouldn't have been chicken feed.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 5:10 pm
by Stranger Mouse
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:48 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:17 pm
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 4:15 pm
£27.5K annually for ten hours a month is an hourly rate of £229
Yeah I mistyped. It’s £275,000
ETA ie: over £2000 per hour
Yes, I was just adding that even if it were 27500, it still wouldn't have been chicken feed.
Well quite. Especially as it was salary rather than income into a business with needs to cover operating costs.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 6:57 pm
by bob sterman
noggins wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:52 pm
bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:42 pm
Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.
Aha thats whats bugging me.
Our libel laws are draconian, so I am uneasy at even a righteous person winning,
Yes. It's why we are such a popular destination for libel tourism.
As I wrote earlier in the thread - I think Monroe may have a pretty strong case with the "earns more than the PM" claim to the extent that it implies dishonesty on her part. And people bringing libel actions on the basis that someone has wrongly implied they are dishonest - can't see a problem with that. Doesn't make me uneasy. Nor does action of the type she brought against Hopkins - given the allegations Hopkins made.
However, when it comes to action based on the claim that someone makes money by "exploiting the poor" - given that we're talking about legal trade - it's highly subjective whether you view such trade as "exploitative". Many on the radical left would view all sorts of common commercial transactions as highly "exploitative". Viewing something as exploitative or not is getting quite close to "honest opinion" - and restrictions on the ability to describe something in those terms do make me uneasy (even if I don't share the view in this case).
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 7:23 pm
by dyqik
bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 6:57 pm
However, when it comes to action based on the claim that someone makes money by "exploiting the poor" - given that we're talking about legal trade - it's highly subjective whether you view such trade as "exploitative". Many on the radical left would view all sorts of common commercial transactions as highly "exploitative". Viewing something as exploitative or not is getting quite close to "honest opinion" - and restrictions on the ability to describe something in those terms do make me uneasy (even if I don't share the view in this case).
In this particular case, Monroe can point to public knowledge of specific actions she's taken with her work to directly help the poor, and to allow them to benefit from her work for free. That may be sufficient to overcome any reasonable ambiguity about the meaning of "exploitative", and turn this into more of a factual statement than an honest opinion that could be held by a reasonable person.
Had she not taken those steps, and instead been running e.g. paid for self-help type lectures, or selling books at food banks, then yes, it would be more likely to be construed as honest opinion.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Mon May 16, 2022 7:31 pm
by Stranger Mouse
bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 6:57 pm
noggins wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:52 pm
bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:42 pm
Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.
Aha thats whats bugging me.
Our libel laws are draconian, so I am uneasy at even a righteous person winning,
Yes. It's why we are such a popular destination for libel tourism.
As I wrote earlier in the thread - I think Monroe may have a pretty strong case with the "earns more than the PM" claim to the extent that it implies dishonesty on her part. And people bringing libel actions on the basis that someone has wrongly implied they are dishonest - can't see a problem with that. Doesn't make me uneasy. Nor does action of the type she brought against Hopkins - given the allegations Hopkins made.
However, when it comes to action based on the claim that someone makes money by "exploiting the poor" - given that we're talking about legal trade - it's highly subjective whether you view such trade as "exploitative". Many on the radical left would view all sorts of common commercial transactions as highly "exploitative". Viewing something as exploitative or not is getting quite close to "honest opinion" - and restrictions on the ability to describe something in those terms do make me uneasy (even if I don't share the view in this case).
I can’t see any court could possibly interpret the inferred meaning of “exploiting the poor” as literally anything where money changes hands from a poor person. Any can of beans at a corner shop sold to a poor person? Well obviously the shopkeeper is making their money on the backs of the vulnerable!
I really don’t think you have anything to worry about
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 2:33 am
by Millennie Al
bob sterman wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:42 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 12:52 pm
Despite Martin Daubney claiming he went to “media law school” I think someone needs to take him on one side for a few tips. I missed that he asked Jack if she can prove that she doesn’t earn more than the PM to which she has politely pointed out that she can but the she doesn’t need to because he carries the burden of proof. How can he not know this?
Absolutely - burden of proof is on the defendant in the UK.
Does anyone know how this would work at a trial? Could the defendant only rely on public sources of information? Or can a defendant get a court order for disclosure of information that could help their defence?
Civil cases have discovery (renamed disclosure in England and Wales). You can read the rules here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/199 ... rt/31/made
If you have been following the "Wagatha Christie" libel case, you'll have seen some of this in action whereby the unluckiest person in the world, Rebekah Vardy, had an IT expert who lost the password securing the copy of her laptop data, and when Rooney's team pointed out that no password was needed, found that the vital data was corrupted (
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ial-begins). Also Vardy's husband's WhatsApp account was hacked, losing his copy of any messages, and her agent accidentally dropped her phone in the sea, losing access to her copy of any messages on it. In the absence of such terrible luck, all that material would have been disclosed and any that was relevant might have been presented in court. See also
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... libel-case
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 2:36 am
by Millennie Al
El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 5:57 am
(you've heard of a "joke", right? It's a thing where people say something often misleading, in order to raise a laugh).
An intriguing idea. But it'll never catch on. On the Internet, there's nothing you can say that is too crazy to be believed by someone, and there is nothing so crazy you can read and be sure it wasn't intended seriously.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 1:07 pm
by snoozeofreason
If Monroe isn't as rich as her detractors claim, then she should probably be cautious about suing for libel, because it can be an expensive business. Even if she gets a lawyer to act on a "no win no fee" basis - as she did in her suit against Katie Hopkins - she may still end up having to pay money she hasn't got, because such deals are not always as risk free as they sound (for one thing, if you win, there is a fee, and it may not be covered by the eventual settlement).
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 3:56 pm
by tom p
f.ck me, this thread exemplifies everything that is bad about this place.
Sometimes, chaps, if you know absolutely f.ck all about a news story, then it's best to say nothing at all
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 5:40 pm
by Stranger Mouse
If anyone is wondering what Jack says she earns from her book sales she says it averages about 15p per copy but I don’t know if she’s joking
https://twitter.com/bootstrapcook/statu ... gjc-ZkR8Pw
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 6:03 pm
by discovolante
snoozeofreason wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 1:07 pm
If Monroe isn't as rich as her detractors claim, then she should probably be cautious about suing for libel, because it can be an expensive business. Even if she gets a lawyer to act on a "no win no fee" basis - as she did in her suit against Katie Hopkins - she may still end up having to pay money she hasn't got, because such deals are not always as risk free as they sound (for one thing, if you win, there is a fee, and it may not be covered by the eventual settlement).
She could get after the event insurance cover, which is about as fun to deal with as it sounds and not entirely risk free, but if we're speculating then well, it's an option.
And if I was her I wouldn't instruct a solicitor who didn't cap their success fee well well below 100%.
Re: Lee Anderson
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:09 pm
by Woodchopper
Royalties of 7.5%-10% per copy look plausible.
But in general and not referring to her at all, successful authors can make money from a wider variety of activities, eg speaking fees at events, appearance fees on TV etc. Few authors actually make a good living solely from writing books.