Katie Hopkins is the villain of the week. She relishes the role, propped up by her righteous opponents and unwitting partners in crime, the baying mob. So if you’re one of those people eager to see her in handcuffs, I have no sympathy for you. I’m not going to give you any satisfaction describing here the article deemed worthy of criminal investigation. I refuse to condemn the business she conducts with a pen. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. I’m happy to upset your comfortable notions of truth and justice. Your offence is not my concern.
I don’t care to admire the fine tuning of your moral compass, the extent of your indignation. For expressing an opinion is not an act of violence. It is not a reason for investigation, arrest or prosecution of a citizen of the United Kingdom, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, wherever. Theorize all you want about how words wound as if they were knives, which by their mere utterance cause untold damage. That hate leads to violence. That special protections are needed for the most vulnerable elements in our society. I will happily debate those theories with you. But theories they will remain. They have no place in criminal law, regardless of how deep your offended feelings go.
Offence Taken: A Brief History of Katie Hopkins and the Law
In November, 2014 the website arrestkatiehopkins.co.uk went live, listing the “crimes” allegedly committed by Hopkins under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
In December, 2014 a number of complaints regarding a tweet published to Hopkin’s Twitter page were made to Police Scotland.
In March, 2015 a complaint regarding a tweet published to Hopkin’s Twitter page was made to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester. The complaint was made by Simon Danczuk MP.
In April, 2015 a complaint regarding an article published in the Sun newspaper was made to the Metropolitan Police Commissioners Office. The complaint was made by D. Peter Herbert O.B.E. on behalf of the Chair Society of Black Lawyers.