Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

Yes, the McCanns have been written about endlessly. There's nothing else to write, so Hopkin's only reason for doing so must have been to keep the pot stirring.

But who else is saying these "things that need to be said"? Just wondering. If people want to but don't then they are self-censoring. That's a statement of fact (I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Why are more checks needed on free speech than more speech? Why isn't disagreement, discussion, verbal confrontation seen as enough of a check on things one disagrees with or even hates?

I see the difference, nina. I haven't mentioned anything about 'liking'. I admit I don't follow Hopkins closely, but I disagree with practically every word I have ever seen her write. She's a stirrer, whose only talent seems to be to spout bile. That's not clever.

Rigby, she is paid to 'entertain' readers. I wouldn't even call her a writer. The DM is a gutter read so she's writing to their level.
But, a lot of people comment on the McCanns. She's just one of them.

I don't agree with unlimited free speech and I've argued my case a number of times on GN. People also have rights not to be bullied. In this case, Hopkins lied (maybe unintentionally) and refused to apologise.

I don't want to live in a Wild West kind of society, where anything goes. People end up getting hurt.

Hopkins undoubtedly knew enough about Monroe to know that she's left-wing and transgender, so a sitting target for a DM writer. Sarah Vine has also written a couple of vitriolic articles about Monroe. Monroe has also been very open about suffering from depression and experiencing a breakdown. People like Vine and Hopkins seem to have nothing better to do than kick the vulnerable and shame on the people who lap up their vitriol.

Dahhnedill, I am smiling because having read some of these highly vociferous posts about KH, I'm not seeing a lot of difference.

You don't have to like someone to disagree with them. She has written some strong arguments for Britain which I agree with. Other articles, no I couldn't agree.

Well nina it all depends on what we think needs to be said but I think we might agree that lies don't need to be said or her frequent attacks on the McCanns. And there are many other ways of saying what needs to be said without resorting to the bile that is the average KH column.

Sorry, but I have no time for anybody who agrees with her. Maybe some people need to say what she writes, but I don't. She's a bullying hate-mongerer - for the sake of it and she knows she can get away with it most of the time.

thatbags re free speech, of course I realise that social mores etc change over time as does what is considered libellous. I'm not laying down any rules about where behaving decently would mean limiting free speech, rather I'm saying that at any particular point in time, many people have an awareness that some things are better left unsaid even if not libellous. We don't have to indulge in free speech and say whatever we want just because we can. We all draw our own individual lines on this but many of us would share broad agreement about certain limits in certain situations and contexts. Bereaved parents are one group that some would consider off limits.

I actually like some of KH articles. She often says what needs to be said.

And actually come to think of it, even if KH hadn't been paid for the libellous article and done it for free out of the goodness of her heart ( well yes forget that) the DM would still have been sued for libel because they published it

Goady <sighs>

For those who don't want to read the article, he's saying that KH deleted the 'libellous' tweet as soon as she realised she'd mistaken Jack Monroe for someone else. The writer's argument is that that should have been the end of it. He thinks British libel laws are draconian and says that if he sued every time someone said anything nasty or harmful about him, he'd never be out of the courts

thatbags if that's an accurate summary of his article, he has been disingenuous. After KH had deleted the tweet, she then sent another one asking what's the difference between irritant Penny Red ( the one she had mistaken JM for) and social anthrax Monroe'

It was argued in court that this second tweet carried an innuendo that JM approved or condoned of the vandalism. Either way KH in that second tweet was being a toady fucker of the first league. She really is a piece of work

There is something not right about all of this.

This is my last post about it on here!

Promises, promises

Naughty post Elegran. You , deliberately I assume, didnt quote all of DDs post.
You left out the part I was obviously responding to.

And that is one of the reasons why I will try not to post about it again.
I always hope that you do better posts than that.

Read my (and others') lips
You
Are
Not
Right
In fact with all your obfuscation I wonder if even you know what the heck your original point was.
But as you have your own Bonkersunique take on a parallel reality, I too will leave you to it.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum now I truly understand that saying.

Where you said "yes it is dd. Which bit dont you understand?" in answer to DD's "I've learnt from experience that it's futile explaining anything to you."

Is that definite and official * nkers* ( 15:28:49) and can be quoted?

Make of that what you will

Post 15.45pm I have answered all that lot already!

Post 15.40pm I have answered about self employment already too!

Methinks some posters already know only too well that I am right!!
So I am not going to fall into the trap of explaining myself over and over.

From your own link, which you seem to fail to understand
" If you hire a freelancer, consultant or contractor it means that:

they are *self-employed or are part of other companies*
they often look after their own tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs)
they might not be entitled to the same rights as workers, eg minimum wage
you’re still responsible for their health and safety "
See that word "self-employed-"??

A journalist may be "employed" to write a regular column but the legal responsibility of the publishing agency starts and ends with the article or column.
A newspaper may choose to dispense with a journalist's services (also known as "ending their contract") if , by association, they bring the publication into disrepute.

From the HMRC website
"A contractor can be:
self-employed
a worker or an employee if they work for a client and are employed by an agency"
You can look up the rest of the definition of self employed for yourself.

What doesn't follow?
Your post of 15.27 and dd's of 15.22
As the daughter of a freelance journalist I am quite familiar with the concept of "freelance" <sigh->

on not in!