So- Called Journalists At Creepy Clyde 1 Lie About Adnan Addy AGame’s Wrongful Conviction (Not Guilty!), He Was Not Convicted of “Hounding” Anyone
The Liars At Clyde 1 Twist The Truth About The Wrongful Conviction of Adnan Ahmed. Clyde 1 Don’t Report News, They Report Childish Bias And Discrimination!
Chunky Kerri-Ann and her chums are back on the fake news weasel wheel. It will never stop but people see through. Look at Clyde 1’s lagging ratings and declining rate of listeners. The social justice terrorists at creepy Clyde 1 don’t know whether they are coming or going. Their shallow quest for popularity and in decisiveness is evident through how recently a Clyde 1 DJ walked out of a live show over a apology row with his bosses.
Clyde 1 is not about telling the truth it’s about making money from people by any (slimy) means necessary. The DJ in question (George Bowie) left during an early morning programme after being forced to apologise by management, for a on-air remark because one social justice nutter (think sleazy reptile Myles Bonnar or O.A.P sex-pest Rita Bruce) made a complaint because they have sad empty loser lives! Despite tons of people calling in and saying the comment was fine, the clowns at Clyde 1 still reacted bizarrely many thousands of people also called in to say the management were in the wrong. It’s the same story with Clyde 1, they are mostly in the wrong – look at their fake news discrimination against wrongfully convicted innocent man, Addy AGame, let’s see how they act when they are hit with a defamation law-suit!
The toilet rag team up with guilty Kerri-Ann aka to make up fake charges of “hounding girls.” Typical tabloid trash. Ahmed faced no charges of “hounding” anyone, he was wrongfully convicted of section 38 breach of the peace. He will appeal and sue the hounds at Clyde 1 for hounding him with their lies and filth! Clyde 1 wrote Ahmed “faces jail.” You are an idiot reporter. Addy AGame has been remanded for the past 9 months awaiting court, he’s already in jail, he doesn’t “face jail” he’s been wrongfully remanded since January 2019 you half-wits.
Passive-aggressive runts at Clyde 1 continued; “a Scots pick-up artist approached young and vulnerable girls,” Clyde 1 you sexists’, 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! Creepy Clyde 1 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.”
Lying fools at Clyde 1 continued “Ahmed, approached 5 girls between 2016 and 2018 in Glasgow and Uddingston.” Cowardly Clyde 1 chuntered on; “using the name Addy AGame, Ahmed posted the videos on YouTube of him approaching females to teach others about how to pick-up women.” Notice the use of language dumb-ass Clyde 1 reporter uses to imply “the videos” were of the “5 girls,” this is blatant lies, one of the 5 girls were ever filmed or appeared on You Tube, another reason to sue for defamation!
Clyde 1 blabbered on; “Ahmed was found guilty at court for acting in a threatening and abusive manner that could cause a reasonable person fear or alarm.” In reality Adnan 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 Clyde 1 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!
Scummy toe rags a Clyde 1 continued; “the court heard Adnan 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.
Clyde 1 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 Clyde 1 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.”
Clyde 1 quoted the witness as saying; “he asked me if I was at school and what I was doing at school.” Clyde 1 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! Clyde 1 quoted the witness alleging, “he was asking if I had a boyfriend and I said no.” This is not a crime.
Clyde 1 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 Adnan 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 Clyde 1 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 Clyde 1 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.
Creeps at Clyde 1 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 liars at Clyde 1 spewed more bile by stating; “lawyer, Donna Armstrong defending said; he didn’t want to cause fear or alarm.” What Clyde 1 left out is Adnan 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 Clyde 1 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.” Clyde 1 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.
Clyde 1 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. Clyde 1 then biasedly stated; “he tried to pull me close to him so he could kiss me, so I pushed him away.” Clyde 1 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!
Clyde 1 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! Clyde 1 continued; “she walked away from him and stood with strangers to be somewhere safe.” Clyde 1 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.” Adnan 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 Clyde 1 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 Clyde 1 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! Clyde 1 continued to report that the woman told the jury that the man messaged her on Instagram and she messaged him also, Clyde 1 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.”
Clyde 1 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. Adnan 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.
Pervs at Clyde 1 weakly attempted to defame Ahmed further by stating; “Ahmed has previous convictions for drink driving and the firearms act, Sheriff Woods deferred sentence for reports until next month.” What Clyde 1 left out is it was stated in court that these previous offences were from 10 years ago. And 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 Clyde 1 continued to mis-quote of trial judge. Adnan is drug-free and does not drink alcohol. He has no mental health issues. He did a lot of community work over the last 4 years with Narcotics Anonymous and Cocaine Anonymous, mentoring and sponsoring vulnerable individuals, as well as having went through the 12-step program of recovery with his own mentors and sponsors as part of his own rehabilitation after his last sentence in 2013.
Adnan’s previous record is bad. However, he plead guilty to those offences straight away because he was guilty of those crimes. He is not guilty of the allegations the Procurator Fiscal has made, hence why he took it to a trial. Adnan Ahmed has not committed any offences since 2013, has never been on trail before, has worked with the police and has never been placed on a fully committed remand or been indicted in the past.
Although his previous is bad, it does not include any sexual offences or assaults. The drug offences he had in his past he has fully rehabilitated from and is willing to be drug tested at random to prove this. The firearm offences were a Taser that was not functional and a fake replica pistol (which could not harm anyone). For all his drug offences and firearm offences together in 2009, he received a total of 35 months custodial sentence.
Adnan Ahmed was a criminal justice practitioner for Turning Point until the time of his remand. He was also moving away from the dating field and taking DWLF in a new direction focusing on human rights/ men’s rights. His job was supporting ex-cons and drug addicts to reform and integrate them into society. He planned to expand DWLF into representing men who had been wrongfully accused of crimes they didn’t commit. He had no idea that he would be in a very similar situation.
Adnan Ahmed was planning to study criminology in his 4th year at university. In his 1st year he gained an HNC in Social Services (at the City of Glasgow college). In his 2nd year he gained an HND in Additional Support Needs (at Glasgow Clyde college). At the time of his arrest he was half-way through his 3rd year doing a BA in Learning Difficulties/Disabilities (between Fife college and Abertay university). His 4th year would have been a BA (Hons) in Criminology (at Abertay university in Dundee). His place on the course was terminated as was his employment because of the media scandal. Adnan also has a previous BA in Business Studies (From Glasgow Caledonian University).
Creepy reporters at Clyde 1 stated in their crappy articles 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/
Police Scotland are quoted as saying Ahmed’s behaviour was “predatory and would cause fear and alarm”, after succumbing to media pressure from aggressive online feminists and blood thirsty journalists. Initially when BBC The Social’s video degrading Adnan Ahmed went viral, Police Scotland are quoted as saying “we cannot follow up on this as there is no actual crime to investigate, no crime has been committed.” They were quick to change their tune after BBC The Social’s video gained millions of views and began a witch-hunt amongst the public because of how it was edited and how it portrayed Adnan Ahmed as a demonic sexual caricature, rather than the responsible understanding life coach that he is.
It’s totally bizarre and shockingly worrying that a country’s police force can’t withstand pressure from online trolls and can be manipulated so easily by faceless crazies on the internet. Yes, Scotland is a very small country, but that does not excuse the stupid backward policing tactics used for this matter. There should never have been an arrest in the first place. The police were aware of Ahmed’s dating business 3 years prior to BBC The Social’s hate fuelled video falsely demonising him. They spoke to Mr Ahmed about it on a number of occasions in casual conversation. Both male and female officers approved of it. There are phone calls and written police reports to confirm this.
Adnan Ahmed worked in conjunction with the police, as his job as a Criminal Justice Practitioner made this inevitable. Ahmed’s behaviour was never “predatory”. He ran an online dating business on YouTube for all to see; his clients, video demonstrations and spontaneous conversations with any women were all during the day on well populated busy city centre streets. He wasn’t hiding anything, so how can his actions be described as predatory, shameful or dangerous?
Police Scotland are supposed to investigate matters neutrally and without prejudice. Instead they contributed to the media mayhem by making comments defaming a man who is not guilty of an actual crime, but was charged, indicted and remanded regardless. The police are now tying to fish for a conviction to cover their mistakes and to not face legal action themselves. At the time of writing this, Ahmed has been on remand for the past 6 months, he has been held in custody, untried and without the option of bail since January 2019.
The Sheriff Court indictment has been designed in such a way to convict Adnan Ahmed on a technicality of Scottish Law (Moorov/ corroboration) rather than using substantial hard evidence, because there is none. Ahmed is not permitted to present vital evidence that proves his innocence because of Scottish court laws that protect prosecution witnesses, even if they are lying.