Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Andrew Tate

17475767880

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,263 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    There are countless reasons someone can be found not guilty in a case. Sure wasn't Michael Jackson found not guilty on all counts. (the guy literally had a secret locked closet in his bedroom with a unit with two books full of photos of underage boys. "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy: A Photographic Essay,")

    Jurors found the prosecution's case weak and the timeline of accusations problematic because they had claimed the molestation allegedly occurred after the broadcast of the documentary, when the world's attention was on Jackson and Gavin.

    All that really means is that the case put forward by the prosecution wasn't up to scratch and the whole thing was impacted by the 'Living with Michael Jackson' documentary.

    Doesn't actually mean he didn't do it. Sometimes when cases end like this we just have to weigh up the facts ourselves based on what we are looking at.

    I'm more than convinced Michael Jackson was a paedophile on some level and I'm also more than sure the Tate brothers are misogynistic monsters who have abused women.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,734 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    So, two women who might have been victims say they aren't? That lends absolutely no credibility to the defence. You are suggesting that because two of the women who were named as potential victims say they are not that this calls into question the other victims.

    Also "Beatrice and Jasmin - who have tattoos with the Tate brother's surname on it" - fucking lol.

    I will not engage with you further on this as I believe you are not posting in good faith.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭optogirl


    You surely know, though, that the likelihood of each of these women making up their claims is extremely low. Statistics show that men are much more likely to be raped themselves than falsely accused of rape so if all of these women are lying it would certainly be a strange phenomenon. Of course, judicial process must take place and sentencing or lack thereof must be based on fact and evidence but the outcome of the court case won't change my mind about AT or his supporters. Unfortunately you can't go on trial for being a loathsome pric*.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,297 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    No. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    The evidence proves guilt.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    Lol.

    Apart from the fact that multiple posters have admitted to assuming guilt already?

    And no DNA evidence has ever proven someone to be innocent?

    Silly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    I was asked to cite an example of women saying that the Tates allegations were not true. I gave an example.

    I never said that discounted the evidence of people I have REPEATEDLY said are credible.

    I have already said that I don't like the Tates. I find them to be misogynistic and disrespectful.

    That isn't enough hateful rhetoric though.

    I must learn the right amount of hate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    Not sure what this proves other then these two women are not victims.

    I'm assuming they haven't made statements of complaint, they are not going to be witnesses for the prosecution.

    Sure the same can be said about me, I'm not a victim. That doesn't mean other women are not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    You are all over the place.

    You say that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    I agree.

    I agree also that the Tates have credible accusations levelled against them.

    I will refrain from making my mind up.

    I do believe women can be liars.

    I also believe men can be predators.

    I won't be happy at either verdict, but I will be happy that justice will be served based on evidence.

    I'm such a monster.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,037 ✭✭✭optogirl


    In fairness my comment was glib and of course I don't feel that people should be jailed for being arseho*es. However I do think that much of his discourse is horrific and if he can be shut up, I would be glad to see it .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    I get that and sorry that I pulled you up on it. I recognised it was glib and probably was a little bit precious because everything I have been saying has either been taken too seriously or presumed to be in bad faith.

    I get what you meant and I am sorry that I was a little harsh.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Yvonne007


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,911 ✭✭✭✭suvigirl


    You must have missed the first part

    'based on the evidence I have seen and heard, most of it from their own mouths on documentaries and interviews.

    I'm not sure why you are quick to dismiss women as liars though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,818 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    @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.

    .

    Post edited by Seathrun66 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,818 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    Is this the secret closet you referred to? The panic room that was already there when he purchased the place. Whatever the truth about Jackson (found not guilty in the two court cases brought against him and the forensic evidence is extremely weak) it will not be uncovered by lies or rumour. The Tates case is different, they've left a huge online, text and paper trail. If the authorities sift through it properly then they'll be convicted of the stronger charges if guilty.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,263 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,818 ✭✭✭Seathrun66


    What’s the source re the books? As dodgy as the source for a special kids’ room. All horsesh1t I’d assume. Stick to police records and verified sources rather than gossip. Same with the Tates and other cases.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


    Yeah, the types that have turned to the bros online, because they claim to hate the mainstream/woke or whatever triggers them, abandon any type of critical thinking to their new found gurus. They then end up completely brain wormed or get to the point where they can’t admit they are wrong and tuen back, and instead the misery just festers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Mister Vain


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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,058 ✭✭✭Markcheese




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,263 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


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

    Isn't he under house arrest in Romania?



Advertisement