The Andrew Tate saga continues

[agreenwood]

Out of interest what will you be like if he is found not guilty?

Nearly everything out there suggests the evidence they have is minimal at best

I’ll still think he’s an absolute ******* cockroach and exactly the kind of man I hope my daughters never encounter.

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/ ... k-new-star

If he’s your cup of tea, then…..

[CFS]

He makes men who act like little boys feel like little boys from what I've seen/heard.

[Newcastleclaret93]

IF he's found innocent then he's innocent, I'll still think he's a tosspot.
He promotes the absolute worse behaviour with his grifting alpha male Garbage.

That’s fine,

It amazes me how ok the vast majority are on here that someone can be looked up for 3 months straight and then 3 months house arrest with absolutely no charges made against him.

Whatever stance you have on him you can appreciate his rights have been abused here.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That’s fine,

It amazes me how ok the vast majority are on here that someone can be looked up for 3 months straight and then 3 months house arrest with absolutely no charges made against him.

Whatever stance you have on him you can appreciate his rights have been abused here.

He's a flight risk I suspect.
There's a long list of things for the police to investigate before they could either charge or release him.

[daveisaclaret]

That’s fine,

It amazes me how ok the vast majority are on here that someone can be looked up for 3 months straight and then 3 months house arrest with absolutely no charges made against him.

Whatever stance you have on him you can appreciate his rights have been abused here.

He moved to Romania because he thought it was a good place for him to get away with the crimes he does. It is hard to be too sympathetic when it turns out not to be.

[Newcastleclaret93]

He moved to Romania because he thought it was a good place for him to get away with the crimes he does. It is hard to be too sympathetic when it turns out not to be.

You have to have broken the law to have committed a crime. He is innocent as it stands

[Greenmile]

You have to have broken the law to have committed a crime. He is innocent as it stands

Wrong.

He's not (yet) been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, but then neither has Jimmy Savile.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Wrong.

He's not (yet) been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, but then neither has Jimmy Savile.

So he is innocent? If you are not found guilty you have not committed a crime

[TheFamilyCat]

So he is innocent? If you are not found guilty you have not committed a crime

No. As soon as someone commits a crime they have committed a crime. Being found guilty of said crime is completely different.

[Bordeauxclaret]

So he is innocent? If you are not found guilty you have not committed a crime

Has that bloke arrested in Nottingham last week committed a crime then or not?

[Greenmile]

So he is innocent? If you are not found guilty you have not committed a crime

He's as innocent as Jimmy Savile, if that's the metric you want to use.

(I thought that was quite clear from my last post, but always happy to spell stuff out when required)

[Spiral]

So he is innocent? If you are not found guilty you have not committed a crime

I don't mean to come across as rude, but your understanding of justice is below even a rudimentary level, at the point where I honestly think it would be in your own best interest to inform yourself even of the terms used when talking about it. I don't think the pugilistic cadence of an internet forum is the best place to learn that, but I'm sure people would be willing to answer questions in earnest if you ask in earnest. For example, in law, 'innocent' and 'not guilty' are two different concepts, and you appear to be using them interchangeably, I assume from a position of genuine misunderstanding.

[Pickles]

Haven't followed this closely but do know for certain he's an absolute bellend. Don't know how tall he is but he reeks of small man syndrome.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but your understanding of justice is below even a rudimentary level, at the point where I honestly think it would be in your own best interest to inform yourself even of the terms used when talking about it. I don't think the pugilistic cadence of an internet forum is the best place to learn that, but I'm sure people would be willing to answer questions in earnest if you ask in earnest. For example, in law, 'innocent' and 'not guilty' are two different concepts, and you appear to be using them interchangeably, I assume from a position of genuine misunderstanding.

Spiral let’s keep it really simple

Has this man been found guilty of anything at all yet? If your answer is no what do you call him other than innocent

[Greenmile]

Spiral let’s keep it really simple

Has this man been found guilty of anything at all yet? If your answer is no what do you call him other than innocent

You seem to be missing a few posts, so I’ll try again.

Was Jimmy Savile innocent? How about the bloke who murdered those people in Nottingham the other day? Or Osama bin Laden?

None of these people have been found guilty in a court of law so, by your logic, they are / were innocent of the crimes everyone else knows they committed. Same thing with Tate (or Mason Greenwood, to pick out another recent example).

(the legal answer to your question, btw, is “not (yet) guilty”, not “innocent”)

[Spiral]

Spiral let’s keep it really simple

Has this man been found guilty of anything at all yet? If your answer is no what do you call him other than innocent

People investigated, arrested and charged, and not yet tried are as a matter of policy presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty (justice is an abstract concept, realised in the real, corporeal world through defined procedures we know as law and due process.) However, calling a person who has been arrested and charged 'innocent' is not a precise way of referring to them; a better term would be a suspect. I made a big post a bit back about certain terms carrying connotations that can muddy matters, and this conversation and the terms you're using are a perfect demonstration of what I alluded to. 'Innocent' carries connotations that must be avoided in this case: if innocent means "he did nothing" then why has he been arrested? It logically does not follow. Words such as 'suspect' and 'alleged offended' and 'accused' all connote the idea that a person may have committed a crime and that the police believe there is enough evidence of a crime being committed by them to pursue a prosecution, all the while preserving the idea in due process that a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until found guilty.

From this point of view I believe your insistence on referring to him as innocent comes from one of two places: either ignorance and a limited understanding of due process (which is forgivable), or, more unforgivably, if you're actually aware of the terms used to describe due process and are being deliberate, not clumsy, with the words you're using, in insisting on using the term innocent to describe him you are employing this word with its rhetorical force in mind (recall the point I made about the connotations contained within words), not its literal agreed-upon-by-consensus-use definition, as though the function in your use of the word is to downplay what he is accused of, possibly because you quite like him, or parts of what he says, even if you don't have the courage to admit it to others or even yourself.

It's useful for a person attempting to defend Tate to scrub away nuance, and soliciting 'simple' explanations as you are doing is a part of that attempt to scrub away nuance and present a binary world. Nuance in how things are categorised allows the police to remand a suspect in custody and deprive them of certain rights in pursuit of justice without contradicting their legal right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Newcastleclaret93]

People investigated, arrested and charged, and not yet tried are as a matter of policy presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty (justice is an abstract concept, realised in the real, corporeal world through defined procedures we know as law and due process.) However, calling a person who has been arrested and charged 'innocent' is not a precise way of referring to them; a better term would be a suspect. I made a big post a bit back about certain terms carrying connotations that can muddy matters, and this conversation and the terms you're using are a perfect demonstration of what I alluded to. 'Innocent' carries connotations that must be avoided in this case: if innocent means "he did nothing" then why has he been arrested? It logically does not follow. Words such as 'suspect' and 'alleged offended' and 'accused' all connote the idea that a person may have committed a crime and that the police believe there is enough evidence of a crime being committed by them to pursue a prosecution, all the while preserving the idea in due process that a person is innocent in the eyes of the law until found guilty.

From this point of view I believe your insistence on referring to him as innocent comes from one of two places: either ignorance and a limited understanding of due process (which is forgivable), or, more unforgivably, if you're actually aware of the terms used to describe due process and are being deliberate, not clumsy, with the words you're using, in insisting on using the term innocent to describe him you are employing this word with its rhetorical force in mind (recall the point I made about the connotations contained within words), not its literal agreed-upon-by-consensus-use definition, as though the function in your use of the word is to downplay what he is accused of, possibly because you quite like him, or parts of what he says, even if you don't have the courage to admit it to others or even yourself.

It's useful for a person attempting to defend Tate to scrub away nuance, and soliciting 'simple' explanations as you are doing is a part of that attempt to scrub away nuance and present a binary world. Nuance in how things are categorised allows the police to remand a suspect in custody and deprive them of certain rights in pursuit of justice without contradicting their legal right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

For the record I am not defending him.

I just can’t see how anyone can be happy that he has been locked up for 6 months prior to any charges. It’s very very dodgy

[CoolClaret]

The thing with the Tate apologists is they can’t put it together in their heads where/how he actually makes his money and buy into all the crap he comes out with

It’s clear that he’s a complete narcissist and is absolutely desperate for attention which has ultimately lead to the start of his downfall (Greta Twitter spat)

He constantly refers to ‘his business’ without ever disclosing what his business actually is - openly admitted that they chose to live in Romania because of the corruption

On record saying how he’s made tons from scamming moronic ‘fans’ with ‘Hustlers University’ yet he comes out with some crap to paint his self in a good light, trying to market himself as some sort of saviour of the west…

… despite all this the sycophants can’t connect the dots on why he lives in Romania, why he never declares what his business actually is and are now lapping up his ‘devout man of god/’ act

There’s videos of him online literally grabbing women by the neck, going ‘shut up b***’ slapping them and chucking them on the bed

Even if he gets found ‘not guilty’ he’s obviously an extremely shady man and shouldn’t be respected or admired at all.

[Spiral]

For the record I am not defending him.

I just can’t see how anyone can be happy that he has been locked up for 6 months prior to any charges. It’s very very dodgy

Did anyone break the law in extending his arrest? As far as I know it all went through the courts in a legal manner, so what exactly is 'dodgy' about it?

You are defending him, by the way. You're defending him by proxy of some contention with the length of his arrest. You might not even know you are defending him, but you are. There's a part of you that wants to contest his arrest not as a matter of human rights, but because he is in some way appealing to you and you'd rather he be free, even if that's a belief held only on some subconscious level. We can all see it; you might be the last one to realise it.

[Big Vinny K]

Spiral let’s keep it really simple

Has this man been found guilty of anything at all yet? If your answer is no what do you call him other than innocent

Under investigation - the authorities think he is guilty of some extremely serious charges. They are choosing to hold him because not only do they think he is very dangerous but with his vast resources it’s very likely that he will try and leave the country. And whilst they are holding him and the others they will presumably gather the evidence they require to try and prove his guilt.

You think he’s innocent do you ?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

20230531_173622.jpg (105.49 KiB) Viewed 952 times

[Newcastleclaret93]

Well time will tell if he’s guilty or not.
I personally think locking someone up for 6 months whilst they gather evidence is not right. But if that is the correct and legal way to do things then fair enough.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Under investigation - the authorities think he is guilty of some extremely serious charges. They are choosing to hold him because not only do they think he is very dangerous but with his vast resources it’s very likely that he will try and leave the country. And whilst they are holding him and the others they will presumably gather the evidence they require to try and prove his guilt.

You think he’s innocent do you ?

No I suspect he has done numerous illegal things. I don’t think anyone that wealthy gets there legally unfortunately.

Surely there’s easier ways to stop someone leaving the country than throwing them in prison?

[Rick_Muller]

Well time will tell if he’s guilty or not.
I personally think locking someone up for 6 months whilst they gather evidence is not right. But if that is the correct and legal way to do things then fair enough.

Massive difference between being under “house arrest” and being locked up for 6 months. The latter portrays an image of a scene from Porridge whereas the reality is that he was prevented from leaving the vicinity of his house.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Massive difference between being under “house arrest” and being locked up for 6 months. The latter portrays an image of a scene from Porridge whereas the reality is that he was prevented from leaving the vicinity of his house.

He spent just under four months in prison. He was then later given house arrest where he has been for two months.

[Rick_Muller]

He spent just under four months in prison. He was then later given house arrest where he has been for two months.

Fair enough. So it appears the laws of the land where he chose residence is being applied then?

[Newcastleclaret93]

Fair enough. So it appears the laws of the land where he chose residence is being applied then?

From what I can tell you can only be held for 24 hours without charges.

That is the point I have been arguing. But somehow it’s turned into people thinking I’m his number one fan haha

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Fair enough. So it appears the laws of the land where he chose residence is being applied then?

Yup and Newcastle is taking it personally for some reason.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

From what I can tell you can only be held for 24 hours without charges.

That is the point I have been arguing. But somehow it’s turned into people thinking I’m his number one fan haha

A quick Google shows it can be 80days initially and then extensions after that.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/f ... -detention

[Newcastleclaret93]

Yup and Newcastle is taking it personally for some reason.

Haha I’m not at all.

I literally just said if that’s the legal way it should be done then fine.

It seems incredibly strange though

[Rick_Muller]

From what I can tell you can only be held for 24 hours without charges.

That is the point I have been arguing. But somehow it’s turned into people thinking I’m his number one fan haha

You do appear to be a supporter (not saying you are). I’ve had a long interest in watching this parasite’s downfall after having to have many interesting persuasive arguments with my adult children about him. I suppose my life experience means I can see him for what he is, whilst younger members of society (usually misguide young men) appear drawn into the dark web of his world view.

I hope he gets justice…

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Haha I’m not at all.

I literally just said if that’s the legal way it should be done then fine.

It seems incredibly strange though

It's Romanian law, whilst it may seem strange to you, it isn't to them

Tate wanted to be there because he thought he could get away with his shitty behaviour, he's now finding out that even they have limits.

[JohnMac]

I must admit to not knowing who the heck he is.

[Clovius Boofus]

We were only talking about this piece of **** at the weekend while out in Manchester for a few beers. At least the people I was supping with were all in agreement that you quickly find out who the lowlife slugs are whenever his name is mentioned. You have to be some kind of chav scroat to be fighting his corner on the internet or while making general conversation at work or in the pub.

[daveisaclaret]

The other side of the coin from what a couple of posters earlier explained marks Newcastle's posts out as clear Tate apologia is how quickly it backtracks from "Nearly everything out there suggests the evidence they have is minimal at best" and "He is innocent as it stands" to "No I suspect he has done numerous illegal things."

[Big Vinny K]

No I suspect he has done numerous illegal things. I don’t think anyone that wealthy gets there legally unfortunately.

Surely there’s easier ways to stop someone leaving the country than throwing them in prison?

What would you suggest ?
Asking him to make a pinkie promise ?

[Newcastleclaret93]

It's Romanian law, whilst it may seem strange to you, it isn't to them

Tate wanted to be there because he thought he could get away with his shitty behaviour, he's now finding out that even they have limits.

Yes I find it strange but if that’s their law then fair enough.

Live by the sword, die by it I guess

[daveisaclaret]

From what I can tell you can only be held for 24 hours without charges.

That is the point I have been arguing. But somehow it’s turned into people thinking I’m his number one fan haha

Have you considered doing one Google search before deciding what you can tell?

[Newcastleclaret93]

The other side of the coin from what a couple of posters earlier explained marks Newcastle's posts out as clear Tate apologia is how quickly it backtracks from "Nearly everything out there suggests the evidence they have is minimal at best" and "He is innocent as it stands" to "No I suspect he has done numerous illegal things."

No from what I have read I think he’s not guilty in this circumstance but I suspect he’s guilt of numerous different things probably fraud etc….

Like I said there’s no way anyone can make that much money that quickly through legal means.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Have you considered doing one Google search before deciding what you can tell?

I did I couldn’t see anything. DJ kindly found it

[daveisaclaret]

I did I couldn’t see anything. DJ kindly found it

I don't mean to be rude but if you can't Google "how can Andrew Tate be held for six months without charge" then I hope you can see why everyone thinks it's really stupid that you have made the judgement he's not guilty of rape, human trafficking or forming an organised crime group

[Newcastleclaret93]

I don't mean to be rude but if you can't Google "how can Andrew Tate be held for six months without charge" then I hope you can see why everyone thinks it's really stupid that you have made the judgement he's not guilty of rape, human trafficking or forming an organised crime group

I didn’t exactly do a deep dive haha. The evidence can Apparantly be made public on the 29th June, it will be interesting to see what there is.

If he’s guilty of all of that he should spend his life in prison.

[daveisaclaret]

I didn’t exactly do a deep dive haha. The evidence can Apparantly be made public on the 29th June, it will be interesting to see what there is.

If he’s guilty of all of that he should spend his life in prison.

So how did you decide that from what you could see they could only hold him for 24 hours? It's labouring the point but making things up like that to try and frame him as being treated unfairly is openly apologetic.

[Rileybobs]

This is all very weird.

[Clovius Boofus]

One thing is for sure. If you move to a foreign country, best not to bang on about there being no law, because saying such things just might come back and bite you on your arse.

[Big Vinny K]

This is all very weird.

That’s the spectrum of this message board
Has there ever been a thread where there is unanimous agreement ?

In fact that’s a good thread to start - “has there ever been a thread where we all agree ?’

Personally I blame Brexit

[Spiral]

No from what I have read I think he’s not guilty in this circumstance but I suspect he’s guilt of numerous different things probably fraud etc….

Like I said there’s no way anyone can make that much money that quickly through legal means.

You have a...ahem...suspicion about him, yet find it a leap that the police might also have a...ahem...suspicion about him? Does it really require much imagination to consider the possibility that Romanian law enforcement has more information that people on the internet outside of Romania? He's been under investigation since April (I believe) of 2022.

BTW, he's clearly a grifter and he is quite open about how his pyramid scheme and camgirl businesses work, but I don't think he's one fraction as wealthy as he presents himself. His cars are rentals, as are the jet skis and such, he surrounds himself with prostitutes — not that I have a problem with sex workers, my point is that when he isn't grooming vulnerable and impressionable women, the women you see around him are usually paid to endure him. Women are terrified of men like him, and only stupid boys think that women find his whole persona attractive. His whole grift is about scamming people for money as a guru on how to be Andrew Tate. He's basically the Wizard of Oz, a complete fabrication. Curates an image of wealth and 'success' (whatever that means according to his insane morality), leverages that image as a marketable brand, sells it to aimless and impressionable young guys.

It goes like this: Young man 'X' wants to be like Andrew Tate. Tate says: 'pay me, I'll show you how." 'X' pays Tate. The lesson? "Be like Andrew Tate. Create a pyramid scheme, like Tate. Set up an illegal pimping business, like Tate." His answer to the question, "how can I be like Andrew Tate," seems to be, "be like Andrew Tate." There's about three brain cells combined between every one of his supporters. He's got a bit of money, because criminals usually do, but you need to understand that his grift absolutely requires him to present himself as being wealthier than he is. It totally collapses otherwise. So know that whatever you see, it is by necessity a fabrication. That is fundamental to how a pyramid scheme works.

[Jakubclaret]

I must admit to not knowing who the heck he is.

I don't have a jar of glue as well I don't know him from Adam if he walked past me on the same street, I do think he's getting more publicity than he perhaps deserves & it's probably wise to just let due justice take it's course, no doubt if he really is guilty he'll be found to be guilty, I don't agree with excess publicity because it can often become problematic during legal processes.

[CoolClaret]

Articulated a lot better than I was trying to say - perhaps literature is important after all

Yeah they’ve valued his estimated assets at £10mill - not poor by any stretch of the imagination but not quite Bezos as he’d have you believe…

[Spiral]

I don't have a jar of glue as well I don't know him from Adam if he walked past me on the same street, I do think he's getting more publicity than he perhaps deserves & it's probably wise to just let due justice take it's course, no doubt if he really is guilty he'll be found to be guilty, I don't agree with excess publicity because it can often become problematic during legal processes.

I don't think there's a living, English speaking person in the world under the age of 25 who doesn't know who he is or has an opinion on him, and the trouble is that for reasons I mentioned in my last post, his alleged crimes are somewhat interlinked with his influence, because it's his publicity and notoriety that makes him who he is, and because he has a lot of influence over a tremendous amount of people (mainly clueless young lads) this immediately becomes national news because his fame elevates this to national public interest. He's kind of totemic of a wider culture. This isn't just some bloke robbing a corner shop or something, which is why it's front page on the BBC and such.