said the use of the word Chinky is understandable amongst working class people
See, this is where it gets silly, We pretend that calling the Chinese Take-away a 'Chinky' is something that 'good' British people are above, and we would never do that. ...
If you want to fool yourselves that this is the case then thats up to you.
But people WILL vote for her as a personality to win Big Brother. In this celebrity driven culture that we have, and the dearth of conviction politics that Hopkins bemoans, the irony is that the increased focus on celebrity culture is more likely to garner her votes in a political election.
That's why I find it so ridiculous that an obvious troll like Perez is seen as so dangerous. He exists as long as this Big Brother series. His effect will be on celebrities. If celebrity culture is of mere interest to you and not vital to your view of society then his influence is irritating at best.
Hopkins' influence could possibly affect political policy in the coming years. If Rebekah Wade and Andy Coulson's views could why couldn't Rupert's new popularist protege Katie Hopkins' in the coming years? Are we arming another unempathetic, privately educated, moral vacuum to help dictate political and social policy in the future?
Please remember current jailbird Andy Coulson was once a showbiz editor on The Sun. He went on to become the media guru and Alistair Campbell of the Tories in less than 10 years. It happens.
And if one thing can be guaranteed: Hopkins is ambitious.
Well said. I have to disagree for one reason. Katie Hopkins is simply not intelligent or educated sufficiently, to succeed in the Political arena. She purports to be a right of right wing thinker. Where would she fit? She's too right wing for the Conservative Party. Too senselessly prejudiced for any party. Sadly she's stuck around 70 years ago in Political History because of her immaturity and insecurity. She lacks any substance, is only capable of ad homiem argument, insubstantive sweeping generalisations on any subject. Try to delve deeper and she simply repeats her empty rhetoric. I liken her to a teenager new to her school debating society. It's interesting that she is rarely invited to any serious TV debate programme. She is not a high flying business woman and never has been. Even her Apprentice claims are basically false and her appearance was based on false pretences of previous career success.. http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/sir-alans-blast-to-disgraced-apprentice-katie-hopkins-youre-unemployable-7265235.html
Her level is where she is, grubbing around for any kind of reality show career and lowest common denominator, easy target musings.
See this is where the blind spot kicks in. She is a popular celebrity, on a nationally syndicated newspaper, on two of Britain's biggest reality TV shows, espousing her POLITICAL and SOCIAL opinions to the nation. Talking of her love of Thatcher and conviction politics. And you don't see a potential political career there?
Esther McVey and Gloria De Piero were GMTV presenters previously. Now they are in the cabinet and shadow cabinet respectively. Hell Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan were movie stars before going into politics. Are you really naive enough to believe that that wouldn't be a potential next move for Katie Hopkins? And are you naive enough not to think that her popularity on shows like this might make her attractive to the likes of UKIP and the Conservative Party? That she could become influential enough to have her pathetic column outbursts form a basis for national policy?
I can't believe you can't see a political career in the making when it's like a foot in front of your face. And if, like me, you find her political and social views ridiculous, the thought of them one day influencing local and national policy takes it out of the annoying box and into the dangerous box quickly.
Oh for goodness' sake - blues under the loo. We must castigate NOW, otherwise disaster follows. Come on. She's a Sun Pundit, she isn't all that clever, and if she's dangerous, what should we do - ban her? Scream and protest OTT HORROR whenever she opens her mouth? Jeez.
Being a fan of KH's (outside of CBB and within) this is something that that is often levelled at me - "So, you agree that you should judge kids on their names?" etc.
NO! Wrong wrong wrong! I don't agree with everything she or anyone says, what I DO like is that she vocalises her opinions in a raw format. Pretty much everyone else in the public eye (save for a few comedians who are looking for the controversy) simply will not let a comment leave their lips or there pens without pre-screening it for political correctness first.
Now, if you want to believe that these are their true opinions then thats your prerogative, but I think its a little naive, and I think anyone who has lived in the real world for any amount of time really does know that real people have real opinions on things, and they aren't always pretty.... and where you have opinions, you are BOUND to have opposing opinions, I'd suggest on virtually any opinion you'd see a bell curve of reaction, with a few people agreeing, the bulk of people objecting, and then a few objecting strongly.
The idea that if an opinion is 'righteous' then the world will agree is a faulty idealism. And the blandness that we see in the form of Politically Correct appeasement is a pathetic attempt at denial of something very beautiful - The diversity of free thought and opinion.
Excellent post. People forget how important that is and just want what THEY think to have any sort of airing.
The fact that she espouses political views on the biggest newspaper in Britain, is known to be very ambitious AND is backed by Rupert Murdoch doesn't bode too well. The more I think about it it's the obvious move for her. The only question is whether she opts for Ukip or the Conservatives.
Ukip allows her to speak more or less freely and offend as she pleases but in real terms have diminished power but a lot of social influence.
However the Tories would give her a real shout at power and influencing policy. She'd have to be decidedly less controversial and offensive, which to be honest is her schtick, but she will be in a great position to put her ideas into policy.
It'll be a question for her: would she want to maintain her public offensive persona with limited policy influence or would she prefer significant policy influence but tow the party line and row back on her now popular offensive public persona?
She already had a foray in to politics as a spokesperson for the 'we want a referendum now' banner. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Demand_a_Referendum_Now On an edition of Newsnight she accusd UKIP of not being radical enough. Even they accused her of not knowing the facts of how to go about getting said referendum. The difference in hers and the UKIP branding were compared to '..the difference between the Judeas Peoples Front and The Peoples Front of Judea', which she didn't deny (nor did they) except they came out of it looking the wiser.
I think Nadia treats Perez like a naughty child who she's trying to look after, advise and put on the right track. She tells him when he's being annoying or rude and she tries to reign him in. She feels bad that he has no friends so stands by him when no-one else wants to know him. I've no idea whether he genuinely likes her or not but he never seems to verbally attack her or be nasty to her. Just my slant on their relationship ;-)
Comments
See, this is where it gets silly, We pretend that calling the Chinese Take-away a 'Chinky' is something that 'good' British people are above, and we would never do that. ...
If you want to fool yourselves that this is the case then thats up to you.
Well said. I have to disagree for one reason. Katie Hopkins is simply not intelligent or educated sufficiently, to succeed in the Political arena. She purports to be a right of right wing thinker. Where would she fit? She's too right wing for the Conservative Party. Too senselessly prejudiced for any party. Sadly she's stuck around 70 years ago in Political History because of her immaturity and insecurity. She lacks any substance, is only capable of ad homiem argument, insubstantive sweeping generalisations on any subject. Try to delve deeper and she simply repeats her empty rhetoric. I liken her to a teenager new to her school debating society. It's interesting that she is rarely invited to any serious TV debate programme. She is not a high flying business woman and never has been. Even her Apprentice claims are basically false and her appearance was based on false pretences of previous career success..
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/sir-alans-blast-to-disgraced-apprentice-katie-hopkins-youre-unemployable-7265235.html
Her level is where she is, grubbing around for any kind of reality show career and lowest common denominator, easy target musings.
Oh for goodness' sake - blues under the loo. We must castigate NOW, otherwise disaster follows. Come on. She's a Sun Pundit, she isn't all that clever, and if she's dangerous, what should we do - ban her? Scream and protest OTT HORROR whenever she opens her mouth? Jeez.
Excellent post. People forget how important that is and just want what THEY think to have any sort of airing.
She already had a foray in to politics as a spokesperson for the 'we want a referendum now' banner. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Demand_a_Referendum_Now On an edition of Newsnight she accusd UKIP of not being radical enough. Even they accused her of not knowing the facts of how to go about getting said referendum. The difference in hers and the UKIP branding were compared to '..the difference between the Judeas Peoples Front and The Peoples Front of Judea', which she didn't deny (nor did they) except they came out of it looking the wiser.