• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
ccc

Extremely strange story...

Recommended Posts

So what's the angle here then ? Arrested and now charged for simply putting pick up videos online ? :o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46843880

Been charged - but wait - no name ?

Been charged - but wait - no detail of actual charge ?

Something being kept from the public here. There is the usual "type" of person possibility but I'm not sure in this case. 

Bizarre. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ccc said:

So what's the angle here then ? Arrested and now charged for simply putting pick up videos online ? :o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46843880

Been charged - but wait - no name ?

Been charged - but wait - no detail of actual charge ?

Something being kept from the public here. There is the usual "type" of person possibility but I'm not sure in this case. 

Bizarre. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46839531

Police Scotland confirmed on Thursday that it was looking into videos on YouTube, featuring what the force described as "predatory behaviour".

It followed publication of a BBC The Social video exploring "pick-up artist" Adnan Ahmad's online video posts.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3733924/arrest-charge-glasgow-youtube-pickup-videos/

A MAN has been arrested and charged in connection with a police probe into a Glasgow pickup YouTube channel.

The DWLF Game page, said to feature Adnan Ahmed in its videos, has clips titled "How to get girls to have threesomes with you" and "How to f*** girls with boyfriends".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ccc said:

So what's the angle here then ? Arrested and now charged for simply putting pick up videos online ? :o

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46843880

Been charged - but wait - no name ?

Been charged - but wait - no detail of actual charge ?

Something being kept from the public here. There is the usual "type" of person possibility but I'm not sure in this case. 

Bizarre. 

 

Are you implying this is some typical Dosbods catnip of 'hide the muzzer crimes' in the MSM?

It just looks to me as he's just another bloke who's, started with mild misogyny, then OD'd on red pill MGTOW internet shit when there's plenty of white blokes who've done the same - some of them on here.

Edited by SNACR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ffs xD

Two disturbing aspects to this story.

(1) The ridiculous leaving out someone's name / background if it's the "wrong" type. Complete arseholes.

(2) Picking up members of the opposite sex is "predatory" - err...... And ?! O.o

2 minutes ago, SNACR said:

Are you implying this is some typical Dosbods catnip of 'hide the muzzer crimes' in the MSM?

It just looks to me as he's just another bloke who's, started with mild misogyny, then OD'd on red pill MGTOW internet shit when there's plenty of white blokes who've done the same - some of them on here.

I implied and shock horror - it was right xD

It's very simple. If this was "Dave Smith" the So-Called BBC article would have "Dave Smith" in it. 

It doesn't. We all know why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ccc said:

Oh ffs xD

Two disturbing aspects to this story.

(1) The ridiculous leaving out someone's name / background if it's the "wrong" type. Complete arseholes.

(2) Picking up members of the opposite sex is "predatory" - err...... And ?! O.o

I implied and shock horror - it was right xD

It's very simple. If this was "Dave Smith" the So-Called BBC article would have "Dave Smith" in it. 

It doesn't. We all know why. 

It could be because when Dapper Laughs does the same thing no-one starts banging on about his whole race and their attitudes to women and the paedo activities of some. Although it could equally be because the Beeb generally takes a feminist line it may not want to publicise his message as it's the sort of politically incorrect one the Beeb doesn't like to hear. Whether they did or didn't name him I strongly suspect the story would still get linked to on here with at least a smattering of off the shelf anti-muzzer PUA of peace type posts.

Typically the MSM and TPTB do actively duck/avoid asking questions they won't get the right answer to wherever possible.

Edited by SNACR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ......

They cant pull him in for trying to pick up women.

I think the scots media have made a big fuss about him and some womans rung in to make a complaint, so thats where the arrest comes from.

Id guess hes mentioned  when its jus tthe media making a fuss.

The, when hes arrested, the So-Called BBC can avoid not naming him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Quote

A report on the matter will also be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal.

As they mention it and the article seems to be about some offence or other to do with maybe procuring sexual favours (the article doesn't actually spell it out) the official title does sound a bit dodgy like something  to do with procuring. 

 

Quote

 

procurator

Definition of procurator 

1: one that manages another's affairs : AGENT

2: an officer of the Roman empire entrusted with management of the financial affairs of a province and often having administrative powers as agent of the emperor

 

Ah - something to do with affairs.

 

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Well ......

They cant pull him in for trying to pick up women.

I think the scots media have made a big fuss about him and some womans rung in to make a complaint, so thats where the arrest comes from.

Id guess hes mentioned  when its jus tthe media making a fuss.

The, when hes arrested, the So-Called BBC can avoid not naming him.

 

Picking up women or just trying to pick up women might be a hate crime now causing gross offence.  That would be no great surprise anymore - in "modern" Britain.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When special interest groups collide.

Man openly trying to pick up women - evil beast, hang him say the feminists.

Ah, but he's a muzzer. And the media don't want to show them in a bad light.

Here's the cunning plan: arrest him for being a man but don't name him so the public will think he's a white British man.

Only they won't. Because this happens every time and whenever a name is not released it is always going to be assumed to be a foreign name and when a description is not released it is always going to be assumed to mean that they aren't white.

People aren't idiots; as the police and media routinely withhold these particular types of information then if the information is withheld with there being no specific reason for the withholding then the public will fill in the blanks.

If there is no description given if a rapist then I will assume they aren't white.  If a person guilty of a crime is not named, and there are no specific reasons for not so doing such as protecting the identity of the victim, then I will assume they have a foreign name.

Just how stupid do the authorities think we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloke sounds like a sex-pest and a massive twat to be honest. 

Anyone who calls themself a 'life coach' or a 'pick up artist' should be slung in jail on general principal IMO.

There was a guy in the States who did this full time as well from what I remember, may have written a book? 

It's a bit sad really.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

When special interest groups collide.

Man openly trying to pick up women - evil beast, hang him say the feminists.

Ah, but he's a muzzer. And the media don't want to show them in a bad light.

Here's the cunning plan: arrest him for being a man but don't name him so the public will think he's a white British man.

Only they won't. Because this happens every time and whenever a name is not released it is always going to be assumed to be a foreign name and when a description is not released it is always going to be assumed to mean that they aren't white.

People aren't idiots; as the police and media routinely withhold these particular types of information then if the information is withheld with there being no specific reason for the withholding then the public will fill in the blanks.

If there is no description given if a rapist then I will assume they aren't white.  If a person guilty of a crime is not named, and there are no specific reasons for not so doing such as protecting the identity of the victim, then I will assume they have a foreign name.

Just how stupid do the authorities think we are?

 

Time and again the evidence seems to suggest that they think we are very stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt Hartman said:

Bloke sounds like a sex-pest and a massive twat to be honest. 

Anyone who calls themself a 'life coach' or a 'pick up artist' should be slung in jail on general principal IMO.

There was a guy in the States who did this full time as well from what I remember, may have written a book? 

It's a bit sad really.

 

 

If you could lock people up purely because they are a massive twat then can I suggest Owen Jones be next in line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

If you could lock people up purely because they are a massive twat then can I suggest Owen Jones be next in line?

I am being a bit tongue in cheek with the locking them up idea though I do think that their behaviour is borderline. It's certainly not laudible and there will be an army of saddo's out there that think this guy is the nuts. A sound bollocking should suffice.

Owen Jones should be thrown in jail, immediately. I'm not being tongue in cheek about that. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, twocents said:

 

Time and again the evidence seems to suggest that they think we are very stupid.

Mind even the non-stupid tend to let the authorities do their thinking for them. I was told it was alright for me to want a no deal Brexit because I was rich but that was being selfish and I should think of poor people.

I gave the example of Tesco and how EU immigration has forced ordinary staff's pay and working conditions onto the floor whilst enriching (in the genuine sense) its senior management and owners.

And how if the tap of labour oversupply from poorer countries was turned off then those very employees would be in a position to demand higher wages and regular contracts and be a lot better off.

Whereas I, with my equity investments, would be losing money.

So instead of being selfish I was actually being selfless.

They were a clever person, thought about it, and agreed with me.

Edited by Frank Hovis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

 

Owen Jones should be thrown in jail, immediately. I'm not being tongue in cheek about that. :ph34r:

Totally.

Huge sections of the press and public were wholly happy with Tommy Robinson actually being in prison purely because they don't like what he says (or more usually what he is misreported as saying).

I would be wholly happy for Owen Jones to be in prison because of what he actually does say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frank Hovis said:

Totally.

Huge sections of the press and public were wholly happy with Tommy Robinson actually being in prison purely because they don't like what he says (or more usually what he is misreported as saying).

I would be wholly happy for Owen Jones to be in prison because of what he actually does say.

He is the Queen of double-standards. 

He's an inflammatory shit and while I'm no particular fan of TR, if he's done time for 'wrongspeak' then OJ should be doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

Bloke sounds like a sex-pest and a massive twat to be honest. 

Anyone who calls themself a 'life coach' or a 'pick up artist' should be slung in jail on general principal IMO.

There was a guy in the States who did this full time as well from what I remember, may have written a book? 

It's a bit sad really.

 

 

I agree and it is sad. 

I don't like the way he seems to go about things as reported by the Sun.

He would likely be considered by many others to be a sex pest and idiot and women used to deal with such very adequately on their own - assuming it's just an exchange of words and nothing illegal transpires and there were plenty of laws for the illegal stuff.  Now they need the help of hate crime law - if that is the law being deployed.  Maybe he commits the offence of not coughing up for a dating club etc so that the govenment can take their tax cut.

Total financialisation of relationships. 

It's probably just a coincidence that Gazza will be on trial later this year for the apparent offence of attempting to kiss a woman on a train apparently in consolation after she was insulted by others.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I first read this story last night and my dosbods senses started tingling. It may as well  just read:

"Something the So-Called BBC finds objectionable has been subject to legislative enforcement impacting a member of a protected group"

There's virtually no useful information presented.

It's bizarre beyond belief. What's the charge? If liking fucking women becomes a hate crime we're well beyond the Rubicon.

Edited by Mental Floss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2hharPMl5rJl8O6ZADPHXA

There was a feature on the news the other night on So-Called BBC Scotland about this chap.

He was an ugly little creep but I am not sure that you could charge him with an offence for talking to females.

Anyhow his youtube channel seems to feature people from diverse backgrounds so he can't be all that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SNACR said:

It could be because when Dapper Laughs does the same thing no-one starts banging on about his whole race and their attitudes to women and the paedo activities of some. Although it could equally be because the Beeb generally takes a feminist line it may not want to publicise his message as it's the sort of politically incorrect one the Beeb doesn't like to hear. Whether they did or didn't name him I strongly suspect the story would still get linked to on here with at least a smattering of off the shelf anti-muzzer PUA of peace type posts.

Typically the MSM and TPTB do actively duck/avoid asking questions they won't get the right answer to wherever possible.

My initial wtf at the story was firmly on the being charged for chatting burds up angle. The no name bit was just another thing I noticed  and with all the recent omission stories recently I just wondered if that was aspect #2.

And it was. 

Isn't it quite frightening that I said this in a quite blase way - and if you read what I said I didn't really think this would be the case here - and yet it was. Yet again. 

It's endemic. 

58 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

When special interest groups collide.

Man openly trying to pick up women - evil beast, hang him say the feminists.

Ah, but he's a muzzer. And the media don't want to show them in a bad light.

Here's the cunning plan: arrest him for being a man but don't name him so the public will think he's a white British man.

Only they won't. Because this happens every time and whenever a name is not released it is always going to be assumed to be a foreign name and when a description is not released it is always going to be assumed to mean that they aren't white.

People aren't idiots; as the police and media routinely withhold these particular types of information then if the information is withheld with there being no specific reason for the withholding then the public will fill in the blanks.

If there is no description given if a rapist then I will assume they aren't white.  If a person guilty of a crime is not named, and there are no specific reasons for not so doing such as protecting the identity of the victim, then I will assume they have a foreign name.

Just how stupid do the authorities think we are?

Yep. Law of unintended consequences. 

If a bloke is arrested and not named or no description provided for a person on the run - everyone now assumes they are non white. 

Looks like for the majority of cases this will be correct. But it won't be for all. 

So these Muppets are actually making it worse for non white people with these actions. 

Utter cretins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Quote

11 January 2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-46839531

Man arrested over 'predatory' online videos

..

It followed publication of a BBC The Social video exploring "pick-up artist" Adnan Ahmad's online video posts.

On Friday, a Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "A 37-year old-man has been arrested in connection with an ongoing inquiry into videos posted online."

The previous day, the force said it was aware of the videos offering advice and guidance on how to pick up the opposite sex, particularly young women.

"This type of predatory behaviour is shameful and unacceptable and will undoubtedly cause significant fear and alarm. No-one should be subjected to this.

"We are investigating but our enquiries are at a very early stage. We would ask anyone with information regarding such individuals to contact us."

 

 

Is sexual predatory behaviour in itself illegal now.  At what point does it become predatory rather than just normal human behaviour and who decides. 

According to wikipedia sexual violent predatory behaviour is illegal in the US (you would expect it to be and in the UK as well) but what about plain sexual predatory behaviour (without violence) - is that illegal.  If it is there's been little or nothing about it in the MSM as far as I'm aware.

I realise that these days the whole issue of male female relationships seems to be a total minefield often prone to misunderstandings etc on all sides.

Bearing in mind that it seems that it's only the videos on the subject that he seems to have been charged for and not any actual specific incidents with women he's met - although as usual the articles aren't exactly comprehensive regarding any of the story.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twocents said:

.

 

Is sexual predatory behaviour in itself illegal now.  At what point does it become predatory rather than just normal human behaviour and who decides. 

According to wikipedia sexual violent predatory behaviour is illegal in the US (you would expect it to be and in the UK as well) but what about plain sexual predatory behaviour (without violence) - is that illegal.  If it is there's been little or nothing about it in the MSM as far as I'm aware.

I realise that these days the whole issue of male female relationships seems to be a total minefield often prone to misunderstandings etc on all sides.

Bearing in mind that it seems that it's only the videos on the subject that he seems to have been charged for and not any actual specific incidents with women he's met - although as usual the articles aren't exactly comprehensive regarding any of the story.

He has certainly done something as his special characteristic should have served as a force field against arrest. That it didn’t shows that whatever he has done goes way beyond chatting up random women on the streets  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't watched his channel but if some of his recordings were without the other person's consent and for youtube (i.e. not his personal use), then it's illegal because it's against their right to privacy.

No surprise the So-Called BBC didn't name him. Clearly there are people they had to employ, who have risen up the through the ranks now and have control over the output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

I haven't watched his channel but if some of his recordings were without the other person's consent and for youtube (i.e. not his personal use), then it's illegal because it's against their right to privacy.

No surprise the So-Called BBC didn't name him. Clearly there are people they had to employ, who have risen up the through the ranks now and have control over the output.

Not being annoying but under which statute does this "right to privacy" fall? I can see the bloke is probably failing to comply with GDPR (the horror!) and is likely in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 (article 8). We'll have to wait and see I guess but the GDPR breach wouldn't be a criminal matter and using the HRA1998 seems massively disproportionate. But then the world has gone entirely mental.

Edited by Mental Floss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.