Andrew Tate arrested

From your source:





From your sources:



So from your sources, I see Tate denying the allegations, and authorities (despite repeatedly arresting him on accusations) not pursuing charges, and literally claiming the evidence given to them is so poor there is no realistic scenario of convictions.

Thank you for providing actual sources. I now lean towards the conclusion he is actually innocent, not just presumed to be.
Much like Hasan Piker, Tate is someone who maintains a huge amount of influence on the right due to audience measures,.which is why he's a focus.

The only reason why the allegations aren't turned into convictions are because they've been protected from extradition.
 
The only reason why the allegations aren't turned into convictions are because they've been protected from extradition.
Provided sources say otherwise. He's been arrested several times, authorities decline to prosecute, and literally say evidence is so weak there is no realistic chance of convictions.

So now I'm reasonable convinced by Bray123's provided evidence he actually is innocent, not just presumed to be.

And it looks like he is rich and famous enough that people are trying to use accusations and the legal system to get money out of him.

I will say this: the evidence presented to me also has me convinced he is stupid.

Innocent, but a very stupid innocent person.
 
Provided sources say otherwise. He's been arrested several times, authorities decline to prosecute, and literally say evidence is so weak there is no realistic chance of convictions.

So now I'm reasonable convinced by Bray123's provided evidence he actually is innocent, not just presumed to be.

And it looks like he is rich and famous enough that people are trying to use accusations and the legal system to get money out of him.

I will say this: the evidence presented to me also has me convinced he is stupid.

Innocent, but a very stupid innocent person.
They've live streamed some shit.

You can defend them as you need. They're shitty people.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/06/15/andrew-tates-empire-of-abuse
 
He chose a legally hazardous route to financial success. That may end in a prison experience of mashed taters. While grooming gangs are allowed to rape huge numbers of kids and women for decades, because arresting them would be racist. The tater haters may legitimately want justice, or they may want an excuse to put an enemy in jail.
 
He chose a legally hazardous route to financial success.
I obviously don't known all the details (don't really care either), but I'd definitely give your assessment there some weight.

This would be consistent with my assessment he is stupid, or at minimum was blinded by greed, thinking with his dick and really short sighted on what could happen in the future.

Even in my admittedly limited experience, I find a lot of women are into some seriously kinky shit, like rape roleplay, being choked, restrained, etc. But that stuff just makes me uncomfortable and I refuse to participate or agree.

Sounds like he also is into that stuff, but doesn't realize how easily it can be turned onto him. Hence the "he's really stupid" assessment I have.
 
You're entitled to defend pieces of shit for no reason
My initial position is just my consistent position of presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Evidence was actually provided by Bray123, which convinced me is probably innocent.

Having consistent principles and accepting provided evidence isn't 'defending' someone.
 
From your source:





From your sources:



So from your sources, I see Tate denying the allegations, and authorities (despite repeatedly arresting him on accusations) not pursuing charges, and literally claiming the evidence given to them is so poor there is no realistic scenario of convictions.

Thank you for providing actual sources. I now lean towards the conclusion he is actually innocent, not just presumed to be.
He posted on social media what he had done. He can deny it as much as he likes and there will always be fools who believe him.

Deny, deny, deny. And when faced with incontrovertible proof, deny again. (That's the only bit you were interested in).
 
My initial position is just my consistent position of presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Ok

Evidence was actually provided by Bray123, which convinced me is probably innocent.
I provided more

Having consistent principles and accepting provided evidence isn't 'defending' someone.
Youre defending their legal criminal behavior. You're ignoring public information and social presences which proves their reputations of being pieces of shit.
You could also examine their supporters to see ...id just stop while you're behind
Your explanation of such is what it is.
 
Back
Top