Is this a good use of police time?

True soontobe you can't get away with posting any threats of violence against another person, that will always be investigated by the police, or racial slurs, but other than that, no matter how unpleasant and hurtful of feelings, as long as it's not a matter of libel [Hopkins did not threaten or libel] you can more or less say what you like.We have to have freedom of speech, and to start curtailing that would be wrong.She must be a very dubious and unpleasant character mind you, to have wrote what she did, but she likes stirring things up.

I always think of freedom of speech as having some valid point to make - even if the way it is presented is offensive or insulting. But this woman just makes vile comments that make no sense and have no purpose other than to outrage.

To think that people are dying horribly in Africa, and healthcare and ancillary workers are risking their lives to help others while this awful woman makes stupid remarks just to raise her own pathetic profile is sickening. I wish TV producers would stop giving her airtime.

I share the wish that TV producers and the media generally would stop giving the odious, attention seeking woman air time. It isn't likely to happen though is it. One of the down sides of the internet, reality tv shows and 24hour news seems to me to be an increase in the amount of trivia and gossip being treated as 'news'. I'm not criticising 'popular culture' in its many forms, we all need some light relief, but this individual is making what seems like a good income from being vile.

She's like gold dust to newspaper tabloid editors and junk TV producers alike because she's a stirrer and attracts attention to their publications and productions. Fat chance that they'll stop using her.

Yes annodomini, I'm sure you're right but I so wish you weren't.

Eloethan, Anno and Iam64 I entirely agree. I remember back at the start of the Ebola outbreak seeing a young British doctor out there talking so impressively to a BBC interviewer that I clearly remember saying to DH that he was the sort of person that made me proud to be British. His direct, totally self deprecating, practical approach was wonderful to see. Brought tears to my eyes. Re KH, that person under discussion in this thread, I don't think she should be given the oxygen of publicity!!

I think it is a wider problem than Katie Hopkins.
Social media are now used to incite hatred, whether racial, religious or homophobic and the law hasn't kept pace with technology.
That's why the police have to investigate complaints and bring cases to court if incitement can be proved.

Being a Glaswegian I probably take her comments more personally. The first vile comment about Glasgow/Glaswegians was after the Clutha Vaults helicopter tragedy and now this one, after the George Square tragedy, however, as I do, whenever I hear about her obnoxious rantings, I ignore her and certainly wouldn't give her more publicity by acknowledging her.

Her comments say far more about her than about the subject - and we hear far too much about her and her inflated sense of how relevant and interesting she is.

I agree Elegran. My knee jerk reaction was because it was, again, about Glasgow. Maybe she just doesn't like us but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

social media can only incite hatred if it is taken seriously by its followers
it is all too easy for some people (particularly z-list celebs) to become keyboard warriors and say what they like on Twitter and the rest.
if they could be called to account and sued for 'libel' or is it 'slander' they just might think about what they are writing (tweeting)
should the police waste time on them - no the police should be dealing with violence and keeping society safe
we have all seen cyberbullying on fora (including Gransnet )

So you are saying that it is a lawyer issue alone mollie?

mollie Crime is not limited to violence, though, is it?
Fraud for example. Are you saying that because fraud does not involve violence, or usually threaten the safety of people, police should not investigate it so that the courts can call fraudsters to account?
What about the Birmingham dentist who defrauded the NHS of over a million pounds? Was it a waste of police time to painstakingly investigate, make sure the evidence was watertight, and prosecute her?

As we have seen, you don't have to be a Twitter follower to become aware of the viciousness of some people's tweets. If the person posting them has the intent to incite hatred, or even if they don't, they should be called to account in just the same way as if they had plastered their thoughts on a billboard or published a pamphlet and stuck it through a door.
(In case you think that doesn't happen, it does. I once phoned the police after a highly offensive, anti-Semitic leaflet was put through my door)

good for you jana.

jane The difference with fraud is that it doesn't only outrage and offend but is a clearly identifiable crime.

This woman's remarks are stupid and vicious. I'm not sure they incite hatred because even if there are a few deranged people who share her warped view of the world, who or what would they commit acts of violence against - Glaswegians, Scotland, Africa??

Rent-a-mouth Hopkins appears to make her money from her 'media career' which is based on being deliberately outrageous and controversial. She appears to appeal to the lowest common denominator. if her comments are not challenged there is a possibility that they then become 'acceptable'.

It is always a fine line when deciding when to 'ignore and hope it goes away' or 'challenge and demonstrate unacceptability'

Unfortunately Hopkins is a media creation - it's all a mutual arrangement to develop a personality, outrage the masses and thus create advertising, column inches and, ultimately, sales.

My complaint is that the police become involved.

There was supposedly a TV discussion wherein she offended someone by calling her fat, who then went off to complain to the police.

She won't go away Penst, not for now anyway, because she's a cash-cow for the media.

Unfortunately Hopkins is a media creation - it's all a mutual arrangement

I have been wondering this myself.
Is that how it works?

And all those Daily Mail sidebars of women in bikinis and selfies?
Are they purely a media creation as well?

She might go away if there is too much negative response, i.e she does not generate money for those who manage her.

Unfortunately the media don't differentiate between positive reponse and negative response - if people will buy a paper to read what her latest outrageous remarks are and tut about them they will keep on reporting them. What it needs is for everyone to get so bored that they don't bother reading.

That's what I meant by negative ..from the media point of view so thy don't sell papers/advertising etc because she is no longer 'sells'

Yes, no publicity would be GOOD in her case.

Of course, we on GN are not helping by discussing it here - it is all added to the piles of stuff about her on the net.

The problem with that point of view is nobody would read The Guardian, The Mail etc. etc. etc.. It wasn't a story that was only printed in one or two papers after all.

I accept papers lean to the left and right of politics and have their own views but the Katy Hopkins story was probably thought worthy of being printed because it was so crass and worth reporting, as with the Polar Bear Story, the woman who trolled Maddie Mc Canns family etc. etc. etc. The Guardian, The Mail etc.etc. etc. were merely doing what they are supposed to do, print a story and let their readers make their own decision as to how they interpret / view her words for themselves.

Whatever you read in print or see on t.v may not be to our own particular taste but it is not up to the media to not report a story . That argument could apply if it was a piece written on behalf of the paper, hence that is what the paper thinks, but not when it is the words of another and they are merely reporting a factual occurrence.

I think blaiming the media for reporting such stories just shifts a goal post and gives the likes of Katy Hopkins a bit of a 'let off' for saying what she did.

As an adult I have to say I have heard far worse even on GN so Katy Hopkins is just one of those irritating people who make me tut but not sweat a great deal over.

Now there is Facebook, Twitter, and 24 hour news, media is in lots of ways much bigger around the world.
The result is the Katy Hopkins of the world, as the amount of "news" that was needed in say the 70s and 80s just wont feed all of today's media outlets.
So I think they are all here to stay.

switched off when she was on Apprentice and have never read or listened to her since. She has nothing to offer me.