She did. I suspect she was put in in the hope that she would spark things up, but from what I recall she came across as very dull, mostly because she had very little interesting to say.

To be fair, only because Janice Dickinson took part in that series and hogged the limelight.

She wasn't even a proper cast member - just a last minute reserve because someone dropped out. How humiliating as a self-styled megabitch to be considered less of a draw than Lynne Franks or a second-tier Hollyoaks cast member.

True to an extent, but she was certainly one of the most invisible contestants on that series. Everyone else had their little moments, or were shown telling some interesting little anecdote. I thought Katie was a little star-struck, and as someone who wasn't a 'real' celebrity with any real bon mots to share with the viewers, she had little to contribute. That last bit wasn't her fault, obviously - but it did underline how thin her celebrity credentials were.

Agree with those that say she's a professional troll.

The reaction of people to her comments is no different to the Samantha Brick 'Women hate me because I'm beautiful' kind of shtick.

Katie Hopkins is bright and articulate and so can deal perfectly well with the outrage from those who fall for this kind of thing again and again. She is perfectly able to debate a topic from both sides (regardless of her personal opinions)- not for a second do I think she is 100% serious with what she comes out with these days.

It wouldn't be my personal career choice but I think she fits the role pretty well and I'm sure her back balance and medial profile haven't been too badly affected...

You have to question the intelligence and common sense of anyone who thought that chinless wonder Paul Callaghan was worth having a relationship with

I respect Samantha Brick actually. She's a bit obsessed with looks, but I admire the way that she is honest about the fact that a lot of women don't like pretty girls, which I think is one of those prejudices that isn't talked about very much. I think that the amount of negativity she has had as a result of that article proves her right in a sense.

I respect Katie for being gutsy enough to put those opinions across as well, but I think that some of the things that Katie says do not make sense at all, this being one of them.

The thing about Ms Brick is that she really isn't all that and some of the things she said beggered belief - like saying waiters often refused to take her money or that a stranger in the queue behind her insisted on paying for her train ticket.
As it goes though, yes I agree attractive women do get stick from others - its just I find it more likely Samantha gets stick for being an arse not from being gewgeous

Ha ha, I can't argue with that!


I take your points George, and agree to an extent with some of Samantha Brick's comments, but I don't for a second think she really 100% believes everything she writes in the Mail. At the very least I'd say it's a (purposefully) grossly exaggerated take on her actual stance.

The likes of her and Katie Hopkins are there to purposefully court the type of controversy we are seeing again now. It get's a reaction, loads of people take what they say at face value and it get's them a load of PR.

IMO Katie Hopkins knows exactly what she is doing and as long as people are gullible enough to buy into it, get riled up and take it all at 100% face value, I take my hat off to her!

Love Katie the other three are likely more judgemental as they certainly judged her for expressing her views.

Well beauty is relative anyway. I do find her reasonably attractive and I can see why she'd get noticed for that. She must have experienced some of the things she writes about - unless she's just downright lying - and she must have got stick for it BEFORE she wrote that article.

And I don't really care whether or not people actually believe what they are saying. I just assume that everyone does, and then I can debate it with them without digressing.

Agree that it is pretty much all an act (which is why she turned down the offer of the F2) - no-one could be stupid enough to say these things seriously.

But ... Samantha Brick is actually quite plain and Katie Hopkins is very plain and named her daughter India.

At what point do either of them expect to be taken seriously?

Samantha Brick being plain is an opinion. I actually think she's quite pretty. Katie Hopkins having a daughter named India is a fact. You can't compare the two.

Katie Hopkins was and appears to still be a devious and unpleasant pantomime dame.

If she’s still trying to give the impression of speaking the truth perish the thought her kids ever have any friends with appropriate names or they might scupper Katie’s make believe integrity by bringing old news cuttings to light.

Katie's prejudices, at least from what we saw on the show, seemed to be entirely class based. She only really showed real disdain for Adam ('northern chums'/'car lot') and Kristina ('too orange to be taken seriously'/'she's an arse coverer, shame the same can't be said of the skirt she wears'), both of whom she deemed to be beneath her due to the 'working class' impression she seemed to think they both gave off. By contrast, she was friendly with both Lohit and Ghazal and seemed to have genuine respect for Tre's abilities (this appeared to be mutual).

For all her faults, I highly doubt Katie is racist. I can't imagine she would object to her children being friends with children from ethnic minority backgrounds (with names to match), provided they were from affluent / middle class families. In fact, I imagine she's the kind of mother that would encourage her children to mix with hot-housed Asian children in the hope that they would be a 'positive influence'.

Actually, that's a good point. Asian children often do very well at school, because a lot of Asian cultures put a big emphasis on academia. I imagine that's something Katie would approve of.

She was interviewed a few years ago and quite calmly said that she had put ‘homewrecker’ on her CV! And casually mentioned that she’d had several affairs
Who on Earth would employ somebody with such a stinking attitude towards others? As a manager, I would have serious concerns about a candidate who, seems to relish having a very mean streak and could cause a great deal of disruption to a previously happy group of staff. Somebody may be a horror in real life and perhaps be a great staff member but putting that comment on a CV is childish at best and divisive at worst. Too much of a red flag IMO.