Bloo*dy awful way to make a living, no matter how lucrative it is. I personally couldn't live with myself.:( I prefer to make those in my daily working life HAPPY and not miserable & attacked as KH seems to revel in.
Agree.
When people can make money out of upsetting others on purpose it does feel like the world's gone mad.
I don't mind her these days.
Once you realise she is only being a professional troll she becomes less annoying and quite funny at winding people up .
Fair play that she has so far kept a dignified silence re Peaches . Unless I missed something . Best tactic really in the circumstances .
She kept her silence until someone paid for her opinion....The Sun.
Hopkins purposely says certain things just to try and get a negative reaction. She's realised that she can make money out of winding others up and saying things that she knows will anger a lot of the public. She knows exactly what she's doing.
Well yes and no.
I think her turn of phrase is quite biting to get attention and wind those people up who live to be offended.
But I find this 'she's paid to be a troll' the weak argument of people who aren't offended by what she says but more outraged that someone dares to have a world view that doesn't meet theirs and can express it with a wit they are incapable of.
Sort of 'I'm not clever enough to deliver the opposing argument so I'll make the cheap, easy 'troll' comments to undermine it instead'. The type of illiberal liberal who needs to either silence any differing view or attach some agenda behind it.
They really earned the nickname The Scum, didn't they!
Yeap! And Katie kept her mouth shut until she got a paycheck. The Sun is one of the papers that leads all this "mourning" and harasses celebs to comment, when someone dies. They now Tweet, which stops them being harassed for comments by The Sun and Sky News.
Katie never knew Peaches, had called her a crap parent and lost a debate too her. Many of those that did comment did know Peaches or Bob. Or had known Paula in her more sober days. Especially people like Sharon Osborne and Philip Scofield.
It scares me that people actually agree with Katie....Are they agree with her when she attacks Food Banks, while knowing nothing about how they run? Do they think people with ginger hair are harder to love? Do they think overweight people are unemployable? Or that people with tattoos or with a name she doesn't like are trashy?
(Sam Cameron has a tattoo on her foot..).
It scares me that people actually agree with Katie....Are they agree with her when she attacks Food Banks, while knowing nothing about how they run? Do they think people with ginger hair are harder to love? Do they think overweight people are unemployable? Or that people with tattoos or with a name she doesn't like are trashy?
(Sam Cameron has a tattoo on her foot..).
It's horses for courses.
The fact is you support the people who say that Katie has brought up bullies as children. You support the people that say Katie's children are going to be psychologically damaged. You support the people that make heinous comments about Katie's upbringing. You support the people who say Katie is a bad mother with emotionally handicapped children because she has a different view towards parenting. You support all the vile things people have said not just about Katie but about her children, her parents etc. You support all those people who make hateful comments about how she can't possibly love her children.
I've said it before Katie is harsh but when it comes to her opinions she has NEVER suggested a parent doesn't love their child or deliberately intends to harm them, which is possible as evil a comment as a person could make. Those who disagree with her points of view (Sonia Poulton, Peaches Geldof to name but two) often resort to those depths and love to suggest her children are retarded and emotionally crippled.
Do you not think the fact you condone (nay champion in fact) such hatred expressed on such a deeply personal level for the simple fact a person has a different view point pretty scary also?
And that's the thing. Katie might be nasty but those who sit next to her on the couches always reveal how nasty they really are when someone dares to not agree with them.
The fact is you support the people who say that Katie has brought up bullies as children. You support the people that say Katie's children are going to be psychologically damaged. You support the people that make heinous comments about Katie's upbringing. You support the people who say Katie is a bad mother with emotionally handicapped children because she has a different view towards parenting. You support all the vile things people have said not just about Katie but about her children, her parents etc. You support all those people who make hateful comments about how she can't possibly love her children.
I've said it before Katie is harsh but when it comes to her opinions she has NEVER suggested a parent doesn't love their child or deliberately intends to harm them, which is possible as evil a comment as a person could make. Those who disagree with her points of view (Sonia Poulton, Peaches Geldof to name but two) often resort to those depths and love to suggest her children are retarded and emotionally crippled.
Do you not think the fact you condone (nay champion in fact) such hatred expressed on such a deeply personal level for the simple fact a person has a different view point pretty scary also?
And that's the thing. Katie might be nasty but those who sit next to her on the couches always reveal how nasty they really are when someone dares to not agree with them.
She said "ginger children were much harder to love than children with other hairstyles", vaguely implying it was wrong to love ginger children. That's fairly hateful, and in my opinion evil, telling a child their parents shouldn't love it because of something the child has no say in.
As far as I'm concerned she has no right to claim the moral high ground (which, to be fair, I've never seen her do), but some of her opponents can be just as bad as she is.
Actually I do think Katie who has admitted to having no empathy is at risk of bringing up damaged children. The children in the photograph, look dirty, have unbrushed hair and are in a room that looks dirty. They look neglected. While Katie looks immaculate and uninterested. They do not look like happy children. She can not understand other people's pain, she claims to have never cried and not to understand it. How is she going to relate to her children if she is emotionally so deadened? She can not understand them? She only understands it when people are laughed at and mocked. She mocks people she deems as over weight, even Lily Allen, who is tiny. She mocks hair colour, names, the poor and hungry. She thinks that only they very top people in this world should have everything. She represents the very mind set that is of the 1%, she is better and wealthier, if you are not like her, if you happened to be born to a deprived family, then it is tough. She is a living embodiment of Ayn Rand, out for herself, survival of the fittest.
Her children are not allowed to mix with children that Katie doesn't like, if they have the wrong name, she won't let them go to a birthday party. She has openly told the parents of her children's classmates that if she doesn't like their child's name, they are not good enough for a play date. She slates the school mums and the school gates. She has made her children targets to be ignored and picked on at school. Personally I would not be happy if Katie thought my children were good enough for her, I would have done something wrong. She is the type to be hyper critical. She doesn't understand about bonding time with a child, she hands them to a nanny and goes back to work.
I can't see how those children will be alright, they will be expected to be perfect, get brilliant grades and will never be comforted by their mother, if hurt.
She admits to purposely planning to miss her children's birthday's and not even give them a phone call and she badly hurt the children of another marriage, without a care.
Her step daughter said she broke up her parents marriage, took away their father and then, moved on and mocked the anorexia that came about as a result. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-460026/Apprentice-Katie-Hopkins-wrecked-family.html http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/feb/14/katie-hopkins-interview
She doesn't care about what people say....I don't want to be liked by people that like her.
She kept her silence until someone paid for her opinion....The Sun.
She has a weekly column in the Sun .
She responded in her weekly column .
She occasionally talks sense and did on this occasion .
Even a broken clock is right sometimes;-)
She won't give a stuff how she is regarded as long as she gets publicity
and now she has her own thread on ds, so job done I'd say and every post on here whether negative or positive will tickle her .
A professional troll who is exceptionally good at her job. The reaction and outrage she receives time after time merely serves to solidify the role that she plays oh so well. She must be loving it.
I don't believe she actually believes half of what she says or at the very least she massively exaggerates it but on the odd occasion she hits the nail on the head.
Actually I do think Katie who has admitted to having no empathy is at risk of bringing up damaged children. The children in the photograph, look dirty, have unbrushed hair and are in a room that looks dirty. They look neglected. While Katie looks immaculate and uninterested. They do not look like happy children. She can not understand other people's pain, she claims to have never cried and not to understand it. How is she going to relate to her children if she is emotionally so deadened? She can not understand them? She only understands it when people are laughed at and mocked. She mocks people she deems as over weight, even Lily Allen, who is tiny. She mocks hair colour, names, the poor and hungry. She thinks that only they very top people in this world should have everything. She represents the very mind set that is of the 1%, she is better and wealthier, if you are not like her, if you happened to be born to a deprived family, then it is tough. She is a living embodiment of Ayn Rand, out for herself, survival of the fittest.
Her children are not allowed to mix with children that Katie doesn't like, if they have the wrong name, she won't let them go to a birthday party. She has openly told the parents of her children's classmates that if she doesn't like their child's name, they are not good enough for a play date. She slates the school mums and the school gates. She has made her children targets to be ignored and picked on at school. Personally I would not be happy if Katie thought my children were good enough for her, I would have done something wrong. She is the type to be hyper critical. She doesn't understand about bonding time with a child, she hands them to a nanny and goes back to work.
I can't see how those children will be alright, they will be expected to be perfect, get brilliant grades and will never be comforted by their mother, if hurt.
She admits to purposely planning to miss her children's birthday's and not even give them a phone call and she badly hurt the children of another marriage, without a care.
Her step daughter said she broke up her parents marriage, took away their father and then, moved on and mocked the anorexia that came about as a result. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-460026/Apprentice-Katie-Hopkins-wrecked-family.html http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/feb/14/katie-hopkins-interview
She doesn't care about what people say....I don't want to be liked by people that like her.
I always regarded Katie Hopkins as a professional troll, however after reading the interview with her in The Guardian, I'm not so sure. I don't think her responses were, in any way to get a reaction, I think she truly believes everything she says.
There were lots of stand out comments, one being, she can't ever recall crying, that's just not normal. She is cold, emotionless & seems not to have a shred of compassion for anything or anyone.
I've always thought she was a grade A snob but after reading that, being a snob seems to be the least of her problems.
It actually concerns me as to what kind of childhood her poor children have, she sounds more like a Sergeant in the army than a Mum. I get the impression she never shows them any love or affection & if she were to hug them or have any physical contact, she'd feel the need to disinfect herself.
As for her husband, apart from struggling to get my head around the fact that she actually has one, I can't help but wonder what the attraction is for him.
I think her turn of phrase is quite biting to get attention and wind those people up who live to be offended.
But I find this 'she's paid to be a troll' the weak argument of people who aren't offended by what she says but more outraged that someone dares to have a world view that doesn't meet theirs and can express it with a wit they are incapable of.
Sort of 'I'm not clever enough to deliver the opposing argument so I'll make the cheap, easy 'troll' comments to undermine it instead'. The type of illiberal liberal who needs to either silence any differing view or attach some agenda behind it.
Haven't you already posted practically exactly the same thing earlier in the thread, and people have giving you very eloquent reasons why they feel Hopkins is a troll.
It seems you by reiterating this point again and again are the one who wants to shut down conversation, because she says things you agree with, and your view of life and agenda.
In fact almost totally like the BIB.
Why don't you argue that the stuff she said about Ginger Kids, and the other direct quotes from others on the thread are great. Personally I try to avoid her, so I don't know the details. Rather than your straw-man efforts of constantly flicking it back. I don't support everything said against Hopkins, it's ridiculous to suggest that people who don't like her do.
Yet saying someone shouldn't name their kids after placenames, when your child is called India, is slightly trollish.
She has a weekly column in the Sun .
She responded in her weekly column .
She occasionally talks sense and did on this occasion .
Even a broken clock is right sometimes;-)
She won't give a stuff how she is regarded as long as she gets publicity
and now she has her own thread on ds, so job done I'd say and every post on here whether negative or positive will tickle her .
I think she maybe right about the tweeting thing, couldn't quite see the hysteria that she had to respond really, because she met her once.
Mind you, to slag off all the slebs seems to be odd, it wasn't just slebs that tweeted about Peaches . She slagged off Bob Crow just after his death, so she's not exactly consistent, yet I'm sure she wants people to find those inconsistencies and create another story. Twitter is her big medium after all.
This is a showbiz forum, personally I find it horribly interesting how someone like Hopkins can create a career from this. I don't think one more post is changing that much, on a little read part of the forum.
I always regarded Katie Hopkins as a professional troll, however after reading the interview with her in The Guardian, I'm not so sure. I don't think her responses were, in any way to get a reaction, I think she truly believes everything she says.
There were lots of stand out comments, one being, she can't ever recall crying, that's just not normal. She is cold, emotionless & seems not to have a shred of compassion for anything or anyone.
I've always thought she was a grade A snob but after reading that, being a snob seems to be the least of her problems.
It actually concerns me as to what kind of childhood her poor children have, she sounds more like a Sergeant in the army than a Mum. I get the impression she never shows them any love or affection & if she were to hug them or have any physical contact, she'd feel the need to disinfect herself.
As for her husband, apart from struggling to get my head around the fact that she actually has one, I can't help but wonder what the attraction is for him.
A very strange woman indeed.
That is exactly as I see her. I think she does mean what she sees. Though people are questioning her truthfulness about the epilepsy being so severe. But it might have damaged her brain in someway. Her husband is a cuckhold, stolen from someone else and he can't leave her and the children.
The way she thinks if people are born into tough circumstances, that she shouldn't care is real. She is as real as Edwin Currie or Ann Coulter in the US.
A professional troll who is exceptionally good at her job. The reaction and outrage she receives time after time merely serves to solidify the role that she plays oh so well. She must be loving it.
I don't believe she actually believes half of what she says or at the very least she massively exaggerates it but on the odd occasion she hits the nail on the head.
I agree, she's a very successful troll, she knows exactly what she's doing and what reaction she'll get every time. In some ways she reminds me of Liz Jones who while much less controversial than Katie also knows just what to say to get people's hackles up. It's a talent of sorts, but not one most of us would want to possess.
There have always been people who drew attention to themselves and/or earned a living by making controversial statements, but I think we notice it more these days because there's now a general consensus that we must all be very careful not to say anything that might hurt or offend anyone else. Katie would've had to say much more outrageous things in past times if she wanted to be noticed!
There have always been people who drew attention to themselves and/or earned a living by making controversial statements, but I think we notice it more these days because there's now a general consensus that we must all be very careful not to say anything that might hurt or offend anyone else. Katie would've had to say much more outrageous things in past times if she wanted to be noticed!
I once read a Daily Mail column by Rachel Johnson, the logline to which strongly implied that a celebrity who had been accused of rape and acquitted, had simply got away with it rather than actually being innocent. And it then went on to suggest that even if he hadn't committed the act he should've been prosecuted anyway.
The article was much less bold than the logline, but it still implied celebrities should be done for sexual assault, even if they're innocent, to make sure it doesn't put women off coming forward...
Katie Hopkins may be tasteless, but she's never been that tasteless...
I don't have kids, I work hard, I pay taxes and contribute to society in many ways. I find her opinions egocentric, shallow and uneducated. She offends people just for £££s. I feel sorry for her that she feels she's got to stoop so low.
This 'professional troll' thing is such a slow witted, underhand argument designed by people who have a strange aversion to the fact there are people out there who have different opinions to their own. Therefore they have to try and design agendas because it's far easier to do so than actually having to take some time, effort and thought creating a fully formulated point of view.
Of course an element of it is done for attention.... that's what a job of a journalist, commentator etc requires. If you don't deliver your position in a way to get the people reading or to create reaction and start conversations then what's the point? Every commentator wants their piece to be read and published, she's no more a troll than any columnist or social commentator. She's just doing what the job requires. That's what separates being paid for it from those who of us who spout crap but aren't anywhere near as good to do it as a job.
I think Dimsie makes a point. In the past ago journalism was much braver and an artform. And there seemed to be a faith in the reader that they could read an article and form their own conclusions. Nowadays anyone dares to put their head above the parapet and there's a whole phony outrage and attempt to contrive an agenda to it.
I once read a Daily Mail column by Rachel Johnson, the logline to which strongly implied that a celebrity who had been accused of rape and acquitted, had simply got away with it rather than actually being innocent. And it then went on to suggest that even if he hadn't committed the act he should've been prosecuted anyway.
The article was much less bold than the logline, but it still implied celebrities should be done for sexual assault, even if they're innocent, to make sure it doesn't put women off coming forward...
Katie Hopkins may be tasteless, but she's never been that tasteless...
It TERRIFIES me that anyone could have that thought process even for wind-up purposes let alone for real!!! >:(
This 'professional troll' thing is such a slow witted, underhand argument designed by people who have a strange aversion to the fact there are people out there who have different opinions to their own.
Sure it is.
Once again, you do talk a lot of rubbish. If you actually believe what you write, then you are INCREDIBLY naive.
Comments
I also post on topic.
Agree.
When people can make money out of upsetting others on purpose it does feel like the world's gone mad.
She kept her silence until someone paid for her opinion....The Sun.
They really earned the nickname The Scum, didn't they!
I think her turn of phrase is quite biting to get attention and wind those people up who live to be offended.
But I find this 'she's paid to be a troll' the weak argument of people who aren't offended by what she says but more outraged that someone dares to have a world view that doesn't meet theirs and can express it with a wit they are incapable of.
Sort of 'I'm not clever enough to deliver the opposing argument so I'll make the cheap, easy 'troll' comments to undermine it instead'. The type of illiberal liberal who needs to either silence any differing view or attach some agenda behind it.
Yeap! And Katie kept her mouth shut until she got a paycheck. The Sun is one of the papers that leads all this "mourning" and harasses celebs to comment, when someone dies. They now Tweet, which stops them being harassed for comments by The Sun and Sky News.
Katie never knew Peaches, had called her a crap parent and lost a debate too her. Many of those that did comment did know Peaches or Bob. Or had known Paula in her more sober days. Especially people like Sharon Osborne and Philip Scofield.
It scares me that people actually agree with Katie....Are they agree with her when she attacks Food Banks, while knowing nothing about how they run? Do they think people with ginger hair are harder to love? Do they think overweight people are unemployable? Or that people with tattoos or with a name she doesn't like are trashy?
(Sam Cameron has a tattoo on her foot..).
The fact is you support the people who say that Katie has brought up bullies as children. You support the people that say Katie's children are going to be psychologically damaged. You support the people that make heinous comments about Katie's upbringing. You support the people who say Katie is a bad mother with emotionally handicapped children because she has a different view towards parenting. You support all the vile things people have said not just about Katie but about her children, her parents etc. You support all those people who make hateful comments about how she can't possibly love her children.
I've said it before Katie is harsh but when it comes to her opinions she has NEVER suggested a parent doesn't love their child or deliberately intends to harm them, which is possible as evil a comment as a person could make. Those who disagree with her points of view (Sonia Poulton, Peaches Geldof to name but two) often resort to those depths and love to suggest her children are retarded and emotionally crippled.
Do you not think the fact you condone (nay champion in fact) such hatred expressed on such a deeply personal level for the simple fact a person has a different view point pretty scary also?
And that's the thing. Katie might be nasty but those who sit next to her on the couches always reveal how nasty they really are when someone dares to not agree with them.
She said "ginger children were much harder to love than children with other hairstyles", vaguely implying it was wrong to love ginger children. That's fairly hateful, and in my opinion evil, telling a child their parents shouldn't love it because of something the child has no say in.
As far as I'm concerned she has no right to claim the moral high ground (which, to be fair, I've never seen her do), but some of her opponents can be just as bad as she is.
Her children are not allowed to mix with children that Katie doesn't like, if they have the wrong name, she won't let them go to a birthday party. She has openly told the parents of her children's classmates that if she doesn't like their child's name, they are not good enough for a play date. She slates the school mums and the school gates. She has made her children targets to be ignored and picked on at school. Personally I would not be happy if Katie thought my children were good enough for her, I would have done something wrong. She is the type to be hyper critical. She doesn't understand about bonding time with a child, she hands them to a nanny and goes back to work.
I can't see how those children will be alright, they will be expected to be perfect, get brilliant grades and will never be comforted by their mother, if hurt.
She admits to purposely planning to miss her children's birthday's and not even give them a phone call and she badly hurt the children of another marriage, without a care.
Her step daughter said she broke up her parents marriage, took away their father and then, moved on and mocked the anorexia that came about as a result. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-460026/Apprentice-Katie-Hopkins-wrecked-family.html
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/feb/14/katie-hopkins-interview
She doesn't care about what people say....I don't want to be liked by people that like her.
She has a weekly column in the Sun .
She responded in her weekly column .
She occasionally talks sense and did on this occasion .
Even a broken clock is right sometimes;-)
She won't give a stuff how she is regarded as long as she gets publicity
and now she has her own thread on ds, so job done I'd say and every post on here whether negative or positive will tickle her .
I don't believe she actually believes half of what she says or at the very least she massively exaggerates it but on the odd occasion she hits the nail on the head.
I always regarded Katie Hopkins as a professional troll, however after reading the interview with her in The Guardian, I'm not so sure. I don't think her responses were, in any way to get a reaction, I think she truly believes everything she says.
There were lots of stand out comments, one being, she can't ever recall crying, that's just not normal. She is cold, emotionless & seems not to have a shred of compassion for anything or anyone.
I've always thought she was a grade A snob but after reading that, being a snob seems to be the least of her problems.
It actually concerns me as to what kind of childhood her poor children have, she sounds more like a Sergeant in the army than a Mum. I get the impression she never shows them any love or affection & if she were to hug them or have any physical contact, she'd feel the need to disinfect herself.
As for her husband, apart from struggling to get my head around the fact that she actually has one, I can't help but wonder what the attraction is for him.
A very strange woman indeed.
Haven't you already posted practically exactly the same thing earlier in the thread, and people have giving you very eloquent reasons why they feel Hopkins is a troll.
It seems you by reiterating this point again and again are the one who wants to shut down conversation, because she says things you agree with, and your view of life and agenda.
In fact almost totally like the BIB.
Why don't you argue that the stuff she said about Ginger Kids, and the other direct quotes from others on the thread are great. Personally I try to avoid her, so I don't know the details. Rather than your straw-man efforts of constantly flicking it back. I don't support everything said against Hopkins, it's ridiculous to suggest that people who don't like her do.
Yet saying someone shouldn't name their kids after placenames, when your child is called India, is slightly trollish.
I think she maybe right about the tweeting thing, couldn't quite see the hysteria that she had to respond really, because she met her once.
Mind you, to slag off all the slebs seems to be odd, it wasn't just slebs that tweeted about Peaches . She slagged off Bob Crow just after his death, so she's not exactly consistent, yet I'm sure she wants people to find those inconsistencies and create another story. Twitter is her big medium after all.
This is a showbiz forum, personally I find it horribly interesting how someone like Hopkins can create a career from this. I don't think one more post is changing that much, on a little read part of the forum.
That is exactly as I see her. I think she does mean what she sees. Though people are questioning her truthfulness about the epilepsy being so severe. But it might have damaged her brain in someway. Her husband is a cuckhold, stolen from someone else and he can't leave her and the children.
The way she thinks if people are born into tough circumstances, that she shouldn't care is real. She is as real as Edwin Currie or Ann Coulter in the US.
I agree, she's a very successful troll, she knows exactly what she's doing and what reaction she'll get every time. In some ways she reminds me of Liz Jones who while much less controversial than Katie also knows just what to say to get people's hackles up. It's a talent of sorts, but not one most of us would want to possess.
There have always been people who drew attention to themselves and/or earned a living by making controversial statements, but I think we notice it more these days because there's now a general consensus that we must all be very careful not to say anything that might hurt or offend anyone else. Katie would've had to say much more outrageous things in past times if she wanted to be noticed!
I once read a Daily Mail column by Rachel Johnson, the logline to which strongly implied that a celebrity who had been accused of rape and acquitted, had simply got away with it rather than actually being innocent. And it then went on to suggest that even if he hadn't committed the act he should've been prosecuted anyway.
The article was much less bold than the logline, but it still implied celebrities should be done for sexual assault, even if they're innocent, to make sure it doesn't put women off coming forward...
Katie Hopkins may be tasteless, but she's never been that tasteless...
Of course an element of it is done for attention.... that's what a job of a journalist, commentator etc requires. If you don't deliver your position in a way to get the people reading or to create reaction and start conversations then what's the point? Every commentator wants their piece to be read and published, she's no more a troll than any columnist or social commentator. She's just doing what the job requires. That's what separates being paid for it from those who of us who spout crap but aren't anywhere near as good to do it as a job.
I think Dimsie makes a point. In the past ago journalism was much braver and an artform. And there seemed to be a faith in the reader that they could read an article and form their own conclusions. Nowadays anyone dares to put their head above the parapet and there's a whole phony outrage and attempt to contrive an agenda to it.
It TERRIFIES me that anyone could have that thought process even for wind-up purposes let alone for real!!! >:(
Sure it is.
Once again, you do talk a lot of rubbish. If you actually believe what you write, then you are INCREDIBLY naive.
Which, ironically, proves his point