Earlier today I took part in a debate with controverisalist Katie Hopkins.
Earlier today I took part in a debate with controverisalist Katie Hopkins, during which the former Apprentice star said she agreed “in principle” that people on benefits should be “stopped from breeding”. However the policy would be “difficult to enforce”, she added.
The debate came on the back of a tweet by footballer Joey Barton, who lashed out after watching the Channel 4 show Benefits Street, calling for people to require a “licence for breeding”.
Asked if she agreed with Joey Barton, Ms Hopkins replied:
“I think some of these policies are a little bit difficult to enforce, but I do agree with him in principle.”
Yes, because the problem with sterilisation of the poor (how else are you going to stop people having children?) isn’t that it’s extreme or anything, it’s just “difficult to enforce”.
Listen to the debate in full here:
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
16 Responses to “Katie Hopkins on stopping poor people having children: ‘difficult to enforce, but I do agree…in principle’”
Matthew Blott
Katie Hopkins is just the latest rentagob who says outragous things to get heard. Like a three year old that says bum because they think it’s naughty she knows it will get the right people fired up on twitter. Rod Liddle has been doing it for years (in his case as a former Grauniad man I’m not even sure he believes the bollocks he comes out with). The best thing is to ignore her.
steve slater
Joey Barton…a broken leg, a large bet & 1or 2 more drinks away from being back to a ‘Bin Dipper’. Hopkins? DIAF.
Sparky
I only ask because you brought it up.
Say I am a shareholder in Tesco and I own a million shares. At current share price of £3.33. I have shares worth £3.3m, which would make me, in the eyes of a socialist, a rich, greedy scumbag. And yet, in your previous post, you’ve just been lamenting the fact that a lazy boss at Tesco would be costing me money.
I can only assume that you’ve done this because you don’t understand what a shareholder is. And if you don’t understand that, can we really take your views on capitalism with any seriousness? No.
treborc1
Yep, sadly she is one of those people that the media and TV types love and Barton of course is just a thicko who does not understand his parents would have been the one done and he’d not be here now. dam pity.
blarg1987
I do know what a shareholder is, I only raised it as would be curious to know if they would be treated with the same attitude as people on benefits or be considered a striver.
For the record my views are slightly left of centre but that does not make mean a socilist or communist, otherwise the same logic would mean people who’s views are slightly right of cente would be facists.