Katie Hopkins accused of race hate by linking Pakistani men with sex abuse

[Stringy]

I quite like Katie Hopkins just for the way she riles people.

Didn't she basically say that fat people were too lazy to get thin, then upped her weight and lost it to prove the point? Just vindicates what I've been saying about if you have the diet of a whale you can't complain about being fat. I'm not kidding, I knew this woman who said to me that she ate like a caterpillar whilst she was tucking into a plate of trifle.

Bloody umpa lumpa.

 

[Stagat]

I knew this woman who said to me that she ate like a caterpillar whilst she was tucking into a plate of trifle.

She might've meant this one?

 

[silkyman]

I quite like Katie Hopkins just for the way she riles people.

Didn't she basically say that fat people were too lazy to get thin, then upped her weight and lost it to prove the point? Just vindicates what I've been saying about if you have the diet of a whale you can't complain about being fat. I'm not kidding, I knew this woman who said to me that she ate like a caterpillar whilst she was tucking into a plate of trifle.

Bloody umpa lumpa.

She did, but seeing as that was to all intents and purposes, her job at the time, it's no surprise she managed it.

 

[TheMinsterman]

I quite like Katie Hopkins just for the way she riles people.

Didn't she basically say that fat people were too lazy to get thin, then upped her weight and lost it to prove the point? Just vindicates what I've been saying about if you have the diet of a whale you can't complain about being fat. I'm not kidding, I knew this woman who said to me that she ate like a caterpillar whilst she was tucking into a plate of trifle.

Bloody umpa lumpa.

People's inability to lose weight is rarely just because their lazy, it's more to do with low self-esteem and depressive cycles, but considering Hopkins thinks that depression is an excuse for sympathy I doubt she factored that in.

 

[Womble98]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html

“Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit “Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984”, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors”.

 

[Red]

I'd have no qualms about summarily executing her.

 

[Tilbury]

'Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants'
It's gone beyond the point of just ignoring her. This c*** shouldn't have any platform.

 

[Veggie Legs]

The idea of sinking boats full of immigrants comes from the BNP. The 'cockroaches' metaphor has been used before as well, by the Nazis.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

We should probably me more annoyed at the papers, and ourselves, for taking any notice of her. We're essentially paying her to do this.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Meh… She's just an arse-witted blowhard who has no meaningful political power and who possibly doesn't even believe half of the claptrap she writes or says anyway.

It's sad. In a mature, intellectually rigorous and genuinely moral (as opposed to narcissistically moralistic) country, people would be principally upset about African migrants drowning in the Mediterranean Sea and the geopolitical factors that make such terrible things fairly common. But that requires some subtlety of thought. And some knowledge of history. And a willingness to contemplate questions to which there are no obvious and simple answers. And knowing what words like geopoltical mean.

Easier to spew some bile about Katie Hopkins, I suppose.

 

[hodge]

Anyone have a sniper rifle?

 

[Richard Cranium]

Katie Hopkins and the Sun. It's like a match made in heaven. I don't read anything she writes and I don't really listen to anything she says.

 

[Womble98]

We should probably me more annoyed at the papers, and ourselves, for taking any notice of her. We're essentially paying her to do this.

It's gone beyond the point of just ignoring her. This c*** shouldn't have any platform.

 

[silkyman]

Meh… She's just an arse-witted blowhard who has no meaningful political power and who possibly doesn't even believe half of the claptrap she writes or says anyway.

It's sad. In a mature, intellectually rigorous and genuinely moral (as opposed to narcissistically moralistic) country, people would be principally upset about African migrants drowning in the Mediterranean Sea and the geopolitical factors that make such terrible things fairly common. But that requires some subtlety of thought. And some knowledge of history. And a willingness to contemplate questions to which there are no obvious and simple answers. And knowing what words like geopoltical mean.

Easier to spew some bile about Katie Hopkins, I suppose.

I think most people are capable of holding more than one opinion and thought at a time. And there's some crossover, because the sort of people who give the outrageous like Hopkins support are the same people who will probably think 'good' at the deaths of all of those people trying to get a better life. There'd be a pretty solid venn diagram there.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I think most people are capable of holding more than one opinion and thought at a time.

I think so too, which is why nothing I wrote in my previous post suggested otherwise, which is why your first point is a strawman.

Sure, people can be simultaneously upset about (a) African people drowning in the sea, and (b) Katie Hopkins making horrible comments about those people. My point/question (rephrased) is this: since most people would agree that a thousand avoidable deaths in the Mediterranean (a conservative estimate for the last week) is a more serious matter than some boot-faced demagogue saying something nasty, why the disproportionate focus on the latter?

I won't make this a left vs. right thing because I think it ultimately comes down to the very human need to simplify what is complicated and awful. Anyone can reflect on yesterday's events, express their sadness, wring their hands and say something ought to be done. But what? Very few are making concrete suggestions. That's forgiveable enough because (illegal) Africa-to-Europe migration is a very complicated subject. But perhaps we'd have a better starting point if we were all honest about that. Those who focus their ire on Katie Hopkins and The Sun are as guilty of simplifying the issue as Hopkins and her supporters are.

And there's some crossover, because the sort of people who give the outrageous like Hopkins support are the same people who will probably think 'good' at the deaths of all of those people trying to get a better life. There'd be a pretty solid venn diagram there.

Those who think along the lines of "good, that's 700 less for us to deal with" formed their opinions (and/or the unquestioned biases that inform them) long before Hopkins was paid to write inflammatory drivel in The Sun. Her cheerleaders, by and large, don't like her because her wit, erudition and penetrating insight led them to reappraise their entire worldview and see a plethora of issues in a radically different light. They like her because she gives crude public expression to opinions they already had. Even if public pressure succeeded in getting her sacked, those who agree with her would still exist. So what good would it do? She is, however inelegantly, giving voice to a viewpoint that exists out there. Better for it to be out there where it can be corrected, challenged, refuted or whatever. No?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Those who think along the lines of "good, that's 700 less for us to deal with" formed their opinions (and/or the unquestioned biases that inform them) long before Hopkins was paid to write inflammatory drivel in The Sun. Her cheerleaders, by and large, don't like her because her wit, erudition and penetrating insight led them to reappraise their entire worldview and see a plethora of issues in a radically different light. They like her because she gives crude public expression to opinions they already had. Even if public pressure succeeded in getting her sacked, those who agree with her would still exist. So what good would it do? She is, however inelegantly, giving voice to a viewpoint that exists out there. Better for it to be out there where it can be corrected, challenged, refuted or whatever. No?

IDK. If Katie Hopkins bile was given equal prominence to, say, an anarchist advocating for open borders, you might say so. Then people could make up their own minds.

But none of us form our opinions in a vacuum and the more the public discourse around immigration is coloured by shrill racists with enormous platforms, the harder it is to actually talk about the human cost of our immigration policies - whether drowned in the Med or indefinitely detained in Yarls Wood or deported to countries that places people at risk of torture. Our immigration system is racist and inhumane and that the callousness of European leaders or all stripes towards migrant deaths in the Mediterranean borders on a crime against humanity.

Katie Hopkins' shite distracts everyone from that, I agree. But there's several reasons that rhetoric like hers needs to be challenged. Firstly, people who already hold those views privately are emboldened by them when they see others publicly expressing those views. Secondly there are people, often in desperate straights themselves who are likely to be influenced by this sort of stuff. There's probably not that many of them; they're not going to vote in UKIP in two weeks, but they might be slightly more likely to go out and commit a racist assault or join a far-right political organisation.

Like, if free-speech is harmless, why anyone worry it being suppressed?

Here's a good piece, by someone who I've always viewed as a colossal bell-end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...were-killed-by-British-government-policy.html

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Would also add there's going to be a shit-load of people (or a load of shit people) who were heavily invested in a UKIP breakthrough. The traditional far-right has been decimated by UKIP's popularity and when UKIP get one or two seats, they're going to want other outlets for their political disaffection. But actually there are loads of UKIP supporters not drawn from far-right backgrounds who have been politicised and radicalised by UKIP and their cheerleaders in the tabloid press (not to mention by the step up in anti-immigrant rhetoric from the three mainstream parties).

This will be exaccerbated when labour forms the next government and continues with the austerity programme. There's a real risk of a resurgence in the far-right after the election.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't see who anyone could be radicalised by UKIP on the immigration issue. They represent public opinion on the matter probably better than anyone.

 

[Alty]

IDK. If Katie Hopkins bile was given equal prominence to, say, an anarchist advocating for open borders, you might say so. Then people could make up their own minds.

But none of us form our opinions in a vacuum and the more the public discourse around immigration is coloured by shrill racists with enormous platforms, the harder it is to actually talk about the human cost of our immigration policies - whether drowned in the Med or indefinitely detained in Yarls Wood or deported to countries that places people at risk of torture. Our immigration system is racist and inhumane and that the callousness of European leaders or all stripes towards migrant deaths in the Mediterranean borders on a crime against humanity.

Katie Hopkins' shite distracts everyone from that, I agree. But there's several reasons that rhetoric like hers needs to be challenged. Firstly, people who already hold those views privately are emboldened by them when they see others publicly expressing those views. Secondly there are people, often in desperate straights themselves who are likely to be influenced by this sort of stuff. There's probably not that many of them; they're not going to vote in UKIP in two weeks, but they might be slightly more likely to go out and commit a racist assault or join a far-right political organisation.

Like, if free-speech is harmless, why anyone worry it being suppressed?

Here's a good piece, by someone who I've always viewed as a colossal bell-end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...were-killed-by-British-government-policy.html

Look, people can make up their own minds. The idea that Katie Hopkins has to be removed from public life because people can't think for themselves is ridiculous. What do you propose? Some sort of statutory obligation on newspapers to carry articles from every imaginable perspective? Katie Hopkins is a professional troll and if a small section of society get a buzz out of reading her utter crap, then that's just what happens. I remain bewildered by the fact people get so riled by such a pitiful individual.

The immigration system is far from perfect and we can all cite a number of seemingly perverse decisions. But you really do seem to have an incredibly naive view on this stuff. You do know that even with the controls we already have in place, foreign nationals are responsible for 13% of UK crime despite only making up 8% of the population? Unfortunately there are a lot of people in the UK who are not of benefit to our society.

On immigration detention, the biggest causes of lengthy detention are a) people with no right to be in the UK refusing to comply with the redocumentation process and b) other countries being extremely slow to confirm someone is a national of their country. If you have no valid leave to remain in the UK, intentionally rip up your passport in order to make your deportation impossible, and then refuse to comply with the Emergency Travel Document process, can you really complain about lingering in immigration detention? Re other countries' tardiness...if it becomes clear the Indian State with which the UK is negotiating is going to take a long time to confirm, the Home Office's default position is to release as long as there's not a significant risk of absconding or public harm. If you're an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and a history of evading the immigration authorities, what do you expect to happen? Release back in to the community, no questions asked??

Re the Hodges article (which is amazingly tabloid for the Torygraph, btw)...the EU approach on this has been an attempt to emulate the Australian approach. Which tbf is grounded in logic and has yielded clearly measurable results. Australia are one of the very few countries to take refugees directly from the UN and resettle them in their country. They also welcome a large number of legal migrants from all over the world. Hence their rapidly growing population. But they are quite firm in saying that if you come to Australia on a rickety boat having paid a people smuggler you are not getting in. End of. Shipped back to your last port of embarkation. As migrants have come to learn this, the number of attempts to enter Australia this way has tailed off dramatically, and therefore the casualties have too.

Now, let's not get all dewy-eyed here. I think the UK and others could and should do more to help refugees, frankly. And the response to the situations in Syria, Eritrea and Libya has been inadequte. But the idea that all Europeans countries were simply hoping migrants would die rather than enter their countries is conspiracy theory stuff. Apart from anything else, the events of the last week have completely disproved it. As soon as there was a major tragedy, an emergency FAC was called and they all tried to work out an alternative to the current strategy.

Just for my own benefit, what would your preferred immigration policy look like, in a nutshell?

 

[Red]

Look, people can make up their own minds. The idea that Katie Hopkins has to be removed from public life because people can't think for themselves is ridiculous. What do you propose?

Publicly garotting her, closely followed by firebombing The Sun's offices.

 

[Alty]

Publicly garotting her, closely followed by firebombing The Sun's offices.

Careful. You've only just got over the rape-apologist thing!

 

[Red]

Good point.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

IDK. If Katie Hopkins bile was given equal prominence to, say, an anarchist advocating for open borders, you might say so. Then people could make up their own minds.

I would prefer that, too, and it's certainly not my contention, just to be clear, that the UK press is a paragon of liberal pluralism.

The Sun isn't going to publish a 2,000 word broadside making the anti-racist and libertarian case against border control (Spiked aren't bad at that, by the way); and, even if it did, very few of the Timmy McThickos who read it would get past the second paragraph anyway. One might as well publish an essay explaining Saussurean linguistics in The Beano.

But there are other outlets, some of which have (1) a wider reach than any print tabloid, and (2) a stated commitment to providing a platform for alternative/marginalised voices. There is huge potential in social media. This is Katie Hopkins we're talking about, not Cicero. If she's wrong, it shouldn't be too hard to make a cogent case explaining why. And if people feel sufficiently moved to "challenge" her, there are plenty of platforms from which they can do. The potential is there for some people to re-think and change their opinion.

There's several reasons that rhetoric like hers needs to be challenged. Firstly, people who already hold those views privately are emboldened by them when they see others publicly expressing those views. Secondly there are people, often in desperate straights themselves who are likely to be influenced by this sort of stuff. There's probably not that many of them; they're not going to vote in UKIP in two weeks, but they might be slightly more likely to go out and commit a racist assault or join a far-right political organisation.

I don't have a problem with people challenging her opinions, rhetoric or whatever. On the contrary, I positively encourage it. But trying to get her sacked/prosecuted and all this angry, sententious "no platform" bollocks isn't challenging her. It's a lazy and reactionary demand for censorship.

What do you mean by "challenge", exactly?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I would prefer that, too, and it's certainly not my contention, just to be clear, that the UK press is a paragon of liberal pluralism.

The Sun isn't going to publish a 2,000 word broadside making the anti-racist and libertarian case against border control (Spiked aren't bad at that, by the way); and, even if it did, very few of the Timmy McThickos who read it would get past the second paragraph anyway. One might as well publish an essay explaining Saussurean linguistics in The Beano.

But there are other outlets, some of which have (1) a wider reach than any print tabloid, and (2) a stated commitment to providing a platform for alternative/marginalised voices. There is huge potential in social media. This is Katie Hopkins we're talking about, not Cicero. If she's wrong, it shouldn't be too hard to make a cogent case explaining why. And if people feel sufficiently moved to "challenge" her, there are plenty of platforms from which they can do. The potential is there for some people to re-think and change their opinion.

Where is making the "no borders" case. Or any other pro-migrant case, with the reach of The Sun? It's like on the one hand someone writing "Ian is an arsehole" on a billboard and me trying to argue against that. I can't, even though I have a lot of confidence in the coherence of the "Ian Isn't An Arsehole" position with evidence; graphs; the works.

I don't have a problem with people challenging her opinions, rhetoric or whatever. On the contrary, I positively encourage it. But trying to get her sacked/prosecuted and all this angry, sententious "no platform" bollocks isn't challenging her. It's a lazy and reactionary demand for censorship.

What do you mean by "challenge", exactly?

No platforming isn't censorship. Censorship is a top-down imposition. No platform is a bottom up, pluralistic demand. Makes all the difference.

By challenge, I mean assemble a lynch mob and politely put it to Katie Hopkins that she's to pipe down/retire from public life. I don't believe in free speech for bigots and think it's legitimate to suppress hate-speech. Like, there's shouldn't be laws against this stuff, but rather it should be done as part of our civic/moral duty to ensure that people can't come out with this sort of shite without consequences.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Just for my own benefit, what would your preferred immigration policy look like, in a nutshell?

Here's some things I would do.

Provide safe routes to Europe so migrants don't need to risk lethal sea-crossings.
End detention entirely.
Not deport LGBT activists to Nigeria and Uganda.
Offer an amnesty to current undocumented migrants.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

No platforming isn't censorship. Censorship is a top-down imposition. No platform is a bottom up, pluralistic demand. Makes all the difference.

By challenge, I mean assemble a lynch mob and politely put it to Katie Hopkins that she's to pipe down/retire from public life. I don't believe in free speech for bigots and think it's legitimate to suppress hate-speech. Like, there's shouldn't be laws against this stuff, but rather it should be done as part of our civic/moral duty to ensure that people can't come out with this sort of shite without consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[Alty]

Here's some things I would do.

Provide safe routes to Europe so migrants don't need to risk lethal sea-crossings.
End detention entirely.
Not deport LGBT activists to Nigeria and Uganda.
Offer an amnesty to current undocumented migrants.

Safe routes for whom? Anyone who wants to come?

Ending detention entirely would make it impossible to remove the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

LGBT point is arguable. On a practical level I wonder how things are supposed to improve in these countries if the activists leave. But yes, if there's genuine evidence such people are in danger, they shouldn't be forced back.

I agree to an extent with your final point. I'd probably say it's wise to give people a chance to regularise their stay providing they meet certain conditions.

 

[silkyman]

Perhaps safe routes for the sort of people who think taking the very real chance of them and their families drowning in the middle of the med is preferable to their current life.

Those people?

 

[Alty]

Perhaps safe routes for the sort of people who think taking the very real chance of them and their families drowning in the middle of the med is preferable to their current life.

Those people?

How do you identify them?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Safe routes for whom? Anyone who wants to come?

Ending detention entirely would make it impossible to remove the vast majority of illegal immigrants.

It's impossible to remove the vast majority of undocumented migrants anyway. Nor would we really want to.

Opening up the borders in Ceuta and Melilla would make it possible to control/direct the flow of migration throughout Europe rather than creating bottlenecks which bear the brunt of relatively small-scale inward migration. It would also stop dangerous sea-crossings. Meanwhile you could co-operate with Morocco to, rather than crack down on migrants (which drives people over the fences/across the sea) to be able to accommodate more of them.