Has The Novelty Of Ms. Hopkins' Button-Pushing Finally Worn Out?

[andy-hughes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42141325

[andy-hughes]

Thanks - I am moving on ...

[Spicerack]

I'll have a fiver on Andy.
Anyone think the 'teacher' was in the right?
http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mail-online-publishes-apology-over-katie-hopkins-article-one-day-after-ending-her-contract_uk_5a1d4aa1e4b0e2ddcbb2789b

[jno]

the teacher did nothing wrong so Hopkins made something up. The Mail loves controversy but there comes a point where it gets expensive paying off Hopkins' victims, and the site has obviously had enough.

[Spicerack]

Normal people take a pretty dim view of teachers who poison children's minds against
democracy, jno.

[ummmm]

I don't think the novelty has worn off. She's just become too expensive.

They'll always be people who agree with what she says (whether she actually agrees with what she says is another thing) and there'll always people who enjoy being outraged...

But....Andy posts about her quite a bit..

[jno]

that's how I feel about columnists telling lies.

[jno]

that was to spicerack.

[ummmm]

She said the same thing about the teacher in a TV interview (that might have been posted on this thread already)

[Spicerack]

Columnists write for adults. We can take them or leave them.
Teachers interact with children who are easily indoctrinated.
Why else would most left wing fools be youngsters?

[jno]

I didn't know that. She's made up stuff before, and she doesn't learn from her costly mistakes.

I assume she'll go on making them in a private capacity with no big news publisher to pay her lawyer's bill.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//the teacher did nothing wrong//

So if the teacher had taken the children to a pro-Trump rally, that too would have been "right", would it?

[ummmm]

The teacher didn't take children to any rally.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ah, I misread the DM article: she took a banner made by the kids.

Understood.

[jno]

the bit about taking the kids was the libel, ve.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Yes, I was careless when I read the article.

[jno]

she was rather more careless when she wrote it. The Mail should really have handed her articles over to fact-checkers; it would have saved them a lot of money.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // she was rather more careless when she wrote it. The Mail should really have handed her articles over to fact-checkers; it would have saved them a lot of money. //

It's surprising to think that all national papers have legal teams to check copy before publication, and this was either not checked, or not checked properly.

I accept that writing the sort of material that Ms. Hopkins does means sailing close to the wind on a daily basis - all the more reason for someone to be diligent about what the paper publishes, since they are ultimately liable (no pun intended) for the results.

[jno]

couldn't agree more, andy. Maybe she was such a prize catch that they agreed not to edit her columns. Much the same happens to Jeffrey Archer, J K Rowling and Alexander McCall Smith, I believe: nobody dares edit them, though they could all do with something between a blue pencil and an axe. But they don't attract lawsuits (at least not writing-related ones, Lord Archer has his own legal battles).

[andy-hughes]

jno - // Much the same happens to Jeffrey Archer, J K Rowling and Alexander McCall Smith, I believe: nobody dares edit them ...

Interesting - do you know for a fact that these individuals do not have copy checked prior to publication? I would wonder if any national newspaper would have such a ticking time bomb as a famous person writing what they hell they like, with no-one casting an eye over it first.

I have been published in over a hundred titles worldwide, and every single word has been scrutinised at least once between leaving my PC and hitting the shelves in print.

[douglas9401]

Oh, you're THAT Andy Hughes.