Andrew Tate

You previously said you view OJ Simpson as guilty? That's completely unacceptable by your own logic.

I think that it's likely they will be convicted for the record. The evidence is pretty overwhelming from what we've seen so far. He literally refers to raping them and the enjoyment he got from it.

Evidence can prove that people are not guilty.

And it is @suvigirl 's opinion that they are guilty and that it's highly unlikely that all these women are lying. I don't believe there's much credibility to the idea that all these women congregated together and made up false allegations.

So based on the actions of the Tate and the evidence that's currently readily available, there's absolutely nothing wrong with viewing them as guilty. It's obviously an opinion but it's an opinion backed up with facts. You just seem to be trying to pick on anyone who shares their opinion. It's very petty.

"I find the tired old "I'm not defending [insert name of beloved rightist grifter here] but I intend to frustrated discussion as much as possible" quite tedious at this point"

Excusing the terrible grammar, I don't particularly care if what you find tedious. I find biased moderation tedious but you seem to have no issue with that.

I have not defended either of the Tates and have POINTEDLY said I find the accusations credible. I have spoken about their misogynistic attitudes and how I don't agree with them.

Yet you are happy to insinuate that I am defending them by not judging them as guilty until their trial.

Seems like you think you should be able to call someone a rapist as a matter of fact before they have been on trial.

I disagree.

Did a quick google.

Haven't watched the link myself but I believe that this kind of backs up what I said. Having said that, I don't take this as gospel either

Andrew Tate: 'I'm not a victim' say two women involved in investigation (bbc.com)

Cool.

I guess we can just state everything as fact if we believe it enough.

I do love how me saying that the Tates accusers have very credible allegations and I hope that they are convicted to the fullest extent of the law if proven guilty has turned people into accusing me of being a defacto sympathiser of the people who I SPECIFICALLY said could very easily be proven guilty, OJ Simpson, Trump and now apparently Michael Jackson.

You are convinced without seeing all the evidence. Thats ok. But that doesn't make you right or fully informed.

I hope that you never are on a jury with such a mindset.

Yep. Two women that were potential victims say they aren't victims. They should be ignored?

Believe all women…. when it suits you.

I look forward to not engaging with you.

Not ignored but it doesn't suddenly put in doubt the people who have said they have been raped. The women who have provided messages, audio etc where Tate actually referred to raping them. I'm sure plenty of rapists have had consensual relationships, that doesn't suddenly make them suddenly less likely to have raped.

The same video you provided also depicts them as incredibly respectful etc. That doesn't align with other accounts of them. So at most it just illustrates that they behaved differently around different women. The central premise of your claim that multiple women in different countries has resulted in the police not only having evidence of rape but also evidence of organised crime and trafficking. That's soundly progressively more outlandish and it's pretty clear there's strong cases in two jurisdictions against them.

I think it's quite fortunate you can't be on trial for being a loathsome prick.

Some people want to make having a different opinion illegal.

And in the same breath accuse them of being a fascist.

No. Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That's a basic premise of the justice system.

People assuming them to be guilty, has nothing to do with the court case and whatever it finds. It has no bearing on it.

Oh my dear child.

That is demonstrably untrue.

Which is the reasoning of me posting in this thread.

Do I think the Tate brothers are guilty? I don't know but there is a lot of evidence that indicates they are! I will wait until all the evidence is made public before I make my judgement. I find them odious and don't agree with them but I will hold back on definitively assuming their guilt until at least I have the most information available to me.

"YOU **** MONSTER!!! YOU LOVE BILL COSBY AND JIMMY SAVILLE AND TRUMP AND MICHAEL JACKSON. YOU DEFEND THEM. YOU DEFEND THEM SO MUCH"

Your patronising means nothing to me. I'm far from a child.

And you can assume they are innocent if you wish, but claiming numerous victims in different jurisdictions are all making it up, is assuming those women to be guilty of a crime.

So no, me believing their guilt or your believing they are innocent makes no difference whatsoever to the trial. But your defence seems to be based on the fact that the women may be liars.

Mmmmmm.

I was asked to show evidence that women who have been assumed as victims have come out and said they were not.

I did that.

I did not say it was evidence that other women were lying.

You have to laugh.

Everyone has the right to be assumed innocent…..(unless I want to believe the accusation)

Not at all.

I believe them to be guilty, based on the evidence I have seen and heard, most of it from their own mouths on documentaries and interviews. I also find it highly unlikely that numerous women in different jurisdictions have conspired to make up lies about them.

My belief has no affect on a court case. None. They may be found not guilty. If that is the case, then they are legally, not guilty.

You seem to believe that if they are found not guilty, the women are liars. You assume the guilt of numerous women.

Just because someone is found not guilty of a crime, it doesn't mean the crime didn't happen. Perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yup. You have based your opinion on accusations and have determined your result without waiting for a defence.

I don't assume women are liars.

I assume that some women lie.

I know they do.

@Yvonne007 is entirely right in how she responded to you. I don't agree with her previous points about pre-judging the Tates. I think we clearly can in terms of their obvious guilt on charges of exploitation and abuse of women. They wrote the handbook on it then proceeded to enact it in Romania. They've condemned themselves. We cannot however (yet) refer to them as rapists of traffickers as it's thus far unproven. I expect them to fail in their defence of such charges in either Romania or England (or both) but all that the other poster is stating is that until then we wait until the trial. And yes, guilty people sometimes get off whilst innocent ones get incarcerated but we've got to have some faith in the Romanian judges (no juries) and the English jury to return a fair verdict based on the sentence.

The Tates are w@nkers but are they rapists? I personally think so but will await the verdict(s). Most, if not all, posters here aren't so far apart on this. No fans of the cretins here, simply a matter of letting due process take its course and celebrating when they're lengthily incarcerated.

.

That's the one! It's no the room itself I find odd, it's the books that were hidden away in there.

A guy on reddit put a great post together about them -

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/t29l3r/evidence_books_found_on_michael_jacksons_property/

Oh I know they're two totally different cases. The point I was making was that people can still make their minds up about a case on the evidence presented, separate to the trial outcome itself.

I'm more than sure the Tate's will be found guilty and I am really looking forward to hearing about them being locked up.

I see he's running for prime minister now. Jesus.

The UK apparently. Endorsed by Elon. I'm actually laughing at the idea.

Isn't he under house arrest in Romania?

BRUV party. Britain Restoring Underling Values.

Yeah he's taking the piss out of them as well and they refuse to acknowledge that they're being had.