Katie Hopkins puts her foot in it again!

31 December 2014 Last updated at 13:01

So, is this tweet criminal, should the police be involved, or is it ok to say such things......



 













Katie Hopkins tweets on Ebola examined by police



Personally it's not nice but involving the police???  Whatever happened to opinions and FOS.!!!  I'll don my tin hat! Here is the article from BBC...........



Katie Hopkins tweets on Ebola examined by police
!!
Complaints were made to police about Katie Hopkins Tweets on Ebola

Police are examining complaints about Ebola comments tweeted by controversial TV personality Katie Hopkins.
Following news that a Scots nurse was being treated for the virus, she wrote: "Sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians just isn't cricket."
Another tweet said: "Glaswegian ebola patient moved to London's Royal Free Hospital. Not so independent when it matters most are we jocksville?"
Police confirmed they were looking into an unspecified number of complaints.
Det Insp Glyn Roberts, of Police Scotland, said: "We have received a number of complaints regarding remarks made on Twitter.
"Inquiries are ongoing into the nature of these tweets and to establish any potential criminality.
"Police Scotland will thoroughly investigate any reports of offensive or criminal behaviour online and anyone found to be responsible will be robustly dealt with."
Hopkins' comments came after it emerged that the nurse, who volunteered to help Save the Children in the fight against Ebola, was diagnosed on her return from Sierra Leone.
Pauline Cafferkey, a public health nurse at Blantyre Health Centre in South Lanarkshire, has been receiving specialist treatment at the Royal Free Hospital in north London.
A message posted on Police Scotland's Twitter feed on Tuesday stated: "Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated."
More than 11,000 people have signed an online petition on the change.org website for Hopkins to be charged over the "racist tweets" regarding Scotland.





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30641705

I personally would never say such things in the public arena, not that I do Twitter/social media. That is just my personality, but others are different.

The inconsistency of how "offensive" tweets are and how they're dealt with is a big problem for me and it is impossible to set a limit. Just look at the likes of Frankie Boyle's tweets (to name one) and you'll see what I mean. I guess him being a "comedian" allows him a higher limit?

Also I don't doubt Katie and other z list celebs have had much worse printed in their columns they do.

I much preferred her tweets about the negligent mccanns.Dont really see anything offensive in this one and as i am half 'sweaty sock' it certainly dont bother me.Just a bit stupid as its not the Jocks fault she got Ebola.

That's what I think Lioned, stupid and bad taste yes, but I have heard much worse things on the telly and tweeted on twitter. I cannot be doing with this wasting of police time looking into things like this, and where does it stop, who the hell decides what is acceptable or not.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I personally would never say such things in the public arena, not that I do Twitter/social media. That is just my personality, but others are different.

The inconsistency of how "offensive" tweets are and how they're dealt with is a big problem for me and it is impossible to set a limit. Just look at the likes of Frankie Boyle's tweets (to name one) and you'll see what I mean. I guess him being a "comedian" allows him a higher limit?

Also I don't doubt Katie and other z list celebs have had much worse printed in their columns they do.

Katie Hopkins is a loud mouthed prat in my opinion. She only says those outspoken things to get herself noticed and thrives on the backlash. There have been the odd things she says that chime with my opinions on certain situations but they are the sort of comments you may make to trusted friends who perhaps share your views, not in a public way.
She is entitled to her view but the way she puts it over is purely to cause offence. Not a thought for the poor health worker who went to help others less fortunate. What has the fact she is Scottish got to do with anything? It was an English airport that screened her but did not pick up on her condition. And she has been moved to the Royal Free because it is the best place to treat her condition.
ETA Setting the police on her is just ridiculous though. Far better to ignore her. She would hate that.

I completely agree with what you say Chirpy. The police will never be able to stop offensive tweeting, whatever that is. So either they have Twitter banned/blocked in the UK or we can look forward to police spending their 12 hour shifts glued to a computer! It may be old fashioned but I was taught the good ol' sticks and stones saying when 5. Twitter should be dealt with in the same way IMO.

The next step will probably be recording devices at work/home. Say the wrong thing and you're nicked. Some of the things said and discussed at my work make Twitter look mild.  

A bit off topic - well, it is about Twitter tweets - Derren Brown has a good way of dealing with abusive messages.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/30/twitter-troll-response_n_6394572.html

And what about KMs book
Fookin tosser fookin tosser (police)
Wanted to kill him (RM)
To be miserable and feel fear (GA)
All of the above were wanting to help find HER missing child!
All hard to believe
IMO

Just who (singular) has she upset with the tweet,no name was mentioned,her tweet as far as I can see was aimed at no one in particular merely a boorish comment.The right of freedom of speech is maybe being eroded but it seems the right to be offended is alive and well.

caricature wrote:...but it seems the right to be offended is alive and well.

oh you betcha it is and did i read today that dozy katie hopkins called someone fat who then reported it to the police as a hate crime? the day when you can't insult anyone any more will be a sad one.

In my younger days I was very thin. Could eat and drink like a horse and not a pound gained. People thought it fair game to comment on how thin I was, quite openly and to my face. As I was conscious of my thinness, and considered it unattractive, I found these remarks very hurtful, particularly as nothing I did made me plumper. I used to get indignant that it would be considered the height of rudeness to comment on a fat person's weight,  even though fatness is often caused by the lifestyle choices of the individual.

Personal comment is often rude, but usually true. Why shouldn't a fat person be called such when a thin, tall, short, pasty, bespectacled or bald person must take comments regarding their appearance on the chin?

There is nothing illegal or that could even vaguely represent a hate-crime about calling a spade a spade. Particularly if that spade has a choice in where it digs.

PC crap gone mad, imo.

(After two children, decades of red wine and a reluctance to exercise if it doesn't involve swimming in foreign seas, I am thin no longer. My choice, so I will take the pot-belly comments occasionally thrown at me with rueful acceptance. )

Told you red wine was good for you.

Lioned wrote:Told you red wine was good for you.

Hurrah!



Sadly, I've made a pact with my husband on Saturday to stop drinking, an early NY resolution. Getting too old for the quantities we drink so are going to stop completely. . 4 very long days it's been.


...well, that's the intention..

well, best intentions and all that...

http://news.sky.com/story/1401552/british-ebola-nurse-now-critical-in-hospital

I sincerely hope Katie Hopkins is reflecting on her words after this news.

chirpyinsect wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1401552/british-ebola-nurse-now-critical-in-hospital

I sincerely hope Katie Hopkins is reflecting on her words after this news.

Why would she? On the morning after the Clutha helicopter crash, when it was known that nine people were dead, she was tweeting that Scots people only died early so that they wouldn't have to work up to retirement. She's never retracted or apologised AFAIK. She got away with that one, so she's got bolder. She only says things that she knows will create a ruckus, not because she actually believes them. That's what her entire "career" is based on. She's more to be pitied than reviled.

I`ll stick to reviling her. Obnoxious attention seeking failure.

She seems to be in trouble again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-sued-by-jack-monroe-over-vandalism-accusation-tweet-a6819906.html

Katie Hopkins has lost her libel case to the food blogger Jack Monroe, and has to pay £24,000.


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/10/jack-monroe-wins-twitter-libel-case-against-katie-hopkins

She'll have to pay much more than £24K:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/katie-hopkinsdefeated-by-jack-monroe-in-libel-case_uk_58c28bf5e4b054a0ea69df05?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1873705785_uk

ack Monroe has won £24,000 damages in a High Court libel action against MailOnline columnist Katie Hopkins.

Monroe, a food blogger who also campaigns over poverty issues, sued Hopkins over tweets they said caused “serious harm” to their reputation.

After Mr Justice Warby announced his findings on Friday afternoon, Monroe who identifies outside the binary construct of gender and prefers the gender-neutral pronoun ‘they’ and title ‘Mx’, tweeted of their relief.

They wrote: “It’s taken 21 months but today the High Court ruled that Hopkins statements to/about me were defamatory.

“I sued her for libel, and I won...To everyone who told me I couldn’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t - I could, I would, I did.”

The judge also ordered Hopkins to pay an initial £107,000 towards Monroe’s legal costs within 28 days. The final costs figure has yet to be assessed, but some legal experts put it above £300,000.

He ruled the tweets had caused Monroe “real and substantial distress” and she was entitled to “fair and reasonable compensation.”

Monroe, who did attend the hearing, asked the London court to find that they had been “defamed” by the former Apprentice contestant.

At the heart of the action is a posting on Twitter in May 2015.

Monroe says the tweet meant they had either vandalised a war memorial, and “thereby desecrated the memory of those who fought for their freedom and had committed a criminal act”, or that they “condoned or approved” of the criminal vandalisation of a war memorial.
PA
Jack Monroe leaving the High Court in central London

Hopkins, who didn’t attend Friday’s hearing, posted: “@MsJackMonroe scrawled on any memorials recently? Vandalised the memory of those who fought for your freedom. Grandma got any more medals?”

Monroe responded almost immediately: “I have NEVER ‘scrawled on a memorial’. Brother in the RAF. Dad was a Para in the Falklands. You’re a piece of shit.”

A Twitter debate had earlier erupted after a memorial to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall was daubed with the words “Fuck Tory scum” during an anti-austerity demonstration.

Monroe, 28, from Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, also claimed that a second tweet by Hopkins bore a “defamatory innuendo meaning” that they “approved or condoned the criminal vandalisation of the women’s war memorial in Whitehall during an anti-government protest”.

Their lawyer William Bennett told the judge: “The claimant’s primary case is that by reason of the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of publication, serious harm to reputation has been caused.

“A widely published allegation that someone has either vandalised a war memorial or approved of such an act will inevitably cause serious damage to reputation.”

Mr Bennett said “the libel was a particular affront... because part of their identity is as a member of a family closely involved with the armed forces”.
Related...

   Jack Monroe Has Begun Libel Proceedings Against Katie Hopkins For ‘Harmful Tweets’
   ‘Forgive Katie Hopkins She May Become A Better Human Being’ Say Muslim Family Who Won Apology

Even after Hopkins deleted the first tweet, “she did not apologise or retract the allegation even though she knew it was false”, he said.

Jonathan Price, for Hopkins, told the judge her case was that “this relatively trivial dispute arose and was resolved on Twitter in a period of several hours”.

He argued that “no lasting harm, and certainly no serious harm”, to Monroe’s reputation resulted from it.

The row erupted after a memorial to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall was daubed with the words ‘Fuck Tory scum’ during an anti-austerity demonstration

Mr Price said her case was that “these proceedings are an unnecessary and disproportionate epilogue to the parties’ otherwise forgotten Twitter row”.

Hopkins had “mistakenly” used Monroe’s Twitter handle instead of that of another columnist who had tweeted about the memorial incident.

Monroe told the court: “These proceedings have been a nightmare. It has been an 18-month, unproductive, devastating nightmare.

“I have offered several times through my lawyer to settle these proceedings outside court. This is the last thing that I wanted to be doing.”
PA
Monroe pictured arriving at the High Court in central London on Friday

Monroe’s lawyer, Mark Lewis, a partner at Seddons Solicitors said: “Jack Monroe has finally been vindicated in full from the libellous and wholly false accusation by Katie Hopkins that she had supported the vandalisation of a war memorial. Jack Monroe never did, and coming from a proud military family, never would.

“Despite pointing this out to Katie Hopkins within minutes of her first tweet wrongly accusing Jack, Hopkins did not apologise. Rather the self-styled ‘rent-a-gob’ defiantly posted another defamatory tweet. Despite repeated opportunities to back down, Hopkins obstinately refused to apologise, instead conducting her defence by slinging as much mud as she could to hide the fact that she had made this false allegation.

“The price of not saying sorry has been very high. Hopkins has had to pay out of her own pocket a six figure sum in damages and costs for a tweet that should have been deleted within minutes as soon as she was told it was wrong. On this occasion, the cost of renting that gob was particularly high.

“Hopkins claimed that Twitter was just the wild west where anything goes. The Judge has shown that there is no such thing as a Twitter outlaw.”

I've transferred the previous two posts form the Katie Hopkins topic as I think that they merit their own one.

Considering the absolutely vile things that are said on Twitter, this seems to be a very disproportionate punishment for what was actually said.

I'd never even heard of Jack Monroe until this incident so Katie's comments certainly didn't damage their (as JM likes to be called instead of her) reputation in my eyes.

The words teacup and storm spring to mind.

Changing the subject, the advert on the top here refers to a play and book called Amelie and this is the blurb about it!

Amelie, is born to dysfunctional parents. As she grows up, she feels distant from her family. Later, she is misdiagnosed with a heart disease by her father. Her parents get paranoid and eventually isolate her, cutting all her connections with the outside world.

The rest of the journey is about Amelie's realizations and findings about what life is all about after she manages to move to Paris.

Sounds like the play is based on the much earlier film Amelie, from 2001 - which is French and stars Audrey Tautou. It's a fabulous film, by the way - I've seen it a few times. I've often wondered if Kate and Gerry named their Amelie after the character in this film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9lie

http://news.sky.com/story/katie-hopkins-i-see-myself-as-the-jesus-of-the-outspoken-10797580

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/131000-katie-hopkins-realise-trolling-twitter-expensive-hobby/

Katie will have upset a few more people with the image of herself as the Virgin Mary!

Like Freedom I had never heard of Jack Monroe.

I looked her up on Wikipedia and it seems she (I refuse to use 'their' which is what she apparently prefers as it is not proper English and makes the meaning unclear) is one of an increasing no of mixed up people who people pander to, instead of saying nicely, get some help.

She became 'famous' for a food blog on living on very little as a single parent on a food budget of €10 pw. Now Wikipedia says she had a baby after a relationship with a close male friend. Now why wasn't he chipping in with some food money - he probably was but that would have spoilt her image!

She seems very confused about her sexuality yet now uses a very male macho name Jack. Why not a name that can be either sex?

Katie Hopkins has made useful comments on the McCanns. After this libel award against her, she and the papers who pay her will now be over cautious on anything she writes; a pity that tweets about an irrelevant food blogger may affect the british public learning more about the facts in Maddie's disappearance.

The mind boggles, Freedom!

This may seem like a storm in a teacup - and there are without question many, many worse tweets out there, but this may make tweeters realize they can't say whatever they want in our society - and Katie-Hopkins must be regarded as one of the more generally-known vociferous exponents.

I'm not sure that Antonia is correct in suggesting Katie will stop writing about the McCanns: if they were to bring a libel case, they would have to appear in court and be cross-examined if they were to have any hope of being successful. I can't see that happening.