No, he shouldn’t be banned.
The odious Blanc specialises in ‘helping’ desperate men by turning them into repulsive, entitled, sexually aggressive creeps with horrible fashion sense. Why should he get a visa?
Because he hasn’t broken any laws. Because, being an odious creep isn’t illegal and isn’t a barrier to international travel, nor should it be – or we would be banning politicians from travelling.
Oh, wait, hold that thought…
Joking aside, once again we have the idea being pushed that morality – or moral outrage – should be the deciding factor in whether people are banned or not and as is usual, the big ban stick is so readily at hand. Yes, sure, this man’s ideas are pretty repugnant. However, being an oaf isn’t against the law and if people do actually commit violence then there are laws to deal with it and that is the time for the state to intervene and not before.
If I was a woman approached in the manner this man is pushing, my response wouldn’t be positive. Indeed, he sums up the part of my own sex that I dislike and dislike intensely – the laddish, blokey approach to women that views them as mere conquests. But, then, having a somewhat fluid gender identity, maybe that’s a problem with me rather than him… Ahem… All I can say is, if a man approached me in the manner he espouses, it wouldn’t work – my reply being acid and negative. It might work for some, though, who knows.
All of which is moot. It is no place of the state to bar people because they are odious creeps. The queue would be a long one indeed.
The dating app Lindy West is peddling is so daft it fisks itself.
It’s also worth mentioning, as others have already, that if a man wrote of a woman in the terms used by West, there would be outrage from the usual quarters followed by a foaming at the mouth twatter mob demanding castration or some such. Double standards as usual apply at the Grauniad.
Unless this government has changed things, Americans don’t need a visa to visit the UK anyway…
Some guys don’t need coaching, indeed some guys could coach this bloke. The remainder would never consider such behaviour or be quite unable to behave in that way. I see him as a narcissistic, self-promoting Onanist. I agree with LR, don’t bother with such scum until they cross the line.
One SLIGHT difference has been pointed out to me (by the boss)
This creep is proposing to come here, …TO MAKE MONEY FROM HIS VILE SCAMMING OPERATION.
NOT as a “private person”.
Does this make a difference?
I’m tempted to say “yes it does”.
Opinions?
No, it doesn’t. If people want to pay to hear him speak, well, that’s up to them, not the state.
One complaint I have heard that does have mileage is the suggestion that he is actively promoting assault. If that is true, then, yes, not allowing him in would make sense.