Katie Hopkins puts her foot in it again!

What a depressing microcosm of 21st century life.

Katie doesn't seem to have resolved to lead a quiet life from now on - judging by that Virgin Mary picture - so I don't think that we've heard the last of her!

Freedom wrote:Katie doesn't seem to have resolved to lead a quiet life from now on - judging by that Virgin Mary picture - so I don't think that we've heard the last of her!

I'm trying to work out who she reminds me of in that picture. Can't put my finger on who it is exactly, but it's definitely a bloke....

Freedom wrote:Katie doesn't seem to have resolved to lead a quiet life from now on - judging by that Virgin Mary picture - so I don't think that we've heard the last of her!

Hopefully not.  She can't have been too bothered, she didn't even attend court.



How depressing is it that you cannot speak anymore, everything has to be politically correct, no one is allowed to voice their strong opinions.  What the hell constitutes an 'upsetting' tweet, is calling someone' a cow' upsetting, is calling someone a liar in anger upsetting - yes it is and there is some awful stuff out there, but where do you draw the line.  Admittedly KT's tweet was below the belt, but you either battle it out or you ignore, just like you would playground bullies, this suing people is totally ridiculous, aimed at making the lawyers money and shutting down free speech....   I fear where all this is going.

I've got it now. It's Brad Pitt when he had long hair.

I reckon this will certainly increase Katie`s popularity when you take a look at that `Jack` character.

The `Jack` person and reminds me of the ugly feminists marching against Donald Trump. No doubt Jack`s reputation will go up in that community.

I find Katie Hopkins funny and articulate - she says what I and many others are thinking in a way that gives impact. She has a marvelous way with words, but this time made the mistake of getting two people muddled up and unfortunately it was a `Jack` person with loads of tattoos, wacky hair, a desire for fame and part of `that` community who just love to shout and protest about anything and everything.

It's a pity that she didn't apologise for her mistake as this should have stopped the matter from going any further.

It's ridiculous though that something as comparatively trivial as this can be deemed to be worth thousands of pounds in compensation.

I know all about the militant feminists, Mimi. My son has a real bee in his bonnet about them at the moment. I have had to reassure him that I don't in any way support them!

I suspect that Hopkins' ego prevented an apology.
The compensation is fairly trivial. It's the legal fees that are the killer.
As the loser, Hopkins quite rightly has to pay these.

but this time made the mistake of getting two people muddled up

She made an even bigger mistake in not apologizing. She won't be able to afford to do that too many times. If someone, no matter who, or company 'suffers' from an untrue statement then s/he/it has every right to pursue and collect correction and 'damages': Mimi and Candyfloss, can't you imagine any situation where an untruth was said about you that you would pursue to correct - for example, someone posted publicly in a newspaper that you had a well-known sexual deviancy appalling to most people? (and I'm most certainly NOT suggesting you have! )

And I don't accept that a new century or technology means that previously-accepted principles should automatically be discarded: The advent of the internet and Twitter are no more important than the advent of the printing press or radio and television.

I do of course hope that Katie continues her campaign against the McCanns - after all she cant libel them for something they've done, can she.

Mimi wrote:I reckon this will certainly increase Katie`s popularity when you take a look at that `Jack` character.

The `Jack` person and reminds me of the ugly feminists marching against Donald Trump.  No doubt Jack`s reputation will go up in that community.

I find Katie Hopkins funny and articulate - she says what I and many others are thinking in a way that gives impact.  She has a marvelous way with words, but this time made the mistake of getting two people muddled up and unfortunately it was a `Jack` person with loads of tattoos, wacky hair, a desire for fame and part of `that` community who just love to shout and protest about anything and everything.

Was everyone marching "ugly" Mimi? Bit of a sweeping generalisation. And judging Jack by his appearance is very judgemental.
We have all been quick to condemn a certain guy from Harlow who got the wrong person and rightly critical of the harm done to his reputation, yet Katie H who is only outspoken because she makes a living from it should be allowed to get away with it.
The law is there to protect people from spurious allegations whether we agree on the level of damages or not. Free speech yes but with it comes a responsibility to be truthful and accurate.

Yes, but how can you define 'substantial harm' - it depends where it is read, how many people and whether they believe it anyway.

Here is a guide to twitter users......

Twitter users: A guide to the law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257

chirpyinsect wrote:
Was everyone marching "ugly" Mimi? Bit of a sweeping generalisation. And judging Jack by his appearance is very judgemental.
We have all been quick to condemn a certain guy from Harlow who got the wrong person and rightly critical of the harm done to his reputation, yet Katie H who is only outspoken because she makes a living from it should be allowed to get away with it.
The law is there to protect people from spurious allegations whether we agree on the level of damages or not. Free speech yes but with it comes a responsibility to be truthful and accurate.

I meant ugly in personality - there were probably nicer ones amongst them. See the very ugly Ashley Judd :-



To survive in life one has to make judgements - nothing wrong in that.  Nothing wrong in being able to discriminate - it is essential for survival and indicates what to steer clear of.

But I agree Katie Hopkins went over the top in calling someone a social anthrax.

I see Katie Hopkins being discredited again. So, everyone is not afraid, pull the other one, of course they are, any human being would be afraid, it is only human nature.

Now tell me again who spoke out recently in a well known case, and tell me, who owns Fox news - can I phone a friend.

Londoners hit back after Katie Hopkins 'insults Britain' by saying people are afraid in wake of terror attack in interview on Fox News

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-attack-katie-hopkins-slammed-for-saying-brits-are-afraid-and-disunited-a3497151.html

The "we are not afraid - we'll stand together" platitudes that come out every time there is a terrorist attack annoy me.

Maybe it's to remind us of the British "stiff upper lip" stereotype in times of adversity.

It is perfectly normal and acceptable to be scared witless!

I live and work in London. I wouldn't say I was scared but it is natural to be very wary. The main thing when an incident like this happens is you hope it's a one off and not part of a series of attacks.

The fact is life does have to go on and people still have to go to work etc. After 7/7, I changed from travelling to work on the tube to using the overground for around 6 months.

But there's certainly nothing wrong with being scared and many people are and avoid travelling into Central London unless absolutely necessary.

Under fire again!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/katie-hopkins-faces-backlash-for-comments-about-prince-william-and-harrys-mental-health-campaigning/ar-BBA4rnu?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout

What a stupid, insensitive cow she can be. William and Harry were little boys when they lost their beloved mother. They have been trained to keep a stiff upper lip to the detriment of their mental well-being. Thank goodness they have spoken out and perhaps it will be a step forward in the approach to mental health for the millions of people who suffer at some point in their lives.
KH just has to be controversial. It's what she does. Shame she has to take away from the courage it takes to admit you have had problems.

I totally agree Chirpyinsect. My daughter is on the autistic spectrum and she developed a very debilitating form of OCD when she was fourteen,  I think due to the stress of school were understanding of difference was poor and she became isolated. He is trying to raise a hugely important issue, schools need to be more than just exam factories and one thing we need to do is help young people to understand how important it is to talk openly about our emotions and not feel stigmatized. So I'm with you, he is raising awareness and that's a good thing. Shame on you KH.

Oh dear she has got the sack from LBC.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/controversial-broadcaster-katie-hopkins-axed-from-radio-show-on-lbc-a3549411.html

Katie Hopkins axed from radio show on LBC after 'final solution' tweet in wake of Manchester attack

Controversial broadcaster Katie Hopkins has been axed from LBC, the radio station has said.

On Friday LBC announced they and Ms Hopkins, 42, have agreed that she will leave the radio station immediately.

The media personality and columnist has in the past sparked outcry with comments over terrorism and Islam as well as for remarks mocking Russell Brand, princes William and Harry and Jack Monroe.

Despite always being known for her controversial views, the backlash peaked last week when she called for a "final solution" following the Manchester attack.


More on link and video...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/controversial-broadcaster-katie-hopkins-axed-from-radio-show-on-lbc-a3549411.html