You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
On the day she gets banned from Twitter, someone drops this gem:
If you even thought she was vaguely likeable before, just have a listen to her acceptance speech.
That's an excellent piece of work by those lads. Sadly I doubt it will stop people employing her.
I enjoyed that, apart from having to look at her hate ridden arseface
Very good!
As for what she says during the speech. Jaw dropping.
Can't believe she is only 44, I'm guessing being that riddled with nastiness ages you.
Preferred the first title of the thread, made me laugh out loud 🙂
@twistedpencil - me too, but the thread got taken down for trying to circumvent the swear filter 🙁
That acceptance speech. Wow. What an apt award.
Is she always that awful? I mean I hear she's a nasty person but I've not seen her talk before. Did she let her hair down for that audience? It must be exhausting being that full of bile.
I initially thought this was hilarious.
On reflection it's being just as nasty as Hopkins, so now I feel bad about its funniness. Surely she has a mental problem.
Jesus! 44? She must’ve had the hardest paper round. I honestly thought she was late fifties. No wonder she’s so angry. I would be too if I had a face like a leather wallet that’s been lost at sea for fifty years.
Hopefully she stays banned as that will mean the end of her
Tommy Robinson et al are finding out that being deplatformed is a career ender
Surely she has a mental problem.
Everyone has a mental problem of some sort. I would imagine a part of her brain is very underdeveloped that allows any compassion, empathy etc,. I think it is called tory syndrome.
She may not be choosing to be what she is just like I didn't choose to have the issues I have.
She really is a nasty piece of work. Whatever the reason for her lack of empathy she actively chooses to present and promote ideas that are intended to provoke. She could choose to keep her horrid thoughts to herself.
I initially thought this was hilarious.
On reflection it’s being just as nasty as Hopkins, so now I feel bad about its funniness. Surely she has a mental problem.
Hmmm, She can dish it out and notes that "it's normally incoming fire balls" so one assumes she can take it by now...
Yes it was seeking to make her look ridiculous, and succeeded (with her assistance).
But also made the point that freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, if you want it then Katie Hopkins has the right to peddle the notion that she is "oppressed" for her demography and outright bigotry, she has the basic freedom to be heard... Of course if someone wants to (rather elaborately) make the counter point, that she is actually just an unpleasant, hate fuelled, narcissist they have an equal right to do so...
Both sides of the debate have made their point, so who do you find more compelling?
As for her "mental health problems" she's an ego-maniacal, narcissist.
She seems to crave attention for negative behaviour, in a world that rewards just such behaviour with attention, perhaps she has a problem, but maybe society has a wider issue, as we seem to be giving her just what she wants rather than what she needs...
a bit too much nastiness and spite form both sides really. Not my bag.
She is foul, this is a great piece of retaliation for her deliberate horribleness and I have no sympathy for her at all
I nominate her to be the recipient of the Coronavirus...
I’m not sure I put pointing and laughing at someone, calling them a **** is in the same league of nastiness as publically calling for both a ‘final solution’ and the massacre of refugees, amongst other things.
That and being on the apprentice.
Videos like that restore my faith in humans, putting in that much effort just to line her up in front of the C Bomb is excellent work.
Epileptics are all weirdos, they are up there with the Asians.
Simply staggering.
I don't believe she has any sort of mental health problem. I think it is/was her way of earning a living. She does it to earn money from controversy. Simple. No different to Alex Jones in the US. He doesn't actually believe Sandy Hook was faked. He just says it to earn money from media. The more extreme they get, the more extreme they need to be to keep the viewing numbers and advertising income.
putting in that much effort just to line her up in front of the C Bomb is excellent work.
Nah, ignoring her would be the best punishment.
Look at the smile on the C.*.N.T. winner's face.
"No publicity is bad publicity".
I'm glad they did this, if only to show, as if it needed showing, how completely rotten to the core she is as a human being.
Maybe the world doesn't need any more hate, but hate is the only rational reaction to her. Defending her lucrative* career as Britain's premier narcissistic xenophobic windbag as a "mental health problem" is insulting to those who actually struggle with mental health problems.
*Apart from when that guy successfully sued her, what a shame
“No publicity is bad publicity”.
I think Prince Andrew may disagree
I don’t believe she has any sort of mental health problem. I think it is/was her way of earning a living. She does it to earn money from controversy. Simple. No different to Alex Jones in the US. He doesn’t actually believe Sandy Hook was faked. He just says it to earn money from media. The more extreme they get, the more extreme they need to be to keep the viewing numbers and advertising income.
^This. Not justifying anything she's ever done, written or said, but I've always considered her as a fading reality TV star who realised that the only way to stay in the limelight, prolong her "career" and maximise earnings was to be the human equivalent of the Daily Mail. And it's kinda worked (legal battle with Jack Monroe aside) - I doubt many other ex-Apprentice contestants have as high a profile as her / earnings potential.
She has children! God knows what they will end up like, I imagine something like the ones who thought killing Damilola Taylor was a good idea.
Look at her career (if you must) as soon as she stopped being asked on This Morning and people started answering her back she went full on racist, right wing, xenophobic scumbag trying to stay relevant in an ever changing world that she no longer understands. Best way to do that? controversy. No such thing as bad press as long as people are still looking at you. Thing is, she's too dumb to see when that spills into hypocrisy or being guilty of the very thing you condemn. It still makes me laugh when I see her calling all people uneducated for calling their kids after a location until Holly Willoughby points out her kid is called India.
Mental Health problems? Don't make me laugh. The only mental health problem she has is grade A narcissism and a general desire to be punched in the face regularly.
Twonks like this ruined social media for what it could have been, a revolutionary tool to help the put upon and oppressed find a voice, receive news that their government suppressed and fight against regimes that should have died years ago, but instead is used a weapon for numb-nuts like her and Alex Jones to spread their conspiracy filth in the name of truth and rally more nutters to the cause that should have ended with Hitler
*edit Took quote out because it looked like I was attacking. I wasn't, just went off on a rant that ended up having little to do with the quote
Oh yeah she'll be fuming at the all-expenses-paid trip to Prague, free meal and all that lovely publicity enhancing her image as the voice of reason in a world of PC-gone-mad. The whole stunt plays right into her hands, she'll have loved it... what a waste of time.
The whole stunt plays right into her hands, she’ll have loved it… what a waste of time.
Agreed just looking at the most read on guardian site, and 4 of the 10 were articles related to her....
i realise i'm keeping this thread going by replying, but just ignore her.
The whole stunt plays right into her hands, she’ll have loved it… what a waste of time.
Agreed just looking at the most read on guardian site, and 4 of the 10 were articles related to her….
i realise i’m keeping this thread going by replying, but just ignore her.
I'm not sure I buy the whole "Oxygen of publicity" argument, While she was seen as the novelty nutter from reality telly, she was still viewed as "employable" by mainstream meeja (telly and papers) up to a point, the more Toxic she makes her 'Brand' the less employable she becomes. The thing is the outlets for her views will keep employing her while the traffic outweighs the negative associations for them...
Those Guardian articles that discuss her won't be giving her any more money will they, and (I'm guessing here) the general gist will be to reinforce the idea, to an already receptive audience that she is a negative personality who should be campaigned against at every given opportunity. Not all publicity is 'good' for her, some of it (such as her lovely award speech) erodes her ability to get on commercial media and keep "influencing" large numbers of people...
The problem is if you just ignore such people and don't keep challenging them, those that their message is targeted at don't get so much of the counter arguments or have the opportunity to see the fallacies in their arguments exposed, you're helping the echo box with a lack of opposition...
Dare I say (today of all days) play the "ignore them and they'll go away" game is at least partly how you get Brexit...
she was still viewed as “employable” by mainstream meeja (telly and papers) up to a point, the more Toxic she makes her ‘Brand’ the less employable she becomes
I did think the same about Piers Morgan... and then...
Lot of effort and air miles by some bored rich kids for a mildly amusing photo.
It’s brilliant!
She's a right wing Grifter, simple as really, she's realised she can make money from espousing "shock"opinions, it doesn't even matter if she believes any of it, Same as Tommy Robinson really, how else is he going to pay for his raging coke habit?
Both sides of the debate have made their point, so who do you find more compelling?
Thing is, "freedom of speech" does not equate to "you can say what you like." We have laws against various forms of hate speech.
Lot of effort and air miles by some bored rich kids for a mildly amusing photo.
I disagree, the real power in that video is not the photo (which I think is very funny), it is hearing her acceptance speech. That is 'career' ending. The speech is so toxic, so abhorrent and so grim she genuinely has scunnered any chances of getting paid media work again.
It doesn't matter if her career ends or not, the media will find another right wing idiot to take her place.
For all the difference it makes in the end, it simply demonstrates how utterly stupid she is if she can't realise, over all the time she had to, what Campaign to Unify the Nations Trophy stands for and also what a conceited narcissist she is to accept it as a reward. And now, without twitter, what does she have? What she deserves.
I disagree, the real power in that video is not the photo (which I think is very funny), it is hearing her acceptance speech. That is ‘career’ ending. The speech is so toxic, so abhorrent and so grim she genuinely has scunnered any chances of getting paid media work again.
This is the point I was trying to make. I'm not so sure your last sentence is true, but we can hope.
For all the difference it makes in the end, it simply demonstrates how utterly stupid she is if she can’t realise, over all the time she had to, what Campaign to Unify the Nations Trophy stands for and also what a conceited narcissist she is to accept it as a reward. And now, without twitter, what does she have? What she deserves.
Yup - the bitch got owned with bombers - she can't get away with the I'm not racist but.... line of journalism now.
I wonder how much the whole stunt cost? Must be up over £12,000 with flights, actors, catering, hotels etc...
Totally worth it. If they set up a GoFundMe to get some reimbursement - I will be donating.
Thanks for the reassurance folks. Don't feel so bad about thinking it's funny now. 🙂
She has children! God knows what they will end up like,
I wouldn't worry about them, it's what happens when they are cross bred with the Rees Mogg offspring you need to worry about. The master race are just a few years away.
Don’t feel so bad about thinking it’s funny now.
When I read about this stunt this morning it quite made my day! Nothing could make me feel bad about finding this hilarious.
She is a vile, toxic, reprehensible piece of trash without a single redeeming feature whatsoever.
If my mother had been like her, I’d have left home at the very earliest opportunity, disowned her, changed my named and refused to acknowledge any family connections whatsoever.
Videos like that restore my faith in humans, putting in that much effort just to line her up in front of the C Bomb is excellent work.
It was no effort. I suspect they didn’t have to do anything to get the money it cost so have plenty of spare time.
Funny result. Irritating video.
Katie Hopkins is just a publicity whore.
Basically she can go **** herself.
Two wrongs dont make a right
Three lefts do, though.
I hate to do it but, to quote Piers Morgan imagine choosing Katie Hopkins as your freedom of speech/both sides hill to die on
**** her, I hope she ends up destitute and gets a council house between families of failed asylum seekers
*edit* Though she'd probably sell it as a redemption story
Thing is, “freedom of speech” does not equate to “you can say what you like.” We have laws against various forms of hate speech.
Yup, like 'democracy' 'freedom of speech' has been perverted to mean 'I can say what I like and you have to allow it' when in fact it is only a protection against persecution for your political views. Likewise democracy is not having a say and getting your way on everything you care to take issue with, it's a term relating to the equal holding of collective power either through direct or elected representation.
With power comes responsibility and failure to exercise that power responsibly comes with its own consequences. Sadly there are too many people in this world who don't understand this and either believe they have the right to say whatever they like or protect those who do. Condemning hate speech, deplatforming or whatever other action you choose to take does not make you a hypocrite nor does it make you a fascist. It is only the degree of proscription that distinguishes the libertarian from the totalitarian.
Three lefts do, though.
lol
and well put squirrelking
That speech... Just wow...
Part of me wonders whether in her tiny, unfeeling, racist mind she thinks she's Frankie Boyle and its all just poo and giggles?
My only regret about the footage of her spearheaded is the heavy editing. I’d rather it had been the full speech so there was not way an accusation of misinterpretation could be made.
Thing is, “freedom of speech” does not equate to “you can say what you like.” We have laws against various forms of hate speech.
Respectfully I disagree.
We have various wishy-washy, contradictory acts intended to place controls on that basic "freedom of expression" from the Human rights act, all intended to do slightly different things; some to prevent incitement of violence or terrorism, others are essentially a half arsed attempt at ratifying the old 'hurt feelings form' to satisfy "hand wringers"... The truth is the human rights act trumps most of them.
The trouble is these instruments are seldom actually invoked to shut down objectionable bigots, and to do so you need to define a speakers intent as well as how it causes "harassment" or "distress" for a given target... Plus of course if they were used to shut such 'hate speakers' down with, say the amended public order act, it would essentially be handing Katie and Co an easy 'win' for their claims of being silenced by "PC, lefty, elites" it's a case I bet she'd gladly lose to make a bigger point...
To paraphrase a bit, I cannot stand the woman or her views, but if I believe in a truly free, liberal, open society I have to defend her right to expression. That doesn't preclude her being challenged vigorously, or made to look an utter plumb...
Agreed Cookeaa. The only thing that I think makes it harder to accept Hopkins, Piers Morgan, Alex Jones etc is they appear to do it to make a very good living.
Headbangers like the Westboro baptists, that mad guy with the sandwich board, your average Islamist hate preacher often sacrifice a lot to exercise their free speech. I.e. they are free to say those things but suffer for it. I kind of admire their total commitment to their brand of stupid. It doesn't appear to be cynical in the same way that Hopkins is.
**** her, I hope she ends up destitute and gets a council house between families of failed asylum seekers
You see council houses and asylum seekers as some sort of purgatory?
You see council houses and asylum seekers as some sort of purgatory?
It would be for her, which is clearly what was meant by that post.
(Stop trying to find things to complain about)
Is it just me or is Hatey Plopkins a ringer for the mummified corpse of Michael Winner?
To paraphrase a bit, I cannot stand the woman or her views, but if I believe in a truly free, liberal, open society I have to defend her right to expression.
No. Disagree entirely, you are defending the indefensible. By defending her speech you are effectively endorsing it. The "truly free, liberal, open society" you speak of is a myth. You cannot have freedom without rules, paradoxically, because those rules underpin the freedoms of everyone else. If you remove those rules you impinge upon the freedoms of others.
By allowing these people to have a platform you are enabling them. Who the **** would even have heard of the vile cow if she hadn't been fetishised by the media? Nobody. Tommy Robinson? Nobody. But because as long as it sells who cares who you use as clickbait or where it ends? Nah, don't think so. If the media can't be trusted to regulate itself then someone should do it for them.
you are defending the indefensible. By defending her speech you are effectively endorsing it.
But I'm not defending the content of her speech, I'm defending her right to free speech. That is a fundamental right that we all have, and is a cornerstone of a "free" society, what people choose to do with it cannot really be controlled. But take away people's right to believe and voice opinions without fear of reprisal by the authorities, and you're on your way to creating a totalitarian state.
Those who provide her with a platform have their own moral conscience (and probably shareholders) to answer to.
The things Katie Hopkins says are self evidently wrong, we're all in agreement there. Aside from her bigoted views the biggest lie she spouts is that she is "oppressed" for voicing her opinions, when, as you point out, she has been financially rewarded and given access to bigger platforms by the commercial media all because she courts contraversy and that sell advertising. But she lacks credibility precisely because of that fundamental dichotomy in her world view. The worst thing you could ever do is "prove her right" by gagging her.
Her time in the public eye is almost done, the fickle nature "celebrity" means that her brand of unpleasantness has now been done and viewers/readers are no longer interested the bookings and columns are drying up... A gay, Irish poet/playwright had the measure of people like Katie-poos long before she was even born:
"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
No doubt she'd miss the point and denigrate him too, but that insight into the mind of those who crave notoriety cuts to the very core of her weak fragile ego...
Stop trying to find things to complain about
Are you Laurence Fox?
Was interesting to read online earlier her long history of epilepsy. Makes her speech all the more weird. I wonder if she has some temporal lobe damage impacting on her judgement/ability to temper views?
Just saw this, utterly brilliant and then if there was any doubt as to appropriateness of the set-up she gave that toxic speech.
I am lost for words.