Katie Hopkins Sacked
- Thread starter something daft already!!
- Start date
I think they're had so much success in doing so that the word "liberal" is now so corrupted by those grotesquely illiberal authoritarian bigots that it's not recoverable and should be dropped by people who hold views that would have been called liberal in the past. It's like the word "Aryan" or the swastika (in much of the world, anyway) - so corrupted by vile people that it's not practical to try to recover its original meaning and counter-productive to do so.
The more people who are what used to be called liberal call themselves that, the more they help the grotesquely illiberal authoritarian bigots who have usurped and corrupted the word "liberal".
It's a scam. They're raising money for one thing while protraying it as raising money for something else. Which is a scam.
Oh sure, there's a "legal bit" in the text stating what they're doing and that might be enough to make it legal, but it's still a scam.
Well that's obviously not true, since the person who's making that statement stated very clearly that Katie Kopkins just saying sorry wasn't enough for them and started the court case on that basis. They're just reframing themself as a super-nice person who somehow never expected the results of their victory and feels bad about it. Good politics, I suppose.
The people openly celebrating Katie Hopkin's ruin are arguably nicer because at least they're honest.
Last edited:
I just describe myself as, "egalitarian libertarian" now. Unfortunately there's no one to vote for.
Seems crazy she didn't just apologise in the first place.
She never had the opportunity to "just apologise".
Maybe she wouldn't have done so anyway because she's a bit of an arse, but she was never allowed the opportunity to do so. I think that's an important point. The other party also demanded that Katie Hopkins actively support something she disagreed with. That's extremely different to "just apologise".
Not to a lawyer. Couple of hundred per hour, bill the customer for every second that's even vaguely related to the case, add a couple of hundred for each bit of paperwork or email...
I don't have a description for myself, although I think yours seems like a good option. I have the same problem as you when it comes to voting. I usually vote Liberal Democrat as the least unpleasant option, but I think I'm at least partially doing that because I know they won't win so I can, in a sense, vote without really voting.
From the Grauniad :
"Monroe’s lawyer, Mark Lewis, said after the judgement that Hopkins had obstinately refused to apologise throughout, and had conducted her defence by “slinging as much mud as possible” to hide the false allegation."
Aren't you always told not to admit guilt?
Heck it invalidates your insurance if you admit fault
Hopkins was obviously was guilty. She got two people confused and incriminated herself on twitter by tagging the pair of them, having deleted the original tweet.
There's Twitter libel insurance nowadays?
Full timeline in the court docs. They're fun read! : https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf
There's Twitter libel insurance nowadays?
Full timeline in the court docs. They're fun read! : https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170329-rev-1.pdf
To a large extent it is. How much you can pay has a large effect on both the quantity and the quality of your legal representation, which can have a very large effect on the outcome.
Say, for example, a man is accused of touching a woman's bum in a nightclub and the police won't even look at the video surveillance from the club proving that person didn't do it because they've been ordered to convict more men. If the accused can afford to buy enough quantity and quality of legal representation to force disclosure of the video and force it to be accepted as evidence, they should be acquitted. If they can't afford to do so, they will be presumed guilty because they're a man and convicted.
Read up on the case. There was never an opportunity to "just apologise". That was made very clear very publically right from the start.
A lawyer is supposed to...creatively represent...things in favour of whoever is paying them - that's their job.
I have no pleasure in witnessing anyone struggle with debt irrespective of my personal views on them as individuals.
I have personally experienced close friends and their families go into mental freefall on the receiving end of it.
To have this plastered all over the media is one thing and the flip side to profiteering from a celebrity status. However to be applauded by some people is just disgusting.
I have personally experienced close friends and their families go into mental freefall on the receiving end of it.
To have this plastered all over the media is one thing and the flip side to profiteering from a celebrity status. However to be applauded by some people is just disgusting.
It sounds like clumsy English and pretentious to boot to use the phrase "final solution". Which isn't that surprising considering its infamous historical origin.
A native English speaker saying it and claiming innocence is obviously taking the ****.
