Travel0 min ago
Katie Tells Tony Blair About It.
Love her (I do) or hate her, isn't she rapidly becoming a national treasure?
http://
http://
Answers
Google Katie Hopkins, take you the rest of your life to read it all, very impressive woman.
15:08 Mon 20th Feb 2017
I wouldn't say national treasure as such but TBH I have always liked her no nonsense, shoot from the hip style.
She says what a lot of people think but have been to cowed to say it out loud.
Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious is the right thing to do. If everyone just tutted and shook their head without actually addressing issues that is when wrongs become mainstream. If no one called him out on his hypocrisy and contempt for us plebs he would saunter back in and bolax everything up again.
She says what a lot of people think but have been to cowed to say it out loud.
Sometimes stating the bleeding obvious is the right thing to do. If everyone just tutted and shook their head without actually addressing issues that is when wrongs become mainstream. If no one called him out on his hypocrisy and contempt for us plebs he would saunter back in and bolax everything up again.
cassa - //She says what a lot of people think but have been to cowed to say it out loud. //
I think the notion that Ms Hopkins, and columnists like Richard Littlejohn 'tell it like it is', or Jan Moir again in the Mail, who's strap line is 'Are You Thinking What She's Thinking ...' are 'saying things everyone thinks, but daren't say - is nonsense.
We live in a society where free speech is prized, and if people wish to discuss issues about race, immigration, politics, and so on, they do so, and I am unaware of anyone who feels 'cowed' into not saying what they think.
More accurately, what these high profile commentators do is pick on a really easy contentious subject - Tony Blair is a prime example - say what you could hear in any office or pub in the country, and then act as though they are spokespeople for some great unrepresented underclass too scared to speak out, and pitifully grateful that Katie and Richard and Jan are there to speak for them, or else they would have no voice.
It's utterly fatuous, to assume that I, or anyone in the country 'needs' these people to speak for me because I can't speak for myself.
Clearly I can - and so can everyone else.
To put it in perspective - everyone can say exactly as they please, within the law, and no-one 'needs' these mouthpieces to sound off on a daily basis about controversial subjects that are easy to pick and blow up to some sort of talking shop.
The day I am 'thinking what Jan Moir is thinking ...' or read Richard Littlejohn, or listen to Katie Hopkins, will be a day when I have given up my hard-won and much appreciated ability to think and speak for myself.
I think the notion that Ms Hopkins, and columnists like Richard Littlejohn 'tell it like it is', or Jan Moir again in the Mail, who's strap line is 'Are You Thinking What She's Thinking ...' are 'saying things everyone thinks, but daren't say - is nonsense.
We live in a society where free speech is prized, and if people wish to discuss issues about race, immigration, politics, and so on, they do so, and I am unaware of anyone who feels 'cowed' into not saying what they think.
More accurately, what these high profile commentators do is pick on a really easy contentious subject - Tony Blair is a prime example - say what you could hear in any office or pub in the country, and then act as though they are spokespeople for some great unrepresented underclass too scared to speak out, and pitifully grateful that Katie and Richard and Jan are there to speak for them, or else they would have no voice.
It's utterly fatuous, to assume that I, or anyone in the country 'needs' these people to speak for me because I can't speak for myself.
Clearly I can - and so can everyone else.
To put it in perspective - everyone can say exactly as they please, within the law, and no-one 'needs' these mouthpieces to sound off on a daily basis about controversial subjects that are easy to pick and blow up to some sort of talking shop.
The day I am 'thinking what Jan Moir is thinking ...' or read Richard Littlejohn, or listen to Katie Hopkins, will be a day when I have given up my hard-won and much appreciated ability to think and speak for myself.
It's not nonsense to say she is saying what a lot of people are thinking and too cowed to say because they are. We live in a society where free speech is prized as long as it fits with the liberals and elites agenda. We live in a society where free speech is prized if it fits in with the mainstream. Say it at your peril of being shouted down and castigated and called names, racist, bigot, uneducated, uninformed.
We live in a society which allows an ex politician to tell the plebs they don't understand. We live in a society that allows him to be brought to task over that.
The likes of Blair think the rest of us plebs have little or no capacity to understand. But you know what. I didn't go to university or further than an extra year at school. I didn't pass truck loads of CSEs and GCSEs (as was the term then) with top grades I just did OK. I left school and went to work in a department store cafe and stayed in the H&C industry my whole life (till the kids came along) oh and anyone who has seen enough of my posts will know I can't spell for toffee (I thank spell checker daily) but I understand perfectly what Bretix means and that those that put themselves up for making a go of it have to work very hard and not sell the country down the river.
But I digress. The fact is that there are people up and down the country that agree with the likes of Katie Hopkins and the others you mention that don't feel they can say these things out loud and it is only when they see or hear such can the comment.
The voice down the pub doesn't get to make comment in the wider arena and I go back to if the likes of Blair are not called out on these things he and his ilk will walk back to bolax things up again. So yes it is easy to 'jump' on an easy target. Why not? When they deserve to be jumped on then that is what will happen.
We live in a society which allows an ex politician to tell the plebs they don't understand. We live in a society that allows him to be brought to task over that.
The likes of Blair think the rest of us plebs have little or no capacity to understand. But you know what. I didn't go to university or further than an extra year at school. I didn't pass truck loads of CSEs and GCSEs (as was the term then) with top grades I just did OK. I left school and went to work in a department store cafe and stayed in the H&C industry my whole life (till the kids came along) oh and anyone who has seen enough of my posts will know I can't spell for toffee (I thank spell checker daily) but I understand perfectly what Bretix means and that those that put themselves up for making a go of it have to work very hard and not sell the country down the river.
But I digress. The fact is that there are people up and down the country that agree with the likes of Katie Hopkins and the others you mention that don't feel they can say these things out loud and it is only when they see or hear such can the comment.
The voice down the pub doesn't get to make comment in the wider arena and I go back to if the likes of Blair are not called out on these things he and his ilk will walk back to bolax things up again. So yes it is easy to 'jump' on an easy target. Why not? When they deserve to be jumped on then that is what will happen.
cassa - //It's not nonsense to say she is saying what a lot of people are thinking and too cowed to say because they are. We live in a society where free speech is prized as long as it fits with the liberals and elites agenda. We live in a society where free speech is prized if it fits in with the mainstream. Say it at your peril of being shouted down and castigated and called names, racist, bigot, uneducated, uninformed. //
I think we may differ on our meaning of free speech.
To you it appears that 'free speech' means only saying what you think if it aggress with the majority, or you will be shouted down or insulted.
That is actually free speech in action right there! You can say what you think, other people can disagree with you, both of you can say what you think out loud in public. That is free speech.
Absence of free speech means you way what you think in public, and you disappear in the night. The media where you live is government controlled, and people who speak out are imprisoned or murdered. That is what the absence of free speech means.
So the fact that Katie Hopkins can spout nonsense over the airwaves is a downside of free speech, but I am delighted to accept it, because it gives me the right to do the same if I so wish.
If someone doesn't speak for fear of ridicule, that is because they have a problem with personal confidence, and the ability and willingness to defend their view - not because they do not have free speech. They do.
We all do.
I think we may differ on our meaning of free speech.
To you it appears that 'free speech' means only saying what you think if it aggress with the majority, or you will be shouted down or insulted.
That is actually free speech in action right there! You can say what you think, other people can disagree with you, both of you can say what you think out loud in public. That is free speech.
Absence of free speech means you way what you think in public, and you disappear in the night. The media where you live is government controlled, and people who speak out are imprisoned or murdered. That is what the absence of free speech means.
So the fact that Katie Hopkins can spout nonsense over the airwaves is a downside of free speech, but I am delighted to accept it, because it gives me the right to do the same if I so wish.
If someone doesn't speak for fear of ridicule, that is because they have a problem with personal confidence, and the ability and willingness to defend their view - not because they do not have free speech. They do.
We all do.
cassa; I think you made the mistake of saying you agree with someone or something. It has become the norm on AnswerBank for any positive assertion on any topic whatsoever to receive opposition to your sincerely held beliefs, informing you how wrong you are, and how you do not understand by the sage of Stoke-on-Trent.
Not unlike Tony Blair actually.
Not unlike Tony Blair actually.
Khandro - //cassa; I think you made the mistake of saying you agree with someone or something. It has become the norm on AnswerBank for any positive assertion on any topic whatsoever to receive opposition to your sincerely held beliefs, informing you how wrong you are, and how you do not understand by the sage of Stoke-on-Trent.
Not unlike Tony Blair actually. //
May I suggest you read what I have actually written, and the tone in which I have written it, before trying to shoehorn your unrequired off-thread personal animosity onto a discussion.
I started my post by saying, quote "I think we may differ on our meaning of free speech."
That is me saying what I believe to be true, pointing out a potential difference in our understanding of something.
You then twist that into something else entirely - // ... opposition to your sincerely held beliefs, informing you how wrong you are, and how you do not understand.//
None of those elements are present in my post, only in yours.
If you want to disagfree with my view, I am delighted to debate with you.
If you want to distort what I post and try and pick a fight to vent your personal animosity and sarcasm against me for your own peculiar ends, please find an audience somewhere else.
Not unlike Tony Blair actually. //
May I suggest you read what I have actually written, and the tone in which I have written it, before trying to shoehorn your unrequired off-thread personal animosity onto a discussion.
I started my post by saying, quote "I think we may differ on our meaning of free speech."
That is me saying what I believe to be true, pointing out a potential difference in our understanding of something.
You then twist that into something else entirely - // ... opposition to your sincerely held beliefs, informing you how wrong you are, and how you do not understand.//
None of those elements are present in my post, only in yours.
If you want to disagfree with my view, I am delighted to debate with you.
If you want to distort what I post and try and pick a fight to vent your personal animosity and sarcasm against me for your own peculiar ends, please find an audience somewhere else.
YMB - //Could not have put it better Khandro. //
Unless you can find another way to comment on something that wasn't said in order to have a snide dig, maybe you couldn't.
// Not that keen on the woman but she does strike a chord with many and right annoys the liberal elite (as we see on here), so can't be that bad. //
You do seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about the 'liberal elite' and in case you are including me among them, I should point out that Ms. Hopkins doesn't especially annoy me, I think she is an irrelevance - and there are plenty of those about.
Unless you can find another way to comment on something that wasn't said in order to have a snide dig, maybe you couldn't.
// Not that keen on the woman but she does strike a chord with many and right annoys the liberal elite (as we see on here), so can't be that bad. //
You do seem to have something of a bee in your bonnet about the 'liberal elite' and in case you are including me among them, I should point out that Ms. Hopkins doesn't especially annoy me, I think she is an irrelevance - and there are plenty of those about.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.