Katie Hopkins

[Brahumbug]

Given the vile posting she made some yeara ago about people in debt, AIBU to enjoy the epicaricasy of watching her apply for an IVA to avoid bankruptcy?

This has nothing to do with free speech. She has every right to free speech, as do we all. Nobody is stopping her spouting her odious brand of bile, but she committed libel. Had she apologised when asked then that would have been the end of the matter. She chose instead to go to court. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of responsibility. We are always accountable for our words and actions.

I did qualify my comments but saying "as long as you remain within the law". KH went to court and lost, so she is paying the penalty.

But I remain concerned about the piling in, and the personality attacks on anyone who dares "say the unsayable". I have woke friends who have posted very nasty and personal things about Katie Hopkins, and about the BBCs policitical correspondent, the one whose name sounds Jewish and who needed protection at the last Labour Party Conference, and others on Fb. I believe we have reached dangerous times where vilifying people for holding views that are not your own is acceptable. And then it does not take long for the tables to turn and the same behaviour feels like bullying.

Hatie Plopkins is a nasty piece of work. She can say what she likes, as we all can, but with that free speech comes responsibility and it can (as it has done here) bite you hard on the arse.

She called refugees cockroaches. She's nasty.

I don't like Jack Monroe much either. She's a bit holier than thou but rather that than vicious and filled with bile.

But I remain concerned about the piling in, and the personality attacks on anyone who dares "say the unsayable".

They aren't "saying the unsayable" they're spouting lies and hate and getting called out on it. Again, that's free speech. You can say what you like but don't expect people not to correct you.

Seriously, a quick google should provide you with the information you need about free speech and what qualifies as free speech.

If you were genuinely concerned about free speech, you'd be calling out Trump's administration and their attacks on the media. THAT is an attack on free speech. Not calling Katie Hopkins out for telling lies.

Shame there is not karma for hypocrites as well. People pretending to be poor

Remember when she said that people in debt had nobody to blame but themselves for their bad choices?

In her case it’s actually true, since she was only dislodged from her position of wealth and privilege by her choice to be a fascist who told lies and refused to apologise for it.

Rejoicing in another persons misfortune makes you just as vile as her comments tbh.

It's certainly a good start to the week.

Bankruptcy might have been better though.

Imagine being concerned about attacks on the personality of someone who compared human beings to cockroaches. Hopkins is really not the one to use to make a point about people being bullied. She is a bully.

Rejoicing in another persons misfortune makes you just as vile as her comments tbh.

It absolutely doesn't. My daughter was bullied a great deal while she was at primary school, to the point she got referred to CAMHS after expressing suicidal thoughts. The ringleader was a high-achieving, academic and sporting allrounder, white boy from an affluent middle-class home, 2-parent family, very popular, lots of friends. I mention all these things because as far as I could tell from the outside (and I do know there could have been all sorts of things going on behind closed doors) he had no obvious trauma in his life to explain his bullying behaviour (which wasn't confined to my daughter).

I would never have wished that boy serious harm but if I'd ever seen him fall over on a sports field into a big puddle, get muddy and look a fool, and experience what it was like to have other people laugh AT him (not with him), and to feel the humiliation and isolation of being upset and having nobody come forward to comfort him - well, I'd have felt it was karma with a vengeance.

need there is a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech
There is also a difference between fact and opinion. Ms Hopkins invariably tries to pass off her opinion as fact without any clarity about this is what she is doing.
Primarily all she wants to do is stir up controversy, to build up drama through being divisive and for £££, not for some greater good that she believes in.

I just wish people would be indifferent to her. The opposite of love is not hate but indifference and all that.
The only way people like Hopkins couldn't spread their vileness is if people paid no attention to her. Then she wouldn't earn anything and shed stop. She's not a crusader, she's an opportunist.

Rejoicing in another persons misfortune makes you just as vile as her comments tbh

She called the CHILD victim a sexual abuse a slag!!!! I've certainly never done anything that abhorrent.

The only way people like Hopkins couldn't spread their vileness is if people paid no attention to her.

I absolutely agree.

Banning her, or slagging her off does not good at all, and contributes to a toxic internet culture where the shouties hold sway. KH then becomes the sort of opinionated nutter who is ignored in the pub.

Hopkins's latest stunt seems to be making bizaare claims about why people choose Welsh Medium education - it's because they want to avoid the migrants who are "taking over" English medium schools.

There is no evidence whatsoever for this claim and most people would find it somewhat more likely that people choose Welsh-medium schools because they...err... want their children to be educated in Welsh. Her only reason for saying this is to stir up hatred.

I would defend Katie Hopkins right to free speech as much as I would defend anyone else's. Defending free speech is about defending the right if someone to say things you completely disagree with. It should be truthful, but I don't agree that it should cause no harm, reporting abuse has certainly harmed Jimmy Saville and the Catholic Church. She is in trouble because she lied and refused to retract despite being given the opportunity to do so and is now paying the price.

Banning her, or slagging her off does not good at all, and contributes to a toxic internet culture where the shouties hold sway. KH then becomes the sort of opinionated nutter who is ignored in the pub.

Except she's not a nutter in a pub. She's a "celebrity" with a platform. That makes her far more dangerous than the average opinionated joe in a pub. It is absolutely necessary to voice disapproval of her opinions, or else she'll continue to be given this platform.

Except she's not a nutter in a pub. She's a "celebrity" with a platform.

Except:

1. She would not have that platform if people ignored her.
2. Some of the Fb stuff I have read written about her is just as personal and vile. By people who would consider themselves very right-on Corbynistas.

My objection is to the nastiness, on either side. Ignore or let a court decide.

Can’t stand her, never have been able to. I ignore her on Twitter but was very happy to see this news. She deserves all she gets.

It's fairly easy to ignore someone ranting away in a corner of a pub and the staff in a pub would in any case probably eject such a person so as to avoid losing trade. When the ranter is paid by the Daily Mail and similar to express their extreme, attention-seeking opinions, it gives legitimacy to their opinions and they are most unlikely to be ignored.

Type "I have seen written about her...."

Honestly the level of hate that is considered justifiable just because you are woke, "right" is completely off. The Self-ID stuff is one example. Most of us are too scared to challenge. which is why, rightly or wrongly I admire people who will.

But I agree that rudeness, and lack of respect, whether KH or Momentum, is not acceptable.

Her free speech has not been shut down. In fact she is now employed by the far right Canadian network ‘Rebel Media’ who also employee Tommy Robinson as a commentator. They also employ holocaust deniers.

Shame there is not the same level of vitriol towards hate preachers who seem to get a free pass.

If she is denied a voice (as long as she stays within legal boundaries), who next? The Daily Mail perhaps, or womens groups like A Woman's Place, or Mumsnet itself.

What a bloody stupid thing to say. She published slanderous lies. She refused to retract or apologise for those lies. She broke the law and must be held accountable for it.

And who is denying her a voice, exactly? Nobody has the right to be listened to. Nobody can demand that they be given a platform. The right to free speech is NOT the right to an audience.

And who decides where boundaries are drawn? Jack Monroe and friends?

Actually, an independent court of law. Presumably you know the difference.

Rejoicing in another persons misfortune makes you just as vile as her comments tbh

If I say ‘hitler was an evil shit and i’m Glad he lost the war and shot himself’ am I as bad as he is? Just wondering how far you are willing to defend your logic.