GRcade

She just wants to get paid for saying horrible things because she's a psychopath banana split. A vile, ugly bitch with a face like a foot.

Let's stop freedom!

WhatsApp must not be 'place for terrorists to hide'

There must be "no place for terrorists to hide" and intelligence services must have access to encrypted messaging services, the home secretary has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39396578

Blue Eyes wrote:She just wants to get paid for saying horrible things because she's a psychopath banana split. A vile, ugly bitch with a face like a foot.

Katie Hopkins, or Theresa May?

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:Vile pigtroll Hopkins:

No. Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British. Khalid being British is sadly seen as a victory for liberals.

I wonder what she means? Could it be that being a little bit brown means somebody can't be British in some people's eyes?

This is why people call islamophobes racist, we know Islam isn't a race but we also know you mean non-whites.

The two don't automatically go hand in hand. Even in Katie's case it's much more likely she's talking about Khalid being Muslim, rather than him being non-white. But then again it's Katie Hopkins so who knows.

Yeah I'm sure that's exactly what she meant.

I think you have to consider if all things were equal - but Khalid was white - would Katie Hopkins have written the same? Would she strawberry float.

Yeah she was being a banana split, because she is a banana split.

People that aren't like 3 or 4 generations British should leave or have less rights will be the next thing people start spouting more in public because apparently it is ok.

I don't know how e strawberry float we got to a point where this sort of racist gooseberry fool was some how ok to spout but it is damn dangerous and worrying.

It's making her rich, I get it.

Throwing your morals out the window works very well for some people. Just don't expect any sympathy when it eventually blows up in your face.

Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

I actually disagree. I don't think her views are about colour. I think it is purely about Islam. It's not about being white or christian. I don't think she would have an issue with a 3rd generation british black atheist.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

I actually disagree. I don't think her views are about colour. I think it is purely about Islam. It's not about being white or christian. I don't think she would have an issue with a 3rd generation british black atheist.

I didn't say t was about colour, it is however about race, any race that isnt white Anglo Saxon

Errkal wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

I actually disagree. I don't think her views are about colour. I think it is purely about Islam. It's not about being white or christian. I don't think she would have an issue with a 3rd generation british black atheist.

I didn't say t was about colour, it is however about race, any race that isnt white Anglo Saxon

But as i said i disagree i don't think it's about any race that isn't white Anglo Saxon. We of course can't prove or disprove this because she isn't sat her now answering our questions and if she was she would probably give a different view today to what she does tomorrow because thats what columnists like her seem to do.

But to clarify she to me is clearly against Islam and doesn't feel that it has any place in British society. That in itself is not a racist view.

Fair enough racist or not being anti a religion is wrong and she shouldn't be allowed the spout the shut she does.

Lucien wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

It's objectively not a racist statement. You (but anyone can) read it and put a subjective tangent on it.

I'm stunned that Lucien would see it that way.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is horrendous rhetoric, and a stupid way to think. How would we define a 'true Brit' if not by citizenship, and even if that were possible why would it be helpful or useful to take people we disagree with - even genuinely horrible people - and deny the reality of the fact that they are British citizens? It's a gross statement obviously designed to legitimise bigotry.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:it seems to me that her issue is [about] the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her

What's your opinion on this? I think it's reprehensible to take an entire subset of society and demonise them based on the actions of a fringe minority. What do you think?

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

I actually disagree. I don't think her views are about colour. I think it is purely about Islam. It's not about being white or christian. I don't think she would have an issue with a 3rd generation british black atheist.

I didn't say t was about colour, it is however about race, any race that isnt white Anglo Saxon

But as i said i disagree i don't think it's about any race that isn't white Anglo Saxon. We of course can't prove or disprove this because she isn't sat her now answering our questions and if she was she would probably give a different view today to what she does tomorrow because thats what columnists like her seem to do.

But to clarify she to me is clearly against Islam and doesn't feel that it has any place in British society. That in itself is not a racist view.

She didn't mention Islam in that statement. She named a British born man of colour that committed a horrific crime and used that to try and prove that some people are not as British as others.

Whether it's about Islam (it's of course handy for racists that most Muslim's are not white) or race, even the worst of crimes do not mean your nationality suddenly changes.

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Having read a number of Katie Hopkins articles it seems to me that her issue is not around the colour of someones skin but of the Islamic faith, she doesn't feel that it has a place in British society and there's an increasing number of people that agree with her. She is however very poor at articulating her views.

"Being born in Britain no longer guarantees you are truly British" is a massively racist statement, just like the old classic "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse". The implication is people can be born here, a family can have been here for generations but they are not quite as good or as British as us White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

This, her statement is quite clearly a racist one, but written in such a way she can go "hey I didn't say I don't think people shouldn't be considered British, you are inferring that"

I actually disagree. I don't think her views are about colour. I think it is purely about Islam. It's not about being white or christian. I don't think she would have an issue with a 3rd generation british black atheist.

I didn't say t was about colour, it is however about race, any race that isnt white Anglo Saxon

But as i said i disagree i don't think it's about any race that isn't white Anglo Saxon. We of course can't prove or disprove this because she isn't sat her now answering our questions and if she was she would probably give a different view today to what she does tomorrow because thats what columnists like her seem to do.

But to clarify she to me is clearly against Islam and doesn't feel that it has any place in British society. That in itself is not a racist view.

She didn't mention Islam in that statement. She named a British born man of colour that committed a horrific crime and used that to try and prove that some people are not as British as others.

Whether it's about Islam (it's of course handy for racists that most Muslim's are not white) or race, even the worst of crimes do not mean your nationality suddenly changes.

As I said I've based this view on reading a number of her articles and also as I said she doesn't articulate herself well. Which is probably intentional to get people to share and comment on her articles.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone I just think that she is against Islam in Britain like an increasing number of our society.

I guess it's also not racist to be retweeting somebody with a username of "antijuden" while arguing that racial profiling is good and that racism has lost all meaning?

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_586a9 ... 4da6e93af7

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I'm not trying to argue with anyone I just think that she is against Islam in Britain like an increasing number of our society.

Okay, let's say you're right -- why is that functionally any different to racism? At points over the last century or so it's been "the blacks just don't fit in to our society," "the Irish just don't fit in to our society," "the Jews just don't fit in to our society." Now it's "the Muslims just don't fit in to our society." Do you not think Katie Hopkins is on the wrong side of history? Is it worth splitting hairs over whether she's a 'racist' or a 'xenophobe' or a 'bigot' when they all describe roughly equivalent deplorable views?

I don't think this is true of anyone in this thread but often it is the people who say "well actually it's not technically racism" who have a vested interest in legitimising the bigoted viewpoints they not-so-secretly agree with.