MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) (5) At some point between the posting of that tweet and 9.47pm, the First Tweet was deleted by Ms Hopkins. (6) At 9.47pm Ms Hopkins posted the second tweet of which Ms Monroe complains (“the Second Tweet”). It was in these terms: “Can someone explain to me - in 10 words or less - the difference between irritant @PennyRed and social anthrax @Jack Monroe.” (7) At some point that evening, I infer about this time, Ms Hopkins blocked Ms Monroe. That prevented Ms Monroe from communicating with her via Twitter. (8) Later on 18 May 2015 the Claimant published the following on Twitter: “BA_DA_BOOM! It lies! It smears! It’s wrong! It panics! It blocks! It’s @KTHopkins everyone!” (With six pictures of a chicken) (9) At 22:30 on 18 May 2015 the Claimant published the following on Twitter: “Gin o clock. Cheers. God isn’t it good sweet justice when a poisonous bully gets shown up for what it is and runs runs runs away.” 18. On 19 May 2015 there was extensive press coverage of the Twitter exchanges between Ms Monroe and Ms Hopkins the previous evening. Articles were published in the Huffington Post, The Mirror, The Independent, Belfast Telegraph, The Metro, Kitsch Mix, Zelo Street, Gay Star News and Diva Mag. The overall theme of these articles is encapsulated in the Mirror’s headline: “Jack Monroe and Katie Hopkins in huge spat”. 19. A letter of complaint was sent promptly by Ms Monroe’s solicitors, Seddons. On 21 May 2015 they wrote to Ms Hopkins c/o STH Management. They said, among other things: “… the words were highly defamatory of Ms Monroe and have caused a huge amount of stress and trouble. Despite those tweets being made by Ms Penny, it is clear that you thought they had been made by Ms Monroe. Quite clearly your followers, who number over half a million, shared the confusion that you promoted and consequently Ms Monroe was subjected to a torrent of abusive and vile comment. When it was pointed out by you to Ms Monroe that you had made a mistake you decided not to take action but instead aggravated the position by tweeting (at 9:47pm)…” 20. The letter requested a correction and apology, an undertaking not to repeat this or similar tweets about Ms Monroe, payment of a “substantial donation” to a charity of Ms Monroe’s choice, and payment of legal costs. The form of correction and apology Ms Monroe wanted was spelled out: “A tweet to be sent at a date and time to be agreed, ‘I was confused about identity. I got it wrong. @MsJackMonroe I’m sorry. I have made a substantial donation to charity at her request.’”