Katie Hopkins offensive tweets

[rscott]

Eddie Strohacker said:

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.


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?

You missed the Garden Bridge fiasco. Boris committed millions to that, whereas Khan has killed off the vanity project before it sucked even more public money into it.

[Dindoit]

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.

In your opinion. It's subjective. You could be right, or maybe not.

Why on earth would you argue this? If she'd said "We need a holocaust" would you be defending her with "She said A holocaust, not THE Holocaust. It's subjective, she should sue LBC"?

For someone to think she wasn't using Final Solution deliberately is naive beyond belief. Either that or just being contrary for the sake of it.

[Evanivitch]

Dindoit said:

Why on earth would you argue this? If she'd said "We need a holocaust" would you be defending her with "She said A holocaust, not THE Holocaust. It's subjective, she should sue LBC"?

For someone to think she wasn't using Final Solution deliberately is naive beyond belief. Either that or just being contrary for the sake of it.

I wouldn't worry, it's the classic "I'm not a racist, but" mentality where unless you spell out exactly what you mean you can't be punished for saying it.

[limpsfield]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Oh Christ. How much for a ride on this merry go round?

[berlintaxi]

Eddie Strohacker said:

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.


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?

Come on now, don't be asking the difficult questions.

[iphonedyou]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Away with you.

[Saddle bum]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A race to get to 72 virgins.

[Randy Winkman]

berlintaxi said:

Come on now, don't be asking the difficult questions.

He was hopeless.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Scientifically / genetically no. Legally, yes.

[Mr2Mike]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Scientifically / genetically no. Legally, yes.

Is that actually true? Seems ridiculous to suggest that someone could change their race.

[Evanivitch]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Is it relevant?

But to answer your question, no. But in practicality it is treated under the Equality Act 2010 equally to racism, and in the British language racism is widely accepted to include religion and not just genetics.

But I didn't mention Islam, so you must be implying something that I didn't say

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mr2Mike said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Scientifically / genetically no. Legally, yes.

Is that actually true? Seems ridiculous to suggest that someone could change their race.

Under UK law, discriminating against Muslims, Jews or whatever would be classed as racism. But of course a belief system isn't actually a race. You get black Jews in Africa and blond Jews in Sweden. They are clearly not the same race.

[danllama]

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

[TTwiggy]

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

The one that says that if you're going to (intentionally) throw around phrases like 'final solution' you need to be VERY clear about who you mean to apply it to.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TTwiggy said:

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

The one that says that if you're going to (intentionally) throw around phrases like 'final solution' you need to be VERY clear about who you mean to apply it to.

I agree, which could by why she withdrew the tweet, because she realised afterwards it could be misinterpreted to mean all Muslims and not just IS. Or maybe she did mean all Muslims, and then bottled it and pulled the tweet.

None of us know. And anyone who says "she definitely meant xxx" is still basically guessing .

[TTwiggy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TTwiggy said:

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

The one that says that if you're going to (intentionally) throw around phrases like 'final solution' you need to be VERY clear about who you mean to apply it to.

I agree, which could by why she withdrew the tweet, because she realised afterwards it could be misinterpreted to mean all Muslims and not just IS. Or maybe she did mean all Muslims, and then bottled it and pulled the tweet.

None of us know. And anyone who says "she definitely meant xxx" is still basically guessing .

Indeed. And ultimately all that has happened here is that a commercial radio station has made a decision for commercial reasons. She isn't being denied a platform and this isn't a battle that the white knights of free speech need to concern themselves with.

[Evanivitch]

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

Because that isn't what she said.

[Randy Winkman]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TTwiggy said:

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

The one that says that if you're going to (intentionally) throw around phrases like 'final solution' you need to be VERY clear about who you mean to apply it to.

I agree, which could by why she withdrew the tweet, because she realised afterwards it could be misinterpreted to mean all Muslims and not just IS. Or maybe she did mean all Muslims, and then bottled it and pulled the tweet.

None of us know. And anyone who says "she definitely meant xxx" is still basically guessing .

Exactly. Wasn't the Nazi Final Solution about killing all Jews? Hence the logical interpretation was that KH meant all Muslims.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Randy Winkman said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TTwiggy said:

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

The one that says that if you're going to (intentionally) throw around phrases like 'final solution' you need to be VERY clear about who you mean to apply it to.

I agree, which could by why she withdrew the tweet, because she realised afterwards it could be misinterpreted to mean all Muslims and not just IS. Or maybe she did mean all Muslims, and then bottled it and pulled the tweet.

None of us know. And anyone who says "she definitely meant xxx" is still basically guessing .

Exactly. Wasn't the Nazi Final Solution about killing all Jews? Hence the logical interpretation was that KH meant all Muslims.

I agree that the Nazi final solution was killing all Jews. I don't agree that the logical interpretation was that KH meant all Muslims. Although she may have done. But one could also argue that the final solution was about killing a particular group, and as the discussion in hand was Islamic terrorism, it's just as logical to think she may have been referring in her tweet to the group being discussed.

Only she knows.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Evanivitch said:

danllama said:

Can someone explain what the issue is with applying a final solution to islamic terrorists?

Because that isn't what she said.

Indeed. She didn't say who she was referring to. But the tweet came within a discussion about Islamic terrorism. So the generous interpretation is to say that's who she was referring to.