KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Britain's favourite hate figure and Sun columnist, Katie Hopkins, is once again under fire for comments made on Twitter. This time around though she's garnered police attention after over 7,000 people signed a petition demanding that the authorities take action for her “racist” and “offensive” tweets.
Hopkins is a semi-regular guest on morning shows looking to rile up their audiences
The tweet that riled up the internet so references Pauline Cafferkey, a nurse who volunteered with Save the Children to help combat Ebola. However, on the way back from Sierra Leone she was diagnosed with the condition and is now being treated at the Royal Free Hospital in London.
Little sweaty jocks, sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians just isn't cricket. Scottish NHS sucks. http://t.co/EZpO0UTYHx
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) December 30, 2014
Clearly sensing that she'd found a good topic to troll her regular detractors, Hopkins later followed it up with a second comment:
Glaswegian ebola patient moved to London's Royal Free Hospital. Not so independent when it matters most are we jocksville?
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) December 30, 2014
While a lot of her twitter responses have been incredibly negative, some people took it even further, with over 7,000 so far signing a petition that demands she be arrested. This seems to forget the fact that arrests are made on the basis of a law being broken, rather than by the wishes of individuals, but the police did respond that it was looking into the matter.
According to the BBC, Police Scotland, “will thoroughly investigate any reports of offensive or criminal behaviour online and anyone found to be responsible will be robustly dealt with.”
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Unfortunately guys, this is one of those instances where you have to defend someone hateful. She may be distasteful, but she has much right to make jokes and ‘offensive' statement as anyone else. Don't let your dislike for her let you commend censorship.
Well I like her then, especially if she pisses off those useless cunts that call the UK home. My New Years wish? We launch a couple trident nucualer warheads into that shithole.
Oh and Scotland too those lazy twats.
I dont know where you live, but she probably hates you too, also she will hate you if you don’t have a posh name.
Saying ugly things isn’t a crime, fortunately, but this level of hatred and vitriol is certainly unpleasant and detrimental to a civil society. This is the same woman who called for a return to the bombing campaign of the Middle East in response to strife in the Gaza region, and who admitted to judging children based on being named after geographical locations, despite her own child being called India. Which “isn’t a location”, apparently.
We all think stuff like this but we don’t say it. Maybe we should take a leaf out of her book and actually say what we need to. That’s how we get reform.
Like it or not half of what she says is contradictory BS, the other is completely correct.
Please don’t tar the rest of us with that particularly nasty brush.
The Malicious Communications Act (1988), and Communications Act (2003) have been applied to the internet for a long time now. It is certainly an arrestable and chargeable offence to post “electronic communication which is indecent or grossly offensive”. It’s completely outrageous, but it’s the way the law is being applied.
She is a hateful woman, and if you find yourself agreeing with her, that’s a good indication you should take a closer look at those points of agreement. Nonetheless, it’s ludicrous to arrest someone for posting offensive stuff on the net, even if it is against the law (which is itself completely stupid).
Well, while I’m glad that it might put a stop to her diatribe, I’m not really sure how I feel about that as a whole. I do believe in free speech under the law, although I’d hasten to add that I don’t believe that this freedom of speech extends to protection from social consequences.
She also loves purple crayons, so you’re a dead man.
I can’t see anything race related in either of the posts. She’s an absolute muppet though
Social consequences are different, and entirely appropriate in this circumstance. Legal ones are neither appropriate or necessary, and are extremely damaging.
No, not “all” people think that way Matthew. Perhaps you should rethink your xenophobic outlook on life. If you need to “say what you need to” try a mirror, it has the pleasant side effect of not spreading aggravation to people who probably don’t deserve it (like the Scots in Hopkins rant)
Hopkins has admitted that she’s a sociopath. She’s not a pleasant human being by any stretch of the imagination and is one of the last people you should be trying to emulate.
No, not “all” people think that way Matthew. Perhaps you should rethink your xenophobic outlook on life. If you need to “say what you need to” try a mirror, it has the pleasant side effect of not spreading aggravation to people who probably don’t deserve it (like the Scots in Hopkins rant)
Hopkins has admitted that she’s a sociopath. She’s not a pleasant human being by any stretch of the imagination and is one of the last people you should be trying to emulate.
I agree. I don’t think words should ever be legally prosecuted under classifications such as “indecent or grossly offensive”, because those are dangerously vague.
My only exception to monitoring speech is where the intent to incite violence is obvious, e.g. “let’s start a riot at [x]” or “I’m going to punch you”.
Ironically, the laws against inciting violence are effectively unenforced and unenforceable because there are explicit exclusions for religiously motivated incitements (e.g. ‘all gays deserve stoning’), which means it’s impossible to prosecute or even arrest someone. It’s quite odd that’s practically legal while a distasteful facebook status is illegal.
I’m wholly for the freedom of religious expression, but that should never come at the expense of the protection of others from harm based on that expression.
Like the great philosopher J.S. Mill says, your right to throw your fist ends at somebody’s face.
Quite. Unfortunately, it seems that it’s usually the groups that most enjoy metaphorically punching people that are best able not only to protect themselves from legal repercussions for doing so but also make criticism of them illegal.