Katie was neither fearless nor heroic (nor best woman for the job). She protested too much about her fearlessness. I suspect the opposite was true, given the desperate measures she was prepared to use whenever failure or exposure loomed. Her body language betrayed her - the dipped head and pantomime eye flirting and the more telling forlorn look and bright red cheeks whenever she's rumbled or blocked by someone with more power.

I've been a feminist since childhood and see nothing but disservice to women in Katie's manipulative approach. Kristina is a much better example of strength, personal responsibility, resilience and genuine self-belief plus honour, honesty and the courage to speak up truthfully rather than fall back on Machiavelian scheming and sex.

Kristina's personal choice to complete one important job to her satisfaction (raising another human being well into adulthood) before immersing herself in another one, speaks well of her in all of these aspects.

Caitlin McKiernan, Walthamstow, London, UK

I don't really understand why everyone appears to believe she's talented.

When a branding advertising task was being run she was noticeable by her reticence. When the advert they designed showed the client (Sir Alan) nothing about the product Katie still said she really liked it.

Being articulate and confident are the tools of a conman too. Which one is she I wonder?

Jim, Manchester, UK

It's not Katie's fault, whoever Katie is (I've never watched this tripe and never would); it's the fault of all of you. Why do you watch this meretricious rubbish? Are you the people I hear drivelling about Big Brother? Wondering how Victoria Beckham will get on in LA? Talking about the late Princess of Wales as though you'd known the woman? Has none of you a mind? So a woman can be a bitch? And a man can be a jackass? Why not forget them and focus on the great majority who aren't? Starve them of what Maggie T called the oxygen of publicity? It's what they want, you know. Or hadn't you noticed? (You may have to travel north of Watford Gap).

John Lynch, Whittington, Shropshire, England

She posed for sleazy sex pics for the media (oh what, those pix of her supposedly having sex naked in a field weren't posed, then?) to try to raise her post-contest profile. Bet her poor kids won't appreciate that sad attention seeking by their mother .
As regards her ra-ra Sloane accent , didn't anyone else notice how this slipped in her post-show interview, into a nice West Country burr?
The programme may not be "real life in any respect" but this is how she chose to market herself, presumably in preparation for her post Apprentice media assault. But then, Trinnie & Susannah, Vanessa Felz and Jodie Marsh already cover all the possible permutations – so hopefully there won’t be a vacancy for Katie

Jane, London, UK

I know not much about Katie Hopkins, but what I could gather from the write up ....though she may be holding the credentials in her CV of being a 'most dislikeable' person, there ain't much of bitchin' and spitting about it. She may be a self-styled feminist , with much of hoopla about her privy and sex life on an interview , but her outspokenness and assertive arrogance could be a defence mechanism for some hidden sadness and melancholy in her life. At times bitterness we expel may make others cringe and whine but to be a winner ,we got to do it. Why blame her et el. To do her job well, and stay on the top, she could be a toughie and not some sugar-tongued , cutie-pie stuff. So indeed she is a winner, and a winner is despised by most. It is a fallacy to compare career-bound women with homely housewives. They belong to different matrix with distinct preferences and choices.Let us not bracket such self-styled superbitches like Katie and her ilk, with other Jill,Jane and Juliets.

Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India

Undoubtedly flawed, undoubtedly insecure - hugely over-compensating because of it, but clearly talented. The Apprentice is now left with two relative mediocities. We've lost the chance of seeing if the application of Sugar may have sweetened some of Katie's sharpness, and the drama is diminished. That's a sadness...

Phil Wilson, London, UK

im sorry but Katie turnrd me off with her attidtude towards anyone living north of the Watofrd Gap.
Who picked the candidates not view of them came from a working class background most had a bit of paper saying i've got a degree. How many ofthem have got the business brain that Sir Allan has not many i suspect.

imacompuerbuddie, isle of cumbrae, Scotland

Alan Sugar is no fool.
He knows that the people you tread upon on the way up are the ones you meet on the way down.
And a little matter of ethics. Business may be a harsh field but dishonesty never pays in any field. Marriage wrecking, adultery and child neglect are dishonest. Personal probity and business probity do tend to go hand in hand.
Her personal life is proof that she could not be trusted.

CA Metcalfe, Essex,

As ever, India Knight (and others) do not allow the fact that they do not know Katie to comment on her in every respect of her life. Katie was taking part in a television programme - this was not real life in any respect.
My interpretation of Katies 'bitchiness', was that it was often tongue in cheek and an amusing dry style. (There was a particular sequence in the car when she made an outrageous suggestion about another contestant , for the sake of her companion, and kept a deadpan face for a long time, but it was just cracking to show that this was humour as the camera left her.) However, that was my interpretation. No one should attempt to sepak with authority about Katie or anyone else they only know from a heavily edited 'reality show'.
Sincerely,

Patricia beer, Bournemouth, Hampshire

Running a business is not for the faint-hearted. Katie was by far the best candidate on The Apprentice. Yes, she is ruthless. But she doesn't pretend otherwise. Perhaps the reason she is the "most hated woman in Britain" is simple - we don't like to acknowledge what it really takes to succeed in business, especially when it comes from a woman. Whether we like it or not most successful entrepreneurs are not cuddly, lovable folk.

I would trust people like Michelle Mone (whose products, ironically, pander to women's insecurities) far less. Her touchy-feely approach comes across as very unconvincing.

As for Ms Mone telling Katie she wouldn't have a job in her organisation, big deal. I'm sure Katie will have much larger fish to fry.

Rob, Cambridge,

I do not see any difference between Katie and Jade Goodey. They both came on a TV show in which weekly evictions is a major feature. They both became (in)famous for use of their mouths. They both are unfortunate results of our education system. Jade's view of world is not very different from Katie. Katie's has some fascinating views about notherners, "Mrs Mavis" etc. The list goes on. Perhaps others could add more.
Now Channel 4 can invite Jade and Katie to be on Big Brother show.

Lalith Chandrakantha, Northampton, United Kingdom

Katie Hopkins is morally bankrupt and not worthy of any job which requires even a modicom of honesty and integrity. 'Stealing' other womens' husbands is quite reprehensible and proves my point unequivically.

I cannot never see her 'happily married with 2.4 children'. She is past the point of no return! In a decade's time, and again a decade later, when she is a ' single grandparent' she will look back and ask , ''Where did it all go wrong?''

And all because the woman had no common sense.

Schooling should teach girls to 'know their place'.

P. R. Jones, Nottinghamshire, UK

One may suspect that what’s resented here is the willpower and self reliance that enables an independent view and more control of life events that most can achieve.

As such the ‘competition’ may have become a learning event which might have included the self-discovery that what was offered was not in the event what was wanted.

Those who like to think they can control such individuals are of course disappointed.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

Katie was neither fearless nor heroic (nor best woman for the job). She protested too much about her fearlessness. I suspect the opposite was true, given the desperate measures she was prepared to use whenever failure or exposure loomed plus her body language betrayed her - the dipped head and pantomime eye flirting and the more telling forlorn look and bright red cheeks whenever she's rumbled or blocked by someone with more power.

I've been a feminist since childhood and see nothing but disservice to women in Katie's manipulative approach. Kristina is a much better example of strength, personal responsibility, resilience and genuine self-belief plus honour, honesty and the courage to speak up truthfully rather than fall back on Machiavelian scheming and sex. Kristina's personal choice to complete one important job to her satisfaction (raising another human being well into adulthood) before immersing herself in another one, speaks well of her in all of these aspects.

Caitlin McKiernan, Walthamstow, London, UK

The message 'that if women will be tiresome enough to want to reproduce, it’s going to scupper their chances of professional success' will always be true, both as employees and employers.
As a man in the media, I've always been happy working for, and with, women on a day to day basis, and as my freelance career progressed it has followed that of a number of dynamic women for whom I worked as they moved onwards and upwards. How depressing then, that two or three years ago I found all of these women had, at the same stage in life, and having achieved success in a man's world, decided to revert to type and become child bearing housewives, with no ambition to return to work (employing the likes of me) as long as there was a man well-paid enough to support her. Long may the glass ceiling remain in place.

j anthony, london,

Once again India Knight turns subjective experience into a declaration of objective truth. Well, backatcha, India: I have worked for women and men, and the women were all better bosses, not horrible or bitchy in the slightest, nicer to work for and better at their jobs. So there.

Oonagh, Hong Kong,

Oh, yawn! Confirms my fears that TV is bubble gum for the mind. Why give it column inches?

John MacKinnon, Lincoln, England

The best comment I have read on Katie Hopkins and her significance in the world. Katie is a complex animal. On the one hand: repulsive and outdated. On the other: successful. I think you captured her perfectly. Not that I am a Katie fan, but there is something else that no commentator has yet noted: she appeared to demonstrate intergity at the moment of truth. She could have gone on to the final. Beaten Christina. Won the Show. And then left. But she didn't.

Or perhaps it was all staged?

Gavin Benjamin, Bruxelles,

Uderstandably this article is based on the premise that Katie actually DID pas on the opportunity because of her family and children. To my mind, Katie's self-firing was surely almost certainly a set-up to make good television. As the article says. Katie is intelligent and ruthless - as well as being repulsive. She did not suddenly realise the problem of working for Sugar and withdraw. There was, I suspect, some sort of pay-off for her - and it wouldn't come as a great surprise to find her working directly or indirectly for Sugar at some time in the future.

Peter, Nice, France

Brilliant insight here.!!! Loved this and you are so right.I found this female absolutely toxic No matter how clever and good at business she may be it is hardly helpful if she was to drive mass resignations.Ghastly ghastly person.And morally bankrupt to boot.How could anyone trust her in their business ,knowing she would do anything to further her own ends.?

M McGregor, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

It's not just women. Any man who wants to see his family can expect to have to work for someone with less ability but has 'committment'.

David Cage, Highworth, UK