Katie Hopkins Still Telling It As It Is.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4539242/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-protect-kids-terror.html

She may be leaving LBC, but she is still writing a lot of truth thanks to the Daily Mail.

Please read what she has put, before you condemn her, how can anyone disagree with this?

[Khandro]

andy; Do you deny that terrorism is linked to Islam?

[douglas9401]

If not 'apologists' then maybe 'facilitators' or 'appeasers'?

[douglas9401]

Mikey, 'tiresome virago' was my wrestling name back in the day.

Did you mean 'farago'?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, Can’t think why, but one contributor disagrees with the headline. Do you?

[-Talbot-]

Generally I don't listen or read what Hopkins has to say but as this thread keeps popping up I thought I would take a look.


Islay
AOG she is a hate monger and is as bad as the terrorist she says she abhors!!


Katie Hopkins because she is an opinionated loudmouth is as bad as a person that sets out to kill children enjoying themselves at a pop concert?

I have only skimmed through the thread ... and I can't see much condemnation of this disgusting comment.

Have I missed the criticism or do posters agree with Islay?

[pixie374]

Of course she isn't as bad as the terrorists. Douglas there is no facilitation or appeasement either. People disagree with the causes, reasons and possible solutions. That is not the same at all!

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //andy; Do you deny that terrorism is linked to Islam? //

Fascinating though that line of conversation is, it does not address the current point, which is the notion that there are 'appeasers / apologists (insert your own label here) on this site, and I am stating that I believe that not to be true, and inviting those who think it is to back up their statement.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, Can’t think why, but one contributor disagrees with the headline. Do you? //

Absolutely I disagree with it.

The notion of 'telling it like it is' is like Sarah Vine's 'Are You thinking what she's thinking?' strapline - it's lazy journalism posing as thoughtful incisive comment - and from Ms Hopkins, it never has been that yet!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, Katie Hopkins says: //The politicians now have hundreds of troops protecting them while telling the rest of us to Keep Calm, Stay 'United' and Carry On. But who is going to protect OUR kids from the terror THEY let in?//

Which bit of that do you absolutely disagree with?

[-Talbot-]

Khandro
andy; Do you deny that terrorism is linked to Islam?


andy-hughes
Pad, some stuff, ignore q, stuff something else in, pad a bit more, ignore, somemore stuff. Repeat to fade.

[RandyMarsh]

Does anyone have a picture of the welcome home mat that she mentions, I need a new mat.

[fiction-factory]

//Do you deny that terrorism is linked to Islam?

I'll answer it, Talbot. A lot is- or is claimed to be. I'm not sure that tells us anything we don't know and doesn't help address the problem of terrorism for which there are no simple solutions .

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //Khandro
andy; Do you deny that terrorism is linked to Islam?


andy-hughes
Pad, some stuff, ignore q, stuff something else in, pad a bit more, ignore, somemore stuff. Repeat to fade. //

As you appear to think I have a motive beyond avoiding de-railment of the thread in not pursuing Khnadro's point, let me be clear -

I do not deny that some terrorism is linked to Islam - but I am unwilling to pursue that point further for reasons advised.

I Khandro wishes to raise that point on another thread, I will be delighted to debate it there.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, Katie Hopkins says: //The politicians now have hundreds of troops protecting them while telling the rest of us to Keep Calm, Stay 'United' and Carry On. But who is going to protect OUR kids from the terror THEY let in?//

Which bit of that do you absolutely disagree with? //

Apologies - I thought you were referring to the OP - hence my reply.

In terms of the headline - it's a typical rhetorical anger-prodder which she and her ilk delight in posing, without seriously expecting a sensible response.

Who is going to protect 'our' children (hate-baiters and politicians always say 'our children' - it infers inclusion and caring, ironically, since they understand neither)?

The police and armed services - what else does she expect anyone to say - the EDL perhaps?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //In terms of the headline - it's a typical rhetorical anger-prodder //

andy-hughes, I didn't ask for a critique. I asked if you disagree with the headline. Do you?

[douglas9401]

'Hate-baiters'.

Jesus H.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //In terms of the headline - it's a typical rhetorical anger-prodder //

andy-hughes, I didn't ask for a critique. I asked if you disagree with the headline. Do you? //

I can't agree or disagree with it - because it doesn't say anything meaningful.

It asks who is going to protect 'our' children - I have answered that - the rest if it is simply puff agitating, and defies reasonable analysis or comment.

[Khandro]

andy; //I do not deny that some terrorism is linked to Islam//

Correction All terrorism is linked to Islam including today's Taliban car-bomb killing 80 in Kabul

[andy-hughes]

douglas - //'Hate-baiters'.

Jesus H. //

Care to expand a little - do you have any issue with the term?

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // andy; //I do not deny that some terrorism is linked to Islam//

Correction All terrorism is linked to Islam including today's Taliban car-bomb killing 80 in Kabul //

That's a sweeping and unverifiable statement.

As I have said before, the definition of 'terrorism' depends on who owns the bombs that blow up your home, and which invader's gun barrel you are staring down.

I am sure there are legions of innocent Afghanis who, if asked what a 'terrorist' is - would point to the nearest picture of an American solider.

As I have said often, and will again - perception is everything.