---

The Dangerous Cost of Speaking the Truth

 

In modern Britain, calling out the obvious has become a risky business. There should be nothing controversial about condemning a terrorist group as “disgusting.” Yet, time and again, people are being punished for speaking plain truth.

 

Take NHS nurse Jennifer Melle, for example. She was reprimanded by her hospital in Surrey for referring to a male paedophile as “Mr.” The individual, known only as Patient X, identifies as a woman. He is also a convicted child sex offender. Yet it was Melle, not the criminal, who faced consequences. Her crime? Stating biological reality. When the offender was brought to her hospital for treatment, she called him “Mr.” That sounds both polite and factually accurate. But in today’s Britain, preferring truth over fantasy is apparently an offence worthy of punishment.

 

Now, another case has emerged. Damon Joshua, a sewage worker, lost his job at Severn Trent Water after he condemned Hamas. Marking the first anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 attack, he posted an image of the Israeli flag on an internal staff site along with his thoughts. “It’s a year since Israel was horrifically attacked by a group of violent and disgusting terrorists,” he wrote. He urged colleagues to “stand in solidarity” with their “Jewish, Israeli and Zionist” peers against “the evils of Islamist terror.”

 

 

The response? His post was removed by management, who claimed that “the terminology was very derogatory.” In other words, it is now unacceptable to be rude about Hamas. Apparently, offending a convicted paedophile or a terrorist organization is a graver offence than their own actions.

 

Welcome to Britain, where acknowledging biological reality or calling terrorists “disgusting” can get you in trouble. Once, you had to say something genuinely offensive to be reprimanded. Now, simply stating the truth is enough to land you in hot water. The basic facts—that men are men and terrorists are vile—are now controversial.

 

The case of Damon Joshua is particularly revealing. If there is one thing almost everyone should agree on, it is that Hamas are bad people. Legally, this is indisputable: Hamas is designated a terrorist organization in the UK. And yet, declaring this publicly is enough to spark outrage.

 

Activist Niyak Ghorbani has learned this the hard way. Born in Iran, he regularly attends “pro-Palestine” marches in London, holding a placard that reads “Hamas is Terrorist.” The result? He has been jeered at, shoved, and even arrested by the Met Police—not for breaking the law, but for his “own safety.” The police justified their actions by saying they wanted to “prevent a breach of the peace.” What they really did was silence a man for stating what UK law already affirms.

 

If law enforcement were doing their job properly, they wouldn’t be targeting people like Ghorbani. Instead, they should be asking why certain groups become violent at the mere mention of Hamas’s terrorist status. It is now seen as controversial—even suspicious—to call Hamas terrorists.

 

Some on the left prefer to use words like “resistance” or “fighters,” as if Hamas were merely engaged in a noble struggle. The BBC, too, has infamously avoided calling Hamas what they are. Shortly after the October 7 attack, BBC journalist John Simpson insisted that it was not the network’s role to tell people “who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.” Yet, when it comes to Brexit voters or Trump supporters, the BBC has never shied away from making moral judgments. Somehow, when it comes to Hamas, neutrality is suddenly paramount.

 

Why this hesitation? Part of it stems from deep-seated anti-Israel sentiment among certain influential circles. Many dislike Israel so intensely that they refuse to condemn the group that regularly terrorizes it. But there is another factor at play: the fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

 

British society has become so anxious about offending Islam that even criticizing Islamist terrorism has become taboo. Many people now believe that anything linked to Islam—whether it be the niqab, grooming gangs, or Hamas—must be handled with extreme caution. The growing push for Labour’s new definition of “Islamophobia” will only make this worse. If implemented, it could become even harder to discuss issues that reflect poorly on Islam, even when those issues involve terrorism.

 

It’s time to push back against this absurdity. Reality must be defended. If you have a penis, you are a man. And if you pick up a gun to kill Jewish civilians, you are a disgusting terrorist.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-26

 

 

Step One to the full effect of Socialism.

 

In a few years, they will solve the speech problem with bullets.

It's never been a good idea to speak against government policy in the UK.

Especially while using your employers internet, or your real name.

I remember some of my pals being called into HR for such offences at the BBC back in the 1980s.

 

Keep your opinions and your work separate.

Don't use social media during working hours.

Don't even chat about anything personal with fellow workers.

This is Orwellian.

 

Coming to Canada soon, guaranteed.

Now for the parts that were left out.

 

Damon Joshua was dismissed by Severn Trent Water after he described Hamas as “a group of violent and disgusting terrorists” in a post on the company’s staff intranet website on the anniversary of the attack.

 

The post was taken down by managers at the company following internal complaints that “the terminology being used includes very derogatory words” and “is very one-sided”.

 

According to documents seen by The Telegraph, one complainant said: “The post reflects poorly on Severn Trent’s reputation as a diverse and inclusive company.”

 

What he wrote was "“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”"

 

Zionist colleagues 😊 That's offensive and meant to be so. But no mention of that here at all. Only the emphasis on different words that likely had little or no basis in his removal.

 

“They didn’t really give an opinion on what I’d wrote. They just said that it was seen as offensive.”

 

Mr Joshua says he made the post following messages to managers asking if they would do anything to commemorate the anniversary of the attacks, to which he says he received no reply.

At his disciplinary hearing he was told that the post had caused “significant offence” to three members of staff who complained about it.

 

They also raised concerns that “the wording in the post explicitly suggests support of a particular geopolitical stance”. They told Mr Joshua his claim that the majority of STW staff supported Israel “creates exclusion and assumptions of solidarity”.

 

In other words he made unsubstantiated claims using the companies property.

 

If he posted it on social media, he might have gotten away with it. But posting it on company property.....he's an idiot and now he knows it.

 

But here is another salient fact that is being left out of this propaganda.

 

From Severn Water:

 

“The allegations in the Telegraph are not the whole story nor is this an isolated incident. This relates to the conduct of an individual who posted highly charged content on a range of topics from gender to sexuality to race in an online work platform – having previously been warned this was not the appropriate forum to do so".  

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/23/i-condemned-the-oct-7-massacre-cost-me-job-severn-water/

18 minutes ago, SMIAI said:

Now for the parts that were left out.

 

Damon Joshua was dismissed by Severn Trent Water after he described Hamas as “a group of violent and disgusting terrorists” in a post on the company’s staff intranet website on the anniversary of the attack.

 

The post was taken down by managers at the company following internal complaints that “the terminology being used includes very derogatory words” and “is very one-sided”.

 

According to documents seen by The Telegraph, one complainant said: “The post reflects poorly on Severn Trent’s reputation as a diverse and inclusive company.”

 

What he wrote was "“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”"

 

Zionist colleagues 😊 That's offensive and meant to be so. But no mention of that here at all. Only the emphasis on different words that likely had little or no basis in his removal.

 

“They didn’t really give an opinion on what I’d wrote. They just said that it was seen as offensive.”

 

Mr Joshua says he made the post following messages to managers asking if they would do anything to commemorate the anniversary of the attacks, to which he says he received no reply.

At his disciplinary hearing he was told that the post had caused “significant offence” to three members of staff who complained about it.

 

They also raised concerns that “the wording in the post explicitly suggests support of a particular geopolitical stance”. They told Mr Joshua his claim that the majority of STW staff supported Israel “creates exclusion and assumptions of solidarity”.

 

In other words he made unsubstantiated claims using the companies property.

 

If he posted it on social media, he might have gotten away with it. But posting it on company property.....he's an idiot and now he knows it.

 

But here is another salient fact that is being left out of this propaganda.

 

From Severn Water:

 

“The allegations in the Telegraph are not the whole story nor is this an isolated incident. This relates to the conduct of an individual who posted highly charged content on a range of topics from gender to sexuality to race in an online work platform – having previously been warned this was not the appropriate forum to do so".  

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/23/i-condemned-the-oct-7-massacre-cost-me-job-severn-water/

What he wrote was "“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”"

 

Zionist colleagues 😊 That's offensive and meant to be so. But no mention of that here at all. Only the emphasis on different words that likely had little or no basis in his removal.

 

Why is that offensive?

@Bkk Brian

 

It's offensive in much the same way as using company property to suggest that everyone in Severn Water supported Putin's invasion.

 

 

7 minutes ago, SMIAI said:

@Bkk Brian

 

It's offensive in much the same way as using company property to suggest that everyone in Severn Water supported Putin's invasion.

 

 

He didn't say everyone though? Why are you saying something he did not say? A perfect assumption to make that most would however.

 

“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”

 

In fact only 3 people complained 

 

 "three members of staff who complained about it."

 

The Telegraph understands Mr Joshua appealed against his dismissal but was unsuccessful.
Mr Joshua was represented in his case by the Free Speech Union.
Dr Ben Jones, Director of Case Management at the Free Speech Union, said: “We’ve dealt with 3,500 cases but the facts of Damon’s are particularly shocking. Sacking somebody for condemning Hamas is one of the most egregious cases of cancel culture we’ve seen.”

 

More on his story from a separate Telegraph Article here. 

 

Condemning Hamas is now a risky business

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/24/condemning-hamas-is-now-a-risky-business/

Soon to be the norm in America too...

 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

It's never been a good idea to speak against government policy in the UK.

Especially while using your employers internet, or your real name.

I remember some of my pals being called into HR for such offences at the BBC back in the 1980s.

 

Keep your opinions and your work separate.

Don't use social media during working hours.

Don't even chat about anything personal with fellow workers.

Sounds like a no stress place to work.

9 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

Soon to be the norm in America too...

 

Please tell us how, as compared to the prior administration?

What proof do you have that the vast majority supported it? I don't always comment on the ridiculous statements made on this forum. Does that mean that I agree with them?

Let's hope that you don't work in an office, as this is what he thinks of office workers.

 

  Quote

“I was a maintenance engineer. I did frontline work in the production areas. It’s not a very nice job dealing with sewage.

“I suspect the people who complained were office-based staff. There’s a massive difference between office and production. So I think they looked down on me.

“They’re slightly snobbish. They sit in their brand new headquarters at their posh desk with their expensive office chairs. It’s different when you’re working on the actual site.

 

 

Again:

From Severn Water:

 

“The allegations in the Telegraph are not the whole story nor is this an isolated incident. This relates to the conduct of an individual who posted highly charged content on a range of topics from gender to sexuality to race in an online work platform – having previously been warned this was not the appropriate forum to do so".  

 

 

10 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

Soon to be the norm in America too...

 

 

Au contraire, that was the direction the US had been heading in for the last 4 years; but that is being rapidly reversed, do try and keep up.

 

 

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

---

The Dangerous Cost of Speaking the Truth

 

In modern Britain, calling out the obvious has become a risky business. There should be nothing controversial about condemning a terrorist group as “disgusting.” Yet, time and again, people are being punished for speaking plain truth.

 

Take NHS nurse Jennifer Melle, for example. She was reprimanded by her hospital in Surrey for referring to a male paedophile as “Mr.” The individual, known only as Patient X, identifies as a woman. He is also a convicted child sex offender. Yet it was Melle, not the criminal, who faced consequences. Her crime? Stating biological reality. When the offender was brought to her hospital for treatment, she called him “Mr.” That sounds both polite and factually accurate. But in today’s Britain, preferring truth over fantasy is apparently an offence worthy of punishment.

 

Now, another case has emerged. Damon Joshua, a sewage worker, lost his job at Severn Trent Water after he condemned Hamas. Marking the first anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 attack, he posted an image of the Israeli flag on an internal staff site along with his thoughts. “It’s a year since Israel was horrifically attacked by a group of violent and disgusting terrorists,” he wrote. He urged colleagues to “stand in solidarity” with their “Jewish, Israeli and Zionist” peers against “the evils of Islamist terror.”

 

 

The response? His post was removed by management, who claimed that “the terminology was very derogatory.” In other words, it is now unacceptable to be rude about Hamas. Apparently, offending a convicted paedophile or a terrorist organization is a graver offence than their own actions.

 

Welcome to Britain, where acknowledging biological reality or calling terrorists “disgusting” can get you in trouble. Once, you had to say something genuinely offensive to be reprimanded. Now, simply stating the truth is enough to land you in hot water. The basic facts—that men are men and terrorists are vile—are now controversial.

 

The case of Damon Joshua is particularly revealing. If there is one thing almost everyone should agree on, it is that Hamas are bad people. Legally, this is indisputable: Hamas is designated a terrorist organization in the UK. And yet, declaring this publicly is enough to spark outrage.

 

Activist Niyak Ghorbani has learned this the hard way. Born in Iran, he regularly attends “pro-Palestine” marches in London, holding a placard that reads “Hamas is Terrorist.” The result? He has been jeered at, shoved, and even arrested by the Met Police—not for breaking the law, but for his “own safety.” The police justified their actions by saying they wanted to “prevent a breach of the peace.” What they really did was silence a man for stating what UK law already affirms.

 

If law enforcement were doing their job properly, they wouldn’t be targeting people like Ghorbani. Instead, they should be asking why certain groups become violent at the mere mention of Hamas’s terrorist status. It is now seen as controversial—even suspicious—to call Hamas terrorists.

 

Some on the left prefer to use words like “resistance” or “fighters,” as if Hamas were merely engaged in a noble struggle. The BBC, too, has infamously avoided calling Hamas what they are. Shortly after the October 7 attack, BBC journalist John Simpson insisted that it was not the network’s role to tell people “who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.” Yet, when it comes to Brexit voters or Trump supporters, the BBC has never shied away from making moral judgments. Somehow, when it comes to Hamas, neutrality is suddenly paramount.

 

Why this hesitation? Part of it stems from deep-seated anti-Israel sentiment among certain influential circles. Many dislike Israel so intensely that they refuse to condemn the group that regularly terrorizes it. But there is another factor at play: the fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

 

British society has become so anxious about offending Islam that even criticizing Islamist terrorism has become taboo. Many people now believe that anything linked to Islam—whether it be the niqab, grooming gangs, or Hamas—must be handled with extreme caution. The growing push for Labour’s new definition of “Islamophobia” will only make this worse. If implemented, it could become even harder to discuss issues that reflect poorly on Islam, even when those issues involve terrorism.

 

It’s time to push back against this absurdity. Reality must be defended. If you have a penis, you are a man. And if you pick up a gun to kill Jewish civilians, you are a disgusting terrorist.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-26

 

 

Nobody has the right to bring their personal political beliefs to work, leave them at the clock-in machine, pick them up again on the way out.

 

 

 

Just now, SMIAI said:

What proof do you have that the vast majority supported it? I don't always comment on the ridiculous statements made on this forum. Does that mean that I agree with them?

Let's hope that you don't work in an office, as this is what he thinks of office workers.

 

  Quote

“I was a maintenance engineer. I did frontline work in the production areas. It’s not a very nice job dealing with sewage.

“I suspect the people who complained were office-based staff. There’s a massive difference between office and production. So I think they looked down on me.

“They’re slightly snobbish. They sit in their brand new headquarters at their posh desk with their expensive office chairs. It’s different when you’re working on the actual site.

 

 

Again:

From Severn Water:

 

“The allegations in the Telegraph are not the whole story nor is this an isolated incident. This relates to the conduct of an individual who posted highly charged content on a range of topics from gender to sexuality to race in an online work platform – having previously been warned this was not the appropriate forum to do so".  

 

 

What are you talking about, I am using his quotes direct from the article, the same as you are doing. I need no proof.....

 

“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”

 

You have still not answered why you picked out this as being offensive?

 

47 minutes ago, SMIAI said:

Zionist colleagues 😊 That's offensive and meant to be so. But no mention of that here at all. Only the emphasis on different words that likely had little or no basis in his removal.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody had the right to bring their personal political beliefs to work, leave them at the clock-in machine, pick them up again on the way out.

 

 

 

 

Especially if it involves criticising Hamas, eh, Chomper.

 

 

@Bkk Brian

I already explained why I think it was meant to be deliberately offensive. There was no need to put Zionist in his post at all. He did it to offend and as per the article, he has form for doing so,

Just now, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Especially if it involves criticising Hamas, eh, Chomper.

 

 

I think my statement was clear enough, although I do acknowledge your constant search for hidden meanings.

Just now, SMIAI said:

@Bkk Brian

I already explained why I think it was meant to be deliberately offensive. There was no need to put Zionist in his post at all. He did it to offend and as per the article, he has form for doing so,

So you are still not explaining what is offensive about the term. What is wrong with the term Zionist. I class myself as a Zionist as does Joe Biden. The vast majority of Israeli's class themselves as Zionist.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody has the right to bring their personal political beliefs to work, leave them at the clock-in machine, pick them up again on the way out.

 

 

 

It was a factual terror attack not a political belief..........

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think my statement was clear enough, although I do acknowledge your constant search for hidden meanings.

 

Not difficult to see your hidden meaning when you call criticising the vile, barbaric, murdering, raping, torturing, kidnapping, Islamic terrorists of Hamas, somebody’s “personal political beliefs” ….

 

 

A number of trolling posts removed including misleading information. The topic.

 

 

The Dangerous Cost of Speaking the Truth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Not difficult to see your hidden meaning when you call criticising the vile, barbaric, murdering, raping, torturing, kidnapping, Islamic terrorists of Hamas, somebody’s “personal political beliefs” ….

 

 

Well as I observed, you’re always on the lookout to come up with hidden meanings and are more than willing to contort and twist comments to suit your purpose.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well as I observed, you’re always on the lookout to come up with hidden meanings and are more than willing to contort and twist comments to suit your purpose.

 

 

 

You were outed on here long ago; calling someone’s criticism of Hamas their “personal political beliefs” is antisemitism personified, no matter how much you try to blame me for calling you out.

 

 

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

What he wrote was "“I can say with confidence today that the vast majority of STW’s employees stand in solidarity with our Jewish, Israeli and Zionist colleagues against the evil of Islamist terror.”"

 

Zionist colleagues 😊 That's offensive and meant to be so. But no mention of that here at all. Only the emphasis on different words that likely had little or no basis in his removal.

 

 

Why is that offensive?

I expect that if a different employee had posted some pro-Hamas statement claiming that most of their colleagues agreed on the company website they would have been similarly disciplined. At least I hope they would have.

32 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

You were outed on here long ago; calling someone’s criticism of Hamas their “personal political beliefs” is antisemitism personified, no matter how much you try to blame me for calling you out.

 

 

Oh look, you’ve moved to your ‘antisemitism’ slur.

I suggest you don’t post such garbage on your employer’s network.

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, charmonman said:

I expect that if a different employee had posted some pro-Hamas statement claiming that most of their colleagues agreed on the company website they would have been similarly disciplined. At least I hope they would have.

I would hope that sicko is arrested not just sacked. Supporting designated terror groups is illegal in the UK, this is not some political thing.

America says Europe is pathetic, the outrage 

Telling the truth in the UK is indeed risky.

 

Because the truth contradicts Labour's official line on just about everything. 

It isn't so much the truth I care about, it is that people think they can be as obnoxious as they want and somehow it is their "right". 

I don't know how the nurse guessed Patient X was a Mister. Maybe she saw his wedding tackle and guessed.