Disgusting “Eastern Eye” Turn Into Race Traitors To Desperately Make Money; Reporting Bogus Story About Adnan Ahmed (Not Guilty)
Broke Ethnic Newspaper “Eastern Eye” Publish Lies About Wrongfully Convicted Adnan Ahmed (Not Guilty) From A Racist Source; Ahmed Was Not Charged With “Threatening Girls”
Eastern Eye newspaper is in desperate need for money to save them from going into administration. The cheesy Asian newspaper disgustingly lied about Adnan Ahmed, printing lies about him from a white racist source. The scumbags at Eastern Eye will do anything for a buck, even sell out their own race! Eastern Eye were recently saved from closure by the skin of their teeth, when they were bought over by Asian media marketing group. There is a reason why your crappy newspaper keeps going bust, its because you print fake news filth! The corny trash publication will be sued by Ahmed in the near future – not for money because they don’t have any, but to shut them down for good and rid people of the creepy vile publication’s presence.
The toilet paper news rag team up with guilty reporters to make up fake charges of “threatening girls.” Typical tabloid trash. Ahmed faced no charges of “threatening” anyone, he was wrongfully convicted of section 38 breach of the peace. He will appeal and sue the hounds at Eastern Eye for threatening him with their lies and filth! The scummy Eastern Eye sensationalised the truth by stating; “a You Tuber who filmed himself chatting up young women was found guilty of 5 charges.” Ahmed did not “film himself,” this is a lie! And the swine’s at Eastern Eye don’t define what the charges are in order to turn up the fake news controversy!
In reality Ahmed was wrongfully convicted by a bias jury who were influenced by an online social media campaign and horrible selective press reporting during every turn of his trial (by Eastern Eye and the Scottish Media scum). Even though it was clearly stated in court; “this is not a crime; being confident is not a crime, having a conversation is not a crime, witness is unreliable, asking someone out is not a crime, if you have any inclination of reasonable doubt – he’s innocent, peoples perspective was skewed by how Ahmed was portrayed in a online/ media hate campaign.” Ahmed was actually wrongfully convicted of section 38 breach of the peace which is equivalent to raising one’s voice too loud outdoors, madness! Here’s how the jury process works in Scotland, there is no screening for racist, feminist, prejudice or psychiatric deficiencies (unlike the USA). 15 members of the public are selected at random and simply told, “don’t go on social media or media” without any enforcement or checks conducted during the trial. Ahmed’s jury was made up of 9 females and 6 males (some of which were programmed by the media to hate his, some pudgy beta males and some angry overweight feminists), the wrongful non-majority “guilty” verdict will be appealed and overturned in the next few months as no crime was actually committed! Ahmed maintains his innocence, 13 charges were dropped before the bias jury got a chance to deliberate on them. Adnan Ahmed did no receive a fair trial and is not guilty of any criminal conduct!
The jury and accusers are asked to take an “oath to God” to ensure an unbiased/testimony, without individuals even being screened to see if they even believe in God (in an age of rampant atheist beliefs). It’s a ridiculous board-game style set-up, this is not justice, it’s a farce!
The low-life reptiles at Eastern Eye stated; “a self-styled pick-up artist, targeting vulnerable girls.” Eastern Eye you sexist, labelling women “vulnerable” because of their gender is chauvinistic, “vulnerable” how ? “Vulnerable” to having a conversation in broad day-light with hundreds/ thousands of people and CCTV around. And “young” how, all women were adults above the legal age of consensual sex in the UK! If you observe clearly there is no “following” or “targeting” of women. They either stop of speak to Addy or they walk with him, both of their own free will. This is another predictable gas lighting tactic by feminazi scum-bags, they use words like “targeting” instead of “approaching” and “following” instead of “meeting.”
The dead-beat clowns at Eastern Eye continued; “secretly filmed himself approaching in Glasgow and Eastern Europe.” Ahmed was not charged with this because it is not a crime! It may be immoral to some, but who the hell are Eastern Eye to talk about morality to anyone, they’ve been caught with their pants down and arse exposed hundreds of thousands of times. Creepy Eastern Eye labels Adnan Ahmed as a “so-called pick-up artist.” Again misinformation, as Adnan Ahmed has said on many occasions, “I am not a pick-up artist, I’m a dating and life coach, we help people using scientific self-help not tricks, techniques, lines and tactics.”
Weak mousy Eastern Eye reporter then spat; “Ahmed a dating and lifestyle coach, what he did was educational. However, women he had approached told his trial they had been upset and intimidated.” Addy gave a statement at the trial also telling the court; “no one involved (the women) thought anything untoward was going on until their perception was changed by how I was portrayed in the online and media smear campaign in January 2019 (referring to BBC Social’s cyber-hate video). All of a sudden a few warped people said I spoke to them like it was not just a quick chat. I could have asked someone the time and they would have reported it as being uncomfortable or intimidating.” Many legal experts also agreed and re-iterated this throughout the trial.
Look at Eastern Eye’s choice of words “victims,” there were no victims, there were no actual crimes recognised under UK Law, there has to be a crime to be a “victim.” Fake “victims” who are glory-hungry idiots, jump on a fake #metoo bandwagon (saying they were simply chatted up) actually takes away from real victims who actually have to face the reality of real crimes. The only “victims” in connection to the BBC are the people they victimise through their vile trash hate articles.
The Sheriff stated; “consider a non-custodial sentence appropriate but I have to continue the remand period because of you previous record.” Ahmed’s solicitor did point out, “5 breach of the peace charges do not warrant anymore time in custody than my client has already done on remand, this is legal protocol!” Gremlins at Eastern Eye continued to mis-quote of trial judge.
Corny lairs at Eastern Eye selectively falsified more stating; “a 21-year old female broke down in court when she said Ahmed followed her through Glasgow city centre in 2016. She was 18 at the time.” Eastern Eye labelled what appeared to be seconds of tears as “sobbing,” the woman then talked as normal in front of the jury. The woman was also asked why it took her 3 years to report it (in 2019) she told the court she didn’t feel there was a crime. The woman also told the court she had anxiety and mental health issues. She also said “I looked a lot better 3 years ago, I was thinner, I didn’t have tattoos on my face,” the court heard.
Eastern Eye blatantly lied by saying she was “followed through Glasgow city centre,” no one said this but the slime bag hack journo rodents! This is inaccurate as the woman told the court it was over an hour later, she actually said after the initial approach in Buchanan Galleries she went shopping in various stores, called her grandmother for 45 minutes and headed to Argos in Stockwell street in Glasgow a further 35 minutes later approximately.Eastern Eye then biasedly stated; “he tried to pull me close to him so he could kiss me, so I pushed him away.” Eastern Eye left out that it was pointed out to jurors that this recollection of events contradicted her police statement, in which she did not say she was “pulled close to him.” The witness responded by saying the police lied. The witness told the court “the police did not make physical contact with the man.”
The court heard, in her police statement the man “touched her face and tried to kiss her,” when the woman was cross examined about this contradiction in court she said she didn’t say so at first as she didn’t want to interrupt the questioning (despite being asked numerous times) then claimed “the pull and face touch” took place. When the contradictory police statement and court statement was pointed out to the woman in front of the jurors, she sat down from a standing position in the witness box!
Eastern Eye left out that the woman also thought she was messaged by the man on social media, she told jurors this happened despite her giving a fake name to the man which was not linked to any of her social media accounts as she said she did not tell him any details of mutual friends. She also told the court the man wrote his details on a receipt during the initial meeting, but was still able to contact her despite not having any of her contact details and not even knowing her name! Eastern Eye continued; “she walked away from him and stood with strangers to be somewhere safe.” Eastern Eye failed to report that these alleged witnesses were not presented in court and that when the woman was asked if anyone saw this she said no despite people being around her.
Adnan Ahmed’s excellent lawyer Donna Armstrong described this witness to the court as “she is unreliable, on record she changed her story 3 times, you can’t trust the testimony she has given.” Ahmed also took the stand to testify regarding this “unreliable” witness, Ahmed stated; “she’s lying, we met briefly on Buchanan Street, then 2 hours later on Stockwell street. I was with my friend David, he’s an eye witness. I did not try to kiss her, she gave me her number and Snapchat. She changed her story over and over. In court she said I touched her back and not face, in her police statement she said I touched her face with no mention of touching her back. In court she said she didn’t push me physically, in her police statement she said she did.” The “unreliable” woman also said she came forward in 2019 because of the BBC Social video.”
This “unreliable” woman also gave a 3rd story that did not mention any “touching of face” or “touching of back” or “pulling” or “pulling” to the BBC in January 2019, (after the BBC Social hate video dropped) which was not included in the court proceedings (only a bias unfair jury would find a man guilty of breach of the peace for such an obvious lie). Following are links to articles that prove these numerous contradictions;
Predatory freak reporters at Eastern Eye lied more stating; “a 20 year old female thought Ahmed was playing a practical joke on her on Buchanan Street in November last year. She said: he gave me a compliment, said I looked like Kim Kardashian.” What Eastern Eye failed to state is that the 20 year old woman told jurors she messaged the man on Instagram, they also failed to establish how the man and woman added each other on Instagram! Eastern Eye continued to report that the woman told the jury that the man messaged her on Instagram and she messaged him also, Eastern Eye also stated; “the man went onto claim the woman was racist before she blocked him.”
Jurors also heard that this account of messages were from only one source, the witness, they were not found on the accused’s phone or laptop. The jurors also heard this supposedly happened in 2018 and was not reported until 2019. The BBC made a video defaming Ahmed in January 2019, triggering a cyber bullying campaign against him, leading to his remand. She told jurors, I thought it was a prank, he managed to get my name from my phone case, she felt uncomfortable and intimidated by the man, she was asked to go for a glass of wine, she pretended to have a boyfriend.”
The media quoted this without pointing out the woman said only one part of her name was on her phone case and she claimed Ahmed found her on Instagram by chance despite her full name being her Instagram title. Ahmed testified in court regarding this also, he said; “we talked for under 5 minutes on St. Vincent Street, she gave me her insta details. She said to the court only one part of her name was on her phone case, her Instagram name is her whole name, and has an underscore in it, there was no way anyone could guess that – check the evidence, plus it’s a foreign name. Also there are 2 messages from her missing in the feed she provided to the court, check my message feed; I initially sent – “Kim Kardashian fun to meet you” she sent me the message “haha is this a joke” (this was missing). I responded with “no joke, let’s get drinks,” she responded, “I don’t know you,” I responded, “get to know me, do you drink red or white wine,” she then sent a “black face” emoji (this was missing from her feed) – which I didn’t notice until a few days after, I thought she was joking, so I sent back “good morning ya racist” as a joke in response. There was no further response, so I didn’t contact her again. We are both of non-white ethnicity, it was a joke, we’re both brown! She didn’t block me, I didn’t contact her again, she confirmed this. When we initially met, she didn’t say she had a boyfriend, that’s a lie, I have an eye witness who can confirm all of this!”
Ahmed’s lawyer told the court; “the messages are from one source, her! This is not a crime, my client is giving an honest testimony. Being confident is not a crime. You the jury must have felt somewhat uncomfortable and intimidated when selected to be jurors for this case, that doesn’t equate to a crime either. This is not the fault of my client, these are emotions felt by all people. This is not a court of morality, it’s a court of law you may not like my client but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty. He did not intimidate anyone.” Lawyer Ms Armstrong also cross-examined this accuser stating “there are messages missing from the feed, why did he respond “no joke” after initially sending “fun to meet you” without a response, it doesn’t make sense. You said in your statement, “is this a joke” now you’re saying it was in person and not over text?!” The witness twisted her face and scowled at the lawyer in response.
Creepy Eastern Eye continued his crappy article by quoting a random policeman – Mark McLennan who said; “the women approached were subjected to harassment and were frightened by his unwanted attention.” This is false! Ahmed wasn’t charged or tired for “harassment” and no woman claimed to be “frightened” and why does Mark McLennan feel it appropriate to talk in the media, he’s supposed to be impartial/ neutral officer of the law, not a media commentator. The lewd reporter continued to quote Mark McLennan; “I pay tribute to the courage of these women coming forward giving evidence in order to bring Ahmed to justice, particularly as he appears to have expected them to tolerate his behaviour.” Well Mr McLennan; firstly if they didn’t come forward the police would have issued a warrant for their arrest, that’s a fact. Once witness who didn’t want to come forward said the police harassed her and there were many like her who got caught in the social media hype in January 2019, but didn’t want to go to court in September 2019 but felt forced by the police.
Secondly Mr McLennan, Ahmed didn’t commit a crime actually recognised under Scottish Law, this is the first time in human history a non-sense case like this has been tried in a Scottish Court. It’s a shameful day when the police are run by Twitter trolls dictating their actions. What is a crime is Adnan Ahmed reporting Rita Bruce in early 2019 for sexually assaulting him numerous times – Police Scotland did nothing about this! What is a crime is Ahmed’s mother’s house being robbed in February 2019 (weeks after his initial remand) by a criminal gang stealing over £100,000 in cash and jewellery- Police Scotland did nothing about this! What is a crime is Ahmed’s family being the victim of identity car insurance fraud in late 2019 – Police Scotland did nothing about this! The police need to get out of the news to get flimsy praise for convicting an innocent man for actions that are not a crime and actually go out there and fight/ solve real crimes! Again Twitter should never have more power over justice than the actual police, apparently in Scotland they do! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQwbf_vB0qU
And Mr McLennan, you said “Ahmed appears to have expected them to tolerate his unwarranted and unwelcomed behaviour,” when the majority of the women involved in the case admittedly gave Ahmed their mobile numbers and social media details!
What is ironic is that days after Ahmed was wrongfully convicted, Police Scotland male officers were accused by Scottish women (and female officers) of “threatening and abusive behaviour.” A group of Police Scotland officers called “the boys club” are accused of sexual harassment/acts. One officer actually had sex with a “vulnerable” woman after she’s just reported a crime, then proceeded to stalk her. She accused his of calling her “pretty” and “intimidating” her! Hopefully Mark McLennan is not involved in any of this controversy. Check it out; https://stv.tv/news/highlands-islands/1441340-police-boys-club-accused-of-targeting-crime-victims-for-sex/