Katie Hopkins offensive tweets

[brenflys777]

The 'celebrity' Katie Hopkins is apparently being investigated for racist tweets after making comments about the Scottish Ebola patient.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-3...

I'm a bit surprised because whilst her comments seemed unfunny, puerile, idiotic and ill judged, I thought they were less than criminal. Is the level required for racial offence that low?

[brenflys777]

Troubleatmill said:

How many threads do we need on this?

I think this is the fourth or fifth.... and they are not that hard to find.

Any chance of putting a link to the one about her Ebola tweets? I had a look, couldn't see anything recent and the news article is dated today. Still, if it's offended you I'll apologise before you call the Police

[brenflys777]

Elroy Blue said:

JensenA said:

Have the police really got nothing better to do?

The Police have got lots of better things to do. Unfortunately, between all the 'outraged' people ringing up to complain about Twitter, Facebook, mobile phone credit and other crap, they don't actually get time to do it.

Quite.

[brenflys777]

If anyone should hate Katie Hopkins it’s me. I started this thread 3 years ago when she was accused of being racist over a Scottish Ebola victim:

brenflys777 said:

The 'celebrity' Katie Hopkins is apparently being investigated for racist tweets after making comments about the Scottish Ebola patient.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-3...

I'm a bit surprised because whilst her comments seemed unfunny, puerile, idiotic and ill judged, I thought they were less than criminal. Is the level required for racial offence that low?

I must have ticked the notification of replies.

Whilst flying back from Singapore I had 143 emails to delete. I’m beginning to dislike her greatly....

Incidentally, if she’s now been clearly racist rather than unpleasant and unsympathetic, why hasn’t she been charged by the CPS? Written or verbally recorded racist comments or inciting racial hatred should be an easy conviction based on the legal experts on here?

Ps if anyone can tell me how to turn off the notifications it would be most appreciated. Ta Bren

[brenflys777]

Breadvan72 said:

brenflys777 said:

Incidentally, if she’s now been clearly racist rather than unpleasant and unsympathetic, why hasn’t she been charged by the CPS? Written or verbally recorded racist comments or inciting racial hatred should be an easy conviction based on the legal experts on here?

Ps if anyone can tell me how to turn off the notifications it would be most appreciated. Ta Bren

Saying racist stuff isn't illegal, unless it crosses the line to incitement of hatred or even violence. This is as it should be, as speech should be free, even hate speech.

A celebrity whose career as a journalist or commentator relies on the attention she receives from those who hate her and what she says, at least as much as those who tolerate or like her, must be pretty clever to be so racist and speak ‘hate’ without ever breaking the criminal law.....

On more important matters ~ anyone have a clue about how I turn off notifications?

[brenflys777]

Countdown said:

brenflys777 said:

A celebrity whose career as a journalist or commentator relies on the attention she receives from those who hate her and what she says, at least as much as those who tolerate or like her, must be pretty clever to be so racist and speak ‘hate’ without ever breaking the criminal law.....

Not clever enough to avoid getting the heave-Ho from The Mail. Still, not to worry...I'm sure a speaking career on the Eye-Swivelling Frother Circuit awaits......

The Daily Mail has its uses. My use for it is lining the Guinea pig hutch when I pick up a free used example.

In terms of KHs departure from the Daily Mail, I suspect it’s a case of the rats leaving a sinking ship. They’ve got significant financial losses, a changing consumer environment and increased competition. Jettisoning KH or her leaving by choice is unlikely in my opinion to elevate either into serious journalism or further success.

I’m not sure there is such a thing as an ‘eye-swivelling frothier circuit’ but without all the attention from those that hate her, I suspect her prospects would short circuit. KHs biggest talent seems to be being able to wind up our most liberally intolerant parts of society into providing her with notoriety and an income.

[brenflys777]

jjlynn27 said:

Shocking, I know, kipper trash defending Hopkins. Totally unexpected.

You’ve taken a leaf out of KHs book there. An insulting comment (or hate speech depending on your outlook) aimed at those you disagree with, but without specifically naming the poster (avoiding responsibility) or providing any evidence outside of a suitably click bait style picture. Maybe you could replace her at DM?

[brenflys777]

jjlynn27 said:

Are you well?

Applies to all kippers. Which part is confusing you? If you are/were kipper, it applies to you.

I’m not confused, just disappointed that you feel the need to apparently insult me and call me trash, but lack the moral fibre to make such insults in anything other than a obtuse and deniable way. It’s not a very nice thing to do in my opinion.

[brenflys777]

jjlynn27 said:

You ascribe too much importance to yourself. It was a general contempt towards UKIP/KH fans. Again, if you fall into that category, then it applies to you. Not sure what's 'deniable' or 'a(sic) obtuse' about it.
As for your disappointment, I'm sure you'll get over that.

Your comment followed a post in which I was quoted.

One of the problems with KHs style of comment is that she forgets the individual, she’s happy to label a person she disagrees with in any particular way with a generic label trash/cockroaches etc so that she dehumanises them. It’s an unpleasant trait, but it allows her to behave in an unpleasant way whilst not being personally accountable or responsible. I think your style of posting apes hers.

[brenflys777]

jjlynn27 said:

brenflys777 said:

Your comment followed a post in which I was quoted.

And? If it was only applicable to your post, your post would be quoted. It wasn't, so it doesn't. I don't think I can make this any clearer.

brenflys777 said:

One of the problems with KHs style of comment is that she forgets the individual, she’s happy to label a person she disagrees with in any particular way with a generic label trash/cockroaches etc so that she dehumanises them. It’s an unpleasant trait, but it allows her to behave in an unpleasant way whilst not being personally accountable or responsible. I think your style of posting apes hers.

You are free to think whatever you like. All individual kippers, just like all the members of BNP, or Britain First or equal organizations are joining those as a matter of choice. People are not born as kippers, not they are forced to be kippers by events outside of their control, they chose to be members and support a homophobic and xenophobic party.

More echoes of Katie Hopkins in your reply. You can’t see a distinction between UKIP, BNP or Britain First (well done for stopping short of going full Godwin!) , so you hate them all, whilst KH struggles to see the difference between Muslims & Jihadis or economic migrants & refugees. You both seem to have the same attitude, just different people to hate based on a lack of understanding or intolerance.

Edited by brenflys777 on Friday 1st December 15:21