Tate Brothers - Round 2

Just watched the video of him chatting about how he’s desensitised to violence and would mess up a terrorist if he came across one. What a ****.
 
Tony Edwards said:
No. One mans next generation e-commerce platform is actually sex trafficking it would seem.
Click to expand...
You just don’t understand business.

It’s like in America now there is this charitable entrepreneur who tried to financially support former partners and they are trying to put him in prison for it.
 
Last edited:
ANDREW GREEN said:
They have to show a judge considerable evidence that he's done the crime and that he's a flight risk. He stated on one of his videos he would use multiple passports to evade the law.
Click to expand...
I suspect it's the passport issue as I think around the time they were arrested there was talk of them moving to the middle east.
 
Roar87 said:
It's nice there's someone essentially teaching young men stoicism when they're often taught the opposite by the female centric education system and probably nothing by their weak directionless parents
Click to expand...
It's certainly an "ism", but not the one you claim it to be.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
They have to show a judge considerable evidence that he's done the crime and that he's a flight risk. He stated on one of his videos he would use multiple passports to evade the law.
Click to expand...
While the flight risk part makes sense, the part about showing a judge "considerable evidence that he'd done the crime" doesn't. If they had considerable evidence then they would have charged him rather than extended his arrest for more investigation.

Note, I'm not saying he won't be charged eventually, just that if they had all the evidence right now then he would already have been charged.
 
Hades said:
While the flight risk part makes sense, the part about showing a judge "considerable evidence that he'd done the crime" doesn't. If they had considerable evidence then they would have charged him rather than extended his arrest for more investigation.

Note, I'm not saying he won't be charged eventually, just that if they had all the evidence right now then he would already have been charged.
Click to expand...

When you don't have to charge or release why rush? You can use the time to keep building the case.
 
Hades said:
While the flight risk part makes sense, the part about showing a judge "considerable evidence that he'd done the crime" doesn't. If they had considerable evidence then they would have charged him rather than extended his arrest for more investigation.

Note, I'm not saying he won't be charged eventually, just that if they had all the evidence right now then he would already have been charged.
Click to expand...

Romanian Ex-Cons reckon it usually takes their courts to take about 5 years to actually put a case in court after the time of arrest. Their turn around there is slow regardless of evidence. They think they'll put this one through quicker because of the international scrutiny though
 
Hades said:
While the flight risk part makes sense, the part about showing a judge "considerable evidence that he'd done the crime" doesn't. If they had considerable evidence then they would have charged him rather than extended his arrest for more investigation.

Note, I'm not saying he won't be charged eventually, just that if they had all the evidence right now then he would already have been charged.
Click to expand...

Yeah as I've mentioned previously it seems political, I assume they were in the process of investigating him but someone high up has decided they want him brought in thus this slightly farcical situation of repeatedly extending his time on remand without actually charging him (presumably because the investigators haven't built the case, yet!).
 
Hades said:
While the flight risk part makes sense, the part about showing a judge "considerable evidence that he'd done the crime" doesn't. If they had considerable evidence then they would have charged him rather than extended his arrest for more investigation.

Note, I'm not saying he won't be charged eventually, just that if they had all the evidence right now then he would already have been charged.
Click to expand...

RE the flight risk, from this article back in Feb:
www.bbc.co.uk

Andrew Tate loses appeal against latest detention

The controversial influencer and his brother Tristan will remain in custody until 29 March.
www.bbc.co.uk

"But the court ruled that the brothers should remain in detention on grounds of protecting public order, and removed three other grounds for holding him - including his potential flight risk, or his influence over alleged victims."

It does seem a bit odd/off.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
When you don't have to charge or release why rush? You can use the time to keep building the case.
Click to expand...
Is there a law, that I am not aware of that states, once a person has been charged the police must cease all investigation and no new evidence is permitted?

If you have good enough evidence to charge someone, then you charge them. There is no reason to wait. AFAIK you can still add more evidence after the charges have been issued. You also avoid this nonsense where you have to keep going back to a judge to ask for an extension.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
I'm not sure about Romanian law but, in the UK, once a person is charged, they cannot be interviewed about that case again...
Click to expand...
Fair point. Though my first instinct is if you have evidence that he is guilty, you interview him then charge him. Not being able to interview him after shouldn't matter to the police. Unless the evidence isn't as black and white as people have been making it out to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom