Andrew Tate - The Real World
Discussion
GT9 said:
There is something about him that you either admire or you are not letting on about. You've tried very hard to keep a veil on it, but it's definitely there.
He’s a wimp. He won’t admit it, but he’s definitely a fan. Probably knows it wouldn’t end well on here with the fun we’d have at his expense. He follows the norm of the “I’m not a <insert a horrible character trait>, but <insert rant following the previously denied character trait to a tee>”GT9 said:
Louis Balfour said:
Ooh, now you have my attention. How would you do it? One inch punch?
There is something about him that you either admire or you are not letting on about. You've tried very hard to keep a veil on it, but it's definitely there.Louis Balfour said:
GT9 said:
Louis Balfour said:
Ooh, now you have my attention. How would you do it? One inch punch?
There is something about him that you either admire or you are not letting on about. You've tried very hard to keep a veil on it, but it's definitely there.GT9 said:
Randy Winkman said:
Interesting topic. The "hand round her neck - mess her up" bit is horrible though and I'm not sure about "I Don't want to be gay" issue. He is a bit hyper though and the "I'm so smart" is funny.
The hand round the neck thing is not just words.On the BBC documentary there is a voicemail recording of him berating a women for her reaction to him 'only strangling her a little bit, but not enough to make her pass out'.
According to his own words, 'the more she hated it, the more he f
king loved it.'I'll leave it up to the viewer to decide if it was consensual.
Free Top G.
Seventy said:
GT9 said:
Louis Balfour said:
Ooh, now you have my attention. How would you do it? One inch punch?
There is something about him that you either admire or you are not letting on about. You've tried very hard to keep a veil on it, but it's definitely there.Louis Balfour said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
Louis Balfour said:
RobbieTheTruth said:
I think he's rapidly descending into David Icke levels.
Why do you believe that?tMust be getting comfy in there now. Like a home away from home.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65041668
Another 30 days at the pleasure of the Romanian Government!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65041668
Another 30 days at the pleasure of the Romanian Government!!!
The Rotrex Kid said:
Must be getting comfy in there now. Like a home away from home.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65041668
Another 30 days at the pleasure of the Romanian Government!!!
They need to give him some clippers, that hair is a human rights violation.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65041668
Another 30 days at the pleasure of the Romanian Government!!!
I've remanded people before. It always required a charge, and even then, one had to justify remanding that individual. Were the Conservative government to propose the detention of individuals without charge for 3 months, I'd bet half the posters on this thread would pop with anger; yet if it's someone from the internet that they dislike, it's absolutely fine.
Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Jonmx said:
I've remanded people before. It always required a charge, and even then, one had to justify remanding that individual. Were the Conservative government to propose the detention of individuals without charge for 3 months, I'd bet half the posters on this thread would pop with anger; yet if it's someone from the internet that they dislike, it's absolutely fine.
Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
I have almost no idea who this guy is or what he is about but can't see why anyone would shoot at you for that post but no doubt I've just lined myself up as a target along with you Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Tate boasted about living in Romania due to its lax judicial standards, & the flexibility it gave him to do whatever he wanted, irrespective of the well being of others, or the legality of his behaviour. This is about a fool being hoist by his own petard, & then complaining about the injustice of it. My sympathies are reserved for those who deserve them.
Jonmx said:
I've remanded people before. It always required a charge, and even then, one had to justify remanding that individual. Were the Conservative government to propose the detention of individuals without charge for 3 months, I'd bet half the posters on this thread would pop with anger; yet if it's someone from the internet that they dislike, it's absolutely fine.
Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Different country - different laws, but the same country he chose because he thought their laws were more lenient (probably towards sex-trafficking and grifting). Ironic eh?Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Al Gorithum said:
Different country - different laws, but the same country he chose because he thought their laws were more lenient (probably towards sex-trafficking and grifting). Ironic eh?
Play stupid games...It's not like he's being held on the whim of a single arresting officer, it's all done as per local rules overseen by a judge. I suspect the end result would be the same, formally charged or not.
Jonmx said:
I've remanded people before. It always required a charge, and even then, one had to justify remanding that individual. Were the Conservative government to propose the detention of individuals without charge for 3 months, I'd bet half the posters on this thread would pop with anger; yet if it's someone from the internet that they dislike, it's absolutely fine.
Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
Save your breath, I said the same a month ago. He's been in for four months without being formally charged, Romania are making themselves look like a third world country. Given the accusations levelled at Tate, there should be more than enough evidence to produce a charge; even if it's Al Capone style financial shenanigans. Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves. A simple statement with basic supporting evidence should be enough to produce a charge. I'd suggest that if you've not been able to produce that after 3 months with full unhindered access to the detainee's property, alleged victims etc, then you're either massively incompetent, or the evidence isn't there.
I remember folks assuring me that Christopher Jefferies was definitely guilty of murder because they'd seen him on TV, he was creepy and didn't like him very much and that he should be kept locked up. Many of the comments on this thread are reminiscent of that.
I've been particularly irked by the likes of Jolyon Maughm lately, feeling that they can apply different judicial standards on folks who either align, or are opposed to their personal views and opinions. I always used to apply the 'family member' test to victims, detainees, witnesses etc and treat them with the fairness that I would expect and hope a family member would receive in that circumstance.
I shall now baton down the hatches and prepare for incoming fire
ETA
You'll soon be called a Tate supporter.
Edited by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Friday 31st March 16:27
Bill said:
Al Gorithum said:
Different country - different laws, but the same country he chose because he thought their laws were more lenient (probably towards sex-trafficking and grifting). Ironic eh?
Play stupid games...It's not like he's being held on the whim of a single arresting officer, it's all done as per local rules overseen by a judge. I suspect the end result would be the same, formally charged or not.
He's being held on evidence of human trafficking.
If he were bringing migrants into the UK, the same people defending him would demand he be shot without trial.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff