Yesterday’s meeting of our not at all unelected Prime Minister with Combover Crybaby Donald Trump was just as toe-curlingly embarrassing as could have been imagined: Trump insisted on taking Theresa May by the hand, the PM clearly ill at ease in the company of an ocean-going creep, an appallingly vain, ignorant and intolerant being, a master of sexual molestation. But for the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre and his obedient hackery at the Daily Mail, it had all gone wonderfully.
Viewers may want to look away now
All, that is, except for BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, who, no longer distracted by domestic politics, took her opportunity to question The Donald in both hands and did her job - holding him to account. No-one should have had a problem with that. Trump did: Ms Kuenssberg was insufficiently idolatrous, she had questioned the wisdom of The Donald, and to make it worse, she was a mere woman. Trump was not best pleased.
But for the Mail, this was manna from heaven: an ideal opportunity to put the boot in on the hated BBC. “Challenged about his controversial views on torture, Russia, stopping Muslims entering the US and punishment for torture by Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Trump joked to Mrs May: 'This was your choice of a question? There goes that relationship!’ … Ms Kuenssberg's loaded question was met with a mixed response by viewers, with some calling it ‘offensive’" told the Mail Online report. And there was more.
The baton was then picked up by pro-am motormouth Katie Hopkins, who proclaimed “Even Laura, the little killjoy from the BBC, couldn't ruin Donald and Theresa's DC love-in. Now I can't wait for the return visit - let the hating commence!” In the looking-glass world of the far right, anyone who does not share their opinions is a “hater”.
So far, so intellectually deficient, but it soon got worse: “the BBC's political correspondent, Laura Kuenssberg WAS there to ask a question having apparently been nominated by the PM's press team to ask the first question. What were they thinking … Squealing like a true liberal she did her best to rip apart all Theresa May's good work thus far”. Do go on.
“Throwing in pretty much every insult anyone had ever levelled at the Donald, she said Trump had 'alarming beliefs' and many people in Britain were worried about his role as leader of America and the Free World; she asked how he could reassure the people of Britain”. There were, unlike a Katie Hopkins column, no insults.
You think I jest? Here it comes: “my toes curled in shame that she was the voice of Britain on the world stage … The only consolation was that she did not have an English accent. Actually, Laura, you little Scottish twerp, many of us are delighted about this presidency and need no reassurance at all. In fact, I would suggest we will need more than reassurance to pay our licence fee next year. At least North Korea gets its propaganda for free”. Anyone she doesn’t like is “little”. She’s borrowed Piers Morgan’s nervous tic.
But she wasn’t finished: “Luckily Donald made a gentlemanly joke of out of it”. First name terms already! “I can only hope Trump refuses the BBC any press passes or Security Clearance for his visit here. And bans Kuenssberg from his presence”. Won’t be down to him. It’s us he’s visiting. And it won’t be down to motormouth Katie, either.
Not that she’s about to listen to that: Ms Hopkins is clearly away with the fairies - hence telling her readers that Trump is “To accept a state visit to meet the Queen and to keep speaking up for the forgotten, hardworking people who want the very best for the country”.
The only people The Donald will speak up for are the rich and greedy, plus of course Himself Personally Now. The kinds of people that Katie Hopkins aspires to be, but never will. That, though, does not stop her from grovelling in any way she can find - like pretending to speak for Britain as she Tweets “On behalf of a place called the 'rest of the UK'...I apologise for @bbclaurak”. As if anyone who matters cares what she thinks.
Katie Hopkins IS an apology. An apology for a pundit, an apology for a journalist, an apology for a political analyst, an apology for someone able to engage brain before mouth, and above all, an apology for a human being. But she has performed one useful function: to confirm that on this occasion, Laura Kuenssberg was right.