Amazon Search and Bookmark
AFFILIATE SEARCH | Shop Amazon.co.uk using this search bar and support WHO!

OK. At the risk of being banned.

Forum area for all things that are non-football.
Forum rules
Whilst 'off-topic' means all non-football topics can be discussed. This is not a free for all. Rights to this area of the forum aren't implicit, and illegal, defamator, spammy or absuive topics will be removed, with the protagonist's sanctioned.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Anon OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

Free speech is above politics. If you don't understand that, you don't understand life.

Politicians hang on it's left and right coat-tails in the hope of popular traction/adoration, but it's not political.

What it is, is about a significant number of people with a controlling interest in the way the country is run (not governed) imposing their 6th form derived policies on the rest of us and denying (the people) the chance to question them.

And, don't forget that 6th formers, when they came up with all these "great" ideas to solve the world's problems still had their lives' (almost fully) financed by (the bank of) Mum & Dad / Ma & Pa / Mater & Pater / Father & Mother/ Mom & Pop. They had no practical idea of wealth creation (and fair distribution) while pontificating during their Thursday afternoon debates.

We need freedom of speech more than ever in this period of western unrest - nothing to be gained (or leaned) from cancelling those who say stuff you don't agree with.
User avatar
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
Posts: 719
Old WHO Number: 214126
Has liked: 107 times
Been liked: 182 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post SurfaceAgentX2Zero »

Bungo wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 10:30
Exiled In Surrey" wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 10:07 You can't even say I support Palestine Action without being arrested.
...and thrown into jail.
It's all a bit Alanis, isn't it?
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 4914
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 2798 times
Been liked: 1372 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Massive Attack »

To be fair to you Nursey, I thought at one stage you were going to point out to them all how lucky they have it when you have to read constant bollocks regarding Cambodian cripple child rape on WHO. That's real struggle right there, not shouting at one another about who's got the better God at Speakers Corner. 

Other than that I thought you delivered your message in a measured and dignified way. 
User avatar
Nurse Ratched
Posts: 1065
Old WHO Number: 18642
Has liked: 513 times
Been liked: 491 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Nurse Ratched »

Massive Attack" wrote: 08 Sep 2025, 00:24 I see Nurse Ratched was enjoying exercising her right to free speech today...



 
Can I just say, the camera adds 10 shades of ginger.
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 4914
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 2798 times
Been liked: 1372 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Massive Attack »

Nutsin wrote: 08 Sep 2025, 00:52 All I see is women standing up to these horrible cunts. Where's the fucking men?
🙋‍♂️

Had many an argument putting radical Lefties, Liberals, Muslims etc in their place (including some of my younger indoctrinated Cousins) and will be standing up to be counted amongst the other million other men and women next Saturday marching through central London to freely voice our dissatisfaction.

Speakers Corner is also fucking great fun.
Nutsin
Posts: 2551
Old WHO Number: 274983
Has liked: 154 times
Been liked: 252 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Nutsin »

All I see is women standing up to these horrible cunts. Where's the fucking men?
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 4914
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 2798 times
Been liked: 1372 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Massive Attack »

I see Nurse Ratched was enjoying exercising her right to free speech today...


 
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

Exiled In Surrey" wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 10:07 You can't even say I support Palestine Action without being arrested.
...nor, seemingly, Plasticine Action, in support of stop-go movie making.
User avatar
Bungo
Posts: 525
Old WHO Number: 228443
Has liked: 151 times
Been liked: 116 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Bungo »

Exiled In Surrey" wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 10:07 You can't even say I support Palestine Action without being arrested.
...and thrown into jail.
XKhammer
Posts: 825
Has liked: 471 times
Been liked: 140 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post XKhammer »

Exiled In Surrey" wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 10:07 You can't even say I support Palestine Action without being arrested.
Good the scumbags caused 7m damage to our RAF defence aircraft....definitely a terrorist offence 
Exiled In Surrey
Posts: 32
Location: Divorced in Hertfordshire
Old WHO Number: 33133
Been liked: 4 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Exiled In Surrey »

You can't even say I support Palestine Action without being arrested.
XKhammer
Posts: 825
Has liked: 471 times
Been liked: 140 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post XKhammer »

SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 19:32
XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:47
SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 14:49
Yes, how dare he be nasty about the angelic, Welsh choirboy?

They weren't 'conspiracy theory lies/disinformation' they were conclusions that any reasonable person would have drawn given the circumstances of the attacks, the known facts and the obvious reluctance of the police or government to tell the truth about it.
Thing is I've been much more nasty on this thread towards the murdering scumbag but for some reason you have taken Oxbore's position that it's ok posting disinformation and saying its freedom of speech(thread topic)
Pure deflection. Any fucker can (and on WHO will, rightly, have to) call a child murderer a scumbag after he is convicted. Safe in that security blanket, you are lobbing missiles at those who were outraged by the authorities initial mendacious, misdirecting and controlling response and jumped to perfectly reasonable if very slightly inaccurate conclusions. You seem more outraged about that response than about 'the scumbag'. And the more you keep banging on about it, and the more you keep protesting, 'nobody hates child murderers more than me, BUT', the more you make my case for me. That's why I'm on Oxsore's 'side'.
What a load of bollocks 
User avatar
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
Posts: 719
Old WHO Number: 214126
Has liked: 107 times
Been liked: 182 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post SurfaceAgentX2Zero »

XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:47
SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 14:49
XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:35
Waffle reply 
OK I'll ask again ...do you think it was OK for you to post on here conspiracy theorist lies/disinformation about the murdering Southport scumbag and class that as freedom of speech?
Yes, how dare he be nasty about the angelic, Welsh choirboy?

They weren't 'conspiracy theory lies/disinformation' they were conclusions that any reasonable person would have drawn given the circumstances of the attacks, the known facts and the obvious reluctance of the police or government to tell the truth about it.
Thing is I've been much more nasty on this thread towards the murdering scumbag but for some reason you have taken Oxbore's position that it's ok posting disinformation and saying its freedom of speech(thread topic)
Pure deflection. Any fucker can (and on WHO will, rightly, have to) call a child murderer a scumbag after he is convicted. Safe in that security blanket, you are lobbing missiles at those who were outraged by the authorities initial mendacious, misdirecting and controlling response and jumped to perfectly reasonable if very slightly inaccurate conclusions. You seem more outraged about that response than about 'the scumbag'. And the more you keep banging on about it, and the more you keep protesting, 'nobody hates child murderers more than me, BUT', the more you make my case for me. That's why I'm on Oxsore's 'side'.
User avatar
Cabbige Savage
Posts: 254
Has liked: 255 times
Been liked: 272 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Cabbige Savage »

I like to remeber what my alkoholik firend all way say at time like this

"No i co z tego, że jestem pijany. Mam prawo być pijany. Lubię być pijany. Zrób mi proszę kanapkę z kapustą"
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

Barty888 wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 18:01
Please, lets drag neither politics or religion into this thread - this is simply about the freedom to express your thoughts without needing the approval of anybody else.
User avatar
Massive Attack
Posts: 4914
Old WHO Number: 321955
Has liked: 2798 times
Been liked: 1372 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Massive Attack »

Image

Always and forever. 
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

Vexed wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 17:17
Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 10:27 Free speech is above politics. If you don't understand that, you don't understand life.

Politicians hang on it's left and right coat-tails in the hope of popular traction/adoration, but it's not political.

What it is, is about a significant number of people with a controlling interest in the way the country is run (not governed) imposing their 6th form derived policies on the rest of us and denying (the people) the chance to question them.

And, don't forget that 6th formers, when they came up with all these "great" ideas to solve the world's problems still had their lives' (almost fully) financed by (the bank of) Mum & Dad / Ma & Pa / Mater & Pater / Father & Mother/ Mom & Pop. They had no practical idea of wealth creation (and fair distribution) while pontificating during their Thursday afternoon debates.

We need freedom of speech more than ever in this period of western unrest - nothing to be gained (or leaned) from cancelling those who say stuff you don't agree with.
 
If I was Stubby Cock, I'd be telling you you're welcome to free speech - when you fuck off and start up your own fucking website to do so, you hiding from Op Yew Tree in downtown Arsecrackistan pretending to be an ice cream man, looking over your shoulder, skittish oddball cսnt. 

And for fucks sake will you tell them what you've done with Maddy, you fucking vile creature.  Enough is enough. 
An absolutely excellent example of free speech in action. Thanks for your support.
Vexed
Posts: 1040
Old WHO Number: 240179
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 207 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Vexed »

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 10:27 Free speech is above politics. If you don't understand that, you don't understand life.

Politicians hang on it's left and right coat-tails in the hope of popular traction/adoration, but it's not political.

What it is, is about a significant number of people with a controlling interest in the way the country is run (not governed) imposing their 6th form derived policies on the rest of us and denying (the people) the chance to question them.

And, don't forget that 6th formers, when they came up with all these "great" ideas to solve the world's problems still had their lives' (almost fully) financed by (the bank of) Mum & Dad / Ma & Pa / Mater & Pater / Father & Mother/ Mom & Pop. They had no practical idea of wealth creation (and fair distribution) while pontificating during their Thursday afternoon debates.

We need freedom of speech more than ever in this period of western unrest - nothing to be gained (or leaned) from cancelling those who say stuff you don't agree with.
 
 
If I was Stubby Cock, I'd be telling you you're welcome to free speech - when you fuck off and start up your own fucking website to do so, you hiding from Op Yew Tree in downtown Arsecrackistan pretending to be an ice cream man, looking over your shoulder, skittish oddball cսnt. 

And for fucks sake will you tell them what you've done with Maddy, you fucking vile creature.  Enough is enough. 
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 17:08
On The Ball" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:53 Ah, the 'we have no freedom of speech' claim. The same claim that Lucy Connolly made while saying whatever the fuck she liked.
 
She shouldn't have posted that and rightly nicked but very harshly treated,was a hugh mistake and probably didn't really mean it,but then again black labour counciler behaves even worst and gets not guilty on same charge because he says he didn't mean it FFS!!!
Both cases are not freedom of speech but hate speech 
But YOU are free to post hateful things about me are you not? Freedom and hate are not synonymous.
Eerie Decent
Posts: 768
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 315 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Eerie Decent »

On The Ball" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:53 Ah, the 'we have no freedom of speech' claim. The same claim that Lucy Connolly made while saying whatever the fuck she liked.
Exactly, and the same claim of freedom of speech that Ricky Jones...

Oh yeah, I forgot. Silly me!
XKhammer
Posts: 825
Has liked: 471 times
Been liked: 140 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post XKhammer »

On The Ball" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:53 Ah, the 'we have no freedom of speech' claim. The same claim that Lucy Connolly made while saying whatever the fuck she liked.
 
 
She shouldn't have posted that and rightly nicked but very harshly treated,was a hugh mistake and probably didn't really mean it,but then again black labour counciler behaves even worst and gets not guilty on same charge because he says he didn't mean it FFS!!!
Both cases are not freedom of speech but hate speech 
User avatar
Mike Oxsaw
Posts: 4492
Location: Flip between Belvedere & Buri Ram and anywhere else I fancy, just because I can.
Old WHO Number: 14021
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 518 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post Mike Oxsaw »

XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 16:43
Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 14:01
XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:35
Waffle reply 
OK I'll ask again ...do you think it was OK for you to post on here conspiracy theorist lies/disinformation about the murdering Southport scumbag and class that as freedom of speech?
Given as it was the only information available at the time, when I re-posted it, it was, as you insist on putting it "OK".

Subsequent information to the contrary can have no impact on that now historical act.

Did you or someone you know actually go nuts and act on the strength of my re-post?

Should everybody wait until you (YOU, big 100% reasonable YOU) announce it as verified & truthful?

Again, you're just letting your grudge against comments attributed to an anonymous user name drive your emotions.

Not everyone knows the person behind a user name (although you, like H&P, Alf Ghandi and the multi-faceted Manuel) have freely posted up enough about themselves to make you all easily identifiable in the real world: that's 100% your problem for making those posts - nobody forced you.
I suppose that is the nearest we will get that you admit you posted a porkie
And your proof that it was "a porkie" when I posted it is?
On The Ball
Posts: 428
Old WHO Number: 14382
Has liked: 151 times
Been liked: 41 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post On The Ball »

Ah, the 'we have no freedom of speech' claim. The same claim that Lucy Connolly made while saying whatever the fuck she liked.
XKhammer
Posts: 825
Has liked: 471 times
Been liked: 140 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post XKhammer »

SurfaceAgentX2Zero wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 14:49
XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:35
Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:27
OK. Now you've got your very Manuel-esque strop out of your system, care to get back to debating the points I made rather than trying to make the post all about me?

I'm sure you'd get loads of support if you did make a separate post all about me and I would never run to the mods asking for it to be locked/deleted.
Waffle reply 
OK I'll ask again ...do you think it was OK for you to post on here conspiracy theorist lies/disinformation about the murdering Southport scumbag and class that as freedom of speech?
Yes, how dare he be nasty about the angelic, Welsh choirboy?

They weren't 'conspiracy theory lies/disinformation' they were conclusions that any reasonable person would have drawn given the circumstances of the attacks, the known facts and the obvious reluctance of the police or government to tell the truth about it.
Thing is I've been much more nasty on this thread towards the murdering scumbag but for some reason you have taken Oxbore's position that it's ok posting disinformation and saying its freedom of speech(thread topic)
XKhammer
Posts: 825
Has liked: 471 times
Been liked: 140 times

Re: OK. At the risk of being banned.

Post XKhammer »

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 14:01
XKhammer wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:35
Mike Oxsaw" wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 13:27
OK. Now you've got your very Manuel-esque strop out of your system, care to get back to debating the points I made rather than trying to make the post all about me?

I'm sure you'd get loads of support if you did make a separate post all about me and I would never run to the mods asking for it to be locked/deleted.
Waffle reply 
OK I'll ask again ...do you think it was OK for you to post on here conspiracy theorist lies/disinformation about the murdering Southport scumbag and class that as freedom of speech?
Given as it was the only information available at the time, when I re-posted it, it was, as you insist on putting it "OK".

Subsequent information to the contrary can have no impact on that now historical act.

Did you or someone you know actually go nuts and act on the strength of my re-post?

Should everybody wait until you (YOU, big 100% reasonable YOU) announce it as verified & truthful?

Again, you're just letting your grudge against comments attributed to an anonymous user name drive your emotions.

Not everyone knows the person behind a user name (although you, like H&P, Alf Ghandi and the multi-faceted Manuel) have freely posted up enough about themselves to make you all easily identifiable in the real world: that's 100% your problem for making those posts - nobody forced you.
I suppose that is the nearest we will get that you admit you posted a porkie
Post Reply