This afternoon.

Covid-sceptical, leftist-baiting Irish YouTuber Dave Cullen, whose often conspiratorial Computing Forever channel has amassed 14,000 videos and 515,000 subscribers since its launch in 2006, responds to his banning from YouTube amid a purge of conservative and right-wing voices on the Google-owned platform.

Taking it well, in fairness.

111 thoughts on “Banned Forever

      1. Dell

        Yes.. I’ll be severely effected by not being able to speak my mind… on the internet. No one is stopping this man from setting up his own platform or hiring someone to do that for him. As he has pointed out himself, there are other platforms. He is playing the martyr. I love how everyone is so worried about peoples rights all of a sudden, when a lot of them had no qualms about voting against women’s rights or marriage equality. The fact is that YouTube is not a public body , it is owned by a company who are surely entitled to run their platform how they see fit, with rules and terms that they have already pointed out? Would you like to take that right away from them?

        Reply
  1. Finbarr

    I said I was out but I lied to both you and myself Bodger, shame on me. Looks like you going to be the only whack job dog whistler show in town soon. Maith an fear, you saw the silicon storm coming and played the long game, sharp.
    Saw a few of this lads vids before, skin crawling egotism.

    Reply
  2. Col

    Who is this guy? He mentions the “covid hoax” and the “digital gulag”, but what else does he generally talk about?
    I was surprised when he got to this bit:
    “I will never accept or consent to the world the satanic globalists wish to build for us. All I can do is put my faith in a higher power and believe that god’s will shall be done on this earth and my hand will be guided by his divine purpose.”

    Reply
      1. Brother Barnabas

        became a Christian and threw in some God-fearing stuff to better appeal to the US market, I’d guess

        who ever said being a God-botherer doesn’t pay?!

        Reply
  3. Jonboy

    The video doesn’t actually mentioned what got him banned, he just talks about how totally rad he is and how God will help him defeat the Global-Satanist. So what actually got him banned?

    Reply
    1. Napertandy

      So says the “fat lad” smh you all are really clueless, posting such comments as I’ve never heard of him but….

      Reply
  4. ReproBertie

    “All the really interesting people are now leaving mainstream big tech social media or they’re being kicked off.”

    Hmmm, does this mean I should move my kung fu channel to some platform most non-banned people have never heard of? Do I really want to sleep in a racing car?

    Reply
  5. noname

    I used to work with this chap and its kinda scary to see somebody become radicalised like he has. Back then he was just another virgin for life writing computer code like the rest of us.

    Reply
  6. Bruncvik

    I used to watch him on Youtube. Know him personally, and he is a sound, well-articulated lad. I may not agree with even half of what he says, but he always supports his claims with good arguments and reasoning. He is among five or so people with whose worldviews I disagree with, but I still keep watching to get a counterpoint to my own biases. However, a few years back I switched to watching them on Minds.com, where I don’t care where they host their videos. So Dave being kicked out of Youtube is no big loss for me, and if he’s okay with it, I see no harm done anywhere.

    Reply
    1. Centerest dad

      And nothing of value was lost. Heard he was reduced to slappin stickers around Smithfield during the week. Sad!

      Reply
    1. scundered

      That’s a pretty crazy thing to say, linking him to someone’s death…. just stop, he had nothing to do with that incident whatsoever, as much involvement as you.

      Reply
    2. V aka Frilly Keane

      Same here
      RIP

      In fairness to everyone
      Tying Alan Leblique’s personal tragedy into that person & her crew is a bit of a leap

      And IMO
      Have done his life and memory no favours at all

      For what it’s worth
      I’m going to assume Alan was a lot more than just an accidental feature in a video trapped and circulated by GO’D & liked by her followers

      Particularly to his family, friends and colleagues, who knew him in private, and for a lot longer,
      In both good times and bad times.

      RIP Alan. Condolences to your family, and sorry you are being remembered like this by a load of internet strangers. xV

      Reply
  7. Micko

    I actually did used to watch his Computing Forever channel back in the day when he used to do reviews on actual tech stuff. He was very good at that – especially at calling out tech BS (looking at you Apple)

    But over the last 12 months he went absolutely next level. While I agree with him on some of the madness on the Covid restrictions, the whole new world order pants is just too much. Actually depressed the life out of me one day back in April / May and I had to unsubscribe.

    There’s a loadsa schnakes popped up trying to make money and a name for themselves around this Covid thing – Dave Cullen here, Ivor Cummins, Delores Cahil, Tomas Ryan, Luke O’Neill, Sam McConkey etc

    They’re on both sides of the argument.

    Reply
  8. DaithiF

    Question: if being off mainstream media and being on alt tech is such a massive liberation, why did he have to be actively banned from it to make the move in the first place?

    Reply
    1. Micko

      Money, money money.

      YouTube pays pretty well if ya can get the views.

      I’d say his vids have been demonitized for a while mow though. Also good for sending people to his Patreon.

      Reply
  9. scundered

    Your freedom to discuss ideas are being eroded every day, Silicon Valley are in no way fit to tell you how to think so celebrate this at your peril, just don’t complain when they remove you. Whilst I think his ideas are totally crackpot, it is pathetic how big tech are wiping out freedom of speech. Let them talk, so their ideas can be outed and smashed by better ones.

    Reply
      1. scundered

        Tell me any viable alternative to Youtube that does exactly the same function and has the same reach, there are none…. and they are now acting as publishers as they clearly have an editorial narrative to push.

        Now get in line and do what you’re told. Google has spoken.

        Reply
        1. Nigel

          Just think what a little anti-monopolistic regulation and careful shaping of legal liability for online content early on would have saved us, but no, digital wild west, unregulated high tech disruption and everyone loves the Streisand Effect sure it’ll be grand.

          Reply
          1. scundered

            You should be celebrating Nigel, sure you would be a bit partial to the oul book burning yourself.

          2. Nigel

            Not really, but are you not willing to defend to the death the rights of Nazis to burn books, should it ever come to that? That books should be burned is a point of view, after all, to stop them is to deny Nazis their free speech.

          3. scundered

            You have the right to think and say that you think books should be burned, which is fine… that’s very different from the physical act of burning books. Just like in the case of youtube you should have the right to say you think some people should be banned, but you should not have the right to carry that out… freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of actions.

          4. scundered

            It all comes down to whether you believe in equality for all. Do you believe all humans should all have a voice, or only give a voice to the people you happen to agree with?

            The act of silencing people is an extreme right wing logic, so Youtube certainly are not the progressive liberal type of company they market themselves as. Yes they hold that right, but with no competitors it is very dangerous for society.

          5. Nigel

            You are assuming that the social media platforms have been passive and neutral, and therefore promoting some kind of equality by default up until the point where it banned Trump, which is so wildly untrue as to be laughable. The kinds of platform where abuse agasint women and minorities is utterly commonplace are by definition unequal and inimical to freedom of speech, as is the lack of any accountability for lies, disinformation, defamation and threats.

          6. scundered

            Here’s a wake up call for you Nigel, humans have been abusive to each other for all of history and often it’s a matter of interpretation, no matter what group classification you wish to put them in, women, minorities, Trump, men, everyone gets abuse in life… What we see in recent years is more an over reaction by placing priority on someone feeling offended which does not equate to abuse. This is when the left started to eat itself.

          7. scundered

            Nobody supports abuse or is “pro abuse” as you seem to think. What is worrying is how you feel that abuse only happens to certain group identities, it’s a part of life though for everyone, so time to grow up and learn the facts of life because if you expect to live in a utopia where nobody says anything that might upset you, you best not leave the house.

          8. Nigel

            I don’t think abuse happens to only certain groups of people, it happens to certain groups disproportionately. People who are subjected to abuse disproprtionately are unlikely to need patronising lessons about the facts of life, though they could probably tell a thing ot two about how tough it is to keep exercising their freedom of speech while being subjected to disproportionate abuse and patronised about it by the likes of yourself.

          9. scundered

            You spectacularly missed the point yet again. It comes down to who you feel should police what is abuse, just because someone says “I feel abused” doesn’t mean it is, it could be they’re just over sensitive to the world around them. It is something completely subjective mostly, but with victimhood the new currency in town some people are quick to weaponise that if they can convince others.

          10. Nigel

            You make is sound as if it’s difficult, for the most part, to simply read what’s been written and conclude whther a person is being abusive or not. Threats of rape or assault or murder are not uncommon, nor are assorted slurs. It’s not that hard to find abusive behaviour online, just check the comments under any prominent woman, black person, or black woman, for a start.

          11. scundered

            There you go again as though certain groups get to “own” abuse… do you think Teresa May didn’t get abuse for example? The world was pretty savage with her, much more than the average black lady…. it’s got nothing to do with groups, all people of all genders, and colours get abuse, over many different characteristics, it’s just a fact of life and the abuse is multi faceted

          12. Nigel

            You think they ‘own’ it? Or WANT to ‘own’ it? Wow, you really are coming at this all wrong.

          13. scundered

            Absolutely, if you can portray yourself as a victim today you gain a lot of power and privileges, the weaponisation of victimhood is something the extreme left thrives on, it is used politically all the time and in all our institutions as a means to gain certain privileges, that’s what identity politics does

          14. Scundered

            Well considering I am not even right wing, it shows how far radicalised you have become. I have open minded views on politics, proud to be a classic liberal, I believe in the freedom of the individual to be respected above any group identity, and that everyone should have a voice, as to silence them is anti-liberal. But your type of radicalised far left politics where you silence those you disagree with is exactly the same as the far right, using group identities to increase racism and drive privileges, which is narrow minded anti equality and only increases racism, even though it’s dressed up in the fancy lingual gymnastics of critical race theory for example. I suggest you pull back to a more centrist way of thinking.

          15. Nigel

            I didn’t say you were right wing – though I’m genuinely surprised to hear you say you aren’t considering that you are, yes, repeating right-wing zero-sum culture war arguments. As for me, I’m a soft wee liberal, slightly amazed that it’s now a radical thing to be, apparently. I certainly haven’t silenced anyone, I just find the idea that the most powerful man in the world losing his twitter account along with many of his supporters – who plotted a coup attempt, accuse others of being pedophiles without evidence and call for their executions – is the looming authoitarian threat of the moment to be utterly ridiculous, which is not the same thing as thinking monopolistic tech giants aren’t an authoritarian threat.

          16. scundered

            You are not a liberal though, you do not want equality as you believe in the use of identity politics and judging people by their group identity, and things like critical race theory… that is not the mindset of a liberal, it is extreme left and is every bit as narrow minded as the extreme right. Do you seriously think you are liberal or just trolling? You are as radicalised as I have ever witnessed.

          17. Nigel

            I believe that people have not been in the past and are not in the present treated equally, and that this is a bad thing. Pretty sure that’s liberal. I don’t judge people by their group identity, I judge them by the things they say and do, and I take note of how they treat others and why, and how others are treated and why. I find it quite bizarre that this is treated as radical, but then, maybe it is. I think your arguments are reactionary and wrong, and form part of the the backbone of the politics of, for example, Trumpism, which is why I think they’re so dangerous and authoritarian, whether you yourself are a Trumpist or not.

    1. Nigel

      Silicon Valley were fit to push conspiracy theories, misinformation and Nazis for years, it’s a bit late to start worrying about them telling us what to think and their effect on freedom of speech now they’ve helped shape public discourse to its current state.

      Reply
    2. Micko

      I agree @Scundered freedom of speech all the way, but it is such a mixed bag now though isn’t it?

      We’ve never had the ability to personally talk to so many people before.

      Before this, the ability to get your message across was controlled by gatekeepers like the media, editors etc.

      Where we better off then – maybe?

      Dave Cullen here has gone from normal computing guy to full on David Icke level of loo la in a few months.

      The internet (Social media in particular) has been a bit of a disaster alright. A brilliant disaster but a disaster all the same.

      But then you can’t really trust the official channels either.

      Particularly with politicians talking directly to the public etc. In fact, I think that all politicians should have their Twitter deleted.

      Reply
      1. scundered

        Micko, there’s such a frenzy for views/clicks today that ethics don’t matter, the mainstream media are desperate to hold onto their little empires, whilst Youtubers steal their audience.

        Whatever happened to our belief in “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”…Any free society should have that at it’s core, the irony here is that by taking away your voice they are behaving like Nazis, just like the extremism they claim to be protecting you from.

        Reply
        1. Micko

          Yeah. That is true man.

          And I do hold that principle at my core too, no matter how mental your opinion is – you have the right to say it.

          The whole thing is such a mess now though. The world just seemed less fractured years ago.

          .Hopefully we can find our way back.

          Reply
        2. Nigel

          Be interseting to see of you or JohnF below or Bodger or anyone else agreeing with you have done any kind of survey of bannings and suspensions across various social media down the years, the demographics and political leanings and professions of those targeted and why, then justify why it’s only now, when the most powerful man in the world has had his account suspended, along with the accounts of many of his supporters who routinely accuse his enemies of pedophilia and call for their summary execution – behaviour that could never be tolerated on so-called ‘legacy media’- that you suddenly feel the urge to demand other people fight to the death for their rights to do so.

          Reply
          1. Nigel

            Yes, survey. Any data on who social media platforms suspends and why, going back the last ten years or so. For context.

          2. Micko

            Why?

            Why would I do that…?

            Anyway, there’s no need. Wikipedia has done it for us – for Twitter anyway. ;P

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions#List_of_notable_suspensions

            Kinda odd actually. Twitter used to ban people for attacking people, racism or serious stuff like that, but 2019 and 2020 have shown a change.

            Users banned for all whole host of things ranging from severe to minor. like:

            misgendering people,
            Tons of government and country specific accounts (from Venezuela, Cuba, China, Turkey, Russia, Hugary etc),
            jokes about Baby Yoda (apparently), ;)
            conservative opinions,
            criticising of world governments handling of Covid pandemic,
            being a mascot of a town in Japan – yup.

            It’s a mixed bag – mostly consisting of some very hateful people. But it’s the ones banned for “unspecified” reasons that are odd.

            Anyway, have a look at that list Nigel and see do you agree with every single one of those bannings?

          3. Nigel

            I’ll just quote this from JohnF
            ‘Did it ever occur to them that they will be silenced too.’
            And leave pondering why a detailed survey of social media bannings might be a useful data set for current purposes as an exercise for the curious reader.

          4. Nigel

            That’s my point. Dody bannings are nothing new, and not confined to one side of the political divide. If anything, squaring up to ban one of the most powerful men in the world is an exeptional act, albeit probably cynical.

          5. V aka Frilly Keane

            Nothing ‘probably’ about it Nidgie

            They all did it
            In very quick timed succession

            If he was the lad getting inaugurated next week or whenever
            They wouldn’t have

            And ye know it

          6. Nigel

            Chances are they’re way more worried about a Republican crackdown than a Democrat one, and it wasn’t safe to do this until Dems won the Senate. It’s the Republicans screaming about repealing Section 230, and lying about it, every time some Trump tweet full of lies got labelled as being full of lies.

        3. Noblelocks

          They are what they accuse you of. +1 for sticking with Nigel btw. You are 100% correct when you told him how radical he’d become. He’s all about diversity is our Nige… in all things except for opinion and thought that is… /rolleyes

          Reply
  10. Elon J Lerlow

    Are there any Left or progressive video platforms? YouTube is okay, but sick of the ads (and the far-right trolls).

    Reply
      1. benblack

        Sorry, just had to come back to this post. It has been stuck in my mind for a few days.

        Just want to compliment it and acknowledge its resonance.

        Nice one, scundered.

        Reply
  11. Daisy Chainsaw

    So much fun reading Twitter today about the #NoFlyList and MAGA terrorists having emotional breakdowns because their disgusting actions finally had consequences!

    Reply
  12. Verbatim

    I’m with Angela Merkel on this.
    I would have considered myself “leftwing” but today left is right… it’s discombobulating.

    Reply
    1. Micko

      +1

      What happened? I wonder is it my age now.

      I was always a very liberal guy, but maybe this happens to every generation. I didn’t think it would happen until my 70+

      Reply
    2. Noblelocks

      Good to see others finally agreeing with that the left is the new right, I’ve been saying it for well over a year. Of course Daisy and Millie have told me I’m an awful eejit for stating this…. now that Merkel is saying it the silence from the two of them is deafening…

      Reply
    3. Junkface

      +1
      This is the problem with the woke culture wars. They are alienating a lot of traditionally left wing types who believe in human rights, but also the enlightenment and the real meaning of the word liberalism. Liberalism does not meaning running around in mobs with megaphones shouting at people to submit to their ideologies. That’s called Fascism.

      Again, I’m also strongly opposed to right wing mobs of idiots who can evidently be very violent and brainwashed. Qanon in a danger to all societies of domestic terrorism.

      Reply
      1. ( ̄_, ̄ ) AKA Frilly Keane

        and there you’ve said it Junk
        ….right wing mobs of idiots who can evidently be very violent and brainwashed. Qanon in a danger to all societies of domestic terrorism.

        Because it was so secret, furtive, coded with off off off Broadway levels of presence
        If it was more open, and commonplace
        understandable even
        maybe it wouldn’t have crystallised into the threat you’re claiming

        In fairness, this shoving these groups into the furthest corners of the wifi spectrum, calling them names, and letting them all develop their own funny handshakes created what QAnon Patriotism looked like last week

        Because of the cloak and deep deep deep State stuff
        nobody knows who the f::: anyone is or who they all really are
        or what they want their Country to be like
        or even who they want to run their County
        Who was in Charge

        They were convinced a President that thought out loud about injecting bleach was worth marching on the Capitol for
        Give over

        When in all fairness, these people just want to belong somewhere in America
        A country that only cares about Fame, Wealth, Power and Winning.
        It was so easy for those people to attach themselves to Q/ MAGA etc because it offered them a common bond
        the sense of belonging to a community that people were so desperate for
        And it spread overseas because the same issues are present here as well
        People are being left behind by Governments who just want to stay in power, and they need big tech to help them do that
        So they will point the finger at anyone and everyone not them, and Big Tech/ Media is helping them

        Something, and I might as well post this here now
        I now think, that this Great Awakening Q was hammering them with, the Storm etc
        Was actually President Trump himself
        The Plan was actually that night in November 2016

        The great reset; – Voters Rights, Campaign Finance & the Campaign Economy/ Industry, the Federal Budget systems, then you get Health Care reform, Universal Income, Public Education……….

        The Republican Party rebuild over the next few years will be an interesting watch

        Wonder what the Big Tech lads will do then?

        Reply
  13. John F

    Without doubt some of the ideas he puts forward are a bit extreme. But some of his ideas and the topics covered very good. He was one of the people that covered the great reset by Klaus Schwab, for example.
    With every element of news, be it online, social media, et cetera there is an element of buyer beware, so is to find something interesting look into it independently.
    The social media purge, lockdown or whatever a person wants to call it is happening hard and fast now. Perhaps it’s correlated by Biden’s “win” or because authorities rightly or wrongly do not want voices of opposition when vaccines are being rolled out or more Draconian restrictions on people’s daily lives are brought in.
    This is not a win for society in general. Despite what the lefties/progressives might say. Did it ever occur to them that they will be silenced too. When they stop being useful idiots? And the already established tools/procedures will make this unbelievably easy……..
    just something to think about.

    Reply
    1. Nigel

      It’s possible the purge is due to these companies realising that the sorts of disinformation bubbles they’ve happily fostered and monetised can also be used to organise more incidents like the storming of the Capitol and they’re worried about regulatory backlash or even legal liabilities. The left have been warning about the drawbacks to monopolistic amoral unregulated corporations controlling so much communication. This kind of cyncism is completely unsurprising.

      Reply
  14. KrisCavan

    So, it’s ok to CENSOR if the person’s avatar is not accurate or you disagree with them or their religious beliefs or you reckon they’re a tool or nutty or a conspiracy theorist or it’s corporate censorship or you don’t like their accent or their content depressed you or some insane conspiracy theorist believes they’re connected to someone’s death? What a bunch of Tripe Merchants. Pathetic.

    Reply
  15. Nigel

    Let me put this another way. Anyone who has paid attention to social media, and tunes out the entitled screeching of the right, knows that social media platforms have been banning, suspending and penalising people unfairly, arbitrarly and inconsistantly since they came into being, At the same time they have been cultivating communities like Qanon. In no society is some form of accountability for people who baselessly accuse others of pedophilia and who called for their deaths regarded as incompatible with freedom. Any newspapers that published those things would be sued to the ground in minutes flat, and nobody would bat an eye. Up until now, those communitites have been profitable. Now they either are no longer profitable or more trouble than they’re worth. (For now. Watch them creep back.) To associate corporations whose moral calculus runs thus so closely with freedom of speech that they are indistinguishable is a category error. They’re not the same. They never were.

    Reply
  16. V aka Frilly Keane

    I don’t think anyone is well served by having these voices silenced, even if only temporarily, by the more mainstream and popular platforms

    All tis doing really is forcing these speakers and their followers more and more out into the fringe and specialist platforms,
    Like virtual ghettos I suppose

    And anything that creates hive minds and enables suggestion without counter opinions and debate is not healthy
    IMO anyway
    Free Speech and Democracy is better served by letting them all at it
    On the same forum/ platform. The same Village Square

    If lads need to come with a health warning, then fair enough
    Cigarette manufacturers figured it out didn’t they?

    The further contradicting voices are pushed away
    or Cancelled
    The more We – the Royal We btw, the more We are more likely to become just as isolated and narrow-minded
    – this time it’s about COVID-19 and or the US Election results
    Next time who knows
    It’s a slippery slope – and before you know it you’re in a single lane this way only hive yourself

    Just saying
    Tis a slippery slope
    If you don’t like what a lad has to say – don’t listen, turn them off
    Same for rightful Candidates in an election, give them every and all the same conditions, the same speaking time and the same opportunities as every other Candidate, if you don’t like them, then just don’t vote for them

    Reply
    1. Nigel

      ‘Free Speech and Democracy is better served by letting them all at it
      On the same forum/ platform. The same Village Square’

      See, this is what gets me. Retreating into general platitudes rather than engaging with the trickier specifics. A mob of people can accuse anyone who disagrees with them of pedophilia, and threaten them with hanging. Tough luck on anyone who thinks they have a right to their good name, physical safety, mental well-being, and to express opinions without being accused of pedophilia and threatened with hanging. So much for their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, eh? Watch how quickly the public square empties out, leaving mostly a gang of people screeching about pedophilia and hanging. At least we’re not isolated and narrow minded, I suppose. You’d think whiners about cancel culture and woke mobs would have a bloody clue.

      Reply
      1. V aka Frilly Keane

        I’m not really disagreeing

        But still
        oddly enough
        In my own experience – which you saw for yourself Nidgie

        when it came to

        -A mob of people making accusations
        – cancellation
        – going legal to prove their good name, and getting satisfaction
        -people screeching about paedophilia and hanging

        Twas the various local Village Squares where all that eventually got sieved out
        And where the masks skipped

        I trust the public at large
        Frilly said years ago – Trust the internet
        When tis all out there free and open
        Truth always comes out, like how fat separates etc

        Siphoning off and controlling what people can listen to, read or watch, only allows fringe voices to strengthen and embolden, get more creative without checks – see what I’m getting at

        Reply
        1. Junkface

          I agree with banning Trump from Twitter because he is a present danger to peace among Americans, but I don’t agree to mass purge all across social media by heads of Tech companies that nobody voted for. Are they well read on civil rights, open discussion of a wide range of subjects? No they are not. Many of them are in fact clueless and biased about the world we’re living in. I’m hoping that things calm down, but it could be a slippery slope.

          How would this play out 8 years into the future? Which president would they ban then? And for what? How come Chinese CCP spokespersons are not banned now for a genocide? What about Iranian leaders, Saudi Arabians? They all violate human rights.

          Reply
          1. bisted

            …how come when the Chinese clamp down on militant Islam it is called genocide but when Macron does it in France he is lauded throughout the West?

          2. ( ̄_, ̄ ) AKA Frilly Keane

            @ bisto
            Dunno why you’re asking me that
            I don’t do *hypocrisy or practice the blind eye

            I leave that to the lads

            * unless its a refereeing decision (●’◡’●) of course. Then I’m shamelessly biased and twofaced.

          3. Junkface

            @bisted
            You cannot compare Macron’s crackdown on Islamic terrorism in France, to China putting Uighurs in concentration camps, separating their children from parents, mass indoctrination into Communist propaganda, torture, forced sterilization. Come on! Surely you are not being serious.

          4. ( ̄_, ̄ ) AKA Frilly Keane

            In one way tisn’t about comparing one with the other Junk
            Tis about how its presented in their varying platforms and news outlets
            and the_make_it_up_as_they_go_along whatever they’re in in humour for today monitoring rules on these bluetick channels

            the same rules for everyone
            everyone
            or there’s no rules at all,
            just different conditions per user / account type

            and thats not Free Speech

            and Happy New ’21 to you too Bisto

          5. bisted

            …hi Junkface…today we have a report showing that children were routinely separated from their mothers and sold…just over an hour ago the radio played the first of two calls to prayer and the church still retain control of health and education…Irishmen and women were tortured and languished in concentration camps on this island…the Chinese deny the charges you have made against them…what evidence do you have?

          6. Junkface

            @bisted
            The BBC did a report on the Uighur concentrations camps recently. As did Euronews, DW news, Sky news, available on their youtube channels I would say. They have video evidence and verified witness testimony. Seems to be accepted common knowledge in the news world now.

            I agree with everything you said about the Catholic church in Ireland. It would make your stomach sick really. This is not happening right now though. It was in the recent past. Religion can be poison.

          7. bisted

            …I’ve seen some of the stuff from the BBC and others on the Uigher…some of the scenes are pretty harrowing and damming if true…reminded me of stuff that the Yanks do in Guantanimo Bay concentration camp or Abu Ghraib…

  17. Nigel

    You see, I reckon if you’re really worried about the coming hi-tech authoritarian dystopia, it’s stuff like this you should be focused on:
    ‘A Chinese company wanted to use a “smart” cushion to track its employees’ health. Among other features, the cushion tallied minutes spent at work stations, and a human resources manager soon began asking about long breaks and early departures from work.’
    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1348980576485781506

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!