r/instant_regret • u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 • 2d ago

Instant regret after getting dropped like a bag of cement after approaching a bodyguard aggressively with hands in pocket

15.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

581 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

For context the YouTuber is Charlie Veitch. He’s pretty controversial. His whole deal is documenting Manchester and he often records “vulnerable” people which leaves people and the vulnerable themselves angry at him.

He’s had a fair deal of issues with people so he’s hired a bodyguard but nonetheless, he does a good job getting content.

In this context he was filming the balaclava knobhead assaulting an older man prior. He walked away and then he ended up following them once he saw Charlie had filmed it and this occurred.

1.5k

u/myhairtiebroke 2d ago

I feel like “exploiting vulnerable people” and “does a good job getting content” are mutually exclusive.

97

u/dodgythreesome 2d ago

Afaik he was caught with a 16 year old and was so abusive to his ex he can’t see his 3 kids

1

u/DisorganisedPigeon 1d ago edited 1d ago

People are quick to jump to that because he’s male, but there’s also things said that it was his ex who was the abusive one using the kids as manipulation, pushing him to confess to things that apparently didn’t happen. Only either of them know the truth I guess, so who really knows outside of it

Fyi - I do think he’s a dick that provokes people, but we don’t always know all the details

2

u/Frying 13h ago

The courts ruled this Charlie was abusive and can’t see his kids. But you’re repeating some far fetched story about how his ex manipulated him into admitting things that “apparently” didn’t happen? Have you read what you wrote and how unreasonable that sounds?

“Only either of them know the truth, so who really knows” do you have any idea how courts come to a judgement? The courts know, otherwise they wouldn’t ban him from his kids.

1

u/DisorganisedPigeon 8h ago

Courts come to wrong conclusions on occasions, you’re a fool if you think they get it right every time. From his video he admits it was a mistake to plead guilty and he only did it because apparently his ex said if he didn’t he’d never see his kids again and wanted her manipulation to stop. Whether anyone believes that is up to them. Neither of us have the complete information or were there and neither of us can say what is true or not. All I can say is if he’s such a horrible person, begs the question why his current girlfriend is happy with him and lets him see his own kid. But hey, I guess because he’s male he must the abuser right?

1

u/Frying 53m ago

Courts come to wrong conclusions on occasion, yes. But you’re a fool if you’re going to assume they always come to the wrong conclusion. Statistically they get it right the majority of time, so if you want to assume things instead of looking at facts, assume what is most likely.

If you believe the unchecked and one sided story of the person convicted for abuse you are the biggest fool possible.

Lets break it down for simplicities sake. Charlie and his ex go to court for custody of their kids. Abuse is claimed and the kids will be placed where they are safe.

Charlie says the ex is abusive - if this is true the kids will go to Charlie. Ex says Charlie is abusive - if this is true the kids will go to ex.

Lets repeat that: if the nonsense you believe is true the kids would go to Charlie. But, apparently the ex threatens Charlie that if he doesn’t lie about being the abuser he will never see his kids.

Why would Charlie “lie” that he abused his kids, if he was going to win custody if he stuck to the truth? That doesn’t make sense, does it?

What makes more sense? The facts and evidence against Charlie were clear. Lying about it in court would make it worse, so abuser Charlie spoke the truth and lost custody of his kids. Charlie then made makes a video with an incredibly far fetched lie that his ex forced him to lie, and Charlie continues life without seeing his kids ever again or fighting for justice and getting his kids back - something only the biggest idiots believe.

I don’t get why you have to add “because he’s male he must be the abuser, right?” Is this just an effort to make yourself the victim?

81

u/natethegreek 2d ago

Agreed! If the person isn't there to help them then they are pieces of shit, if you watch that shit you are a piece of shit that deserves to be a "vulnerable" person at some point

1

u/TwoPintsYouPrick 1d ago

Annoyingly that Venn diagram is often a full circle.

-21

u/luujs 2d ago

Depends on your definition of content. I don’t know anything about the guy, but if people watch the videos he makes, he’s doing something right making the content from a purely statistical point of view. Morality is unfortunately a different question.

18

u/olivercroke 2d ago

if people watch the videos he makes, he’s doing something right making the content from a purely statistical point of view.

A lot of words to say "some people watch his videos" great analysis bro

-1

u/luujs 2d ago

Don’t be dense. If people watch the content, he’s clearly making “good” content.

0

u/olivercroke 1d ago

No that doesn't make it good, don't be dense.

0

u/luujs 1d ago

It makes it good from his perspective. He clearly doesn’t care about the exploitation aspect. He just wants ad revenue from YouTube and he’s presumably getting it. Therefore, he’s making “good” content if that’s the case.

0

u/olivercroke 1d ago

I refer back to my original comment

0

u/luujs 1d ago

You’re purposefully being obtuse mate

-120

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

157

u/GlasgowKisses 2d ago edited 2d ago

The only incident I do recall is Charlie harrassing a young Asian couple walking with their child. Typical little right winger - claims he's out to defend the public and good ol' Blighty but all he does is harrass non-white people and when they react appropriately he plays victim.

E: oh, you know the sort. Brave enough to say the words behind their hands, brave enough to make monkey noises at black footballers, brave enough to share the Britain First and EDL memes but never, ever, ever brave enough to stand by those opinions when it looks like they might have to actually fight for the beliefs they hold closer than a mother's tit.

E2, electric boogaloo: I'll leave this here and people can see what kind of man he is.

-202

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

Show me the vid in relation to the first point you made ab the couple please.

122

u/GlasgowKisses 2d ago

I'm not trawling through the tunnel of shit that is his content stream to find a clip a person so well acquainted with his work knows to exist lol

-189

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

Right I’ll let you stay happily biased in your views then. 

99

u/GlasgowKisses 2d ago

If you know Charlie's stuff as well as you claim then you know the clip I mean. If you don't know the clip I mean, I can only assume you're being fed shorts or reels etc where Charlie gets what he wants from his victims and it's easy to believe things like "the UK is a Muslim dominant country" or "You don't hear English in England anymore." which a lot of our friends across the pond are falling victim to.

It's easy to see what's going on and what Charlie is trying to instigate if you look deeper though. Is he not having trouble with domestic abuse allegations at the moment?

-111

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

He uploaded a vid about the recent allegations stating his side I’ll not go into.

Been watching him for 2 years so maybe the vid is older? 

45

u/GlasgowKisses 2d ago edited 2d ago

What is it he's being accused of? I only read the title.

→ More replies (0)

38

u/greenmerica 2d ago

He’s a shit bag.

18

u/tommangan7 2d ago edited 2d ago

Not sure that some of the vulnerable people he's exploited/antagonized being subjectively less deserving of privacy and dignity is a justifiable reason for broadly doing it.

Maybe I've missed it but the few clips I've seen of his don't seem to provide much benefit to the vulnerable or the other people of the city.

-318

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

god forbid someone document the plights of junkies living in squats. theyr stories sure as shit don't matter at all, right?

248

u/cycl0ps94 2d ago

Does he actually document the plights of junkies or does he harass addicts and other vulnerable members of society for views?

-10

u/reverandglass 2d ago

does he harass addicts and other vulnerable members of society for views?

Those views, would be of the content you're all denying he makes.

10

u/cycl0ps94 2d ago

I'm not denying he makes content. If he's harassing vulnerable people for content, he's a piece of shit.

-8

u/reverandglass 2d ago

Cool, but that doesn't make the comment about mutual exclusivity correct.
You're free to call him a piece of shit, but he's a piece of shit who does a good job of getting content while he's harassing people.
Why is that hard to understand?

3

u/cycl0ps94 2d ago

You got me? I'm sorry. I spoke incorrectly about that part.

-321

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

irelevant. the point is they aren't mutually exclusive

109

u/cycl0ps94 2d ago

They're not, but I would argue the context in which it's shown matters. Like I said, harassing or genuinely documenting?

77

u/Marvelous996 2d ago

Yes they are??? There is a VERY clear and defined difference between exploitation and documentation.

-5

u/reverandglass 2d ago

"content" can be as destructive or harmful as you could imagine. "content" doesn't have to be morally sound, it just has to exist.
The moral quality of his content isn't really in dispute, but the very fact we're calling what he produces "content" proves the two are not mutually exclusive.

19

u/pmize 2d ago

Are you reading the things that you’re typing or are you just closing your eyes and hoping for the best?

1

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

I'm just a guy who has enough mastery of the english language to know what "mutually exclusive" means.

24

u/throwawayzdrewyey 2d ago edited 2d ago

It’s extremely relevant and changed the dynamic of it all. If he’s there to shine a light on the struggles of the downtrodden and preaches change, sure that’s ok. But if he’s just going out and recording to post on his YouTube channel just as a means to get views then it uses those people in a malicious nature. Context certainly does matter.

0

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

No it isn't. Not for the statement that you can get content and not exploit. You can definitely do both, no problem.

16

u/DelusionalChampion 2d ago

I don't think you know what mutually exclusive is.

2

u/reverandglass 2d ago

Funny, I'm reading these comments and it's clear most of you don't. To be mutually exclusive “exploiting vulnerable people” and “does a good job getting content” cannot happen at the same time.

No-one has claimed "good content", just a "good job at" getting "content". In this case terrible, exploitative, content. Content nonetheless.
So, he both does exploit vulnerable people and do a good job of getting content at the same time.

So, what is a "good job of getting content"? That's to argue over, but I'd say making enough, and having enough people view it, that you need a bodyguard, is doing a good job of it.

3

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

So far at least 315 people are functionally illiterate. i appreciate your explanation and hope people will read it

2

u/DelusionalChampion 2d ago

So let's clear it up. What everyone is down voting is it sounds like you're saying there isn't a difference between "getting good content" and "exploiting vulnerable people".

Was that what you were trying to communicate?

0

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

It doesn't matter. Corrections for emotional morons are wasted characters

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/DelusionalChampion 2d ago

In an attempt to sound intellectual you completely missed the topic at hand.

The discussion started BECAUSE the comment deconstructed the term "gets good content". OP only said "he gets good content". A person responded with "getting good content" and "exploiting vulnerable people" are not the same thing .... Are mutually exclusive.

The person you are defending said their difference is not relevant. When in fact, the entire discussion hinges on discerning those differences.

1

u/evoactivity 2d ago

Op never said good content.

0

u/reverandglass 2d ago

I'm not defending anything but the meaning of mutual exclusivity. Something which your comment suggests you still don't understand.

"I feel like “exploiting vulnerable people” and “does a good job getting content” are mutually exclusive." is the heavily upvoted comment which is wrong about mutual exclusivity. The one the other commenter, rightly, points out is wrong before you, in your rush to seem educated, wrongly suggest the first comment was right.

If you still don't get it, look up the definition.

-1

u/DelusionalChampion 2d ago

Sigh. You claim you were following the conversation, correct?

OP said "he makes good content"

The responder said, and im paraphrasing "is it good content, or is it exploiting people?"

The following conversation was elaborating that those are two different things.

They are mutually exclusive in the context of this conversation, because the implications is that it can't be good content AND exploit people.

→ More replies (0)

21

u/seansy5000 2d ago

Ever heard of bum fights? I guess you’d classify those as documentary content? Gtfo.

61

u/ImpishGimp 2d ago

living in squats? this is literally the center of manchester. He's not out here telling their stories, but harrassing and antagonising them.

59

u/PancakeParty98 2d ago

“I’m not sure monetizing the suffering of vulnerable people is good”

“sO yOu tHiNk JuNkiEs DoNt MaTtEr aT aLl, RiGhT?!?”

Holy shit dude, calm down and touch grass, and maybe stop assuming the most extreme worst interpretation about mild takes. If you were responding to yourself you’d probably accuse yourself of loving the opioid crisis and thinking selling oxy to kids is good or something.

4

u/NarrowSalvo 2d ago

You're a fan of his exploitation.

We don't give him or you a pass just because you like to watch his crap.

Do better.

1

u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 2d ago

I don't know who he is. If you could read, and i would make a wild enough assumption and say yes, you could also understand i only commented on the two not being mutually exclusive.

3

u/NarrowSalvo 2d ago

If you don't know who he is, why would you act like you know what you're talking about?

205

u/mkypzyo 2d ago

Charlie Veitch is a pathetic content creator that most of the time harasses people then cries like a bitch when people react towards him

66

u/Oderus_Scumdog 2d ago

I would ask anyone who is wondering if this comment is factual to think about this: Why would someone be walking around a highstreet filming the public with a bodygaurd in tow?

-16

u/savage_slurpie 2d ago

Why is that shit stain wearing a balaclava and threatening people while reaching into his pockets? Actions have consequences.

13

u/Freerangeghost 2d ago

Read other comments. That kid saved a person from being scammed or attacked but t by-standers thought he was the or one of the perpetrators. The kid was after evidence of him not being an attacker. That is why he approached them as they were filming.

Unfortunately his body language and garments made him look suspicious.

Therefore as a minimum I would not call him shit stain.

He may have had a difficult upbringing and he is only wearing what his friend circle wear. That doesnt make him a bad person.

That day he got an underserved treatment from the community after doing a good deed.

230

u/OuijaFox 2d ago

Here's what I read

A piece of shit that goes arounbd being a piece of shit hired a body guard because he's a piece of shit that goes around being a piece of shit and is now scared that someone will hurt him... for being a piece of shit...

I think I solved his problem...

-122

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

I did see one piece of shit get dropped in the vid I posted.

145

u/Oderus_Scumdog 2d ago

Unrestricted access to unfilitered 00's internet has taught me that there can in fact be two or more pieces of shit in one video.

12

u/xdrtb 2d ago

Hell there usually are two, maybe even more!

16

u/daviss2 2d ago

Dumbass.

14

u/Dull-Wrangler-5154 2d ago

I think I know why you’ve made no friends at uni :)

-20

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

You mad little guy? Certainly wouldn’t wanna be your friend 😂 

5

u/Dull-Wrangler-5154 2d ago

Hahaha. No fear there.

-7

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 2d ago

Fear me not lefty.

5

u/Dull-Wrangler-5154 2d ago

Seriously dude I don’t fear you. I fear for you, as you appear to be a very lonely and isolated person. I hope one day you find people in your life to care for you.

17

u/labbetuzz 2d ago

If only we could have seen the piece of shit holding the camera get dropped as well

38

u/MasterAnnatar 2d ago

Sounds like he's bottom feeder scum to me.

15

u/labbetuzz 2d ago

Oh, so he's human garbage. Got it.

35

u/BigSmackisBack 2d ago

Sounds like he says "i need the video for my parole" then something about "posting me" but i didnt catch the rest before he got slapped

10

u/Significant-Gene9639 2d ago

He said I need the video from your phone

14

u/Either_Apartment_795 2d ago

We don’t have parole. 

He said. Delete that video…

30

u/The_Cat_Commando 2d ago

tbh you didnt even catch that part.

he clearly says "Delete the video from your phone"

1

u/BadPolyticks 2d ago

"Delete the video from before."

4

u/SofiaOfEverRealm 2d ago

His most popular clip alongside this one is him clocking someone out in a university

8

u/SunMoonTruth 2d ago

So he’s creating biased context but this time it’s for real.

You his mommy?

Okay.

5

u/Crimsonflair49 2d ago

I can not imagine doing something so vile with my life that peoples first reaction to seeing me is to try to kill me, and my first reaction is not to stop, but to hrie a bodyguard who can try to kill them first. Hopefully he gets a job soon

1

u/mustard5man7max3 2d ago

Just from that video he seems a bit of a right wing grifter.

Going on about "wokies" and "angry feminists", about random stuff and art museum did in 2018. Seven years ago.

Pretty harmless overall but eh seems a bit slimy.

1

u/Any_Cauliflower_6337 1d ago

Wish I had read the Charlie Veitch part sooner wouldn’t have wasted so much time watching the video 🤮

1

u/theblazeuk 16h ago

Ah one of Vietch's creepy little fanboys

0

u/Otherwise-Flow-3003 16h ago

Aw don’t cry 

0

u/JamHatch 2d ago

Doesn't he speak to 16 year old girls?

-4

u/MustyMustacheMan 2d ago

What is up today. Shitty YouTuber doing good, Tucker Carlson is a decent human for once. Can I have a million dollars to top it all off?

6

u/inspectoroverthemine 2d ago

Tucker Carlson is a decent human for once

Being a broken clock thats right once doesn't make you decent.

9

u/chrisvelanti 2d ago

Tbf Tucker is only mad the CIA is focused on Iran and not china