Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Annasopra

alastair wrote: »

The Bill Clark account appears to have legitimately been someone else’s at one point. I wonder if it’s been bequeathed to her by an eager Gemmabot? There’s a fine old strain of ‘It’s the Jews (or ‘J’s’ as Gemma would have it) to blame for everything’ going on with the account anyway.

How do you know it wasnt always Gemma?

Acosta

Stephen15 wrote: »

I don't always agree with The Liberal.ie but this article is 100% the truth. The people who agree with the censoring of G'OD like Izzy Kamikaze, Fiona O'Leary, Mark Malone and Leah Doherty would probably support the return of Lisa Smith vut not the reinstatement of Gemmas account and would also sooner live under Sharia law than live under a nationalist patriotic governement.

https://theliberal.ie/opinion-the-same-people-who-want-to-censor-gemma-odoherty-want-lisa-smith-back-in-ireland/

Gemma fan bingo stuff. Christ.

But But... Lisa Smith. Whataboutery horse sh*te! A company banned her for breaking their rules as they're entitled to if they want. Just the same as the many pubs and venues that decided to cancel her meetings after they were made aware of the disgusting crap she has come out with. She can spout her crap elsewhere if she desires and has been as far as I can see.

Stephen15

Acosta wrote: »

Gemma fan bingo stuff. Christ.

But But... Lisa Smith. Whataboutery horse sh*te! A company banned her for breaking their rules as they're entitled to if they want. Just the same as the many pubs and venues that decided to cancel her meetings after they were made aware of the disgusting crap she has come out with. She can spout her crap elsewhere if she desires and has been as far as I can see.

Wrong thread but anyway. Problem is that private company have a monopoly on free speech which shouldn't be allowed and our government is bending down backwards to facilitatr with tax breaks despite being a private company.

Also the venues that cancelled her did not cancel her because of her views they were intimidated by far left thugs into doing so. Another thing so far it has only been far left opponents of the "far right neo nazis" that have broken the laws of the land and resorted to physical violence.

Timberrrrrrrr

Stephen15 wrote: »

Wrong thread but anyway. Problem is that private company have a monopoly on free speech which shouldn't be allowed and our government is bending down backwards to facilitatr with tax breaks despite being a private company.

Also the venues that cancelled her did not cancel her because of her views they were intimidated by far left thugs into doing so. Another thing so far it has only been far left opponents of the "far right neo nazis" that have broken the laws of the land and resorted to physical violence.

No they do not, there are endless video sharing sites she could use, they are the biggest and therefore would create the most revenue for her and that's why she's angry at getting banned.

If she just wanted to get her "message" out then she can create her own website, upload whatever she wants to that site and post links to it on her facebook and Twitter accounts. Why do you think she hasn't done this? It is about getting her "message" out there right?

Stephen15

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No they do not, there are endless video sharing sites she could use, they are the biggest and therefore would create the most revenue for her and that's why she's angry at getting banned.

If she just wanted to get her "message" out then she can create her own website, upload whatever she wants to that site and post links to it on her facebook and Twitter accounts. Why do you think she hasn't done this? It is about getting her "message" out there right?

Eh she already has. But anyway I'm not in a position to defend or criticize Gemma O'Doherty she is well able to herself all I will say is I support some not all her viewpoints so on that note I'm outta here.

https://anti-corruptionireland.com

https://gab.com/Gemmaod1

ILoveYourVibes

A while ago there was a rumor that Gemma O'Doherty owned an account on Twitter under the name Bill Clarke.


This account tweets raw racist material.

Its been confirmed that IS Gemma O'Doherty. She forget to log out and mentioned youtube banning her and asking people to meet her for a protest.

This is the REAL Gemma O'Doherty.

ILoveYourVibes

After posting this, an account with the sig ''Did you enjoy the Furher's birthday?'' sent me a friend request!

AngryHippie

If that traces back to her IP...Presuming they can.

Surely it is possible to have her shut down across all of social media platforms after that...?

Racial vilification, anti-semitism...

If its true, I retract what I said about mental health. She is just another disgusting Hopkins clone. Not even original. :mad:

Harvey Weinstein

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

A while ago there was a rumor that Gemma O'Doherty owned an account on Twitter under the name Bill Clarke.


This account tweets raw racist material.

Its been confirmed that IS Gemma O'Doherty. She forget to log out and mentioned youtube banning her and asking people to meet her for a protest.

This is the REAL Gemma O'Doherty.

I find it very, very hard to believe that Gemma was running that account.
She doesn't use that kind of language..ever. It would be extremely simple to create this little hoax.

How utterly sad that her detractors have fallen to hoaxing in order to damage her reputation.

Timberrrrrrrr

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

I find it very, very hard to believe that Gemma was running that account.
She doesn't use that kind of language..ever. It would be extremely simple to create this little hoax.

How utterly sad that her detractors have fallen to hoaxing in order to damage her reputation.

So why the post stating her channels have been closed down?

Harvey Weinstein

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So why the post stating her channels have been closed down?

Anyone can fake a screenshot, The tweet is not there now.
In any case the account retweets basically everything Gemma tweets.

I don't know this account or have any info on it but in my opinion theres no way Gemma O Doherty is tweeting about N*ggers and how great Adolf Hitler is.

She's had Africans on her show.

Timberrrrrrrr

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Anyone can fake a screenshot, The tweet is not there now.
In any case the account retweets basically everything Gemma tweets.

I don't know this account or have any info on it but in my opinion theres no way Gemma O Doherty is tweeting about N*ggers and how great Adolf Hitler is.

She's had Africans on her show.

You don't believe so it must be fake :rolleyes:

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Anyone can fake a screenshot, The tweet is not there now.
In any case the account retweets basically everything Gemma tweets.

I don't know this account or have any info on it but in my opinion theres no way Gemma O Doherty is tweeting about N*ggers and how great Adolf Hitler is.

She's had Africans on her show.

And she's targeted children because of their skin colour so she does have a history of racism.

Harvey Weinstein

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You don't believe so it must be fake :rolleyes:

I have no proof of anything but it does not sound like her at all.

Annasopra

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Anyone can fake a screenshot, The tweet is not there now.
In any case the account retweets basically everything Gemma tweets.

I don't know this account or have any info on it but in my opinion theres no way Gemma O Doherty is tweeting about N*ggers and how great Adolf Hitler is.

She's had Africans on her show.

Ye wha? Just cause she has black people on her videos doesnt mean she isnt racist.

Timberrrrrrrr

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

I have no proof of anything but it does not sound like her at all.

Thats the whole idea of having a parody/sock puppet account.

NKante

I saw a video of hers saying the Irish IQ was dropping due to fluoride in the water.


Easy to fix lads. Drink bottled and let's see if you can sharpen up a bit.

Harvey Weinstein

batgoat wrote: »

And she's targeted children because of their skin colour so she does have a history of racism.

She didn't target children, she used an image of children to highlight an issue.
Its done all the time in the media.
But lets not get into that as its been done to death already.

jay1988

NKante wrote: »

I saw a video of hers saying the Irish IQ was dropping due to fluoride in the water.


Easy to fix lads. Drink bottled and let's see if you can sharpen up a bit.

I've an even easier idea, drop Gemma and the arseholes hanging around outside Google with her into the Irish sea and we'll see a massive increase in the average national IQ.

jay1988

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

She didn't target children, she used an image of children to highlight an issue.
Its done all the time in the media.
But lets not get into that as its been done to death already.

She did target children, she took a photo of a class of schoolkids to push her racist agenda, but yeah lets not get into that, convenient for you, here defending the indefensible.

Annasopra

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

She didn't target children, she used an image of children to highlight an issue.
Its done all the time in the media.
But lets not get into that as its been done to death already.

No. She targeted. She deliberately used an image of black children to highlight their skin colour and to scare monger about their skin colour.

Harvey Weinstein

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. She targeted. She deliberately used an image of black children to highlight their skin colour and to scare monger about their skin colour.

No. She used an image of African children to highlight the demographic changes occurring in this country. A picture tells a thousand words.

The reason you are freaking out about it is because it can't be denied or explained away.

jay1988

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

No. She used an image of African children to highlight the demographic changes occurring in this country. A picture tells a thousand words.

The reason you are freaking out about it is because it can't be denied or explained away.

There is no way of telling whether those kids were Irish, African or from the ****ing moon.

NKante

I'm old enough to remember when 'black Irish' used to be a joke.

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

No. She used an image of African children to highlight the demographic changes occurring in this country. A picture tells a thousand words.

The reason you are freaking out about it is because it can't be denied or explained away.

Literal white supremacists were sharing images of children in an Irish school as a result of her ****e. She's a racist arsehole and most tend to view her as such.

Annasopra

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

No. She used an image of African children to highlight the demographic changes occurring in this country. A picture tells a thousand words.

The reason you are freaking out about it is because it can't be denied or explained away.

Nothing needs to be explained away. Gemma targeted black children because of the colour of their skin. She's a vile racist. She literally puts children in danger with hateful rhetoric.

Harvey Weinstein

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nothing needs to be explained away. Gemma targeted black children because of the colour of their skin. She's a vile racist. She literally puts children in danger with hateful rhetoric.

Sure buddy...sure thing

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Sure buddy...sure thing

You think it's okay to target children? Classy!

Penn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. She targeted. She deliberately used an image of black children to highlight their skin colour and to scare monger about their skin colour.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

No. She used an image of African children to highlight the demographic changes occurring in this country.

How is what you've said different?

She used an image of African children (children of African heritage who have black skin, and are therefore black children) to highlight (using their skin colour) the demographic changes occurring in this country (by using the skin colour of black children and saying the demographic changes are a bad thing, therefore scare-mongering).

"She hit someone in the head with a brick"
"No, she just used the brick to highlight that being hit in the head with a brick would cause an injury to the person's head. Totally different scenario".

Utter Consternation

Penn wrote: »

How is what you've said different?

She used an image of African children (children of African heritage who have black skin, and are therefore black children) to highlight (using their skin colour) the demographic changes occurring in this country (by using the skin colour of black children and saying the demographic changes are a bad thing, therefore scare-mongering).

"She hit someone in the head with a brick"
"No, she just used the brick to highlight that being hit in the head with a brick would cause an injury to the person's head. Totally different scenario".

The only thing worse than a racist is a cowardly racist.