nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gemma O'Doherty and her unicorns

Infernal Racket

I see that Gemma is now mentioning unicorns in almost everything she speaks about. She even thinks the Guards will be riding around on Globalist unicorns very soon and that Avoca woolen mills are trying to indoctrinate children into their new world order by putting colourful stripes on beige jumpers. Does she not have any family or friends at all that might seek the help she needs?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Infernal Racket

She's off to Google at 2pm again today, huge crowds expected again.

Overheal

Wow to be unemployed and self important

Infernal Racket

Overheal wrote: »

Wow to be unemployed and self important

It's incredible. The sense of entitlement coming from her is astounding and a quick look at her twitter page (if you havent already been blocked) gives a great insight into her followers. They're all crazies

banie01

Overheal wrote: »

Wow to be unemployed and self important

Self employed

It's self employed, as an anti-corruption crusader and speaker of the truth...

Who's wages are funnily enough in the main probably paid by the unemployed and pensioners

Surely that's a roundabout means of government support?
:pac:

super_furry

Soros is funding her. She’s a double agent who’s been put in place to undermine the real fight.

The Nal

https://twitter.com/ekg2009/status/1153618451971432448?s=19

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1153041373425217537?s=19

whippet

She is everything she seems to be giving out about

Stop moaning ffs

If you look at her followers, the same people insisting Google and YouTube should be forced to allow her have ‘free speech’, are exactly the people complaining that a bakery shouldn’t be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I’m not kidding.

You couldn’t write this sh!t

Timberrrrrrrr

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

If you look at her followers, the same people insisting Google and YouTube should be forced to allow her have ‘free speech’, are exactly the people complaining that a bakery shouldn’t be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I’m not kidding.

You couldn’t write this sh!t

It's been mentioned several times in this thread and non if her supporters seem to see the posts or don't want to answer bit I'll throw it out there again and lets see if one of them has the guts to step up and answer.

Gemma claims her right to "free speech" has been taken away by youtube, Gemma does not take criticism and if you do not agree with her she will block you from Youtube/Facebook/Twitter.

For such a staunch advocate of free speech i ask anyone who supprts her, why does Gemma shut down other peoples free speech?

Stop moaning ffs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's been mentioned several times in this thread and non if her supporters seem to see the posts or don't want to answer bit I'll throw it out there again and lets see if one of them has the guts to step up and answer.

Gemma claims her right to "free speech" has been taken away by youtube, Gemma does not take criticism and if you do not agree with her she will block you from Youtube/Facebook/Twitter.

For such a staunch advocate of free speech i ask anyone who supprts her, why does Gemma shut down other peoples free speech?

The implied answer seems to be ‘free speech! But only if you agree with me! If not piss off!’

Seanachai

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's been mentioned several times in this thread and non if her supporters seem to see the posts or don't want to answer bit I'll throw it out there again and lets see if one of them has the guts to step up and answer.

Gemma claims her right to "free speech" has been taken away by youtube, Gemma does not take criticism and if you do not agree with her she will block you from Youtube/Facebook/Twitter.

For such a staunch advocate of free speech i ask anyone who supprts her, why does Gemma shut down other peoples free speech?

Isn't there a difference between blocking somebody from your personal account on a platform and lobbying to have somebody actually de-platformed? I could be wrong but I've never heard of her calling for a public figure to be censored\de-platformed.

ohnonotgmail

Seanachai wrote: »

Isn't there a difference between blocking somebody from your personal account on a platform and lobbying to have somebody actually de-platformed? I could be wrong but I've never heard of her calling for a public figure to be censored\de-platformed.

who has lobbied for her to be deplatformed? Who is this mysterious cabaal that is out to get her?

Infernal Racket

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who has lobbied for her to be deplatformed? Who is this mysterious cabaal that is out to get her?

The globalist capitalist elite. Havent you heard?

Overheal

As a reminder she got herself “deplatformed” when she circumvented her 7 day suspension.

Infernal Racket

Overheal wrote: »

As a reminder she got herself “deplatformed” when she circumvented her 7 day suspension.

And she's continuing to circumvent on other channels. She is still wearing the same beige trousers btw. The hum must be shockin

Overheal

Yes at least some suggestive evidence that she’s using sock puppet accounts.

The Nal

Pat Power should start taking bets on when she'll give up. Because Google will not be reversing this. Doesn't matter how many people show up or for how long. Just not happening.

Infernal Racket

The Nal wrote: »

Pat Power should start taking bets on when she'll give up. Because Google will not be reversing this. Doesn't matter how many people show up or for how long. Just not happening.

Is she banned for good or will it be like the last time she was banned for a week? She protested and whinged for a week, got her channel back and claimed a massive victory over the whole world. Ok maybe not the whole world but definitely against Google

The Nal

Gerry G wrote: »

Is she banned for good or will it be like the last time she was banned for a week? She protested and whinged for a week, got her channel back and claimed a massive victory over the whole world. Ok maybe not the whole world but definitely against Google

No shes done, for good. And they obviously can't reverse the decision because that sets a precedent. She could "protest" outside Google for 10 years and they won't do anything.

She is a loser.

Seanachai

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who has lobbied for her to be deplatformed? Who is this mysterious cabaal that is out to get her?

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

ohnonotgmail

Seanachai wrote: »

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

she is banned because she broke the rules she agreed to when she signed up. and not for the first time. and you're right i dont think i have ever seen her ask for somebody to be banned. Probably because they haven't broken the rules like she has so it would be pointless. Instead she prefers to get her supporters to harass the people she doesn't like .

Martina1991

Seanachai wrote:

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

She wasn't banned because of what she was saying. She was banned for breaking Youtubes rules. But shes claiming her free speach was silenced because of what she was saying.

And thats not true.

The Nal

Seanachai wrote: »

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

She blocks anyone who says anything bad about her. Not even pestering, just mentioning her name. Not even @ either.

The fact that she hasn't seemed to change her trousers for days now is a clear indicator of mental illness.

Here she is running in them last week. Its very hot lately too.

musiknonstop

Seanachai wrote: »

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

She regularly suggests that the people on her enemies list will go to prison, Leo Varadkar, the head of Twitter, whoever has annoyed her on that particular day.

Timberrrrrrrr

Seanachai wrote: »

Lobbying was the wrong word to use, I'm not talking about cabals, just people online calling for her to be banned and censored. She does block people that pester her, but I've never heard her saying 'x' should be banned from speaking, 'y' should be taken off of Youtube\Facebook.

No! She blocks people who question her.

Ipso

musiknonstop wrote: »

She regularly suggests that the people on her enemies list will go to prison, Leo Varadkar, the head of Twitter, whoever has annoyed her on that particular day.

That's QANON territory, everyone who disagrees with me is going to jail (with the Qult obviously it's everyone who disagrees with me is a pedo).

Annasopra

Seanachai wrote: »

Isn't there a difference between blocking somebody from your personal account on a platform and lobbying to have somebody actually de-platformed? I could be wrong but I've never heard of her calling for a public figure to be censored\de-platformed.

Its been well documented she called for Fiona O'Leary to be "dealt with" and that she has sent numerous solicitors letters out threatening people in order to shut them up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Seanachai wrote: »

Isn't there a difference between blocking somebody from your personal account on a platform and lobbying to have somebody actually de-platformed? I could be wrong but I've never heard of her calling for a public figure to be censored\de-platformed.

She hasn't been "deplatformed" due to any lobbying, she was booted off a private site for persistent violation of that terms T&C's.

Why does she block people.who.disagree with her? Is Gemma the only one entitled to "free speech"?

Infernal Racket

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She hasn't been "deplatformed" due to any lobbying, she was booted off a private site for persistent violation of that terms T&C's.

Why does she block people.who.disagree with her? Is Gemma the only one entitled to "free speech"?

In her head, yes

[Deleted User]

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She hasn't been "deplatformed" due to any lobbying, she was booted off a private site for persistent violation of that terms T&C's.

Why does she block people.who.disagree with her? Is Gemma the only one entitled to "free speech"?

Well she and her ilk are very sensitive and easily triggered so they want a place where they dont have to see anything offensive like people with differing, more supported and less horrible views.
They just want a safe space.
A safe space that comes with clicks and ad revenue ideally...