Katie hopkins twitter account suspended

[Kizzy]

Far-right commentator*Katie Hopkinshas been suspended from*Twitter*following*calls for the social network to carry out a “full review” of her account.

Campaigners had accused her of spreading hate on the platform, where several of her tweets have been shared by*Donald Trump, the US president.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-twitter-suspended-deleted-review-a9309351.html%3famp

[Liam-]

Hahahaha

[Amy Jade]

I can still see her twitter but all her tweets are unavailable for violating rules

[Tom4784]

https://media.tenor.com/images/22d6f77a1035fa444b7e56bc42fd1146/tenor.png

[Elliot]

She’s still a thing?

[Oliver_W]

Unless she actually called for violence, she shouldn't be banned from any platform.

[Tom4784]

Unless she actually called for violence, she shouldn't be banned from any platform.

No, if you're using someone else's platform, you abide by their rules. If she doesn't like it, she can go and create her own platform.

[bots]

twitter were correct in their decision. Her platform does promote hate, hate for her

[arista]

She’s still a thing?



Yes she is in USA
Filming Rare News


She is also on Facebook

[Jordan.]

DIUJ4iMLNFQ

[arista]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/02/17/08/katie-hopkins-1.jpg

[Matthew.]

https://media.giphy.com/media/j2MQEK6HuO83FpjVYZ/giphy.gif

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPhUfi2WsAAkh-0?format=jpg&name=small

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMc9nFHWsAARNsv?format=jpg&name=large

[Niamh.]

The power of Stormzy :flutter:

RqQGUJK7Na4

[Marsh.]

:clap1:

[Twosugars]

Hahahahahahaha

[Tony Montana]

About time!

[Twosugars]

I hope tibb will follow suit and ban quoting this hate merchant

[GoldHeart]

Good she's a hateful Gargoyle

[Alf]

Katie Hopkins Quote


14nTUjAeFas

[Jake.]

Jobless, homeless and now twitter-less :clap1: sucks bitch

[Josy]

Good, people like her that spout pure vitriol just for the public attention shouldn't be given a platform

[arista]

Good, people like her that spout pure vitriol just for the public attention shouldn't be given a platform

Update

1222864322059214848

[arista]

Jobless, homeless and now twitter-less :clap1: sucks bitch

She is still on Facebook

[Alf]

She is still on FacebookYou'll give these people nightmares with news like that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the powerful delete your post for scaring people. Mind you, they'll probably delete this post.

[arista]

1222917452973199360

[Twosugars]

So Rachel Riley got involved? Well done her.

[GoldHeart]

She is still on Facebook

Too bad

[GoldHeart]

So Rachel Riley got involved? Well done her.

What did she say?

[LukeB]

1222943917307572225

[Twosugars]

What did she say?

No idea. I was commenting on the tweet Arista posted off Sky News (HD) :hee:

[Twosugars]

1222943917307572225

Omg, king :laugh:

[GoldHeart]

1222943917307572225

Omg :joker:

[Kizzy]

That has made my day! :laugh:

[Elliot]

1222943917307572225

Skjskjsksj

[Withano]

I haven’t watched this yet. I’ve no idea if it’s clickbairlt or anything but I’m about to get drunk so no time to check. Anyways you might enjoy it and I’m thoughtful af. eRIdtMlqwNA

[Morgan.]

The end when she gives her speech :skull:

‘Ah yes, Greta, the autistic ****ing wench’

[Jordan.]

I haven’t watched this yet. I’ve no idea if it’s clickbairlt or anything but I’m about to get drunk so no time to check. Anyways you might enjoy it and I’m thoughtful af. eRIdtMlqwNA

This is brilliant :skull:

[user104658]

I haven’t watched this yet. I’ve no idea if it’s clickbairlt or anything but I’m about to get drunk so no time to check. Anyways you might enjoy it and I’m thoughtful af. eRIdtMlqwNA

The end when she gives her speech :skull:

‘Ah yes, Greta, the autistic ****ing wench’

Fffffff yes I advise everyone to at least skip this to 8.08! Jesus Christ :joker:

[Morgan.]

Fffffff yes I advise everyone to at least skip this to 8.08! Jesus Christ :joker:

Up until the speech I actually thought it was quite mean. I mean as vile as she is, she has a family and young children and I’d hate to see them affected by this in their personal lives - but then the speech rolled around and my gosh this woman deserves everything that comes to her :skull: Literal poison

[Cherie]

What a strange woman she is :umm2:

[Cherie]

Up until the speech I actually thought it was quite mean. I mean as vile as she is, she has a family and young children and I’d hate to see them affected by this in their personal lives - but then the speech rolled around and my gosh this woman deserves everything that comes to her :skull: Literal poison

Sums up my thoughts on it Morgan

[GiRTh]

Fffffff yes I advise everyone to at least skip this to 8.08! Jesus Christ :joker:YEah it really quite astonishing

[Beso]

Don't everyone know she's a ****?

[Morgan.]

Sums up my thoughts on it Morgan

She really should be more respectful of her own family, surely she knows they are going to be directly affected by this :umm2:

[RileyH]

that video is a ****ing scream dd

[Tom4784]

That video is beautiful. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving twat.

[Marsh.]

How self absorbed does she have to be to not actually see C.U.N.T. on the trophy. :joker:

[Beso]

How self absorbed does she have to be to not actually see C.U.N.T. on the trophy. :joker:

To busy looking at the cheque probably.:hee:

[Marsh.]

The signature on her email. :skull: What a twat.

[Mystic Mock]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMc9nFHWsAARNsv?format=jpg&name=large

Gosh she sounds like the people of Tamworth.:joker:

[Mystic Mock]

1222943917307572225

A bit douchy, but also quite funny.:joker:

[Alf]

Gosh she sounds like the people of Tamworth.:joker:Is that what she's banned for, calling out Stormzy's racism?

Surely it can't be?

[Cherie]

1222917452973199360

Is that what she's banned for, calling out Stormzy's racism?

Surely it can't be?

.

[bots]

i never liked Hopkins right back to her time on the apprentice. It is such a waste of energy to fill yourself with the hate she showed in that video

[Alf]

that says more about you than it does about Rachel RileyWhat does it say about me?

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPdm37yWAAkNkB2?format=jpg&name=small


https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1223087367260557312/dbOqbFzL?format=jpg&name=small

Rachel your baby has a Great future
in Our Great Britain
Suck That UP

[Alf]

Freedom of speech, she is entitled to go after whoever she likes as long as she keeps within in the lawBut she didn't go after them with any argument, she just had and tried to have them censored.

[Cherie]

But she didn't go after them with any argument, she just had and tried to have them censored.



or starting a hate campaign against her, how could she? imagine trying to protect herself from bile, what is she like

[Alf]

or starting a hate campaign against her, how could she? imagine trying to protect herself from bile, what is she likeWhat's a hate campaign?

[Cherie]

What's a hate campaign?

You tell me, you are the one moaning about censorship

[Alf]

By the way, this sexist is the only one on here that seems to be defending the free speech of a woman.

[Elliot]

By the way, this sexist is the only one on here that seems to be defending the free speech of a woman.

she could just follow Twitter TOS, that has nothing to do with free speech..

[Tom4784]

When you use someone else's platform, you abide by their rules. No one is entitled to use that platform if they can't follow the rules set by it's owners.

[GoldHeart]

That video is beautiful. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving twat.

:laugh2: She really is a nasty gargoyle isn't she .

Poor kids with a mother like that :umm2:

[Oliver_W]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMc9nFHWsAARNsv?format=jpg&name=large

That was what she was banned for?! Sure, it's a bit twatty, but not really ban-worthy. Maybe Twitter was waiting for an excuse?

[Oliver_W]

Prague is beautiful, I'd let someone pay for a minibreak there in exchange for being called a ***** :shrug:

[Marsh.]

That was what she was banned for?! Sure, it's a bit twatty, but not really ban-worthy. Maybe Twitter was waiting for an excuse?

No. She's been suspended whilst they review her account for YEARS of tweeting to incite hate.

[montblanc]

1222943917307572225

bye

[user104658]

That was what she was banned for?! Sure, it's a bit twatty, but not really ban-worthy. Maybe Twitter was waiting for an excuse?No, just the straw that broke the troll's back.

That's all Katie Hopkins is. Not genuine far right. Not a social commentator. Probably not even a genuinely "hate filled" racist.

Just a sad old troll desperately trying to stay relevant by pandering to casual racists.

[Josy]

No, just the straw that broke the troll's back.

That's all Katie Hopkins is. Not genuine far right. Not a social commentator. Probably not even a genuinely "hate filled" racist.

Just a sad old troll desperately trying to stay relevant by pandering to casual racists.Completely agree.

[user104658]

Look at that video if you need a clear example. Giving that speech, drawing energy from the idea that this group of people thinks highly of her, getting more and more extreme to please them with "shock humour". Pathetic stuff.

[Alf]

Completely agree.Completely disagree.

[Alf]

You're all just angry because a woman is making a success of her life, and you don't like it.

And that's the truth.

[Josy]

You're all just angry because a woman is making a success of her life, and you don't like it.

And that's the truth.A doctor is successful. Katie Hopkins is a ****.

[Alf]

A doctor is successful. Katie Hopkins is a ****.You sound jealous of her, and I can see why.

[Josy]

You sound jealous of her, and I can see why.Sure Alf.

[Kizzy]

You're all just angry because a woman is making a success of her life, and you don't like it.

And that's the truth.

What are her achievements, success is measured on those ...what are Katies?

[Mystic Mock]

What are her achievements, success is measured on those ...what are Katies?

Apparently being a ****.:laugh:

[SherzyK]

What are her achievements, success is measured on those ...what are Katies?

She was a runner up on CBB! :fist:

[Cherie]

She was a runner up on CBB! :fist:

:laugh:

[Alf]

What are her achievements, success is measured on those ...what are Katies?Well, she's served and protected us in the army. She's got tens of thousands if not millions of people following her to listen to what she has to say. But I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know her achievements, then read up on her and find out, or go on twitter and ask her personally, although you can't now, because that avenue of freedom has been closed off by the cancel culture.

[user104658]

You're all just angry because a woman is making a success of her life, and you don't like it.

And that's the truth.From what I've heard she's unwelcome on British television, she's been banned from her primary platform, and she's frequently in financial trouble that she's trying to solve by selling bottom-of-the-barrel opinions to hateful idiots.

Which part of that is success, Alf?

[Alf]

From what I've heard she's unwelcome on British television, she's been banned from her primary platform, and she's frequently in financial trouble that she's trying to solve by selling bottom-of-the-barrel opinions to hateful idiots.

Which part of that is success, Alf?It's because you don't want to see strong, successful women, that's why you don't see it.

[bots]

i think sh was the first contestant to have lied on the apprentice :idc:

[user104658]

It's because you don't want to see strong, successful women, that's why you don't see it.

I want to see them successfully washing dishes and making my tea so you are actually wrong.

[Kizzy]

Well, she's served and protected us in the army. She's got tens of thousands if not millions of people following her to listen to what she has to say. But I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know her achievements, then read up on her and find out, or go on twitter and ask her personally, although you can't now, because that avenue of freedom has been closed off by the cancel culture.

There are many people who have served in the army, that in itself is not a measure of success any random 16yr old can do that.
Having followers isn't either, projecting your voice into the void that is the internet isn't a measure of success either.

I have read up on her which is how I know she is far from a success.

[Swan]

Forgot she existed. Im glad i don't do twitter, i can forget about all these idiots from both sides whining and bickering like school children. You are not that important, your opinion means very little, curb your self importance.

[Kizzy]

There is something insidious about her objection to certain groups, as shown in the film she mentions epileptics and autism...who have previously been known as the 'undesirables'
Lets be clear here what she is doing in her own way is promoting eugenics. Making those with disability appear less than.
It would be in interesting to see her full speech, I'd like to hear the context in which she raises disability.

[AnnieK]

Not sure where she was going with the epilepsy comments considering she is / was severely epileptic, although she claims to have been cured by having brain surgery.

In my mind she is an oxygen thief who will say anything to try to stay in the public eye. Anyone who thinks its a measure of success is very ill informed.

[Alf]

Not sure where she was going with the epilepsy comments considering she is / was severely epileptic, although she claims to have been cured by having brain surgery.

In my mind she is an oxygen thief who will say anything to try to stay in the public eye. Anyone who thinks its a measure of success is very ill informed.But that's how she earns her money to put food in her kids mouths and keep a roof over their heads. So why shouldn't she want to stay in the public eye, if that's what pays the bill, and she enjoys doing it. Let her be free.

[Marsh.]

You're all just angry because a woman is making a success of her life, and you don't like it.

And that's the truth.

:joker:

0/10

[Marsh.]

No, just the straw that broke the troll's back.

That's all Katie Hopkins is. Not genuine far right. Not a social commentator. Probably not even a genuinely "hate filled" racist.

Just a sad old troll desperately trying to stay relevant by pandering to casual racists.

True. She probably didn't get much attention as a child.

[Jordan.]

But that's how she earns her money to put food in her kids mouths and keep a roof over their heads. So why shouldn't she want to stay in the public eye, if that's what pays the bill, and she enjoys doing it. Let her be free.

Solid advice, let Katie have it easy at the expense of everyone she tries to make life harder for.

[Alf]

:joker:

0/10I know that. It's the exact same argument used in the Markle debacle. That it's the truth that Markle's criticism is purely down to racism.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

I’d LOVE to full on roundhouse kick her in the jaw

[Marsh.]

Look at that video if you need a clear example. Giving that speech, drawing energy from the idea that this group of people thinks highly of her, getting more and more extreme to please them with "shock humour". Pathetic stuff.

We saw a similar display on the first night of her CBB stint. When she had the task of sitting in that room and commentating on the others. How giddy she got as you could see the cogs turning in her head trying to think of the most outrageous things to say as she had an audience.

What that proved though is she requires time to dream up most of her drivel, she's sh*te at thinking on the spot. Which probably shows how they're not genuine opinions.

[Marsh.]

I know that. It's the exact same argument used in the Markle debacle. That it's the truth that Markle's criticism is purely down to racism.

Meghan has nothing to do with the discussion.

No points for that one either.

[user104658]

True. She probably didn't get much attention as a child.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/ab2e1a63a5e52c2928ec4f9d9d00dc42/tumblr_mn39cyG2fG1rynk4uo1_500.gif

[user104658]

We saw a similar display on the first night of her CBB stint. When she had the task of sitting in that room and commentating on the others. How giddy she got as you could see the cogs turning in her head trying to think of the most outrageous things to say as she had an audience.

What that proved though is she requires time to dream up most of her drivel, she's sh*te at thinking on the spot. Which probably shows how they're not genuine opinions.

She also on multiple occasions got visibly emotional if anyone held her in any sort of positive regard. A really tragic individual.

[Alf]

Meghan has nothing to do with the discussion.

No points for that one either.She does if I bring her into the discussion.

[Marsh.]

Well, she's served and protected us in the army. She's got tens of thousands if not millions of people following her to listen to what she has to say. But I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know her achievements, then read up on her and find out, or go on twitter and ask her personally, although you can't now, because that avenue of freedom has been closed off by the cancel culture.

Really? The only thing you can think of re: her achievements are the number of followers on twitter? :joker:

Come on Alf, you're letting us down.

[Marsh.]

She does if I bring her into the discussion.

I can bring Bob the Builder into the discussion, doesn't make it relevant. :thumbs:

[Alf]

Really? The only thing you can think of re: her achievements are the number of followers on twitter? :joker:

Come on Alf, you're letting us down.If the BBC got a lot of viewers listening to them or if a newspaper sold loads to people who wanted to listen to them, they'd see that as a success.

So yes, I stand by what I said.

[Marsh.]

Not sure where she was going with the epilepsy comments considering she is / was severely epileptic, although she claims to have been cured by having brain surgery.

In my mind she is an oxygen thief who will say anything to try to stay in the public eye. Anyone who thinks its a measure of success is very ill informed.

That's it. The epilepsy comment shows how she says things for effect, considering she's talking about herself. A very disingenuous attention seeker.

At least the likes of Trump convince you he genuinely believes what he's saying.

[Ammi]

No, just the straw that broke the troll's back.

That's all Katie Hopkins is. Not genuine far right. Not a social commentator. Probably not even a genuinely "hate filled" racist.

Just a sad old troll desperately trying to stay relevant by pandering to casual racists.

...yeah, I doubt she really is a hate filled person but more that she’s believing in her own hype...which is the definition of a keyboard warrior/troll type personality....’I am the witch with the heart of stone’ is her own self definition...and she relies on that definition to keep itself sharp and cutting to earn her income...

[Marsh.]

If the BBC got a lot of viewers listening to them or if a newspaper sold loads to people who wanted to listen to them, they'd see that as a success.

So yes, I stand by what I said.

Viewers/listeners/readers to a programme/newspaper which cost money/time and was created by teams of people doing their jobs reaping the rewards of success versus a woman posting a tweet for a reaction. Your comparisons are faulty today Alf lad.

[Ammi]

She also on multiple occasions got visibly emotional if anyone held her in any sort of positive regard. A really tragic individual.

...she wears her ‘I don’t cry or show emotion’ as a ‘Badge of honour’ as if it shows a strength...?...when it actually shows a weakness of having no balance to her character...

[Alf]

That's it. The epilepsy comment shows how she says things for effect, considering she's talking about herself. A very disingenuous attention seeker.

At least the likes of Trump convince you he genuinely believes what he's saying.Most people in those industries are attention seekers, They need to create attention to sell themselves, to make a living. Just treat them as entertainment, but let them be free.

You can both disagree with what she has to say and defend her when she's being stripped of her voice, they're two different things.

[Marsh.]

Most people in those industries are attention seekers, They need to create attention to sell themselves, to make a living. Just treat them as entertainment, but let them be free.

You can both disagree with what she has to say and defend her when she's being stripped of her voice, they're two different things.

She's not been stripped of her voice. She's been banned from a platform for breaking its rules. Even a child would not struggle to understand that. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you think it does then you don't actually understand what freedom of speech actually is.

Also, there's a difference between selling yourself to promote your career as an actor, singer, the president etc what is Katie's actual job? Just a gob? How sad.

[Alf]

She's not been stripped of her voice. She's been banned from a platform for breaking its rules. Even a child would not struggle to understand that. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. If you think it does then you don't actually understand what freedom of speech actually is.But then those rules are oppressive, which is surely illegal and in that case, Twitter should be closed down. Certainly in America, where they have the first amendment?

[Kizzy]

I'd say it comes from a place of self loathing, why be so anti epileptic if you have been/ are a sufferer? Did you see yourself as defective or worthless due to that brain injury?

The distinct lack of empathy and fear of emotional outpourings like crying could be considered an autistic trait.

It makes sense if she despises in others what she dislikes in herself.

[Marsh.]

But then those rules are oppressive, which is surely illegal and in that case, Twitter should be closed down. Certainly in America, where they have the first amendment?

No. Not oppressive. Not illegal. As I said you don't understand how free speech works.

[Alf]

No. Not oppressive. Not illegal. As I said you don't understand how free speech works.Free speech is what it says on the tin, "Free speech." If there's another meaning, then that ain't free speech, it's something else.

[Marsh.]

Free speech is what it says on the tin, "Free speech." If there's another meaning, then that ain't free speech, it's something else.

Yeah, Katie has freedom of speech. The TV programmes are ignoring her hate filled rants and now twitter is, exercising their own freedom. That's kind of how it works.

[Kizzy]

You are free to speak ... platforms with guidelines are not beholden to aid you if you breech those guidelines.

She still has free speech.

[Alf]

You are free to speak ... platforms with guidelines are not beholden to aid you if you breech those guidelines.

She still has free speech.I understand how it all is, I'm just saying, it's not right, I don't agree with it. And people like her are the ones voicing their opinions against it, and it just so happens that they're the ones that always seem to get silenced.

Unless she made a serious threat to physically harm somebody, I can't see what else she should be silenced for. And even then, she shouldn't be silenced, she should be charged with an offence instead. Did she seriously threaten to physically harm somebody?

[Marsh.]

So you think it's an infringement on her rights for twitter to ban her?

Would you think the same of a bar or restaurant who refused to serve a customer?

It seems you want "free speech" for people you like/agree with and not for those who you don't like/disagree with. Free speech is a two way street.

Katie has the right to say whatever she pleases. Other people have the right to not have to host her views.

[Alf]

So you think it's an infringement on her rights for twitter to ban her?

Would you think the same of a bar or restaurant who refused to serve a customer?

It seems you want "free speech" for people you like/agree with and not for those who you don't like/disagree with. Free speech is a two way street.

Katie has the right to say whatever she pleases. Other people have the right to not have to host her views.Dorsey is American, his company is American, it's based in America.

He his breaking the rules of the first amandent, just the same way Hopkins is accused of breaking the rule of Twitter. So the USA are in their rights to shut down Twitter?

[bots]

Hopkins has not lost her right to free speech. She doesn't have a right to use every possible media outlet to air her views, no-one does. Take a look at fox news and how they polarise their output if an example is needed.

[Marsh.]

Dorsey is American, his company is American, it's based in America.

He his breaking the rules of the first amandent, just the same way Hopkins is accused of breaking the rule of Twitter. So the USA are in their rights to shut down Twitter?

In what way is he breaking the first amendment?

:joker: 0/10

[Scarlett.]

I understand how it all is, I'm just saying, it's not right, I don't agree with it. And people like her are the ones voicing their opinions against it, and it just so happens that they're the ones that always seem to get silenced.

Unless she made a serious threat to physically harm somebody, I can't see what else she should be silenced for. And even then, she shouldn't be silenced, she should be charged with an offence instead. Did she seriously threaten to physically harm somebody?

She's not being silenced, she's just banned from a privately owned platform. They can ban whoever they like, they own the platform.

[Cal.]

Oh she is a daft cow isn’t she!

[Alf]

In what way is he breaking the first amendment?

:joker: 0/10Because it protects political speech, and if someone is being silenced for their political speech, let's say Alex Jones, then it should protect him. Dorsey should be getting questioned on why he's taking away Jones, freedoms. So that means Dorsy's company isn't compatible with the freedoms on the American people, it's anti American.

[Marsh.]

Because it protects political speech, and if someone is being silenced for their political speech, let's say Alex Jones, then it should protect him. Dorsey should be getting questioned on why he's taking away Jones, freedoms. So that means Dorsy's company isn't compatible with the freedoms on the American people, it's anti American.

Except... he hasn't silenced anyone.

It's no different to the preacher not being permitted to book certain venues around the country. He's not being silenced, those venues are privately owned and they're free to choose who and what they want to be a platform for.

It's basic common sense.

Your suggestion, to force platform owners to host anyone and everyone is the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

You literally want it when it suits you and not any other time. :joker:

[user104658]

Because it protects political speech, and if someone is being silenced for their political speech, let's say Alex Jones, then it should protect him. Dorsey should be getting questioned on why he's taking away Jones, freedoms. So that means Dorsy's company isn't compatible with the freedoms on the American people, it's anti American.Twitter is a private company, not a public service. There's literally nothing more to say about it than that. Freedom of speech laws simply don't apply, any more than they apply in someone else's house?

Do you think that freedom of speech laws in America mean that you can go into someone's living room, say whatever you want, and not be told to leave?

[Alf]

Except... he hasn't silenced anyone.

It's no different to the preacher not being permitted to book certain venues around the country. He's not being silenced, those venues are privately owned and they're free to choose who and what they want to be a platform for.

It's basic common sense.Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

[Scarlett.]

Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

No.

Because that's excluding people based purely on race, which is discrimination. Excluding a whole race of people is much different to refusing to give a platform to a single foul mouthed bigot.

[Kizzy]

I understand how it all is, I'm just saying, it's not right, I don't agree with it. And people like her are the ones voicing their opinions against it, and it just so happens that they're the ones that always seem to get silenced.

Unless she made a serious threat to physically harm somebody, I can't see what else she should be silenced for. And even then, she shouldn't be silenced, she should be charged with an offence instead. Did she seriously threaten to physically harm somebody?

That would be a direct threat and easier to deal with yes. Incitement is an offence, hate speech is an offence, I'm not saying she has it's just to highlight you don't have to physically threaten someone to be charged with an offence.

Social media rules will have to follow guidelines to not have their content fall foul of these offences, again she isn't silenced and is free to carry on on different platforms, make speeches and attend events to spread her 'opinion'.

[Alf]

No.

Because that's excluding people based purely on race, which is discrimination. Excluding a whole race of people is much different to refusing to give a platform to a single foul mouthed bigot.But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

[Scarlett.]

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

George Orwell **** would be secret police breaking down her door and making her disappear into the night. Modern day **** is her getting banned from one social media platform for being hateful.

[Marsh.]

Could Dorsey make up a rule that said, no Jews, or no Whites, or no Muslims or no Black's are allowed on his platform, If he wanted to? If not, why not?

Very poor attempt at an argument Alf.

Has Katie been banned because of her skin colour, race or religion? No.

[Marsh.]

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

But it's ok for the people whose thoughts and opinions oppose that of Hopkins to be forced to represent her in their venues and on their social media platforms? Their freedom of speech doesn't matter?

You're literally complaining about something that you are calling to enforce on others.

[Alf]

That would be a direct threat and easier to deal with yes. Incitement is an offence, hate speech is an offence, I'm not saying she has it's just to highlight you don't have to physically threaten someone to be charged with an offence.

Social media rules will have to follow guidelines to not have their content fall foul of these offences, again she isn't silenced and is free to carry on on different platforms, make speeches and attend events to spread her 'opinion'.The term "hate speech" needs to be rejected. There's either free speech for all, or there's not.

But bear in mind that different people are gonna have different interpretations of what constitutes as hate speech. And who decides what's right and wrong speech, whoever's in charge at the time?

[user104658]

But this is excluding people based purely on their thoughts and opinions. Whether they're bigoted or not. Thought crimes. George Orwell sh1t. You might find it attractive when the victim is somebody you disagree with, but once they're out of the way, they'll eventually come for you, but there will be nobody left to speak up for you.

You have a poor understanding of Orwellian distopia & thought crime Alf. I don't think it's my job to try to explain either to you, because I can't be bothered and don't want to, but... I dunno. If you're interested in knowing about these things I'd suggest reading around them a bit because you're dramatically over simplifying.

[Marsh.]

You have a poor understanding of Orwellian distopia & thought crime Alf. I don't think it's my job to try to explain either to you, because I can't be bothered and don't want to, but... I dunno. If you're interested in knowing about these things I'd suggest reading around them a bit because you're dramatically over simplifying.

Probably purposely.

[Alf]

But it's ok for the people whose thoughts and opinions oppose that of Hopkins to be forced to represent her in their venues and on their social media platforms? Their freedom of speech doesn't matter?

You're literally complaining about something that you are calling to enforce on others.But those who are not giving her a platform are not being silenced (oppressed). So nobody has infringed on their freedoms, the way they have infringed on Hopkins. They're excluding her purley based on her politics. It's just as much discrimination as not giving a platform to a certain religion or race.

[Marsh.]

But those who are not giving her a platform are not being silenced (oppressed). So nobody has infringed on their freedoms, the way they have infringed on Hopkins. They're excluding her purley based on her politics. It's just as much discrimination as not giving a platform to a certain religion or race.

Purely based on her politics? Oh Alf. :laugh:

Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic ****ing wench" is not a political view. It's playground bullying.

[Kizzy]

The term "hate speech" needs to be rejected. There's either free speech for all, or there's not.

But bear in mind that different people are gonna have different interpretations of what constitutes as hate speech. And who decides what's right and wrong speech, whoever's in charge at the time?

Hate speech is defined by hate laws, it's not something that is mutable.

[Alf]

Purely based on her politics? Oh Alf. :laugh:

Calling Greta Thunberg an "autistic ****ing wench" is not a political view. It's playground bullying.In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

[Scarlett.]

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

If it breaks the rules, then Twitter would be in their rights to do so :shrug:

[Marsh.]

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

Well you're trying to simplify a situation that isn't simple.

I never said she was banned for her mean girl remarks. I'm illustrating her presence on twitter is not merely voicing "political opinion". That's just incorrect.

She's not being silenced and she's certainly not being silenced for her political leanings.

If anything she's displayed very little understanding of politics outside of exaggerated stereotypes.

[Kizzy]

In that case, anybody who's ever called Trump insulting names, should be kicked off Twitter?

And trump himself of course?

Silly comments are fine not all insults will be called into question, if all insults were banned there would be nobody left on the internet!

It is very specific comments that are the issue, those that could be seen to violate hate laws. In which case the platform would be called to answer why they were hosting such content by the government.

[Alf]

If it breaks the rules, then Twitter would be in their rights to do so :shrug:Is that the World you wanna live in?

What if say, Tommy Robinson lead a party that won a general election, and he decided to use those laws against your opinions? And started banning you from platforms?

It could happen, probably not Tommy Robinson, but somebody who could use the oppressive laws against you. They could say that your point of view is wrong and hate.

[Elliot]

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’

[Marsh.]

Is that the World you wanna live in?

What if say, Tommy Robinson lead a party that won a general election, and he decided to use those laws against your opinions? And started banning you from platforms?

It could happen, probably not Tommy Robinson, but somebody who could use the oppressive laws against you. They could say that your point of view is wrong and hate.

:joker: Tommy Robinson forcing bans on platforms he doesn't own is not even remotely the same.

[Marsh.]

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’

Hate is subjective apparently. :umm2:

[Alf]

Idk why the hill you chose to die on is defending someone that called a 17 yr old girl with Aspergers ‘autistic ****ing wench’It's easy, because Katie should have the freedom to say that, if she wishes to. It's not or it shouldn't be a crime.

[Kizzy]

It's easy, because Katie should have the freedom to say that, if she wishes to. It's not or it shouldn't be a crime.

Nobody said it was a crime that's not why she was removed.

[AnnieK]

In all honesty, they shouldn't have banned her because now she has the attention she craves and has people actually defending her right to spout ****.

[Alf]

Nobody said it was a crime that's not why she was removed.We all know the real reason she's banned, because she criticises the wrong people, and talks about things like rumours of cover ups of serious crimes in high places. Things that these poweful people want hushing up.

[Kizzy]

We all know the real reason she's banned, because she criticises the wrong people, and talks about things like rumours of cover ups of serious crimes in high places. Things that these poweful people want hushing up.

Ive never heard her mention cover ups of serious crimes... you're suggesting that after insulting young activists she enjoys exposing the powerful?..

Do you have any examples of undercover crimes she's exposed?

[Marsh.]

We all know the real reason she's banned, because she criticises the wrong people, and talks about things like rumours of cover ups of serious crimes in high places. Things that these poweful people want hushing up.

Sure.

[Marsh.]

It's easy, because Katie should have the freedom to say that, if she wishes to. It's not or it shouldn't be a crime.

Just as twitter should have the freedom to not want her on the platform wihout being forced to host her by snowflakes.

[user104658]

You're acting like this was sudden and disproportionate Alf. She got away with saying a lot of things, about a lot of people, for a long time. She's been suspended because she pushed it too far. The world isn't a free-for-all.

[Alf]

Ive never heard her mention cover ups of serious crimes... you're suggesting that after insulting young activists she enjoys exposing the powerful?..

Do you have any examples of undercover crimes she's exposed?It was a story out a couple of weeks ago, where the Greater Manchester Police have admitted that they turned a blind eye to thousands of young girls being raped, because they didn't want to seem racist. The mainstream media did 1 day on the story, they had Maggie Oliver on talking about it., but then dropped it after a day, yet Katie and her ilk, don't drop the story, they continue to talk about it. And rightly so, it should be the biggest news story on every main stream media channel, right now. Thousands of young girls, sacrificed for the sake of diversity, and who at the top gave the orders to ignore it?

[Alf]

You're acting like this was sudden and disproportionate Alf. She got away with saying a lot of things, about a lot of people, for a long time. She's been suspended because she pushed it too far. The world isn't a free-for-all.I'm not asking for a free for all, just the freedom for everyone to speak their mind.

[Marsh.]

I'm not asking for a free for all, just the freedom for everyone to speak their mind.

Nobody's blocked any freedom for anyone to speak their mind. What about that do you not understand?

[Marsh.]

It was a story out a couple of weeks ago, where the Greater Manchester Police have admitted that they turned a blind eye to thousands of young girls being raped, because they didn't want to seem racist. The mainstream media did 1 day on the story, they had Maggie Oliver on talking about it., but then dropped it after a day, yet Katie and her ilk, don't drop the story, they continue to talk about it. And rightly so, it should be the biggest news story on every main stream media channel, right now. Thousands of young girls, sacrificed for the sake of diversity, and who at the top gave the orders to ignore it?

That's not a conspiracy and that's not her "exposing" anything. That's her discussing a news story everyone is already aware of.

Has she actually provided any new information or added anything valid to that conversation? Or does she simply keep mentioning it?

[Alf]

Nobody's blocked any freedom for anyone to speak their mind. What about that do you not understand?I get it, but like I say, I think it's wrong, I'm guessing that you think it's right?

But just remember. First they came for Alex Jones, and I didn't speak up, then they came for Katie Hopkins, and I didn't speak up, then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me.

[Alf]

That's not a conspiracy and that's not her "exposing" anything. That's her discussing a news story everyone is already aware of.

Has she actually provided any new information or added anything valid to that conversation? Or does she simply keep mentioning it?My point was that she's been shut down because she continues to talk about it. And other stories that the esbalishment don't want people talking about.

Like I say, this should be a huge story, this is a bigger story than Hillsborough for me, this is one of the most shocking stories of my lifetime, if not the most shocking, bigger than Brexit. But the establishment have the main stream media under control, but how do they get Katie Hopkins under control? they shut her down by force.

[Kizzy]

It was a story out a couple of weeks ago, where the Greater Manchester Police have admitted that they turned a blind eye to thousands of young girls being raped, because they didn't want to seem racist. The mainstream media did 1 day on the story, they had Maggie Oliver on talking about it., but then dropped it after a day, yet Katie and her ilk, don't drop the story, they continue to talk about it. And rightly so, it should be the biggest news story on every main stream media channel, right now. Thousands of young girls, sacrificed for the sake of diversity, and who at the top gave the orders to ignore it?
It's been well known for years there was a cover up, it has been exposed countless times about the exploitation of young care home girls in certain areas.
I agree that should never have happened, and yes of course it needs an inquiry.

That story broke months and months ago, I remember it being discussed on here, Katie did not expose this information.

[Cherie]

It was a story out a couple of weeks ago, where the Greater Manchester Police have admitted that they turned a blind eye to thousands of young girls being raped, because they didn't want to seem racist. The mainstream media did 1 day on the story, they had Maggie Oliver on talking about it., but then dropped it after a day, yet Katie and her ilk, don't drop the story, they continue to talk about it. And rightly so, it should be the biggest news story on every main stream media channel, right now. Thousands of young girls, sacrificed for the sake of diversity, and who at the top gave the orders to ignore it?

I heard that interview, but there hasn't been a peep about it since, so I agree with you on that one

[Kizzy]

My point was that she's been shut down because she continues to talk about it. And other stories that the esbalishment don't want people talking about.

Like I say, this should be a huge story, this is a bigger story than Hillsborough for me, this is one of the most shocking stories of my lifetime, if not the most shocking, bigger than Brexit. But the establishment have the main stream media under control, but how do they get Katie Hopkins under control? they shut her down by force.
If she was the only one discussing this then of course it would look that way but she isn't. ..

[Alf]

It's been well known for years there was a cover up, it has been exposed countless times about the exploitation of young care home girls in certain areas.
I agree that should never have happened, and yes of course it needs an inquiry.

That story broke months and months ago, I remember it being discussed on here, Katie did not expose this information.I didn't say she exposed it, because I know she didn't. I'm saying that I believe the reason she's been shut down is because she continues to talk about this and other stories that hold powerful people to account.

[Alf]

If she was the only one discussing this then of course it would look that way but she isn't. ..Well they can't do them all in one clean sweep, that would look suspicious. They need to find loop-holes, and try and get them on technicalities like, she said a bad word, we got her. Let's swoop in and shut her down.

[Marsh.]

I get it, but like I say, I think it's wrong, I'm guessing that you think it's right?

But just remember. First they came for Alex Jones, and I didn't speak up, then they came for Katie Hopkins, and I didn't speak up, then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up for me.

Again, nobody has come for their free speech. :hee:

[Swan]

I heard that interview, but there hasn't been a peep about it since, so I agree with you on that one

Tbh i usually try and stay quite current, yet i had never heard about this.

[user104658]

I'm not asking for a free for all, just the freedom for everyone to speak their mind.People mostly still have the freedom to speak their mind so long as they can do it in the spirit of a respectful debate. I actually agree that there are situations where "cancelled culture" IS resulting in people being shut down even when they're engaging in such debate and that that's a problem.

I don't agree with you on Hopkins because she's unable to address these issues, speak her mind, and engage in debate without becoming mocking, using aggressive language, being abusive and deliberately offensive. Those things don't and shouldn't fall under free speech. She quite specifically has NOT been banned (or suspended, she may not even BE banned) "for her opinions".

[Marsh.]

My point was that she's been shut down because she continues to talk about it. And other stories that the esbalishment don't want people talking about.

Like I say, this should be a huge story, this is a bigger story than Hillsborough for me, this is one of the most shocking stories of my lifetime, if not the most shocking, bigger than Brexit. But the establishment have the main stream media under control, but how do they get Katie Hopkins under control? they shut her down by force.

Really? They don't come for people who can actually affect change? They come for... Katie Hopkins who nobody takes seriously? Ok Alf.

[Kizzy]

I didn't say she exposed it, because I know she didn't. I'm saying that I believe the reason she's been shut down is because she continues to talk about this and other stories that hold powerful people to account.

Well like I said she's far from the only one, so your feeling now is she's being shut down not for being alt right, or racist but for being a social justice warrior?

[Marsh.]

Well they can't do them all in one clean sweep, that would look suspicious. They need to find loop-holes, and try and get them on technicalities like, she said a bad word, we got her. Let's swoop in and shut her down.

Who?

[Swan]

Really? They don't come for people who can actually affect change? They come for... Katie Hopkins who nobody takes seriously? Ok Alf.

I don't care for Katie Hopkins, but Alf is making a very valid point, stop being so condescending Marsh.

[Marsh.]

I don't care for Katie Hopkins, but Alf is making a very valid point, stop being so condescending Marsh.

Quite tired of you popping up in threads just to have a pop. It's very boring. Either add to the discussion of why you find it a valid point or jog on and quote someone else.

[Alf]

Who?If I knew the answer to that, I'd probably be assassinated.

[Swan]

Quite tired of you popping up in threads just to have a pop. It's very boring. Either add to the discussion of why you find it a valid point or jog on and quote someone else.

I have added to the discussion, i gave my opinion, then commented on this Great Manchester Police cover up and that i hadn't heard about it.

[Marsh.]

If I knew the answer to that, I'd probably be assassinated.

But Katie Hopkins is not very powerful, not very well connected and not important in the slightest. Yet she's the priority to "silence" (despite the fact she's not, it's simply her twitter account, which she mainly uses to spout childish name calling rather than make any meaningful comment)? You're so sure of this but don't know who is responsible? And the only major news story they want to shut her up about is a news story that is common knowledge and has been for a while involving many people who quite clearly are enjoying their platforms and twitter accounts freely.

Ok Alf.

[Marsh.]

I have added to the discussion, i gave my opinion, then commented on this Great Manchester Police cover up and that i hadn't heard about it.

Just pop me on ignore Swan. :thumbs:

[user104658]

Let me get this straight...

Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson have been banned from social media because they're truth-warriors in a fight to shine a light on injustice, and they are being silenced by a high level joint government, police, and social media company conspiracy to silence them?

......... Alf have you ever heard of a site called "abovetopsecret"? I think you'd like it and you'll probably get a better response to these posts there :hee:

[Swan]

Just pop me on ignore Swan. :thumbs:

I'll do as i wish, thank you marsh.

I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, i like reading everyone's opinions, even yours :)

[Marsh.]

I'll do as i wish, thank you marsh.

I wouldn't put anyone on ignore, i like reading everyone's opinions, even yours :)

I didn't say don't do as you please.
A genuine suggestion since you make a habit of commenting on me in a discussion thread rather than the topic. I don't need to be moderated by you. :thumbs:

[Swan]

I didn't say don't do as you please.
A genuine suggestion since you make a habit of commenting on me in a discussion thread rather than the topic. I don't need to be moderated by you. :thumbs:

I not trying to moderate anyone marsh.

And all i have has said is sometimes it seems you like to argue for the sake it, and earlier were coming across condescending. Im not following you around, i was just dishearten at the fact you couldn't see the serious points Alf was making.

[Marsh.]

Yeah, let's keep it that way. :)

[Swan]

You just keep proving my point.

[Alf]

But Katie Hopkins is not very powerful, not very well connected and not important in the slightest. Yet she's the priority to "silence" (despite the fact she's not, it's simply her twitter account, which she mainly uses to spout childish name calling rather than make any meaningful comment)? You're so sure of this but don't know who is responsible? And the only major news story they want to shut her up about is a news story that is common knowledge and has been for a while involving many people who quite clearly are enjoying their platforms and twitter accounts freely.

Ok Alf.It might be common knowledge, but who's talking about it? We both know that the main stream media can talk about the same story, every day, for years, we've just seen that with Brexit. This story is huge, yet are they talking about it as much as they should be? Are people in workplaces up and down the country, talking about this, the same way they'd talk about Brexit or any other big story?

I think people are afraid to talk about it, for fear of saying something offensive. Those girls deserve better and justice.

[Marsh.]

I not trying to moderate anyone marsh.

And all i have has said is sometimes it seems you like to argue for the sake it, and earlier were coming across condescending. Im not following you around, i was just dishearten at the fact you couldn't see the serious points Alf was making.

I really couldn't care less what it seems like to you.

Have a nice evening.

[Swan]

I really couldn't care less what it seems like to you.

Have a nice evening.

God, you are so rude.

Yes and you marsh.

[Twosugars]

Where are all those alt right sjws when people really get bumped off like journos in putin russia or that guy from Saudi Arabia?

[Marsh.]

It might be common knowledge, but who's talking about it. We both know that the main stream media can talk about the same story, every day, for years, we've just seen that with Brexit. This story is huge, yet are they talking about it as much as they should be? Are people in workplaces up and down the country, talking about this, the same way they'd talk about Brexit or any other big story?

I think people are afraid to talk about it, for fear of saying something offensive. Those girls deserve better.

Aside from you being all knowing about what is discussed amongst millions of people up and down the country. You're certain Katie Hopkins is the centre of discussion on this topic? The media have always picked and chosen what stories to ignore and what to cover and it's always noticed by everyone. The deflection from Prince Andrew a recent example.

Furthermore, you really think Katie Hopkins gives a damn about justice rather than using the story to further her own racist agenda?

And before you respond asking whether I'm saying anyone who discusses that story must be racist, I'm not. But racists like Katie Hopkins use these stories to fuel more and more hatred and to tar large sections of society with the same brush, which the world could do without.

[Marsh.]

You just keep proving my point.

God, you are so rude.

Yes and you marsh.

:thumbs:

[Alf]

Let me get this straight...

Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson have been banned from social media because they're truth-warriors in a fight to shine a light on injustice, and they are being silenced by a high level joint government, police, and social media company conspiracy to silence them?

......... Alf have you ever heard of a site called "abovetopsecret"? I think you'd like it and you'll probably get a better response to these posts there :hee:I haven't heard of that site, no. But why would I want to go on a site where everybody agrees with me, that would be so boring. I enjoy people disagreeing with me far more, it gives me a challenge.

I bet you deep down more enjoy disagreeing with me and challenging me, than you do agreeing with some forum member? I Know Marsh does, I can tell.

[Alf]

Aside from you being all knowing about what is discussed amongst millions of people up and down the country. You're certain Katie Hopkins is the centre of discussion on this topic? The media have always picked and chosen what stories to ignore and what to cover and it's always noticed by everyone. The deflection from Prince Andrew a recent example.

Furthermore, you really think Katie Hopkins gives a damn about justice rather than using the story to further her own racist agenda?

And before you respond asking whether I'm saying anyone who discusses that story must be racist, I'm not. But racists like Katie Hopkins use these stories to fuel more and more hatred and to tar large sections of society with the same brush, which the world could do without.I don't think there is any post in here where I said Katie Hopkins is the centre of discussion on this topic, if I did, show me. I merely said, she's talking about it.

[Marsh.]

I don't think there is any post in here where I said Katie Hopkins is the centre of discussion on this topic, if I did, show me. I merely said, she's talking about it.

You didn't Alf, that's right.

But the suggestion she has been singled out to be silenced suggests she is, no? Otherwise what's the point in silencing her?

[Marsh.]

I haven't heard of that site, no. But why would I want to go on a site where everybody agrees with me, that would be so boring. I enjoy people disagreeing with me far more, it gives me a challenge.

That explains so much. Much like Katie Hopkins, I guess you don't believe even half what you come out with on here. :hee:

[Alf]

That explains so much. Much like Katie Hopkins, I guess you don't believe even half what you come out with on here. :hee:I know next to nothing, I'm not an educated person, I know that. I know I'm not articulate. But I have my own experience of life, and I see things that I don't think are right, and I try to explain in the best way I can why I think they're not right. But most of the time on here, I'm just being cheeky and trying to have a laugh and a wind up, because it makes me giggle and smile, and I like that.

[Marsh.]

I know next to nothing, I'm not an educated person, I know that. I know I'm not articulate. But I have my own experience of life, and I see things that I don't think are right, and I try to explain in the best way I can why I think they're not right. But most of the time on here, I'm just being cheeky and trying to have a laugh and a wind up, because it makes me giggle and smile, and I like that.

I made no comment on your intellect or education. I don't think you're a stupid man Alf. :hee:

[Beso]

:thumbs:

D:

[Glenn.]

But that's how she earns her money to put food in her kids mouths and keep a roof over their heads. So why shouldn't she want to stay in the public eye, if that's what pays the bill, and she enjoys doing it. Let her be free.

Didn’t she already lose one roof this year though?

[Tom4784]

If she's that hard up for money then she can get a normal job, she chooses to do what she does because she likes the attention and up until now, it seems to have been profitable. I'm not gonna cry for her when her own choices have got her to where she is.

[Marsh.]

Really? People can do as they please if they have children to look after? :facepalm: