[Politics] Uncle Bulgaria outraged as Katie Hopkins calls council c***wombles

[carlzeiss]

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/177...traged-katie-hopkins-calls-council-c-wombles/


Anyone it seems can be a journalist at the argus these days .

Good headline though

 

[albion534]

People want free speech. Then ban people from speaking. I don’t like her but banning her from speaking is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[highflyer]

People want free speech. Then ban people from speaking. I don’t like her but banning her from speaking is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It may or may not be stupid (probably not stupid as she is a pathetic attention-seeking parody of a troll with nothing of any value to say and no coherent agenda beyond causing offence in order to attract clicks) but I yet again feel obliged to point out that not allowing her to spout her poison at a particular event/venue is not a 'suppression of free speech'. Within the limits of the law, Hopkins is able to say whatever she wants, and does so all the time. Unfortunately her views get far more coverage than they deserve, and far more public attention than many people with genuinely interesting and thoughtful contributions to make. It's a sad reflection of society that so many people take her seriously, but nonetheless, THAT is what free speech means.

I wouldn't allow her a platform if it were my decision. If I am organizing an event it is my right to decide who I want to give a platform to and who I don't. Just as I wouldn't expect to be given a platform to speak at a local meeting of the KKK.

 

[SollysLeftFoot]

People want free speech. Then ban people from speaking. I don’t like her but banning her from speaking is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Generally, when she opens her mouth, it's when she's a bit skint and needs the additional attention to rake in the dough. Banning is a daft idea, so just remind her that she's skint.

 

[Albumen]

Let her speak but give her a toddlers chair and then everyone just talks over.

 

[beorhthelm]

It may or may not be stupid (probably not stupid as she is a pathetic attention-seeking parody of a troll with nothing of any value to say and no coherent agenda beyond causing offence in order to attract clicks) but I yet again feel obliged to point out that not allowing her to spout her poison at a particular event/venue is not a 'suppression of free speech'. Within the limits of the law, Hopkins is able to say whatever she wants, and does so all the time. Unfortunately her views get far more coverage than they deserve, and far more public attention than many people with genuinely interesting and thoughtful contributions to make. It's a sad reflection of society that so many people take her seriously, but nonetheless, THAT is what free speech means.

I wouldn't allow her a platform if it were my decision. If I am organizing an event it is my right to decide who I want to give a platform to and who I don't. Just as I wouldn't expect to be given a platform to speak at a local meeting of the KKK.

so you are agreeing that a council banning a speaker from an event is against free speech. unless the organisation/person is on a proscribed list, council shouldn't involve themselves with who is on the guest list.

 

[studio150]

Given she was due to speak at a UKIP meeting, surely it should have gone ahead given that all their supporters have left to follow Nigel at the Brexit Party. Speaking to an empty hall would have shown how irrelevant she is.

 

[albion534]

It may or may not be stupid (probably not stupid as she is a pathetic attention-seeking parody of a troll with nothing of any value to say and no coherent agenda beyond causing offence in order to attract clicks) but I yet again feel obliged to point out that not allowing her to spout her poison at a particular event/venue is not a 'suppression of free speech'. Within the limits of the law, Hopkins is able to say whatever she wants, and does so all the time. Unfortunately her views get far more coverage than they deserve, and far more public attention than many people with genuinely interesting and thoughtful contributions to make. It's a sad reflection of society that so many people take her seriously, but nonetheless, THAT is what free speech means.

I wouldn't allow her a platform if it were my decision. If I am organizing an event it is my right to decide who I want to give a platform to and who I don't. Just as I wouldn't expect to be given a platform to speak at a local meeting of the KKK.

You wouldn’t allow her. Blocking free speech.

It’s like the trump protests. Where were these people when the Saudis came crawling? She’s a vile. Horrible woman. But when places block her from speaking. Yet we constantly have hate clerics spouting their crap all over the place. The whole thing stinks. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Ohhh she's HARD.

 

[Albumen]

It's not free speech, it's hate speech.

 

[grubbyhands]

She's a vile waste of human organs. Starve her of oxygen.

 

[highflyer]

council shouldn't involve themselves with who is on the guest list.

Why not? Up to them, they absolutely have every right to decide who they want to give a platform to at their conference centre.

You can agree/disagree with their decision (I agree, presumably you don't) but it clearly NOT 'against free speech'. She got to do her thing somehwere else, so clearly there is no 'ban' on her speaking freely.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what 'free speech' means.And a misunderstanding deliberately propogated by the likes of Hopkins (and her backers) who makes her money by being a deliberately awful person in public, and uses this false argument to gain yet more attention.

 

[highflyer]

Blocking free speech. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't. That's my point

She gets FAR more opportunity to speak than she deserves. The council are not obliged to help her in that regard.

 

[highflyer]

You wouldn’t allow her. Blocking free speech.

It’s like the trump protests. Where were these people when the Saudis came crawling? She’s a vile. Horrible woman. But when places block her from speaking. Yet we constantly have hate clerics spouting their crap all over the place. The whole thing stinks. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Many of those, such as Owen Jones, who have been central to the Trump protests have also been involved for a much longer time in organizing opposition to the UK's relationship with Saudi. Plenty of evidence of that, but here's a start: https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1052264419965702144?lang=en
they have never had the media attention that the Trump stuff gets, but doesn't mean it isn't happening

2. When did Eastbourne Council provide a platform at one of their venues for a hate speaking Islamic cleric?

 

[beorhthelm]

Why not? Up to them, they absolutely have every right to decide who they want to give a platform to at their conference centre.

the council are part of the state and so do not have such a right, they should be impartial to differing political groups and their advocates. this isnt a private organisation chosing who to publish, what groups to use their facilities, where i would agree they may have more discretion. they have accepted the event and the organisers have chosen their guest list. to repeat your own words: Within the limits of the law, Hopkins is able to say whatever she wants. ... If I am organizing an event it is my right to decide who I want to give a platform to and who I don't.

i dont agree with her views, but defend her right to say them if they are legal and at a legal event (and let the police, not the council decide that). we should all be concerned by this, next time it could be a cause or purpose you believe in being banned and interfered with.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Brilliant thread.

 

[highflyer]

the council are part of the state and so do not have such a right.

They clearly do, because they did.

And if you are right, then I look forward to UKIP and Hopkins challenging the Council under those human rights laws they love so much (they won't)

 

[albion534]

1. Many of those, such as Owen Jones, who have been central to the Trump protests have also been involved for a much longer time in organizing opposition to the UK's relationship with Saudi. Plenty of evidence of that, but here's a start: https://twitter.com/owenjones84/status/1052264419965702144?lang=en
they have never had the media attention that the Trump stuff gets, but doesn't mean it isn't happening

2. When did Eastbourne Council provide a platform at one of their venues for a hate speaking Islamic cleric?

I never said the opposition against the Saudi lot didn’t happen. But the protests and people against it is far less. Uk is full of hypocrites


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[albion534]

They clearly do, because they did.

And if you are right, then I look forward to UKIP and Hopkins challenging the Council under those human rights laws they love so much (they won't)

Yeah. Because everything councils do is above board lolz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[highflyer]

Brilliant thread.

View attachment 113230

I like to pick my battles.


I often pick badly.