1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Katie Hopkins axed by LBC.

Discussion in 'Personal' started by delmamerchant, May 30, 2017.

  1. delmamerchant

    delmamerchant Established commenter

    Does anyone care? I do sort off.

    I had only heard her on LBC and thought that although she was controversial, she was saying what some were thinking.

    As an average person, I took her tweet, tweeted in response to the Manchester bombings... not repeating it in case I get axed from the Tes community:) - but you can Google her and find out _was simply saying that we have had enough now. Having read more about the axing, her tweet has been related to something that Hitler said. Again, excuse my lack of knowledge re Hitler quotes.

    Is this British liberalism going too far or do many find her as objectionable as her colleagues allegedly did..or were they jealous of her ratings?

    Apparently some celebrities refused to guest on LBC if she continued presenting.

    I googled her and she is an interesting woman to say the least.
     
  2. lizziescat

    lizziescat Star commenter

    Are you for real?
    It was related to rather more than something he said. It relates to a policy and the implementation of that policy
    I'm not sure if I'm more shocked by the crassness of your post or your ignorance of recent history.
    Perhaps you should research Hitler's Final Solution before posting further here.

    The use of such an analogy was rather more than saying "that we have had enough now".
     
  3. T34

    T34 Established commenter

    In our age the adjective "final" applied to the noun "solution" has become synonymous with "mass murder".

    Hopkins is not stupid enough to advocate mass murder, but nor is she so naive as to be unaware that her choice of words would cause an uproar.
    She may have been trying to reclaim the term - note she used "a" instead of "the".
     
    catmother likes this.
  4. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Lead commenter

    Really?

    What are her credentials when it comes to Salafi-Jihadism and effective counterterrorist strategy?

    Is she an authority on either of these things, like Peter Neumann, Shiraz Maher (who published an excellent article on Manchester in the New Statesman at the end of last week that is unfortunately not viewable online), William McCants, Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, and Olivier Roy? Or is she just about to go into print with a significant contribution to the field, like Thomas Hegghammer?

    I suspect not, as from what I have heard her views are pretty much diametrically opposed to the recommendations that these authors have been making on the basis of their dispassionate, peer-reviewed research.

    But then maybe her broadcasts and articles have exhibited some familiarity with recent ethnographic studies on Salafism in the UK, like Innes Bowen or Anabel Inge. If not, perhaps she has read something by M Steven Fish, who in his ambitious and acclaimed attitudinal study Are Muslims Distinctive? A Look at the Evidence made some interesting discoveries about Muslims worldwide, especially in relation to their views on violence and democracy.

    Of course, to make authoritative pronouncements that are worth taking seriously, she would also need to be familiar with reputable academic publications on Islam as a faith, Islamic history, and Islamic teachings on issues like violence, especially the exegesis of provocative verses in the Qur'an and other sources that call into question the claim that Islam truly is a 'religion of peace'.

    Some familiarity with Islamic mysticism may therefore be needed to fully understand that latter phrase. So can anyone tell me whether she has read aloud any Sufi poetry or quoted from mystical texts in her shows? It might just be possible, I suppose, that she has been pointing out that when we pursue a path of self-aggrandisement and egotism, this makes true spiritual insight impossible.

    As an aside, anyone interested in this aspect of Islam might do well to start with the publications of the Sufi Shakespearean scholar Martin Lings, who also wrote what many consider to be the best biography of Muhammad based on the earliest sources. Quite a few of his works are available to view online. And for anyone who does want to look into the correct exposition of the contentious 'sword verses', Asma Afsaruddin is good for that. Tariq Ramadan also does a reasonable job of covering this issue in his new Pelican paperback Islam: the Essentials.

    Lastly, no doubt Hopkins currently feels aggrieved that her right to free speech has been curtailed. Again, I can detect little reflection on this topic on her part, and so I strongly suspect that she may not have taken in Nigel Warburton's excellent little primer on where the lines might be drawn in the public sphere when it comes to what is and is not morally acceptable for publication and broadcast (John Stuart Mill's famous 'Harm Principle' is a good starting point for those wishing to investigate this issue further).

    In short, mirroring 'what people are thinking' is one thing. But 'people' (and Hopkins) also have a duty to inform themselves adequately about what they are thinking about first.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    TCSC47, Laphroig and Mangleworzle like this.
  5. secretsiren

    secretsiren Star commenter

    If by 'interesting' you mean 'offensive, crass and hiding behind the argument that she's "teling it like it is"' then yes, she's 'interesting'.

    This is a woman who has repeatedly used Nazi terminology to refer to groups of people, notably refugees and Muslims. She has referred to refugees as 'cockroaches'. She called for a 'final solution' after the Manchester bombing. She called for gunboats to be sent into the Mediterranean to shoot down boats carrying other human beings. Not just once but repeatedly. Once might be a mis-type as maybe she is really that stupid not to know what 'final solution' means since the 1930s. Repeated use of Nazi terminology is deliberate, provocative, insensitive and sickening.

    She clearly disagrees with refugees fleeing from war. Fine, that's her point of view (albeit one which I personally find horrifying in its total lack of compassion). She doesn't like Muslims. Fine, that's her point of view (albeit a stupid one). But the use of these words and phrases? She shouldn't be allowed to get away with that.
     
  6. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Interesting only in the sense that such a nasty publicity seeking narcissist would be tolerated in a civilised society for as long as she was.

    She serves no useful purpose other than to stir up hatred - good riddance.
     
  7. Flere-Imsaho

    Flere-Imsaho Star commenter

    Is my right to free speech curtailed because I don't get paid to share them on national radio? I hadn't realised how persecuted I am!
     
  8. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    she has the right to spout her vileness, but not the right to have someone listen to it.
    you seriously don't know who that woman is and what a nasty piece of work she is? i read that she's cost the DM hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs, and she's had to pay out significant sums from her own pocket.
     
    TCSC47, peggylu, Dragonlady30 and 2 others like this.
  9. bombaysapphire

    bombaysapphire Star commenter

    I am more shocked by a radio station giving her a platform in the first place.
     
    TCSC47, yodaami2, peggylu and 5 others like this.
  10. foxtail3

    foxtail3 Star commenter

    This.

    Her fifteen minutes of fame, following The Apprentice, lasted far too long.
     
  11. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    this is pretty old news by now, anyway. she was sacked days ago.
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  12. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    I blame the Americans. Well, it's so easy to do!

    Look at the history of shock jocks in the US.

    Many shock jocks have been fired as a result of such punishments as regulatory fines, loss of advertisers, or simply social and political outrage. On the other hand, it is also not uncommon for such broadcasters to be quickly rehired by another station or network.

    Thanks, wiki!

    Who likes to listen to this stuff? I suppose there are two distinct markets for the likes of Hopkins.
    1 People who aren't at all shocked by her because she's just spouting the sort of things they really think but daren't say because it's sexist/racist/homophobic etc etc.
    2 People who actively enjoy firing off tweets to show their disgust at her polemic.

    I don't belong to either group. I just don't get it. At least some of the more controversial figures actually appear to believe what they're saying. Hopkins, as far as I can tell, is just a paid agent provocateur.
     
    foxtail3 likes this.
  13. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I'm fine with this... she doesn't bring anything to the discussion... as NMT says... other people are far better informed. [not hard with Hopkins]

    Everyone is entitled to their views but if her presence is damaging LBC's business then they are entitled to show her the door.
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  14. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    She'll soon get a new gig. Some obscure station will hire her for the sake of publicity.
     
  15. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    I read with interest that she is epileptic, and has had brain surgery.

    In my experience, a relative who had brain surgery lost some of their social skills and judgments.

    Could be totally unrelated in her case, or not, I really don't know, but possible that she was puppeted to some extent by people who knew she. for what ever reason, did not have quite the normal breaks in her mind???

    Either way, there is absolutely no excuse for what she said, most people would have got what she was referring to and would have been absolutely sickened.

    Absolutely she needed to be sacked immediately.
     
  16. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    she was equally nasty before the surgery.
     
  17. dunnocks

    dunnocks Star commenter

    ah well, I wouldn't know, don't know enough about her. Absolutely unforgivable then
     
    emilystrange likes this.
  18. brooksy123

    brooksy123 New commenter

    I wonder what made LBC finally decide enough was enough?

    They were happy to employ her on the back of equally offensive/arguably even more offensive episodes, including referring to Paelstinians as 'rodents', refugees fleeing war zones as 'cockroaches', retweeting praise from a Neo-Nazi by the name of 'Anti-Juden', and a controversial tweet asking black people if their lives matter, why do they stab and shoot each other so much.

    This is the same radio station who sacked Ken Livingstone for a factual, albeit very clumsy, statement about Hitler.

    I think it's all about profits and how much they can get away with before sponsors start to consider withdrawing, rather than any sense of moral decency.

    It also begs the question, just now Nazi does she have to become before the Daily Mail consider dispensing with her services?
     
    TCSC47, grumpydogwoman and vannie like this.
  19. foxtail3

    foxtail3 Star commenter

    I think she has a husband and children. I wonder how they deal with the fallout from her rants. Imagine seeing her at the school gate. They must feel pretty much as I did when Michael Gove turned up outside our local primary school.
     
  20. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    How you didn't feel the urge to get behind the wheel and run him down I really don't know.
     
    grumpydogwoman likes this.

Share This Page