Katie Hopkins - one sick bitch

Thorin wrote:

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?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where did he say she could not have opinions?

Forget it. You're on ignore for a while - you're just trolling and picking arguments. I'm sure that tomorrow you'll be arguing with Andy and the lefties.

Thorin wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thorin wrote:Really where, show me where he has denied free speech?

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.

Thorin wrote: So you defend her right to free speech but not his. How ridiculous. In both cases both Kate and Andy are wrong. His has every right to hold opinions of her and express them. Just as she has the right to express her views, but that does not mean she cannot face criticism or mockery or ridicule for when as seen here make unfounded accusations of which Hopkins has done. Even more so when it actually effected the reputation of someone else. So you are contradicting yourself.

Are you claiming that she does not warrant criticism for her lies?

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.

Thorin wrote:So you are more interested in his abusive terms, of which she will never read from here but are completely glossing over the fact that Kate accused someone of no wrong they have done. Which was made public and damaged her reputation. Talk about a false equivalency on your part

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."

Thorin wrote:You have used mental health as a weapon to attack me. So by your methodology, are you then stiffing my free speech, by making such an accusation? Its not against the law or wrong to hold opinions of people when they are in the spotlight, but those who do are also accountable for them. So like here you are using this as a platform to be critical of Andy. You are not being abusive, but still attacking him and Wolf.

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.

eddie wrote:I dunno why I was banging on about free speech - i was replying to Fred

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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.

I saw zero to back your view this is about Free Speech
All I saw, is you exercise your right to your views, just as everyone else has done here.
It seems its you claiming Andy cannot have these opinions.
If you want to be critical of his abuse, I will join you in condemning him, but cut the crap, the only person it seems trying to stifle Free Speech here is you.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I saw zero to back your view this is about Free Speech
All I saw, is you exercise your right to your views, just as everyone else has done here.
It seems its you claiming Andy cannot have these opinions.
If you want to be critical of his abuse, I will join you in condemning him, but cut the crap, the only person it seems trying to stifle Free Speech here is you.

I don't think I have ever read such a load of ridiculous, convoluted bullshit in my life...even from you, and that's saying something.

Try reading posts properly, fully and in the context of the thread - and stop regarding every forum as necessarily being an exclusive vehicle for your own thoughts and opinions.

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I don't think I have ever read such a load of ridiculous, convoluted bullshit in my life...even from you, and that's saying something.

Try reading posts properly, fully and in the context of the thread - and stop regarding every forum as necessarily being an exclusive vehicle for your own thoughts and opinions.

Copout.

So your next answer is immature and childish.

No surprise there then. What it shows is I easily proved you were talking gibberish.

This was not about Free Speech

You made it about Free Speech because clearly you must have a crush on this vile woman

That is clear.

Nobody is beyond criticism or ridicule for the views they make publicly.

Like I said, if you want to condemn the abuse thrown. I will happily join you in condemning, but you proved nothing other than you clearly did not defend the right of Andy to express his views. Even though those views were abusive.

Clearly a contradiction and proof you do not defend Free Speech.

Its who you like, that you defend in regards to Free Speech.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Could you at least attempt to get through your thick skull and into what passes as your brain that I was responding to a perfectly valid comment by Eddie (God knows why she should feel apologetic about making it) about the expression of personal opinions and not to your predictably arrogant, and peremptory dismissal of Raggs' comments about the Hopkins libel case.

Thorin wrote: Ahhh more immaturity and poor insults, making your views on Andy now a complete mockery. There is nothing valid on your views on Free Speech here, as you were the one that brought this up when nobody had been against her having opinions. You think Free Speech only works for those who you defend, also making a mockery of when you use Voltaire. You then continue to misdirect because you more than any poster I have ever known. Have an inability to take any criticism or admit you can sometimes be wrong. Look at your reaction here with immature insults on the bases of intelligence.

I am sure that when it becomes mandatory in this forum for all of us permanently to hang onto your every utterance and to respond appropriately to what you clearly regard as your infallibility and undisputed knowledge and wisdom, Ben and his team of moderators will advise us accordingly.

Thorin wrote:More misdirection.
Again I have not made any claims on my knowledge or wisdom and beginning to think you must be jealous the amount of times you continue to bring this up. Again this is you attempting to stifle Free Speech, as now to you, I am not allowed my opinions. Its again misdirection
Thank you for just proving that

In the mean time you will oblige me, at least, by accepting that I will respond to such of your posts as I see fit and in a manner that I see fit, and that deliberately twisting my words, making assinine assumptions and attributing false interpretations to my posts to suit your own agenda will fool no-one but yourself.

Thorin wrote:I never twisted anything,
You made a baseless claim that this was about Free Speech and then went off Andy's abuse, as if he has no right to his opinions, thus contradicting your own stance.
I asked you to prove how this was about Free Speech and you have failed to offer anything to back your baseless claim

And achieving that goal, it would appear, does not take a great deal of effort on anyone's part.

Tommy Monk wrote:

This op shows that there are already systems in place to enable action against people when they get it wrong in what they say publicly.


As I said before... given the enormous amount of stuff she has said/written over the years... the fact there has only been two successful libel cases against her shows that 99.999% of what she has otherwise said/written, must be true!!!


But what this is really about for the likes of hand shandy and his ilk... is them wanting to completely shut her up, or at least extensively undermine her credibility and that of her opinions/arguments.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

This op shows that there are already systems in place to enable action against people when they get it wrong in what they say publicly.


As I said before... given the enormous amount of stuff she has said/written over the years... the fact there has only been two successful libel cases against her shows that 99.999% of what she has otherwise said/written, must be true!!!


But what this is really about for the likes of hand shandy and his ilk... is them wanting to completely shut her up, or at least extensively undermine her credibility and that of her opinions/arguments.

Absurd logic.
Only two personal cases have been brought against her.
Many statements she makes is not against individuals.
So your reasoning that she is right 99.999% of the time, is sheer gibberish

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:



Absurd logic.
Only two personal cases have been brought against her.
Many statements she makes is not against individuals.
So your reasoning that she is right 99.999% of the time, is sheer gibberish

The op is suggesting that she is wrong all the time, and worse...!


If all she is doing is voicing her own opinions for 99.999% of the time... and all done completely legally... then what's the problem...!?


There is nothing stopping others from disagreeing, they are free to voice their own opinions too... but

Tommy Monk wrote:
They can disagree... and should be able to voice valid reasons for their differing opinion if they have legitimate points/arguments...


However, they don't have any right to just shout abuse and/or try to shut people up!

Tommy Monk wrote:
She's not here... but the abuse directed at her is clearly here in op and other comments...

Tommy Monk wrote:
She's not here... but the abuse directed at her is clearly here in op and other comments...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge said she was not here... as if that was relevant somehow...


And I also agreed that she is not here... which is equally relevant/irrelevant...

Tommy Monk wrote:Voicing a legitimate opinion that is well within the law is not abuse.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
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.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
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  !          

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 !).          

Raggamuffin wrote: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: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.

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.

Thorin wrote: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

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Where did he say she could not have opinions?

Forget it. You're on ignore for a while - you're just trolling and picking arguments. I'm sure that tomorrow you'll be arguing with Andy and the lefties.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Forget it. You're on ignore for a while - you're just trolling and picking arguments. I'm sure that tomorrow you'll be arguing with Andy and the lefties.

Oh here we go again, Rags pulls out the victim card and now makes accusations herself, a chip off the old Kate Hopkins Bible it seems.

Eddie and Fred have stated about Free speech here and I see nobody stating she should not have opinions.
Andy exercised his free speech about Kate Hopkin. Vile and ugly as it was and no better than her, but again I am questioning why people are making claims to free speech, when it did not even come up.
So enjoy your tantrum...

Thorin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

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.

I saw zero to back your view this is about Free Speech
All I saw, is you exercise your right to your views, just as everyone else has done here.
It seems its you claiming Andy cannot have these opinions.
If you want to be critical of his abuse, I will join you in condemning him, but cut the crap, the only person it seems trying to stifle Free Speech here is you.

Angry Andy wrote:The simple answer would be if she didnt post deliberate lies, and apologise where she has made an error.
By her own admission, she never, ever apologises for anything.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


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.

just how did she ruin the life of that oxygen thief?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote: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

that sounds a little like fraud

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Oh here we go again, Rags pulls out the victim card and now makes accusations herself, a chip off the old Kate Hopkins Bible it seems.

Eddie and Fred have stated about Free speech here and I see nobody stating she should not have opinions.
Andy exercised his free speech about Kate Hopkin. Vile and ugly as it was and no better than her, but again I am questioning why people are making claims to free speech, when it did not even come up.
So enjoy your tantrum...

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.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:The simple answer would be if she didnt post deliberate lies, and apologise where she has made an error.
By her own admission, she never, ever apologises for anything.

can you point out these deliberate lies. this libel case seems to be a case of mistaken identity.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Oh here we go again, Rags pulls out the victim card and now makes accusations herself, a chip off the old Kate Hopkins Bible it seems.

Eddie and Fred have stated about Free speech here and I see nobody stating she should not have opinions.
Andy exercised his free speech about Kate Hopkin. Vile and ugly as it was and no better than her, but again I am questioning why people are making claims to free speech, when it did not even come up.
So enjoy your tantrum...

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.

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 and starts being illogical and going round in circles. It's best to just ignore him for a while when he does that.

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 liebel.
As Thof said ,  the bitch posted an outright lie on Twitter, knowing it was a lie. She was asked to remove it, apologiise and make a small charitable donation. She removed it but wpuld not apologise or deny it was wrong.

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

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:Clearly, if Jack Monroe's reputation was so damaged that she was awarded £24,000, it's considered very bad form to scrawl things on memorials. The other woman might want to think about that before she tells everyone she doesn't have a problem with it, otherwise she might damage her own reputation.