'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[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'.

 

[Maze1125]

evil has ambition and talent to match.

There is absolutely no requirement for that in the word.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/evil

 

[Phasmal]

Again, without a conviction, i'm skeptical. 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.

No, it's based on a petition by British people sent to the government. That's not just `somebody not liking him`.

We don't want this guy here.

 

[Maze1125]

like "you have to have less than X amount of money, you can't be allowed in", i feel like that's a good way to set immigration.

In this case, it seems more along the lines of "i don't like that guy, he's an asshole, let's not let him in", and it's that personal approach to immigration that doesn't sit well with me, not the borders or restrictions upon said borders.

Right. So you think banning people from entering a country because they're poor is good.
But banning someone rich, but an utterly despicable person, is bad.
Lovely...

Again, every single country can do this and has done this.
As you just said yourself, the only difference is that you heard about this case and not the other ones. So why exactly are you judging the UK when the situation is the same in every country?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

evil has ambition and talent to match.

There is absolutely no requirement for that in the word.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/evil

I think we're talking at cross-purposes: I wouldn't piss on this guy if he was on fire, but immersed as I am in the world of comics, games and old children's cartoons when people say to me that a person is evil (as opposed to an action) then the first things that pop into my head are your usual suspects. Which means when I see bottom feeders like this called evil I sort of laugh because it's largely and overblown reaction. He is a petty twat; a low life who is skirting criminality and despite what you might thing, this behaviour will catch up with him.