Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Katie Hopkins appeared on the Late Late Show and all hell broke loose...

Sometimes you think you’ve seen it all…

Updated 14 February, 8.15AM

THERE IS ONE word to describe the Late Late Show last night. Surreal.

Not only did they have a studio full of single men and women, a date going on in the background, Louis Walsh, snippets of filthy scenes from the RTÉ archive, but also one of the most controversial women, Katie Hopkins on the couch.

Hopkins was on usual top form. Insulting the violinist on the show as well as saying the man on the date backstage was sweating too much.

She also spoke about her usual topic up for discussion – “how fat people are lazy”.

Hopkins had some fun with the audience, getting “offers” from two young gentleman in the audience.

Mark made Hopkins quite the offer:

dfhdfjhfgjm Screengrab / RTÉ Screengrab / RTÉ / RTÉ

As did this guy, who asked for a kiss:

fghdfgndghmn Screengrab / RTE Screengrab / RTE / RTE

It is no surprise that Twitter reacted rather strongly to her presence on the show, with many asking why she was being given airtime.

Sometimes you think you’ve seen it all….

Read: Thousands raised to help mugged pensioner get back on his feet>

Read: This little dog walked 20 blocks to visit her owner in hospital>

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
170 Comments
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sinabhfuil
    Favourite Sinabhfuil
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 10:08 AM

    Ah, tis well I remember driving past one of the Dublin Corporation developments of the 1980s with a well-off professional in the building industry. He pointed at it in a fury. “Look at that! Materials and work to an inspected standard no private builder could possibly afford!”
    Remember when a house being built by a council was a guarantee of quality? The best of materials, workmanship inspected stringently, everything done perfectly.

    85
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kate Ellen Egan
    Favourite Kate Ellen Egan
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 10:57 AM

    There are people who got corporation houses when they were on hard times at small rent , bought them when they were a little better off for well below the market value but come the Celtic Tiger ,kids gone they were sold for mega bucks ,was that a fair thing to do ? after all corporation houses were the original social housing schemes

    78
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Inntalitarian
    Favourite Inntalitarian
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 11:11 AM

    Social housing should never be sold to a private owner. It distorts the market completely and is entirely unfair to regular buyers, particularly those just above the threshold for SH.

    64
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute GATHERINGYOURMONEY14
    Favourite GATHERINGYOURMONEY14
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 4:52 PM

    Part “V”
    How appropriate.
    The establishment yet again gives the V sign to the working poor middle-classes.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Edward Smith
    Favourite Edward Smith
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:08 PM

    Great, you work hard and save for years to get your own space and then a family of welfare bums moves next door to you for free.

    56
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute George Grey
    Favourite George Grey
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 10:28 AM

    Developers milked and milking the system. Many broke developers are now employed by NAMA to look after their greedy and failed projects. In tow with the banks they decimated any vision for sustainable housing projects in this country. The real hindrance to the industry is not social housing but rather a desire to maximise profits with little cost.

    53
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Edward Smith
    Favourite Edward Smith
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:20 PM

    On the RTE news two months ago there was an item about Cluid Housing Association handing over two beautiful new houses to a Nigerian single mother and a Polish family. We are never going to be able to build hoses for everyone who decides to come here.
    We should concentrate on housing our own people first.

    48
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bobby
    Favourite Bobby
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:22 PM

    Europe would slap you for saying that. Your not allowed. You must do as they say in the Union……

    27
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Junkie Joe Joyce
    Favourite Junkie Joe Joyce
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 4:18 PM

    “Our own” have had it too easy for generations. I’ve no doubt that a Nigerian or Polish family would appreciate social housing far more than many of our own anti-social degenerates.

    12
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Edward Smith
    Favourite Edward Smith
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 7:02 PM

    Now that truly is genius, lets teach our poor a lesson by bringing in the Worlds poor.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Robert Meade
    Favourite Robert Meade
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 11:05 AM

    So sticking a few social housing units into a new estate is the government’s answer to social integration?

    38
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Patlyndo
    Favourite Patlyndo
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 11:19 AM

    Got it is painful to watch. The same eejits, discussing the same problems with the same eejits and coming up with the same solutions, that have not, did not and will not work to address the “social” housing issue.

    32
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute gkrell
    Favourite gkrell
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 11:57 AM

    Do they ever consider that the reason so much social housing is needed is because the price of property is way out of line with the average wage? 25% of children are born to single parent families now. 50% of people in social housing are single parents. Single parenthood is becoming the new normal. The solution is not to milk the taxpayers, but to let the price of property naturally reduce to suit market demand. A single parent who minimum wage should be able to afford their own home. They are not an edge case any more. They are becoming the majority.

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kal Ipers
    Favourite Kal Ipers
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 12:16 PM

    So we should sell property cheaper than the materials? How about the other parent pays for their child and people actual aim for better employment.

    41
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute gkrell
    Favourite gkrell
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 12:47 PM

    not at all. The high price of property is not because of the materials used, it is because prices are unnaturally inflated due to a number of reasons. One reason is, people are told the state will pay their retirement costs, so instead of needing to save money for retirement, they have more available to spend on property. The price of property is only what people are willing to pay. We have a society now where people work 40-50 hours a week just to pay for the box you get to leave your stuff in while you are away working to pay for the box to leave your stuff in. Then the other factor is the increasing number of people who rely on social housing. 100,000 people are living in social housing within Dublin city’s canals. This decreases the amount of property available to own/rent pushing property prices higher and also removes the demand for low cost housing from the market, as this cost is being born by the tax payer who are paying for housing in some of the most desirable city centre locations.

    10
    See 3 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute gkrell
    Favourite gkrell
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:13 PM

    oh and we’re not talking about paying for children here which of course both parents should help. A single parent family needs two homes, one for the father and one for the mother. The children could split their time between the homes making their support share equal, but two homes are still needed. One has to be paid for by the mother and one has to be paid for by the father. This sort of family is becoming more and more common now. They used to be an infrequent edge case so the cost has been born by the tax payer as the majority of families had two parents, needing only one housing making the cost of buying a home a single parent prohibitive. Now though, more and more families are living in single parent homes – 25% and growing meaning 50% of social housing now goes to them, paid for by the tax payer. What needs to happen instead is that the market adjusts to meet the new reality of home-owners. It’s quite realistic to this. We don’t have the money to fund an ever increasing number of single parent homes. House prices just need to drop to a level that is affordable by the new market instead of being propped up by tax-payers. It’s a no brainer. However the biggest opponent to this is the state and the banks who likes to keep inflating the cost of housing because it is a cash cow.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bobby
    Favourite Bobby
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:15 PM
    11
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Kal Ipers
    Favourite Kal Ipers
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 1:17 PM

    You don’t even see your own argument in your suggestion. Why would people bother if the can have a child and get really cheap housing and work a low paying job.
    If you reckon it is viable to provide houses @ 65k and make a profit I suggest you become a developer. Of course it requires non union workers and free land.
    Personally I think we should be trying to use the stock we have. Maybe give tax incentives to retired people to move from the prime locations that are well serviced for families and those working. The capacity for city suburbs is grossly under used.

    9
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Bobby
    Favourite Bobby
    Report
    Jul 12th 2014, 12:33 PM

    That’s how it works in England. Private/key worker/social units in each development.

    6
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds