I don’t like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. “Proving innocence” can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Dude Andrew Tate is literally recorded on one of his accurser’s voicemail not even trying to hide it. You can find that recording and listen to it (the behind the bastards podcast has a whole series on him that includes this clip, and others). And that’s just one of a bazillion other smash-dunk points against him.
From the verge article, it would seem there is also likely video evidence: “Tate and the other defendants are alleged to have recruited seven people by misleading them about an intent “to establish a marriage/cohabitation relationship,” according to the Romanian law enforcement agency Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). They were later held against their will and, through “physical violence and mental pressure,” sexually exploited on video for distribution on social media, the agency wrote.” (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile you’re accusing a whole bunch of women you know nothing about of possibly being blackmailers, based on nothing, because you don’t seem to have researched this at all. This is himpathy, not “innocent until proven guilty”. Where’s the “innocent until proven guilty” assumption for the women, vs the 1 man with a pile of evidence against him?
I agree on nearly all, and I admit of not being informed on the details. I disagree on this: I’m not accusing the women, because I’m in favor of a fair process against Andrew Tate, not against the women; the number of women against one man is not a proof, because despite the common sense, in many cases of false accusations, there were two or more women against a man, and they were lying.
There is a non-zero chance of virtually everything. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the amount of accusations against him is proof, and I’m sure he will not be indicted without proof.
You must see that "in many cases of false accusation, there were two or more women against a man, [and they were lying]¹“ is also not proof of anything.
What is your metric for “cases of false accusations”? Are we talking rape cases only? There is already a heavy bias towards women in that category, as more women are raped than men². Just because cases exist where women have made false accusations does not mean that every single accusation should not be taken seriously. If the accusation can’t be proved, or is proved to be false, then that’s the way it is, and the appropriate consequences, or lack of them, follow.
There are likely to be more cases of false accusations by women against men than vice versa, both because social norms and machismo make it less likely than a man will falsely accuse a woman of rape, and because raped women outweigh raped men at a ratio of around 6:1 (in the US, at least). What constitutes a “false accusation”? Exclusively that it was proven that the accusations were false? Or does that group also contain cases where rape couldn’t be proved?
You prefaced your statement with “I would not like many of the women he frequents³”. Is your personal opinion of “the women her frequents” an indicator of whether or not he was capable of raping or trafficking them? Is it in any way relevant at all?
You must see that "in many cases of false accusation, there were two or more women against a man, [and they were lying]¹“ is also not proof of anything.
Yes I agree, but my original meaning is that there are many cases of false accusations with two or more false accusers. So saying that “many women reported …” is not per se a good enough convincing argument, without analyzing in details these reports and the context. I said this, because intuitively one believe that if there are two or more accusers, then something must be true. Obviously as you said, the contrary is not true: one accuser is not more believable than two or more.
What is your metric for “cases of false accusations”? Are we talking rape cases only?
Sexual abuse in case of famous/important person, where money is involved, and domestic violence in case of conflicting divorces. In Italy, an official document signed by judges, psychologist and other legal operators, informs the Senate that the false accuse (strictly false or exagerated, not simply “unprovable”) are presumably from 70% to 90% in case of conflicting divorces. This is the link to the document https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/comm02/documenti_acquisiti/957 FENBI - A.pdf
You prefaced your statement with “I would not like many of the women he frequents³”. Is your personal opinion of “the women her frequents” an indicator of whether or not he was capable of raping or trafficking them? Is it in any way relevant at all?
I don’t know the women he frequents, but it can be a suspicious context, because there are many rapist, but sometime there are also false accuses. So a proper trial must be done. I didn’t know the details, so after reading more, probably he is guilty. I wrote in general terms, because sometime there were cases against famous people like Johnny Depp or Woody Allen were the accusations were not true.
I don’t like Andrew Tate, but probably I would not like also a lot of women he is frequenting. There are possibilities that they are blackmailers and not victims. So, I hope that Andrew Tate will be convicted on the base of proved facts, and not because he was not able to disprove the words of his accusers. “Proving innocence” can be an hard things to do, if you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Dude Andrew Tate is literally recorded on one of his accurser’s voicemail not even trying to hide it. You can find that recording and listen to it (the behind the bastards podcast has a whole series on him that includes this clip, and others). And that’s just one of a bazillion other smash-dunk points against him.
From the verge article, it would seem there is also likely video evidence: “Tate and the other defendants are alleged to have recruited seven people by misleading them about an intent “to establish a marriage/cohabitation relationship,” according to the Romanian law enforcement agency Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). They were later held against their will and, through “physical violence and mental pressure,” sexually exploited on video for distribution on social media, the agency wrote.” (emphasis mine)
Meanwhile you’re accusing a whole bunch of women you know nothing about of possibly being blackmailers, based on nothing, because you don’t seem to have researched this at all. This is himpathy, not “innocent until proven guilty”. Where’s the “innocent until proven guilty” assumption for the women, vs the 1 man with a pile of evidence against him?
I agree on nearly all, and I admit of not being informed on the details. I disagree on this: I’m not accusing the women, because I’m in favor of a fair process against Andrew Tate, not against the women; the number of women against one man is not a proof, because despite the common sense, in many cases of false accusations, there were two or more women against a man, and they were lying.
There is a non-zero chance of virtually everything. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the amount of accusations against him is proof, and I’m sure he will not be indicted without proof.
You must see that "in many cases of false accusation, there were two or more women against a man, [and they were lying]¹“ is also not proof of anything.
What is your metric for “cases of false accusations”? Are we talking rape cases only? There is already a heavy bias towards women in that category, as more women are raped than men². Just because cases exist where women have made false accusations does not mean that every single accusation should not be taken seriously. If the accusation can’t be proved, or is proved to be false, then that’s the way it is, and the appropriate consequences, or lack of them, follow.
There are likely to be more cases of false accusations by women against men than vice versa, both because social norms and machismo make it less likely than a man will falsely accuse a woman of rape, and because raped women outweigh raped men at a ratio of around 6:1 (in the US, at least). What constitutes a “false accusation”? Exclusively that it was proven that the accusations were false? Or does that group also contain cases where rape couldn’t be proved?
You prefaced your statement with “I would not like many of the women he frequents³”. Is your personal opinion of “the women her frequents” an indicator of whether or not he was capable of raping or trafficking them? Is it in any way relevant at all?
¹ - If the accusations were false, they were implicitly lying. ² - https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence ³ - “Frequents”. Yuck.
Yes I agree, but my original meaning is that there are many cases of false accusations with two or more false accusers. So saying that “many women reported …” is not per se a good enough convincing argument, without analyzing in details these reports and the context. I said this, because intuitively one believe that if there are two or more accusers, then something must be true. Obviously as you said, the contrary is not true: one accuser is not more believable than two or more.
Sexual abuse in case of famous/important person, where money is involved, and domestic violence in case of conflicting divorces. In Italy, an official document signed by judges, psychologist and other legal operators, informs the Senate that the false accuse (strictly false or exagerated, not simply “unprovable”) are presumably from 70% to 90% in case of conflicting divorces. This is the link to the document https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/commissioni/comm02/documenti_acquisiti/957 FENBI - A.pdf
I don’t know the women he frequents, but it can be a suspicious context, because there are many rapist, but sometime there are also false accuses. So a proper trial must be done. I didn’t know the details, so after reading more, probably he is guilty. I wrote in general terms, because sometime there were cases against famous people like Johnny Depp or Woody Allen were the accusations were not true.