No:

I'm guessing the only Catholic school was a private one, which does not equal posh. Sounds like the average Catholic school which is run very strictly , high on discipline and obedience.

she said she took it at twenty.

So i should feel some kind of kinship with this woman, because of her 'illness' and her emotions on BB.

I'm schizophrenic and now overweight because of medication, but it's my fault in her eyes. I don't care for her, I find her entertaining for the BB house, but I cannot be swayed by her bull, or her now 'lets be myself' crap.

I agree. I think sociopathic and narcissistic fit very well. Her words and tears last night about "compliments" (not only that of course) smack of a harsh and institutionalised upbringing in a strict environment. Private Convent School and her home life were certainly lacking to produce such a dysfunctional personality.

What absolutely astounds me is the support being given to a woman who is a privately educated and far more vicious and snobbish version of Maggie Thatcher. Do people really know what she stands for? There are countless examples available of her hideous outlook on life and people

It appears her poor children are being raised in the same manner
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/10/katie-...eback-3957320/

Her attitude to her irrelevant children's birthdays

Very true. Someone I love had temporal lobe epilepsy for many years in childhood but has been seizure free in adulthood.

Interesting interview. I find her total lack of empathy and compassion to others quite concerning. Despite her upright stance on discipline, work ethic and weight control, she seems to have a complete lack of any moral consciousness when it comes to having an affair with someone's husband or social mobility. Reading that, my heart goes out to her children. To have a mother that has never cried, barks orders, doesn't have any patience for people who don't understand something or don't come first, must feel stressful. Unless they are grade A students, perfect at everything, I imagine they are not going to get a lot of motherly support, approval and acceptance.

I don't like Thatcher but she was a classic example of social mobility in action. Born to a shopkeeper, right?

And Thatcher's ideology was that society should reward those who work hard and achieve success. So Katie isn't even right-wing in that sense. She's saying, almost literally, that society should not bother with those who aren't already privileged. And why does anyone care if bright kids stay poor and unfulfilled their whole lives while their less smart, richer counterparts rise to the top and eventually end up ruling them. What's the big deal, life isn't fair.

Come to think of it, I said earlier Katie believes in 'survival of the fittest' but she's not even saying that. She's completely accepting the wealth of evidence suggesting the 'deck' is already fixed in the dealer's favour and she's happy with that status quo.

If this is true

I'd say she is a lot older than she says she is. This was a practice that the nuns and priests did but would have ceased to do at the time Katie was at school (if she is truthful about her age)

She must be at least 60

I would like to ask her if she was happy being raised in that manner herself? Obviously not to me or she would not be the cold mess of a person she is choosing to be.


I agree. It's a dreadful and unacceptable way to live and think.. At least Maggie Thatcher wasn't born into such a measure of privilege , was left wing in comparison to this woman and did not gain millions from affairs with married men and rich husbands. She is desperate for paternal approval. The woman is a hypocrite, an emotional and moral mess who seems to play at a pretence of working hard and has no need to ever earn money. Then she dares to say she represents feminism. She represents her insecure self, no-on else and belongs in the 18th century.

We have this promotion.

http://www.womenspeakers.co.uk/speak...tie%20Hopkins/

And Katie Hopkins Ltd.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06...ompany-summary

All of which does tend to tie in with the sociopath theory.

Yes father was a grocer ( quite well to do though I believe). Some say that her (Maggie's) persona was carved from desperation for her father's approval.

The reason my first instinct was that she must be of noble birth is because her philosophy struck me as a modern day iteration of the divine right of kings. God gave me this wealth and status to lord it over you plebs so it must be just because God is just. Religion justifies the powerful and the powerful take care of the religious elite will ensure the poor man at his gate knows his place.

But by her own philosophy surely she would have been too lowly to have made it up the pile.

I think amateur claims that HMs are sociopaths are despicable and verging on libel. This thread is little more than an attempt to take opportunistic advantage of a comment on the Guardian website, give it publicity here (where it will google will quickly find it and return it in searches), and try to give it credibility.

Since the claim was in the comments, there was no need to bring it up when discussing the article, and I think it has poisoned a discussion of the article itself that could have been interesting.

They're not verging on libel at all. Don't be so histrionic. To be libel, they'd have to be damaging to her reputation. And someone would have to have done more than speculate and wonder.

If you don't like the discussion, don't take part.

EDIT: was it libel, or more specifically, slander when she described Alicia as thick? No, it was Katie giving her opinion.

I think she would love to have been Aristocratic. That's a huge part of their frustrating problem for many middle class insecure snobs. They then go on to often wrongly emulate this "class" they desire and could only ever have achieved by accident of birth. Hyacinth Bucket style.

She has said that scans show she has a bit of brain missing. Anyway, we are seeing her as a house mate in a reality show. She doesn't ask people to agree with her comments, she has no power to influence people so if people don't like what she says they don't have to take any notice of her.

Why not discuss the article rather than make spurious accusations against fellow FM's?

Actually, thanks anne. I've only just picked up on what Veri is getting at in the second sentence.

Veri, you're skating on thin ice. You're the first person to cry foul when someone attacks another poster. And the fact that you're accusing anyone of "verging on libel" whilst at the same time telling me what my motive was in starting the thread, just isn't cricket.

I don't want to argue because I don't want this thread to be deleted. It's interesting to some of us if not you. And no one had broken any rules (until you appeared).

The first time I heard she has epilepsy (ages ago) I thought it explained a lot. I don't think I'd cope well with that because of the complete lack of control.

Maybe Katie elevated herself into the elite class. As the article reads she seemed to have an ordinary life. Catholic School education is a strict environment and especially in comparison to the Comprehensives but she's describing a time when my mother went to school so clearly not true.

It could all be part of her fake persona that she has created for herself. We just assumed she had this upper class background by the 'them and us' rhetoric she uses and wants us to believe.

It's just a thought as she doesn't seem to have any ideas of her own she just goes with what the Conservatives and media are pushing down the publics throats and then takes it to another level to get noticed.
And it's worked. So yea I think it's all fake and more working class than upper class


I agree. I went to Catholic School and I am older than her (though she looks closer to my age than the age she is claiming) and nothing like that went on. It was strict but not barbaric.

Yes doing that to left-handed children went out in the '60s under Vatican II , I believe.

That's an interesting titbit. I had no idea that this was such common practice that the Vatican actually needed to stop it.

I guess it's possible that some nuns failed to catch on. (In fact, we know it's possible from the countless abuse stories in some institutions). And I mean, Katie does look older than her age (39 is it?) but I'm not sure what she'd gain from lying about it...she's not trading on her looks. In fact she's quite self-deprecating about her appearance.

I think it may have been common practice in a lot of education spheres, but within the Catholic environment the nuns and priests probably forced the hand (literally) of the left-handed child by suggesting it was more sinister (perhaps evil, at worst and 'unnatural' at best. )

Most of what I know is anecdotal from older relatives. As far as I know Vatican II introduced more liberalization of the church which reviewed such practices. Possibly the smacking across the cheek of those being confirmed ended then also.

It is possible a nasty nun could have continued this practice, but wasn't corporal punishment also not permitted by then? (when Katie was at school)
I'd say there is a lie in there somewhere, either with regards to her age or the fact that her hand was tied.

I would if the thread had stuck to being about the article rather than bring in the sociopath comment which was not part of the article.

I have no interest in a possibly libellous discussion based on a mere comment on the Guardian web site.

For one thing it begs the question "Why is she in the house if her attacks are so frequent and need hospitalisation".

I did that that that practise was rather arcaic.