Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

Never heard of her either, checked Wikipedia

Ok then.

 

Beckham kicking 3 footballs into trashcans on the beach (fake). Listen at 37 seconds, just after he kicks the first ball in - sounds like the guy recording says 'ohhhh, good ole Rickie Lambert!' - strange but true...

[video=youtube;2lvRv2mnYLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lvRv2mnYLU[/video]

 

Wow, that woman is an utter cretin. I hope Poppy and India grow into fine crack whores, that'll learn her.

 

Easily.

 

By a mile. I can listen to Galloway, although he is obviously irritating.

Watching her made me want to smash my iPad into small pieces and my make her snort the remains.

 

Must be bad then.

 

Galloway was on 10 O'Clock Live a few weeks ago and I actually started to side with him, but that's mainly just because the other people at the table made him look good by comparison.

 

Back to the earlier talk of dating, get Channel 4 on. Following a load of people on First Dates. Some people are unbelievable.

 

"I'm going commando." What a ******.

 

Just a bit. Then the guy sat there with an earphone in as he talked to her after just meeting her at the bar...

 

There's an element of truth in what Katie Hopkins is saying in fairness, but she takes it to a wholly unacceptable level.


She's right when she says names can act as an indicator of class. I mean, your hypothetical Charlotte is far more likely to be middle class than your hypothetical Chelsee. Of course, it's not the be all and end all; there may be many working class Charlottes. Moreover, neutral names such as Tom, could quite easily fit into any social class. Nevertheless, to an extent, names can act as an indicator of class.

Furthermore, Katie has a point when she says that a middle class group of friends would in general be more desirable than a working class group of friends. People often speak of 'getting in with the wrong crowd'. This often refers to violent kids, perhaps into drink and drugs from an early age. I'm sure these types of children are more common among working class families than middle class families (but, of course, one's class is not the be all and end all of one's personality). For this reason, it seems common sense to want your children to have a middle class group of friends.

Hence, if names act as an indicator of class, and some classes are more desirable than others, then all other things being equal, Katie has every right to make judgements based on names.


The issue I have with Katie though is all other things are not equal. You will never be in a situation where you are presented with 2 names, 'Chelsee' and 'Charlotte', and only 1 of these can befriend your child. There so many other factors, that cannot be guaranteed by their name. Charlotte may be thoroughly nasty, whereas Chelsee is honest and hard working, and most importantly, makes your child happy. Not all working class children are lazy, and not all middle-class children are role models. To make a decision about a child based on only their name is clearly ridiculous, when there is so much more to a child than their name.


What I'm saying is I understand Katie saying that to an extent a child's 'desirability' can be judged by their name, and too many of you are quick to dismiss that. However, in practise, actually abiding by this procedure is clearly nonsensical, when there are so many other factors to consider.
Using names and class to judge a personality may work more often than not, but it's obviously not an exact science, as Katie appears to suggest.

 

You can tell a lot about parents by what they name their child. Naming your child India indicates that you are a massive cockwomble.

 

Brilliant when she slated those who named children after geographical places and then got uptight when Willoughby pointed out about India.

 

"But your child's called India"

 

Obviously names can be an indicator of class, nobody could realistically argue with that. The issue I personally had with Katie is the prejudice that comes with this. It's classism, not nameism. The entire problem is that she argues she wouldn't allow her children be friends with a Tyler or a Chelsea. It's making a damning judgement based on superficial factors, it's no different from any other kind of prejudice (except, perhaps, it's young children who let's be fair, aren't going to be into drink and drugs which makes prejudiced opinions even less valid). Nobody's saying not to be careful about who your children are hanging around with, it's just disgraceful that you can treat manipulation of the lives of your children down to a snap judgement on how softly their name hits your ear. Anyway, as Anna-May pointed out, it's not like sending your child to dinner at the house of a working class person is going to have your child back at your door with a *** hanging out of his mouth and a switchblade hidden in his back pocket.

Perhaps the biggest issue is how disgracefully she put herself across. The attitude and disdain she holds towards people she deems herself superior to is repulsive, she shows no remorse over holding such prejudiced views - in fact, she seems very proud of herself.

 

I agree with what you say. Different classes, genders, nationalities etc. all have different characteristics, but none of these are defined enough to make a realistic judgement over their character.

Well done for actually reading though my essay there by the way, I think I got a bit carried away

 

Why would you name your child India?

 

If you want to see more on the bitch, there's a video somewhere of her on the same show with Katie Waissel talking about tattoos. I'm sure you can imagine what she thinks of tattoos.

 

India's not a bad name, I can think of worse.

 

No thanx I think i'll pass.