Subscribe to blog via Email

Reader Interactions

Comments

    • Anne Stone Sweet

      I thought that too Kim, but I'd read somewhere that it was the other way around and got confused. Thanks for agreeing with me, I think we live in a society where taking anything is considered wrong even if you are entitled to it.

  1. Rebecca Beesley

    Having been at school with her, I actually have a soft spot for Katie Price and although I didn't see the katie vs katie arguement, i would imagine Katie price would look like an angel compared to Katie hopkins!

  2. Anonymous

    Hi. Actually, I saw the argument (although you never know how it's been edited), and Katie Price came across v badly, Katie Hopkins, here, v well. Imo. Ms Price basically said she would take the money, she was 'entitled' to it and she'd sooner the Govt spent it on her son rather than on fireworks for the New Years' Eve party. If she'd said, rather than spent it on war, I'd have agreed with her, but as it was … this is a multi-millionairess, sitting there wearing a lot of v. expensive diamonds, saying, in effect, that people a lot poorer than her should sacrifice for her son. This is a woman who's spent millions on her weddings; plastic surgery, etc etc. How about she stops that instead, if it's a choice? This is also a woman who said those on benefits shouldn't smoke, drink, etc. Hypocrisy. As for the question itself: should she pay for her son's transport – it's a hard one. You don't want things to be means tested, in case it all comes down to money. A civilised society should pay for the vulnerable. On the other hand – we live in a time when the Govt is targeting a lot of disabled people; when councils are struggling for money. And Katie Price apparently has a net worth of around £45 million. If she seriously thinks she needs/ is 'entitled' to, financial help for her son, she needs a shrink; not public funding. She's confusing money with security, which means she'll never think she has enough and she'll keep taking. Do I think someone with a net worth of £45 million should pay for her own child and free up some money for a family which is genuinely struggling? Yes, I do. While everyone is 'entitled' to help from the NHS, fire services, etc, a lot of people, even if they pay tax, are grateful for the help, and make the effort to pay something back. Katie Price basically said she was ‘entitled’ to claim whatever she could. Always better to focus on what you can give. Grace and generosity make for a better society for everyone.

    • Anne Stone Sweet

      You make some valid points about Katie Price as a person, but if I'm honest I don't really know that much about her other than she is a working mother with a disabled son. The help is fundamentally provided for her son and it is his entitlement not hers. If she really is that rich then maybe she gives back in other ways, I really don't know, that would probably be the moral thing to do. If she came across so badly during the tv debate then I can understand why so many people have sided with Katie Hopkins instead. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it had been edited to look that way though because it seems that all you ever see on tv these days is an attack on people who are claiming anything benefit wise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

error: Content is protected !!