Katie Hopkins

MothballsWallet

RuthnJasper wrote: »

I suspect she might enjoy it. She seems far less choosy about who she allows "down there" than she is about which friends her children are permitted to like.

Then we can shove some explosives up her "down there" with a remote controlled detonator.

I'm in such an evil mood today, I don't know why, so I do apologise!

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

Whoops!
My bad. :rotfl:

On topic, I'm sure Katie Hopkins will be smugly satisfied at the amount of debate her comments have generated.
Job done, Katie. :cool:

I thought she looked a bit upset at one point, I can't remember which child's name it was, Poppy or India, but there was some comment about it and she said something like, "Its a beautiful name for a beautiful child." I thought she looked a bit shocked/upset that maybe, just maybe someone might judge her child. It was the first time I felt I had seen a real emotional reaction from her but it was subtle.

sharnad

mumps wrote: »

I thought she looked a bit upset at one point, I can't remember which child's name it was, Poppy or India, but there was some comment about it and she said something like, "Its a beautiful name for a beautiful child." I thought she looked a bit shocked/upset that maybe, just maybe someone might judge her child. It was the first time I felt I had seen a real emotional reaction from her but it was subtle.

It was India. Yes she was a little shocked and maybe hurt fhat some would do to her child what she is perfectly happy to do to others. She is most likely stopping her children having some great friendships with her small minded views

RuthnJasper

MothballsWallet wrote: »

Then we can shove some explosives up her "down there" with a remote controlled detonator.

I'm in such an evil mood today, I don't know why, so I do apologise!

Probably the heat, darling. It tends to get me all crotchety too. It certainly did at the family 'do' earlier , where I had my speech scuppered by Dad using the exact same anecdote for his preceding speech that I was going to use :eek: :eek:

Fortunately I was able to do what every modern writer seems to do these days - I rushed home, grabbed a Jack Russell (distraction purposes - she is VERY cute), and nicked someone else's words!
Some "emergency Shakespeare" (the ever-reliable Sonnet 116) saved me once again, so I didn't look the dunderhead that I felt.

Now Shakespeare - he hung around with some rather dubious types in his day. I'm sure that Katie Hopkins would not have let her kids play with the baby Bard - and that would have been their loss more than his. "No, no, Orlando - you're not to play with naughty little Will and his grubby actor friends. I've scheduled a play-date with little Thomas Boleyn. OK, he will grow up to deliver both his daughters to an immoral king, leaving one dead and one ostracised from decent society, involve his son in his intrigues so far that the boy gets executed too - but FAR more socially respectable than that Shakespeare creature, dear..."

Lou67

Although I am not a fan of Katie Hopkins; I really do believe that many people think the same as she thinks about children's names, and they also agree with her about the kind of family a child with a 'certain name' comes from.

I know people are up in arms about this, but there is some truth in it, whether the left wing lobby like it or not. If you dare say anything against single mums, or people with kids with multiple surname or anything similar, you get shot down in flames for daring to have a view that goes against the radical left.

From what I can see/have seen, it IS the chavvy families that have names like Tyler and Charmaygne and Ashleigh and Destiny, and other similar names. I think not letting your kids play with these kids is extreme, but Katie is right that the chavvy families from the sink estates are the ones that have kids with these dreadful names, and who have this awful trend of using surnames for Christian names.

And as for people saying that a few FAMOUS people have kids with names like this - just because someone is famous and rich; that does not necessarily make them classy.

And don't waste your time asking me to come up with stats and official figures to 'prove' that it's the chavs/sink estate/single mums type of 'family' who mostly have these names; only the very pedantic would try to deny all this. The proof is right there in front of you, every day.

And before you call me a BIGOT, as I was called on another board; I have no issue with anyone of colour or anyone who is LGBT or any immigrants; but I will be the first to admit that I am not a fan of young girls (mostly from sink estate families,) punching out one kid after another and grabbing all the council properties after a few weeks on the list, just because their mother has said she 'can't live with her,' when many hard working people who DON'T have kids purely to get a council house, are stuck in private let after 5 years on the list! And it IS almost always this type of person who gives the kids awful chavvy names. Whether people on here care to admit it or not!!!

I saw the interview yesterday evening, as my neighbour recorded it for me, and that 'worm' they have that showed that 90% of people were AGAINST Katie is a joke. Most of the people doing that poll are the unemployed and the very people that Katie was slating! If they had done this at 6-7pm, on the news for instance; the result would have been VERY different!

geri1965_2

Lou67 wrote: »

From what I can see/have seen, it IS the chavvy families that have names like Tyler and Charmaygne and Ashleigh and Destiny, and other similar names.

My niece is called Ashley. I dare you to call my sister a chav to her face and see what you get.

Lou67

geri1965 wrote: »

My niece is called Ashley. I dare you to call my sister a chav to her face and see what you get.

So tell me 'GERI' what WOULD I get?

geri1965_2

Lou67 wrote: »

So tell me 'GERI' what WOULD I get?

Put in your place.

tuggy12

geri1965 wrote: »

My niece is called Ashley. I dare you to call my sister a chav to her face and see what you get.

Do you not see the irony in what you have said?

geri1965_2

tuggy12 wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in what you have said?

People are not allowed to defend themselves against idiotic and snobby opinions in your world?