[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Withano

Why wouldnt a smart person take an idiot seriously. They're an idiot? Idiots do and say lots of idiotical things and mean it. Thinking about it, the opposite of what you said is true.

A smart person has intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot, were as an idiot will not have the intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot.

[MB.]

She'll probably go and work for Breitbart or something now, but at least her fade into irrelevance is speeding up

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

A smart person has intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot, were as an idiot will not have the intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot.

But we all think we are that smart person sheriff ,none of us think of ourselves as an idiot ,do we?

[the truth]

meanwhile jihadi terrorists are free to wander the country

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

But we all think we are that smart person sheriff ,none of us think of ourselves as an idiot ,do we?

An idiot is not clever enough to realise they are an idiot

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by the truth

meanwhile jihadi terrorists are free to wander the country

Same as someone with a mental illness or a drink driver.

[Alf]

You agree that all those that incited the murder of Trump, in tweets, are just as guilty as Hopkins, and you would support them all being fired from their job (If they had one)?


But the better question is, were you one of those people?

[thesheriff443]

You are far more likely to get killed in a road accident then by terrorist in this country.

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

A smart person has intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot, were as an idiot will not have the intelligence to realise someone is being an idiot.

But everyone who criticises her obviously thinks she's an idiot so I can only assume you actually mean her defenders are the idiots.

But I don't think you do so I'm not sure what logic you're attempting to work with here.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Alf

You agree that all those that incited the murder of Trump, in tweets, are just as guilty as Hopkins, and you would support them all being fired from their job (If they had one)?


But the better question is, were you one of those people?

the liberals will avoid that question as they are hypocrites
also the nude statues of trump the liberals built they found hilarious showing his penis
imagine the hysteria from liberals if such statues were built showing hilarys saggy vagina

[Northern Monkey]

I mean there are some gems of sensible points in with all the rubbish she spouts but she's stepped over the line with this one.You can't just go around inciting genocide.LBC had no choice as a public broadcaster.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Alf

You agree that all those that incited the murder of Trump, in tweets, are just as guilty as Hopkins, and you would support them all being fired from their job (If they had one)?


But the better question is, were you one of those people?

I didn't know about that Alf,that is equally as bad ,also the many hate preachers who want to wipe out all white westeners , trouble is they MEAN it.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I mean there are some gems of sensible points in with all the rubbish she spouts but she's stepped over the line with this one.You can't just go around inciting genocide.LBC had no choice as a public broadcaster.

Of course they had a choice. Who was stopping them from not having a free choice?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Alf

Of course they had a choice. Who was stopping them from not having a free choice?

Their reputation and veiwership.It's all about the money

[Jake.]

Proof that freedom of speech doesn't = freedom of consequence

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jake.

Proof that freedom of speech doesn't = freedom of consequence

Exactly, I don't get how this is so hard to understand tbh

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Their reputation and veiwership.It's all about the money

I personally couldn't care less about their company, it wouldn't change a thing in my life if they went bust. But when people are being fired from their jobs because of something they said (in an emotion of anger after a tragic event) in their own free time, then that could potentially happen to me or anybody else.

[Tom4784]

Deserved.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly, I don't get how this is so hard to understand tbh

All opinions come with consequences but some people don't want to face those consequences.

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Same as someone with a mental illness or a drink driver.

Excuse me.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Deserved.



All opinions come with consequences but some people don't want to face those consequences.

There has to be consequences, if there wasn't the world would be even more hostile than it is now. I mean if we're saying she should be allowed say what she likes and not face any consequences then why aren't kids in school allowed to call the kid they don't like ugly or why aren't work mates allowed to insult eachother or costumers? It's the same thing, by all means call the girl in accounts a fat bitch, that's your right to free speech but you're going to face consequences for it

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Alf

I personally couldn't care less about their company, it wouldn't change a thing in my life if they went bust. But when people are being fired from their jobs because of something they said (in an emotion of anger after a tragic event) in their own free time, then that could potentially happen to me or anybody else.

I couldn't care about their ratings etc either but they do.They run on being popular.
Hopkins public image is her job when she's employed by a public broadcaster.If they hadn't got rid of her they'd be losing listeners left right and centre.It offends patriots,WW2 vets,Jewish people,Muslims anybody who is against the Nazis,anybody who is against genocide,pretty much the majority of all listeners.There are people who don't care what she says too but that's no good for the radio station.They need the listeners.
If she was just Joe public then she may get away with it but you can't really blame LBC for sacking her.They're trying to dig themselves out of a hole.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Alf

I don't agree with what she said, but I'll defend her right to say it.

I'd rather know what extreme people are saying.

She has every right to say it, but LBC has every right to decide that she's crossed a line and let her go. There was a boycott by journalists and political commentators alike being organised, and that's not a good look for a broadcaster that relies on advertiser funding.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what you like and have no one respond, criticise or make you face consequences for it. I went to a local election hustings last night and a woman asked about Christians' right to freedom of expression with regards to LGBT issues. After all of them agreed that one's right to personal faith cannot override the rights of the LGBT community, rather they exist concurrently, she responded that she wasn't happy with the answers because she felt that 'relationships should only be between a man and a woman'. She was quickly booed by most of the audience, and then protested 'see! I'm not allowed to say this anymore', to which one of the candidates said '...you just said it!'. We all laughed. People like this woman need to understand that you're entitled to say what you like, but others are entitled to criticise you for it.

[Kizzy]

She was employed to incite hatred... but the public don't want it any more, we are all hated out.

Thank god, there has to be a better solution.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Alf

Speak your mind, lose your job. What a wonderful liberal society we live in.

There's freedom of speech. But why shouldn't companies have the freedom to sack people who post hateful posts about genocide of an entire religion?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Jack_

She has every right to say it, but LBC has every right to decide that she's crossed a line and let her go. There was a boycott by journalists and political commentators alike being organised, and that's not a good look for a broadcaster that relies on advertiser funding.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to say what you like and have no one respond, criticise or make you face consequences for it. I went to a local election hustings last night and a woman asked about Christians' right to freedom of expression with regards to LGBT issues. After all of them agreed that one's right to personal faith cannot override the rights of the LGBT community, rather they exist concurrently, she responded that she wasn't happy with the answers because she felt that 'relationships should only be between a man and a woman'. She was quickly booed by most of the audience, and then protested 'see! I'm not allowed to say this anymore', to which one of the candidates said '...you just said it!'. We all laughed. People like this woman need to understand that you're entitled to say what you like, but others are entitled to criticise you for it.

Yep, you can criticise, but taking away the livelihood off someone?

This isn't about Katie Hopkins, she'll get by and find a job in no time, and her children will be fed. But this could happen to anyone, people with children who couldn't survive, so their children go hungry, because Mum or Dad had an opinion on monstrous event.