DS Forums

 
 

Katie Hopkins defaming the character of Linda Nolan.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-01-2014, 19:30
Odette Valmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,790
She hasn't been silenced you silly, silly person, she is constantly all over the papers and tv in spite of having absolutely nothing worthwhile to say. Who were you before? I'm pretty sure I know.
Again, another person who hasn't read my post properly. I'm talking about the petition somebody has made, with the intention of silencing her. I haven't said that she has been silenced - it's the idea I'm disagreeing with.
Odette Valmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-01-2014, 19:32
greenyone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: south wales
Posts: 3,403
I suppose the question we should ask ourselves is: why is behaving in this way deemed acceptable these days? Look at all the awful comments people post about other people on line on twitter and sometimes on this forum.

Think back to when BB started I don't remember that level of vitriol and criticism being hurled at anyone. Unfortunately character assassination by keyboard is seen as socially acceptable these days. Katie Hopkins is just an extension of this reality.
Good Post
greenyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:33
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,113
I really wish they wouldn't give this awful woman opportunities on TV to vent her spleen over people she has never met - and not likely to. I cannot think of one redeeming feature she has and would be delighted if I never saw or heard her ever again.
So you don't want her venting her spleen over people she has never met but you are quite happy to vent your spleen over someone you have never met. Priceless.
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:33
SillyBillyGoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21,530
Linda is unhinged and clearly has some sort of personality disorder. No rational woman plots and schemes, recruiting troops to launch a hate campaign against an innocent man (Jim).
And none of that answers my question of why she's a cat-lady type with hygiene issues.

Again, I find it humorous that you're defending Katie Hopkins, and then leveling words that could easily be used for her against someone else. You think that woman is rational and well-balanced? The woman who makes a career out hatred and trying to offend pretty much everybody?

I'm really bemused by how Linda's behavior pissed you off so much, yet Katie (far nastier imo) behavior is all fine and dandy.

You think an attempt to silence somebody's views is "far less offensive"? I think it's shocking that in the western world people think it's okay to silence somebody, just because she's a minority. Her views aren't even that extreme. It's not like she's calling for mass-genocide or something - then I'd completely understand.
I never said that.

But I don't see Katie as sharing "views". She doesn't offer actual insights, basis for anything she says, or even real opinions. She flings insults around, that's all. She loves to hurt people. So, yes, I think people wanting her to stop getting air time is "far less offensive" than the horrid things she says about people.
SillyBillyGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:33
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
Again, another person who hasn't read my post properly. I'm talking about the petition somebody has made, with the intention of silencing her. I haven't said that she has been silenced - it's the idea I'm disagreeing with.
Possibly she realizes now that jeering at Scottish people for dying young within hours of a terrible accident that killed 10 people in a pub was a poor way of winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Furthermore, the no one has the RIGHT to appear on daytime tv spouting poisonous nonsense, any more than they have the RIGHT to play Romeo at the Old Vic. Hopkins has the same freedom to espouse her views as any of us: she may write to the papers, write a blog, tweet, send out emails, stand in the street with a megaphone. She is in absolutely no danger of being 'silenced', though it would be nice if she lost her voice.
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:34
Blondie X
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Kent but ex Sarf London
Posts: 26,541
She's a truly horrible person.
But she realises that she gets attention and shock from saying those things, and being 'controversial'. She has realised that it's a bit of a niche for her, and that she will get noticed and invited on more shows if she behaves like that...
Absolutely. She's a hideous caricature and the most appalling hypocrite. She claims to be a businesswoman but no one seems to have a bloody clue what her actual business is. Her claim to fame is being papped shagging someone else's husband in a field and being a complete gobshite.
She's as classless as Price and Katona but thinks, because she speaks with a plum in her mouth, that she's upmarket and posh when she's anything but.

She's just another attention seeking z lister but with a slightly different MO.

I disagree with the petition though. Let her sprout her bollox and let us judge her like she judges others
Blondie X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:37
Odette Valmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,790
And none of that answers my question of why she's a cat-lady type with hygiene issues.

Again, I find it humorous that you're defending Katie Hopkins, and then leveling words that could easily be used for her against someone else. You think that woman is rational and well-balanced? The woman who makes a career out hatred and trying to offend pretty much everybody?



I never said that.

But I don't see Katie as sharing "views". She doesn't offer actual insights, basis for anything she says, or even real opinions. She flings insults around, that's all. She loves to hurt people. So, yes, I think people wanting her to stop getting air time is "far less offensive" than the horrid things she says about people.
Like I said, Linda seems unhinged - in other words crazy. Hygiene problems and a love of cats often comes with the territory.

On the topic of Katie...

Perhaps you don't think she offers insights or real opinion, but I, and many others, think she does. I haven't disputed that the way she goes about sharing her views is often OTT, but like I said earlier, many of the points behind her flamboyant explanations are valid.
Odette Valmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:39
Sylvia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 14,231
I have to say, Katie made several valid points about Linda. Linda does seem like the crazy old cat-lady with hygiene issues. Plus, as we saw on the HL show last night, when she's on the wine she gets even more malicious. She also made a valid point about her being a clucking chicken sat on her bed, stirring it up - it's exactly what she did. In Katie's words "She is revolting!"
You have a point. I can feel no sympathy for Linda because she has shown herself to be such a nasty piece of work both this year on CBB and last year on BBBOTS.
Sylvia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:40
Summer Breeze
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,042
Possibly she realizes now that jeering at Scottish people for dying young within hours of a terrible accident that killed 10 people in a pub was a poor way of winning the hearts and minds of the people.


Katie apologised for that mistimed comment.
I do not feel she wants to win anyones hearts and minds though.
Her thoughts and how she expresses them is getting her good pay at present.
She is just milking her bookability.

Like I typed before she will go a step too far soon no doubt and suffer the consequences.
Summer Breeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:43
SillyBillyGoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21,530
Like I said, Linda seems unhinged - in other words crazy. Hygiene problems and a love of cats often comes with the territory.
Erm, not really. Seems you're basing your statements on horrid stereotypes. But I'll let you believe you know what you're talking about on the subject if you'd like!

I like how you brushed over my point of words very apt for Katie being used against Linda, though.

Perhaps you don't think she offers insights or real opinion, but I, and many others, think she does. I haven't disputed that the way she goes about sharing her views is often OTT, but like I said earlier, many of the points behind her flamboyant explanations are valid.
Many others? I think that's rather optimistic. But others, I won't deny.

OTT? Well, I'd say downright horrible, but each to their own. I'm genuinely amazed that you're angry about Linda's "nastiness" and brand Katie's as simply "OTT", but again, each to their own.

I don't think she ever raised valid points. Anybody who'll judge someone based on their name is clearly horribly ignorant from the get-go, and then there's the little thing of seemingly forgetting her own daughter has one of the names types she was ranting about (geographical locations).

She's also harped on about people with tattoos being less successful, and ignored evidence to the contrary.

But, considering you backed up your own statement about Linda's hygiene with approximately nothing, I should stop taking both and and Katie so seriously I think. Have a nice evening!
SillyBillyGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:45
Blondie X
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Kent but ex Sarf London
Posts: 26,541
Like I said, Linda seems unhinged - in other words crazy. Hygiene problems and a love of cats often comes with the territory.

On the topic of Katie...

Perhaps you don't think she offers insights or real opinion, but I, and many others, think she does. I haven't disputed that the way she goes about sharing her views is often OTT, but like I said earlier, many of the points behind her flamboyant explanations are valid.
She's made the occasional valid point but any common sense she ever speaks is lost because she delivers her message with the grace and charm of a pissed elephant
Blondie X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:45
Kewpee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Everywhere & nowhere
Posts: 50,028
It's like Daddy or Chips....'Linda or Katie'

What a choice....I'm proper spoiled...

Think I'll pass on both, I'm on a non pointless nobody diet.
Kewpee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:46
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
Like I said, Linda seems unhinged - in other words crazy. Hygiene problems and a love of cats often comes with the territory.
That really is idiotically nasty, and doesn't look any better with a laughing face after it.

, many of the points behind her flamboyant explanations are valid.
Not in this case. Roughly - I didn't transcribe it - this is what Hopkins saw fit to say about a housemate she had taken a dislike to:

"She's so incredibly boring! You just know that she probably smells of wee [pause for laughter] and she probably has hygeine issues, and if you saw her in Tescos she would be lost in the wine department and not knowing what she was doing there, and she would be saying "perhaps I'll go and work on the till" - no she wouldn't, because she's on benefits!" [Triumphant conclusion, waits for adoring laughter]. This seems to be based solely:

1. On the fact that Linda is over 50;
2. That she had a long and demanding career which collapsed when she was seriously ill with cancer.
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:47
TerryM22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 17,987
Katie apologised for that mistimed comment.
I do not feel she wants to win anyones hearts and minds though.
Her thoughts and how she expresses them is getting her good pay at present.
She is just milking her bookability.

Like I typed before she will go a step too far soon no doubt and suffer the consequences.
It is a fine line that she is treading.
TerryM22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:49
SillyBillyGoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21,530
That really is idiotically nasty, and doesn't look any better with a laughing face after it.
Oh, there was plenty of hypocrisy last night on here after the episode. People having the gall to brand Linda "nasty" and then saying horribly cruel things, as if it made them any better.

I think Linda was irritating last night, but I read FAR worse things said about her on here, it's just strange how some people claim to hate nastiness, and express how they hate nasty people by saying much worse things.

"She's so incredibly boring! You just know that she probably smells of wee [pause for laughter] and she probably has hygeine issues, and if you saw her in Tescos she would be lost in the wine department and not knowing what she was doing there, and she would be saying "perhaps I'll go and work on the till" - no she wouldn't, because she's on benefits!" [Triumphant conclusion, waits for adoring laughter]. This seems to be based solely:
My point. Katie Hopkins insults. That's her career.
SillyBillyGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:52
Odette Valmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,790
Many others? I think that's rather optimistic. But others, I won't deny.

OTT? Well, I'd say downright horrible, but each to their own. I'm genuinely amazed that you're angry about Linda's "nastiness" and brand Katie's as simply "OTT", but again, each to their own.

I don't think she ever raised valid points. Anybody who'll judge someone based on their name is clearly horribly ignorant from the get-go, and then there's the little thing of seemingly forgetting her own daughter has one of the names types she was ranting about (geographical locations).

She's also harped on about people with tattoos being less successful, and ignored evidence to the contrary.

But, considering you backed up your own statement about Linda's hygiene with approximately nothing, I should stop taking both and and Katie so seriously I think. Have a nice evening!
I must be ignorant then. Despite Katie contradicting herself, which I openly admit to, I think you can judge somebody's social background by their name. Typically, those with tacky names like Lee, Chelsea, Kaden etc are from council estates. Not always, but most of the time.

Also, you're blind if you don't think people with tattoos are generally less successful. Who wants to employ somebody with tattoos all over their body? It doesn't send out a professional image.
Odette Valmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 19:54
SillyBillyGoat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21,530
I must be ignorant then. Despite Katie contradicting herself, which I openly admit to, I think you can judge somebody's social background by their name. Typically, those with tacky names like Lee, Chelsea, Kaden etc are from council estates. Not always, but most of the time.

Also, you're blind if you don't think people with tattoos are generally less successful. Who wants to employ somebody with tattoos all over their body? It doesn't send out a professional image.
Yes, I'd agree that you are ignorant considering your issue with those names is that they're likely "from council estates". There is a stereotype surrounding them, but I grew up on a council estate and I certainly don't fit that "Shameless" mould. Not even close. It's such a horrible mentality to lump everyone from a council estate in as the same. Not only that, but it's very weak. It's easy to lump a whole bunch of people together, isn't it?

It's a shame that in 2013 this closed-minded attitude it still around in some people.

As for tattoos, I'm not talking about people who have them all over their bodies. There are plenty of successful people with tattoos, that is a fact.
SillyBillyGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:17
Kewpee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Everywhere & nowhere
Posts: 50,028
Yes, I'd agree that you are ignorant considering your issue with those names is that they're likely "from council estates". There is a stereotype surrounding them, but I grew up on a council estate and I certainly don't fit that "Shameless" mould. Not even close. It's such a horrible mentality to lump everyone from a council estate in as the same. Not only that, but it's very weak. It's easy to lump a whole bunch of people together, isn't it?

It's a shame that in 2013 this closed-minded attitude it still around in some people.

As for tattoos, I'm not talking about people who have them all over their bodies. There are plenty of successful people with tattoos, that is a fact.
And lots more who have always secretly wanted one...re David Dimbleby
Kewpee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:21
Odette Valmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,790
And lots more who have always secretly wanted one...re David Dimbleby
If people didn't share Katie's view on tattoos, why would others "secretly" want one. It's just another case of people not saying what they really think.
Odette Valmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:27
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
I must be ignorant then. Despite Katie contradicting herself, which I openly admit to, I think you can judge somebody's social background by their name. Typically, those with tacky names like Lee, Chelsea, Kaden etc are from council estates. Not always, but most of the time.
Not even most of the time. The most popular names at present are:

1.Harry


2 Jack


3 Oliver


4 Charlie


5 Alfie


6 Jacob


7 Thomas


8 James


9 Riley


10 Ethan

1 Olivia


2 Lily


3 Sophie


4 Amelia


5 Emily


6 Jessica


7 Grace


8 Ava


9 Ruby


10 Mia

All of them more or less classless; there are outliers and typically non anglo-Saxon names, but on average there is a far greater overlap between the names of the rich and the names of the poor than people pretend. Lee, Chelsea and Kaden are not in the top 100.


Also, you're blind if you don't think people with tattoos are generally less successful. Who wants to employ somebody with tattoos all over their body? It doesn't send out a professional image.
I don't think people with tattoos are generally less successful. How have we moved to 'tattoos all over their body'?
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:38
Jamie_181
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 256
I used to enjoy Katie on The Apprentice and appreciated her outspoken opinions but she has really degenerated into a troll now.
Jamie_181 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:39
wonkeydonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
I used to enjoy Katie on The Apprentice and appreciated her outspoken opinions but she has really degenerated into a troll now.
It is genuinely depressing that so many media outlets think - hey! I know someone who really doesn't care how hurtful and spiteful they are! Let's pay her!
wonkeydonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:42
Sun Tzu.
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 18,421
Yeah, I wasn't only referring to her interview on BOTS. I'm talking about Katie in the broader sense.
Talking shit? What has left or right political ideology got anything to do with it really?
Sun Tzu. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:43
SnowStorm86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,172
The fact she would describe Jim Davidson as "the best of British" should be enough for everyone to understand that her opinions are not to be taken seriously.
SnowStorm86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2014, 20:49
Odette Valmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,790
Not even most of the time. The most popular names at present are:

1.Harry


2 Jack


3 Oliver


4 Charlie


5 Alfie


6 Jacob


7 Thomas


8 James


9 Riley


10 Ethan

1 Olivia


2 Lily


3 Sophie


4 Amelia


5 Emily


6 Jessica


7 Grace


8 Ava


9 Ruby


10 Mia

All of them more or less classless; there are outliers and typically non anglo-Saxon names, but on average there is a far greater overlap between the names of the rich and the names of the poor than people pretend. Lee, Chelsea and Kaden are not in the top 100.




I don't think people with tattoos are generally less successful. How have we moved to 'tattoos all over their body'?
Those who live in council estates are a minority. It's almost as if you believe most of the UK is poor . I wasn't talking about the "rich". I was talking about the typical middle class and those who live in council estates.

Oh and to add, it seems likely that somebody who gets one tattoo will get another at some point. I've noticed it's a common thing among men to get "sleeves" of tattoos too. Vile!
Odette Valmont is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:14.