I don't see it

[jaxie]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

[Vanessa]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

She has the anti Perez vote. If he goes she'screwed! :hehe:

[chuff me dizzy]

She honest and if a spades a spade she calls it that

[Deebo]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I spend a lot of time on football forums researching articles and she gets an awful lot of support from the far right. EDL and BNP supporters in particular enjoy her take on race and disability

Again, I'm not accusing anybody on here of supporting her for these reasons and I've no reason to suspect they do, but she's getting a lot of votes not just from Daily Mail readers, but often violent extremists

[chuff me dizzy]

I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I spend a lot of time on football forums researching articles and she gets an awful lot of support from the far right. EDL and BNP supporters in particular enjoy her take on race and disability

Again, I'm not accusing anybody on here of supporting her for these reasons and I've no reason to suspect they do, but she's getting a lot of votes not just from Daily Mail readers, but often violent extremists

Oh for Gods sake ,how stupid ? :bored:

[Denver]

She is such an beautiful woman people should like her more

[Marsh.]

I don't see it either. She's just as much of a troll as Perez but people seem to ignore it because Perez is louder.

[Vanessa]

I don't see it either. She's just as much of a troll as Perez but people seem to ignore it because Perez is louder.

:clap1:

[jaxie]

She honest and if a spades a spade she calls it that
Well Chuff having been on the forum a short while now I know you like to court controversy and seem to like housemates who can be controversial. But you say she is honest. What about, be specific? Give examples.

[Deebo]

Oh for Gods sake ,how stupid ? :bored:

Are you just trying to obscure the truth about her and a lot of her voters?

Something isn't stupid just because it's true and annoys you!

[Vanessa]

I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I spend a lot of time on football forums researching articles and she gets an awful lot of support from the far right. EDL and BNP supporters in particular enjoy her take on race and disability

Again, I'm not accusing anybody on here of supporting her for these reasons and I've no reason to suspect they do, but she's getting a lot of votes not just from Daily Mail readers, but often violent extremists

This is worrying! :shocked:

[abhorson]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

Because she stood up against someone who was X10 worse than her. What don't you understand?

[chuff me dizzy]

Are you just trying to obscure the truth about her and a lot of her voters?

Something isn't stupid just because it's true and annoys you!

Please post proof of all these extremists who are voting for her, if you can't its just someone looking bloody silly

[chuff me dizzy]

Well Chuff having been on the forum a short while now I know you like to court controversy and seem to like housemates who can be controversial. But you say she is honest. What about, be specific? Give examples.

Please post proof that i court controversy? do you mean i speak my mind ? I don't kiss arse ? i dont follow like a sheep ? i have my own mind and use it ? I dont want to be in ANYONES gang, because Im secure enough in my own world ?

[jaxie]

Because she stood up against someone who was X10 worse than her. What don't you understand?

So who she is doesn't matter to you, its because she is the anti Perez?

I don't understand why people like her, so I'm asking.

[Vanessa]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

She's an awful person, is not even remotely funny and is rotten to the core. :yuk:

[chuff me dizzy]

She's an awful person, is not even remotely funny and is rotten to the core. :yuk:

And is going to win your fav ?( well one of them )

[jaxie]

Please post proof that i court controversy? do you mean i speak my mind ? I don't kiss arse ? i dont follow like a sheep ? i have my own mind and use it ? I dont want to be in ANYONES gang, because Im secure enough in my own world ?
Its my observation and opinion of your forum choices Chuff, my opinion, not based on any real knowledge of your life or the results of a questionnaire no need to get defensive now. You didn't answer my question.

[Vanessa]

So who she is doesn't matter to you, its because she is the anti Perez?

I don't understand why people like her, so I'm asking.

Housemates are waking up to how awful she is. And she's getting very cocky. Nowhere to go but down. I love it when housemates think they've already won. :laugh:

[Deebo]

Please post proof of all these extremists who are voting for her, if you can't its just someone looking bloody silly

Find them yourself! I'm not spreading that kind of filth on here, I'll get banned

Can't you see why a violent pro Zionist organisation like the EDL would be chuffed to have someone in BB who calls for the murder of Palestinian children? You can't be that naive and blind and deluded.

[abhorson]

I don't see it either. She's just as much of a troll as Perez but people seem to ignore it because Perez is louder.

And more vicious.

[abhorson]

Please post proof of all these extremists who are voting for her, if you can't its just someone looking bloody silly

:clap1::clap1:

[jaxie]

I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I spend a lot of time on football forums researching articles and she gets an awful lot of support from the far right. EDL and BNP supporters in particular enjoy her take on race and disability

Again, I'm not accusing anybody on here of supporting her for these reasons and I've no reason to suspect they do, but she's getting a lot of votes not just from Daily Mail readers, but often violent extremists
I can't possibly see how you could know who exactly is voting for her so that's just hearsay.

[Vanessa]

Find them yourself! I'm not spreading that kind of filth on here, I'll get banned

Can't you see why a violent pro Zionist organisation like the EDL would be chuffed to have someone in BB who calls for the murder of Palestinian children? You can't be that naive and blind and deluded.

This would explain a lot of things actually. But nothing surprises me anymore, to be honest.

[abhorson]

Find them yourself! I'm not spreading that kind of filth on here, I'll get banned

Can't you see why a violent pro Zionist organisation like the EDL would be chuffed to have someone in BB who calls for the murder of Palestinian children? You can't be that naive and blind and deluded.


Do you not see the hate in your comment:laugh:

[chuff me dizzy]

Its my observation and opinion of your forum choices Chuff, my opinion, not based on any real knowledge of your life or the results of a questionnaire no need to get defensive now. You didn't answer my question.

And may I ask, who are you to question me or my choices ? I couldn't give a single flying one what you or anyone else for that matter thinks of me or my choice of fav hm8s

[chuff me dizzy]

Find them yourself! I'm not spreading that kind of filth on here, I'll get banned

Can't you see why a violent pro Zionist organisation like the EDL would be chuffed to have someone in BB who calls for the murder of Palestinian children? You can't be that naive and blind and deluded.

So in other words you're talking utter BS ? thought so

[Deebo]

I can't possibly see how you could know who exactly is voting for her so that's just hearsay.

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?

[abhorson]

So in other words you're talking utter BS ? thought so

Yep:laugh:

[Pincho Paxton]

I want KH in,
I want Cheggers to win,
Perez final 3
Nadia... oh dear me.

[chuff me dizzy]

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?

:joker::hello::banana::laugh3::pat::pat:

[bots]

extremist groups are by their very nature minority organizations, so having any of them as backers is not going to win her big brother. I'm not a KH supporter, but i call BS

[chuff me dizzy]

Yep:laugh:

Where do these people come from ? :laugh3:

[abhorson]

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?

FGS Go to somewhere where your type is welcome.

[ebandit]

This is worrying! :shocked:

the worrying this is if one believes what was stated....................i'm a dole

walla proudly socialist and i rather like the fact that katie h speaks her

mind

Mark L

[jaxie]

And may I ask, who are you to question me or my choices ? I couldn't give a single flying one what you or anyone else for that matter thinks of me or my choice of fav hm8s

So you can't really answer in specifically cs then, that's fine I was just curious. Again there is no need to get defensive. I am the person who started a thread you joined and responded to, so I presumed you were up for the discussion.

[Deebo]

So in other words you're talking utter BS ? thought so

In other words you've gotten so upset by me exposing you, your hero and some of her online supporters that your sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la :laugh:

"It's not true. Boo hoo. Why would racists support a racist boo hoo"

[Johnnyuk123]

She is a beautiful,kind,loyal,honest,witty,intelligent and above all else she drops truth tea by the bucket load! :lovedup:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/07/article-2357936-040E7F57000005DC-625_306x423.jpg

[chuff me dizzy]

FGS Go to somewhere where your type is welcome.

Those sour grapes are a twat to swallow, they stick in your throat

[chuff me dizzy]

So you can't really answer in specifically cs then, that's fine I was just curious. Again there is no need to get defensive. I am the person who started a thread you joined and responded to, so I presumed you were up for the discussion.

As is my right

[Deebo]

extremist groups are by their very nature minority organizations, so having any of them as backers is not going to win her big brother. I'm not a KH supporter, but i call BS

Maths not your strong point is it!

[Marsh.]

In other words you've gotten so upset by me exposing you, your hero and some of her online supporters that your sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la :laugh:

"It's not true. Boo hoo. Why would racists support a racist boo hoo"

:clap1:

[abhorson]

the worrying this is if one believes what was stated....................i'm a dole

walla proudly socialist and i rather like the fact that katie h speaks her

mind

Mark L



The best post today.

[wendywillow]

if perez wasn't there this board would be calling for her head

[jaxie]

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?
Please don't bring rudeness into this thread because someone questions something you say. It is uneccesary and makes you lose credibility.

[abhorson]

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?

You don't get it do you?

You are Katie Hopkins.

[Deebo]

This is a post from a guy called Andy Pentalk on the Leeds Service Crew forum

Despite being an ugly bitch, I beg to understand how any proud self confessed enemy of the left can take umbrage with Katie Hopkins routine outbursts. Every time she rants she leaves the lefty liberal bastards in tears, tears flooding to such an extant that our dear bolshevik idiots would prefer to have what remains of our so-called 'free speech' rebuked entirely. Anything for the 'good socialist cause', especially if it means censoring Hopkins' - and anybody else for that matter choosing to question lefist conceptions of democracy.

Her comments on Scottish politburo's thirst for an Ebola patient of their own are ****ing gold.

Here's another of his posts

Funny how the term Pakistani Community has been branded around for the past 20-30 years at the behest of appeasing leftists who wish to tear this nation apart. In fact Pakistani's are the chief architects of the idea behind racial/heritage profiling, culminating in the default seperate identity for this particular immigrant background.

We have no choice but to offer special recognition, viewing these people as the "Pakistani Community". Okay, I have little problem with that. But when our headlines are once again graced with the spectace with yet more Pakistani heritage/community men jailed for raping under age white girls, are we still forcibly encouraged to view this trend as an appetite held by members of the "Pakistani Community"?

Oh no. We Can't do that. Because when Pakistani's regularly gang rape, commit freud en masse, drive around dangerously with no insurance, murder their daughters for not sticking to the Pakistani cultural norm, forcing their daughters to marry men against their will, brainwash theiur children with hardline Islamic doctrine etc, the result lies at the feet of human kind. Any of us could have done those things, especially if brought up in a backward, Murpuri, sheepish, brainwashed,segregated community - and therefore it would be inappropriate to connect the dots.......obviously

We are all the same and must be judged as ONE, apparently, UNLESS the aim of the community is to obtain special recognition, rights, priveleges and representation, when needs must, of course.

www.leedssc.org.uk

I'm not linking direct to the EDL forum but you can find your own way there

[Deebo]

You don't get it do you?

You are Katie Hopkins.

I'm Katie Hopkins because I can use the internet to see who votes for her. OK dude.

Not the brightest bunch you lot!

[jaxie]

She is a beautiful,kind,loyal,honest,witty,intelligent and above all else she drops truth tea by the bucket load! :lovedup:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/07/article-2357936-040E7F57000005DC-625_306x423.jpg

Fair enough. Tell me 2 of the truths?

[jaxie]

Can we discuss this without Turing into a Perez - Hopkins wank fest?

[Deebo]

I wish she'd tell the truth about bankers, illegal wars, torture, the use of white phosphorous etc. etc.

Why is it that the only "truth" the Murdoch media will allow us to hear is about how bad poor people, benefits claimants, muslims and single mothers are?

[Niamh.]

I really disliked her before she went in because of what she was like on twitter etc, inside the house she seems exactly the same so I can't for the life of me understand how she wasn't popular before but she is now :laugh:

[Robodog]

I can't speak for anyone on this forum, but I spend a lot of time on football forums researching articles and she gets an awful lot of support from the far right. EDL and BNP supporters in particular enjoy her take on race and disability

Again, I'm not accusing anybody on here of supporting her for these reasons and I've no reason to suspect they do, but she's getting a lot of votes not just from Daily Mail readers, but often violent extremists

You what??

How do you know she is getting a lot of votes from 'violent extremists'?

Are you sure there aren't any other 'violent extremists' that picking up the phone to vote for other HMs such as Keith Chegwin?

And who are these so-called 'violent extremists' that sit at home watching Big Brother and spending their money on voting for contestants? Doesn't sound like 'violent extremist' behaviour to me.

Sounds like you just hate Katie Hopkins (fair enough) but you are trying to make her sound as bad as possible by attempting to link her to 'violent extremism'; which, to be honest, is quite an 'extreme' thing to do on a light-hearted reality TV forum such as this.

[Marsh.]

Violent extremists are voting to save Cheggers? :clap1: Here for ISIS.

[Jack The Cat]

Because people find offense in what she has to say and want to censor her. People finding offense in words which are legal, scares me.

It is not Katie I necessary like but I feel I have to stand with her, against those who feel she is wrong in saying anything or everything (Legal) that she wishes to say.

[Niamh.]

Because people find offense in what she has to say and want to censor her. People finding offense in words which are legal, scares me.

It is not Katie I necessary like but I feel I have to stand with her, against those who feel she is wrong in saying anything or everything (Legal) that she wishes to say.

She can say what she likes but everyone else has a right to disagree with her and think she's an arsehole for saying the stuff she does :shrug:

[jaxie]

People keep saying she tells the truth but are unable or unwilling to give an example of it. Which leaves me to wonder if people know what she stands for or if they are afraid to say it. If she is a good egg, what is wrong with describing how she tells the truth? That silence is somewhat sinister.

[JTM45]

She's a disgusting NOBODY!!!!
A loser from The Apprentice and a harbinger of misery and hatred!

How anyone who confesses to be a good person can agree with or support her horrible, disgusting, hate-filled opinions and views is a complete mystery to me!

She 'claims' to be intelligent yet she thinks children should be judged and treated in a negative way purely because their parents decided to call them a name she doesn't approve of!
That's the height of ignorance, rudeness, bigotry and stupidity and it pretty much sums this poor excuse for a woman up to a tee!

She stands for the worst of the worst and i look forward to the rapidly approaching day when we will never hear from or have to see this joke of a person ever again!

I'm extremely glad and proud to be the person i am with the morals, beliefs and views that i posses and it makes me feel kinda' sorry for anyone who's that disgusting and morally polluted that they thrive on hatred and delusional superiority in the way that Hopkins does!:yuk:

[jaxie]

Because people find offense in what she has to say and want to censor her. People finding offense in words which are legal, scares me.

It is not Katie I necessary like but I feel I have to stand with her, against those who feel she is wrong in saying anything or everything (Legal) that she wishes to say.

I'm not censoring her. :shrug:

[Robodog]

Because people find offense in what she has to say and want to censor her. People finding offense in words which are legal, scares me.

It is not Katie I necessary like but I feel I have to stand with her, against those who feel she is wrong in saying anything or everything (Legal) that she wishes to say.

I agree with this totally.

I may not agree with her, i may even be offended by her; but i defend her right to disagree with me or even offend me.

Look at the countries/regimes that have taken away that right. Who wants to live like that?

[Jack The Cat]

She can say what she likes but everyone else has a right to disagree with her and think she's an arsehole for saying the stuff she does :shrug:

Oh I totally agree with you but a lot of people out there have expressed the desire for her to be "Stopped".

[Jack The Cat]

I'm not censoring her. :shrug:

I accept that but many people are and as long as at least one person is, I will stand with Katie.

[darkestcornwall]

Because people find offense in what she has to say and want to censor her. People finding offense in words which are legal, scares me.

It is not Katie I necessary like but I feel I have to stand with her, against those who feel she is wrong in saying anything or everything (Legal) that she wishes to say.


Je suis Katie Hopkins.

[Marsh.]

I accept that but many people are and as long as at least one person is, I will stand with Katie.

Nobody's censored her. Sh*t continues to spill out of her mouth.

I just don't think she as a person is at all worthy of getting paid for it/making a career out of it.

[poppsywoppsy]

Can I say I belong to no extremist groups, am totally a family orientated person and support Katie Hopkins.

Whatever those who don't like her care to sling her way and her supporters way, she was the only one who actually stood up to the cretin called Perez.

She was not interested in feeding the troll, she stands up to someone who was the dregs of humanity.

I may not agree with all she says but I agree with a lot.

Those who celebrate behaviour of the gutter are way lower than anything KH did in the house.

So, if others can't see it, well lots can, have complained to the authorities and will not jump on the Perez bandwagon.

[Jack The Cat]

Nobody's censored her. Sh*t continues to spill out of her mouth.

I just don't think she as a person is at all worthy of getting paid for it/making a career out of it.

Nobody has, yet, but some people want and feel they have a right to (As she offends them).

[jaxie]

I accept that but many people are and as long as at least one person is, I will stand with Katie.

What I don't get about your stand point is that she seems to say exactly what she likes so I'm not clearwho you feel she needs defending from. But thank you for being the only person to give a view and back it up about liking her.

[ruiphillips]

She is such a big nose twat.

[jaxie]

She is such a big nose twat.
If that is all you have maybe not saying anything at all might be an option.

[Jack The Cat]

What I don't get about your stand point is that she seems to say exactly what she likes so I'm not clearwho you feel she needs defending from. But thank you for being the only person to give a view and back it up about liking her.

Fair point, I don't think I feel I need to defend her as such, guess it is a gut feeling more than anything.


Sorry I can't be more precise.

[jaxie]

Fair point, I don't think I feel I need to defend her as such, guess it is a gut feeling more than anything.


Sorry I can't be more precise.
Is there anything she might do that would change your view of her?

[Jack The Cat]

Is there anything she might do that would change your view of her?

Of course, many things would change my mind, however none of her actions so far have, so it would have to be far beyond her previous actions maybe if she clearly broke the law.

[Kazanne]

I really disliked her before she went in because of what she was like on twitter etc, inside the house she seems exactly the same so I can't for the life of me understand how she wasn't popular before but she is now :laugh:

I didn't like her , but do now , but everytime we try to explain why,we get shot down ,so really no point saying much , I will just support her, Calum and Cheggars and hope one of them wins.

[Kazanne]

She is such a big nose twat.

Exactly the kind of post that proves we are just as bad as people say she is.

[ozzyshaggah]

she is payed to be a media shock jock
nothing more nothing less
she has carried that persona into the bb house

i just think parez has played the same game but whole lot better

[jaxie]

Can I say I belong to no extremist groups, am totally a family orientated person and support Katie Hopkins.

Whatever those who don't like her care to sling her way and her supporters way, she was the only one who actually stood up to the cretin called Perez.

She was not interested in feeding the troll, she stands up to someone who was the dregs of humanity.

I may not agree with all she says but I agree with a lot.

Those who celebrate behaviour of the gutter are way lower than anything KH did in the house.

So, if others can't see it, well lots can, have complained to the authorities and will not jump on the Perez bandwagon.
You seem to imply its Hopkins of Perez. I don't want either, thanks all the same. There are other angles and options. Once again none of her supporters except seem able to give a reason why they support. You agree with a lot she says. What then?what is OK,and what isn't?

[Vicky.]

I'm a fan of both katie h and perez...cant stand hopkins and most of her views but I find her interesting to watch. Perez would annoy the hell out of me IRL but its fun seeing him piss others off.

In short, I don't 'like' either but I class myself as a fan because of what they bring to the show :laugh:

[Kazanne]

the worrying this is if one believes what was stated....................i'm a dole

walla proudly socialist and i rather like the fact that katie h speaks her

mind

Mark L

:clap1::clap1:

[Lampfan]

she is payed to be a media shock jock
nothing more nothing less
she has carried that persona into the bb house

i just think parez has played the same game but whole lot better

Exactly. He is doing what he is known for.

She is giving child like expressions and stupid prancing. Pretending that compliments hurt with that weird nod of the head. Kav, Cami, Michelle, Calum are all towing her line. She plants the seed, then the lap dogs follow. Bit sad really.

[Mystic Mock]

1. She attacks Perez.

2. She's so Right Wing and un-PC apparently.

3. She's ugly so the housewives can like relate to her more.

4. Sheep that want to go with who they think is the most popular with the public.

I'm not saying all, but definitely some are following one of those above.

[sungrass]

she is as far right as they come - when she was insulting Nadia it was for being on the left, all her tweets insult people on benefits, or chavs as she calls anyone who has not been fortunate enough to have had an education like hers. She has called for people to be killed in Palestine, she relentlessly bullies anyone simply for attention, any attention is good attention. She is a narcissist. If she wins she will laugh at everyone who voted for her. Her and Parez are the same - but she is darker, more sinister, more evil. I pity people who have fallen for her game. And NO she is not entertaining she is loud and irritating.

she says she wouldnt let her kids play with children called certain names - because it would bring her children down etc - she is a horrible horrible empty person.

[Jack The Cat]

You seem to imply its Hopkins of Perez. I don't want either, thanks all the same. There are other angles and options. Once again none of her supporters except seem able to give a reason why they support. You agree with a lot she says. What then?what is OK,and what isn't?

For me personally, everything is OK unless it is lawfully deamed illegal.

However I never met, or heard of any person in the world who I could say I agree with everything they have ever said. It would be disingenuous for me to state otherwise.

[bots]

For me personally, everything is OK unless it is lawfully deamed illegal.

However I never met, or heard of any person in the world who I could say I agree with everything they have ever said. It would be disingenuous for me to state otherwise.

The have a set of contractual rules that they need to adhere too. Obviously, if they break a law that takes precedence, but if they violate any of their contractual rules they will be warned/thrown out for it

[Jack The Cat]

she is as far right as they come - when she was insulting Nadia it was for being on the left, all her tweets insult people on benefits, or chavs as she calls anyone who has not been fortunate enough to have had an education like hers. She has called for people to be killed in Palestine, she relentlessly bullies anyone simply for attention, any attention is good attention. She is a narcissist. If she wins she will laugh at everyone who voted for her. Her and Parez are the same - but she is darker, more sinister, more evil. I pity people who have fallen for her game. And NO she is not entertaining she is loud and irritating.

she says she wouldnt let her kids play with children called certain names - because it would bring her children down etc - she is a horrible horrible empty person.

I cannot agree that she "Is as far right as they come" to do so would be trivialising the real far right, for example fascists.

You may not like the Daily Mail or KH or even hate it but by any political definition they are not fascist. I should say, I do have some knowledge of the subject as WW2 is my specialist subject within my degree field.

[Jack The Cat]

The have a set of contractual rules that they need to adhere too. Obviously, if they break a law that takes precedence, but if they violate any of their contractual rules they will be warned/thrown out for it

You are of course right, without access to this information I could not say what the details of the contracts are or how they are enforced, so it is difficult to comment. Thus I only speak in general terms.

[abhorson]

So who she is doesn't matter to you, its because she is the anti Perez?

I don't understand why people like her, so I'm asking.


I have answered this countless times.

[Denver]

1. She attacks Perez.

2. She's so Right Wing and un-PC apparently.

3. She's ugly so the housewives can like relate to her more.

4. Sheep that want to go with who they think is the most popular with the public.

I'm not saying all, but definitely some are following one of those above.

Yet again you find away to attack other members.

why not accept we like her for no reason

[abhorson]

Find them yourself! I'm not spreading that kind of filth on here, I'll get banned

Can't you see why a violent pro Zionist organisation like the EDL would be chuffed to have someone in BB who calls for the murder of Palestinian children? You can't be that naive and blind and deluded.

This kind of stuff is worse than KH. Way more divisive because it is said with sincerity and hatred.

[Mystic Mock]

Yet again you find away to attack other members.

why not accept we like her for no reason

The only person being rude to members on this thread is you, as you again are twisting my post into something sinister.

[abhorson]

I can't log on to a forum and read a thread about Big Brother and see usernames such as EDL_Whites saying they're voting for her?

Is it snowing over there in la-la land too?

A perfect example above.

[Jules2]

It has all been said before so it seems silly to go over and over it. Katie H has her supporters, one of which is myself. I like her for her honesty and the fact that she will take criticism back because she knows and appreciates that everyone has their own opinions.

I havent studied her outside of the house as this is always a silly thing to do in my eyes. I like the game and therefore I treat it as a game and in the house I love Katie Hopkins. I think a lot of things said are biased because of her outside dealings.

Nadia couldnt get over her hatred for her even though she shook hands with her and said that she had seen her lovelier side. KP said the same thing but then as soon as Perez came back he stirred the pot and they all listened. He hates KH and sees her as a threat, therefore the most damage was seemingly done to KH. She is ok and perhaps she will show her softer side when she leaves, who knows eh but in the meantime I for one will go on to the next show....so for now....

Katie Hopkins, Calum and Kav for the last three.

[abhorson]

I wish she'd tell the truth about bankers, illegal wars, torture, the use of white phosphorous etc. etc.

Why is it that the only "truth" the Murdoch media will allow us to hear is about how bad poor people, benefits claimants, muslims and single mothers are?

This is BB. Not the GE!

[abhorson]

she is payed to be a media shock jock
nothing more nothing less
she has carried that persona into the bb house

i just think parez has played the same game but whole lot better

Perez has clearly not. He is **** on her shoe.

[Jack The Cat]

This is BB. Not the GE!

I agree, the "Truth" is a very ambiguous word, always depends on the individuals point of view.

[abhorson]

I agree, the "Truth" is a very ambiguous word, always depends on the individuals point of view.

So agree. But a few numpties on here because of KH's political leanings think they can class every supporter of hers as BNP, EDL, CON, UKIP etc. Frigging idiots for doing so. I am a voter of none of these, but i respect the right of anybody to do so, whatever my personal thoughts. I am an activist for the SNP and as most know by now, in Scotland, the Labour party is seen as vermin. But also respect the Labour voters choice up here to vote for them.

I still like KH. That is my choice.

[Lampfan]

It has all been said before so it seems silly to go over and over it. Katie H has her supporters, one of which is myself. I like her for her honesty and the fact that she will take criticism back because she knows and appreciates that everyone has their own opinions.

I havent studied her outside of the house as this is always a silly thing to do in my eyes. I like the game and therefore I treat it as a game and in the house I love Katie Hopkins. I think a lot of things said are biased because of her outside dealings.

Nadia couldnt get over her hatred for her even though she shook hands with her and said that she had seen her lovelier side. KP said the same thing but then as soon as Perez came back he stirred the pot and they all listened. He hates KH and sees her as a threat, therefore the most damage was seemingly done to KH. She is ok and perhaps she will show her softer side when she leaves, who knows eh but in the meantime I for one will go on to the next show....so for now....

Katie Hopkins, Calum and Kav for the last three.

KH has nothing to her. She failed in the Apprentice. She failed in the jungle.

She thought... How can one stay relevant?

Oh i know... lets tweet "controversial" things and say controversial things on TV. Anybody can be a troll. It's not hard. She gets press. She's going to win this show. Being a vicious troll will encourage the trolls even more.

At least the unfamous trolls are a bit funny, unlike Hopkins.

"She's dumb" lol. She's trying to make friends" lol "Small dick" lol and the best one "my public"

[Mystic Mock]

So agree. But a few numpties on here because of KH's political leanings think they can class every supporter of hers as BNP, EDL, CON, UKIP etc. Frigging idiots for doing so. I am a voter of none of these, but i respect the right of anybody to do so. Whatever my personal thoughts. I am an activist for the SNP and as most know by now. In Scotland, the Labour party is seen as vermin. But that is Labour voters choice up here to vote for them.

I still like KH. That is my choice.

It's not idiotic to think that most of Hopkins fans are right wing, not all of them but most of them just to clarify before my words get twisted again.

[Lampfan]

It's not idiotic to think that most of Hopkins fans are right wing, not all of them but most of them just to clarify before my words get twisted again.

Politics shouldn't come into BB, ffs.

At least, I hope not.

[Jack The Cat]

It's not idiotic to think that most of Hopkins fans are right wing, not all of them but most of them just to clarify before my words get twisted again.

I don't think it is idiotic but it is a leap of faith without any evidence to show that most of them are. She is not as far as I know making any actual political statements, just very general one. Which it could be argued are apolitical.

[SaveUs]

Well for one her tweet on Palestine was irresponsible and hateful (see signature). For the record I don't think Palestinians should be stabbing Israelites but my point is don't talk about restarting bombing campaigns especially from such a platform.

She also criticised religion which is fine, it's an ideology but doing so through a group of people (Muslims in this case) is sloppy and unnecessary. Then there's the joking about the Ebola patient from Glasgow. That's not honest and if you have the right to free speech you should also take responsibility for it.

If she hadn't of said those things I probably wouldn't be so against her being a professional troll.

[Lampfan]

Well for one her tweet on Palestine was irresponsible and hateful (see signature). For the record I don't think Palestinians should be stabbing Israelites but my point is don't talk about restarting bombing campaigns especially from such a platform.

She also criticised religion which is fine, it's an ideology but doing so through a group of people (Muslims in this case) is sloppy and unnecessary. Then there's the joking about the Ebola patient from Glasgow. That's not honest and if you have the right to free speech you should also take responsibility for it.

If she hadn't of said those things I probably wouldn't be so against her being a professional troll.

Aye, she covers pretty much everything. Says the most offensive thing she can think of... gets a reaction... keeps saying it... gets more reactions. Ends up being C5 star. Thankfully it wont mean ****all cause 75% of the public know she is an absolute tw@t.

Phew.

[Jack The Cat]

Aye, she covers pretty much everything. Says the most offensive thing she can think of... gets a reaction... keeps saying it... gets more reactions. Ends up being C5 star. Thankfully it wont mean ****all cause 75% of the public know she is an absolute tw@t.

Phew.

I respect your opinion but out of interest where do you get this 75% figure from. I have noticed you have used it a few times now.

[Lampfan]

I respect your opinion but out of interest where do you get this 75% figure from. I have noticed you have used it a few times now.

Just an estimate really in all honesty. C5 BB is small beans unfortunately. The wider public will still hate her, same as Jim, same as Denise etc.

[Lampfan]

I still love it though

[Jack The Cat]

Just an estimate really in all honesty. C5 BB is small beans unfortunately. The wider public will still hate her, same as Jim, same as Denise etc.

I appreciate your honesty. I do think that it is more likely that 75% could not care less about Katie either way.

[jaxie]

Yet again you find away to attack other members.

why not accept we like her for no reason

I don't know about liking her for no reason. I've decided that I like Keith and I can tell you why. So I don't understand why many KH supporters say she tells the truth then go all vague and clam up on me when I ask what truth. I think if you are going to speak up for someone controversial then you should probably have the balls to own it or is it simply because she is anti Perez and in your view Perez is a fate worse than her other views?

I say all this with the exception of Jack who I don't agree with but feel he explained his position very well so I respect his view.

[Lampfan]

I appreciate your honesty. I do think that it is more likely that 75% could not care less about Katie either way.

I expected her to win from day 1, the thing that's riled me the most is that all these clowns have aligned themselves with her thinking that will make them popular.

Michelle was my favourite on opening night, then all she is Hopkins little b*tch. Shame.

[Jack The Cat]

I don't know about liking her for no reason. I've decided that I like Keith and I can tell you why. So I don't understand why many KH supporters say she tells the truth then go all vague and clam up on me when I ask what truth. I think if you are going to speak up for someone controversial then you should probably have the balls to own it or is it simply because she is anti Perez and in your view Perez is a fate worse than her other views?

I say all this with the exception of Jack who I don't agree with but feel he explained his position very well so I respect his view.

The "Truth" thing is a little odd I agree, mainly as it is so subjective. I don't think anyone can speak the truth as such. Maybe if they believe something themselves but then the truth would vary from person to person and you could never really say that someone was speaking the truth as you could not be them.

It is a strange, almost redundant word imo.

[Denver]

I don't know about liking her for no reason. I've decided that I like Keith and I can tell you why. So I don't understand why many KH supporters say she tells the truth then go all vague and clam up on me when I ask what truth. I think if you are going to speak up for someone controversial then you should probably have the balls to own it or is it simply because she is anti Perez and in your view Perez is a fate worse than her other views?

I say all this with the exception of Jack who I don't agree with but feel he explained his position very well so I respect his view.

I thinks Katie H is a great lady and whether she is right or wrong i admire her for saying what nobody else will

[Stormy]

To answer your question. I would say that I like Hopkins. To give you some background about me, I didn't know the history of a single person in the house at the beginning of the show. In fact, I had only heard of two housemates...Patsy (because I watched Lethal Weapon) and Perez (who I thought was a harmless fashion blogger...boy was I wrong!!!!).

No, I absolutely don't think Hopkins is infallible and I absolutely disagree with a lot of her view points (in fact some of them disgust me). However, I do like Hopkins, in the house, because;

1. She doesn't pretend to take a moral high ground...she says what she believes and, right or wrong, makes no excuses for it.
2. She is not offended or rattled by any criticism by any of the housemates...she can take as good as she gets.
3. When Perez went mental the first few days and made the housemates extremely uncomfortable, everyone else was too timid/scared to deal with him...she stepped up and had the balls to stand up to him, when no one else did. It calmed him down, but she took the brunt of it and is still paying for it now, while the other housemates who dislike Perez hid behind her.
4. Her interactions with Alicia...while I don't agree with how rude she was to her, in the end she forced Alicia to be stronger...and...instead of being angry when Alicia finally stood up to her and rightfully called her a gob ****e...Hopkins not only didn't get angry, but she gave Alicia her full respect for doing so.

[Jack The Cat]

To answer your question. I would say that I like Hopkins. To give you some background about me, I didn't know the history of a single person in the house at the beginning of the show. In fact, I had only heard of two housemates...Patsy (because I watched Lethal Weapon) and Perez (who I thought was a harmless fashion blogger...boy was I wrong!!!!).

No, I absolutely don't think Hopkins is infallible and I absolutely disagree with a lot of her view points (in fact some of them disgust me). However, I do like Hopkins, in the house, because;

1. She doesn't pretend to take a moral high ground...she says what she believes and, right or wrong, makes no excuses for it.
2. She is not offended or rattled by any criticism by any of the housemates...she can take as good as she gets.
3. When Perez went mental the first few days and made the housemates extremely uncomfortable, everyone else was too timid/scared to deal with him...she stepped up and had the balls to stand up to him, when no one else did. It calmed him down, but she took the brunt of it and is still paying for it now, while the other housemates who dislike Perez hid behind her.
4. Her interactions with Alicia...while I don't agree with how rude she was to her, in the end she forced Alicia to be stronger...and...instead of being angry when Alicia finally stood up to her and rightfully called her a gob ****e...Hopkins not only didn't get angry, but she gave Alicia her full respect for doing so.

Good reasons, ones I all agree with.

[jaxie]

For me personally, everything is OK unless it is lawfully deamed illegal.

However I never met, or heard of any person in the world who I could say I agree with everything they have ever said. It would be disingenuous for me to state otherwise.
I respect your point of view and you explained it very well tough I can't agree with your support of her for myself based on some of the things she says because they seem spiteful/controversial for the sake of it. I think that free speech is entirely different to making public statements that serve no purpose but to be nasty about certain groups of people. Of course she has the right to say what she wants but does she have the right to villify people publicly. Isn't saying ginger babies are hard to love a very fine line away from saying the same thing about black babies? And what do those kinds of free speech achieve except to make people feel inferior or uncomfortable in their own skin. You can't diet away ginger hair. So while I can accept your point of view I can't help feel the meat of your stance is misguided. I am not sure you are standing up for her right to be heard or her right to be cruel because you view that as part of her right to be heard.

[jaxie]

To answer your question. I would say that I like Hopkins. To give you some background about me, I didn't know the history of a single person in the house at the beginning of the show. In fact, I had only heard of two housemates...Patsy (because I watched Lethal Weapon) and Perez (who I thought was a harmless fashion blogger...boy was I wrong!!!!).

No, I absolutely don't think Hopkins is infallible and I absolutely disagree with a lot of her view points (in fact some of them disgust me). However, I do like Hopkins, in the house, because;

1. She doesn't pretend to take a moral high ground...she says what she believes and, right or wrong, makes no excuses for it.
2. She is not offended or rattled by any criticism by any of the housemates...she can take as good as she gets.
3. When Perez went mental the first few days and made the housemates extremely uncomfortable, everyone else was too timid/scared to deal with him...she stepped up and had the balls to stand up to him, when no one else did. It calmed him down, but she took the brunt of it and is still paying for it now, while the other housemates who dislike Perez hid behind her.
4. Her interactions with Alicia...while I don't agree with how rude she was to her, in the end she forced Alicia to be stronger...and...instead of being angry when Alicia finally stood up to her and rightfully called her a gob ****e...Hopkins not only didn't get angry, but she gave Alicia her full respect for doing so.

I can also respect your point of view though I don't agree with it. I think she has a lot of influence on the others and I don't like how they are starting to gang up on Cheggers whose only crime seems to be being a nice man. She picked on Alicia and now she is picking on Cheggers. There is starting to be a lot of eye rolling when walks past or speaks, to me that isnt being a straight talker, thats being nasty for the sake of it. She does take the moral high ground, she thinks she is right.

I do think this is a very interesting conversation to have with those willing to answer the questions I posed.

[Stormy]

I can also respect your point of view though I don't agree with it. I think she has a lot of influence on the others and I don't like how they are starting to gang up on Cheggers whose only crime seems to be being a nice man. She picked on Alicia and now she is picking on Cheggers. She does take the moral high ground, she thinks she is right.

I do think this is a very interesting conversation to have with those willing to answer the questions I posed.

I totally agree with you on the Cheggers point. He is a sweetheart and I hate how Hopkins goads him to speak out and pretty much stresses him out. I also hated how Perez added fuel to the fire by instigating the fight between Cheggers and Hopkins. Then pretends he's his biggest supporter just so he could try to win another ally against Hopkins. Both Hopkins and Perez are trying to get him to jump off the fence and join them. I wish they would just leave the poor man alone. At his age, he's earned his dues. If he wants to be Switzerland, good on him!!!!

[abhorson]

I totally agree with you on the Cheggers point. He is a sweetheart and I hate how Hopkins goads him to speak out and pretty much stresses him out. I also hated how Perez added fuel to the fire by instigating the fight between Cheggers and Hopkins. Then pretends he's his biggest supporter just so he could try to win another ally against Hopkins. Both Hopkins and Perez are trying to get him to jump off the fence and join them. I wish they would just leave the poor man alone. At his age, he's earned his dues. If he wants to be Switzerland, good on him!!!!

:thumbs:

Well done. It is not often that i see a post such as this on here.

[Jack The Cat]

I respect your point of view and you explained it very well tough I can't agree with your support of her for myself based on some of the things she says because they seem spiteful/controversial for the sake of it. I think that free speech is entirely different to making public statements that serve no purpose but to be nasty about certain groups of people. Of course she has the right to say what she wants but does she have the right to villify people publicly. Isn't saying ginger babies are hard to love a very fine line away from saying the same thing about black babies? And what do those kinds of free speech achieve except to make people feel inferior or uncomfortable in their own skin. You can't diet away ginger hair. So while I can accept your point of view I can't help feel the meat of your stance is misguided. I am not sure you are standing up for her right to be heard or her right to be cruel because you view that as part of her right to be heard.

Please bare with me but I am going to try and answer your question as best I can. I will be quoting a large amount of text but I hope to explain my position to the best of my very limited ability. I guess the answer to your last sentence is, both. I see the right to offend or be cruel (this is where we may not be able to ever agree) as intrinsically part of the right of free speech. I hope to below quote will be able to explain better than I can.

You are here: Home / Archives / The right to offend: crucial to free speech
The right to offend: crucial to free speech
I contend we all should have the right to offend. Why?

I bet you're wondering why I just said that.

The right to offend. It's a contentious proposition. Almost nobody enjoys being offended, whether in private or in public. So why should we have a right to offend? What's so defensible about that?

Imagine someone coming to your house and shooting you as you exit from the front door, just because you said something that someone else didn't like.

Hey, it has happened before. And if you're a blogger, I bet you've already offended someone with your writings. Hopefully you haven't gotten death threats yet (I have).

Now, most of us would agree that the hypothetical shooter is dead wrong in shooting you. But why is he wrong, and why do we think that? Doesn't he have a right to punish people who offend him and his sensitivities?

Let's find out why he doesn't.

So why should we tolerate offensive speech?
Salman Rushdie said it well:

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)
The right to offend is not about humor. It's not about anarchy. It's not about what I feel like doing, without consequences. Believe it or not, it's about defending the right to tell the truth -- which is necessary for progress of society.

The right to say these things is called freedom of speech, and is one of the cornerstones of a free society.

Throughout human history, we've had a lot of "inconvenient" truths, and saying them out loud have cost the lives of countless martyrs. Modern society is no different, with the concession that today it's less likely -- but still possible -- to be killed by saying something offensive.

Moreover, this right extends beyond the mere possibility of stating verifiable truths. Since we express what we think in countless ways (such as humor, offensive statements, ironic quips), you need to have a right to say things in these ways as well.

Furthermore, what the majority of society may understand as being "true" is constantly being proven wrong. That's why we must have a right to say things that others will regard as blatantly wrong, even if these things are offensive.

And that's why I have the right to say ******* are funny, God doesn't exist, and one of my exes is a lie manufacturing machine. Whether they are true or not, and, more importantly, regardless if I offend you or not.

I have the right to ridicule your religion, your beliefs, your ideas, and even you. Yes, you read that right.

The counterpart: the right to be offended
Evidently, if we're to gain (or, more appropriately, preserve) this right, we need to have the right to be offended. Call it eye for an eye if you want; I'll call it tolerance.

What does it mean? It means that, if I say something that offends you, you can only respond with speech. You cannot retaliate with your fists, a knife, or a bullet. Why? Because you've accepted (or, more likely, forced by society into accepting) that you have a right to offend as well, and you are also granted protection against your integrity.

Read again: you may not take the matter in your own hands. This is a recognized fact of modern society law: If I insult you publicly, you cannot shoot me or beat me up. Not unless you like going to prison.

(However, if you try to hit me, I am entitled to use the same force to stop you. But that's a subject for a different post.)

That's absolute tolerance.

But absolute tolerance doesn't work in the real world
Naturally, that doesn't exactly work in a world where words have different leverage depending on their source. Something written about me in a newspaper will carry a bit more weight than what I've written on this blog.

Thus, lies created to ruin someone's life need to be forbidden. Modern society law comes to the rescue to draw a line between what's acceptable and what isn't.

So where do we draw the line?

We draw the line on the character of the speech. The line is drawn where speech turns from just offensive into libellous.

Most of you would be surprised to learn that, in matters of speech, offensive is not equal to libellous. Key to determining if speech is libellous are two factors:

Said speech contains a significant amount of unfalsifiable statements -- lies, and accusations that cannot be positively proved.
Said speech is designed expressly with the intent to harm someone's reputation. For example, when a reasonable person is expected to believe the speech to be true.
In all fairness, this rule does not apply here in Ecuador, but the civilized world does apply this rule.
Both assertions must be satisfied before judging speech to be libellous. Your feelings about you being offended do not matter at all when judging speech.

In effect:

if a statement is true, then it is not libellous
if a statement is hardly likely to be believed, it's not libellous
if a statement wasn't made with the purpose to harm someone, it's not libellous
For example: let's suppose I call you a ****ing bitch. If what I said is hardly likely to be believed, or it's true (because, uhm, you collect money for sex), then I have the right to say that. (Fortunately) Thanks to this, most insults are protected speech, whether you like it or not.

But if:

I called you gay,
you were reasonably gay-mannered,
I have a grudge against you,
I said the statement in a manner that negatively affects what lots of other people think about you,
I couldn't prove that statement, and
you really wanted to put me in prison
I could end up in the arms of my future cellmate.

So, can I threaten someone with death?
No. That is not kosher.

OK, the "kosher" joke was pushing it. But you cannot threaten someone with physical injury or death.

Different types of speech are afforded different levels of protection. It just so happens that death threats are a type of speech that is outlawed -- we've already seen other types of forbidden speech. In the scale of "useful speech", death threats rank at the bottom, and there's nothing defensible about them.

Thus, it's a crime and it's expressly not protected by free speech because a death threat inflicts direct, grave emotional distress in a person. Moreover, death threats are, by modern judicial standards, expressly outlawed and categorized as a serious crime, right there with theft, because it usually is used to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech. Yes, we forbid certain types of speech to let other, more productive types of speech flourish.

Now, you may be thinking: Hey, but just yesterday you called me a *****, and that inflicted emotional distress on me. If you were distressed at that, I suggest you reevaluate how thick your proverbial skin is, because you got nothin' on the people who have received death threats. After all, there might be something productive about me calling you a *****.

And that's what free speech is about
Remember this. The next time someone offends you, you don't get to call "mommy" when someone offends you. You have to shut up, put up and respond in kind. And you better develop thick skin, because offenses are a part of everyday's life.

And sure, there are animals out there who will feel offended by you and think they're entitled to payback in blood.

But that's why we have guns.




Apologies if some of the could have been edited down but it is getting late and my battery is running out.

[abhorson]

Please bare with me but I am going to try and answer your question as best I can. I will be quoting a large amount of text but I hope to explain my position to the best of my very limited ability. I guess the answer to your last sentence is, both. I see the right to offend or be cruel (this is where we may not be able to ever agree) as intrinsically part of the right of free speech. I hope to below quote will be able to explain better than I can.

You are here: Home / Archives / The right to offend: crucial to free speech
The right to offend: crucial to free speech
I contend we all should have the right to offend. Why?

I bet you're wondering why I just said that.

The right to offend. It's a contentious proposition. Almost nobody enjoys being offended, whether in private or in public. So why should we have a right to offend? What's so defensible about that?

Imagine someone coming to your house and shooting you as you exit from the front door, just because you said something that someone else didn't like.

Hey, it has happened before. And if you're a blogger, I bet you've already offended someone with your writings. Hopefully you haven't gotten death threats yet (I have).

Now, most of us would agree that the hypothetical shooter is dead wrong in shooting you. But why is he wrong, and why do we think that? Doesn't he have a right to punish people who offend him and his sensitivities?

Let's find out why he doesn't.

So why should we tolerate offensive speech?
Salman Rushdie said it well:

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)
The right to offend is not about humor. It's not about anarchy. It's not about what I feel like doing, without consequences. Believe it or not, it's about defending the right to tell the truth -- which is necessary for progress of society.

The right to say these things is called freedom of speech, and is one of the cornerstones of a free society.

Throughout human history, we've had a lot of "inconvenient" truths, and saying them out loud have cost the lives of countless martyrs. Modern society is no different, with the concession that today it's less likely -- but still possible -- to be killed by saying something offensive.

Moreover, this right extends beyond the mere possibility of stating verifiable truths. Since we express what we think in countless ways (such as humor, offensive statements, ironic quips), you need to have a right to say things in these ways as well.

Furthermore, what the majority of society may understand as being "true" is constantly being proven wrong. That's why we must have a right to say things that others will regard as blatantly wrong, even if these things are offensive.

And that's why I have the right to say ******* are funny, God doesn't exist, and one of my exes is a lie manufacturing machine. Whether they are true or not, and, more importantly, regardless if I offend you or not.

I have the right to ridicule your religion, your beliefs, your ideas, and even you. Yes, you read that right.

The counterpart: the right to be offended
Evidently, if we're to gain (or, more appropriately, preserve) this right, we need to have the right to be offended. Call it eye for an eye if you want; I'll call it tolerance.

What does it mean? It means that, if I say something that offends you, you can only respond with speech. You cannot retaliate with your fists, a knife, or a bullet. Why? Because you've accepted (or, more likely, forced by society into accepting) that you have a right to offend as well, and you are also granted protection against your integrity.

Read again: you may not take the matter in your own hands. This is a recognized fact of modern society law: If I insult you publicly, you cannot shoot me or beat me up. Not unless you like going to prison.

(However, if you try to hit me, I am entitled to use the same force to stop you. But that's a subject for a different post.)

That's absolute tolerance.

But absolute tolerance doesn't work in the real world
Naturally, that doesn't exactly work in a world where words have different leverage depending on their source. Something written about me in a newspaper will carry a bit more weight than what I've written on this blog.

Thus, lies created to ruin someone's life need to be forbidden. Modern society law comes to the rescue to draw a line between what's acceptable and what isn't.

So where do we draw the line?

We draw the line on the character of the speech. The line is drawn where speech turns from just offensive into libellous.

Most of you would be surprised to learn that, in matters of speech, offensive is not equal to libellous. Key to determining if speech is libellous are two factors:

Said speech contains a significant amount of unfalsifiable statements -- lies, and accusations that cannot be positively proved.
Said speech is designed expressly with the intent to harm someone's reputation. For example, when a reasonable person is expected to believe the speech to be true.
In all fairness, this rule does not apply here in Ecuador, but the civilized world does apply this rule.
Both assertions must be satisfied before judging speech to be libellous. Your feelings about you being offended do not matter at all when judging speech.

In effect:

if a statement is true, then it is not libellous
if a statement is hardly likely to be believed, it's not libellous
if a statement wasn't made with the purpose to harm someone, it's not libellous
For example: let's suppose I call you a ****ing bitch. If what I said is hardly likely to be believed, or it's true (because, uhm, you collect money for sex), then I have the right to say that. (Fortunately) Thanks to this, most insults are protected speech, whether you like it or not.

But if:

I called you gay,
you were reasonably gay-mannered,
I have a grudge against you,
I said the statement in a manner that negatively affects what lots of other people think about you,
I couldn't prove that statement, and
you really wanted to put me in prison
I could end up in the arms of my future cellmate.

So, can I threaten someone with death?
No. That is not kosher.

OK, the "kosher" joke was pushing it. But you cannot threaten someone with physical injury or death.

Different types of speech are afforded different levels of protection. It just so happens that death threats are a type of speech that is outlawed -- we've already seen other types of forbidden speech. In the scale of "useful speech", death threats rank at the bottom, and there's nothing defensible about them.

Thus, it's a crime and it's expressly not protected by free speech because a death threat inflicts direct, grave emotional distress in a person. Moreover, death threats are, by modern judicial standards, expressly outlawed and categorized as a serious crime, right there with theft, because it usually is used to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech. Yes, we forbid certain types of speech to let other, more productive types of speech flourish.

Now, you may be thinking: Hey, but just yesterday you called me a *****, and that inflicted emotional distress on me. If you were distressed at that, I suggest you reevaluate how thick your proverbial skin is, because you got nothin' on the people who have received death threats. After all, there might be something productive about me calling you a *****.

And that's what free speech is about
Remember this. The next time someone offends you, you don't get to call "mommy" when someone offends you. You have to shut up, put up and respond in kind. And you better develop thick skin, because offenses are a part of everyday's life.

And sure, there are animals out there who will feel offended by you and think they're entitled to payback in blood.

But that's why we have guns.




Apologies if some of the could have been edited down but it is getting late and my battery is running out.

Bloody hell Jack.

To shorten it. One could say, **** off and if the other person does not like it. Say **** off again.

[Lampfan]

To answer your question. I would say that I like Hopkins. To give you some background about me, I didn't know the history of a single person in the house at the beginning of the show. In fact, I had only heard of two housemates...Patsy (because I watched Lethal Weapon) and Perez (who I thought was a harmless fashion blogger...boy was I wrong!!!!).

No, I absolutely don't think Hopkins is infallible and I absolutely disagree with a lot of her view points (in fact some of them disgust me). However, I do like Hopkins, in the house, because;

1. She doesn't pretend to take a moral high ground...she says what she believes and, right or wrong, makes no excuses for it.
2. She is not offended or rattled by any criticism by any of the housemates...she can take as good as she gets.
3. When Perez went mental the first few days and made the housemates extremely uncomfortable, everyone else was too timid/scared to deal with him...she stepped up and had the balls to stand up to him, when no one else did. It calmed him down, but she took the brunt of it and is still paying for it now, while the other housemates who dislike Perez hid behind her.
4. Her interactions with Alicia...while I don't agree with how rude she was to her, in the end she forced Alicia to be stronger...and...instead of being angry when Alicia finally stood up to her and rightfully called her a gob ****e...Hopkins not only didn't get angry, but she gave Alicia her full respect for doing so.

1 - aka "tells it like it is" = nobody gives a ****... keep it shut once in a while you megalomaniac

2 - she only picks on the easy targets. When faced hard up with Nadia she left. All she had to offer was little snide whispers.

3- peresz was being annoying, she didnt fucing take a stand... she told everyone to isolate a person... posh bullying little bitch

4 - oh, i suppose its ok then... apart from calling her simple who has 1 brain cell... dont talk ****e

5 - I'm posh and doing this for school fees (bull****) why are you using money for your disabled son?

[Lampfan]

She is a ****ing prick

[Stormy]

That was a loooong read :idc: ...whewww...but well worth it. Good points and I totally agree.

[Jack The Cat]

Bloody hell Jack.

To shorten it. One could say, **** off and if the other person does not like it. Say **** off again.

Very true, thats how Stephen Fry puts it. :laugh:

I guess I'm saying that without the right to offend the right of free speech does not exist.

Or better put.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.
Salman Rushdie

[Lampfan]

That was a loooong read :idc: ...whewww...but well worth it. Good points and I totally agree.

I was going to add a 6th but I need a pee

[Stormy]

1 - aka "tells it like it is" = nobody gives a ****... keep it shut once in a while you megalomaniac That's your opinion, I personally find it refreshing...neither of us is wrong...just a preference

2 - she only picks on the easy targets. When faced hard up with Nadia she left. All she had to offer was little snide whispers. Nadia, Nadia, Nadia...she's certainly likes her hysterics...impossible to have a decent argument with as she tends to go into hysterics and just yell and scream over anything you say. Anyone with any intelligence would walk away from an argument when the other person has stopped listening and started shouting. There's no point to continue, really.

3- peresz was being annoying, she didnt fucing take a stand... she told everyone to isolate a person... posh bullying little bitchShe took a stand towards Perez before the "isolate" comment. Her wanting to isolate Perez was a reaction to Perez bullying Alexander out of the house....but I will agree that it was petty and stupid and she should have never said it.

4 - oh, i suppose its ok then... apart from calling her simple who has 1 brain cell... dont talk ****e. Read my comment again. I never said it was ok for her to talk to Alicia that way. It was they way she reacted to Alicia fighting back that was my point.

5 - I'm posh and doing this for school fees (bull****) why are you using money for your disabled son?Didn't know she had a disabled son nor do I know what that has to do with my comments...either way, I take what every housemate says is their reason for being on CBB with a grain of salt...Hopkins included.

[jaxie]

Please bare with me but I am going to try and answer your question as best I can. I will be quoting a large amount of text but I hope to explain my position to the best of my very limited ability. I guess the answer to your last sentence is, both. I see the right to offend or be cruel (this is where we may not be able to ever agree) as intrinsically part of the right of free speech. I hope to below quote will be able to explain better than I can.

You are here: Home / Archives / The right to offend: crucial to free speech
The right to offend: crucial to free speech
I contend we all should have the right to offend. Why?

I bet you're wondering why I just said that.

The right to offend. It's a contentious proposition. Almost nobody enjoys being offended, whether in private or in public. So why should we have a right to offend? What's so defensible about that?

Imagine someone coming to your house and shooting you as you exit from the front door, just because you said something that someone else didn't like.

Hey, it has happened before. And if you're a blogger, I bet you've already offended someone with your writings. Hopefully you haven't gotten death threats yet (I have).

Now, most of us would agree that the hypothetical shooter is dead wrong in shooting you. But why is he wrong, and why do we think that? Doesn't he have a right to punish people who offend him and his sensitivities?

Let's find out why he doesn't.

So why should we tolerate offensive speech?
Salman Rushdie said it well:

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other’s positions. (But they don’t shoot.)
The right to offend is not about humor. It's not about anarchy. It's not about what I feel like doing, without consequences. Believe it or not, it's about defending the right to tell the truth -- which is necessary for progress of society.

The right to say these things is called freedom of speech, and is one of the cornerstones of a free society.

Throughout human history, we've had a lot of "inconvenient" truths, and saying them out loud have cost the lives of countless martyrs. Modern society is no different, with the concession that today it's less likely -- but still possible -- to be killed by saying something offensive.

Moreover, this right extends beyond the mere possibility of stating verifiable truths. Since we express what we think in countless ways (such as humor, offensive statements, ironic quips), you need to have a right to say things in these ways as well.

Furthermore, what the majority of society may understand as being "true" is constantly being proven wrong. That's why we must have a right to say things that others will regard as blatantly wrong, even if these things are offensive.

And that's why I have the right to say ******* are funny, God doesn't exist, and one of my exes is a lie manufacturing machine. Whether they are true or not, and, more importantly, regardless if I offend you or not.

I have the right to ridicule your religion, your beliefs, your ideas, and even you. Yes, you read that right.

The counterpart: the right to be offended
Evidently, if we're to gain (or, more appropriately, preserve) this right, we need to have the right to be offended. Call it eye for an eye if you want; I'll call it tolerance.

What does it mean? It means that, if I say something that offends you, you can only respond with speech. You cannot retaliate with your fists, a knife, or a bullet. Why? Because you've accepted (or, more likely, forced by society into accepting) that you have a right to offend as well, and you are also granted protection against your integrity.

Read again: you may not take the matter in your own hands. This is a recognized fact of modern society law: If I insult you publicly, you cannot shoot me or beat me up. Not unless you like going to prison.

(However, if you try to hit me, I am entitled to use the same force to stop you. But that's a subject for a different post.)

That's absolute tolerance.

But absolute tolerance doesn't work in the real world
Naturally, that doesn't exactly work in a world where words have different leverage depending on their source. Something written about me in a newspaper will carry a bit more weight than what I've written on this blog.

Thus, lies created to ruin someone's life need to be forbidden. Modern society law comes to the rescue to draw a line between what's acceptable and what isn't.

So where do we draw the line?

We draw the line on the character of the speech. The line is drawn where speech turns from just offensive into libellous.

Most of you would be surprised to learn that, in matters of speech, offensive is not equal to libellous. Key to determining if speech is libellous are two factors:

Said speech contains a significant amount of unfalsifiable statements -- lies, and accusations that cannot be positively proved.
Said speech is designed expressly with the intent to harm someone's reputation. For example, when a reasonable person is expected to believe the speech to be true.
In all fairness, this rule does not apply here in Ecuador, but the civilized world does apply this rule.
Both assertions must be satisfied before judging speech to be libellous. Your feelings about you being offended do not matter at all when judging speech.

In effect:

if a statement is true, then it is not libellous
if a statement is hardly likely to be believed, it's not libellous
if a statement wasn't made with the purpose to harm someone, it's not libellous
For example: let's suppose I call you a ****ing bitch. If what I said is hardly likely to be believed, or it's true (because, uhm, you collect money for sex), then I have the right to say that. (Fortunately) Thanks to this, most insults are protected speech, whether you like it or not.

But if:

I called you gay,
you were reasonably gay-mannered,
I have a grudge against you,
I said the statement in a manner that negatively affects what lots of other people think about you,
I couldn't prove that statement, and
you really wanted to put me in prison
I could end up in the arms of my future cellmate.

So, can I threaten someone with death?
No. That is not kosher.

OK, the "kosher" joke was pushing it. But you cannot threaten someone with physical injury or death.

Different types of speech are afforded different levels of protection. It just so happens that death threats are a type of speech that is outlawed -- we've already seen other types of forbidden speech. In the scale of "useful speech", death threats rank at the bottom, and there's nothing defensible about them.

Thus, it's a crime and it's expressly not protected by free speech because a death threat inflicts direct, grave emotional distress in a person. Moreover, death threats are, by modern judicial standards, expressly outlawed and categorized as a serious crime, right there with theft, because it usually is used to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech. Yes, we forbid certain types of speech to let other, more productive types of speech flourish.

Now, you may be thinking: Hey, but just yesterday you called me a *****, and that inflicted emotional distress on me. If you were distressed at that, I suggest you reevaluate how thick your proverbial skin is, because you got nothin' on the people who have received death threats. After all, there might be something productive about me calling you a *****.

And that's what free speech is about
Remember this. The next time someone offends you, you don't get to call "mommy" when someone offends you. You have to shut up, put up and respond in kind. And you better develop thick skin, because offenses are a part of everyday's life.

And sure, there are animals out there who will feel offended by you and think they're entitled to payback in blood.

But that's why we have guns.




Apologies if some of the could have been edited down but it is getting late and my battery is running out.
My battery is running low too! I understand what you are saying and quoting. I suppose what I ought to have said is while I accept the right to offend in free speech I am not sure I accept that it is appropriate to use it in all instances. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should.

I say all this from a stance of not personally being easily offended. I have no religion for anyone to upset me over, personal taunts are pretty pointless etc etc. I simply don't like spite for its own sake.

Hmm it probably wasn't wise to quote the whole thing! Great debate. Is your degree in law?

[Lampfan]

My battery is running low too! I understand what you are saying and quoting. I suppose what I ought to have said is while I accept the right to offend in free speech I am not sure I accept that it is appropriate to use it in all instances. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should.

I say all this from a stance of not personally being easily offended. I have no religion for anyone to upset me over, personal taunts are pretty pointless etc etc. I simply don't like spite for its own sake.

you have upset my religion, "dont****ingquotethatffs"

So, you owe me a drink

[Lampfan]

why in gods name did you quoute that

[jaxie]

why in gods name did you quoute that

Because I can?

[Stormy]

why in gods name did you quoute that

My apologies...thought it would be easier to rebut...but it was a bad idea!!!

[Lampfan]

Didn't know she had a disabled son nor do I know what that has to do with my comments...either way, I take what every housemate says is their reason for being on CBB with a grain of salt...Hopkins included.

Im not after you. I just dont like Hopkins.

She knew this show was made for her and i just like that Perez annoys her. Cami, Kav, Calum, Chloe, and most disappointingly, Michelle have sucked her asshole cause they wanted to be popular. Sad.

[Jack The Cat]

My battery is running low too! I understand what you are saying and quoting. I suppose what I ought to have said is while I accept the right to offend in free speech I am not sure I accept that it is appropriate to use it in all instances. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should.

I say all this from a stance of not personally being easily offended. I have no religion for anyone to upset me over, personal taunts are pretty pointless etc etc. I simply don't like spite for its own sake.

I agree in much in what you are saying, from a personal point of view. However the choice to chose not to say something myself is a personal one I can make for myself. Not a choice I can, should or will place onto others.

One of the reasons I like Katie is she choses to say something offensive, I can respect her for making that choice (Without having to agree with what she said). Throughout history examples can be shown where a society who do not actively exercise a right find themselves losing that right. It is a slippery road once you start on it.

Rights use them or lose them.

Now I accept your point about not being offended yourself, I get that But the definition of spite is.

spite

noun
1.
a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone.

Hurt, annoy or offend are linked and unfortunately some will take offence and or be hurt. Is that nice, no it is not. However imho a small price to pay considering the alternative.

So spite for its own sake does have a intrinsic if unfortunate value.

[Stormy]

Im not after you. I just dont like Hopkins.

She knew this show was made for her and i just like that Perez annoys her. Cami, Kav, Calum, Chloe, and most disappointingly, Michelle have sucked her asshole cause they wanted to be popular. Sad.

I kind of agree with you...here's my take.

Cami, Calum and Chloe line up behind Hopkins because they dislike Perez....and Nadia, Alicia and to some degree Patsy, line up behind Perez because they dislike Hopkins.

I think Kav and Michelle sucked up to Hopkins because of the crowd response and to be popular.

[Deebo]

I thinks Katie H is a great lady and whether she is right or wrong i admire her for saying what nobody else will

There are literally millions of people on Twitter spreading her brand of "truth" about gays, muslims, disabled and poor people!

At least she'd have been entertaining if she'd had the guts to say some of that stuff in the house, instead of playing an angry elderly posh woman

[waterhog]

Katie Hopkins clearly has some popularity and I have to confess I'm perplexed. Am I watching the same show as people who love her? :shrug: I don't see that her behaviour is better than Perez who I am also not a fan.

If you are a Katie Hopkins fan, what do you like about her, what specifically has she done or said that makes her shine in your eyes? Or do you like her more because you dislike Perez and she is in conflict with him?

its called blinkers - her fans think it is amazing to say what we are thinking when infarct he is embarrassing herself.

katie my darling - lost all credibility - not that you had much.

[Jack The Cat]

There are literally millions of people on Twitter spreading her brand of "truth" about gays, muslims, disabled and poor people!

At least she'd have been entertaining if she'd had the guts to say some of that stuff in the house, instead of playing an angry elderly posh woman

Do you have an example of something negative she has said on twitter about the gay community, I would imagine if she had it would have been mentioned before now?

[cfromhx02]

She honest and if a spades a spade she calls it that

So she is honest when she says she loves all the British public yet has told us before how she hates all the Scottish

all the northerners

fat people are all just cos their lazy

how she immediately says being left wing is wrong

just like most on tv who try to stifle debate by left wingers before it starts

she attacks all these people which together may be over 50 % of the british public,

tells stupid generalizations about them,so tells lies about them as a group

then tells us how she loves all the british public

and you tell us she tells the truth ?

[-Sue-]

So she is honest when she says she loves all the British public yet has told us before how she hates all the Scottish

all the northerners

fat people are all just cos their lazy

how she immediately says being left wing is wrong

just like most on tv who try to stifle debate by left wingers before it starts

she attacks all these people which together may be over 50 % of the british public,

tells stupid generalizations about them,so tells lies about them as a group

then tells us how she loves all the british public

and you tell us she tells the truth ?
:clap1:

[cfromhx02]

Oh for Gods sake ,how stupid ? :bored:

You mean how stupid anyone is for not realising how her generalizations and spreading hate about groups of people,and raising her profile and worshipping her on BB can help the far right ?

[Jack The Cat]

So she is honest when she says she loves all the British public yet has told us before how she hates all the Scottish

all the northerners

fat people are all just cos their lazy

how she immediately says being left wing is wrong

just like most on tv who try to stifle debate by left wingers before it starts

she attacks all these people which together may be over 50 % of the british public,

tells stupid generalizations about them,so tells lies about them as a group

then tells us how she loves all the british public

and you tell us she tells the truth ?

These are just some of her good points, you should back your arguments up by mentioning some of her bad ones.:laugh:

[Jack The Cat]

You mean how stupid anyone is for not realising how her generalizations and spreading hate about groups of people,and raising her profile and worshipping her on BB can help the far right ?

Could you please define "Far Right" cheers.

[DemolitionRed]

I thinks Katie H is a great lady and whether she is right or wrong i admire her for saying what nobody else will

This just isn't true. People say what they think all the time on the interweb or at least as much as they are allowed to without getting banned. Just because Katie has been given a platform within a newspaper that constantly demonises the working classes, doesn't make her the only person to voice exactly what she's thinking. I go on a few political forums; one is totally uncensored. People say what they want about anything, regardless of how it insults or offends others. The problem is, when uncensored material like that is open to discussion, it just becomes a cluster ***** of emotional terrorism. Other than KH having a wider audience doesn't make her any different to others who use none moderated forums.

The only thing that bothers me about KH and her network of supporters is; is this outwardly encouraging people to put tact and moral values on the back burner? and that is something I would love to have a discussion about.

[Razor]

So she is honest when she says she loves all the British public yet has told us before how she hates all the Scottish



all the northerners



fat people are all just cos their lazy



how she immediately says being left wing is wrong



just like most on tv who try to stifle debate by left wingers before it starts



she attacks all these people which together may be over 50 % of the british public,



tells stupid generalizations about them,so tells lies about them as a group



then tells us how she loves all the british public



and you tell us she tells the truth ?



^^^^this