Katie Hopkins labels sex abuse victim 'a slag'!

[John]

Some people find Katie Hopkins views beyond the pale. Is she so different from others writing for the UK media though? Their views, which were often libelous, have attracted no criticism whatsoever by these same outraged upholders of what is right and reasonable;
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html

Her antics on The Apprentice told me all I needed to know about Miss Hopkins.

[Alfred R Jones]

Some people find Katie Hopkins views beyond the pale. Is she so different from others writing for the UK media though? Their views, which were often libelous, have attracted no criticism whatsoever by these same outraged upholders of what is right and reasonable;
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html

So you can't see any difference between Katie Hopkins labelling the 15 year old victim of a sex crime "a slag" and the media labelling Amaral (an incompetent ex-cop with a criminal record) - "a disgrace"?  Unbelievable!!

[stephen25000]

I'm not obsessed by Katie Hopkins. It's called "having an online debate" - if you don't like it, don't read it.

The same applies to you alfred.

This is an open forum where people express their views.

I personally can't stand Hopkins for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't not mean she gets all things wrong.

As I said yesterday, the man was a DH and is now paying the price for his actions.

As to the girl involved, she was bragging to her friends. That indicates whether you like it or not, she takes part of the blame, but with the onus still on him.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why restrict your definition of what is a child to geography, why not apply history to it too?  After all, in the olden days you could get married at 12!!

The fact remains in THIS country in THIS century the age of consent is 16.  The footballer knew that, and knew that the girl in question was underage.  The court found that he took advantage of his fame and status and groomed her for sexual activity.  He was found guilty of sexual activity with a child, and no amount of mealy mouthed apologist nonsense changes that fact. 

[Alfred R Jones]

The same applies to you alfred.

This is an open forum where people express their views.

I personally can't stand Hopkins for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't not mean she gets all things wrong.

As I said yesterday, the man was a DH and is now paying the price for his actions.

As to the girl involved, she was bragging to her friends. That indicates whether you like it or not, she takes part of the blame, but with the onus still on him.

You may want to blame her, because that's what people like you like to do - blame the victims.  Officially however she is blameless.  I'm sure she's going to grow up a much more rounded happier person knowing that Katie Hopkins and a sizeable percentage of the population thinks she's a stupid slag though.   

[stephen25000]

http://www.sexeducationforum.org.uk/evidence/data-statistics.aspx

[stephen25000]

You may want to blame her, because that's what people like you like to do - blame the victims.  Officially however she is blameless.  I'm sure she's going to grow up a much more rounded happier person knowing that Katie Hopkins and a sizeable percentage of the population thinks she's a stupid slag though.   

All you can do is give cliches.


You are as bad as Hopkins.


Look at the figures in my previous post.


It might heighten your awareness to the world around you.

[John]

You informed us yesterday that you agreed with Katie Hopkins. Katie Hopkins article explicity refers to the victim as a slag and her opinion is that the footballer should never have been prosecuted.  Perhaps you should have been a little more discerning about which bits of Hopkins vile views you agreed with and which you did not in order to avoid misunderstanding.

So, just to be clear - do you think the victim in this case is a slag?
Should the court have considered the victim to be a woman not a child?
Do you think the case should have come to court at all?
Also:
Do you think it is right that the footballer, having been found guilty of sex with a child has been placed on the sex offenders register?

This kid had only turned fifteen if I recall so the question I have is why was she ever allowed to get involved with this footballer in the first place to the extent she did?  Do the parents of these teenagers not have any control over them?  Johnston did wrong certainly but others should also take responsibility imo.

[Alfred R Jones]

All you can do is give cliches.


You are as bad as Hopkins.


Look at the figures in my previous post.


It might heighten your awareness to the world around you.

I'm as bad as Hopkins??  In what way exactly?  Do I go around blaming victims in print, writing outrageously offensive articles and getting paid for it? 

[Carana]

I feel sorry for her kids.

Why on earth did she object to chlldren named after geographical locations when one of her children is named "India"? Has she objected to the Bekhams naming their boy "Brooklyn"?

What's the difference between naming a child "Chardonnay" or "Poppy"?

[Alice Purjorick]

I feel sorry for her kids.

Why on earth did she object to chlldren named after geographical locations when one of her children is named "India"? Has she objected to the Bekhams naming their boy "Brooklyn"?

What's the difference between naming a child "Chardonnay" or "Poppy"?

One is a grape and one is a flower ? Both can be used to create interesting byproducts.

Mr & Mrs Kipling were among the front markers in the naming of kids idiosyncrasies.

[stephen25000]

I'm as bad as Hopkins??  In what way exactly?  Do I go around blaming victims in print, writing outrageously offensive articles and getting paid for it?

In what way Alfred?


Look at your  comments to other posters, who have correctly pointed out that you would not be commenting on this , but for Hopkins comments on the mccanns.

[Carana]

One is a grape and one is a flower ? Both can be used to create interesting byproducts.

Mr & Mrs Kipling were among the front markers in the naming of kids idiosyncrasies.

Katie Hopkins appears to be objecting to the type of name that she (and /or OH) gave to her own children.

Their mum is controversial... but how can these kids defend themselves, even concerning their own given names?

[Alice Purjorick]

Katie Hopkins appears to be objecting to the type of name that she (and /or OH) gave to her own children.

Their mum is controversial... but how can these kids defend themselves, even concerning their own given names?

More like a great self publicist. If it wasn't one thing it would be another to make herself noticeable. Had she not made less than flattering remarks about the McCanns this thread wouldn't keep rumbling on. Now I am repeating myself (see my post about a century ago; well it seems like that).

[G-Unit]

Why restrict your definition of what is a child to geography, why not apply history to it too?  After all, in the olden days you could get married at 12!!

The fact remains in THIS country in THIS century the age of consent is 16.  The footballer knew that, and knew that the girl in question was underage.  The court found that he took advantage of his fame and status and groomed her for sexual activity.  He was found guilty of sexual activity with a child, and no amount of mealy mouthed apologist nonsense changes that fact.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to comprehend nuances. You seem to think the law is not to be questioned so I assume you support the public beheadings, stonings and lashings carried out in countries like Saudi Arabia? After all, those convicted knew the law and the penalties they faced, so the mealy mouthed objectors wingeing on about human rights should just shut up, shouldn't they?