Katie Hopkins article

brilliant


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

Some interesting points! Lots happening on Twitter

cherry1 wrote:brilliant


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

Hopkins - "I have never been allowed to say this before."

Wonder why she's now allowed to say it?. Interesting times ahead.

Interesting article and comments. Merci Cherry.

Praise God!! Finally someone brave enough to speak the truth. "I've never been allowed to say this before", I hope the writer does a follow-up explaining who and why she was prevented from articulating these facts before.

I don't know a lot about the writer, Katie Hopkins, but from the comments I take it she is somewhat controversial, well done to her and the DM for at long last permitting these few facts to be published.

As well as the 11 million of taxpayer money, I wish she would have mentioned the millions contributed to the "limited company" which the McCanns have benefited from and taken advantage of.

It's been a long time coming but finally some of the facts have been presented clearly. I hope this article represents the tide turning and this article is reproduced by the worldwide media.

WHICH REPORT POINTED IN A DIRECTION GERRY MCCANN DIDN'T LIKE?

Badboy wrote:WHICH REPORT POINTED IN A DIRECTION GERRY MCCANN DIDN'T LIKE?

I take it that the "pictures" she refers to, which "Gerry didn't enjoy", would be the e-fits resembling none other than himself.

We cant trust what Gerry finds best for him. Its stillp, also went close to smith family possable he did do the walk with a child,and meant to be seen ,or another Patsie did it ,so what smiths are sure they saw ,is not lying .how clever this family macs have been .They just love to mix it up.Its all part of the scheme to keep everyone ,looking at their ideas after all Gerry did say I believe confusion is good ? I think the thing that made me feel like all the confusion others ,showed me ,it has to have been a reason ,not just to lie but confuse,well that has now began to make more sense to me ,its sort of proved ,most would have been made up,and we have been trying to find out who was telling truth.? do hope we may be getting closer ,but we have been here before optism,so not so sure,but Richard book does make us think outside the box ,bit more and yes its been helped on by some members and we had heard it too,but this is not just for sites ,but for th wider public who can now browse U tube and find it ,should open some peoples mind,so don't lets get upset and talk about we already knew this ,others now will have chance to know as well. too late I should get back to bed . joyce1938

but...still runs as abduction..the whole story. No dogs mentioned. Abduction is not questioned at all, taken as face value as usual.

You're welcome frencheuropean x


I know Katie has been sent a lot of info on twitter including Richard's video and the files, lets hope she may do a follow up

Hi all it is a long time since I posted .but always look in here and Jill's and other places .I think kh is very blunt in her op but good on her with the latest. Many may say she hasn't gone far enough small steps small steps like many I'm sick to the back teethof reading outdated story's from the mcanns side of things .I joined forums in 2007 for one reason to find the truth of what happened to Madeleine poor baby .I will always think of her .but sorry to say I don't think we will ever know let's just hope that the press will balance things a bit more now

Can't believe how many negative comments are being allowed in the Daily Mail.

I also feel its too late to get the outcome we have all hoped for . If beenshielded by a lot of high ups why would they come clean now .? If Richards videos get to general public ,that's a good thing .After all ,we will always believe our pet theories.Fter so long ,cant remember mine .joyce1938

Evening Standard - Katie Hopkins sparks online frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katie-hopkins-sparks-online-frenzy-with-attack-on-madeleine-mccanns-parents-a3185856.html

Surprise surprise...I don't really like Katie Hopkins, who is often controversial or outrageous for being controversial's sake, and I know, like most people, she accepts the 'abduction hypothesis, but I found her article oddly moving. Much of it is highly relevant. I don't seem to be able to see the comments allowed. Are they not under th article as usual?

cherry1 wrote:Evening Standard - Katie Hopkins sparks online frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katie-hopkins-sparks-online-frenzy-with-attack-on-madeleine-mccanns-parents-a3185856.html

Hardly an 'attack'. She fully supports the mccann abduction story...not questioning it at all.

Thats partly true but she does call her article 'We may never know what happened to Maddie.' However she then goes into talking about their neglect by leaving her alone... which of course they may very well not have done... neglect and leaving her alone being a necessary precursor of abduction... a better option, if something else happened they would not want to admit to.

weissnicht wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Evening Standard - Katie Hopkins sparks online frenzy with attack on Madeleine McCann's parents

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katie-hopkins-sparks-online-frenzy-with-attack-on-madeleine-mccanns-parents-a3185856.html

Hardly an 'attack'. She fully supports the mccann abduction story...not questioning it at all.

I prefer to think that her Daily Mail article, which does not challenge the abduction 'story', is as far as she was "allowed" to go at this time.

The good thing is the comments in response to her article are mainly in support of what no one has been allowed/brave enough to say (in print that is).

I've just read the shocking article in the Daily Mail regarding Katie Hopkins' neuro-surgery today following on the heels of publication of her article re the McCanns just yesterday.

I wish this brave woman a speedy recovery for herself and her family. May she soon be well enough to continue her writing and her publishers courageous enough to print her work.

I second those good wishes for her recovery. She has wrtten some outrageous things, particularly snobby stuff, in the past... but... but... her operation is a dangerous one, and her medical problems quite a lot to put up with. I wonder if she has has this article on the stocks for ages. and asked for it to be printed just in case. I wonder why the Daily Mail... not my favourite paper by far, had the bottle to go out on a limb with it?

comperedna wrote:I second those good wishes for her recovery. She has wrtten some outrageous things, particularly snobby stuff, in the past... but... but... her operation is a dangerous one, and her medical problems quite a lot to put up with. I wonder if she has has this article on the stocks for ages. and asked for it to be printed just in case. I wonder why the Daily Mail... not my favourite paper by far, had the bottle to go out on a limb with it?

As a Canadian, I am not familiar with her previous work only enough to read that she is considered controversial in the U.K. I too wonder if, since she has been following the case of "missing" Madeleine McCann since 2007, she has reached her own conclusions which if published would be the target of the litigious McCanns.

In any case, good for the Daily Mail for, as you say, going out on a limb with yesterday's article which appears to have generated a huge response by way of comments from the public.

Just saw a tweet from Katie Hopkins which was posted approximately 5 hours ago: "A tweet from the High Dependency Unit to give you the bad news. Even 12 hours in surgery and the removal of part of my brain has not shut me up."

What a trouper! Hooray. Interested, I see you are in Canada, so I will explain he sort of sniffy, snobby things Katie used to write. (Not verbatim) 'I would never agree to one of my children playing with anyone called Wayne, or Charmayne.' Presumably because a 'common'/lower class accent might rub off on them.

comperedna wrote:What a trouper! Hooray. Interested, I see you are in Canada, so I will explain he sort of sniffy, snobby things Katie used to write. (Not verbatim) 'I would never agree to one of my children playing with anyone called Wayne, or Charmayne.' Presumably because a 'common'/lower class accent might rub off on them.

She also gained then lost a lot of weight, to prove that "fat Chavs" are responsible for their obesity. (I actually agreed with most of that to be fair)

comperedna wrote:What a trouper! Hooray. Interested, I see you are in Canada, so I will explain he sort of sniffy, snobby things Katie used to write. (Not verbatim) 'I would never agree to one of my children playing with anyone called Wayne, or Charmayne.' Presumably because a 'common'/lower class accent might rub off on them.

Thanks to "comperedna" and "fred" for the insight into why she is considered controversial.