Katie Hopkins is vile but she should not be banned

Silicon Valley must not be the judge, jury and executioner of public discussion.

Brendan O'Neill

Brendan O'Neill
Editor

Share

Katie Hopkins is a racist. Anyone who hadn’t already gleaned that from her dalliances with the vile race-baiters of Generation Identity types or her use of the word ‘cockroaches’ in a column about immigrants will surely see it now following the speech she made at a phoney awards ceremony in Prague. Internet pranksters invited Hopkins to accept the Campaign to Unite the Nation Trophy (CUNT), during which Hopkins made a speech filled with racist epithets. She mocked Pakistani speech patterns. She compared Asians to epileptics. She described Muslims as retards who rape their mothers. She said that if you shout ‘Mohammed’ in a British playground, thousands of ‘fucking’ kids will come running, and ‘you don’t want any of them’. Vile, hateful stuff.

And yet Hopkins should not be banned. She should not be thrown off social media. Censorship is not the right solution to any problem, including prejudicial or hateful commentary. Last week, Hopkins, to the delight of the illiberal liberals who make up the commentariat and cultural elite in the UK, had her Twitter account suspended. Reportedly at the behest of Countdown host and campaigner against anti-Semitism Rachel Riley, and the chief exec of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, Twitter erased all of Hopkins’ tweets and prevented her from accessing her account. People are celebrating this as a victory of decency over hatred; in truth, it is a victory of corporate power over freedom of speech.

There are numerous problems with the apparent banning of Katie Hopkins. The first is the issue of conflation, the way in which so many ideas and arguments are these days lumped together under the title of ‘hate speech’ worthy only of censorship. So, Hopkins was not suspended for comparing Asians to epileptics or for mocking Muslim schoolchildren – as she outrageously did in her Prague speech – but rather, according to reports, for calling Stormzy an ‘utter cockwomble’ and slamming him for playing the ‘race card’. In the one tweet that still lives on Hopkins’ Twitterfeed – which is why people suspect it is the main one she was banned for – she can be seen telling Stormzy that white men have a harder time in modern Britain than black men like him.

Now, people can agree or disagree with this. They can call it stupid, wrongheaded, offensive. But to label it hate speech is to demonise the expression of opinion – in this case an opinion about Stormzy and about the standing of white men in contemporary British society. One of the greatest problems in the woke era is the branding of all kinds of opinion – on immigration, on race, on Brexit, on Meghan Markle – as racist, whether witting or unwitting. As a result, even people who have never expressed any aspect of the ideology of racial hatred, but who simply find Meghan annoying or think we should tighten up the immigration system, find themselves being called hate-speakers, racists, even fascists. To be concerned about the possibility that Hopkins is being punished for that particular tweet is not semantics, nor is it to say Hopkins was right in what she said. It is merely to draw attention to the fact that Silicon Valley is increasingly being asked to police opinion and belief itself.

So let’s look beyond Katie Hopkins to someone who couldn’t be less like Katie Hopkins – Meghan Murphy. Murphy, a smart and principled Canadian feminist, was also banned from Twitter, even more forcefully than Hopkins, in fact, also on the grounds that she expressed hate speech. What did she say? She referred to Jessica Yaniv, the Canadian man who identifies as a woman, as ‘him’. She also drew attention, before most other people did, to Yaniv’s disgusting attempts to pressure female waxers to wax his testicles. Feminism is hate speech? Criticising Yaniv is hate speech? Mocking Stormzy is hate speech? Accusing black celebrities of playing the ‘race card’ is hate speech? It is clear, or it ought to be, that ‘hate speech’ has become an all-encompassing category that punishes not only forms of expression we can all agree are genuinely racist or hateful, but also moral convictions that are simply unfashionable or controversial.

So, it is possible that while Hopkins is a racist, she was banned for opinion rather than racism. People who believe in free speech should be able to recognise that this is wrong, even if they loathe Hopkins. In recent years, Twitter and other social-media platforms have become central to public life. They are the new public square – albeit massive, global public squares. They are the spheres in which politicians speak, people debate, ordinary folk express themselves publicly. That tiny numbers of moral arbiters in Silicon Valley have the power to expel and exclude people from these public squares should terrify all who believe in freedom of speech. You don’t like Hopkins – fine. But if she can be exiled from the new public sphere on the basis that she said something controversial, who might be next? More controversial critics of the excesses of multiculturalism? More ‘controversial’ feminists like Murphy? Controversial comedians, Marxists, artists?

That’s the thing: once you empower Twitter and other capitalist-founded platforms to decree who may speak and who may not, you are green-lighting a sweeping, global system of censorship. Both right-wing libertarians and left-wing radicals, ironically, say the same thing in response to this concern. They say, ‘Well, Twitter and the rest are private companies, so surely they have the right to say who can and cannot use their services’. It is predictable that the myopic libertarian right would so cavalierly elevate powerful corporations’ property rights over the free-speech rights of individuals – but to hear leftists do that is alarming. Clearly, their woke intolerance, their urge to censor everyone they disagree with, has now gone so far that they will happily empower unaccountable capitalists over ordinary people and give a nod of approval to the corporate control of public discussion.

And then there is the more difficult part of this discussion. Even if Hopkins had said genuinely racist things on Twitter – as she did in her Prague speech and has also done elsewhere – still she should not be censored. One of the many great things about freedom of speech is that it allows us to see what people really think. And that is empowering. It means that the rest of us – the potential audience to an individual’s speech – can use our intelligence and our principle to counter that speech, to criticise it, to ridicule it, to prove it wrong. Freedom of speech doesn’t only empower the speaker. It also empowers the audience. It allows us to exercise our moral judgement. Censorship, in contrast – whether it’s state censorship or corporate censorship – is fundamentally infantilising. It insults us and demeans us by blocking words and images on our behalf, as if we were children. It weakens our moral muscles and intellectual savvy by discouraging us from ever thinking for ourselves. Well, why should we, when wise people in government or Silicon Valley will think for us?

Katie Hopkins should be reinstated on Twitter. Not because she has anything of value to say, but for these three reasons. 1) Everyone, even objectionable people, must have the right to express themselves. That is the entire nature of freedom of speech. If we limit free speech, for any reason whatsoever, then it isn’t free speech at all. It is licensed speech, something gifted to us by officialdom or capitalism so long as we say things they find acceptable. 2) We, the audience, must have the right to hear all ideas and to decide for ourselves if they are good or bad. Anything else is just pure, foul paternalism that turns us from thinking citizens into overgrown children who must be protected from difficult ideas. 3) Corporate censorship is as bad as state censorship. Calling on powerful people or rich people to police the parameters of acceptable thought, and to expel anyone who says something bad, is a catastrophically erroneous thing to do. Trust people, not power; prefer freedom over control.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Rick O’Shay

10th February 2020 at 11:54 am

Muslims ARE retards, Katie is absolutely right. Anyone sufficiently brainwashed to believe the claptrap they appear to is an idiot and definitely retarded.What happened to “free speech”? Criticism of a daft superstition like islam is now “racist”? I don’t think so!!

Chris Goodwin

8th February 2020 at 9:04 am

Here we go again (in the last few paragraphs – for thse who got that far !) it’s all the fault f “capitalists/capitalism”
How long must we endure this mindless Marxism ? Ther ain’t no sich a thing as Capitalism – nor are there any “capitalists” pulling the strings: though there are a lot of lefties policing the media.

Aunty Podes

8th February 2020 at 4:10 am

I for one totally disagree. I believe that Katie Hopkins to be a courageous defender of the of everybodyrights – EVEN, unfashionablt though it may be, those of white people!

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 11:28 pm

I now find many of my comments are being ‘moderated’. How very interesting.

Verdi Lowe

7th February 2020 at 11:16 pm

BOD..You are really Blunt..& ineffective !
You cant even cope with Britain’s Imported Pelosi screecher on Sky Newspapers..
The odious Jasmine Alibi Brown who uses basic Saul Alinsky disruptive Marxist techniques & controls you like a puppet not very Spiked just submissive Brendan O’Neil..
I’m 110% supportive of a brave bright lass who really hits the bullseye !
Why do the BBC Sky & ITV & The Guardian & Lamestream media hate Katie Hopkins, yet dole out odd fees to you..
They’re ‘tolerating ‘ BOD.to tick Quota boxes.
I’m out.
You’re dull & blind not to hire or defend the veracity, brevity & clarity versus your repetitive verbiage.
Bye Spiked & i regret the few bob I’ve chipped in as a 76 year old Cancerous, heart diseased Yorkshire man.

Kieran Gangaram

7th February 2020 at 11:07 pm

Yeah but did anyone see the prank that was played on her when she accepted the Campaign to Unify the Nation Trophy?! It was hilarious. She is also a vile woman

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 11:33 pm

And you are more than free to write what you have written. Therefore, allow others similar latitude before leaving platitudinal ad hominems. Platitudes are indicative of a shallowness of thought.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 6:21 pm

Interesting:
My comment which criticises Brend@n 0Kneel is being moderated

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 6:22 pm

RIP Sp!ked ?

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 7:23 pm

As have mine been. Rather a strange phenomenon coming from a website which suggests freedom of speech is a line which cannot be drawn in any sand by any hand.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 8:01 pm

Well, it looks to me as though freedom of speech is fine provided that it is Brend@n 0Kneels idea of freedom.
I have always worried about the idea that a hard-left journo promotes himself through ‘freedom of speech’. So now I know. Cancelled the monthly now….

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 5:28 pm

By the way, I find Ms Hopkins comments do have immense value.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 6:20 pm

You and me both.
Brendan O’Neil cannot step aside from his left-wing emotionality long enough to support the whole point of Spiked. He produces something we can already see on GoodMorning Britain instead.
A very great shame.
Brendan, you have been warned

Noel Mac

7th February 2020 at 5:26 pm

As this article is written by a man many on the left consider to be a racist himself I’d say he’s hit the spot with the virtue signalling lefties. I was banned from twitter for referring to Hugh Grant as a “ whoremonger”. Which is precisely what that prat is .

Badger O’Stripey-One

8th February 2020 at 12:10 am

perhaps you should have called him a ‘solicitor’ of whores. A whoremonger is a pimp.

Jonathan Swift

7th February 2020 at 5:20 pm

I want free speech.

I want to know who I can trust and who I should be suspicious of.

I want to know who my enemies are.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 8:06 pm

Your enemies are not always as they appear.
Take Sp!ked for example. You think it’s main goal is free speech ?
Try to reconcile this article with that and at first glance you would think that it holds true.
But look again. What message do you take from the word ‘vile’ for example ?

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 11:25 pm

I have donated money to spiked previously, this will not happen again.

Howard Taylor

7th February 2020 at 3:06 pm

Again the dilemma of content. I find the word vile is extreme. Provocative, in your face ,for sure.She is the only one who has brought the plight of the white farmers in South Africa to the attention of the world. the fact that that the world doe´s not care is another story. having said that I agree with the intention behind the article. Spiked manages to stay roughly on the right side of the censers, for now. the day will come when even you will be black listed and like Hopkins and Lennon (Robinson), you will be canceled.

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 5:15 pm

Agreed. However, spiked play both ends against the middle, the article is censorious and at the same time fence sitting in terms of freedom of speech. Say what you want but be careful who you say it to, terminology, is a paranoics dream. Employing the epithet vile to describe Ms Hopkins comments is a bridge too far. She is outspoken and frank with regard the facts of the matter of muslims over running our schools and many other areas of the British Isles with an ideology that is currently incompatible with the mainstream, her deeply held conviction is how long will it be before muslim ideology takes the upper hand. This is a very real threat and is being addressed only by people who continue to rail against those who attempt to close that narrative down by using terminology like vile. Be very careful spiked because they are coming for you and doing the bet hedging routine is cowardly, dangerous and risible.

Skeptic 1972

7th February 2020 at 2:59 pm

I agree a social media platform should be open to as much discussion as possible, but she surely crossed any reasonable “no hate speech” policy. POLICY, mind you, not LAW. There should be no “hate speech” laws. You have and should have as much freedom of speech as possible legally. But twitter also bans porn, for example, which is legal, and it’s reasonable less speech is allowed on twitter than in the street.

jmNZ

6th February 2020 at 3:54 pm

Katie Hopkins is great and provocative.
Whatever happened to “I may totally disagree with what you say but shall defend to the last your right to say it.”?

Jimbob McGinty

7th February 2020 at 2:06 pm

Think it died off along with ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’, common sense, and personal responsibility.

But twitter is just a massive forum for virtue-signalling, recreational grief and verbal lynch mobbing. out here on planet earth where we get our hands dirty and graft for a living, it means nothing, and its hard to fathom why folk set so much store by it.
IQs seem to have dropped sharply since the turn of the millenium

Skeptic 1972

7th February 2020 at 3:01 pm

But that’s not the point. She HAS the right to say what she did. She isn’t put in jail. She isn’t prosecuted for breaking the law, since she didn’t. But that doesn’t mean twitter must give her an account on social media.

Jimbob McGinty

7th February 2020 at 5:35 pm

nothing there id dispute, soshul meeja is comprised of privately run notice boards and their own moderation policies, which will lengthen and strengthen with the prevailing hor air, er, wind. these days it generally blows shrill, and potentially brings silly laws in its wake

Steve Griffiths

6th February 2020 at 1:28 pm

Not a fan of Katie Hopkins, but ‘vile’?!! .. It won’t earn you any brownie points with the woke brigade, so why bother? Please less of the insincere virtue-signalling. Good article otherwise.

firihol firihol

5th February 2020 at 11:43 am

My last month’s online earning was $21930 just by doing an easy job online. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job about 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Everybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website……….
HERE☛ http://www.hit2day.com

Tom Stevens

10th February 2020 at 11:02 am

I’m surprised this hasn’t been removed. It is, of course, a scam which is doing the rounds at the moment. If by any chance you ARE tempted by something which seems too good to be true, just Google Home Profit System for the reviews.

Neil McCaughan

5th February 2020 at 11:18 am

But Mrs Hopkins isn’t vile.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 8:09 pm

…. well, it depends upon your definition of ‘vile’.
She is certainly brave and outspoken; attributes you would think this site should support.

Little Black Sambo

5th February 2020 at 10:54 am

“Katie Hopkins is vile.” Virtue duly signalled, thank you.
BO’N’s head is in danger of being turned by the approval he has deservedly been getting. He should not take himself so seriously.

Jonathan Yonge

7th February 2020 at 8:11 pm

Too late.
I think we now know the real BO’N.

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 11:44 pm

Yes, the buggerer in the woodpile is now fully exposed as an infiltraitor from momentum get back where you belong BON.

domisit domisit

5th February 2020 at 6:23 am

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>→→→→→www.mywork5.com

David Margison

4th February 2020 at 11:09 pm

“Black Lives Matter” went nowhere in Britain because we know they matter! There was nothing to protest. As Usual Lenny Henry jumped on the bandwagon looking for a virtue signaling cause. We have discrimination laws to protect minorities. That isn’t a typo, wr really do have discrimination laws. Check out the West Midlands (Birmingham) fire brigade recruitment criteria, white males have to achieve a ten percent higher pass mark than women and ethnic minorities to get in. Oh and the physical test difficulty level has had to be lowered to get them to pass. So legal doscrimination is alive and well and as usual it’s against white males. Don’t believe? Check it out on google. It’s happening all over, possitive discrimination is discrimination!

O D R Butt

4th February 2020 at 10:32 pm

While I appreciate Brendan O’Neill supporting free speech, I worry that he deems it necessary to say as a preamble that Hopkins’ views are vile. I do not know whether her views are vile or not (I am out of touch with what she has been saying) but her views are irrelevant to the argument.

I am sure “principled feminist” Meghan Murphy (whom I have never heard of) has some vile views – nearly all feminists do in my opinion. O’Neill does not find it necessary when defending Murphy’s free speech to begin by insulting her.

By finding it necessary to make an ad feminam attack on Hopkins in order to justify his defence of free speech, O’Neill, like everyone else, is genuflecting to received liberal opinion.

David Margison

4th February 2020 at 10:51 pm

Maybe Brendon should just have said – “in his opinion”

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 10:53 pm

” … genuflecting to received liberal opinion.” Exactly!

Sorry, Bendan (because I love what you are doing here) but please stop with the caveats regarding right-wingers. Or better still, let’s have some comment about what you don’t agree with them about. That could get pretty exciting on these boards.

Philip Dawson

5th February 2020 at 3:08 am

Brendan you state it is not a semantic argument, yet you use a number of semantic arguments. I havent seen that particular quote from Katie Hopkins but I have heard her bothon her own youtbe channel and beinginterviwed by others and I find her arguments to the point, worried her beloved UK is being changed by mass immigration ofother cultures with apparent suppression of indigenous British, even though the swears a lot and uses crude comparisons. A pity,if she was more respectful in her language her arguments may be listened to more. The same argument is being had in a number of European countries, some of whom (Hungary, Poland) have acted to limit immigration. These arguments deserve an airing and a discussion.
As to semantics, You quite rightly point out lots of things are being called ‘hate speech” when they probably arent. the same problem of sematics is present in the terms “left” “right” and “racism”, which seem to be used with gay abandon to describe all sorts of opposite things. I have heard anti islamic comments being described as “racist”! Since when is Islam a race? What Islam is should be up to Islam to state, it states it is not just a religion but a system of government,or as Angela Merkel so succinctly put it, a Totalitarian world view. As for dscribing people and views a leftist disagrees with as both :extreme right” and “Nazi” in the one breath, it leaves me speechless. Why is the modern woke establishment so ignorant of NAZI history? Perhaps its deliberate. Don’t they know NAZI stands for “National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party”! The main difference between the Nazis and Stalin’s USSR was the National bit, Stalin’s brand of communist Totalitarianism was INTERNATIONAL Socialism! Hence the two totalitarian regimes were allied for 2 years. When did a far left political organization with a name like the NAZIs become a “far right” organization? Possibly after my favourite historical Liberal politician, Edmund Burke, a WHIG not a Tory, also became described as FAR RIGHT! I amtold the first rule of any Philosophical discussion is to clearly define your terms. So would someone please describe for us all what the terms Left, Right and Race mean? Regarding the latter,what constitutesa race, why, and how many races of people do people think there are and what are they? Spoiler alert, I am a medical practitioner and in Biology there is only one Human Race! Post modernists need not reply,if any word or phrase means whatever you want it to mean, we have no basis for a discussion of anything!

Geoff Cox

5th February 2020 at 7:24 am

Hi Philip – I will have a go at a definition of racist. I was taught at school that there were only three races Caucasian (= European and Indo-European (ie India, Pakistan, the ME), Mongoloid (= China etc) and Negroid (= Africa). As an aside at this point I should say we ought certainly to add a 4th Aboriginal. A racist was therefore someone who imputed certain characteristics to these races which were generally different from the others. To take this comparison a step further certain “racists” were then happy to add a value to these characteristics and declare one race superior over another.

Very often, from what I have read, Victorians, surveying their lofty perch would claim Caucasians were the best. However, I also notice explorers/academics at that time (eg Alfred Russell Wallace) had great respect for other cultures though he frequently uses words like “savages”.

Since about 2000, the term has been so devalued and, at the same time, increased its power, that anyone can be called a racist for talking about any one group of humans v another. This can ludicrously be Hindus v Muslims, English v French etc.

But the left, as usual with their cognitive dissonance, want us to both celebrate diversity whilst at the same time telling us no diversity exists.

Brandy Cluster

4th February 2020 at 9:04 pm

Hopkins could be the mother of Milo!! I don’t know much about her, having seen only a few of her pronouncements, but she strikes me as a troubled narcissist who’ll say or do anything for attention; and about as funny as having your head drilled open and filled with concrete.

The answer to Feminist hatred and NOT more hatred. The former will burn themselves out and people will look back at the 21st century as the era of unmitigated hatred, grievance and resentment in a kind of augmented cohort from the “Socialist Weekly” of the 60s and onwards.

Live your lives decently, successfully and just feel sorry for the trolls – for they deserve our sympathy.

Brandy Cluster

4th February 2020 at 9:05 pm

typo: *is not more hatred.

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 9:19 pm

I think there’s your problem Brandy. By your own admission you “don’t know much about her, having seen only a few of her pronouncements …”

What you have seen I suspect has been filtered through the msm, distorted, misquoted, taken out of context etc until it does not resemble anything she actually said or meant. I suggest you take some time to get to know Katie Hopkins by her own words and deeds directly (via youtube for instance). Never, never, never believe what you see and hear in the msm about “the far right” even when it is in quotes. As Tommy Robinson exposed, if they can’t get actual dirt on someone, they will simply make it up.

jessica christon

4th February 2020 at 9:31 pm

Great advice! Whenever there’s some outrage about something said by Hopkins/Trump/Tommy Robinson or whichever acceptable target of hate, I go straight to Youtube or wherever I can find it at its source to judge it for myself, and almost every time I find that it’s been distorted in some way by the msm and/or the Twitter mob. Don’t believe the hype!

Brandy Cluster

6th February 2020 at 6:11 am

OK, but having seen some of her comments – even in isolation – they looked really out there and not in the least kind. She probably needs to read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People”.

Jonathan Yonge

4th February 2020 at 7:02 pm

What are we fighting here (if we are fighting anything)?
Is it people who express an opinion ?
Is it an opinion ?
What are the reasons for out actions ? To show we accept/reject said things ?
Or to bring about a change…..

How do you bring about a change most effectively ?

reality lite

4th February 2020 at 6:00 pm

Regrettably, this article is profound stupidity & arguing the opposite to what the author contends to support. Freedom of speech. Twatter, like any other of the social media sites is in no way a “public square”. And pretending that it is doesn’t make it one. It’s private property run for the benefit of the corporation who owns it. What is & isn’t acceptable is the decision of the management. That’s their freedom of speech. What’s important here. Not the freedom of speech of the twats posting on Twatter. They don’t like it don’t use it. Twatter’s house, Twatter’s rules. Twatter gets to choose what appears on Twatter’s site.
It’s one of the features “woke” movement O’Neill woke rails against. That people are required to submit to opinions one doesn’t share. So why does he want Twatter to do the same?

jessica christon

4th February 2020 at 8:26 pm

If Dorsey and friends won’t uphold a first amendment standard of free speech they should stop pretending to be platforms and embrace their status as a publishers, taking responsibility for the content that IS allowed onto their sites as well as what isn’t. Twitter was the main facilitator of the witch hunt against the Covington boys a while back, and IIRC they did nothing to shut it down; why should they not be accountable for allowing that to happen on their site, if they can ban people for expressing an opinion that a man isn’t a woman?

If that’s not practical then oh well. Free speech for everyone or noone is the right way to go.

reality lite

5th February 2020 at 11:36 am

I think you pick the wrong analogies, Jessica. You could regard the conversations on Twatter as being like what you’d expect around your own dinner table. You might accept a range of views to be expressed but outside that range you might not want those people as guests. You wouldn’t want them insisting they have a right to be at your table. Nor would you insist on your right to be at someone else’s table expressing views they strongly disagree with.
I think this whole Twatter thing grows out of the the “Free Stuff Army” nature of so many internet users. They’ve got so used to getting the benefit of services on the net without having to hand over money, they see them as their right. Truth is, of course, nowt is for nowt. As they say “If you can’t work out what’s being sold, what’s being sold is probably you.” Twatter’s users are its product. What’s being sold. It seems to think it needs to sell a particular type of user so that’s what it preferentially harvests.

reality lite

5th February 2020 at 12:09 pm

Incidentally, I think this is going to end up as being found to be a big mistake. The people run the social media platforms, the advertising & marketing people they sell product to, the media… Their all in the same mental bubble. They think everyone thinks like they do. But ultimately there has to be someone selling stuff to peeps produces the money makes the wheels go round. A lot of those peeps are the “deplorables” & they’re doing their best to alienate the deplorables. The people want to sell the stuff will find it not selling. That the “woke”isn’t the market they’ve been told it is. Sorry, but you don’t sell top range Mercs to people knit their own yoghurt.

jessica christon

6th February 2020 at 8:04 pm

The dinner party is what Twitter is now – and I like that analogy btw – but that’s because they have platform status and they can use it to choose what not to/not to allow, and either way they can’t be held responsible. Publishers are responsible for what they allow so that puts a different onus on it, and one which is still perfectly compatible with them being a private company.

IIRC, Twitter was hemorrhaging active users and dying on it’s @ss before Donald Trump single-handedly revived it in 2015 in the primaries, so perhaps it will revert back when he leaves office or stops using it anyway. We need genuine free speech platforms.

James Knight

4th February 2020 at 5:42 pm

The left does similar race-baiting to Hopkins. This is all about protecting feelings via corporate censorship, not challenging racism.

Brandy Cluster

4th February 2020 at 9:06 pm

But back and forwards hatred does nobody any good. Somebody has to take the moral high ground, and it will never be the modern Left.

michael savell

4th February 2020 at 4:36 pm

Well,I like Katie Hopkins and I should imagine that she is quite possibly a nice person to know,I cannot imagine her being a “threat”to anyone in the physical sense and what she has to say should be read for divergence if nothing else.Was she not an adversary of Feminism,standing up for men at a time when the age of masculinity was coming to an end?Outspoken people like her will always be treated as pariahs maybe because we ,ourselves, have no stomach for fighting
a corner which is not a shade of pink.Meanwhile feminists and minority groups have,and still are
using their freedom of speech in any way they see fit and are encouraged to do so.

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 10:56 pm

Well said, Michael.

Asif Qadir

4th February 2020 at 4:35 pm

Beta No’Zeal.

How is it that someone who has studied politics and history to some degree can be so politically-illiterate? Is “black lives matter” racist? Any more than Hopkins’ desire to see the West remain white? She wasn’t referring to immigrants as cockroaches either, but rather the death-cultists, so l guess by your measure places like Rotherham and Telford must be full of racists. Simpering twit. Oh, and by the way, you included a link in your demented ramblings from the the far-left fascists “Hope not Hate”. Ffs. Seriously? You need to a bit of homework on them – unless you actually do support them, ofc.
Censorship isn’t the answer, and yet you edit on a site with mods. Cognitive dissonance, much? I know who the vile one is, and Hopkins doesn’t go around promoting infanticide either, believing in the sanctity of life and protecting God’s unborn from vile creeos like the Fey Squad. I like her banter, particularly the part about the in-breds and their mothers. You are aware that they marry their cousins, right? None of us could of imagined for a second that when this all began forty-odd years ago that we’d be importing such practices. What kind of society must it be that men form wape-gangs? And yet you’re still willing to indulge all of this in your ignorance and imbecility. Just who exactly do you believe would be rhe beneficiary of all tour virtue-signalling, because it sure isn’t your country. And wasn’t mass immigration designed by capitalists to keep wages down? Who’s side are you on?
You certainly aren’t qualified in any way whatsoever to be branding anyone a “waycist” Especially seeing that you still think there is some huge far-right movement. That’s only a measure of just what a far-left loon you are. And a smug and sanctimonious loon at that.

Greg Rudetsky

4th February 2020 at 4:31 pm

Whenever I hear the phrase “hate speech” my eyes roll back a full 360 degrees inside my head. Another buzzword tortured and stretched to the point of total meaningless. My first reaction whenever I hear of supposed racism or sexism or islamphobia is to not believe it, and to see it as the Left’s naked attempt to control the narrative. This is the true cost of the Left’s bullying, anti-intellectualism and censorship – they have cast suspicion on all of their ideals in the eyes of the general public, and it’s why they are losing many battles at the ballot box (Trump, Brexit, etc.)

Anna Bolick

6th February 2020 at 10:42 am

Sounds like 180 degrees to me.

steve moxon

4th February 2020 at 4:12 pm

What?! Meghan Murphy is way worse that Katie Hopkins.
Meghan Murphy is a feminist: a male-hating fatuous lunatic.
And the main problem with Katie Hopkins is that she doesn’t tell feminists where to get off anywhere near strongly enough.

steve moxon

4th February 2020 at 4:21 pm

AND neither is Katie Hopkins a racist, Brendan you fool.
Try reading her comments instead of de-contextualising them.
What is it even with supposed anti-‘woke’ lefties that they can’t stop their elitist-separatism?
Elitist-separatist disdain is deep inside every Lefty, including even the more enlightened ones such as Brendan.

Fred Mutton

4th February 2020 at 4:10 pm

Someone has to lead the fight to show the ‘Race Card’ is becoming an obsolete weapon. She, Tommy Rob & co are in the front line and pay the penalty. The race card has a lot in common with nuclear weapons, held by those in power who make sure no one else can have ownership of effective deterrents.

Fred Mutton

4th February 2020 at 3:56 pm

Hopkins is horrible, not at all endowed with the the purity of the white male loving Dianne Abbott , queen of balance,intelligence and the all inclusive promoter of love, serenity and balance.

mick heapy

4th February 2020 at 9:04 pm

You musnt say that😂😂. I’m tired of people accusing me of being racist like I should be ashamed of it, I am racist, my choice my perogative😊

Major Bonkers

5th February 2020 at 6:44 pm

You are quite right.

‘Katie Hopkins is a racist.’

(Just like everyone who voted for Brexit.)

Poppy Piway

4th February 2020 at 3:31 pm

I personally like Katie Hopkins. I like the way she is so outrageous that it forces one to stop and think about exactly what she is saying. She is not background chatter like so many luvvies and lefties are and most of all, as an Indian, I absolutely love the way she champions British white people. You Brit Whites have very few of your own who has the balls to do that. So I say, good luck Katie Hopkins and keep on championing your people!

Dani Kulka

4th February 2020 at 2:54 pm

I wonder if it is Spiked’s position that there shouldn’t, in any circumstances, be limitations to the freedom of speech?
Is fighting corporate or state sponsorship more important than, say, public health?

Anti-vaxxers activists come to mind. And Samoa.

Andy Lewis

4th February 2020 at 2:52 pm

Aren’t Twitter just being like those cake people?

Alan Howatt

4th February 2020 at 2:40 pm

The last time I checked, David Duke, the American Nazi, was still on the platform. So it’s all right to be anti-Jewish, but not anti-Moslem. Who says Jack Dorsey doesn’t ensure diversity on his creation?

J Chilton

4th February 2020 at 2:36 pm

Spiked! is just as anxious as any journal in the “liberal” media to find and to denounce “racism”.

Anjela Kewell

4th February 2020 at 1:58 pm

Katie Hopkins is not vile. Neither is Tommy Robinson, Lauren Southern and all those working towards telling the truth. Spiked on line is a great read but is still part of the establishment.

The establishment seem to have a real problem with truly free thinkers and truth tellers. They are citizen journalists and I suspect rattle those who have done their exams, done their apprenticeships on the established media and just do not accept that in today’s world, as long as you have a phone with a camera and a connection to the internet, you can record anything happening around you and give your followers an uncensored version of events.

Only this morning Piers Morgan has more or less repeated word for word what TR has been expressing on jihadist for twelve years. This is the proof needed that those outside the bubble are needed to call those inside the bubble to account.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

4th February 2020 at 1:56 pm

I would have thought Hopkins was too stupid to be vile. She is not nearly as vile as the Islamists whom the British government appears powerless to shut down.

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 4:52 pm

ZP
You ran away from me on the BON ‘bigots’ thread. You scoffed at me when I said the EU was an expansionist Empire.. I gave you the quote of Verhofstadt.
So ZP
Do you believe in expansionist Empires? If not why do you support the EU?
If you do, then you support totalitarianism.
Which is it.. do tell?

Asif Qadir

4th February 2020 at 5:14 pm

Knock it off Jerry Oven-Kraut, you self-righteous creep. That is of course unless you’re ready to answer my accusations against YOU.

Dominic Straiton

4th February 2020 at 1:53 pm

In the end the authorities will have to do exactly what Tommy Robinson has telling them to do for a decade. Lots more people will be dead by then. Mr Stormy is a racist homophobe.

jessica christon

4th February 2020 at 1:13 pm

Firstly I don’t think that Hopkins is “vile” or “hateful”, she’s just a professional troll whose career is only possible because of the censoriousness of this age.

Secondly, the general public doesn’t balk over coarse language as much as you media types do. In the context when Hopkins described the would-be migrants in the ‘jungle’ in Calais as “cockroaches” and you lot went apoplectic, a majority of the public didn’t want them coming here and that was the bottom line. I’ll wager that regarless of Hopkins language, she was way closer to public sentiment on the issue than the majority of the media telling us that we should roll the welcome mat for all these highly skilled ‘doctor and engineers’ (remember that? Lol…).

You obsess over language far too much and you take the public for fools who can’t discern anything for themselves.

Poppy Piway

4th February 2020 at 3:29 pm

Absolutely agree with your post!

Alex Ander

4th February 2020 at 12:39 pm

Alistair Stewart isn’t racist for using the words ‘apes, Katie Hopkins is racist for using the word ‘cockcroaches’.
There’s a bit a of animal kingdom subjectivity going on here…..?

David McAdam

4th February 2020 at 12:11 pm

She’s not a racist but a citizen entitled to air concerns about her home country however coarse her language might be. Perhaps if the latter was more ‘nuanced’ in order to assuage liberal touchiness.

christopher barnard

4th February 2020 at 12:07 pm

Conflation only seems to work in favour of the censorious elites.

For example, it is perfectly acceptable to insinuate that anyone who voted Leave has at least taken the first step on the road that leads to horrific incidents like the murder of Jo Cox.

But the people who behave like this are always the first to remind everyone else not to stereotype all members of a community when one of their number does something terrible.

They do not practice what they preach because they don’t want to be restricted by the rules they wish to impose on everyone else.

Forlorn Dream

4th February 2020 at 1:16 pm

Christopher, you hit the nail on the head there.

steven brook

4th February 2020 at 11:28 am

Start off by covering one’s posterior.
Say you find Trump, Tommy, Katie, Milo etc obnoxious.
Then ever so carefully agree with just about everything they say, however keep throwing in examples of where they are beyond the pale.
This might (highly unlikely) act as a defence against accusations of being Alt right.
Clearly it would be quicker just say it’s a free country say what you want and don’t worry about offending anyone.
Controversially I don’t think that a man can become a woman, they can pretend to be a woman just like the Guardian pretends to be a quality newspaper the BBC pretends to be unbiased, but nobody is fooled.
Next week’s question on the Moral Maze
If two gay black men get married and have (buy) a baby which of them is supposed to abandon the child first?

David Margison

4th February 2020 at 10:58 am

Well writen article, succinct and to the point. I’m of the view that we need alternative platforms, places not for profit which offer similar services but with freedom of opinion. People should be identifiable, have to use their own name (not a handle), then when/if necessary, let the law decide if something said is truly worth reprimand or prosecution. Though the law does need to be liberal (in the old sence). If we do not make this happen. Orwell will be right

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 11:27 am

Quite so, David, but the law currently is not liberal (in the old sense) and I don’t see any appetite coming from Government or the judiciary to change. When we all laughed at the “joke” prosecution of Mark Meechan (and others) we thought the judiciary would come to its senses. Well we aren’t laughing now as freedom of speech and comment outside certain parameters has most certainly been banned.

Michael Lynch

4th February 2020 at 10:48 am

Anyone in their right mind wouldn’t agree with the things she is alleged to have said. Hopkins has little talent except to keep appearing as some sort of far right representative. She also knows how to play the fame game in that there is no such thing as bad publicity; it’s a method that some public figures use to stay current. What’s frightening about all this though is that big Silicon Valley companies have somehow become arbiters of speech. This is real ‘Big Brother’ stuff and it’s a very dangerous path. Furthermore, if these powerful figures are allowed to ban Hopkins for a dig at Stormzy why not ban John Hannah for wishing real harm to Leavers because they don’t agree with his point of view. It’s absurd that these controllers are banning people based on their own political leanings. Speech is either free to everyone or to no one.

Anjela Kewell

4th February 2020 at 2:09 pm

But then those things she has said reflect the main stream public opinion. You cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.

I hardly think Ms Hopkins says things for fame and effect. She has lost her home, had death threats far beyond any politician has experienced, been shouted down by the media when she hits a nerve, and even had her social platform removed for speaking the truth when Anjam Choudry could still preach violence on the same social network.

There is a liberal middle class hypocrisy regarding the streetwise conservatives. If you really understand and support free speech and are happy that people like Anna Soubry can call a protester Nazi, or that Jo Brand can call for acid to be thrown at people who vote Leave then people like Katie or Tommy or Carl Benjamin should also be allowed their platform.

harry briggs

4th February 2020 at 10:46 am

Only those Liberals who feel the urge to control every aspect of other people’s lives would class Katie Hopkins in the “Vile” category, not a huge fan but at least she has a sense of humour about what she does for a living, which is something apparently missing from her detractors lives, I am surprised by Brendan using the same slurs that those people use, terrorists, murderers, rapists and paedophiles should be described as “vile” not Katie Hopkins.

Scott Gibson

4th February 2020 at 10:28 am

Probably the only BON piece I’ve had to skip through. It isn’t “racist” to describe migrants as “cockroaches,” what race is she inciting hatred towards? Even IPSO rejected complaints against KH on the premise that refugees cannot be victims of discrimination as a group, given that there will be possibly tens of different ethnicities and nationalities represented by these people.

I find it quite funny that despite it currently being open season on white people, who are constantly subjected to the most putrid, vitriolic abuse by the chattering classes and the Twitterati, and yet I see no scathing condemnation of these people as “racist” by Spiked.

The most common and dare I say it, “acceptable” racism prevalent in the UK right now is the anti-white, anti-Semitic hatred spewed forth by your typical liberal-left Momentum types – Katie Hopkin’s only crime is saying publicly what men and women up and down the country only dare speak of in hushed whispers, fearful of the backlash of the establishment and the pearl-clutching, perma-offended brigade which Brendan has done well to emulate here.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

4th February 2020 at 1:58 pm

It’s not racist, it’s cockroachist.

Hugo van der Meer

7th February 2020 at 7:36 pm

Superb! If I may say so, simply superb.

Fred Mutton

4th February 2020 at 9:47 am

She would be allowed to say what she wanted to and act as she wanted to if only she had more melanin or a different religion. She would also make them much more comfortable if she self identified as white male.

Paul Weston

4th February 2020 at 9:45 am

Hopkins does say unpleasant things, but she was suspended for opining that white men have a harder time in Britain that Mr Stormzy.

This is a fact. The 2010 Equalities Act has elevated “protected classes” above others, notably white males. To be suspended for stating a fact is chilling, particularly so when the accusations of racism are a direct result of speaking out about anti-white and anti-male oppression.

L Strange

4th February 2020 at 1:20 pm

The irony is that, when you consider that approximately half the population is female, then deduct the men who are a racial minority, Alphabet People or disabled, the remaining straight, white men are the minority and yet the only group without protected characteristics.

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 8:52 am

Even if some of Hopkins’ pronouncements could be termed ‘vile’, it seems a bit off to apply the epithet to her person. She’s probably very kind to her dear old mum.

Chris Davis

4th February 2020 at 8:46 am

Katie Hopkins isn’t a racist.Leave her alone.

Jim Lawrie

4th February 2020 at 12:27 pm

What she says is based on fact.
There are comedians who make a living from poking fun at their fellow Pakistanis. Mr O’N thinks it off limits to white people. Remember in East is East, the young British born Pakistani facing the prospect of a bride imported from the motherland? “I’m not marryin’ a fucking Paki!”

Philip Davies

4th February 2020 at 8:23 am

This seems personal rather than reasoned. Surprised at Brendan on this one.

Jim Lawrie

4th February 2020 at 10:03 am

Yes. He keeps veering off the to launch personal attacks on her. Given that he is the editor, perhaps that explains the habit among Spικεd staff.

Bella Donna

4th February 2020 at 1:38 pm

Yes I agree. I usually like Brendan’s articles but am rather taken aback by this one. I haven’t seen anything of her recently only that she had been banned from Twitter, which Ido not subscribe to anyway. I have never heard her say anything racist before and calling someone a cockroach isn’t racist.

Chester Minnit

4th February 2020 at 7:57 am

This echos Mary Whitehouse. Back in the seventies she was calling for ‘disgusting’ things to be kept off the TV (gays/sex/swearing etc). Most right-minded people just said “If you’re so offended why don’t you use the ‘off’ switch?”.

Finbarr Bruggy

4th February 2020 at 5:57 am

Say what you like about about Katie Hopkins but her description of Stormzy is spot on. Stormzy’s recent pronouncements are farcical and borderline racist.

Rob Liddiard

4th February 2020 at 5:54 am

You have lost the plot on this one Brendan!

Melissa Jackson

4th February 2020 at 8:06 am

Katie Hopkins is awful but why does that change anything?

Here’s the worst part – Hopkins is smart enough to dance around offense if she wants to. She can express her ideas in less objectionable ways, and I have heard her do so.

She is cynically offensive, because it gets people talking about her. And yet her deliberately offensive stuff is just fine, while her off hand “Stormzy is a bellend” is beyond the pail.

When even those who deliberately try to offend, or at least to be controversial, are surprised about what got them yeeted off then there is a problem.

If we have standards we need to enforce them, you know?

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 9:00 am

“while her off hand “Stormzy is a bellend” is beyond the pail.”
It wasn’t even beyond the pale. Nor was it off-hand, but quite considered.

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 9:21 am

‘Cynically offensive’ is a good description of Hopkins. I have to say i do cringe at an awful lot of what she says.
She was on a show in America a few years back which was discussing fat people, the audience was full of fatties, she even invited one to a fight because of something said but suggested that the fat woman in question probably didn’t have the energy to get out o her chair let alone fight.
She is unpleasant but you know exactly where you stand with her, that is good.

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 9:53 am

‘Cynically offensive’ yes I agree.
I saw her on a programme in America about fat people. She was clearly baiting the number of fatties in the audience so much so that one invited her to a fight to which Hopkins told her that she would be out of energy by the time she had scraped herself out of her chair.
Some call it offensive, I call it ‘black humour’ a uniquely English gift one that we should allow to have freedom to exist.
Hopkins can be unpleasant for sure at times though and referring to migrants as cockroaches wins you little support whether you agree with migration or not.
BTW Stormzy is a bellend!

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 10:03 am

I have posted twice similar here as my first one disappeared into the ether.. apologies!

michael savell

4th February 2020 at 4:50 pm

I think quite possibly it is the beard,perhaps somebody here will know what it is about young men today who have suddenly decided to stop shaving.Haven’t the Government made a law against it yet
or is everybody obeying sharia law?

David Webb

4th February 2020 at 3:56 am

This is just a libellous piece. For a start, there’s no such thing as a “racist”. This is a far-left meme started by the Frankfurt School. If Brendan O’Neill doesn’t allow tramps to kip in his living room, does that make him trampist – does he hate tramps? Does hate members of the human race who are not members of his family? Or is it “privilege” that he allows his family members to have a key and live in the home, but not others? The whole concept is malicious and designed to produce the outcome that anyone who wants to protect our society and culture is automatically in the wrong. There is no reason why we should welcome being replaced in our country. Brendan O’Neill is the vile race baiter here.

Steve Gray

4th February 2020 at 4:56 am

David,

When you use the words ‘we’ and ‘our’, to whom are you referring ?

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 7:39 am

Well David is speaking for me. Why is it wrong to defend your country from population replacement, the result of which (if not necessarily the aim) is to destroy our culture and heritage? Oh right – it’s not … unless you live in a white western country, then it’s racist.

Danny Rees

4th February 2020 at 8:56 am

Never a piece by Brendan goes by where he doesn’t mention his new best chum Meghan Murphy.

Danny Rees

4th February 2020 at 8:56 am

No such thing as a racist?

Hmmm does that include racist against white people?

Fred Mutton

4th February 2020 at 9:50 am

The whole world population recognises race and has preferences.
Only those with a controlling agenda use that fact as a weapon.

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 9:08 am

‘For a start, there’s no such thing as a “racist”.’
Well, there’s a dictionary definition for it, so the publishers obviously disagree with you.
I’m happy to believe that those who judge others primarily by their skin colour or ethnicity are racist. The trouble is that, recently, terms like ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ have been so abused that their meaning has been diluted beyond even an essence.
Some of Stormzy’s recent pronouncements have sounded racist, so it’s a two-(or more) way thing.
I never read any of Hopkins’ stuff, and only encounter it when it’s reported elsewhere, so her being banned won’t affect me. But, the selectivity of such bans does seem odd, when I read about them, and seem far from even-handed.

Francis Lonergan

4th February 2020 at 12:22 pm

The dictionary really only reflects usage but does not interrogate the concepts that words aim to describe. Examples, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Transphobia etc. etc. We have reached a point where the democratic ideal of ‘freedom of association’ has been cast as racist (BN membership case, a prime example)

Is preference, racist?

Ven Oods

5th February 2020 at 9:44 am

“Homophobia, Islamophobia, Transphobia”
But, they’re further examples of words that have been hijacked. Phobia means ‘fear of’, not necessarily ‘hatred of’. The trouble with such usage is that it erases the main meaning of a term.
While I have concerns with some aspects of most main religions, I don’t hate those who follow their teachings.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

4th February 2020 at 1:59 pm

You guys are obsessed with the Frankfurt School. I went to school in Newcastle and it was great! Maybe we should have the Newcastle School instead. Howay the lads!

Steve Gray

4th February 2020 at 2:49 pm

David and Geoff,

For some people, the immigration question has an identitarian dimension, inasmuch as immigration is, by definition, seen as an attack on the indigenous population, their values and their culture.

Their response is to demand an end to immigration, as a prelude to undermining the right of otherwise-naturalised British citizens to remain in the UK, on the grounds that their continued presence here, offends some notion of what Britishness ought to be.

Scratch the surface of such carefully-couched formulations and you often find a desire for a ‘Whites Only’ Britain, lurking beneath it. Writing a post such as this one, tends to do the trick..

…You fuming, yet ?

Geoff Cox

4th February 2020 at 2:56 pm

No – not whites only, but certainly not white replacement.

Chris Thorogood

4th February 2020 at 1:57 am

She shouldn’t go around saying white people are the superior race and other races don’t deserve a chance.
Oh wait…..she doesn’t say that?

So she spouts ill opinions of the moment that have some truth in them, except her truths often apply to white people too that she fails to aknowledge (afaik) . Big deal.
And that makes her a ‘vile’ racist?

I don’t like her mannerisms nor her accent very much. However she seems quite calm and polite overall when confronted for a discussion. Certainly since her epilepsy has been cured with her brain operation.
Shun her by all means which is how this should work in society.We shunned the NF and Neo Nazis that used to be at every football ground in London. Oh yes they were. Their numbers plummted as we made our own minds up.
The neighbours of those Genfell ‘bonfire night’ idiots are also shunning them for their unsavoury acts.
Wait a minute…she’s not being shunned you say?

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 12:38 am

“They are the new public square – albeit massive, global public squares.”

Whatever happened to the old public squares? Is there no free speech to be found there?

Philip Humphrey

4th February 2020 at 7:33 am

Remember the Christian street pastors arrested for allegedly expressing “hateful” views? The answer is probably no.

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 9:00 am

Your point being?

Jim Lawrie

4th February 2020 at 12:50 pm

He is not making a point Jonnie Boy, just answering your questions. Some of us do that. It is just too bad if it not the answer you had in mind.
“Your point being” is the dreary, double question ritorte of the hack.

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 12:56 pm

It’s a terrible answer in that case.

Answering questions with another question is generally a weak response. Like a hack…

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 9:55 am

‘Metaphor’ little Jonnie, look it up sometime or ask mommy.

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 10:08 am

What a weak response Jerry.

Where is the metaphor in Brendan’s statement? Feel free to point it out and actually say something constructive instead of sniping, as usual.

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 11:51 am

Projection little Jonnie.. projection your speciality.
The internet is the new public square.. it’s a metaphor.

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 12:55 pm

A metaphor for what Jerry?

Stop sniping and answer.

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 1:19 pm

The internet being described as a public square is a metaphor for the physical public square where people meet and talk, there little Jonnie… see what I did there for you?
Now you can tell me what you mean by crying at me ‘free rent free rent’ you can also explain why you keep going on about some imaginary ‘store’ I stack shelves in? Are you suffering from dementia?
I challenge you to explain your comments.. go on ?

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 2:03 pm

Brendan described it as “The new public square”.

That’s not a metaphor. He’s pretty clearly staying, as he has before, that the internet has in some way replaced the old public square.

My challenge is simple, how did that happen? What happened to the old public square?

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 2:04 pm

Now Jerry, before I answer your other questions you’ve got some more explaining to do… What do you mean when you say I “Don’t even live here”?

Where do you imagine I live?

Any why do you keep going on about my mother’s keyboard?

Care to explain Jerry, or will you run away again?

Jerry Owen

4th February 2020 at 4:48 pm

Little Jonnie
You yourself say you live 5k miles away.. your mum’s keyboard.. just a little joke as you are a little weedy type that gives the impression of living in a single bed in your mums house with your favourite sock for comfort. Now for the last time answer my questions…. you know you can’t don’t you.. and I bet.. and I will win my bet you don’t answer them?
This is the deal, if you don’t answer them you are happy to concede you are a nit picking snipey projecting nerd.

Jonnie Henly

5th February 2020 at 1:55 pm

Jerry, I never claimed to live 5k miles away. Wrong from you again.

Now Jerry, my dig about your grocery store is just a little joke because you are the uneducated, uncultured type who’s never travelled outside their home town and is ignorant on any subject concerning the outside world… even if you convince yourself otherwise.
You sure give that impression…..

And your obsession with my comments proves I live rent free in your head… hence my comment.

You lose the bet.

Jerry Owen

5th February 2020 at 4:14 pm

Little Jonnie
It was no bet I was trying to get you to answer my questions.
And yes you stated on two threads that both you and your ‘mommy’ live 5k miles away.
As for living rent free in my head this is a site for discussions agreements and disagreements, if you think it’s more than that you have to get out more you have serious issues going on, maybe go on some other blogs there’s plenty out there. Expand your shallow horizons a bit.
See my other post, I rest my case as I am not alone in the view that you are an evasive non contributor.

Jonnie Henly

5th February 2020 at 5:31 pm

“and I bet”

Your word against your’s Jerry.

“And yes you stated on two threads that both you and your ‘mommy’ live 5k miles away.”

No I didn’t. Which threads? Tell us. Another lie from you.

Every time I post you are there with a sniping one line reply. You have nothing else to contribute.

You are indeed entirely alone in this pathetic action. You are obsessed with me.

Jonnie Henly

4th February 2020 at 12:36 am

“Reportedly at the behest of Countdown host and campaigner against anti-Semitism Rachel Riley”

“is the branding of all kinds of opinion – on immigration, on race, on Brexit, on Meghan Markle – as racist”

Hmmm… I could’ve sworn Rachel Riley had engaged in this sort of thing before…. only back then, Brendan was supportive of her claims. Indeed, he himself argued that her target was a racist simple because of his opinion.

A rather fitting irony in this whole ugly debacle.

Ven Oods

4th February 2020 at 9:12 am

It is, of course, possible to agree with someone on one matter and to disagree with them on another (especially if their stance has changed markedly).

Jonathan Marshall

4th February 2020 at 3:53 pm

I think Jonnie might struggle to understand that.

Jonnie Henly

5th February 2020 at 1:52 pm

How has Rachel Riley’s stance changed markedly? Feel free to point it out.

Jonnie Henly

5th February 2020 at 1:56 pm

Well you’d be wrong.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 8:15 am

“How has Rachel Riley’s stance changed markedly?”
So far as I can determine, she had criticised Labour for not dealing quickly (or at all) with AS problems, whereas in this instance, she was keen to have an individual banned for expressing opinions with which she disagreed. So, the first was general, and the latter was personal. That looks different to me.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.