It never fails to amaze (and amuse) me how angry some people get online because someone disagrees with them, especially when that person is deliberately doing so to provoke a reaction.

Yes, I'm sure Katie Hopkins enjoys a spot of trolling, but as her trolling is mostly aimed at the left-wing liberal elite, I reckon much of it is fully justified.

Which is exactly what my post was saying. It must be the way I wrote it, because you're the second poster who seems to think I was making excuses for Blackman's behaviour. Quite the reverse: He murdered that man, he knew he was committing a crime, and he encouraged those around him to cover it up. And then he lied about it. He deserved his court martial and subsequent incarceration.

Says far more about you than left wing people.

She is not a political commentator and has had a go at the masses on quite a few occasions especially fat people and women who breast feed (immigrants also would be a regular target).

Surely you can see that people are angry with her because of her sheer obnoxiousness. It's more than just a simple disagreement.

It is the way I wrote my reply, as I understood what you meant and I was agreeing with you.

Not when they were surrounded by the enemy.

Oh, now I get you. Excuse me while I untangle these crossed wires...

She's being sued for libel early next year by Jack Monroe, and I think it's for tweets rather than a newspaper article. If she loses she'll have to stump up the costs.

Odd thing to say.



Boo de hoo.

Good. Might teach her to keep her big mouth shut.

we have no idea who he shot and killed.
he knew he was committing a war crime.
he was correctly convictred and given a lenient sentence.
he should not be given leave jail ticket.

If she apologises and retracts why should she have to pay out so much money for a mistake ?

Probably because it caused damage (hence the term "damages").
Who says it was a mistake and not malicious?

Please don't add my post to those others, since mine was radically at odds with theirs and completely in tune with yours. I was pointing out that Blackman behaved no differently than the enemy he was fighting, which makes him a criminal, except in the minds of people like Hopkins who think 'Our Boys' should be free to kill foreigners in far-off lands, in contravention of international law, and get away with it.

You're the second person to misinterpret what I wrote*, which suggests some are guilty of 'skim-reading' and forming an opinion based on the impression given by the first line or two.

* I thought you were the third, but one of the others turned out to be a false alarm!...

Is it because she may have damaged his reputation and in turn cause damage to his earnings/ future employment?

It's the same with just about any offence committed by one person against another, an apology may not be enough. I could tell everyone that you murdered someone years ago and did time for it. If enough people believe me, then I have done serious damage to your reputation.....an apology and retraction from me may not be enough to redress the balance.

Now that is a bit disingenuous, no one says that our boys should be free to kill foreigners in far off lands what is being said is that the circumstances should be fully considered of an act carried out which realistically was during the course of an insurgent attack and you have just confirmed those insurgents are murderous criminals.
We always consider the state of mind and circumstances of any act in contravention of our law. The soldier is not above it but should be held to account with due respect to it and all the rights we are supposed to hold dear.

Left wing, liberal elite. on what planet do you believe they are elite????........ We need another description for them. Left wing liberal numpty??

By looking at Katie's Twitter, this "elite" seems to encompass a load of reality TV "celebs" and American social activists!

Hopkins caught out, out of pocket and humiliated... quick!!!! Insult the left wing to deflect!!!

How predictable.

There is nothing disingenuous about what I've been saying throughout this thread, and the upshot of attitudes expressed by the likes of Hopkins suggest they clearly would like our soldiers to be given licence to kill with impunity, so long as their victims are foreign-born and the killings takes place in another country. They think that because Blackman is one of 'Our Boys', he should therefore be held unaccountable at law. That is the essence of their entire campaign.

(That said, I don't include Blackman's immediate family in my analysis. Their reasons for doing what they're doing are rooted in emotion and are entirely understandable. The likes of Hopkins have other things on their mind.)

The man Blackman shot was a murderous criminal, no question. Which is why he was in the country in the first place, challenging such murderous criminality. But the moment he pulled that trigger on an injured, unarmed man, he behaved in a manner identical to the very thing he was supposed to be fighting against. And though the soldiers were in danger at all times, there was no imminent attack at the moment he pulled the trigger, so that doesn't constitute a defence of his actions.

No you said free to kill foreigners in far off lands and no one but no one is asking for that. What is being stated clearly is that the killing of an enemy soldier in any fashion is not in the same bracket as murder in a civilian context.

In the context of what I was saying ("...the minds of people like Hopkins who think 'Our Boys' should be free to kill foreigners in far-off lands, in contravention of international law, and get away with it."), it should have been obvious that I was talking about foreign combatants rather than civilians. If it wasn't clear enough, then I'm happy to set the record straight.

None of which changes anything else I wrote, and I stand by every word of it.