Andrew Tate - The Real World
Discussion
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
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
Anti-Tate haters
Pro-Tate supporters
And a majority bunch of moderate onlookers.
The first two noisy groups believe there are only two groups so categorise everyone else as either anti or pro.
Unfortunately these noisy extremes drown out any sensible view or observation and cloud the discussion with their hysterical rhetoric.
Personally I would like to see Tate charged and justice served, but equally I would like to see him released a lot quicker if no charges exist, but not for the reasons the extreme groups will think.
The fact is, if Tate is released after a lengthy detention, it will embolden and increase his stature. The haters will go into overdrive and the gullible will be easily led once again, there's enough division in today's world without more of it. Releasing him quicker would have shed less light on his predicament, I for one probably would have continued to have never heard of him.
In my view, I don't think charges will be brought, but the Romanian government will have sent Tate and people like him not to take the Michael and stay away. Unless of course him or anyone else would like to be detained for 6 months under "investigation". They didn't like being characterised as a safe bastion for the morally corrupt and a lesson will be taught. But they don't care one iota about the effects this will have in the longer term.
I'm not bigging Tate up over this, but you'll be a fool if you think he won't capitalise on his release, so let's hope that he isn't and there is justice to be served.
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
Well, that's all well and good, but we don't know what the judges are seeing in order to continue to rule that he should be held on remand, but as has been stated before, it is their justice system and it appears to be operating within normal parameters. Perhaps declaring publicly that he would flee the country immediately if bailed was not a sensible thing to do.... Remember, this is a justice system that Tate specifically chose because he felt it would benefit him and publicly stated he could buy his way out of any trouble. 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
Oh, buy the way, this bit...
Jonmx said:
Those revelling in the ongoing detention of someone without charge, simply because they dislike him should be ashamed of themselves.
I don't think people are revelling in this because they dislike the chap. Probably more because he is a toxic, utterly reprehensible individual who (by his own admission) preys on the vulnerable and gullible and considers his (allegedly trafficked) sex worker women to be his property and they are happy that he is not currently able to take advantage of anyone else.Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Friday 31st March 18:52
Edited by TriumphStag3.0V8 on Friday 31st March 18:56
Niponeoff said:
There are 3 types of people in this thread.
Anti-Tate haters
Pro-Tate supporters
And a majority bunch of moderate onlookers.
There are two.Anti-Tate haters
Pro-Tate supporters
And a majority bunch of moderate onlookers.
The Anti-Taters.
The Pro-Taters.
The second group doesn't actually exist beyond a couple of posters early on saying "he makes some good points". But the Anti-Taters seize upon any comment, from anyone, that doesn't utterly condemn Tate, as proof conclusive that the poster is Pro-Tate.
Meanwhile, the Anti-Taters fall over themselves to demonstrate how righteous they are by out-frothing each other with Anti-Tate rhetoric.
It is possibly the most amusing thread I can remember.
This, by the way, is a Po-Tater.
So true, it seems like baldy and his brother have played themselves into this situation.Seventy said:
Niponeoff said:
There are 3 types of people in this thread.
Anti-Tate haters
Pro-Tate supporters
And a majority bunch of moderate onlookers.
That’s only two types. Anti-Tate haters
Pro-Tate supporters
And a majority bunch of moderate onlookers.
They're really "not" Tate supporters.
Jonmx said:
I've remanded people before. It always required a charge, and even then, one had to justify remanding that individual.
You worked as a police officer in Romania? Can you clarify how has the system there has changed since your time?Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
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.
Tate's exactly where he chose to be. Don't like it? Tough.
I cannot believe this is still a topic that's being discussed. He made his bed.
Bill said:
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
Romania are making themselves look like a third world country.
I think that's the assumption he made when he moved there...The irony is that the Tate supporters (or "not" Tate supporters) don't get is that by standing up to people abusing their countries historically corrupt government and police, they're actually booting themselves up the HDI (Human Development Index) as endemic corruption tends to be one of the defining attributes between developing and developed (1st world) countries.
If Romania wasn't trying to develop, the Tates would have just bought their release long before now. The fact that Romania is holding them rather than taking bribes to let them go is a sign that the country isn't that corrupt. Hey, but the "not" Tate supporters (all playing the victim card as well) don't like facts getting in the way of their fantasies.
As a side note, all the Romanians I know have said Romania is a lot better than it was 20 years ago.
The Rotrex Kid said:
TTmonkey said:
Released.
Into house arrest. Wonder if they will do exactly as expected and try to leg it.I’d put a quid on it they do.
ezi said:
The Rotrex Kid said:
TTmonkey said:
Released.
Into house arrest. Wonder if they will do exactly as expected and try to leg it.I’d put a quid on it they do.
Take my bet. Go on. Let’s do it
TTmonkey said:
Released.
As expected. The only thing the anti and pro taters agree on is making him out to be some kind of notorious A-list gangster, trafficking beautiful women and playing a dangerous game To any sensible moderate who can see through the veil of male cow excrement, he's just a professional gobs
te.I feel like i just peered over the fence at a grubby little dog fight and witnessed a baying frothing mob of onlookers jeering their opponent and backing their favourite hound. I don't see any winners here.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff