How come there isn't a thread for this ?

Is it because they've revealed their true colours, excuse the deliberate pun.

Folk were warned re their true intentions, but as always called racist by the naive.

40 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I wasn't asking on here, Paul. Who is censoring you?

So far, since I've asked this we've had something about changing the name of an ice cream, eating raw liver in peace and this sort of Woke illuminate you reference.

So, just out of interest who is censoring you? What can't you not say or do that you'd like to, and who is stopping you? Surely if you care that much about this topic as you clearly do, you'd be able to answer these straightforward questions?

As I say, I'm just interested, I'm not trying to have a start an argument with you.

Nobody on here. See previous answer.

I rather suspect your line of argument is based on seeking to say I over-react. As such ....

The Government's inclusion of extra protections for free speech and protection against no platforming and the like in the recent Queen's Speech were clearly plucked from thin air and had no context or rationale.

People like Peter Tatchell, JK Rowling, Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson and others must have imagined being no-platformed/cancelled. The millions who were told they were racists and bigots for wanting to talk about immigration or for voting for Brexit must have imagined it. They can erase it from their brains and carry on as if nothing happened. 

Do you remember when Gordon Brown walked in to a house in 2010 in Rochdale and the lady who lived there (Gillian Duffy) said she wanted to discuss immigration? He dismissed her views as those of a "bigoted woman" and thus sought to marginalise them as unacceptable

You can narrow the definition of censorship down to one that gives you a chance of a momentary triumph on a footy forum. But you can't change the opinions of millions who have observed, become increasingly disgusted and voted accordingly. 

I need hardly add about the 17.4 million who endured two years of being patronised that they were a bit thick and racist and didn't understand what they'd voted for.

Can you begin to see the accumulation? Any chance you can start to see the extent of the hole that liberals have dug for themselves?

Liberals  sneeringly tried to marginalise opinion outside of their own world view. That's a form of censorship. Oh boy has it backfired. 

Never mind though - we're all over-reacting. I'm over-reacting. There's no problem with freedom of speech and liberal intolerance. You win.

Edited May 24, 20215 yr by paulhanley

18 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

Aye. I've just given him a big long answer but that's a good reply.

1 minute ago, paulhanley said:

Nobody on here. See previous answer.

I rather suspect your line of argument is based on seeking to say I over-react. As such ....

The Government's inclusion of extra protections for free speech and protection against no platforming and the like in the recent Queen's Speech were clearly plucked from thin air and had no context or rationale.

People like Peter Tatchell, JK Rowling, Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson and others must have imagined being no-platformed/cancelled. The millions who were told they were racists and bigots for wanting to talk about immigration or for voting for Brexit must have imagined it. They can erase it from their brains and carry on as if nothing happened. 

Do you remember when Gordon Brown walked in to a house in 2010 in Rochdale and the lady who lived there (Gillian Duffy) said she wanted to discuss immigration? He dismissed her views as those of a "bigoted woman" and thus sought to marginalise them as unacceptable?

You can narrow the definition of censorship down to one that gives you a chance of a momentary triumph on a footy forum. But you can't change the opinions of millions who have observed, become increasingly disgusted and voted accordingly. 

I need hardly add about the 17.4 million who endured two years of being patronised that they were a bit thick and racist and didn't understand what they'd voted for.

Can you begin to see the accumulation? Any chance you can start to see the extent of the hole that liberals have dug for themselves?

Liberals  sneeringly tried to marginalise opinion outside of their own world view. That's a form of censorship. Oh boy has it backfired. 

Never mind though - we're all over-reacting. I'm over-reacting. There's no problem with freedom of speech and liberal intolerance. You win.

I can never quite work out why they are called "liberal", when they are anything but, or "progressive", which, again, they are plainly not.

1 hour ago, DavidLeesMullet said:

I'm surprised Diane Abacus hasn't found a way to blame whitey for this yet

It seems she is from the tweet posted previously. 

Just hope her son isn't involved.

Just now, boltondiver said:

I can never quite work out why they are called "liberal", when they are anything but, or "progressive", which, again, they are plainly not.

There was a time when they genuinely were liberal. Believers in free speech and the whole lot. Not now. They are distinctly illiberal. Their blindness to the problem is evidence in itself.

Progressive? I guess you could say they were in Victorian times when the pressure they brought to be bear led to protections for workers that we now take for granted. Progressive in an economic sense when judged over a long period of time - nah. The opposite of progressive. Probably a debate for another day on another thread is that one! 

Johnsons not a bad looker going off todays pics

14 minutes ago, Casino said:

Johnson wasn't  a bad looker going off todays pics

 

I'm sure her long hair will hide the bullet hole

55 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

👍

6 hours ago, Escobarp said:

How stupid is this woman. And surely she needs to be censored as shit like this is dangerous. 
 

 

Abbott is as thick as an Elephants foreskin & would potentially be dangerous if anybody took her seriously. 

   Let's not address the fact that this was most likely YET ANOTHER black on black gang shooting & jump straight to the agenda we want to push shall we Di? 

Mrs Abbot is a fruit loop.

More to be pitied than scolded.

But she is bloody dangerous. 

The young lady who has been shot will hopefully be ok.

Sweeping statement warning. 

There is a vigil being held right now for her in London. By nightfall it is odds on the police will be getting a kicking.

( brushing up complete)

No one right now has any idea who fired the bullet .

But I can guarantee he will be misunderstood and had a deprived childhood. 

2 minutes ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

Abbott is as thick as an Elephants foreskin & would potentially be dangerous if anybody took her seriously. 

   Let's not address the fact that this was most likely YET ANOTHER black on black gang shooting & jump straight to the agenda we want to push shall we Di? 

He clearly didnt get it either eh?

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Johnsons not a bad looker going off todays pics

wonder what this black bloke thought about it all... 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ilZJB5vsmq4

 wry smile at least

 

 

17 minutes ago, e2e4 said:

wonder what this black bloke thought about it all... 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ilZJB5vsmq4

 wry smile at least

 

 

What a fkin dick she is.

Edited May 24, 20215 yr by royal white

1 hour ago, e2e4 said:

wonder what this black bloke thought about it all... 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ilZJB5vsmq4

 wry smile at least

 

 

' I need this like a hole in the head' 🤣

If she does not fully recover 

And it turns out it was a person of colour ( D Abbots terminology not mine ) who fired the gun.

Obviously BLM means eff all to him .

 

 

9 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

 

Maybe all those lights will flush out the cockroaches... aka child grooming rapists. 

When we setting the cross on fire, boys? I've got work in the morning...

3 hours ago, kent_white said:

I don't think anybody is censoring anybody in the literal sense of the word (not me anyway).

But there are certain topics, opinions and ideas that I hold (or would at least like to explore) but am unable to for fear of my career. 

I think that's probably what he's alluding to?

I know you've a distaste for trannies from posts on here, but who else would you like to go after if it wasn't for your job?

I reckon'; Berbers, barbers, Paul Barber (the actor - 'Denzel' in OFAH), Bujumburanians, Bosniaks, bi-curious, Bolivians, the b12 deficient, Basques and the partially blind.

All the 'B's.

You can explore the 'C's at a later date.

3 hours ago, athywhite1958 said:

I'm sure her long hair will hide the bullet hole

She's a reet hypocrite - a Cristal Black Nationalist.

Her hairdressing bill must be astronomical.

Her stylist a rich woman.

I saw pictures of her with long black straight hair one week, next minute she had short braids, then it was red mid-length - then fucking long hair again.

🙄

21 minutes ago, Youri McAnespie said:

When we setting the cross on fire, boys? I've got work in the morning...

 

5 hours ago, mickbrown said:

I don't think it's the same sort of gangs

 

5 hours ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

I think he went toe to toe with the Famous Five. 

To be fair he lives on Gooch Close, M16.

Have they started rioting yet in America for this shooting? 
 

Anyway, why are councils lighting up monuments for career criminals? Did they do anything for the Manchester bombing victims or does that not fit their criteria?

14 hours ago, paulhanley said:

I know. But I can't come on here and criticise the woke folk for their self-righteous censoriousness and then advocate Diane Abbot being gagged. She's crackers - but the only way you ever know a nutter is a nutter is when they open their gob.

You do realise this is the forum of a Third Division football team, a forum that's had a thread called 'Battlenips' running for over a year now and featuring entries from pretty much every member?