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?

epicaricacy.....
Wow what a word! I’ve learnt something new today

Now Katie Hopkins has no money Jack Monroe could advise her on cooking on a tight budget.

Sorry KH lost her case to JM obviously. That's why she needed to pay her legal fees.

randomchap

Did JM give her compensation payment to charity?

Did JM give her compensation payment to charity?

I don't know, but apparently JM offered to give it all back to KH of KH just apologised.. KH instead said more horrible things about JM in the paper the next day.

JM said she'd withdraw if KM donated £5000 ta charity helping migrants. It's actually the only little thing I don't think she got quite right - it did seem a bit like rubbing KM's face in it. If she'd really just wanted an apology why not ask for a donation to the RSPCA or something?

I have no sympathy for KM - her difficulties have been entirely self-inflicted - but doesn't mean I think JM is 10% right either.

How did that extra 0 disappear?

Disgrace that this ran to £107k of legal fees in the first place. What a farce!

Well... yes.
She could have withdrawn what she wrote, or could have apologised, or... But no. KH stuck with it to the bitter end.

Now Katie Hopkins has no money Jack Monroe could advise her on cooking on a tight budget.

Hpfa, a lie is a lie. JM was 100 per cent right which is why she wonthe libel case.

How can it possibly not be 100% right to object strongly to someone publishing a seriously offensive lie about you? And why, if you are the victim of that, should you consider your accuser's racist feelings when deciding which charity she should donate to if she wants to avoid the consequences of her actions?

I’m afraid KM brought on herself. Do feel sorry for her children though, this is going to negatively affect their lives surely?!

I believe KH sold her house recently I assume to try and claw some money back. I really feel for her kids.

In regards to Jack, she’s got her own issues, but I do feel that she is trying to make the world a better place, not worse. I quite like her

I think you either have a short memory, or have strange values if you can disregard the comments she made about David Cameron’s son so easily.

They’re both a vile pair with twisted, dangerous agendas.

JM's comments were about the way Cameron exploited his son for electoral purposes, not about his son, and were entirely justified by Cameron's conduct.

How can it possibly not be 100% right to object strongly to someone publishing a seriously offensive lie about you? And why, if you are the victim of that, should you consider your accuser's racist feelings when deciding which charity she should donate to if she wants to avoid the consequences of her actions?
That's not really my point. Of course she had the right to sue and if she wanted to make a political point - well, it's not the end of the world. As yo0u can see upthread, I said KM brought this entirely on herself, she deserves no sympathy and won't get much.

But JM now appears to be saying "all I wanted was an apology" and that's not exactly 100% accurate.

I'm afraid that anyone who thinks an accurate description of DCs behaviour is equivalent to deliberate defamation on multiple occasions is unqualified to speak on values. DC literally used the memory of his dead child to assist in pushing through cuts and evading criticism, dangerous cuts that have killed people. That's a fact. KH peddle non facts.

I should add that I've recently lost a family member following mistakes on a grossly understaffed ward. We'll never know if they'd have been ok with adequate care, but one relatively junior staff member and a couple of HCAs wasn't it. I'm therefore particularly disinclined to entertain any false equivalenting fuckwittage.

JM's comments were about the way Cameron exploited his son for electoral purposes, not about his son, and were entirely justified by Cameron's conduct.

Rubbish. JM’s comments were a deliberate attempt at cultivating division; us and them.

To claim that someone is ‘using’ the fact that their son has a disability is despicable and could’ve quite easily landed her/him in court.

How could it have landed her in court?

I don’t particularly like JM, however I think the comment about DC, although clumsily and offensively worded, in its root had the right idea.

He sickened me by using his child to justify horrendous cuts, sanctions and policies which directly damaged the lives of people with disabilities. I’d have had a lot more respect for him, if he hadn’t used his child in order to make that seem palatable.

Don’t get me wrong, he had and has every right to talk about Ivan, he was his son, and of course he grieves and wants to talk about his child. That’s not what is sickening.

That he used the memory of his disabled child to soften the blow of horrendous policies directly affecting disabled people was.

Quite, hen. And cuts generally. It was a sick thing of DC to do.

To claim that someone is ‘using’ the fact that their son has a disability is despicable and could’ve quite easily landed her/him in court.

It wasn't a unique view at the time and it's a matter of opinion. It's not offensive. The issue was whether Cameron was capable of it or not, even if he was doing it or not. Not what people thought he was doing.
I don't consider any politician above exploiting his family and, IIRC, he was the one who mentioned his son in the middle of the campaign. Happy to be corrected.

AssignedNorthernAtBirth oh ok, I’m ‘unqualified to speak on values’. Now I know. Thanks for the clarification.

My point was about those on the left being excused from criticism. Divisive, personal insults are exactly that regardless of which end of the political spectrum you sit at.

@AllesAusLiebe

Saying that Cameron used his son wasn't an insult.
He did use personal circumstances to try and get a moral high ground. It happened that it related to his son.
Most people would have not mentioned their children in the context of politics.
Of course people criticised him for it.

Again though, Jack was telling the truth. If you think that expressing that truth, and it was the truth, in an admittedly ruder way than necessary is dangerous, something has gone wrong with your analysis somewhere. I do think she was ruder than she needed to be in her comments. But she was right, and what she was saying did need to be said. Fellow politicians perhaps understandably didn't have the courage to do it.

It's ironic really that anyone would talk about those on the left being excused from criticism when, at the time Jack made her comments, many felt that DC as a bereaved parent should not be criticised for the way he spoke of his son. Seriously, do a search. It was said a lot in the thread on here at the time.

Now if you're talking about Jack's views on trans issues being dangerous, that I can get on board with (you may guess from my username). I don't think that's what you refer to, though.