Predatory BBC News Scotland Reporters Write Bogus Article After Adnan Ahmed’s Wrongful Conviction, He Is Not Guilty of Any Crimes!
The Predators At BBC News Rack Up More Innocent Victims In Their Propaganda Crusade To Destroy Civilised Society
The predatory swine’s at BBC News are at it again, they have the gaul to call Adnan Ahmed predatory when in reality it is their corrupt poisonous selective reporting that demonises innocent people! Hungry desperados at BBC News stated Ahmed “has been labelled a predator,” By who you fools – you, your hack buddies and some sad weirdo online trolls. Addy is not a predator. He is an exemplary human being, a good father, he worked in the Criminal Justice field helping others and did daily community work (with NA, CA and AA) for free. He has a fiancé, a mother and all his ex-partners testify there has never ever been any “predatory” behaviour on his part, ever!
One geeky spectacle coward predator BBC Scotland reporter in particular wrote; “pick-up artist posted footage of victims online has been convicted of threatening and abusive behaviour.” This dirty geek’s writing is almost as bad as his crap dress sense (think semi-bald, glasses, loud lumberjack check-shirts and buck teeth). Look at his 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. Recently the clowns at BBC News had to apologise to Prince Harry after publishing a threatening image of him holding a pistol standing next a blood spattered swastika! The BBC abusively branded the Prince a race traitor and failed to warn him they would be broadcasting and publishing the image of him. This is real threatening and abusive behaviour, BBC News are scumbags that do illegal and disgusting reporting. They did the same to Adnan Ahmed in 2019 and will be sued and made to grovel! No wonder Prince Harry is suing the nasty, shameful mainstream media.
Ahmed was not convicted of “posting footage online” this is a lie told by the predatory BBC News! 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 BBC Scotland 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!
It is the aim of the clowns in the Scottish press to dehumanise Adnan Ahmed, objectify him, troll him and discredit his reputation to write scandalised, sensationalised lies as news stories. They did not write about his girlfriend and his mother being present to support him during the trial, as well as various male and female well-wishers and supporters dropping in and out during the proceedings. They did not report whole testimonials, only select words to demonise Ahmed further. The press even reported incidents Ahmed was found “not guilty” of after the trial finished. This is further grounds for him to sue for defamation!
Creepy reporters at BBC News label 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.” The reptilian rats at BBC News continued; “police began an investigation after his behaviour was revealed by BBC The Social.” BBC The Social hounded Glasgow dating coach for months, he reacted out to them and responded with a detailed explanation of his business model and background to his client base as well as the scientific reasoning behind this method of face to face daytime speed dating, which was in large ignored. Instead they used choice sentences to turn up the controversy in order to create a story and demonise an innocent man.
The police didn’t act because of online videos, they were aware of them for years, they crumbled because of media pressure because Police Scotland is a Micky Mouse force of hick villagers. The dead-beat clowns at BBC News continued; “secretly filmed himself approaching in Glasgow and Eastern Europe, including audio recorded during sex.” Ahmed was not charged with this because it is not a crime! It may be immoral to some, but who the hell are BBC News to talk about morality to anyone, they’ve been caught with their pants down and arse exposed hundreds of thousands of times. Do a quick Google check on the snakes at BBC News, you’ll find how they abuse and mistreat O.A.Ps, Prince Harry, Addy AGame, Alex Ferguson, Politicians, etc, etc, to name a few, the list is endless – not to mention the countless public and private apologises they’ve had to made for their disgusting conduct!
Ok BBC News so Addy had consensual sex with these women, some of which is adventurous where a couple films each other, again consensual, then it is used for a dating businesses YouTube channel – with all parties involved permitting it to be shown! Also there is no actual pornographic video and all female participants identities are protected because their actual faces are not shown. Adnan Ahmed even commented on the consented video content in a statement to the BBC Social in November 2018 which was ignored in order to make a video defaming him and not showing his actual views, here is a link to what Addy actually said to the press; http://redpillrights.com/bbc-social-reporter-myles-bonnar-set-up-adnan-ahmed-a-k-a-addy-agame/.
Weak mousy BBC 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.
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!” Gremlin BBC reporter continued to mis-quote of trial judge.
Scummy toe rag reporter at the BBC continued; “the court heard Ahmed approached 2 schoolgirls in a secluded lane in Uddingston in 2016. They were aged 16 and 17 at the time.” The “schoolgirls” are above the legal age of consent in the UK, 17 and 16. The alleged conversations are said by the two witnesses to have took place around 10am approximately, school had already started. The witnesses stated, “they were in there last year (6th year) of high school in 2016,” to the court. This is several months before a college or university course would begin should students at the late stage of high school wish to continue further education.
The BBC reporter continued; “one witness, who was 17 at the time, said the man told her she looked pretty and asked her if she was married.” Again 17 is above legal age of consent in the UK and this allegation has not been proven. Additionally, to call someone pretty or ask their marital status, is not a criminal offence!
What the BBC reporter conveniently left out was that the witness also said, “it was around 10am, not the usual time people go to school and the lane is attached to two main roads on either side, along with two small open grass fields at either side.” The witness also said that, “this is the common route to the train station that most people coming from that direction would take.”
BBC News quoted the witness as saying; “he asked me if I was at school and what I was doing at school.” BBC News left out the fact that before this quote the witness told the jury, “he introduced himself then I told him I was at school, he made general conversation, we spoke for under three minutes and parted ways.” This is vital information! BBC reporter quoted the witness alleging, “he was asking if I had a boyfriend and I said no.” This is not a crime.
BBC News continued; “she said – he asked me if I was married, as I was wearing a ring, I said no and walked away.” However no “friends” or “teachers” came to court to confirm this. In the woman’s police statement, she said she saw Mr Ahmed several times after the 2016 incident in the same area, but they never spoke again! The 2016 incident was reported to police in January 2019 after the BBC made a video defaming Ahmed’s dating business.
In regards to the second witness the BBC reporter left out that the incident is said by the witness to have taken place again around 10am after school had already began an hour previously, in the same lane attached to two main roads that is the main route to the train station which commuters take. Both these witnesses admit to being linked and both stated that they are good friends. What the BBC reporter again conveniently left out was that the witness told the court; “the school is right next to the train station and that the pair parted ways in under 3 minutes in different directions towards their separate destinations!” Mr Ahmed’s defence team have lodged an eye witness in his defence which would like to confirm there was no “intimidation” involved.
Creepy BBC reporter also conveniently left out the testimony Adnan Ahmed gave to the court himself, Addy gave a real honest account of events stating; “it was around 10am, we were both walking on the main route to the train station, it is not a secluded lane, it’s a open main route to the train, I was walking in front of her, waved and signalled for her to take her headphones out, then said – hey you look pretty enough to go for coffee with, that is if your boyfriends cool with it. She smiled and said, I don’t have a boyfriend. I then said I’m catching a train to the city centre. I thought she was doing the same as she wasn’t wearing a school uniform and it was outside school hours, I assumed she was 19 or 20. She then said – I’m going to school; which shocked me, I immediately asked how old are you? She said 17, I then said hope you’re enjoying school and shook her hand to say bye, her ring struck my hand when we shook, I said – you hit me with your wedding ring as a parting joke, I did not ask her about her being married! The conversation lasted under a minute, I did not ask her for her number or to go for a coffee. I say her many times around that area for 3 years and we never spoke again, she also confirmed this to the police.”
Click the following link to read about a testimonial by a female who dated Addy, who met him in the same area around the same time – http://redpillrights.com/?p=1086&preview=true
Regarding the second incident, Addy told the court; “it was around the same time and place, again 10 am, on my way to the city, no school uniform, soon as she said she was 16 I left, this girl confirmed to the court I didn’t ask for a number, she confirmed I didn’t ask her out, it was less than a minute of chat. She also said in court she saw me many times after that in the area and we never spoke again. These incidents are said to have happened in 2019 and no one came forward then. only in 2019 after how I was portrayed in the social media hate campaign (referring to BBC Social hate video against him) there was a sudden change in perspective by these girls to say, passing comments were a crime that caused them discomfort. I could have asked someone for the time after January 2019 and they would report it. They both know each other well and colluded on social media. They are not being truthful! There was nothing sinister or rehearsed or pre-planned as is being suggested, it was spontaneous and quick.”
Hate-mongering liar reporter at the BBC spewed more bile by stating; “lawyer, Donna Armstrong defending said; he didn’t want to cause fear or alarm.” What the BBC reporter left out is Ahmed’s brilliant advocate Donna Armstrong also said of these incidents; “the witnesses admit the path to the train station can be walked in under 60 seconds. In out civilised society these girls are considered adults not children, you’ve seen my client talk to girls on video, it is consensual and the women involved gave positive responses, this is evidence of how his interactions are. This is the main route to the train station in Uddingston, not a secluded lane, it has fields of grass either side and the school happens to be right next to the train station. All sides have said it was during the day outside school hours. For talking sake, even if both these ladies had went on a date with him, this would be perfectly legal, this is not a crime, I implore you to find him not guilty!”
Corny lairs at BBC News 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.” BBC News 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.
The BBC reporter blatantly lied by saying she was “followed through Glasgow city centre,” no one said this but the slime bag hack journo rodent! 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. BBC News then biasedly stated; “he tried to pull me close to him so he could kiss me, so I pushed him away.” The BBC reporter 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!
BBC News 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! The BBC reporter continued; “she walked away from him and stood with strangers to be somewhere safe.” BBC News 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 reporter 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 the BBC reporter 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! BBC News continued to report that the woman told the jury that the man messaged her on Instagram and she messaged him also, BBC News 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 reporter 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/