'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[Maze1125]

Anyway can people in the UK please stop pretending they have free speech.

No country has completely free speech.
All countries have some restrictions on speech and media.
And that's a good thing.

So what exactly have they accomplished in doing this?

They've stopped him sexually assaulting females in the UK.

 

[Maze1125]

Now if people are prosecuting him, and the UK is simply not letting him in on those grounds, then basic sanctions between the US and UK should land him square in a court room of the united states, where he can be convicted, and then go to jail, and have a criminal record to legitimately bar him from stuff if/when he gets out.

There is no illegitimately in this ban, other than in your mind.
The UK has laws which allow people like him to be banned, and he has been. That is the system working.
Now, certainly, you may argue there are people worse than him who got in, but THOSE are the examples of the system failing, not this time.

The system is failing when people who shouldn't be let in are let in. It hasn't failed when people who shouldn't be let in aren't let in.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Now if people are prosecuting him, and the UK is simply not letting him in on those grounds, then basic sanctions between the US and UK should land him square in a court room of the united states, where he can be convicted, and then go to jail, and have a criminal record to legitimately bar him from stuff if/when he gets out.

There is no illegitimately in this ban, other than in your mind.
The UK has laws which allow people like him to be banned, and he has been. That is the system working.
Now, certainly, you may argue there are people worse than him who got in, but THOSE are the examples of the system failing, not this time.

The system is failing when people who shouldn't be let in are let in. It hasn't failed when people who shouldn't be let in aren't let in.

I know it's semantics and we're on the same page on the same side here, but something must be iron-clad clarified.

He wasn't actively banned, he remained in the default position of not being able to legally enter the country. There is a specific reason for that, but it isn't a ban. A ban, as I have encountered the term in daily usage, is when an act cam be performed until they have restrictions placed upon them specifically. Bans are active. Not granting him to enter the country is passive.

 

[DementedSheep]

Since it keeps popping up.

"Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused
[?]
(19) The immigration officer deems the exclusion of the person from the United Kingdom to be conducive to the public good. For example, because the person's conduct (including convictions which do not fall within paragraph 320(2)), character, associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them leave to enter."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370958/20141106_immigration_rules_part_9_final.pdf

This isn't unique to the UK either. They always put in something to allow them to stop people getting into the country when they don't want them there but they don't fall into a category where there is already a hard line rule about it. It's not common for them to refuse entry based on this in the UK or in most countries.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

*depressing snip*

Something tells me you're speaking from personal experience... You have my deepest sympathies. Stuff like that just plain SUCKS to deal with.

Self-esteen shutdown feedback loops are horrendous to deal with, especially when the world around you perpetuates it.

 

[EternallyBored]

Now if people are prosecuting him, and the UK is simply not letting him in on those grounds, then basic sanctions between the US and UK should land him square in a court room of the united states, where he can be convicted, and then go to jail, and have a criminal record to legitimately bar him from stuff if/when he gets out.

There is no illegitimately in this ban, other than in your mind.
The UK has laws which allow people like him to be banned, and he has been. That is the system working.
Now, certainly, you may argue there are people worse than him who got in, but THOSE are the examples of the system failing, not this time.

The system is failing when people who shouldn't be let in are let in. It hasn't failed when people who shouldn't be let in aren't let in.

What laws?

If there are laws in place, and not just people, then there's no problem. I was under the impression he was barred not based on the system, but on the basis of the petition/the judgement of the government bureaucrats over at UK. The idea is that it actually is a system, and not just an angry mob.

The laws that explicitly lay out the Home offices power to restrict entry to persons that fall under certain criteria, the law gives the office this power, which they have chosen to exercise in this case, with or without the petition.

It is like the power given to a judge to render verdicts and interpretations based on the laws and statutes given to them, the bureaucrats in the UK have the power under the law to deny a persons entry for a number of different reasons, and given the laws posted in this topic, and the man's Youtube videos, his denial of entry will likely be upheld by the UK legal system, thus the Home office is acting in accordance with the legal mandate they were given by the house of parliament and laws passed to give the home office its power.

They are expressly given this power by the laws of the UK government, a power that the US homeland security department and immigration departments largely share, despite Whitenachos claims of free speech, the US border agencies also have the power to deny entry to people based on similar reasoning and circumstances.

 

[setting_son]

White supremacists, Black Supremacists, NeoNazis, feminists advocating extermination of males etc are accepted regularly... it's called innocent until proven guilty.

But this guy is worse apparently. No, I can't support such actions. Hi might be asshole, but that's not grounds for refusal of entry. By that standard, no politician would cross borders.

Actually the UK has refused entry to white supremacists, an islamophobic politician (I think he was Dutch) who was coming to speak at an EDL rally, neo-Nazis and er... Snoop Dogg, I think at one point. Generally speaking the Home Office doesn't comment publicly on refusal of a visa unless the applicant makes it public which is why you don't hear of most of the cases. However, a little research on the subject shows some pertinent examples.

I'm sure it would suit a popular narrative to portray this as an example of 'one rule for 'x' person/race/gender...' but it really isn't.

 

[Bat Vader]

For all the arguing going on in this thread I think everyone can agree on that this man is one of the few that deserve to be called the scum of the earth.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

It was years ago, and I'm much more confident and happy and in a better place now. But it is one of those things that is one of those thing I at least would like to share, maybe if I could help some people understand what it felt like, in the moment, and how it still feels.

I mean, even though it's been over 7 years, and I've been through therapy and I know it's not my fault, there is a part of me, even as I write this, thinks that I shouldn't be writing this because it was my fault and that I should just be grateful he wanted to give me some kind of attention. It doesn't matter that I had no issue getting attention, or that I was popular, he was right. No one really liked me, and he did me a favour.

7 years later, and I still have problems thinking this. I don't know if it will ever go away.

Yikes.

Yeah, it takes a while to get over stuff like that. Try not to feel bad about that. It takes a long time for the psyche to heal from wounds like that. They cut deep and ruin whole aspects of yourself.

It took me about 8 years to fully overcome my high school bullying issues (and there are still memories I have repressed lingering in my brain), so to deal with stuff as bad as YOURS? Yeah, that'll take a lot of time before it's fully purged.

Glad to hear you're in a better place now.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I'll be completely honest reading the title I was like "Oh great another fucking thread about how evil men are"

That's funny, I've never seen a thread like that here.

Linksies?

 

[DementedSheep]

Since it keeps popping up.

"Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused
[?]
(19) The immigration officer deems the exclusion of the person from the United Kingdom to be conducive to the public good. For example, because the person's conduct (including convictions which do not fall within paragraph 320(2)), character, associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them leave to enter."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/370958/20141106_immigration_rules_part_9_final.pdf

This isn't unique to the UK either. They always put in something to allow them to stop people getting into the country when they don't want them there but they don't fall into a category where there is already a hard line rule about it. It's not common for them to refuse entry based on this in the UK or in most countries.

It sure would be nice if the British government started using that power to refuse entry on, say, radical Islamists.

But I guess it's more important to keep Snoop Dogg and pick-up artists out. Gotta make sure nobody gets high or has sex, but getting stabbed in the street? Hey, you buys your ticket, you takes your chances.

Lot of people get kept out including people who are radical Islamics if they actually have proof they are that and are going to cause problems beyond race (although I'd bet on there also being cases of people turned away based on profiling not them doing anything radical). They just don't announce it every-time they don't let someone have a visa and most of the people coming through aren't posting videos of their shit online and bragging about it for all to see.

Funny how this all of a sudden becomes issue we need to talk about when this guy gets kept out. This isn't making sure nobody has sex. He sexually assaults women by targeting those he thinks are too timid to press charges or in places he doesn't think he going charged (because despite how some like paint it you can't just cry sexual assault and get a guy jailed in two seconds every-time) and then he leaves the country if people do make motions to charge him. He gets money teaching other people how to get away with sexual assault and abuse.
If you want defend the guy, fucking defend the guy. Don't hide behind fake outrage at "Islamic extremists". If that's actually your problem then rail against them getting through without derailing a topic about something else.

 

[Kajin]

I love the "too timid to press charges" thing, by the way. Do shy people not report when their cars get stolen, too? We're talking about functional adults here, right?

Sexual assault isn't like getting a car stolen. A car is just property and can be replaced. But with sexual assault, it's your body and mind that gets damaged and that's not so easy to replace or repair. It's estimated that a lot of sexual assaults go unreported because the shame of having to admit something so bad happened to you keeps a lot of people quiet about it. This shit happens, and it irks me to see someone being so crass about other people's lives and emotions.

This man targets women who are emotionally vulnerable. Vulnerable enough to manipulate them into keeping quiet about it. He's not targeting strong willed women who can stand up for themselves. No, he goes after the ones who aren't as capable or aren't as confident. He's a predator that stalks the herd for prey that can be singled out easily and with a minimum of fuss. This works for him because, shockingly enough, there are a lot of people out there and not all of them are that capable of standing up for themselves when push comes to shove. By the time the victim has managed to get up the courage to speak out and report the crime, he's already moved on to somewhere else and trying to press charges against him becomes a great deal more difficult as a result.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Guy's a prick. Letting him in would be idiotic and another sign that we are truly willing to accept ANYONE, no matter whether they can actually make a meaningful contribution to the country.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Ok, so I'm late to the party.
Reading through the three articles, I can see that the guy is a douche, but really no more than your average frat boy. The articles accuse him of encouraging sexual assault but only cite "grabbing girls' heads" (whatever that means).
Can someone explain to me how this guy is any different from any other racist/sexist frat boy with a high opinion of himself?

EDIT: Nevermind, deport him to the sun.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Ok, so I'm late to the party.

Reading through the three articles, I can see that the guy is a douche, but really no more than your average frat boy. The articles accuse him of encouraging sexual assault but only cite "grabbing girls' heads" (whatever that means).

Can someone explain to me how this guy is any different from any other racist/sexist frat boy with a high opinion of himself?

If you had read through this thread, you would see what the problem is. I am taking it you missed the videos of him randomly grabbing strangers heads and ramming their face into his genitals and choking women?

The issue is he actually has sexually assaulted women on film AND is having men pay him to teach them how to sexually assault women and how to intimidate them into not reporting it.

 

[VoidWanderer]

The less chance he has to procreate with women, the better.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Ok, so I'm late to the party.

Reading through the three articles, I can see that the guy is a douche, but really no more than your average frat boy. The articles accuse him of encouraging sexual assault but only cite "grabbing girls' heads" (whatever that means).

Can someone explain to me how this guy is any different from any other racist/sexist frat boy with a high opinion of himself?

If you had read through this thread, you would see what the problem is. I am taking it you missed the videos of him randomly grabbing strangers heads and ramming their face into his genitals and choking women?

The issue is he actually has sexually assaulted women on film AND is having men pay him to teach them how to sexually assault women and how to intimidate them into not reporting it.

Rather than reading through hundreds of comments I'll just go on Youtube and- OOOOOOOKAAAAAAY. This guy is like the "I am magnificent why don't girls want me" guy, but more rapey and less shooty. Yeah I can see why he's not allowed in a few countries. For legal reasons as well as social reasons.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Unless he was convicted of crime, I see no reason to bar him from a country. This smacks of the usual feminist hysteria that seems to have Western Europe by the bollocks.

Second, what is wrong with persuading women to have sex with you?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm preeeeeetty sure arrest warrants don't come with an "invalid if suspect leaves the immediate area" disclaimer on them. I'm fairly sure I can't commit a crime in New York and become untouchable by Larry Law as soon as I cross into New Jersey. Again, I'm not a lawyer. If that's not in fact the case, then I've just hit upon a foolproof bank robbery plan.

We aren't talking about him just hopping state lines here. This is leaving the country entirely, which is MUCH harder to chase you over.

If you hop state lines, it becomes harder to arrest you since the police in the state you committed the crime aren't allowed to pursue justice outside of their state (jurisdiction), meaning they have to co-ordinate with the police in the area you are in order to bust you, which takes time to do, especially since the new state you've gone to isn't likely to have extensive records on you. You're not the first to think "oh I could just hop state lines after a robbery". LOTS of criminals do it. It's not "invalid" because you left the state. It's just more time consuming and difficult for the cops, so for smaller crimes, they tend to get ignored.

Now amp that up to 11 when it comes to hopping countries.

There's a REASON why Edward Snowden and the WikiLeaks guy haven't been arrested and brought back to the US. It's because nations do NOT have police authority in other countries. You can't just send a US cop to go arrest someone on UK soil, for example. It's a violation of that nation's sovereign rights and will REALLY piss them off (it used to be considered an act of war, even). Some countries have extradition treaties to make the process easier (it becomes similar to just hopping state lines in that case. They get the information on the suspect and then arrest him and send him back), but in a lot of cases if you go to a new country it becomes impossible to prosecute you for crimes done in another country and massively inconvenient to arrest you and send you BACK to that country for prosecution. I doubt japan is going to raise enough fuss about this guy sexually assaulting some women that the US or UK will get off their asses and arrest him and send him back. Too much paperwork and effort for them to arrest the guy, considering he didn't commit murder or grand robbery or anything "huge". He "just" sexually assaulted a bunch of women. Hardly something most nations will think is worth the time to chase someone in another country for.

Now, if king moron DOES go back to Japan, he's liable to be arrested for his crimes. But as long as he doesn't go back (or waits until the statue of limitations on the crime expires), it becomes unlikely he'll ever be prosecuted for what he did.

Oh, and before you think "perfect bank heist plan away!", consider that banks have a lot of money and pride and will be able to leverage for your arrest and extradition muuuuuuuch easier than if you had done a crime against someone with much less power and pressure.

(BTW, I'm not a lawyer either.)

 

[Parasondox]

Unless he was convicted of crime, I see no reason to bar him from a country. This smacks of the usual feminist hysteria that seems to have Western Europe by the bollocks.

Second, what is wrong with persuading women to have sex with you?

Physically 'persuading' women. Hands to the throat until they say yes persuasion. If a person thinks that physically abusing and manipulating anyone into having sex with them, then they have no consideration for human emotion and life and are the lowest of lows. This is a 'feminist hysteria' seeing as even men agree to not having a person like him in their country giving lectures about how to get away with it, so you may be false on that. If the coward did go back to Japan, then I believe he would be facing some criminal matters concerning his grabbing head to crotch tactic but he flees before anything else happens and targets vulnerable women.