• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Tate Brothers Charged with Rape in the UK

SpuriusMaximus said:
Actually, according to Wiki, the age of consent in Romania is 16, not 15. And it's illegal to have sex with someone under 18, if you use your influence or authority over her anyway. Which he definitely abused over his captive girls.

And either way, we have videos from even him that he trafficked a 15 year old from the UK, while even he was saying that she might be too young to consent to it. And belting a 14 year old in Romania for basically BDSM content. Like, what, couldn't he wait another year or two?

And even if someone ignored the assaults (sexual or otherwise), there are testimonies from those girls to the effect that they were prevented from even going outside to see some sunlight. That's false imprisonment under any western jurisdiction I know of.
Click to expand...
Wiki also says the age of consent in Romania was raised in 2020; the alleged conduct occurred before then. But, as you and AR have discussed, this is irrelevant anyway. None of the charges involve statutory rape.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Wiki also says the age of consent in Romania was raised in 2020; the alleged conduct occurred before then. But, as you and AR have discussed, this is irrelevant anyway. None of the charges involve statutory rape.
Click to expand...
Well, I was just commenting on how nonsensical the arguments of their clown... err... lawyer are.

But whether statutory or not, he WAS charged by the DIICOT with rape in 2023, and updated in 2024 to include sex with a minor. So the girl must have qualified as a minor under whatever laws were applicable at the time it happened. A minor can't give consent. If it's not statutory, it means rape by force, and THAT doesn't make it any better for him. And if it happened before 2020, when the age of consent was 14, and he's still charged with sex with a minor... hoo boy, now THAT doesn't look like a positive.
 
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus said:
Well, I was just commenting on how nonsensical the arguments of their clown... err... lawyer are.

But whether statutory or not, he WAS charged by the DIICOT with rape in 2023, and updated in 2024 to include sex with a minor. So the girl must have qualified as a minor under whatever laws were applicable at the time it happened. If it's not statutory, it means rape by force, and THAT doesn't make it any better for him. And if it happened before 2020, when the age of consent was 14, and he's still charged with sex with a minor... hoo boy, now THAT doesn't look like a positive.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant the UK charges. I should have made that clear.
 
Also, is it just me, or it's "funny" to see him whine like a little bitch about being treated actually better than he treated his captive women? Like, what, women can take it, but he's not woman enough for that? (In spite of that cameltoe in his colourful panties in that photo.) :P

And I mean "funny" in the same way as seeing a clown being run over by a clown car :P
 
SpitfireIX said:
Sorry, I meant the UK charges. I should have made that clear.
Click to expand...
NP, I also routinely fail to specify things precisely. But the UK still works by the basic idea of the rule of law: you must be able to know if something is legal to do or not. Crimes are judged by the standard of the laws on the books when it happened. Anything he's charged with, no matter how much earlier it happened, must have been illegal at the times he did that crap.
 
Last edited:
Carrot Flower King said:
Nowt to do with the well documented tendency of you or your lawyer to dox folk...Oh, no, nowt to do with that...Nor no-one with a brain cell to spare believing a word that you say..
Click to expand...
Come on now. Knowing who has accused you of a crime is widely agreed to be a human right. The names are almost certainly going to be made part of the public record sooner or later.

This probably has nothing to do with the "doxing" concern. Rather, it probably has everything to do with due process.

A lot of accused act as if they think they're entitled to all the best parts of due process, on their schedule, at their convenience, to their satisfaction. Can't arrest me until my lawyer gets here. Can't arrest me if I don't agree with the charges. Etc. No. It's a process. It's a long, bureaucratic process. There's a lot of steps, and a lot of them involve getting certain people to certain places at certain times. It takes time to get you in front of a judge, to hear what your charges are. It takes time, and several court appearances, just to arrange for a trial.

Just because you have the right to a lawyer during questioning, doesn't mean you have the right to a lawyer whenever you want, however you want. Just because you have the right to know your charges, doesn't mean you have the right to have those charges explained to your satisfaction, at your convenience, or else the charges have to be dropped. There's a whole process for that, and it even includes ample opportunity for you to argue with the state over the charges.

And just because you have a right to face your accuser, that doesn't mean you have a right to know their name at your convenience, in the venue of your choice. Tate hasn't even been arraigned* in the UK yet. It's far too soon for the names of his accusers to be brought up.


I like justice and due process more than I dislike Andrew Tate and his laywer.

In general, I don't think you can have justice in a rape case without the accuser being identified to the accused.

"You've been accused of raping someone."

"Who?"

"They'd rather remain anonymous."

"When? Where?"

"Can't tell you that. Too much risk of identifying your accuser."

"How am I supposed to defend myself against anonymous charges like that?"

"Should have though of that before you raped, you rapist."

"Alleged."

"That's not what Jane Doe says."

"What's her evidence?"

"Can't tell you. Don't want you using it to doxx her and make her life miserable."

"Mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊, I'm up on rape charges."
 
Not sure about being made PUBLIC. Hiding the names of certain underage victims (such as sex assault victims) is standard practice in the western world. But they will be made known to him and his lawyer in the actual trial in the UK. The extradition to UK only requires "reasonable suspicion", which is a slightly lower standard than the US "probable cause" standard. In an extradition case, the court is explicitly not supposed to judge the case itself, including the credibility of the witnesses or whatnot. Just whether the UK had reasonable suspicion to bring them before a judge. And I think they've more than met that burden. The actual case is left to the UK court.

So basically it's just more irrelevant theatrics by them and their lawyer.
 
Last edited:
SpuriusMaximus said:
Not sure about being made PUBLIC. Hiding the names of underage victims is standard practice. But they will be made known to him and his lawyer in the actual trial in the UK. The extradition to UK only requires "reasonable suspicion", which is a slightly lower standard than the US "probable cause" standard. In an extradition case, the court is explicitly not supposed to judge the case itself, including the credibility of the witnesses or whatnot. Just whether the UK had reasonable suspicion to bring them before a judge. And I think they've more than met that burden. The actual case is left to the UK court.
Click to expand...
To be clear, the US does not have just one evidentiary standard. Probable cause is one standard, applied in specific circumstances, according to due process. There's also articulable suspicion, preponderance of evidence, and - of course - beyond reasonable doubt. The standard for detaining someone in the course of an investigation is lower than the standard for arresting them, which is lower than the standard for proving a civil claim, which is lower than the standard for proving a criminal claim.
 
Ninja'ed, I see. In the U.S. the 6th Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront witnesses against him in court. This means the defendant gets to know their identity and has the right to cross examine them and compel them to produce evidence that may exculpate the defendant. There is no further guarantee that the defendant may do whatever they want with information about witnesses, including any accuser. As just noted for example, it is common to take steps to protect the identities of minor victims during court proceedings in which they may be witnesses.

My spouse has a well-protected list of witness identifying information in each case, under protective orders from the judge to be for "attorney's eyes only." The attorney may know the details for a witness, but the defendant per se may not. The defendant per se may confront the witness in court, but may be prevented in various ways from confronting witnesses in any other forum using information disclosed as part of the case.
 
theprestige said:
To be clear, the US does not have just one evidentiary standard. Probable cause is one standard, applied in specific circumstances, according to due process. There's also articulable suspicion, preponderance of evidence, and - of course - beyond reasonable doubt. The standard for detaining someone in the course of an investigation is lower than the standard for arresting them, which is lower than the standard for proving a civil claim, which is lower than the standard for proving a criminal claim.
Click to expand...
They tend to be at different stages. Probable cause is generally the standard for even being indicted. Beyond reasonable doubt is for getting convicted. Legally valid suspicion CAN count as probable cause, but it's up to a judge or jury to decide if it actually was. Often before hand, as in, getting a warrant.

In extradition trials, only that first step is evaluated, and it only matters what the standard is in the country requesting that dude. Since in the UK it's "reasonable suspicion", that's the standard applied in deciding whether or not to extradite to the UK, and the US standards don't matter.

ETA: also, as far as I know, extradition cases only cover criminal cases, not civil claims. You're not gonna keep someone in jail for 2 years to decide if you want to extradite them for a civil case.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Tate
@Cobratate
Every time our prison meal arrives Tristan takes it and asks through the door “Is this organic?”

The prison guards usually reply with: What?

Tristan: Is this food organic?

Guard: What? Just take it.

Tristan: Is this locally sourced?

Guard: *slams food tray shut*

Tristan then eats the food and complains to me the entire time that it's not organic and not locally sourced.

He's been doing this every single meal for weeks.

Link
 
Andy_Ross said:
Andrew Tate
@Cobratate
Every time our prison meal arrives Tristan takes it and asks through the door “Is this organic?”

The prison guards usually reply with: What?

Tristan: Is this food organic?

Guard: What? Just take it.

Tristan: Is this locally sourced?

Guard: *slams food tray shut*

Tristan then eats the food and complains to me the entire time that it's not organic and not locally sourced.

He's been doing this every single meal for weeks.

Link
Click to expand...
The ◊◊◊◊◊ are turning on each other. Sad. How long till Andy makes Tristan his prison bitch, and Tristan asks "is it in yet?"
 
Andy_Ross said:
Andrew Tate
@Cobratate
Every time our prison meal arrives Tristan takes it and asks through the door “Is this organic?”

The prison guards usually reply with: What?

Tristan: Is this food organic?

Guard: What? Just take it.

Tristan: Is this locally sourced?

Guard: *slams food tray shut*

Tristan then eats the food and complains to me the entire time that it's not organic and not locally sourced.

He's been doing this every single meal for weeks.

Link
Click to expand...
So, short version, Tristan is even more of a whiny little bitch. Besides, it didn't seem to matter to either of them whether it's locally sourced or organically grown when the ordered Colombian coffee or ramen from the commissary, did it? I mean, they're in Miami and Colombia is a whole different country, innit? And Twix was launched in Germany a whole 12 years before the US launch, and still uses cocoa that's not locally sourced in Florida, and is produced for the USA in Cleveland, Tennessee. NOTHING about it is locally sourced.
 
Last edited:
A whole speech!

Joe McBride
@McBrideLawNYC

A POLITICAL KIDNAPPING BUILT ON SECRET ACCUSERS

Since July 18, two American citizens, Andrew and Tristan Tate, have sat in a federal cell because the United Kingdom wants them. On October 5, the United States Government filed Britain's extradition requests in federal court in Miami. Every allegation in those papers comes from a British detective's summary, and not one word of it has ever been tested in a courtroom.

The United Kingdom redacted every accuser's name before it sent those papers to the United States, which is to say that the United States Government does not know who any of these women are. Two American citizens are being held on the word of secret accusers.

Not one of these women went to the police while any relationship at issue was going on. The first police report came in August 2022, years after the last event alleged, and three of the women did not come forward on their own: British police contacted them in 2025. Britain's papers cite no rape kit, no medical record, and no forensic evidence of any assault. One of the women told police she realized she had been "trafficked" only after Andrew became famous.

Britain accuses Andrew of misleading women about what they would do in Romania. Andrew denies it unequivocally, and Britain's own papers concede that the women were not physically forced to travel. One of them was told in writing, in an email Britain itself quotes, to try the job for three days and fly home if she did not like it.

The newest headlines concern images found on electronic devices. British police seized those devices in July 2015 and questioned Andrew in August 2016. He told them visitors used the devices in that house. He told them he had never downloaded, received, or viewed images of people with animals, and that images circulating in large group chats could have been saved to the devices automatically. Britain then waited almost ten years to charge any of it, authorizing these charges on July 10, 2026, eight days before Andrew was arrested in Miami. That is a dubious unfolding of events, to say the least.

As for Britain's four adult-image charges, the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom requires that the conduct be a crime in both countries, and possessing adult images in one's own home is not a crime in the United States.

The United Kingdom has carried out a political kidnapping of two American citizens and is now defaming them before the world with the most lurid accusations it could assemble. The low-IQ morons of the world may believe it, and Britain is counting on them. Those of us who see this despicable attack for what it is, however, recognize it as a good old-fashioned reputation assassination.

None of the people now lining up to condemn Andrew and Tristan would dare say a word of it if the two of them were online to answer. For years, Andrew and Tristan met every critic who came at them in public, in their own words, and took those critics apart. Their new accusers in the press and on social media waited until both men were locked in a federal cell, unable to answer in their own voices, before they found their courage.

Many of you now piling on know exactly how a coordinated media campaign works, because you have lived through one. You know how a narrative is assembled before the facts arrive, how an accusation becomes a headline before it becomes evidence, and how quickly yesterday's allies go silent when the machine turns. You are now lending your names to that same machine, and it has never shown loyalty to the people who feed it. When it comes for you, and it will, you will look for allies among the people you abandoned today, and you will find none.

In sum, the United Kingdom asks the United States to surrender two American citizens on the word of accusers it will not name, on stories told to police years after the fact, and on charges it waited a decade to bring, which is to say on nothing that has ever been tested.

Accordingly, any publication that repeats these accusations as fact does so at its own peril.

God bless Andrew and Tristan Tate.
Click to expand...

Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom