Katie Hopkins - one sick bitch

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Raggs thinks Thor is trolling!!!!

Ffs, just noticed Doom posted 11 consecutive posts on this thread, and not 1 condemnation of Flopkins libel.
As Thof said ,  the bitch posted an outright lie on Twitter, knowing it was a lie. She was asked to remove it, apologise and make a small charitable donation. She removed it but would not apologise or deny it was wrong.

It was the lie that has cost her another £150k.
Lying and libelling on Twitter is an expensive hobby.

Yes I do.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Raggs thinks Thor is trolling!!!!

Ffs, just noticed Doom posted 11 consecutive posts on this thread, and not 1 condemnation of Flopkins libel.
As Thof said ,  the bitch posted an outright lie on Twitter, knowing it was a lie. She was asked to remove it, apologise and make a small charitable donation. She removed it but would not apologise or deny it was wrong.

It was the lie that has cost her another £150k.
Lying and libelling on Twitter is an expensive hobby.

Yes I do.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I do.

But do you condemn Flopkins lies and libel on Twitter?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
But do you condemn Flopkins lies and libel on Twitter?

Eh?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Raggs thinks Thor is trolling!!!!

Ffs, just noticed Doom posted 11 consecutive posts on this thread, and not 1 condemnation of Flopkins libel.
As Thof said ,  the bitch posted an outright lie on Twitter, knowing it was a lie. She was asked to remove it, apologise and make a small charitable donation. She removed it but would not apologise or deny it was wrong.

It was the lie that has cost her another £150k.
Lying and libelling on Twitter is an expensive hobby.

Yes I do.

Angry Andy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I do.

But do you condemn Flopkins lies and libel on Twitter?
It is a simple question, Raggs.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

YOU'VE really scuttled that ridiculous little Flop gang now,  well done Andy and Thorin  !!!

Ragg's,  Deano --  and their motley support crew --  all 'gone to ground'..
None of them have been on here for yonks !

I s'pose their lying garbage can only carry them so far..        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

YOU'VE really scuttled that ridiculous little Flop gang now,  well done Andy and Thorin  !!!

Ragg's,  Deano --  and their motley support crew --  all 'gone to ground'..
None of them have been on here for yonks !

I s'pose their lying garbage can only carry them so far..        

Thorin wrote:And this is what this thread is really about Andy.
The defense by the neoconservatives on here of Kate Hopkins.
Or more to the point, their hero worship.
Not anything on free speech.
Where for once it was not the left but the right trying to stiffle Free Speech here, in defense of Kate Hopkins.
Now your words were abusive and poor and condemn your abuse, but you have every right to express them, just as we see daily from many posters on here. That was not an example of trying to stiffle Free Speech. You have your rights to views, which are also open to criticism and ridicule.
Sadly, the Neo's invented so much bullshit here, they hated the fact I easily exposed their gibberish.
They got angry and offensive themselves, with countless accusations, straight out of the Kate Hopkins Bible.

How many have condemn Kate here out of the Neo-Club?

They have glossed over her views and hypocritical think she should be protected from criticism and ridicule.

The hypocrisy is Priceless.

Angry Andy wrote:What red herring? 
It is a progression of the debate.
Do you  condemn the ILLEGAL lies and libellous posts made by Flopkins?
Condemn or condone?
It is a binary choice.
It might go against you far right instincts, but even you cannot smile at a post that calls a dead baby washed ashore  on a Turkish beach nothing more than a 'cockroach'.

Angry Andy wrote:The lies were the ones she was found guilty in court for libel. Try Google.
Plenty of answers to view.

The dead kid WAS a migrant.
Therefore, in Hopkins warped mind, he comes under the umbrella of being  a cockroach.

Angry Andy wrote:

Thorin wrote:And this is what this thread is really about Andy.
The defense by the neoconservatives on here of Kate Hopkins.
Or more to the point, their hero worship.
Not anything on free speech.
Where for once it was not the left but the right trying to stiffle Free Speech here, in defense of Kate Hopkins.
Now your words were abusive and poor and condemn your abuse, but you have every right to express them, just as we see daily from many posters on here. That was not an example of trying to stiffle Free Speech. You have your rights to views, which are also open to criticism and ridicule.
Sadly, the Neo's invented so much bullshit here, they hated the fact I easily exposed their gibberish.
They got angry and offensive themselves, with countless accusations, straight out of the Kate Hopkins Bible.

How many have condemn Kate here out of the Neo-Club?

They have glossed over her views and hypocritical think she should be protected from criticism and ridicule.

The hypocrisy is Priceless.

It's the only way to get 'em off their arses and comment.
Still not a single post of condemnation from Doom, Rags Nicko and Tom. 
Because they adore her and hang on every word and Twitter she posts.
Vile and abusive is the only language the alt-right can understand.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:The lies were the ones she was found guilty in court for libel. Try Google.
Plenty of answers to view.

The dead kid WAS a migrant.
Therefore, in Hopkins warped mind, he comes under the umbrella of being  a cockroach.

She didn't call him a cockroach because she didn't know he existed at the time she said it, let alone know that he going to drown. If you're going to accuse her, make sure you're factually correct.

It's up to you to provide evidence of these lies because you're the one raising the issue.

Angry Andy wrote:Ffs. She called ALL migrants cockroaches. 
Ergo , that includes those before, during and after she said it.
Even the Sun deleted it and fired her.
Do you condone or condemn her calling them cockroaches.?
You wont lose face condemning her.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Ffs. She called ALL migrants cockroaches. 
Ergo , that includes those before, during and after she said it.
Even the Sun deleted it and fired her.
Do you condone or condemn her calling them cockroaches.?
You wont lose face condemning her.

Well she meant that they were survivors like cockroaches, but I agree it was an unfortunate choice of words.

Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling cabbage would talk more sense .

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though Andy - you said this about her:

Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Do you not think that's rather abusive towards those with epilepsy - implying that their brains are "fucked up"?

I really don't see how you can sit in judgement after your comment.

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though Andy - you said this about her:

Pity they didn't fuck her brain up even more during her epilepsy operation.
A drooling  cabbage would talk more sense .

Do you not think that's rather abusive towards those with epilepsy - implying that their brains are "fucked up"?

I really don't see how you can sit in judgement after your comment.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though Andy - you said this about her:



Do you not think that's rather abusive towards those with epilepsy - implying that their brains are "fucked up"?

I really don't see how you can sit in judgement after your comment.

And this, is why free speech got mentioned.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The thing is though Andy - you said this about her:



Do you not think that's rather abusive towards those with epilepsy - implying that their brains are "fucked up"?

I really don't see how you can sit in judgement after your comment.

And this, is why free speech got mentioned.

Why?
As you made views on Kate about Free Speech.
Did you on Andy, Eddie?

Angry Andy wrote:She admitted she was not right in the brain department -

I believed she said of herself " I was born with half a brain".

Clearly she was born with the sour, angry, vitriolic part.

I'm missing part of my brain, but people would argue I was all along.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why?
As you made views on Kate about Free Speech.
Did you on Andy, Eddie?

I'm not even half-kidding; what do you mean?

eddie wrote: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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:She admitted she was not right in the brain department -

Clearly she was born with the sour, angry, vitriolic part.

Do you have a link to that? I think she said this after her operation:

I'm missing part of my brain, but people would argue I was all along.

They apparently removed part of her brain during the operation. I don't think that you can backtrack now really. Epilepsy is a terrible affliction, and for you to imply that someone who has it is subnormal is really not on.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:

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.

Don't be silly - of course free speech is the issue here.

The libel case was used by Andy in his opening post simply as the latest Hopkins-related event to enable him to launch an attack on the woman, her character, her political stance and her work as a controversial writer and broadcaster. It was simply a timely and convenient facilitator.

Look at the heading of the thread: "Katie Hopkins - one sick bitch." That alone carries the issue way beyond simply the contents and result of a libel case report.

Andy also cited as reasons for his opprobrium  "calling a dead child a cockroach", "calling dementia cases bedblockers", referring to her as "a professional troll paid to lie and defame", "poisonous", "an evil krone who thinks she's Jesus", "proves that the alt right just are not right in most department" and the choicest of all "pity they didn't fuck up her brain even more during her epilepsy operation."

Not a lot of reference to a libel case there, but plenty about Andy's feelings about Katie Hopkins, her opinions and, by obvious inference, her right to publish them.

And then cue Wolfie's considered opinion of Hopkins: "...a disgusting oxygen thief", "total waste of space" and "misbegotten slime."

Nothing about the libel case there, either, you'll note...but everything about Wolfie's loathing of someone he considers to be far Right Wing and the fact that she promotes and publishes her opinions.

In other words, she exercises her freedom of speech and expression...and while I am in no way defending her, her opinions or her professional standards and ethics, I will always defend that right. For anyone.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
just because you say something does not make it true. how has she played any victim card. If anything she has been eminently sensible by sticking you on ignore and you are a tedious twat at the best of times. More so since you quit the booze.

Thank you. I know when Didge is trolling because he just starts introducing red herrings, he ignores the facts of a story, and he starts being illogical and going round in circles. It's best to just ignore him for a while when he does that.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Frankly, I know very little about Katie Hopkins other than what I've read about her in this forum.

Thorin wrote:Then I suggest you research further before commenting

I don't use Twitter, so I don't follow her there, and living out in the sticks I don't have a daily newspaper and read only what I happen to pick up in a newsagent's shop while I'm out and about. I would imagine that I have read no more than four or five of her articles, if that.

Thorin wrote:I am not on Twitter but am far more up to speed on what she says and writes in the papers and yet you have seen many of her articles posted on forums. So you are basically lying again on the number of articles you have read when countless have been posted on another forum and here. You clearly have online access and access to the media also. So that is a poor excuse.

I don't recall being terribly impressed by her journalistic style - a subject in which I can claim a certain modest expertise - and so far as I can recall I agreed with some of her stuff - and also disagreed with some of it.

Thorin wrote:Who cares about her journalistic style? That is a non-story and of zero importance, unless of course it is to those overtly judgmental Elitists. This is about how she ends up promoting views that are hateful and discriminating towards people. Like for example, calling Syrian refugees cockroaches. Do you think that as a person in the public eye, that is a fair thing for her to say, or something comparable to what Hitler would have said of the Jews?

Even more so when you read things like this she said:


"NO, I don’t care. Show me pictures of coffins, show me bodies floating in water, play violins and show me skinny people looking sad.
I still don’t care."

"decided to declare deadly virus ebola an effective means to control population."

"Which is really a very stupid thing to say given that Britain just sent 750 troops to Sierra Leone to try and tackle the killer disease."

"Suicidal prisoners should just kill themselves"

"Would I employ you if you were obese? No I would not."

Katie Hopkins claimed the picture of 3-year-old Syrian refugee Aylan Kurdi, who drowned on a beach in Turkey was "staged".

"No sympathy for Brits stranded in Egypt after bombing of Russian airplane"

Take your time and you can find more here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/big-brother/11332631/Katie-Hopkins-most-offensive-quotes.html

And whether she is Left Wing or Right Wing is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Thorin wrote:I believe you, not. lol

So, in spite of the howlings of the far Left and the predictably rambling red-ink intervention by the self-appointed know-all resident village idiot, I am not going to "condemn" the woman over allegedly obnoxious material attributed to her by third parties, particularly when their objective in introducing her name into a forum is without a doubt solely to generate what can only be described as a Katie Hopkins hatefest.

Thorin wrote:And there you have it. Yet more immaturity and straight out of the Kate Hopkins bible again. The self appointed Elitist of this forum and others. Who cannot take criticism, and uses the most infantile insults.

Alleged? My goodness, that is scraping the barrel for a defense.

You have seen what she has stated and refuse to condemn her or be critical, and howl like a kid having a tantrum at Andy's comments. That makes you a hypocrite, by refusing to acknowledge her poor hateful discriminating prejudice. Even worse you poorly attempt to claim they are alleged. You can still defend her rights to Free Speech, but your defense and silence to her views. To me, proves you must clearly share her views or are a coward to condemn them. As it might make you look bad towards some posters you get on with.

So which is it?

To me, clearly your popularity matters more to you, and means you are governed by emotions and not reason. I would rather be disliked and stand up for what is right, because I at least have integrity. Than popular for defending what is wrong.

So its okay for Kate to promote a hate fest of Refugees in the media, that is acceptable to you. But if one poster shows a hate-fest to her, you are outraged.

That has to be the most hypocritical double standard you have made.

Either both are wrong, or both okay to say hate against people.

Oh and as to Red ink?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19870p50-tyranny-of-the-minority-how-the-most-sinister-trend-of-our-age-is-a-poisonous-conviction-taking-root-on-the-left-and-among-the-elite-that-ordinary-people-are-too-stupid-to-be-trusted-with-voting#383993

lol, you really end up putting your foot in your mouth constantly Fred.
I have never claimed to know it all, but its clear that I can far easily reason better than you.

If I see something written by her, in an original and unexpurgated - and not a deliberately edited or slanted - form, that I regard as objectionable I will say so. 

Thorin wrote:Yet have failed to comment on her view that Syrian Refugees are cockroaches to Kate. You know people fleeing persecution. What would your view have been if this had been a comment at the Jewish refugees from before, during and after WW2 being called cockroaches by someone. Would you defend them? Or defend their right to free speech, but condemn their hate and discrimination? Or not employing people based on their obesity and not their ability?

If it is as disgusting as is being alleged here (and it now appears to be a very big "if")  then I would condemn it wholeheartedly.

Thorin wrote:Its well document that she made these views and that she lied and damaged the reputation of the person in this article. So not sure how on what planet you can claim a big "if", when its an open and shut case

And anyone who can translate that into my "having a crush" on the woman is, not to place too fine a point on it, a fucking brain-dead idiot

Thorin wrote:Open and shut case  by your defense of her Potty Mouth.

When is the wedding?

I wonder If Rags will berate you for your brain dead comment?
You see, you have to stoop so low, with immature insults. Making a mockery and a double standard over your outrage over Andy's abusive comments.

On this particular occasion I would imagine (though I have not read the hearing transcript and, in all honestly, have better things to occupy my attention anyway) that the judge put it down more to mistake than malice. Had he considered it to have been the latter, the penalty might well have been much, much heavier.

Thorin wrote:
Mr Justice Warby said: “Whilst the claimant may not have proved that [their] reputation suffered gravely, I am satisfied that [they] have established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to [their] reputation.” The publication of the altercation, he said, “not only caused [Monroe] real and substantial distress, but also harm to [their] reputation, which was serious”.


Clearly the judge thought it was malicious. She won half of what she sued for (she sued for £50,000) and I have no doubt he took into consideration she made a case of mistaken identity. That does not mean it was not malicious or viewed as malicious by the judge.

But no matter what the true facts of this case may be, I still maintain that Katie Hopkins enjoys exactly the same rights of freedom of speech and expression of opinion as anyone else.

eddie wrote:You're a really good poster Fred. You know that?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:You're a really good poster Fred. You know that?

 

That's really nice of you to say so, Eddie, and I've said "thank you" in the time-honoured forum manner.

However, I simply express my personal opinions, like everyone else here is entitled to do, and unlike some I don't consider them to be infallible. Seeing something you've written in a newspaper appearing in the apologies and corrections column ain't a very pleasurable experience, I can tell you!

I also like to think that I wade in only on topics where I feel that I at least know something about the matter and have something to say that others might find interesting, even if they disagree violently. That's what forums are for and it's why I enjoy spending a little of my time arguing my corner, hopefully with some passion and in a decent standard of English....even if there are those who consider that to be "elitist"!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:
You're a really good poster Fred. You know that?

That's really nice of you to say so, Eddie, and I've said "thank you" in the time-honoured forum manner.

However, I simply express my personal opinions, like everyone else here is entitled to do, and unlike some I don't consider them to be infallible. Seeing something you've written in a newspaper appearing in the apologies and corrections column ain't a very pleasurable experience, I can tell you!

I also like to think that I wade in only on topics where I feel that I at least know something about the matter and have something to say that others might find interesting, even if they disagree violently. That's what forums are for and it's why I enjoy spending a little of my time arguing my corner, hopefully with some passion and in a decent standard of English....even if there are those who consider that to be "elitist"!

nicko wrote:WHY DON'T YOU FUCK OFF WOLFIE? you never have anything interesting to say, all you do insult other posters.   Silly little man, not an original thought in your stupid head. Why are you so angry all the time?

[waits for usual hateful reply]

nicko wrote:WHY DON'T YOU FUCK OFF WOLFIE? you never have anything interesting to say, all you do insult other posters.   Silly little man, not an original thought in your stupid head. Why are you so angry all the time?

[waits for usual hateful reply]

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

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 .

Syl wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

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

That's because they are rarer than hens teeth.

Reading through this thread is quite funny though. People calling each other cowards and keyboard warriors....every one who does that is simply self projecting.
Its true Katy Hopkins (vile though she is) puts her face and real name where her mouth is....who does that here?
Its a bit hypocritical to barge into threads abusing and insulting other members, when they themselves do it hidden behind false names and other peoples photos.

Oh the irony of it all.  

Syl wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

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

That's because they are rarer than hens teeth.

Reading through this thread is quite funny though. People calling each other cowards and keyboard warriors....every one who does that is simply self projecting.
Its true Katy Hopkins (vile though she is) puts her face and real name where her mouth is....who does that here?
Its a bit hypocritical to barge into threads abusing and insulting other members, when they themselves do it hidden behind false names and other peoples photos.

Oh the irony of it all.