'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[DementedSheep]

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

But that's exactly the point. They are denying him the right/privilege/etc. to enter the country when I'm sure they've let all manner of other nasty individuals through. It's a very flimsy excuse that means they're playing favorites, and it's crap like that that only heightens his profile and makes his style of thinking thought of as a legitimate lifestyle by the 4edgy5u crowds.

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot of his defence seems to come from the assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country and denied visa's all the time. Yes some people get in with worse but that's because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because even with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell, if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexually assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

Edit: fixed some shit

 

[DementedSheep]

Love how you gloss over the sexual assault and just call it him being an asshole.

Pretty amazing to see where some people's sympathies lie in this thread. People can object to him being banned and not seem overly sympathetic, though probably misinformed. But you can't really gloss over the sexual assault and pretend the hate is just about him being sleazy without making it clear which side you're on.

Okay, let's get it sorted out now then. I think he's one of the lower forms of human. That's the nicest way I can say what I think of the guy without dropping into expletives and apoplexy. I have no sympathies for the guy, so you're very much wrong there. However, he's still human, and he deserves the same rights as any other bean.

Which is why I'm very much opposed to him being banned though. But that's mainly because I believe people care enough about it to actually do something when he's there instead of building up his reputation when he's now been banned from two countries.

I could fully understand Japan not allowing him entry, because he did something very specific there that he hasn't other places. He's talked online and been a douche, there he went about breaking the lines of decency(in the past he merely fervently pushed them to the limits).

He dose have the same rights as everyone else. They are not making a special exceptions for him. They have control over their own border and do not have to let you into the country. It's in law that they can turn people away and they do so all the time. He isn't having any rights taken away, they just aren't giving him something. If I run a house where I'm letting people stay I'm not breaching someone's rights if I say to them "no, you have reputation of being a douche and I don't want you here". The only country that has to put up with your shit and can't bar you entry is the one you were born in.

I guess they have to put up with you unless they exile you. Darn.. I don't think the US can exile this guy.

Sadly no, you can't exile people now days but hey maybe if he can't run to another country when things get heated so easily he'll actually stay put long enough for charges to go through.

 

[Redryhno]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

 

[DementedSheep]

It's a privilege not a right to be allowed into a country you were not born in so they are not breaching his rights. Privilege and right are not interchangeable. A lot his defence seem to come assumption they just let everyone else in. They don't, people get barred from the country all the time. Yes some people get in with worse because they don't know about it, it's not high profile enough for them to bother with, the case was simply handled by a different person and they didn't flag it (because eve with regs when it comes to something like a "detriment of public good" clause there is going to be some variation) or they want them there for another reason and are willing to put up with a bit of shit for the benefit they bring (an example would be if you are the sort who sets up legitimate business which will bring in wealth and provide jobs). "Other people got away with worse so you can never do anything about anyone else" is never a good excuse. If other people have gotten in with worse then the problem is them getting in not this guy being kept out and they should be tightening things up. I don't see how telling him to fuck off somehow makes his thinking more legitimate. Hell if anything this proves him wrong since his whole thing is teaching people how to sexual assault women without getting serious backlash. Well now he has serious backlash.

My argument was not "others have done worse, let him in", it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?". As for high-profile, why is this guy high-profile? The only difference I can see between him and others like him is that he "got caught" and used it. And I told you exactly the type of person that would make this thinking more legitimate.

He possibly has gotten away with SA, but again, I'm very much of the mind that if he's as much a threat as people are making him out to be in this thread, the people of the country will deal with him and his students. Hopefully by not burning down the building they're in. Hopefully by actually spreading awareness of him and his methods and teaching people to say no and hit back when he pushes.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

 

[Redryhno]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

But I do want them to bar everyone like that. Too bad it's really too much trouble to actually look into every person that comes into the office so they'll just scoot by with publicizing the ever-living hell out of this one incident. Or you know, raising awareness of how to spot this type of creep and reinforce it into people that saying no means not changing your mind in that kind of situation.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Do tell what context changes the bit where you want people to hit back when he pushes? Or did you just not recognize he has to push first? You certainly don't seem to deny he will push at some point.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

They should not have to say no to sexual assault. Before said assault occurs they may have zero chance to say no to it. Is it really so hard to see the problem with that?

Your faith in it is ignorant. What I want to stop isn't something they just say no to. It is something he can do without asking first.

This is as stupid as me having to argue that people should not have to say no to getting punched and we should disallow someone who punches people abd then I get a response of "They should be strong and tell him no!" By the time you say no the crime can already have occurred. Tell me the fucking use of saying no in preventing something that can happen before you can say no

 

[DementedSheep]

It is fairly disturbing you want people to have to deal with him sexually assaulting them. Because that is what he does. The government, on the other hand, seems to have decided it is better if he doesn't get a chance to sexually assault their citizens in the first place instead of hoping he does then be gets convicted. Cuz, ya do realize he doesn't get legal trouble there until there is a victim, yes? I'd say it is better they don't have anything to hit back about in the first place. Prevention of crime instead of reaction to it.

Also why don't you go look up why they were let in if you actually care and aren't just using it as an arguing point about this.guy being banned? Why would anyone here know about some other cases they likely never heard of?

I never said I wanted them to have to deal with him. But yes,if you take it to the barest meaning with no context whatsoever, that's what I said.

Physical/financial/mental harm directly caused after he uses his...whatever they are, skills, knowledge, etc. by the person he used them on normally gets it into people's heads that they shouldn't be doing it. I apparently have too much faith in people saying no and not letting these types push them, because apparently you need to sign a petition and get the government to not admit the guy so you don't have to actually deal with him. Then go back home and call it a victory when there's a million(gross exaggeration on my part) more citizens that think exactly like him and do nothing about them.

Your argument is "others have done worse, let him in" because you are advocating letting him in based on that. If it was "others have done worse, why are you letting them in?" you would want them to bar this guy and then want them continue baring guys like him.

High profile as in actually known about and now in the public eye. Someone else who just spouts some shit on a twitter account nobody reads and none knows who they are is more likely to slip through the cracks. Of course lots of people don't slip through the cracks, it's just most cases don't get picked up by the media.

Edit: he also didn't "possibly" get away with sexual assault. He films himself doing it but they still can't charge him unless someone he did it to actually prosecutes.

But I do want them to bar everyone like that. Too bad it's really too much trouble to actually look into every person that comes into the office so they'll just scoot by with publicizing the ever-living hell out of this one incident. Or you know, raising awareness of how to spot this type of creep and reinforce it into people that saying no means not changing your mind in that kind of situation.

You want them to bar everyone like that...but you're arguing for letting him in the country?

As for raising awareness, that's not really border controls area but other people can do that. This getting public probably is doing that. Teaching people to deal with assholes like him is all well and good but there is no reason to let him in and wait for him to harass people before doing anything about him. It's not like it's one or the other.

 

[Kathinka]

snip

My question though: Where does the abuse begin and normal flirting tactics end?
I mean, physically touching or forcing, that's past the line, no question. But any of the other stuff? Just talking, while potentially assholish (and make no mistake, that douchenozzle there is an asshole of the first degree) isn't really any form of "rape" or "assault", unless he goes into threatening someone or something like this, anything purely verbal goes.
We all employ manipulation tactics when flirting or looking for mates. Some just do it more systematic than others.

 

[Kajin]

From a purely objective point of view, I think a bunch of people talking on the internet about wanting to beat up one guy is less dangerous than letting that one guy actively get away with sexual assault and the teaching thereof to legions of men who also want to get away with sexual assault. They're both crimes, to be sure, but one of them outweighs the other in sheer awfulness.

So, what you're saying is, it's perfectly ok to talk about his murder to legions of people who want to do the same, because he has a smaller audience that probably will do what he teaches them to do. And you're right, I'd argue that half of the things presented here are much worse than him shoving women's faces into his crotch and choking them. You'd think that if he's as infamous as he is in this thread, any woman that he did it to now would scratch out his eyes or tug very forcefully on his crotch if he tried any of that.

I didn't say it was okay so much as I said it was the lesser of two evils. My standpoint is purely logical. What would you rather have happen, a thousand people going out and seriously hurting one guy, or that one guy seriously hurting a thousand other people? Obviously I'd rather that neither option should happen, but if one of them had to happen, I'd rather it be the former over the latter. And that's completely ignoring the fact that all of the former is just internet tough guy talk anyway, and not a single person advocating this guy's harm will ever actually go out and do it. I'd just take it for what it is: a bunch of people seeing something that's making them angry and harmlessly venting that anger out onto a forum on the internet so it doesn't build up behind their eyes and give them a migraine.

I am glad that your friend came out better for it, though. At least SOME good came out of this whole mess. Good on her.

 

[Eddie the head]

As much as the guy comes acrostic as kind of an ass. I don't think it's my place to condemn him. Although I guess the U.K has every right to not let him in if they don't want him.

 

[Dragonlayer]

You say that, but I believe there's a footballer and convicted rapist whose effectively been given a slap on the wrist and allowed back into the sport despite being an unrepentant rapist.

There's no "but" here unless you're saying I believe that's okay. At best, I'm unaware of this story you believed happened. Who was it? Did they serve any actual time? Are sporting associations the pinnacle of morality to which we should aspire?

You misunderstand me, or possibly I framed that comment inaccurately: what I was trying to say was that your comment about the rapist being sent to prison for buying a condom sounded like a dark joke, implying that society couldn't give less of a stuff about rape. Unfortunately in real life, English footballer Ched Evans was convicted of raping a 19 year old woman (with a friend), sentenced to five years in prison and only served two and a half before going right back to his old career because "the Football League values the reintegration of reformed criminals." So there you go kids, it's cool to rape as long as you're good at sports!

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Look, you can go live in china if you want some bureaucrat breathing down your neck for every piece of entertainment or information you consume, but i actually believe in freedom of expression.

And he enjoys those rights and protections when he is in the United States, but no matter how asinine or bizarre the reasoning, if the UK government decides he can't enter the country then he can't and that is the end of the matter. His perceived right of free expression wherever he goes does not trump the enforceable right of a sovereign nation to tell him to get the fuck off their lawn, as it were.

 

[Maze1125]

i actually believe in freedom of expression.

Good for you but, again, this has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

In EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD a non-citizen can be banned from entering for absolutely any reason the government wishes. That's what the borders of countries are.

Entry to a country that you are not a citizen of is a privilege, not a right.

If you disagree with the concept of borders, then go and fight that battle, stop defending this guy who is, quite frankly, outright evil.

 

[Amaror]

He seems like a bit of an unsavoury sort. I can't say I'd care to be in the vicinity of him, but, banning him from the country?

No, that's absolutely ridiculous.

Remarkably despite what some people seem to think, women are capable of opinions and thoughts of their own, and unless something non-consensual has happened, I'm not seeing the issue here.

As far as i heard the whole thing started from a video he uploaded were he bragged about essentially raping a woman. In the video he apparently said that he had consensual sex with a woman one night and wanted to do it again in the morning. The woman didn't want to do it again, but he said he didn't care.
I haven't seen the video myself, it has been taken down by the site that manages his seminars pretty quick, but that's how the whole "ban this guy from our countries" stuff happened. There's plenty of other petitions going on trying to get every seminar of his banned in the immediate future.

 

[Maze1125]

Look, you can go live in china if you want some bureaucrat breathing down your neck for every piece of entertainment or information you consume, but i actually believe in freedom of expression.

And he enjoys those rights and protections when he is in the United States, but no matter how asinine or bizarre the reasoning, if the UK government decides he can't enter the country then he can't and that is the end of the matter. His perceived right of free expression wherever he goes does not trump the enforceable right of a sovereign nation to tell him to get the fuck off their lawn, as it were.

Sure, and i reserve the right to judge the hell out of the UK for it.

Judge the UK for protecting the country's female citizens?
This guy is on film sexually assaulting women. He has factually committed crimes and expresses intent to continue to do so. Why exactly should the UK wait for him to commit a crime again before stopping him, when they have the ability to stop him first?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

If you disagree with the concept of borders, then go and fight that battle, stop defending this guy who is, quite frankly, outright evil.

This idiot isn't evil; real, actual evil would eat that twerp up and spit him out without breaking stride. He's a heinous douchebag with all the morals of an alley cat but he's nothing that rigorous application of boot to arse doesn't fix.

 

[Maze1125]

If you disagree with the concept of borders, then go and fight that battle, stop defending this guy who is, quite frankly, outright evil.

This idiot isn't evil; real, actual evil would eat that twerp up and spit him out without breaking stride. He's a heinous douchebag with all the morals of an alley cat but he's nothing that rigorous application of boot to arse doesn't fix.

No, he is evil. He has exploited and harmed vulnerable people, intends to continue doing so and encourages other to do so also.

That is evil. There may be greater evil in the world, but that doesn't mean he isn't.

 

[Maze1125]

Look, you can go live in china if you want some bureaucrat breathing down your neck for every piece of entertainment or information you consume, but i actually believe in freedom of expression.

And he enjoys those rights and protections when he is in the United States, but no matter how asinine or bizarre the reasoning, if the UK government decides he can't enter the country then he can't and that is the end of the matter. His perceived right of free expression wherever he goes does not trump the enforceable right of a sovereign nation to tell him to get the fuck off their lawn, as it were.

Sure, and i reserve the right to judge the hell out of the UK for it.

Judge the UK for protecting the country's female citizens?
This guy is on film sexually assaulting women. He has factually committed crimes and expresses intent to continue to do so. Why exactly should the UK wait for him to commit a crime again before stopping him, when they have the ability to stop him first?

Again, without a conviction, i'm skeptical.

The lack of conviction is due to the lack of prosecution. Not the lack of evidence. The guy has committed crimes. It is a matter of fact. He had been videoed committing the crimes and confessing to them.

I judge them for singling him out. There are a LOT of people who come into the UK, immigration isn't generally handled by one person making a personal judgement call, the revoking his license from up top means somebody went out of their way to keep this guy out, and i can see the logic in that, but it's the fact that such a personalized approach is being taken to immigration is what kinda doesn't sit well with me. His revocation isn't based on some checklist of criteria, it's based on somebody in the political system personally not liking him. That's the bit that kinda creeps me out, even if i agree with their personal decision.

Okay, then, again, your issue is with the concept of borders.
Because, again, every single country in the world can do this and has done this. The only difference is that this is a higher profile case, so you know about it.

I didn't see you ranting about this when Australia banned him.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

If you disagree with the concept of borders, then go and fight that battle, stop defending this guy who is, quite frankly, outright evil.

This idiot isn't evil; real, actual evil would eat that twerp up and spit him out without breaking stride. He's a heinous douchebag with all the morals of an alley cat but he's nothing that rigorous application of boot to arse doesn't fix.

No, he is evil. He has exploited and harmed vulnerable people, intends to continue doing so and encourages other to do so also.

That is evil. There may be greater evil in the world, but that doesn't mean he isn't.

Evil builds the death star, evil has ambition and talent to match. This wanker is Fagin if he's lucky; taking in tag alongs, runaways and others who are just unhappy. All it's going to take for this idiot to stop is for him to have the appalling luck to piss off someone who's not afraid to belt him one.

I didn't see you ranting about this when Australia banned him.

We banned him? Oh opportunity missed; someone could have taken him croc spotting in the Northern Territory and just had a little 'accident'.