'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[Reasonable Atheist]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

I honestly have no clue. I'm not a lawyer

What would be free speech is if he said underage girls/black people/whatever are evil, scummy, subhuman or whatever.

But I was talking about that direct example. Or better yet, let me link it to the person we are discussing. How about if someone said in a lecture or group or wherever

"Hey, if you listen to what I have to say, by the end of it, I will teach you how to groom underage kids and no one will ever know about it. I will also teach you how to ruin another persons life through torment and psychological harm that will make them kill themselves at the end of it."

Is that under "free speech" in the US? I am generally curious here cause I do not know where the actually line is in terms of Free Speech anymore.

Yeah, im pretty sure teaching people psychological manipulation is legal. Teaching people how to inflict physical harm is totally legal.

Here il do it right now, if you want an immature person to form a bond with you and trust you, imitate their behavior and mannerisms. If you can, always stand or sit on their dominate side ie left or right handed. Am i banned from the UK now?

 

[Parasondox]

Fire in a crowded theater was based off a supreme court case that got overturned, it's not precedent anymore. Death to America I'm pretty sure is covered under free speech here. Certainly flag burning is.

It was more in the spirit of the phrase and I was giving my expressed endorsement for that spirit. As for freedom of speech in the UK, Wikipedia's entry on the subject is enlightneing and more than reinforces his being denied the privilege of entry. Just like the women he's targeting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

I'll also add that I am completely exhausted with free speech being used to excuse everything, even within US boundaries. The KKK and the NAZI party would love to deny those rights to everybody else while inciting hated. Yelling fire in a theatre (which really hasn't been overturned in spirit. Try yelling out "BOMB" in an airport) should be grounds for arrest as it could easily lead to people getting hurt for no real reason.

I don't know why you bring up the KKK and the Nazi party? American free speech laws protect them too. You can say all sorts of nasty things about Jews/blacks/whites/whoever joking or not, and it's covered since it's mostly just opinion.

The ACLU (which is pretty liberal) fought for free speech for Nazis over here.

Wait wait wait. Allow me to test the waters here. So if someone in the US said to an audience in a serious manner,

"If I see another black person I will kill them and and if I see any young underage girl and she's all alone, I will have my way with her and no one can do anything about it",

that would be free speech?

I honestly have no clue. I'm not a lawyer

What would be free speech is if he said underage girls/black people/whatever are evil, scummy, subhuman or whatever.

But I was talking about that direct example. Or better yet, let me link it to the person we are discussing. How about if someone said in a lecture or group or wherever

"Hey, if you listen to what I have to say, by the end of it, I will teach you how to groom underage kids and no one will ever know about it. I will also teach you how to ruin another persons life through torment and psychological harm that will make them kill themselves at the end of it."

Is that under "free speech" in the US? I am generally curious here cause I do not know where the actually line is in terms of Free Speech anymore.

Yeah, im pretty sure teaching people psychological manipulation is legal. Teaching people how to inflict physical harm is totally legal.

Here il do it right now, if you want an immature person to form a bond with you and trust you, imitate their behavior and mannerisms. If you can, always stand or sit on their dominate side ie left or right handed. Am i banned from the UK now?

I am not talking about whether it's legal or not but if it falls under free speech? but does that even sound like you wish to do harm to that person and shown examples of you doing it yourself to an immature person? The person in question, "Pick Up Artist", did record his actions and demonstrated it to an audience as inspiration. If you went down the route he did then maybe you should be banned but that's down to the Home Office.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

However, i am ever so slightly interested in how often he gets laid using tactics like this, do women really fall for/are manipulated by this kind of behavior? If not, then what threat does he pose? And if so..... ugh.

From his tweets and other sources it seems he picks girls who seem "broken", submissive, naive or otherwise vulnerable. Then he messes with their heads and threatens them until he gets what he wants, and the victim is too afraid or ashamed to do anything (after all, he said that he assumes all girls who sleep with him are sluts, so it's safe to assume he shames them after he's done with them to keep them quiet). It's not like he can sleep with literally any girl he wants. Just the ones that are easy to manipulate for whatever reason.

If he pulled that on some of the girls I know, specifically that goth girl I'm friend with...Yeah, he'd be in for a nasty situation. Boot. To crotch. For starters. She's intimidating as hell to ME, and I'm one of her friends!

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Like seriousley, this guy is apiece of shit. And not a piece of shit like "LOL femenism" kinds,t he really is a creep.

 

[Kathinka]

However, i am ever so slightly interested in how often he gets laid using tactics like this, do women really fall for/are manipulated by this kind of behavior? If not, then what threat does he pose? And if so..... ugh.

Some of these self declared "Pickup Artists" (god damn does that phrase leave a bad taste in my mouth) ARE rather successful in what they are doing (although I'm sure lots of it is just fabrication and bragging). The thing is that a lot of the behavior they teach and practice overlaps with what is, consciously and subconsciously, attractive to girls, often coming down to basic biological principles of the selection of a desirable father for offspring. Confidence makes you assume he has something to offer as a potential mate, aggressiveness suggest the ability to defend and provide for the tribe and the family, signals of desinterest, indifference to rejection and seemingly unreasonable demands suggest he has a large pool of women to pick from, so he clearly must have something that is desirable. And so on.
That being said, a reputable dating coach or expert can teach you much much more about how to be successful with the objects of your desire without putting up a facade that only lasts one night at the very best.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

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

pretending? I was under the assumption we never had it. hate speech is a crime here.
We ain't America, no constitution, for better or worse. in this case, I'd say better

 

[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?