Katie Hopkins - one sick bitch

Has lost yet another libel case.
Before Christmas she cost the Mail over £150,000 in damages.
This time it's as result of her own fucking loose gob and stupidity.
£24,000 damages and£125,000 in costs.
Fuck me she is one dull cnut.
Proving once again the alt right just are not right in most departments.
Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Katie Hopkins faces £120,000 court bill after LOSING libel tweets case

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/things-worse-katie-hopkins-faces-10004074#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

Angry Andy wrote:Has lost yet another libel case.
Before Christmas she cost the Mail over £150,000 in damages.
This time it's as result of her own fucking loose gob and stupidity.
£24,000 damages and£125,000 in costs.
Fuck me she is one dull cnut.
Proving once again the alt right just are not right in most departments.
Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Katie Hopkins faces £120,000 court bill after LOSING libel tweets case

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/things-worse-katie-hopkins-faces-10004074#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

That kind of talk makes you better than her in what way?

Nasty bugger 'aint he?

I havent lost several libel cases. 
I didnt call a dead kid washed ashore on a Libyan beach a cockroach.

I wasnt sacked by the Sun or the Exeter news for lying and overt racism .
I have never called dementia patients bedblockers.
She is nothing more than a professional troll, paid to lie and defame.
I dont refuse to apologise when I am wrong.

Only her extreme right fascist followers admire the bitch.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Has lost yet another libel case.
Before Christmas she cost the Mail over £150,000 in damages.
This time it's as result of her own fucking loose gob and stupidity.
£24,000 damages and£125,000 in costs.
Fuck me she is one dull cnut.
Proving once again the alt right just are not right in most departments.
Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Katie Hopkins faces £120,000 court bill after LOSING libel tweets case

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/things-worse-katie-hopkins-faces-10004074#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

That kind of talk makes you better than her in what way?

Angry Andy wrote:I havent lost several libel cases. 
I didnt call a dead kid washed ashore on a Libyan beach a cockroach.

I wasnt sacked by the Sun or the Exeter news for lying and overt racism .
I have never called dementia patients bedblockers.
She is nothing more than a professional troll, paid to lie and defame.
I dont refuse to apologise when I am wrong.

Only her extreme right fascist followers admire the bitch.

She's got guts, I'll give her that.    You on the other hand, are a very small squeak on an unknown forum.   Why don't you get on Twitter, use your real name, and put your outrage where your mouth is?

he's ALL MOUTH AND NO TROUSERS as the saying goes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Has lost yet another libel case.
Before Christmas she cost the Mail over £150,000 in damages.
This time it's as result of her own fucking loose gob and stupidity.
£24,000 damages and£125,000 in costs.
Fuck me she is one dull cnut.
Proving once again the alt right just are not right in most departments.
Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Katie Hopkins faces £120,000 court bill after LOSING libel tweets case

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/things-worse-katie-hopkins-faces-10004074#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

That kind of talk makes you better than her in what way?

nicko wrote:he's ALL MOUTH AND NO TROUSERS as the saying goes.

Just shows how threatened people like him are by those who dare to speak the truth . How could anyone wish suffering on another person like he has . Same as those who can't accept democracy wishing the new President assassinated - its just pure hatred and anger just because they didn't get their own way .

Whining little snowflakes,the lot of 'em !

Katie Hopkins. So truthful she lost 2 libel cases.

So what?

Only 2...?

For someone who has said/written such an enormous amount of stuff over the years, that must mean that 99.99% of what she has said/written is true!!!

And the other 0.01% is probably down to unreliable sources...

Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

My wife has just started the Hopkins diet.

She has already lost 24 thousand pounds.

Tommy Monk wrote:Only 2...?

For someone who has said/written such an enormous amount of stuff over the years, that must mean that 99.99% of what she has said/written is true!!!

And the other 0.01% is probably down to unreliable sources...

That excludes the scores of reprimands, redactuons or retractions and sackings.

She is so poisonous, even the Sun sacked her.

And now the evil krone thinks she is Jesus. I wonder what VoD thinks.


[size=31]http://news.sky.com/story/katie-hopkins-i-see-myself-as-the-jesus-of-the-outspoken-10797580[/size]

Angry Andy wrote:I havent lost several libel cases. 
I didnt call a dead kid washed ashore on a Libyan beach a cockroach.

I wasnt sacked by the Sun or the Exeter news for lying and overt racism .
I have never called dementia patients bedblockers.
She is nothing more than a professional troll, paid to lie and defame.
I dont refuse to apologise when I am wrong.

Only her extreme right fascist followers admire the bitch.

you aren't employable by any media in the first place.
You are a very nasty piece of work who had you the nerve to say the stuff you say hidden away behind your computer screen under your own name would no doubt find yourself destitute from the number of libel writs you would be served with.

Angry Andy wrote:My wife has just started the Hopkins diet.

She has already lost 24 thousand pounds.

I'll stop feeding her biscuits then.

eddie wrote:Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

Exactly.   And everyone is entitled to one.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

Exactly.   And everyone is entitled to one.

not if it does not agree with the illiberal left

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:I havent lost several libel cases. 
I didnt call a dead kid washed ashore on a Libyan beach a cockroach.

I wasnt sacked by the Sun or the Exeter news for lying and overt racism .
I have never called dementia patients bedblockers.
She is nothing more than a professional troll, paid to lie and defame.
I dont refuse to apologise when I am wrong.

Only her extreme right fascist followers admire the bitch.

you aren't employable by any media in the first place.
You are a very nasty piece of work who had you the nerve to say the stuff you say hidden away behind your computer screen under your own name would no doubt find yourself destitute from the number of libel writs you would be served with.

And you are some angel?

Most people are spot on about you.
You are someone who tax avoids and even argues in defense of this

Fact

Please take me to court, as then I could gain access to your records and truely expose you.

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

nicko wrote:he's ALL MOUTH AND NO TROUSERS as the saying goes.

Just shows how threatened people like him are by those who dare to speak the truth . How could anyone wish suffering on another person like he has .



Same as those who can't accept democracy wishing the new President assassinated - its just pure hatred and anger just because they didn't get their own way .

This topic is not about trump. Dunno why you have dragged him into it when there are so many other threads about him already, for you to gush out your praise of him,  or your dismay about 'all the unfairness towards the poor lil angelic lamb.'

I don't agree with people who say he could/should be shot and personally I have never said that he could/should be assassinated.

But for the record, he himself has no qualms about maliciously advocating gun violence. Or maybe you have conveniently forgotten his sinister comment at a rally that "those second ammendment people would take care of Hillary, wink, nudge"  Causing some of the audience to make threats against her too. Some of his speeches around the country had violent undertones which again inspired people in the rally to portray violence right under his nose, and off site too. So utterly irresponsible of someone of such high office.

Think on that whilst polishing his halo!

Returning to the subject of Katie Hopkins, well,  she said hersellf she was born with half a brain. Her words! (She said half her brain is missing.) IMO that says it all. Frankly it would be difficult to find a better way to sum her up.  The more people talk about her, the more they give airspace to a total nobody, who no one elected.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:I havent lost several libel cases. 
I didnt call a dead kid washed ashore on a Libyan beach a cockroach.

I wasnt sacked by the Sun or the Exeter news for lying and overt racism .
I have never called dementia patients bedblockers.
She is nothing more than a professional troll, paid to lie and defame.
I dont refuse to apologise when I am wrong.

Only her extreme right fascist followers admire the bitch.

you aren't employable by any media in the first place.
You are a very nasty piece of work who had you the nerve to say the stuff you say hidden away behind your computer screen under your own name would no doubt find yourself destitute from the number of libel writs you would be served with.

Typical floptard master maverick Deano nonsense talk...

Brave words from the biggest craven coward on Newsfix;  hiding behind his own computer over there in Turkey..

And one of the leading "keyboard warriors" on here --  dropping by to show Tommy, Horatio and co. how it's done  !          

Jules wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:
Just shows how threatened people like him are by those who dare to speak the truth . How could anyone wish suffering on another person like he has .

Same as those who can't accept democracy wishing the new President assassinated - its just pure hatred and anger just because they didn't get their own way .

This topic is not about trump. Dunno why you have dragged him into it when there are so many other threads about him already, for you to gush out your praise of him,  or your dismay about 'all the unfairness towards the poor lil angelic lamb.'

I don't agree with people who say he could/should be shot and personally I have never said that he could/should be assassinated.

But for the record, he himself has no qualms about maliciously advocating gun violence. Or maybe you have conveniently forgotten his sinister comment at a rally that "those second ammendment people would take care of Hillary, wink, nudge"  Causing some of the audience to make threats against her too.  Some of his speeches around the country had violent undertones which again inspired people in the rally to portray violence right under his nose, and off site too. So utterly irresponsible of someone of such high office.

Think on that whilst polishing his halo!

Katie Hopkins is a disgusting oxygen thief, and a total waste of space...

Just the sort of misbegotten slime, where the likes of equally rancid vermin such as VoD, Deano, Horatio and Tommy would be expected to jump to her defense..          


VoD ('Vicar of Dribbles') is one of the most despicable creatures to have infested this forum --

Last week we saw her defending British establishment paedo's, when she and her equally deranged chum HT parachuted into nicko's thread to help with his deflections away from the truth about institutionalised child theft and abuses by British authorities during WWII;            

Add that onto VoD's past sins on here, and her regular defense of the indefencible;          

Now we have her trying to deflect from another of her odious far-right/racist heroes (i.e. Katie Hopkins), by introducing totally irrelevant issues around the undemocratic election of President Frump, and the sad fact that some online nutters often encourage assassinations (as Trump himself has done in the past !).          

When will you grow up and cease with the hate posts? that's all you ever do, apart from pulling the wings off flies I expect.

Jules wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Just shows how threatened people like him are by those who dare to speak the truth . How could anyone wish suffering on another person like he has .



Same as those who can't accept democracy wishing the new President assassinated - its just pure hatred and anger just because they didn't get their own way .

This topic is not about trump. Dunno why you have dragged him into it when there are so many other threads about him already, for you to gush out your praise of him,  or your dismay about 'all the unfairness towards the poor lil angelic lamb.'

I don't agree with people who say he could/should be shot and personally I have never said that he could/should be assassinated.

But for the record, he himself has no qualms about maliciously advocating gun violence. Or maybe you have conveniently forgotten his sinister comment at a rally that "those second ammendment people would take care of Hillary, wink, nudge"  Causing some of the audience to make threats against her too.  Some of his speeches around the country had violent undertones which again inspired people in the rally to portray violence right under his nose, and off site too. So utterly irresponsible of someone of such high office.

Think on that whilst polishing his halo!

Your post about Trump was longer than Vod's.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Jules wrote:
This topic is not about trump. Dunno why you have dragged him into it when there are so many other threads about him already, for you to gush out your praise of him,  or your dismay about 'all the unfairness towards the poor lil angelic lamb.'

I don't agree with people who say he could/should be shot and personally I have never said that he could/should be assassinated.

But for the record, he himself has no qualms about maliciously advocating gun violence. Or maybe you have conveniently forgotten his sinister comment at a rally that "those second ammendment people would take care of Hillary, wink, nudge"  Causing some of the audience to make threats against her too.  Some of his speeches around the country had violent undertones which again inspired people in the rally to portray violence right under his nose, and off site too. So utterly irresponsible of someone of such high office.

Think on that whilst polishing his halo!

Katie Hopkins is a disgusting oxygen thief, and a total waste of space...

Just the sort of misbegotten slime, where the likes of equally rancid vermin such as VoD, Deano, Horatio and Tommy would be expected to jump to her defense..          


VoD ('Vicar of Dribbles') is one of the most despicable creatures to have infested this forum --

Last week we saw her defending British establishment paedo's, when she and her equally deranged chum HT parachuted into nicko's thread to help with his deflections away from the truth about institutionalised child theft and abuses by British authorities during WWII;            

Add that onto VoD's past sins on here, and her regular defense of the indefencible;          

Now we have her trying to deflect from another of her odious far-right/racist heroes (i.e. Katie Hopkins), by introducing totally irrelevant issues around the undemocratic election of President Frump, and the sad fact that some online nutters often encourage assassinations (as Trump himself has done in the past !).          

No, that's you. You've dropped in to slag off other members yet again. I think I've seen some members here saying that Trump should be assassinated.

The thread you started was a pop at the UK, and some people saw through you - that's why you keep babbling on about it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:

This topic is not about trump. Dunno why you have dragged him into it when there are so many other threads about him already, for you to gush out your praise of him,  or your dismay about 'all the unfairness towards the poor lil angelic lamb.'

I don't agree with people who say he could/should be shot and personally I have never said that he could/should be assassinated.

But for the record, he himself has no qualms about maliciously advocating gun violence. Or maybe you have conveniently forgotten his sinister comment at a rally that "those second ammendment people would take care of Hillary, wink, nudge"  Causing some of the audience to make threats against her too.  Some of his speeches around the country had violent undertones which again inspired people in the rally to portray violence right under his nose, and off site too. So utterly irresponsible of someone of such high office.

Think on that whilst polishing his halo!

Your post about Trump was longer than Vod's.

I was only giving an example too .

Anyway, this is supposed to be a news story about a libel case involving Katie Hopkins. If it's a thread to slag off Katie Hopkins, it should be in a different section.

I must say I'd never heard of Jack Monroe, but anyway, it seems that Katie Hopkins attributed a comment from a different person to Jack Monroe. I'm not at all surprised tbh - I can't follow who's saying what on Twitter either. Could it not have been sorted out at the time?

The case centred on a Twitter exchange in May 2015, in which Hopkins confused two well-known anti-austerity commentators: Monroe and Laurie Penny, a columnist for the New Statesman. Penny had tweeted about a memorial to the women of the second world war in Whitehall having been vandalised with the words “Fuck Tory scum” during an anti-austerity demonstration.

Commenting on the graffiti, Penny tweeted from her account @PennyRed that she “[didn’t] have a problem” with the vandalism as a form of protest, as “the bravery of past generations does not oblige us to be cowed today”.

Hopkins attributed the opinion to Monroe and tweeted to her then account @MsJackMonroe: “Scrawled on any memorials recently? Vandalised the memory of those who fought for your freedom. Grandma got any more medals?”

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

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Katie Hopkins is a disgusting oxygen thief, and a total waste of space...

Just the sort of misbegotten slime, where the likes of equally rancid vermin such as VoD, Deano, Horatio and Tommy would be expected to jump to her defense..          


VoD ('Vicar of Dribbles') is one of the most despicable creatures to have infested this forum --

Last week we saw her defending British establishment paedo's, when she and her equally deranged chum HT parachuted into nicko's thread to help with his deflections away from the truth about institutionalised child theft and abuses by British authorities during WWII;            

Add that onto VoD's past sins on here, and her regular defense of the indefencible;          

Now we have her trying to deflect from another of her odious far-right/racist heroes (i.e. Katie Hopkins), by introducing totally irrelevant issues around the undemocratic election of President Frump, and the sad fact that some online nutters often encourage assassinations (as Trump himself has done in the past !).          

No, that's you. You've dropped in to slag off other members yet again. I think I've seen some members here saying that Trump should be assassinated.

The thread you started was a pop at the UK, and some people saw through you - that's why you keep babbling on about it.

Agree - I haven't actually seen any posts by wolfman that don't include personal insults .

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

Exactly.   And everyone is entitled to one.

true but only some can use that right .

So basically, Katie Hopkin's comment was fair, it was just directed at the wrong person. She should have apologised at the time obviously - it was an expensive mistake.

All this is interesting because loads of people go on Twitter and get a bit carried away. It's generally considered to be a bit of a "throwaway platform" and a free for all I guess, but this ruling has changed all that.

Raggamuffin wrote:So basically, Katie Hopkin's comment was fair, it was just directed at the wrong person. She should have apologised at the time obviously - it was an expensive mistake.

All this is interesting because loads of people go on Twitter and get a bit carried away. It's generally considered to be a bit of a "throwaway platform" and a free for all I guess, but this ruling has changed all that.

How can it be fair, if it was directed at the wrong person and caused harm. Does she know who caused the vandalism? No, and yet she wrongly accused someone.
Your view makes no sense and is a piss poor defense of her.
The courts and I both disagree with you.
So in no way was her comments fair

eddie wrote:Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

Ah, someone has actually twigged it!

Hopkins is a newspaper columnist.  Like Owen Jones on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Like Littlejohn, who can expertly irritate Left, Right and Centre in equal measure.

The only thing that makes them so popular and so employable, either by The Guardian, Daily Mail, Sun or Daily Mirror, is because they have views which transcend the norm and the middle ground...and which can make their readers explode in paroxysms of rage and righteous indignation, whether they be a retired colonel and Master of the Hunt from Chipping Norton or shop steward Fred Spart from the People's Republic of Barnsley.

Hopkins, I imagine, may well genuinely hold far Right views. So what? If her literary style is a marketable attribute and newspapers are prepared to pay her handsomely for it and - more importantly, ordinary people are prepared to pay for the privilege of reading what she has to say -  why the hell shouldn't she earn a crust that way?

You don't have to agree with her. And you have the freedom to express your disagreement on God alone knows how many social media  sites or by firing off a "Disgusted of East Cheam" letter to the editor if you feel so inclined.

And why? Because you have the inestimable privilege of freedom of speech. Just like Katie Hopkins.

I don't agree with a lot of what she has to say, but as Voltaire so famously put it, I would defend to the death her right to say it.

And nor would I come on here screeching like a goosed nun just because she had written something that I, personally, found offensive.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So basically, Katie Hopkin's comment was fair, it was just directed at the wrong person. She should have apologised at the time obviously - it was an expensive mistake.

All this is interesting because loads of people go on Twitter and get a bit carried away. It's generally considered to be a bit of a "throwaway platform" and a free for all I guess, but this ruling has changed all that.

How can it be fair, if it was directed at the wrong person and caused harm. Does she know who caused the vandalism? No, and yet she wrongly accused someone.
Your view makes no sense and is a piss poor defense of her.
The courts and I both disagree with you.
So in no way was her comments fair

It was fair if she directed it at the correct person - the one who said she had no problem with the desecration of the war memorial. She didn't actually accuse a specific person of vandalising the memorial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How can it be fair, if it was directed at the wrong person and caused harm. Does she know who caused the vandalism? No, and yet she wrongly accused someone.
Your view makes no sense and is a piss poor defense of her.
The courts and I both disagree with you.
So in no way was her comments fair

It was fair if she directed it at the correct person - the one who said she had no problem with the desecration of the war memorial. She didn't actually accuse a specific person of vandalising the memorial.

Really?
Is that why she wrongly accused someone of this, if her only problem was with the person who vandalized this?
Again, piss poor defense

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was fair if she directed it at the correct person - the one who said she had no problem with the desecration of the war memorial. She didn't actually accuse a specific person of vandalising the memorial.

Really?
Is that why she wrongly accused someone of this, if her only problem was with the person who vandalized this?
Again, piss poor defense

She also objected to anyone who condoned the vandalism. Try reading the story and then you'll see.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?
Is that why she wrongly accused someone of this, if her only problem was with the person who vandalized this?
Again, piss poor defense

She also objected to anyone who condoned the vandalism. Try reading the story and then you'll see.

So what, she still wrongly accused someone.
So again you are poorly defending someone who is no better than the vandal themselves
In other words, both are scum.
Has that not sunk in yet?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She also objected to anyone who condoned the vandalism. Try reading the story and then you'll see.

So what, she still wrongly accused someone.
So again you are poorly defending someone who is no better than the vandal themselves
In other words, both are scum.
Has that not sunk in yet?

I know she addressed the wrong person - that's the point. Her comment would have been fine if she had addressed the right person. Of course she's better than the vandal.

You can argue all you like, but I'm not going to change my mind.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So what, she still wrongly accused someone.
So again you are poorly defending someone who is no better than the vandal themselves
In other words, both are scum.
Has that not sunk in yet?

I know she addressed the wrong person - that's the point. Her comment would have been fine if she had addressed the right person. Of course she's better than the vandal.

You can argue all you like, but I'm not going to change my mind.

Again so what, she wrongly made these comments to someone she knew damn well did not commit this vandalism. She is no better than  the vandal and thus both are scum.
You can defend scum all you like, but you are defending scum.
Sorry to burst your hero worship of what is most definitely a vile woman

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know she addressed the wrong person - that's the point. Her comment would have been fine if she had addressed the right person. Of course she's better than the vandal.

You can argue all you like, but I'm not going to change my mind.

Again so what, she wrongly made these comments to someone she knew damn well did not commit this vandalism. She is no better than  the vandal and thus both are scum.
You can defend scum all you like, but you are defending scum.
Sorry to burst your hero worship of what is most definitely a vile woman

You clearly didn't read the story. She addressed the wrong person. Another person had said they don't have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial. You appear to be condoning the vandalism too - at least, you are constantly trying to deflect from what actually happened.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again so what, she wrongly made these comments to someone she knew damn well did not commit this vandalism. She is no better than  the vandal and thus both are scum.
You can defend scum all you like, but you are defending scum.
Sorry to burst your hero worship of what is most definitely a vile woman

You clearly didn't read the story. She addressed the wrong person. Another person had said they don't have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial. You appear to be condoning the vandalism too - at least, you are constantly trying to deflect from what actually happened.

I did read the story and she showed no remorse by failing to apologize, knowing she was wrong.
She has no problem ruining the life of people online
So again both the vandal (hence not defending, again piss poor misdirection) and Hopkins are both scum.
Again you are defending scum and made light comments over how this did effect the person she accused.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You clearly didn't read the story. She addressed the wrong person. Another person had said they don't have a problem with the vandalism of the memorial. You appear to be condoning the vandalism too - at least, you are constantly trying to deflect from what actually happened.

I did read the story and she showed no remorse by failing to apologize, knowing she was wrong.
She has no problem ruining the life of people online
So again both the vandal (hence not defending, again piss poor misdirection) and Hopkins are both scum.
Again you are defending scum and made light comments over how this did effect the person she accused.

I already said that, so you're wasting your time. You are defending the person who said they don't have a problem with the vandalism by not condemning her.

At no point have I defended that and clearly stated the person who did this was scum.
You glossed over the fact this has caused severe distress to the reputation of the person accused and now go off someone that did defend the vandalism. Misdirection because you are defending scum
That means the vandal, the person who defended this act and Kate Hopkins are sum.

What is brilliant is this

A spoof fundraiser for Katie Hopkins has actually raised more than £7,000 for charity.
The page, which is titled “Help raise enough money for Katie Hopkins’ legal fees and libel damages” is actually raising money for food bank charity The Trussell Trust.
An explanations on the JustGiving page, started by spoof website the Southend News Network, said: “On March 10th 2017, a court ruled that the amazing and beautiful Daily Mail columnist Katie Hopkins had libelled food blogger and poverty campaigner Jack Monroe on Twitter in 2015.
“This OUTRAGEOUS decision is set to cost Katie £324,000 in legal fees and damages.
“We believe that having to find such an enormous sum of money could jeopardise Katie’s glittering career in journalism, and we are not prepared to sit here and watch her disappear from our screens and newspapers!
“Therefore, we hope to raise the full £324,000 as a matter of urgency so that Katie doesn’t have to endure any financial hardship as a result of this massive injustice.”
However, it then goes on to clarify that the money will actually be going to The Trussell Trust, although the charity itself is not involved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/katie-hopkins-spoof-fundraiser-actually-raises-money-for-foodbank-charity-the-trussell-trust_uk_58c51a5be4b054a0ea6b22e3?utm_hp_ref=uk

Isn't that illegal ? Getting money by false pretences.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:Isn't most of it, just her opinions anyway?

Ah, someone has actually twigged it!

Hopkins is a newspaper columnist.  Like Owen Jones on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Like Littlejohn, who can expertly irritate Left, Right and Centre in equal measure.

The only thing that makes them so popular and so employable, either by The Guardian, Daily Mail, Sun or Daily Mirror, is because they have views which transcend the norm and the middle ground...and which can make their readers explode in paroxysms of rage and righteous indignation, whether they be a retired colonel and Master of the Hunt from Chipping Norton or shop steward Fred Spart from the People's Republic of Barnsley.

Hopkins, I imagine, may well genuinely hold far Right views. So what? If her literary style is a marketable attribute and newspapers are prepared to pay her handsomely for it and - more importantly, ordinary people are prepared to pay for the privilege of reading what she has to say -  why the hell shouldn't she earn a crust that way?

You don't have to agree with her. And you have the freedom to express your disagreement on God alone knows how many social media  sites or by firing off a "Disgusted of East Cheam" letter to the editor if you feel so inclined.

And why? Because you have the inestimable privilege of freedom of speech. Just like Katie Hopkins.

I don't agree with a lot of what she has to say, but as Voltaire so famously put it, I would defend to the death her right to say it.

And nor would I come on here screeching like a goosed nun just because she had written something that I, personally, found offensive.

I simply don't understand why people have a problem with others having an opinion.

If you don't agree with her then say."I don't agree with her" - there's no need to insist she shouldn't have an opinion.

I always find those that moan about the free speech they don't like, are often happiest when speaking freely about how much they hate other people's opinions.
Dumb.

eddie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ah, someone has actually twigged it!

Hopkins is a newspaper columnist.  Like Owen Jones on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Like Littlejohn, who can expertly irritate Left, Right and Centre in equal measure.

The only thing that makes them so popular and so employable, either by The Guardian, Daily Mail, Sun or Daily Mirror, is because they have views which transcend the norm and the middle ground...and which can make their readers explode in paroxysms of rage and righteous indignation, whether they be a retired colonel and Master of the Hunt from Chipping Norton or shop steward Fred Spart from the People's Republic of Barnsley.

Hopkins, I imagine, may well genuinely hold far Right views. So what? If her literary style is a marketable attribute and newspapers are prepared to pay her handsomely for it and - more importantly, ordinary people are prepared to pay for the privilege of reading what she has to say -  why the hell shouldn't she earn a crust that way?

You don't have to agree with her. And you have the freedom to express your disagreement on God alone knows how many social media  sites or by firing off a "Disgusted of East Cheam" letter to the editor if you feel so inclined.

And why? Because you have the inestimable privilege of freedom of speech. Just like Katie Hopkins.

I don't agree with a lot of what she has to say, but as Voltaire so famously put it, I would defend to the death her right to say it.

And nor would I come on here screeching like a goosed nun just because she had written something that I, personally, found offensive.

I simply don't understand why people have a problem with others having an opinion.

If you don't agree with her then say."I don't agree with her" - there's no need to insist she shouldn't have an opinion.

I always find those that moan about the free speech they don't like, are often happiest when speaking freely about how much they hate other people's opinions.
Dumb.

Well the person wrongly accused had a problem, as its libel and she has every right to sue.
Its not an opinion, but an accusation. Not sure how you come to the conclusion its an opinion.
Would you be happy, if you were accused of a heinous crime and this went public?

Of which again everyone has a right to free speech, but again with Free Speech comes the consequences of that action.

Not sure why you and Fred are banging on about Free Speech, when that is not the issue here.

It was Andy who started talking about other issues actually. Why not pull him up?

Raggamuffin wrote:It was Andy who started talking about other issues actually. Why not pull him up?

Where did he say she could not have opinions?