Westminster / Manchester / London Bridge / Parsons Green attacks

[Johnnykc]

Well name and shame then Johnny boy

And there are some that don't make me laugh........

[Tarbie]

To be fair, she does speak sense. That doesn't necessarily mean she's not an abhorrent person. Cannot stand the ##### myself, but I have found myself agreeing with some of her points.

To be honest mate, I'm so far removed from the UK these days that I have no idea what common opinion is of her. All I know is my own judgement of her from what I read online. Perhaps only the bad stuff makes it as far as my Facebook feed, but she has said some right horrible stuff on a number of subjects in recent years!

[gaza09]

amazing number of f###ing idiots on this thread.....

Care to elaborate?

[Ginger Ninja]

To be honest mate, I'm so far removed from the UK these days that I have no idea what common opinion is of her. All I know is my own judgement of her from what I read online. Perhaps only the bad stuff makes it as far as my Facebook feed, but she has said some right horrible stuff on a number of subjects in recent years!

Seen her on telly on programs like This Morning a few times and the woman is a complete tw@t. Plus her face is annoying. Just one of those proper up herself types who think their opinion is the only opinion. But again, there are a few issues, political or otherwise, that I've found myself agreeing with her on.
I try to stay out of political debates like this one though, too much infighting and ridicule of people's opinions. No matter what you think on a certain subject, Brexit for example, there will always be some bunch of @rseholes on both sides of the coin who will become aggressive, rude etc because they disagree with you. Can't be @rsed with it lol.

[Bigdave]

And there are some that don't make me laugh........

Judging by a lot of your posts Johnny boy id say laughing is something you rarely do.

[WeAreQPR12]

Easy Dave let's not get personal all rangers and that

[Hove Ranger]

Katie Hopkins is the antithesis of the SJW. Extreme views caricatured

[Stanley]

Katie Hopkins is the antithesis of the SJW. Extreme views caricatured

Yes and at least Hopkins speaks her mind, unlike these SJWs who appear to be quite sad and mentally ill people IMO, who actually further nobody's cause except their own deluded one.

[Hubble]

Hopkins is in it for Hopkins, let's not be under any illusions. She uses reactionary shock tactics to inflame opinion, and it works. She's got (or had, in the Sun) her own column and her own radio show. She makes a good living out of being reactionary. I have little time for professional pundits like her, because it's always the same line.

Anyone who doesn't change the record, who shows no sign of alternative perspectives or consideration is not giving you an authentic and informed opinion, but one designed for a specific purpose, the bottom line being to generate income. Of course some of the things Hopkins says happen to hit the nail on the head, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. But by the same token, much of what she says is ill-informed and often plain stupid. Demagogues and pundits are two a penny these days. I prefer to make up my own mind, from as wide a palette of sources as possible, without prejudice: that means I read so-called left-wing and so-called right wing sources (and all points in-between), and consider what they say. Usually, somewhere amidst all the smoke and mirrors and agendas and propaganda, one can sift out something approaching a true picture. Also, I prefer to read personal on-the-ground accounts of situations and events as opposed to reading about them through the filter of the mainstream media.

[Stanley]

Hopkins is in it for Hopkins, let's not be under any illusions. She uses reactionary shock tactics to inflame opinion, and it works. She's got (or had, in the Sun) her own column and her own radio show. She makes a good living out of being reactionary. I have little time for professional pundits like her, because it's always the same line.

I don't think so. I believe she actually speaks her mind and these are her opinions. Neither do I believe this should come as any great surprise as we know that plenty of people hold these type of views.

Anyone who doesn't change the record, who shows no sign of alternative perspectives or consideration is not giving you an authentic and informed opinion, but one designed for a specific purpose, the bottom line being to generate income. Of course some of the things Hopkins says happen to hit the nail on the head, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. But by the same token, much of what she says is ill-informed and often plain stupid. Demagogues and pundits are two a penny these days. I prefer to make up my own mind, from as wide a palette of sources as possible, without prejudice: that means I read so-called left-wing and so-called right wing sources (and all points in-between), and consider what they say. Usually, somewhere amidst all the smoke and mirrors and agendas and propaganda, one can sift out something approaching a true picture. Also, I prefer to read personal on-the-ground accounts of situations and events as opposed to reading about them through the filter of the mainstream media.

I don't believe that's an entirely accurate assessment of her and definitely disagree with your analogy of the stopped clock being right twice a day. I actually listen to her radio show regularly. She encourages calls of all political persuasions. People phone in who often strongly disagree with her and she'll give them every chance to get their points across without interruption as long as it's kept civilised. She then gives her counter-argument. There are even occasions when she concedes to a caller's position over certain issues. I believe you are painting an inaccurate portrayal of her and I'm confident enough to say that because I actually listen to her show regularly - even though, as I say, I'm no big fan (politically I'm centre-ground and apolitical more often than not) but just someone who likes to take in a broad spectrum of views.

[Johnnykc]

Hopkins is in it for Hopkins, let's not be under any illusions. She uses reactionary shock tactics to inflame opinion, and it works. She's got (or had, in the Sun) her own column and her own radio show. She makes a good living out of being reactionary. I have little time for professional pundits like her, because it's always the same line.

Anyone who doesn't change the record, who shows no sign of alternative perspectives or consideration is not giving you an authentic and informed opinion, but one designed for a specific purpose, the bottom line being to generate income. Of course some of the things Hopkins says happen to hit the nail on the head, just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. But by the same token, much of what she says is ill-informed and often plain stupid. Demagogues and pundits are two a penny these days. I prefer to make up my own mind, from as wide a palette of sources as possible, without prejudice: that means I read so-called left-wing and so-called right wing sources (and all points in-between), and consider what they say. Usually, somewhere amidst all the smoke and mirrors and agendas and propaganda, one can sift out something approaching a true picture. Also, I prefer to read personal on-the-ground accounts of situations and events as opposed to reading about them through the filter of the mainstream media.

Absolutely agree......Her comments are designed for a certain demographic (based on her employers leanings) and offer great clickbait....

[Johnnykc]

Judging by a lot of your posts Johnny boy id say laughing is something you rarely do.

That's not nice Dave....

*stares sadly into the middle distance*

[Hubble]

I don't think so. I believe she actually speaks her mind and these are her opinions. Neither do I believe this should come as any great surprise as we know that plenty of people hold these type of views.



I don't believe that's an entirely accurate assessment of her and definitely disagree with your analogy of the stopped clock being right twice a day. I actually listen to her radio show regularly. She encourages calls of all political persuasions. People phone in who often strongly disagree with her and she'll give them every chance to get their points across without interruption as long as it's kept civilised. She then gives her counter-argument. There are even occasions when she concedes to a caller's position over certain issues. I believe you are painting an inaccurate portrayal of her and I'm confident enough to say that because I actually listen to her show regularly - even though, as I say, I'm no big fan (politically I'm centre-ground and apolitical more often than not) but just someone who likes to take in a broad spectrum of views.

Fair enough Stan, I bow to your superior opinion in this regard. However, I stand by the bottom line: she makes money out of being reactionary. It was a happy coincidence for Hopkins to discover that her reactionary opinions (that came to the fore on The Apprentice) would go on to make her fortune. Let's not lose sight of that. I am happy to hear that she does listen and is open to alternative perspectives. At the same time, when she says things like we should use gunboats on migrants or that "“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.” I think we have to assume that the primary purpose of this (despite what you say, and I take it all on board) is to sell newspapers.

As I said, I'm no fan of these professional pundits, because they always have to have an instant opinion on hand, and therefore their opinions are rarely well-informed. Yes, if she generates debate, that's good. I also accept she represents a counterpoint to the often mewling voices of the SJW on the left or liberal side of things. But like I said, I prefer to make up my own mind from other sources than those in the mainstream media.

[Stanley]

Absolutely agree......Her comments are designed for a certain demographic (based on her employers leanings) and offer great clickbait....

In the case of her Mail column yes, (but this is no different to Pilger in the Mirror or Fisk for the Independent for example, it happens everywhere) but certainly not of LBC. Their presenters' and shows' output offer a v broad cross-section of leanings.

[Stanley]

Fair enough Stan, I bow to your superior opinion in this regard. However, I stand by the bottom line: she makes money out of being reactionary. It was a happy coincidence for Hopkins to discover that her reactionary opinions (that came to the fore on The Apprentice) would go on to make her fortune. Let's not lose sight of that. I am happy to hear that she does listen and is open to alternative perspectives. At the same time, when she says things like we should use gunboats on migrants or that "“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.” I think we have to assume that the primary purpose of this (despite what you say, and I take it all on board) is to sell newspapers.

As I said, I'm no fan of these professional pundits, because they always have to have an instant opinion on hand, and therefore their opinions are rarely well-informed. Yes, if she generates debate, that's good. I also accept she represents a counterpoint to the often mewling voices of the SJW on the left or liberal side of things. But like I said, I prefer to make up my own mind from other sources than those in the mainstream media.

Certainly agree on the highlighted comments mate.