Katie Hopkins Sacked
- Thread starter something daft already!!
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,367
Indeed. There is clearly some space in the middle between:
a: Nothing is your fault.
b: Everything is your fault and you deserve it.
Sensible and helpful advice phrased well enough to be digestible by those that require it doesn't drive news cycles though.
a: Nothing is your fault.
b: Everything is your fault and you deserve it.
Sensible and helpful advice phrased well enough to be digestible by those that require it doesn't drive news cycles though.
Yes but there is tact and ways to express oneself. Even on this very forum most don't know tact.
When it comes to attacking leftist dogma like she does it doesn't matter how tactful you are these days you will get the same overblown overreaction from the left so you might as well just not bother being tactful at all. The reason why she is so popular is she doesn't walk on eggshells around sensitive topics.
She wasn't "attacking leftiost dogma" she was spouting bile, nonsense and libel, and got caught out on the libel whilst being too stupid, pigheaded and ignorant to accept the slight humiliation of offering a formal apology, instead she doubled down in such a way that it was a nice straight forward case.
She loved the notoriety and money that pandering to racists and idiots, whilst riling up large parts of the more moderate (let alone "lefty" groups) people brought her, so I don't have much pity for her now she's lost her well paid jobs for stepping over even the lines they set, and getting done for her own stupidity in a court of law.
She undoubtedly would have been offered a form of insurance to cover the costs of litigation when she began this process. The cost of that insurance would have reflected the initial likely outcome of the case as well as the likely cost of the litigation required. Either the insurance cost was too high, cover was declined or she declined to accept - whatever it was she's now facing a large bill. She'd have been aware of the growing costs and when they would be due should her defence not succeed, so none of this would have been a surprise to her.
Perhaps she thought that one of her many benefactors would pick up the tab - that was until they all began to desert her. It is a very high price to pay for a battle of ego and essentially defending her approach to her entire persona and career.
Perhaps she thought that one of her many benefactors would pick up the tab - that was until they all began to desert her. It is a very high price to pay for a battle of ego and essentially defending her approach to her entire persona and career.
Hasn't she been dumped over and over for low popularity, getting her employers bad press or lying on record about people who then sued her for everything she has.
She's a liability to companies who give her inches or screen time as "a controversial person".
She's a liability to companies who give her inches or screen time as "a controversial person".
There's a quote from Jack Monroe in the Guardian a couple of days ago : "Things are in place in that agreement to make sure her children are looked after. I’m a mother myself and I read it line by line to make sure that her children didn’t suffer as a result of what she’s done."
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 3,569
- Location
- Exile
She made a career out of looking down her nose at everyone, and often speaks without engaging her brain.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
According to Wikipedia (LINK):
That is possibly the most complimentary thing they say about her.
Hahaha, read the replies to this tweet, some pure gold in there 
https://mobile.twitter.com/KTHopkin...6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
https://mobile.twitter.com/KTHopkin...6?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
The facial expressions she pulls are equally irritating, type of face you'd never tire of slapping.
I think you'd be surprised how little many people know about WW2. You're assuming that every native English speaker is well aware of the translation of one sentence in one piece of writing in Germany in WW2. I think your assumption is wrong. Many native English speakers know far less about WW2 than that and I don't think anyone has ever said that Katie Hopkins is well educated about WW2. Or anything else.
You're also wrong about the origin, which of course hugely predates WW2. You're aware of the most infamous use of those two words, which of course affects how you interpret them. It affects how I interpret them too. But that doesn't mean it affects how everyone interprets them. The words themselves are completely innocuous and correct English. A solution that works completely is the final solution. It's not clumsy or pretentious - it's simple English. It implies that previous solutions have been tried and did not work or did not work completely. By itself, that's all it implies.
Are you referring to yourself? Your statement fits yourself better than it fits me, although I think you're being a bit hard on yourself when you say you have absolutely zero knowledge.
If you think you're referring to me, let's see how well it fits:
"BURN THE WITCH" doesn't fit at all, as I'm not calling for anything like that.
"some random Joe on the OcUK forum" fits for me, as it does for everyone else here so that's irrelevant.
"with absolutely zero knowledge" doesn't fit at all because the information I referred to was very publically available right from the start.
"has condemned her as beyond redemption" doesn't fit at all because I haven't done that.
So that's 1 out of 4 for me and the 1 that does fit is that I'm posting on this forum. Hardly relevant.
At least 3 out of 4 fit for most people on this forum, including you.
Demanding that someone actively support something they disagree with is not "just apologising". So you're wrong and you know you're wrong because you mentioned it yourself.
You are giving her ignorance too much credit and the historical weight too little. Not to mention that despite you taking the phrase out of context to call them innocent words she was in context drawing unsubtle parallels to the historical infamous origin.
She's paid for her stunt commentary right up until it goes too far and it splashes the company at which point she's cut loose with feigned shock that she did such a thing.