Vile disgusting troll Hopkins has been permanently banned from Twitter
Good news Friday
At long last it permanent.
Farage next please c
Whoop!!!!
See ya
Good news, obnoxious oxygen thief.
Happy frickin days. I'm not one for wishing harm on people, but for her I make an exception.
After that prank on her, I was left thinking that maybe she wasn't actually a troll, but is mentally ill..... whichever, she's definitely best not having a public platform to spout hate.
At last.
what took them so long? She made no effort whatsoever to hide any of her foul racist opinions.....
She keeps cropping up on my YouTube recommended videos for some reason. The content of her latest videos sounds pretty dispicable. Could do with her being banned off there to really, just to clean it up a bit and keep my feed about bikes!! 😜
Is Trump next?
He's had some warnings, let's hope so!
I'm sure that she'll have a Patreon or other paid content platform to continue from.
If I was being charitable I'd suggest that she was actually a lightning conductor flushing out all the particularly unpleasant people so that they can be identified. But of course she's just a nasty dogwhistling and unimaginative racist. The Facebook comments on the Evening Standard report on this are enlightening and deeply deeply depressing.
Is disappointed.
I thought she might have popped her clogs.
KKKatie should have been banned a long time ago for her abhorrent views.
Good. Hopefully it’s a substantial loss of income for her.
I wouldn't be surprised if she was currently negotiating a job with the White House. I think she has been heading that way for a while.
aP
MemberI’m sure that she’ll have a Patreon or other paid content platform to continue from.
Yup, but frankly stuff behind paywalls/subscriptions is way less troubling than stuff on totally public platforms. Doesn't get repeated/retweeted, doesn't get read by as many people, doesn't pop up in your timeline or whatever- you have to go looking.
I swear though if I have to explain to one more person that this isn't an infringement of freedom of speech I'm going to do one.
I swear though if I have to explain to one more person that this isn’t an infringement of freedom of speech I’m going to do one.
Don't bother. I've blocked a fair few supposed 'friends' on FB since the George Floyd killing. All the ones who post false equivalence shit, start all their posts with "I'm not supporting the police but" and then try to defend the indefensible. I've ****ed them all off. You could say I've made an echo chamber, but you don't not wipe shit off your shoes just so you can have a bit of 'shitty-shoe' in your life for 'balance'.
You just wipe the shit off and get rid of the smell.
Doesn’t get repeated/retweeted, doesn’t get read by as many people, doesn’t pop up in your timeline or whatever- you have to go looking.
Yup. Also see Tommy Stephen yaxley lennon robinson ... legitimately de-platform them for spouting vile hatred, problem pretty much solved.
On that note, odds on her making appearances in Russia as a repressed British journalist?
Anyone know what the straw that broke the camels back was?
Prob her marcus rashford tweet but to be honest it could be any of 1000's
Is disappointed.
I thought she might have popped her clogs.
Me too! Every time the Trump thread climbs to the top of the page I open it hoping the ****er has died.
I'm with somafunk - her tweet about Marcus Rashford was spectacularly vile even by her
non-existent standards.
If you didn't see it, here's Piers Morgan's perfect riposte to her...
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1272917139054374913?s=20
She’ll probably turn up on QAnon. I wish I had the sort of l33t h4ck3r sk1lz that would let me nuke every attempt to spread her filth online, along with the likes of Tommy Robinson, QAnon, Alex Jones, etc. Maybe things like massive DDoS attacks, etc.
Or find a way to get the Russians, the hi see and the North Koreans really pissed off at them.
Ahh, such things as dreams are made of 💀
what was the tweet?
I love Katie ❤️
Of course you do. She’s your mum.
C'mon it's a free source of vinegar.
Don't tell me you wouldn't suck them spaniels ears like a new born goat.
Chester, you're kidding, right? I'd rather suck an actual goat.
For many years I actually thought she was a female Sacha Baron-Cohen type character. I didn't consider she was an actual real person.
Still don't tbqfh.
what was the tweet?
I don’t know , it was probably not very nice and knowing what she thinks won’t improve my life.
Yeah, let's just silence those we don't agree with. That'll make the World a better place.
Let's remove a platform for those who spread racist hate.
She's not been silenced. An independent company has chosen to no longer allow her to use them to spread her vile views.
You can still go and listen to her elsewhere.
She’s not been silenced. An independent company has chosen to no longer allow her to use them to spread her vile views.
Quite. Free speech doesn't obligate us to provide a megaphone.
Yeah, let’s just silence those we don’t agree with. That’ll make the World a better place.
You don’t need to hear both sides of everything, some things are just wrong .
Aa mentioned above:
Freedom of speech does not mean a right to a platform.
At last, things are looking up.
Farage next please c
Tbh I’d thought he’d got a new job as a fisherman as he seems to spend a lot of time on boats or beaches.
Bit Of a bummer when your gravy train job actually does finally go and yer ‘fishing’ for the next bandwagon to hop on 🙂
Yep and tbh I think the song for this is appropriately
and in the immortal words of Lilly A.
May contain swearing.
Freedom of expression and opinion are enshrined in human rights law, but hate crimes are illegal. The CPS definition is:
The term 'hate crime' can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim's disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
KKKatie (my favourite term for her vileness so far @ElShalimo) has long been peddling hate speech. She may not have wandered into the criminal definition, but she has surely been close.
Apparently no twitter presence has been problematic to other right-wing scumbags. Let's hope this is the case here.
Edited as I see we got into it big style while I was typing
My favourite is hatey hatekins. Has a certain ring to it.
A ( very, very small) part of me feels pity for her, for the same reasons as Jack Monroe after she lost her libel case and then had to go into voluntary bankruptcy. I’d like to make it clear that I agree entirely with Twitter and it is a good thing she has had a platform taken away.
I'm not rejoicing in anyone's downfall here. It's graceless and hideous. She just had to say sorry, she wouldn't, and she's paid dearly for that.
"I offered to give the libel win back afterwards, she didn't want it. I didn't want this, I just wanted some peace. And now I'm quietly (mostly) getting on with my life......
Monroe finished by saying she wished Katie 'all the best for the future,' "which is entirely in her own hands," she added.
And yet again she has blown it because she seems too stupid to learn from her own mistakes, of her apparent lack awareness, of her obstinacy and sense of entitlement to spout hateful things.
My Mrs wasn't too impressed being woken up at 6.30 by me laughing at Chester's finely penned allegory.
Struggling to see how that isn’t a ‘win’ for her and her ilk. ‘Marxist lefty snowflakes are the real fascists/Nazis’ etc as they are the ones going around gulagging (gulag + gag, SWIDT!) EdgyFreedomFighters™ such as Hatey, Yacksley et al
The term ‘hate crime’ can be used to describe a range of criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility towards the victim’s disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
I think that what Hopkins says is vile, but I've never been comfortable where we're policing what people say, or especially, are thinking when the say or do things.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Freedom of speech does not mean a right to a platform.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We've fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we've always managed to overcome them.
I think that what Hopkins says is vile, but I’ve never been comfortable where we’re policing what people say, or especially, are thinking when the say or do things.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Really? If someone belts someone else ‘cos they’re drunk, that’s one thing, but if they set out to assault someone based purely on their colour, sexual orientation or perceived orientation, or because of their style of dress, ie a goth, then that’s a hate-crime, and it’s perfectly clear what that person was thinking when they carried out the assault.
Hugo, agree with that, I don't care why someone hit someone else (unless there was provocation or self defence arguments) thumping someone because you dont like their skin colour is no more or less serious than a random attack, mugging or road rage. In all cases an innocent person has been assaulted and will live with the physical and emotional damage. The penalty should be the same and severe.
As for Hopkins if she really believed the bile she spouted she had it coming, if it was merely her professional money making persona she should have had the brains to keep on the right side of Twitters rules. Either way the world is a slightly better place.
For example, punishing an assault differently because of what we believe someone was thinking at the time is a dodgy precedent heading towards thought crimes.
Broadly speaking - where an assault is deemed to have been aggravated or motivated in a way where its described as a 'hate crime' the person doing the hate has made it clear what they are thinking. Do you have examples of someone's privately held thoughts being a factor in a prosecution?
Freedom of speech is just that - being free to speak. Its not speech free of consequences. If you shout 'Fire' in a theatre and people die in the resulting stampede you're 'freedom of speech' doesn't get you off the manslaughter charges even though all you did was say words.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
I agree with this ^^^
If someone belts someone else ‘cos they’re drunk, that’s one thing, but if they set out to assault someone based purely on their colour, sexual orientation or perceived orientation, or because of their style of dress, ie a goth, then that’s a hate-crime, and it’s perfectly clear what that person was thinking when they carried out the assault.
In this instance there is potential mitigation for the drunk person.
Likewise, if the crime was planned and premeditated then it would should be punished more severely.
What I don't believe is that we should start trying to judge why someone has planned and premeditated the crime. Did Dave beat up Steve because he didn't like his eye colour or his skin colour. 2 years for one, 5 years for the other? How about if it were 20% one thing and 80% the other, how do we know?
Punish the premeditated act, of course, but judging someone's reasons and ranking them differently is problematic to me.
Schadenfreude ist die beste freude!
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
Ok, slow down.
Twitter is a private company and they have chosen not to serve a rude customer who's broken their terms of use.
This I back. It's their choice and she can't force them to host her views.
Just because I back Twitter in this instance doesn't mean that I believe everyone should be made to de-platform Hopkins.
I also don't believe that they should be forced to give her a platform.
I leave it up to every other company, media, or platform to make their own choice. I completely give the power to them to make their own decisions within the law. I think this is the opposite of being convinced that I'm right, but hey.
Im glad shes gone there is no place for people like her in this world. If anyone supports her there is no place for them either. My grandad came here as a refugee after WW2 if it wasn't for immigrating I would have never been born. The stuff she said about immigrants about bombing their boats was disgusting. I hope she gets kicked off IG too.
If you shout ‘Fire’ in a theatre and people die in the resulting stampede you’re ‘freedom of speech’ doesn’t get you off the manslaughter charges even though all you did was say words.
Causality in that (literal) example is direct and instrumental.
Though as a figurative example it’s a different thing altogether.
An immediate example that comes to mind is the Christchurch mosque murders.
Who shouted ‘fire’? And what if they shouted ‘possible fire’, and what if there were 1000’s of actors shouting ‘where there’s smoke’ etc etc...
Hatey et al do this stuff for fame/a living, but you can’t legally tie them to the stampedes in the theatreS when they happen. They are ‘smart’ (sociopathic) enough to fan the flames while being made of teflon
Hugo, agree with that, I don’t care why someone hit someone else (unless there was provocation or self defence arguments) thumping someone because you dont like their skin colour is no more or less serious than a random attack, mugging or road rage. In all cases an innocent person has been assaulted and will live with the physical and emotional damage. The penalty should be the same and severe.
What if the person that was assaulted was a child or very old, or married to the assailant? would you change your views on sentencing then? what if rather than punch someone they struck them with an object? Of course assaulting someone with the intent to rob (mugging) is also aggravating, and in most cases so would some entirely unprovoked random attack be. The baseline is much more likely to be far less random - a dispute where words are exchanged and then someone throws a punch; more often than not between two people who are acquainted. There are many nuances to sentencing that all get balanced. Some of them are aggravations whilst others are mitigations. Society don't generally deal with assaults on a simple fixed penalty basis - some experienced sentencer in a court, having heard the facts and any mitigation had to weight it up and come to a conclusion. Statutory aggravations (like hate crimes) have to be taken into account. It doesn't always follow that the end sentence is any different with the statutory aggravation than it would have been otherwise but it will be recorded. The record serves a number of purposes - politically it suggests something is being done about the issues which concern the government/public; it provides statistics people can user to see if particular types of crime are rising or falling; it means that when someone has to look at that persons list of previous convictions there is something a bit more substantive than "assault" which could be anything from smashing a bottle over someones head because you don't like their skin colour to shoving a belligerent neighbour in some argument about killing squirrels; and it also means that decision makers in the CPS (etc) who need to decide which cases get dropped or settled with warnings etc have a consistent set of criteria to help guide them.
Did Dave beat up Steve because he didn’t like his eye colour or his skin colour.
As someone has said already, I'm looking forward to examples of where someone has been prosecuted for a hate crime without there being clear evidence of the hate.
Why use Twitter if it has horrible people on it? After all it is a privately owned service that you are not forced to use. I wouldn't choose to drink in a pub that was frequented by Katie and her ilk (I don't use Twitter either but mostly because it's full of drivel).
I wouldn’t choose to drink in a pub that was frequented by Katie and her ilk
They're easy to identify too. Flat roof and cross of St George in the window.
I'd rather keep my racists where I can see them, even highlight them so we can show them for what they are. The interview on breakfast tv (I think, might be on something else) where she slags off people who name their kids after places is golden and shows the world how thick she actually is.
Maybe stop allowing people anonymity on social media, I'm pretty sure that most people wouldn't post such hateful comments if they had their name and face next to it. They would probably find themselves without a job. A social pariah.
The thing that always struck me about Hatey Plopkins is that she looks like the mummified corpse of Michael Winner.
Causality in that (literal) example is direct and instrumental.
Though as a figurative example it’s a different thing altogether.
Closer to home, joking about bombs and airports online or at check-in will find you charged as well.
Yes, if you are so arrogant that you are totally convinced that you have a monopoly on truth and what is right and wrong.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and they are allowed to express it - provided of course they don't contravene any laws. They're not entitled to specific methods of expressing that opinion - should the owners of that method not agree. KH could offer to replace the BA logo with "I hate people", for example, but as a private company they'd be allowed to say no. But she could freely stand up on the plane and say the same. Provided the seatbelt sign was switched off 😉
We’ve fought wars against people with that sort of mentality and thankfully we’ve always managed to overcome them.
Name one. We fought wars against people who suppressed freedom of speech - mostly because they suppressed freedom of speech by murdering people.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls? Or cancel her gmail account if she had sent a racist email? Why is banning her from Twitter different? And when is something private or public?
I'd say twitter is public for very obvious reasons. And if the terms of service of her phone contract or email provider state that if she is found to be sending racist messages then why not?
Freedom of speech is freedom to express a political opinion without risk of persecution by the state. It is not freedom to say what you like without consequences. It is also not an entitlement to use a given platform to air your views.
Maybe stop allowing people anonymity on social media, I’m pretty sure that most people wouldn’t post such hateful comments if they had their name and face next to it. They would probably find themselves without a job. A social pariah.
Whilst I would generally agree, she's actually a prime case that contradicts that - not only does she post under her own name with her face beside it, she has a "blue tick" so its verified as belonging to her.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls? Or cancel her gmail account if she had sent a racist email? Why is banning her from Twitter different? And when is something private or public?
Never mind a contract getting cancelled - racist phone call could get you sent to prison!
I'm sure if other "customers" of the phone company were constantly complaining about it then the would consider cancelling the account. Especially if she had a free account and it was pissing off the people funding the service (advertisers).
If she's not happy she can always create her own microblogging platform. Just the same as if someone gets banned here they can always make their own bike forum.
Just the same as if someone gets banned here they can always make their own bike forum.
Yep, but at least the people that run this place would be able to look at themselves in the mirror.
Plopkins is a ****ing horrible little shit, but she is also playing it for personal gain. She was, at one point, a reliable rent a gob for a bit of controversy on TV. Unfortunately I think her USP was wearing a bit thin, so she had to go more extreme for the attention.
And yet again she has blown it because she seems too stupid to learn from her own mistakes, of her apparent lack awareness, of her obstinacy and sense of entitlement to spout hateful things.
I'm sure I read somewhere that she gets funding from the US far right eg Bannon and co, who want to spread White Supremacy across the world. So if she wants to get paid, she has to spout hatred; plus by now, I suspect it's all she knows how to do.
Could you cancel her phone contract if she was found to have made racist phone calls?
Yes and they probably should if she continued to use her phone to break the law.
They're not cancelling her right to exist but they are saying, if you wish to continue to be a racist and actively pedal racism, we will have nothing to do with you. Which is absolutely fine by me.
Not being a troll, just genuinely interested in how rights like freedom of speech work with modern technology.
As for the anonymity comment, I mean for the people that follow and spread Katie's racist rhetoric whilst being able to hide in the crowd. She's obviously turned what she says into a business and as such is a lost cause.
Not being a troll, just genuinely interested in how rights like freedom of speech work with modern technology.
Shouldn't make any difference, if its illegal it should be banned in all forms.
Social media providers eg FB / Twitter don't have universal service obligations, so they can ban who they like, as long as its legal to do so (not discriminating on sexists, racist grounds etc).
Interesting article about who owns your social media posts. https://www.vodafone.co.uk/mobile/digital-parenting/who-owns-what-you-post
Footflaps, could she actually oppose the ban - ironically - claiming racism or sexism?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and they are allowed to express it
Something right-wing pundits like to do is tell everyone how important opinions are. The word 'entitled' makes opinions sound precious. Some sort of fundamental element of your identity that you have to defend, some sort of necessary oxygen that you can't live without.
An opinion is more of an affliction - you can't help but have opinions on all sorts of things whether you have given them any real thought or not. Valuing opinions is just encouraging people not to give anything any real thought - not to look, not to listen.
Anywhere that it matters we recognise its import to put opinions to one side- selecting a jury, running double blind medical trials, not judging a book by the cover. The Pepsi Challenge wouldn't really prove much use if one of the glasses had 'Pepsi' written on it.
Freedom of expression and opinion are enshrined in human rights law, but hate crimes are illegal
Malv has it, but it is not just hate crime, there are many exemptions defined in legislation which restrict your right to spout stuff publicly.
I am bored of the “free speech” defence which gets trotted out primarily by right wing a-holes. Not one person who has used this argument in the context of banning from tech platforms understand the law. It is even worse when it comes to our friends in the USA 🇺🇸. They have free speech enshrined in the constitution, but that is specifically about stopping the government from censoring you. Last time I checked Twitter/Facebook were not a government.
It is also worth pointing out that freedom of speech also includes not saying something. Yet all of these defenders of “free speech” are obsessed with forcing private companies to allow / broadcast stuff which is against their rights, and more importantly their terms and conditions.
All the right wing loons can still post messages on the Internet, hell there is even a festering cess pit of a twitter clone which protects “free speech” called Gab, I don’t suggest you go visit.
An opinion is more of an affliction
Wow parler sounds like a lovely place
A far right echo chamber where you can be as bigoted as you like
But I can't see it working out, all the people who've made a career of stirring hate & division can't outrage anyone!
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1274778216033591296?s=19