Appreciate you are trying to take this off topic to try and get the thread closed but no one is trying to brush anything under the carpet with them so dont see the parallel.
Last edited:
Tate Brothers - Round 2
- Thread starter Ice Tea
- Start date
Appreciate you are trying to take this off topic to try and get the thread closed but no one is trying to brush anything under the carpet with them so dont see the parallel.
Soldato
Is this some kind of early CT cope?
Why would it be humiliating for them. Its their legal system so its their rules and timings. You cannot apply our logic and timings to their system.
You would like to hope that if there is decent evidence he will be found guilty, and if not, then not.
We know its not up to Western standards, hell even Tate told us that.
I would assume Tate has local lawyers so they are well on top of the local law, but also UK or US so they can try to make sure the process is not corrupt by our standards.
Normally when there are signs of corruption to eg Western nationals a UK/US solicitor will say so. Often this will be repeated by the local embassy.
Why would it be humiliating for them. Its their legal system so its their rules and timings. You cannot apply our logic and timings to their system.
You would like to hope that if there is decent evidence he will be found guilty, and if not, then not.
We know its not up to Western standards, hell even Tate told us that.
I would assume Tate has local lawyers so they are well on top of the local law, but also UK or US so they can try to make sure the process is not corrupt by our standards.
Normally when there are signs of corruption to eg Western nationals a UK/US solicitor will say so. Often this will be repeated by the local embassy.
What is the ‘cope’ crap people keep spouting on here? It makes no difference to me what happens to them.
My point is they have been pre-judged by many to be guilty and this process is seen as a way to silence them - it will be humiliating for Romania to have to let them go after all these months and all the bluster.
Its good that they have your support for a fair trial and you think they are innocent so far.
Last edited:
Soldato
Lol (you forgot to put your humour disclaimer in your post)
"Cope crap" is what happens when some people round here (like they did in the Huw thread) start saying well its a cover up if hes not found guilty. Its that type of thing.
It comes from people who make decisions based on lack of facts then rather than admitting as such if proven wrong, they then got to some other coping mechanism.
It wont be humiliating at all. Thats just your bias. YOU have decided this is a way to silence them. See what I said about people who make judgements based on no facts...
I believe they thought Tate would flee to the US to avoid justice. He can do that and the US are historically very very unlikely to extradite any US citizen for foreign justice.
Even the UK when the person is basically a known killer.
My suspicion is they are going to be at least partly guilt of some of the charges. So no I don't think they are innocent so far at all.
I find it hilarious your comments in here however after the stuff you were putting in the Huw thread.
There is no cover up with the Tates - they are being investigated (albeit amateurishly by all accounts) and have denied all charges - unlike The BBC case where you and others were minimising and dismissing the allegations, ironic given the perpertator hasn't even denied them and The BBC are saying there are so many allegations that it could take months to investigate...
It won't be humiliating for the Romanian police when they have to drop off all the cars on the 10oclock news righto...
So you dont think the Tates are innocent until proven guilty then, in fact you are pre judging them without the all facts - make your mind up lol..
Soldato
Sounds like you have all the knowledge and facts about this case so why don't you share it with the Police? I'm sure Romanian population will be grateful if you can save their tax money.
I'm sure they have access to all the same info as me but at least you agree they are lacking if you think they need my help
Soldato
There is no cover up with the Tates - they are being investigated (albeit amateurishly by all accounts) and have denied all charges - unlike The BBC case where you and others were minimising and dismissing the allegations, ironic given the perpertator hasn't even denied them and The BBC are saying there are so many allegations that it could take months to investigate...
It won't be humiliating for the Romanian police when they have to drop off all the cars on the 10oclock news righto...
So you dont think the Tates are innocent until proven guilty then, in fact you are pre judging them without the all facts - make your mind up lol..
Your so odd.
My position in regards Huw was that there seemed little evidence, local police had already said there was nothing in the Sun dossier, then Met confirmed. I was pretty convinced and remain even more so now that the Sun was on a fishing expedition. They assumed there was more and a bit of bait would be enough.
Maybe there will be, and if there is then Huw should be charged with offenses and I fully support that.
Same with Wootton. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for him though.
Same with Tates. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for them though.
Where is the amateurish stuff? Again are you using decent sources? I see so little about it from any sources really.
Can you post some of this up?
You seem very confused on how the law and process works. Maybe this is why you make some of the statements you do. The police investigate, they charge (in most places) and then thats their bit done. The courts then do their bit. Taking the evidence and deciding if on balance of probability the charges are correct and whether the person charged did indeed do what they were accused of. Its not a perfect system in any country.
I am not sure why you struggle so hard. I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes. Just like you did with Huw
, I can form a view and a position on that based on what I have seen, I suspect that the Tates have done some dodgy stuff.It's pretty obvious to anyone who's looked into this that Andrew Tate hasn't actually done anything, the women have openly said they were always treated well and looked after and they don't consider themselves victims. It's some bizarre witch hunt seemingly because he's an influencer who says things that people don't like. I think people should try and separate things that are said for social media, as click bait, jokes, etc, to get likes and follows from who the people really are. Andrew Tate has a family and kids, no women who actually know him have a bad word to say about him, by all accounts he's not a bad bloke. He just has controversial views which seem to be enough that people want to see him locked up.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm sure they have access to all the same info as me but at least you agree they are lacking if you think they need my help
thanks for confirming that you know next to nothing about the case
Your so odd.
My position in regards Huw was that there seemed little evidence, local police had already said there was nothing in the Sun dossier, then Met confirmed. I was pretty convinced and remain even more so now that the Sun was on a fishing expedition. They assumed there was more and a bit of bait would be enough.
Maybe there will be, and if there is then Huw should be charged with offenses and I fully support that.
Same with Wootton. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for him though.
Same with Tates. Not guilty until found guilty by a court. "Evidence" sounds a bit rough for them though.
Where is the amateurish stuff? Again are you using decent sources? I see so little about it from any sources really.
Can you post some of this up?
You seem very confused on how the law and process works. Maybe this is why you make some of the statements you do. The police investigate, they charge (in most places) and then thats their bit done. The courts then do their bit. Taking the evidence and deciding if on balance of probability the charges are correct and whether the person charged did indeed do what they were accused of. Its not a perfect system in any country.
I am not sure why you struggle so hard. I believe in innocent until proven guilty yes. Just like you did with Huw
You keep going on about Huw and now have added DW - maybe you should start a seperate thread for celebrity sexual exploiters rather than taking this OT..
You keep making these posts like you are disagreeing with me but then either contradict yourself or are agreeing with me without seemingly realising lol.
not sure how you got that from my post but as long as you are not disagreeing with my post thats ok.
what?
Man of Honour
I watched a documentary earlier this year where at least 4 women accused him of rape so I don't know what Roar is on about
Permabanned
How long after the alleged events did these women wait before they went to the police? Did they go to the police at all? Did they in fact actually "go back for more" contact after the alleged rapes?
Or can they simply smell easy money and are suddenly mortified and aghast at what supposedly occurred, but "reasons" stopped them mentioning this most serious crime until whenever?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I suppose you are right, it was a crime against humanity that people like Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Jimmy Savile etc were accused of rape years later.
I wonder what stopped all of those mentioning these most serious crimes until whenever?
Permabanned
The scent of easy money wasn't on the wind at the time?
Caporegime
Rape is severely under-prosecuted because it can be so hard to prove unless evidence is gathered almost immediately.
It's also pretty well researched and known that people are unlikely to report a crime against someone who has a lot more status (power) than they do because they feel they won't be believed, they'll be targeted, they'll be embarrassed, it might ruin their current relationship, etc.
However, once the seal is broken, as we have seen with people like Weinstein, victims realise that they can and will be heard.
Are there people who just want some money out of it? Of course, but to tar everyone with that brush is a disgusting attitude tbh.
It's also pretty well researched and known that people are unlikely to report a crime against someone who has a lot more status (power) than they do because they feel they won't be believed, they'll be targeted, they'll be embarrassed, it might ruin their current relationship, etc.
However, once the seal is broken, as we have seen with people like Weinstein, victims realise that they can and will be heard.
Are there people who just want some money out of it? Of course, but to tar everyone with that brush is a disgusting attitude tbh.
I may be wrong here as I haven't kept up recently with the Tate stuff. But I think the four women accused him of rape between 2013 and 2016 in the UK. As far as I'm aware Tate wasn't charged with those allegations and the four women are now pursuing a civil case for monetary compensation.
So those four women aren't involved in this case. Again I might be wrong but I seem to recall that the women involved in the Romanian case have denied they were victims. But the Romanian authorities believe there is still enough evidence to prosecute them. I'm not sure if there are other women in the Romanian case who still assert they are victims.
As I said, I may be wrong on this as I haven't really kept up with it lately. But I think that is what @Roar87 was referring to when he said the women have said that Tate hasn't done anything.
Soldato
Indeed this was my understanding. There could be other stuff that they are trying to collect more evidence of, who knows.
Hate to bring it back to the Huw case but its got interesting parallels.
People mention the expensive lawyer, inferring that the "victim" could be benefitting somehow for denying the accusation.
And also that the victim could be lying. Same can happen here. Especially if there has been significant threats in the past in regards say violence if someone was to go to the police.
Its not unheard of that victims are so under the influence of the accused that they will deny anything despite there being strong evidence that the crime did take place.