[user104658]

He's being held on charges relating to sex trafficking and exploiting women into performing sex acts on cam sites, and related organised crime charges (probably money laundering and fraud).

He hasn't been formally charged in court because they are still gathering evidence.

That does not mean there aren't charges. The charges he's being held on are those above, there's no mystery, this is publicly available information.

They're being held while the charges are investigated because they are considered a high risk of leaving the country if they're released. This is NOT all that unusual when someone is a flight risk, or a risk of destroying evidence.

The idea that this is a grand political conspiracy is mad. He's a sad reddit Redpill fraudster who believed his own hype too much and flew too close to the sun by bragging about his crimes all over the Internet. How on earth is he anything like Julian Assange? Can you name ONE secret that he's revealed to the world that hadnt been on Reddit forums already for years? Just... One? Do you believe that all of his "matrix" talk was something new?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He's being held on charges relating to sex trafficking and exploiting women into performing sex acts on cam sites, and related organised crime charges (probably money laundering and fraud).

He hasn't been formally charged in court because they are still gathering evidence.

That does not mean there aren't charges. The charges he's being held on are those above, there's no mystery, this is publicly available information.

They're being held while the charges are investigated because they are considered a high risk of leaving the country if they're released. This is NOT all that unusual when someone is a flight risk, or a risk of destroying evidence.

The idea that this is a grand political conspiracy is mad. He's a sad reddit Redpill fraudster who believed his own hype too much and flew too close to the sun by bragging about his crimes all over the Internet. How on earth is he anything like Julian Assange? Can you name ONE secret that he's revealed to the world that hadnt been on Reddit forums already for years? Just... One? Do you believe that all of his "matrix" talk was something new?

Maybe I'm being thick but I'm confused by your terminology. What does 'being held on charges' mean?

Surely the usual steps of committing a crime are: arrested on suspicion > charged > face trial > found guilty. You don't need to be charged in court, you get charged just after your arrest? By all accounts the Tates are still at stage one of that process - arrested but not charged. In the UK, you cannot be held without charge for more than 4 days unless you are arrested on terror offences

From the BBC article yesterday:

Police have not yet laid any charges against the brothers, who moved to Romania five years ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64485965

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Maybe I'm being thick but I'm confused by your terminology. What does 'being held on charges' mean?

Surely the usual steps of committing a crime are: arrested on suspicion > charged > face trial > found guilty. You don't need to be charged in court, you get charged just after your arrest? By all accounts the Tates are still at stage one of that process - arrested but not charged. In the UK, you cannot be held without charge for more than 4 days unless you are arrested on terror offences

From the BBC article yesterday:

The idea that they're being held without charges is being used to in other words say "they can't even say what they're holding them for" - this is false, they have said what they're holding them for, they have said what the charges will be if/when charges go ahead, and they have said why they've been detained while the investigation is ongoing.

That it would be illegal in the UK isn't in dispute - he's not in the UK. He (by his own admission, again) chose not to live in the UK or similar specifically because he didn't want to live under UK law - he wanted to live somewhere corrupt where the authorities could be paid off. It seems he was either very wrong, or very right, but not as powerful as he thought. I have limited sympathy in both cases because, again, he specifically CHOSE to live in a country BECAUSE its not under the very laws that wouldn't allow him to be detained. The law in the UK is completely irrelevant.

Here's the judges reasoning;

"Last month a judge extended their detention until the end of February, citing “the capacity … of the defendants to exercise permanent psychological control over their victims, including by resorting to constant acts of violence”."

But you'll hear people saying" they've given no reason for holding them". They have. It's right there. What they're accused of is also clear. As is their flight risk. And again, UK law just isn't relevant.

Now... It is, apparently, in violation of international human rights law to hold someone for longer than 30 days without charges being made official in court (at which point people can be detained/denied bail until trial if they're considered a flight risk or a risk to the public). So the Romanian authorities may be in violation of Human Rights law but - again - that means relatively little unless its unusual for the Romanian authorities to be in violation of that law. Which I doubt it is. Again... There's a reason Tate chose to live there.

Imagine choosing to live in a country because of its reputation for not doing law by the book, getting arrested, and then your followers announcing a grand conspiracy because....... The country isn't doing law by the book. Come onnn. There's been talk for years of them either withdrawing from or being booted from the EU because they fail to comply with EU law. This isn't special treatment for Andrew Tate .

Not least, and it takes a special kind of delusion to believe that Tate is being framed and is not a violent misogynist and a sex trafficker. He's been openly selling himself as that for years. Hint: he describes himself as a literal pimp, frequently. Pimping is sex trafficking!

"Can't believe I've been arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank, this is a conspiracy!" cried Billy Bankrobber into his sacks of stolen cash.

As a standalone concept, is detention for 2 months (at least) without formal charge a questionable thing? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean the charges proposed aren't valid, and it also doesn't mean that this is particularly unusual.

Hes a joint UK/US citizen so the government's of either country could make a diplomatic case for his release. I don't see that happening, do you? "Please let the pimp out of jail, those women consented to be trafficked and yeah I've seen the videos of physical abuse but Alf off TiBB says they probably enjoy being abused."

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The idea that they're being held without charges is being used to in other words say "they can't even say what they're holding them for" - this is false, they have said what they're holding them for, they have said what the charges will be if/when charges go ahead, and they have said why they've been detained while the investigation is ongoing.

That it would be illegal in the UK isn't in dispute - he's not in the UK. He (by his own admission, again) chose not to live in the UK or similar specifically because he didn't want to live under UK law - he wanted to live somewhere corrupt where the authorities could be paid off. It seems he was either very wrong, or very right, but not as powerful as he thought. I have limited sympathy in both cases because, again, he specifically CHOSE to live in a country BECAUSE its not under the very laws that wouldn't allow him to be detained. The law in the UK is completely irrelevant.

Here's the judges reasoning;

"Last month a judge extended their detention until the end of February, citing “the capacity … of the defendants to exercise permanent psychological control over their victims, including by resorting to constant acts of violence”."

But you'll hear people saying" they've given no reason for holding them". They have. It's right there. What they're accused of is also clear. As is their flight risk. And again, UK law just isn't relevant.

Now... It is, apparently, in violation of international human rights law to hold someone for longer than 30 days without charges being made official in court (at which point people can be detained/denied bail until trial if they're considered a flight risk or a risk to the public). So the Romanian authorities may be in violation of Human Rights law but - again - that means relatively little unless its unusual for the Romanian authorities to be in violation of that law. Which I doubt it is. Again... There's a reason Tate chose to live there.

Imagine choosing to live in a country because of its reputation for not doing law by the book, getting arrested, and then your followers announcing a grand conspiracy because....... The country isn't doing law by the book. Come onnn. There's been talk for years of them either withdrawing from or being booted from the EU because they fail to comply with EU law. This isn't special treatment for Andrew Tate .

Not least, and it takes a special kind of delusion to believe that Tate is being framed and is not a violent misogynist and a sex trafficker. He's been openly selling himself as that for years. Hint: he describes himself as a literal pimp, frequently. Pimping is sex trafficking!

"Can't believe I've been arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank, this is a conspiracy!" cried Billy Bankrobber into his sacks of stolen cash.

As a standalone concept, is detention for 2 months (at least) without formal charge a questionable thing? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean the charges proposed aren't valid, and it also doesn't mean that this is particularly unusual.

Hes a joint UK/US citizen so the government's of either country could make a diplomatic case for his release. I don't see that happening, do you? "Please let the pimp out of jail, those women consented to be trafficked and yeah I've seen the videos of physical abuse but Alf off TiBB says they probably enjoy being abused."

Where did I say "they probably enjoy being abused?"

I said that it's possible that there was consent, the same as that it's possible there wasn't consent. The videos I posted of the so called victims saying that they were not victims is the only piece of evidence we have so far to answer that one.

Stop lying to try and win the argument, just because you were wrong and your selfish pride will not allow you to admit that.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The idea that they're being held without charges is being used to in other words say "they can't even say what they're holding them for" - this is false, they have said what they're holding them for, they have said what the charges will be if/when charges go ahead, and they have said why they've been detained while the investigation is ongoing.

That it would be illegal in the UK isn't in dispute - he's not in the UK. He (by his own admission, again) chose not to live in the UK or similar specifically because he didn't want to live under UK law - he wanted to live somewhere corrupt where the authorities could be paid off. It seems he was either very wrong, or very right, but not as powerful as he thought. I have limited sympathy in both cases because, again, he specifically CHOSE to live in a country BECAUSE its not under the very laws that wouldn't allow him to be detained. The law in the UK is completely irrelevant.

Here's the judges reasoning;

"Last month a judge extended their detention until the end of February, citing “the capacity … of the defendants to exercise permanent psychological control over their victims, including by resorting to constant acts of violence”."

But you'll hear people saying" they've given no reason for holding them". They have. It's right there. What they're accused of is also clear. As is their flight risk. And again, UK law just isn't relevant.

Now... It is, apparently, in violation of international human rights law to hold someone for longer than 30 days without charges being made official in court (at which point people can be detained/denied bail until trial if they're considered a flight risk or a risk to the public). So the Romanian authorities may be in violation of Human Rights law but - again - that means relatively little unless its unusual for the Romanian authorities to be in violation of that law. Which I doubt it is. Again... There's a reason Tate chose to live there.

Imagine choosing to live in a country because of its reputation for not doing law by the book, getting arrested, and then your followers announcing a grand conspiracy because....... The country isn't doing law by the book. Come onnn. There's been talk for years of them either withdrawing from or being booted from the EU because they fail to comply with EU law. This isn't special treatment for Andrew Tate .

Not least, and it takes a special kind of delusion to believe that Tate is being framed and is not a violent misogynist and a sex trafficker. He's been openly selling himself as that for years. Hint: he describes himself as a literal pimp, frequently. Pimping is sex trafficking!

"Can't believe I've been arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank, this is a conspiracy!" cried Billy Bankrobber into his sacks of stolen cash.

As a standalone concept, is detention for 2 months (at least) without formal charge a questionable thing? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean the charges proposed aren't valid, and it also doesn't mean that this is particularly unusual.

Hes a joint UK/US citizen so the government's of either country could make a diplomatic case for his release. I don't see that happening, do you? "Please let the pimp out of jail, those women consented to be trafficked and yeah I've seen the videos of physical abuse but Alf off TiBB says they probably enjoy being abused."

Yeah I appreciate where you're coming from. I only compared to the UK to show how shambolic this investigation is and how unacceptable treating suspects like this is by most international standards.

I get that it's the Tate's so people have limited sympathy but then there's plenty of groups out there that spend most of their time fighting measures like this no matter how unsavoury the suspects are. There's a reason that limits on detention without charge apply universally regardless of the crime committed.

My prediction is that they won't get enough evidence to charge them with the most serious crimes and they'll have to settle for some minor charges instead

[Alf]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I appreciate where you're coming from. I only compared to the UK to show how shambolic this investigation is and how unacceptable treating suspects like this is by most international standards.

I get that it's the Tate's so people have limited sympathy but then there's plenty of groups out there that spend most of their time fighting measures like this no matter how unsavoury the suspects are. There's a reason that limits on detention without charge apply universally regardless of the crime committed.

My prediction is that they won't get enough evidence to charge them with the most serious crimes and they'll have to settle for some minor charges instead

If they don't get new evidence then they'll just make up a new law. They want rid of the Tate's or any one else who is a threat to their power. This isn't Romania's doing, this is the deep state controlling this.

It also sends a message out to anyone else who wants to be a threat to their power, that they will lock you up by any means.

[arista]

"He hasn't been formally charged in court
because they are still gathering evidence."


Yes TS
they should have enough by now,
unless they are corrupt?
And making up stuff?

[thesheriff443]

My take on this is,
The girls that the police claim are victims have made statements to say they are not but the police are not accepting this and are still try to get them to change their mind and get evidence from them or others to get a case so they can be charged

[user104658]

It's difficult to balance out morally because I think the threat that the Tates pose to women, and to the minds of vulnerable or just young men, goes way beyond their direct influence. Truly dangerous individuals peddling a truly dangerous ideology.

They pose absolutely no threat at all to "the deep state" or to systems of power which is why the idea that it's those influences that are trying to get rid of them is especially ridiculous. Can only possibly be believed by those who only encountered the Tates and the false narrative around them in the last 3 to 6 months and have no real idea of what they were all about before that (i.e. aggressive and violent misogyny).

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

It's difficult to balance out morally because I think the threat that the Tates pose to women, and to the minds of vulnerable or just young men, goes way beyond their direct influence. Truly dangerous individuals peddling a truly dangerous ideology.

They pose absolutely no threat at all to "the deep state" or to systems of power which is why the idea that it's those influences that are trying to get rid of them is especially ridiculous. Can only possibly be believed by those who only encountered the Tates and the false narrative around them in the last 3 to 6 months and have no real idea of what they were all about before that (i.e. aggressive and violent misogyny).

Have you not noticed the huge push in society to feminise men. With huge pushes with the LGBT movement and the trans movement and the message that masculinity is toxic?

Feminine men are going to be much easier to control that masculine men and that's what it's all about. So when people like the Tate's come along with their message of promoting masculinity and get a large following, then they're a threat to the agenda.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Have you not noticed the huge push in society to feminise men. With huge pushes with the LGBT movement and the trans movement and the message that masculinity is toxic?

Feminine men are going to be much easier to control that masculine men and that's what it's all about. So when people like the Tate's come along with their message of promoting masculinity and get a large following, then they're a threat to the agenda.

Real men don't coerce, control and beat up women Alf. If you think that's an example of a good man then you need to give your head a wobble. He's an angry little coward, an abuser, pathetic. He has incel written all over him. He's just done a good job of selling his brand of bitterness to other sad lonely young blokes off the Internet and then used that money and influence to get I to the heads of young boys and to manipulate women for real. Anyone looking up to Andrew Tate as their model of healthy masculinity is in real, real trouble. They're never going to make his money - it's a pyramid scheme so only the ones at the top will make anything. So all you're left with is a bunch of entitled, muscle-bound, whiney young men who are still getting nowhere in life and nowhere with women, getting angrier by the day. Because what attracts women to Tate is his money and his cars. Not his "masculinity", not his attitude, not his gormless overbite.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Real men don't coerce, control and beat up women Alf. If you think that's an example of a good man then you need to give your head a wobble. He's an angry little coward, an abuser, pathetic. He has incel written all over him. He's just done a good job of selling his brand of bitterness to other sad lonely young blokes off the Internet and then used that money and influence to get I to the heads of young boys and to manipulate women for real. Anyone looking up to Andrew Tate as their model of healthy masculinity is in real, real trouble. They're never going to make his money - it's a pyramid scheme so only the ones at the top will make anything. So all you're left with is a bunch of entitled, muscle-bound, whiney young men who are still getting nowhere in life and nowhere with women, getting angrier by the day. Because what attracts women to Tate is his money and his cars. Not his "masculinity", not his attitude, not his gormless overbite.

Your personal feelings for the guy don't change the facts that he has a huge following of young men that are seeing his message, a message that goes against the Globalists tactics for achieving dominence over the people by feminising the men. And that's why he's locked up right now.

Your problem is that you put feelings over facts simply because you don't like the facts.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Your personal feelings for the guy don't change the facts that he has a huge following of young men that are seeing his message, a message that goes against the Globalists tactics for achieving dominence over the people by feminising the men. And that's why he's locked up right now.

Your problem is that you put feelings over facts simply because you don't like the facts.

Alf your problem is that you put online fiction over fact, let alone feelings. Andrew Tate is not a freedom fighter and his message does not create strong men, it creates some of the weakest boys I've ever encountered. Frustrated, lonely and completely at the mercy of their feelings of being outcast and rejected. They're dangerous, but not to the government.

[user104658]

I also think you're flat out wrong at a basic level if you have your eyes open for even a second. Older "masculine blokes" are usually happy to go with the status quo and comply. Younger what you would call "effeminate" people are more likely to confront systems of power.

And even if you were right - whtmat are these macho men going to do if those in power really do take control? Threaten to give them a good hiding? That'll scare 'em!!

Truth is even in America where half the population is armed, trying to stand up to the government or military would be like firing a peashooter at a freight train. Gruff hairy men' s men with a scowl is the illusion of power. There's no real power in it.

[user104658]

I mean gosh... if anything the man is a Five Star General in the culture wars - which you (much more accurately) also have pointed out is exactly what people in power want going on as a distraction. One minute you're saying Tate is a deliberate red herring/a distraction, the next you're saying he's being "Assanged" to get rid of him.

Why are they cancelling their own red herring?

[user104658]

Because masculine men are going to do ... what ... to systems of power?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Because masculine men are going to do ... what ... to systems of power?

What have masculine men done to systems of power throughout history?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

What have masculine men done to systems of power throughout history?

Propped them up for the mostpart Alf. Enforced them both physically and socially.

[Alf]

What a feminine men gonna do against systems of power?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

What a feminine men gonna do against systems of power?

I don't really think I can answer the question other than saying that the ability to question and oppose systems of power has absolutely nothing to do with sex or gender.

Even putting that aside - are you genuinely claiming that Tate's brand of masculinity is teaching young men how to oppose systems of power? It's all about control of women and owning shiny cars. Not one word of it has anything to do with government control, other than the Redpill "matrix" nonsense he started spaffing around a couple of months ago. All of which - every single word - he took from forums and groups that have existed for over a decade. He's said nothing new. Literally not one thing.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I don't really think I can answer the question other than saying that the ability to question and oppose systems of power has absolutely nothing to do with sex or gender.

Even putting that aside - are you genuinely claiming that Tate's brand of masculinity is teaching young men how to oppose systems of power? It's all about control of women and owning shiny cars. Not one word of it has anything to do with government control, other than the Redpill "matrix" nonsense he started spaffing around a couple of months ago. All of which - every single word - he took from forums and groups that have existed for over a decade. He's said nothing new. Literally not one thing.

No, I'm simply saying that the regime whom wants to feminise men, see that Tate has a large following of young, impressionable men and he's preaching to them to be masculine and the regime doesn't want that. So they use their powers to shut him down. That is basically what I'm saying. I don't claim I'm right, it's just what I think.

[user104658]

Really though "Gym bro pick up artists are going to take down the government" is one of the more interesting fan faction ideas I've heard recently. We'll file it under "high fantasy" at the library though.

[Oliver_W]

What do you mean, by saying the regime wants to feminise men? Who does, and how?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

What do you mean, by saying the regime wants to feminise men? Who does, and how?

Well kids have been getting taught for years now that masculinity is toxic. And then there's the rise of the new religion of LGBTQ+ which has its flags all over every city. Has its own month or two. Is heavily promoted inside popular culture and now in Schools. So who would be the ones pushing this. The ones putting their money behind it.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Well kids have been getting taught for years now that masculinity is toxic. And then there's the rise of the new religion of LGBTQ+ which has its flags all over every city. Has its own month or two. Is heavily promoted inside popular culture and now in Schools. So who would be the ones pushing this. The ones putting their money behind it.

Tate doesn't preach masculinity he preaches abuse, a sad and underfoot brand of "poor oppressed little me!" masculinity that is indeed toxic. Not all masculinity is toxic, that's never what the phrase has meant, there's just a brand of it that is and that's exactly the type Tate pushed on young minds. It's not strength though, he pushes a mindset that makes these boys feel anything but strong. It makes them feel weak, frustrated and angry and they then take that out on others.

As for your theory about LGBTQ being promoted to diminish masculinity - that doesn't work either, because currently more than 75% of trans people, especially young trans people, are female to male not male to female. It's actual biological females, pumping themselves full of testosterone to make themselves MORE masculine. And testosterone is much more effective than Male to Female hormones.

If the plan is to make everyone "less masculine" it's not going very well if large numbers of females are literally turning themselves into men is it?