In the news

Don't need to ban her, just let her publish her own bile instead of chucking it in a national rag. Ignoring something is all well and good if that'll actually make it stop, like a kid being a prick, but when it's a horrible pile of shite like her being given a big old box to stand and shout from then she'll keep shouting unless someone kicks her box. So we should all kick her box.

Then ignore her.

Hoping not a euph.

So we should all kick her box.

Freedom of speech is about the government not being able to censor what you say.

@Murt13 would mumble so much at wests it was like he was self censoring.

Her whole raison d'être is to get people talking about what she's said. If people ignore her, she's failed.

Correct. These people are employed by 'newspapers' (not actual newspapers) to get a rise out of people. That sort of controversy sells copies (or generates clicks) and puts the paper's name centre stage.

What she's said is utterly despicable, but it's not the first time she's outraged and probably not the last and she delights in the attention. Removing the oxygen of publicity is a viable option.

I agree, but of course what these people trade on is people's good will to engage in a 'debate', no matter how wrong-headed it is, e.g. how unacceptably far it pulls a certain topic in a certain direction before the 'debate' has even started. It's a debating trick--be emotional, or emotionally provocative, about something and relatively few people will set the record straight by referring to the less problematic standpoint available quite a long way away on the spectrum of opinion. Most people will engage directly with what the 'emotional', or calculating, person is saying, e.g. to 'prove' him or her wrong, and thereby be imperceptibly pulled towards them.

If someone's employed by a national media organisation, you can't ignore them, unfortunately. What you need to do is shift the debate away from their chosen ground by reference to higher standards, not meet the challenge directly, which can be difficult to do. Another one just like them will be along shortly, anyway, rinse, repeat.

I don't disagree with the complaining about what she is saying, refuting it, caller her out, whatever. It's more the petition for her to be fired in an attempt to silence her.

The Sun has a readership of a couple of million, if those sales figures start to go down because of KH she'll soon get binned. If not, maybe people want to read those opinions and I can't see a justification to remove her because a minority disagree.

Bit harsh on me. :( Notice how those most likely to be offended are also people who don't read the rag she's written for?

Anyway, surely those people that are reading it, will stop doing so if they don't like it?
Isn't that a more effective way of making her go away, without drawing attention to her?

I agree. If the 200k people who'd taken the easy option of signing an online petition had taken the extra step of reporting her to whatever the Press Complaints Commission is called now she'd be out of a job.

I sometimes think we over estimate the power of social media.

I sometimes think we over estimate the power of social media.

Click-button activism cat get to fuck in all it's forms.

It's lazy and worthless.

"Like" if you agree.

Would 200,000 people have turned up for a march against Katie Hopkins? No, but not because of laziness, because we don't really care that much. The internet isn't lazy, it's convenient.

I might agree with the worthless bit tho.

The Sun's circulation is below 2 million and falling all the time. And that's easily the most popular newspaper. That means out of 63 million people in the UK 61 million don't read it. Hopkins has nothing to say and she's saying to to nobody.

All newspapers are irrelevant and worthless. I don't know why people get so bothered about what is printed in them. It's all yesterday's news and tomorrow's chip paper. (or it would be if that was still allowed).

I've always thought that the best way to discredit an idiot with a stupid argument is to let them express it and open themselves up to ridicule. Look how it worked with the BNP. It'll work that way with Katie Hopkins. Looks like it already is.

600km/h train in japan

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/21/japans-maglev-train-notches-up-new-world-speed-record-in-test-run

how does that work then ?

well funnily enough ........

loads of stink in the last few months about suppression of reports on senior figures from the jimmy saville era and the associated wrong doing
politicians coming out saying it's no good enough and they are SHOCKED, i tell ya SHOCKED

queue the release of the gulf war report due out a year or so ago
delayed for bad winter ... delayed for the election

now they are saying the report that is due to brand tony bliar a war criminal is being ... yup you guessed it delayed till 2016

wonder if they'll loose the report like they did for the cyril smith one/ the jimmy saville one / the operation elvedon one / or the yewtree ones

fucking politicians

fucking politicians

That's been covered by the cyril smith part, hadn't it?

nice subtle, yet still bling, ring for sale today at sotheby's

Model just has very small hands.

you would have thought they'd have a manicure first

She's a biter.

serial liar grant shaps definately not lying this time

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/21/grant-shapps-accused-of-editing-wikipedia-pages-of-tory-rivals

Exactly. But a lot of the rest of the media perpetuates the myth that the Sun matters by reporting on what it says and inviting its journalists onto broadcast media. The media loves nothing more than feeding from itself and the Westminster bubble.

There are still media outlets which command genuinely large audiences (for example the Reuters news agency reaches over a billion people a day) but they don't use print, mostly never have and would never run an article by Katie Hopkins.

Emily Maitliss interviewed Shapps last night and all he did was chuckle and say "I wasn't even there". maitlis was a bit flummoxed and said "Well, you could have got an employee to do it!" Why didn't she ask why Shapps was offering an alibi when he couldn't possibly know which computer was used?

#murdershewrote

'i wasn't there'. because the internet only works FROM ONE COMPUTER IN THE WORLD!

Grant Shapps may not have been there... maybe it was this guy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11550989/Uber-faces-lawsuit-after-refusing-to-take-guide-dogs.html

They cited two instances in which Uber drivers allegedly yelled "no dogs" at riders, and another where an Uber driver allegedly refused a blind woman's plea to pull over once she realised he had locked her guide dog in the boot of his car.

WTF?

it's moulting season as the weather warms up, and dog hairs are a bugger to shift