Channel 5

Sorry, but who is she harming? She's expressing HER OPINION

No. I don't agree with her, I mean judging a child be their name, really!?!
But - it's her opinion, yes she could be more respectful at times but everyone in the programme last night was arguing not debating

No Sir. As someone said of ITN, what the paying client wants, the paying client gets. I imagine it is similar with Katie Hopkins. Producers use her to get their programmes trending on Twitter and she seems to do a very good job of it.



I thought they could have done more with Shaw Taylor. He was only in it for seconds and even then only his hands were visible for most of it as they concentrated on the items he was holding.

It's fine for her to express an opinion, if it's an informed opinion, but she doesn't exactly use facts or statistics and that's bad for everyone. She's warping people's minds. She literally said last night that it annoys her when facts get involved in the immigration debate. It's dangerous to have that as a prominent view.

Only it isn't really her true opinion, she is clearly trolling to get a reaction. The idiots who react to her are worse. No actually the lazy tv producers who book her are worse.

Btw the debate only got 900k, which shows what 'trending on Twitter' amounts to in the real world

Awful, awful show. Although Katie Hopkins' moaning about someone talking about facts made me laugh.

Society, as a whole.

People like her are harmful to society, when opinions like the ones she portrays, whether she holds them or not, are allowed to air on television.

She should never be booked for a show.

She's trying to be the UK's version of Ann Coulter.

I think it's worth repeating the quote just to reinforce just how awful she is:

"Too much time has been spent on what the facts are..."

This is not good for the country. The media are already vastly influential on the opinions of ordinary people in this country, and to have her say that, and then be allowed to continue with her horrible and outdated views is not good at all.

Now, if she wants to talk about why she doesn't like immigration with regards to evidential-based reasons, that's fine. She'll struggle though, for two reasons:

One, because there's a ridiculously large amount of evidence that points to immigration being incredibly beneficial in all sorts of areas (most importantly economic, but also cultural).

Two, because she's just not intelligent enough to do it.

Indeed - she popped up in the Oxford Union recently to wheel-out her daytime-TV-offensive schtick, and whilst friends of mine who attended found it faintly amusing that such ridiculous views were held, it is worrying that such damaging rhetoric is heard regularly on TV.

I didn't watch the start of the programme - but returning from the break several times the CA said that "As The Big British Immigration Row is live extreme views may be aired and do not represent those of Channel 5" or something along the lines of that.

I imagine anyone who is opposing Katie Hopkins in a debate ends up rubbing their hands in glee. It's difficult to lose. The woman has so little credibility she's going to damage whatever part of the devide she's on. So if you think Hopkins is dangerous as she represents a different view to you, just be glad it's her and not someone people would take seriously.

Those announcements are routinely ignored by viewers. Also, it doesn't alter the fact that an extremist view was broadcast in primetime, on a mainstream channel, where it does not belong.

Over 3 million people in America take Fox News seriously, and millions more take extreme right wing radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh seriously. About 200,000 in this country take Fox News seriously. You seriously believe that she is not dangerous, because even 200,000 people could actually believe her? She is also read by 3 million readers in the Sun every week. Still think she's not dangerous?