Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

I actually like some of KH articles. She often says what needs to be said.

thatbags re free speech, of course I realise that social mores etc change over time as does what is considered libellous. I'm not laying down any rules about where behaving decently would mean limiting free speech, rather I'm saying that at any particular point in time, many people have an awareness that some things are better left unsaid even if not libellous. We don't have to indulge in free speech and say whatever we want just because we can. We all draw our own individual lines on this but many of us would share broad agreement about certain limits in certain situations and contexts. Bereaved parents are one group that some would consider off limits.

Sorry, but I have no time for anybody who agrees with her. Maybe some people need to say what she writes, but I don't. She's a bullying hate-mongerer - for the sake of it and she knows she can get away with it most of the time.

Well nina it all depends on what we think needs to be said but I think we might agree that lies don't need to be said or her frequent attacks on the McCanns. And there are many other ways of saying what needs to be said without resorting to the bile that is the average KH column.

Dahhnedill, I am smiling because having read some of these highly vociferous posts about KH, I'm not seeing a lot of difference.

You don't have to like someone to disagree with them. She has written some strong arguments for Britain which I agree with. Other articles, no I couldn't agree.

I don't agree with unlimited free speech and I've argued my case a number of times on GN. People also have rights not to be bullied. In this case, Hopkins lied (maybe unintentionally) and refused to apologise.

I don't want to live in a Wild West kind of society, where anything goes. People end up getting hurt.

Hopkins undoubtedly knew enough about Monroe to know that she's left-wing and transgender, so a sitting target for a DM writer. Sarah Vine has also written a couple of vitriolic articles about Monroe. Monroe has also been very open about suffering from depression and experiencing a breakdown. People like Vine and Hopkins seem to have nothing better to do than kick the vulnerable and shame on the people who lap up their vitriol.

Rigby, she is paid to 'entertain' readers. I wouldn't even call her a writer. The DM is a gutter read so she's writing to their level.
But, a lot of people comment on the McCanns. She's just one of them.

I see the difference, nina. I haven't mentioned anything about 'liking'. I admit I don't follow Hopkins closely, but I disagree with practically every word I have ever seen her write. She's a stirrer, whose only talent seems to be to spout bile. That's not clever.

But who else is saying these "things that need to be said"? Just wondering. If people want to but don't then they are self-censoring. That's a statement of fact (I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Why are more checks needed on free speech than more speech? Why isn't disagreement, discussion, verbal confrontation seen as enough of a check on things one disagrees with or even hates?

Yes, the McCanns have been written about endlessly. There's nothing else to write, so Hopkin's only reason for doing so must have been to keep the pot stirring.

If what you call spouting bile makes people think more about something and, possibly, even speak about it as well, either in agreement or disagreeent, then isn't it a good thing in the end? Thinking about and discussing issues that might otherwise get brushed under the rug is surely of benefit to society.

I think there is a place in civilised society (I said civilised, not polite; there's a difference) for the so-called bile spouters: people who are willing to say what others might want to say but daren't for fear of recriminations.

thatbags I've argued in the past that people need to self-censor (and yes,I know I'm guilty as charged), because the law cannot possibly enforce checks. It's difficult and there will never be red lines, because it depends on a consensus about the kind of society we want. Nevertheless, there need to be laws to protect people and they must be enforced as a last resort.

I despair of the DM's hypocrisy, when it also publishes articles like this about a victim of online bullying:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4297240/Girl-16-hanged-end-online-bullying-torment.html

daphnedill, she's an entertainer. She's paid to stir the pot. It sells newspapers.

The McCann's are always in the news. They have been recently over the case with the Portuguese detective. Each time they appear, the articles about them are rewritten.
I must admit, I'm not an avid news reader. I only take notice when I'm researching a topic for one of my own articles or book that I'm writing.
KH is not a person I can relate to but as with most people, I've learned to filter her out. If she writes something that resonates or I can agree with, then I give her credit. If not, I steer clear.
It does make me smile though when people call her a bully then they themselves write very attacking comments about her. They themselves then become the bullies do they not?
What's the difference between what she writes and what they write if it's equally nasty?

I'm not suggesting for one moment that things should be swept under the carpet but that I draw lines as to how I believe things need to be expressed. As for a KH article making anyone think <collapses in floor in shock>. She sometimes lies ( as we know re Muslim family), distorts, misleads, selects and encourages hatred . So no, IMO she contributes nothing to the understanding of the complex issues she purports to write about and probably it's the reverse.

The very idea that posters on here are bullying her - many of us are criticising her quite justifiably - that's not bullying. What do think bullying means in this context nina? A woman with a DM column and an LBC weekly show? Hardly a level playing field is it?

Rigby46, she's got you all steamed up so she does make people think. She creates dissent and division and this isn't always bad because out of it comes discussion which can spur people into action. All newspapers distort the truth but rarely are they about the truth. They're about agenda's. So KH is writing to the agenda of the DM.

Rigby46, I've read some of your posts. Your downright nasty. Criticism is a form of bullying if it's not constructive or positive.

Just my observation of course.

Don't be so stupid nina . She's never said anything that's made me think in any meaningful sense of the word. I have pondered on what makes her behave as she does - is it just the publicity and the money? But the content of what she writes is at such a low intellectual level it could never impinge on my thought processes in the slightest. All she does is stir up and encourage hatred - it's hard to think of anyone else who is as unremittingly negative as her.

Well must stop criticising then - not. FFS. Time for a gin cocktail methinks.

I've often wondered about the mentality of 'bully groupies' (ie people who think bullies are clever for saying what they think) too.

Don't be so stupid Nina???

I rest my case. You and she are matched! Ha ha. How funny.

Don't hurt yourself on the door on your way out.

Well you are all talking about her so she has had an impact. I came in at the end of this thread.

She gets inside people's heads. That's what she does. Personally I can't be bothered to get steamed up about her, it's a waste of energy talking about her but that's just my view.

Drawing lines as to how things should be spoken about is censorship, pure and simple. Anyone thinks such line drawing is a good and useful thing in society has clearly not thought about who decides where and by whom the lines should be drawn. If the wrong people get into power, I am just as likely to have lines drawn against me than as those whom I regard as the worst bile spouters.

Censorship, restricting freedom of speech, is about power, power to prevent things being said. Just like that power of the Roman Catholic Church that was exerted over Galileo Galilei when he stated that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.

She hasn't got inside my head, nina. Neither has Monroe. It's a principle I'm talking about, whoever is involved in such a case.