Tate Brothers - Round 2

GGizmo said:
Fast on the news that Andrew Tate is running a BRUV campaign to be Prime Minister of the UK, he thought it was a good idea to bully Samantha, a victim child grooming, a subject Tate professes to be against.


Many in his own base are against this move. Though of course his beta males go on the attack if anyone posts against him.
Click to expand...
Bullying? False accusations of rape against men is not something to be dismissed. I see people trying to defend her because she was a victim of child grooming but that does not excuse making such claims, even more so the entire case has been dismissed.

People need to be held accountable for what they say. She should have kept her mouth shut and not made such claims in the first place if she wasn't ready to follow through on it.
 
Last edited:
Kanpai said:
Bullying? False accusations of rape against men is not something to be dismissed. I see people trying to defend her because she was a victim of child grooming but that does not excuse making such claims, even more so the entire case has been dismissed.

People need to be held accountable for what they say. She should have kept her mouth shut and not made such claims in the first place if she wasn't ready to follow through on it.
Click to expand...
Nothing she has said as damaged Tates reputation. She as also apologised in public for what she repeated.

I suspect any case would be thrown out anyway. This is just bad PR.

How do you think this will effect Tates chances on getting votes for his BRUV campaign, assuming he's serious?
 
Last edited:
GGizmo said:
She as also apologised in public for what she repeated.
Click to expand...
She only apologized because she got their attention and the mention of a lawsuit made her retract.

If someone made posts online about you accusing you of rape how would you feel about that?

Anyways, it looks like they have told her they won't take it up with their lawyers but have reported it to the police.
 
GGizmo said:
She as also apologised in public for what she repeated.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's a poor excuse... If I falsely accused you on a public forum of being a rapist or child molestor and then at a later date apologised, Would you just let it go and "no harm done"?
 
The point I was making in my post wasn't about the legal right or wrongs of any case. But of the bad PR of someone who claims to be against child grooming chooses, out of the thousands of people to go after, a victim of child grooming.
 
Kanpai said:
Irrelevant here, she's a journalist and has a level of reach for such accusations to spread. Why should there be pity because of her past? It doesn't eradicate what was said.
Click to expand...
The act of suing her would only negatively impact Tate.

The vast majority of Tates female supporters started speaking up against the decision. This would inevitably influence many of their mutual male supporters.

Tate didn't just drop the case. His true allies obviously said something similar to what I said. He realised the bad PR and publicity and dropped the case.
 
GGizmo said:
The point I was making in my post wasn't about the legal right or wrongs of any case. But of the bad PR of someone who claims to be against child grooming chooses, out of the thousands of people to go after, a victim of child grooming.
Click to expand...

"Going after someone" should not be decided simply because they were victim of x, y and z. Following this logic could some people believe they are untouchable "I can say/do what I want as I am a victim of x/y/z and so no one can do anything about it"

For example - If you publicly called me out for being involved in the fraudulent claiming of disability benefits then later apologised for it, are you suggesting I cant "go after you" simply because you are disabled yourself?
 
Richie said:
"Going after someone" should not be decided simply because they were victim of x, y and z. Following this logic could some people believe they are untouchable "I can say/do what I want as I am a victim of x/y/z and so no one can do anything about it"

For example - If you publicly called me out for being involved in the fraudulent claiming of disability benefits then later apologised for it, are you suggesting I cant "go after you" simply because you are disabled yourself?
Click to expand...
No, but it would make you a weak beta male getting in bed with the matrix, needing the corrupt government courts to fight your battles........ or something, right ?
 
On the plus side, his political party may split the right wing vote even more so that labour win all the time.
 
sityeuropa said:
I can't compute.
Click to expand...

Well, if you've got all the right wing voters splitting up and either voting conservative, Reform or BRUV(lol), none of them will ever win.

I very much doubt that those who voted for Labour are going to be voting for BRUV anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
"Going after someone" should not be decided simply because they were victim of x, y and z. Following this logic could some people believe they are untouchable "I can say/do what I want as I am a victim of x/y/z and so no one can do anything about it"

For example - If you publicly called me out for being involved in the fraudulent claiming of disability benefits then later apologised for it, are you suggesting I cant "go after you" simply because you are disabled yourself?
Click to expand...
I've not said you can't go after anyone you like.

But if after claiming to be a champion of the disabled and the cops arrest you for disability fraud.

As news gets around people start talking how you've frauded the system.

Then the investigation is dropped.

If out of, lets say 100 people have said it including 5 disabled people, you pick a disabled person to sue first. You're credibility as a disabled champion will have gone.
 
Well that's just some olympic level mental gymnastics to justify a position right there :cry:

So, in that position you, as a disabled person, can say whatever you want about me, and I can only sue you, as long as I ensure I also sue some able-bodied people that have said similar too, else I'll lose all credibility? :confused:
 
Richie said:
Well that's just some olympic level mental gymnastics to justify a position right there :cry:

So, in that position you, as a disabled person, can say whatever you want about me, and I can only sue you, as long as I ensure I also sue some able-bodied people that have said similar too, else I'll lose all credibility? :confused:
Click to expand...
It's not me making the rules.

Why do you think Tate backed off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom