Katie Hopkins - one sick bitch

Angry Andy wrote:

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]

A polite reply, Nicko, but how  does your post contribute to the Hopkins condone/condemn debate?

Syl wrote:
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.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
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"!

What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.  

       

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.  

       

That's rich coming from someone with the intelligence of a gerbil and the human decency, honesty and integrity of Roland Friesler.

Angry Andy wrote:Not entirely sure that Nicko's deeds in Vietnam would neccesarily be called 'glorious' by everyone.Following orders sometimes doesn’t alway justify actions either. All conflicts involve collateral damage.
Not sure I could live a lifetime haunted by that memory.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.  

       

That's rich coming from someone with the intelligence of a gerbil and the human decency, honesty and integrity of Roland Friesler.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
A polite reply, Nicko, but how  does your post contribute to the Hopkins condone/condemn debate?

Nicko will be waiting a long time for me to reply to any of his posts anymore,  since I have had him on my "Foes" list since his failed attempt last week  to defend and protect serial child abusers, and to deflect discussions away from British government-sanctioned abuses...

Nicko is a worthless and deranged little grub, with no feelings or concern for his fellow human beings, using his past glories to defend his current obnoxious outbursts..

The last time we actually witnessed nicko commenting on any topics, rather than abusing his opponents outright, would have back around Christmas !  Interesting that his only comments on here lately has been to abuse, you, veya or myself..

Thorin wrote:

as for using red ...

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:

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.


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.

Sorry to abbreviate your post, Thorin. I just bumped this to say that I don't mind people using
red in their posts. Doesn't bother me!

I don't use red myself (except on very rare occasions to highlight a word or phrase) but it doesn't bother me to see people using it. When there is a huge wall of text, it becomes almost unreadable UNLESS it is broken up by various colours. And if some of the text has already been highlighted in a different colour like blue or bolded black, the only other colour left to use is red.

I suppose the darker/duller shades of red are less harsh than bright blood-red, but either way I don't feel it's  big issue. Colour is provided by the software,  for a reason. It's there to be used.

Thorin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Not entirely sure that Nicko's deeds in Vietnam would neccesarily be called 'glorious' by everyone.Following orders sometimes doesn’t alway justify actions either. All conflicts involve collateral damage.
Not sure I could live a lifetime haunted by that memory.

You have no right to make claims based on his service record Andy and the Australians service in Vietnam, was quite excellent. You are out of line, as most soldiers ho have fought, suffer nightmares.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Nicko will be waiting a long time for me to reply to any of his posts anymore,  since I have had him on my "Foes" list since his failed attempt last week  to defend and protect serial child abusers, and to deflect discussions away from British government-sanctioned abuses...

Nicko is a worthless and deranged little grub, with no feelings or concern for his fellow human beings, using his past glories to defend his current obnoxious outbursts..

The last time we actually witnessed nicko commenting on any topics, rather than abusing his opponents outright, would have back around Christmas !  Interesting that his only comments on here lately has been to abuse, you, veya or myself..

Nicko commented today on the NHS thread, so you are wrong Wolf.
If you have him on ignore, you are not doing a very good job, by bitching about him.
Keep to the topic

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


That's rich coming from someone with the intelligence of a gerbil and the human decency, honesty and integrity of Roland Friesler.

So basically you are calling Wolf a Nazi.
Wow, how many times have you spat your dummy out over someone else calling you that?
Double standards again

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Nicko commented today on the NHS thread, so you are wrong Wolf.
If you have him on ignore, you are not doing a very good job, by bitching about him.
Keep to the topic

It's easy to comment on this topic, Thorin...

Katie Hopkins is a disgusting and amoral old hag, with no apparent empathy for human suffering...

Which is clearly why those like Fred , Sly and Ragg's so easily identify with her.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So basically you are calling Wolf a Nazi.
Wow, how many times have you spat your dummy out over someone else calling you that?
Double standards again

Friesler was a man who abused his bit of power and screamed maniacally at his victims

One would have though that even you might have grasped the the implication.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:
Sorry to abbreviate your post, Thorin. I just bumped this to say that I don't mind people using
red in their posts. Doesn't bother me!

I don't use red myself (except on very rare occasions to highlight a word or phrase) but it doesn't bother me to see people using it. When there is a huge wall of text, it becomes almost unreadable UNLESS it is broken up by various colours. And if some of the text has already been highlighted in a different colour like blue or bolded black, the only other colour left to use is red.

I suppose the darker/duller shades of red are less harsh than bright blood-red, but either way I don't feel it's  big issue. Colour is provided by the software,  for a reason. It's there to be used.

No worries Jules, the point is that Fred has used red himself in debates also. 
So he scored an own goal on that one
I agree its not an issue. Its only to those you allow themselves to get wound up because people disagree with them.

Thorin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


It's easy to comment on this topic, Thorin...

Katie Hopkins is a disgusting and amoral old hag, with no apparent empathy for human suffering...

Which is clearly why those like Fred , Sly and Ragg's so easily identify with her.

I have nothing personal against any of the posters you mention and really like Syl.
What they wrongly are doing. Is thinking people are not open to ridicule or criticism for what they write. They are in essence trying to protect writers from any rightly disdain for what they put to print.
And two of them were harping on about Free Speech and its they who were trying to stifle this.
Kate Hopkins is vile and she has no defense for the prejudice and discrimination she spouts

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So basically you are calling Wolf a Nazi.
Wow, how many times have you spat your dummy out over someone else calling you that?
Double standards again

Friesler was a man who abused his bit of power and screamed maniacally at his victims

One would have though that even you might have grasped the the implication.

He was a Nazi Judge
Which you compared the human decency, honesty and integrity of Wolf to this Nazi
The implication is you were comparing him to a Nazi.

Like I said, double standard.

I mean how would you like it if hypothetically. I claimed you had the honesty, integretity and decency of the former editor of Der Stumer?

Would you not think I was comparing you to a Nazi?

Lord Foul wrote:

Thorin wrote:


He was a Nazi Judge
Which you compared the human decency, honesty and integrity of Wolf to this Nazi
The implication is you were comparing him to a Nazi.

Like I said, double standard.

I mean how would you like it if hypothetically. I claimed you had the honesty, integretity and decency of the former editor of Der Stumer?

Would you not think I was comparing you to a Nazi?

pure hyperbole thorin...

one could compare stalin to hitler and be quite correct , however you wouldnt describe stalin as a nazi...

marking someone with the attributes of a different person merely indicates their general demeanor rather than their political alliance...
screaming manically and frothing at the mouth isnt a nazi trait exclusively.... so doesnt condemn wolfie to nazism....

Fred....actually I'd see wolfie more as a Pol Pot wannabe........or maybe a Kim whatsisname stand in.....

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I have nothing personal against any of the posters you mention and really like Syl.
What they wrongly are doing. Is thinking people are not open to ridicule or criticism for what they write. They are in essence trying to protect writers from any rightly disdain for what they put to print.
And two of them were harping on about Free Speech and its they who were trying to stifle this.
Kate Hopkins is vile and she has no defense for the prejudice and discrimination she spouts

Are you actually going to produce one single post from me in which I  am "trying to stifle free speech"?

That's the third or fourth time you have made the accusation.

The whole point of my intervention in this debate  was to defend the right of free speech and expression of opinion in the case of everyone - even people like Katie Hopkins.

And when you have found what you believe to be such a post, I would prefer you to reproduce it unedited and not, as is your usual practice, as a deliberate misrepresentation of what I actually said in order to fit your own agenda.

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.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


That's rich coming from someone with the intelligence of a gerbil and the human decency, honesty and integrity of Roland Friesler.

Your latest round of bullshit shows you up for what you really are, Fred...

A lying, fake and disruptive troll..

Who only appears these days to deflect from his fellow floptards' stuffups...


You really do have designs on yoirself, don't you --  why were you defending paedophiles on here last week, Fred ?  Over there in that child abuse thread --  where you, nicko, VoD and Horatio spent all your efforts on attacking me and veya, rather than commenting on the subject itself..

You disgusting and heartless old fraud.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No worries Jules, the point is that Fred has used red himself in debates also. 
So he scored an own goal on that one
I agree its not an issue. Its only to those you allow themselves to get wound up because people disagree with them.

For the record I use red  type mainly to highlight third party quotes or to differentiate my responses or comments in reproduced posts. It's fairly standard procedure.

Using line after line of bold red type as a main text is the chat room equivalent of a fractious toddler in a playgroup screaming because he isn't getting the attention he thinks he deserves.

So perhaps, in your case, to use of such a large amount of bold red type  was wholly appropriate.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

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"!

What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.          

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Your latest round of bullshit shows you up for what you really are, Fred...

A lying, fake and disruptive troll..

Who only appears these days to deflect from his fellow floptards' stuffups...


You really do have designs on yoirself, don't you --  why were you defending paedophiles on here last week, Fred ?  Over there in that child abuse thread --  where you, nicko, VoD and Horatio spent all your efforts on attacking me and veya, rather than commenting on the subject itself..

You disgusting and heartless old fraud.

Given your own unenviable record of suddenly appearing from nowhere to heap more of your predictably vile and childish abuse  on posters such as Nicko, head and Raggs, I suggest that if you want to see a real example of a "lying, fake and disruptive troll" you should head for the nearest mirror.

Since I don't recall "defending paedophiles" here or anywhere else, would your care to elaborate?

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.          

Why? Becasue I thought Fred's post was good?

I agree with him about free speech - I don't like Hopkins but I do defend her right to say what she wants, same as you, Andy and everyone else - the forum owner advocates free speech.

Where are you and I in disagreenment over that?  

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


What a double-barrelled load of utter crap...

You two are simply proving yourselves to be a couple of hypocritical, uncaring, empty-headed, know-nothing fools..

Who don't care one wit about human decency, honesty or integrity.          

Why? Becasue I thought Fred's post was good?

I agree with him about free speech - I don't like Hopkins but I do defend her right to say what she wants, same as you, Andy and everyone else - the forum owner advocates free speech.

Where are you and I in disagreenment over that?  

Fred has no idea what Free Speech is and thinks writers should have protection from  people disliking them, for the bile they right. That is attempting to deny Free Speech

Nobody has denied kate the right to say what she wants, what we are seeing is a the  defense of the contents of her views and hardly any condemning.

The later part is the most telling

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Fred has no idea what Free Speech is and thinks writers should have protection from  people disliking them, for the bile they right. That is attempting to deny Free Speech

Nobody has denied kate the right to say what she wants, what we are seeing is a the  defense of the contents of her views and hardly any condemning.

The later part is the most telling

I'm not defending her views nor her nastiness. I'm simply defending her right to say what she wants and if she gets into trouble for it then she has to own it.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Are you actually going to produce one single post from me in which I  am "trying to stifle free speech"?

That's the third or fourth time you have made the accusation.

The whole point of my intervention in this debate  was to defend the right of free speech and expression of opinion in the case of everyone - even people like Katie Hopkins.

And when you have found what you believe to be such a post, I would prefer you to reproduce it unedited and not, as is your usual practice, as a deliberate misrepresentation of what I actually said in order to fit your own agenda.

Loads, just go back and counter the many posts you have avoided from me, where you were attacking Andy, as if he had no right to his views on kate.

So I have posted and backed up my accusations

How about you stop avoided answering them and have me repeat myself

You stand against Free speech on every level, when you choose who to defend.

You did not defend the right of Andy's Free Speech

So I shall now rebump my earlier post to you

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Given your own unenviable record of suddenly appearing from nowhere to heap more of your predictably vile and childish abuse  on posters such as Nicko, head and Raggs, I suggest that if you want to see a real example of a "lying, fake and disruptive troll" you should head for the nearest mirror.

Since I don't recall "defending paedophiles" here or anywhere else, would your care to elaborate?

Blah, blah, blah, blah

Yes, you love the sound of  making out you are some decent person.

Newsflash, this has been exposed that you only care about popularity, than speaking out on wrongs

All I ever see you write is excuses. The kind of person who hides behinds his views.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Loads, just go back and counter the many posts you have avoided from me, where you were attacking Andy, as if he had no right to his views on kate.

So I have posted and backed up my accusations

How about you stop avoided answering them and have me repeat myself

You stand against Free speech on every level, when you choose who to defend.

You did not defend the right of Andy's Free Speech

So I shall now rebump my earlier post to you

Since when have you given yourself the right to demand that I, or indeed anyone else, should feel ourselves to be under some mandatory obligation to respond to your posts on any subject?

I will respond to your posts when - and if - I wish; not when you expect me to.

Not responding to posts does not necessarily mean avoiding them...personally I frequently have far better and more important things to do than to trawl through page after page of text and links from you.

Now you have accused me of stifling free speech on this forum. Not simply failing to respond to your own opinions, but actually stifling someone's freedom of speech and expression of opinion.

Where? When? And more importantly how? Unless he hasn't got round to telling me yet, Ben has not appointed me as a moderator.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Blah, blah, blah, blah

Yes, you love the sound of  making out you are some decent person.

Newsflash, this has been exposed that you only care about popularity, than speaking out on wrongs

All I ever see you write is excuses. The kind of person who hides behinds his views.

So now you have appointed yourself as Wolfie's spokesman. I am sure he will be most grateful to you.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Fred has no idea what Free Speech is and thinks writers should have protection from  people disliking them, for the bile they right. That is attempting to deny Free Speech

Nobody has denied kate the right to say what she wants, what we are seeing is a the  defense of the contents of her views and hardly any condemning.

The later part is the most telling

I'm not defending her views nor her nastiness. I'm simply defending her right to say what she wants and if she gets into trouble for it then she has to own it.

Show me anywhere on this thread, where they have denied her Free Speech?
Seriously, or even called for it?
Not the invented bullshit that Fred claimed
Show me any posts, where any here said she cannot have her views or Free speech?
Only in your last post have you said to defend Andy's right to his views

This is the neoconservative card played, when someone makes vile views, claim this is about Free Speech. When its not  and is done to misdirect from the vile views she makes.
I have seen a poor showing of comments on her views and even worse people trying to defend them.
Again nobody is denying her the right to these views, but there is a sever lack condemning or being critical of them

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Show me anywhere on this thread, where they have denied her Free Speech?
Seriously, or even called for it?
Not the invented bullshit that Fred claimed
Show me any posts, where any here said she cannot have her views or Free speech?
Only in your last post have you said to defend Andy's right to his views

This is the neoconservative card played, when someone makes vile views, claim this is about Free Speech. When its not  and is done to misdirect from the vile views she makes.
I have seen a poor showing of comments on her views and even worse people trying to defend them.
Again nobody is denying her the right to these views, but there is a sever lack condemning or being critical of them

I don't have to defend Andy? By saying I'm a believer in free speech would imply I mean everyone has the right to free speech.

Stop twisting my words.

eddie wrote:Twisting my words, didn't read my last post cos you can't be wrong....so what's the point?
Can't be bothered to repeat myself and for the record I much prefer Andy to Hopkins so not quite sure where that train of thought was going except to Irrelevant City.  

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Fred has no idea what Free Speech is and thinks writers should have protection from  people disliking them, for the bile they right. That is attempting to deny Free Speech

Nobody has denied kate the right to say what she wants, what we are seeing is a the  defense of the contents of her views and hardly any condemning.

The later part is the most telling

I'm not defending her views nor her nastiness. I'm simply defending her right to say what she wants and if she gets into trouble for it then she has to own it.

Thorin wrote:The claim of "Twisted" seems to be the new excuse card.

Interesting

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

eddie wrote:


I'm not defending her views nor her nastiness. I'm simply defending her right to say what she wants and if she gets into trouble for it then she has to own it.

And that, Eddie, is what all this histrionic nonsense is all about...whether someone who holds and frequently expresses vile opinions has - or does not have - the right to express them.

Like you, I defend that right, even though I might well regard what she says as despicable. Responsibility for accepting any consequences is hers and hers alone.

For that fool Thorin now to have progressed to a suggestion that "...what we are seeing is the defence of the contents of her views..." is, apart from being a bloody downright lie, an indication that he simply cannot understand that not actually jumping up and down in the forum and calling the woman a "vile bitch" and worse is not, by any stretch of even his overly vivid imagination, a case defending what she actually said.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:The claim of "Twisted" seems to be the new excuse card.

Interesting

No it isn't...it's exactly what you do, and what you have always done, here and elsewhere.

My previous post gives a classic example of the devious and mendacious way in which you go about it.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


No it isn't...it's exactly what you do, and what you have always done, here and elsewhere.

My previous post gives a classic example of the devious and mendacious way in which you go about it.

My long post rubbished your poor unfounded claim
Its why you have given it a wide birth and why you keep giving excuses not to reply
You do this all the time, offer up excuses and it shows badly.
That is misdirection
You think by ignoring my points, you can just move past them
They are still there
So like I said, go back and respond or crawl away, with your tail between your legs

Happy either way

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


My long post rubbished your poor unfounded claim
Its why you have given it a wide birth and why you keep giving excuses not to reply
You do this all the time, offer up excuses and it shows badly.
That is misdirection
You think by ignoring my points, you can just move past them
They are still there
So like I said, go back and respond or crawl away, with your tail between your legs

Happy either way

What long post?

Angry Andy wrote:The thing with free speech is that with that right  comes responsibilty to keep accusations truthful and evidenced, otherwise, as Hopkins repeatedly keeps finding out, losing libel cases hurts in the pocket.
If you put your name to a social media article, be it on Twatter, Facebook or in the Fail, double check it's legality before hitting the enter key.
Sadly, Hopkins is making  a career both on LBC and The Fail for making outrageous and unfounded accusations, so it only a question of when , not if, she gets taken to court again for a libel.
She cost the Fail in excess of £300k. She has cost herself probably the same amount.
I don't think her career on LBC will be prolonged if she oversteps the mark whilst on air.

Happened to fat Jon Gaunt on Talk Sport when he called a councillor a nazi pig. 
Sacked within 4 hours and cost him a fortune in lost appeals.
Now dropped off the media radar. Thank goodness.