Katie Hopkins offensive tweets
Discussion
alfabadass said:
Rich_W said:
Cause Mayor Khan said so
Just one more reason to dislike this w
ker!
If he's not saying stupid st, he's being the original "hanger on" around celebrity or status. And I notice that half the adverts for the Mayoral office include the phrase "Londons Mayor Sadiq Khan" When I don't recall Boris or even Ken needing their name on everything! They just stuck with "Mayor of London"
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/555904/japan-explosions-park-Utsunomiya-tokyo-terror-attack-terrorism-gas-injuriesJust one more reason to dislike this w
ker!If he's not saying stupid s
t, he's being the original "hanger on" around celebrity or status. And I notice that half the adverts for the Mayoral office include the phrase "Londons Mayor Sadiq Khan" When I don't recall Boris or even Ken needing their name on everything! They just stuck with "Mayor of London"Deptford Draylons said:
You should have mentioned the part about terrorism coming almost exclusively from British citizens, otherwise the usual people turn up and start talking about the IRA. The land dispute of the IRA was something that was possible to solve, and indeed largely has been.
Care to expand on how the troubles in Northern Ireland were a land dispute which has been solved and that neither the IRA nor the unionist terrorists for the most part weren't British citizens.
SDB660 said:
Blimey. As it happens I listen to them all to try and get a balanced opinion. LBC subscriber. JOB is particularly painful, but still listen. Have you made an attempt to listen to KH? The audience figures were at least a fact based attempt at getting you to broaden your mind.
It is interesting that an intellectual like yourself, albeit one that does not want to bother with troublesome facts surrounding KH audience and the background of people on this forum, seems to have such a strong opinion based on not a lot.
Damn those pesky thickos that are allowed to put forward an opinion contrary to your own. Shout them down with superior intellect and incisive thinking... or perhaps not.
Are you saying Hopkins is thick? It is interesting that an intellectual like yourself, albeit one that does not want to bother with troublesome facts surrounding KH audience and the background of people on this forum, seems to have such a strong opinion based on not a lot.
Damn those pesky thickos that are allowed to put forward an opinion contrary to your own. Shout them down with superior intellect and incisive thinking... or perhaps not.
SDB660 said:
Out of interest. How would you categorise James O'Briens audience?
Nice, intelligent people.I guess you assume they are thick Lefties. Given London is the Degree educated people Capital of the World and also rather Left Wing, I think not. 62% Labour MPs, just so you know.
berlintaxi said:
Deptford Draylons said:
You should have mentioned the part about terrorism coming almost exclusively from British citizens, otherwise the usual people turn up and start talking about the IRA. The land dispute of the IRA was something that was possible to solve, and indeed largely has been.
Care to expand on how the troubles in Northern Ireland were a land dispute which has been solved and that neither the IRA nor the unionist terrorists for the most part weren't British citizens.The problem with Islamist terrorism in the UK is they are not foreign nationals, they nearly are all British and harder to fight and something different to fighting a foreign power or a terrorist cell operating on the mainland.
Bottom line is, having read thru this thread, everyone has their opinion on what she was implying. Sacking someone for something they said is fine, but sacking someone for something they didn't say but you're pretty sure they meant if a far riskier proposition. If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
gadgetmac said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You really haven't read many of my posts on PH, have you.
But for your information, I'm probably left of centre, and cannot stand KH, and as I've said in this thread, she probably does want to do away with Muslims given the choice.
But hey, don't lets cloud the issue with facts.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Bottom line is, having read thru this thread, everyone has their opinion on what she was implying. Sacking someone for something they said is fine, but sacking someone for something they didn't say but you're pretty sure they meant if a far riskier proposition. If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
There are hundreds if not thousands of non-controversial turns of phrase she could have used to express a desire to address the problem.She chose that one carefully and deliberately.
minimoog said:
There are hundreds if not thousands of non-controversial turns of phrase she could have used to express a desire to address the problem.
She chose that one carefully and deliberately.
I've listened to Hopkins on LBC and she is much less foaming-mouthed than I would have expected from her public persona on Twitter etc. She chose that one carefully and deliberately.
But I also agree- she knew exactly what she was saying using that phrase. And then deleting and replacing it after does add weight to that.
She does a brilliant job of self- promotion through outrage, but over reached herself this time and reaped what she sowed.
MarshPhantom said:
SDB660 said:
Out of interest. How would you categorise James O'Briens audience?
Nice, intelligent people.I guess you assume they are thick Lefties. Given London is the Degree educated people Capital of the World and also rather Left Wing, I think not. 62% Labour MPs, just so you know.
However, he is one listener. For either KH or JOB it is wrong to say that their, as a general rule, particular listeners are PhD material or dumb as a stump as it is an unknown outside LBC. I do not know if a scale of niceness exists in relation to people who listen to specific radio presenters.
I previously mentioned the breakdown of LBC audience. The station has a theme and target audience to attract advertising revenue. The presenters would have to be people that would assist in attaining that goal. I would present the evidence for this as adverts that run across the station schedule and do not miss out selected presenters and the dismissal of Iain Lee a few years ago when his type of show did not fit their new direction of more current affairs based material.
Whoever hired KH and JOB would have known their shows would be totally different, but also that the shows would reach the required demographic.
Edit re additional info: LBC is a national station now and not purely London. Hence change from IIRC London's Biggest Conversation to I think Leading Britain's Conversation.
Edited by SDB660 on Monday 29th May 11:48
minimoog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Bottom line is, having read thru this thread, everyone has their opinion on what she was implying. Sacking someone for something they said is fine, but sacking someone for something they didn't say but you're pretty sure they meant if a far riskier proposition. If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
There are hundreds if not thousands of non-controversial turns of phrase she could have used to express a desire to address the problem.She chose that one carefully and deliberately.
SDB660 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
She is self-employed.TwigtheWonderkid said:
minimoog said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Bottom line is, having read thru this thread, everyone has their opinion on what she was implying. Sacking someone for something they said is fine, but sacking someone for something they didn't say but you're pretty sure they meant if a far riskier proposition. If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
There are hundreds if not thousands of non-controversial turns of phrase she could have used to express a desire to address the problem.She chose that one carefully and deliberately.
freedom fighter " is often the case.
KH thing is to be controversial and she voices opinions that quite a few hold.
When she is on LBC she generally qualifies those opinions to make them more palatable to a broader audience.
I listen to KH as a white English male and often find myself nodding in agreement with her comments,her comments often offer seductive,simple solutions to complex problems.
But were I a Muslim or black man or receiving state benefits I might well find her generalisations on the topics affecting those minorities alarmingly simplistic.
The problem with controversial topics is that there is seldom a clear case of right or wrong.
It is much more nuanced than that and, I repeat, often subjective.
Some topics such as Isis or the Holocaust are pure evil and there can be no subjective or nuanced debate to be had.
The use of the term "final solution " was,at the very least,clumsy as it will echo memories of the Holocaust.
However,I must admit that, if she was using it to describe the complete eradication of Isis,I would agree.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
SDB660 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If she chose to sue LBC for unfair dismissal, I think they would be on a very sticky wicket.
She is self-employed.Then i guess even that would depend on the T&C's
Tryke3 said:
He's just upset he is brown and a Muslim
Ahh yes the old racist angle. That must be why I didn't vote for him. Nothing to do with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan#Legal_car...
He made a career of attacking the Met. The same Met is now responsible for, and arranging the finances for. The same finances he has reduced since he came to the office a year ago. If you make a career of attacking the Met, how can you effectively represent them?
He promised to freeze TFL fares saying it would cost £450M. He reneged on that once in office as the actual cost was over 4 times that! (Typical Labour economics
)He was seen post Anthony Joshua fight having his pic taken in the ring. I'm no fan of "hanger ons" who want to use others celebrity to increase their own. Ive seen him at other event and thought ytf are you there? Boris or Ken wouldn't be.
And for someone whose educated and will I would presume know to choose his words carefully, he is prone to making statements that are ill thought out! First this "part and parcel" line. And "I'm a proud feminist" Oh FFS! Engage brain before speaking!
His religion is largely irrelevant to me. I don't like Islam. Lack of equality due to their belief system (I don't really like any religion tbf) But it's his right to follow it. Though I have parked my car a few times in the road his Mosque is in. Meh.
Aside from the hopper fare (which I don't think many people use) What HAS he done for London in the last year? Apart from change all the signs to say "Mayor of London Sadiq Khan" He's all about his image and popularity instead of doing the job imo
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Fair enough, but in principle, sacking someone for what you think they meant by something they said, when they didn't explicitly say it, is a risky strategy.
In principle, I'd have thought that the stink it's kicked up would be enough for the employer to demonstrate harm to their reputation and therefore gross misconduct. One assumes the previous conduct and reputation of the employee might be relevant in assessing their intention too. But I am, of course, not a lawyer, and I can see how there might be some technical wriggle room. Rich_W said:
Yes. And worse even than Ken!
Of the 3 so far
Boris
Ken
Sadiq
With the caveat that hes only been there for a year and the others had multi years. you can probably guess I only voted for 1 of those on the list.
That's interesting, because Boris' record as mayor was hugely poor so I wonder again, exactly what your objection to Khan is based on.Of the 3 so far
Boris
Ken
Sadiq
With the caveat that hes only been there for a year and the others had multi years. you can probably guess I only voted for 1 of those on the list.
BJ: Promised to eradicate rough sleeping - it doubled.
BJ Campaigned against Ken's proposal to close LU ticket offices, closed them all.
BJ: Promised to broker a no strike deal with the Tube unions - made no effort & strikes are an annual feature.
BJ Promised to reduce TFL fares 'in the long term'. Raised them 42% in his first year & then annually in line with inflation.
BJ: Promised to freeze the congestion charge, raised it twice.
BJ: Promised the bike scheme would be free to the taxpayer - subsidised to this day by TFL
BJ: Repeatedly denied he would close any fire stations. Closed 10, sold 27 engines.
BJ: Promised an extra 1000 police for London, none materialised, denied he'd ever promised it despite it being in a leaflet delivered all round London.
There's more - council tax, cabbies cabinet, cronyism allegations, so again, what is your issue with Khan that leads you to the view that Johnson is a superior, more effective operator in any way?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff