Hello and welcome to this JK News Insight.
Following up and expanding on a excellent recent post on X by Suzanne Wynter, we see that a legal clarification is required to separate truth from falsehoods regarding the statute of limitations. As court and crime reporters we hope to disrupt Tate Messaging and bring the discussion back to actual reality. Our editorial will therefore discuss the limited number of ways in which Andrew Tate could actually fight the system, change the system, or manipulate it to help him with his current legal difficulties.
Here is an image of the relevant tweet, regarding the Statute Of Limitations:
First I must explain general background, for those not familiar with the latest developments: the comments from Tate and his media team follow on from the recent shock revelation that a far greater number of women have approached authorities alleging sexual abuse by Andrew Tate in the 2012- 2015 period than had previously been known. This has shattered the Tate brothers previous narrative according to which they had a 'clean' past, where any current accusations were supposedly the results of either a misunderstanding regarding 'TikTok money' or false accusations from women of bad character.
As this is a criminal case where the outcome could be a lengthy prison sentence, not a civil case brought by individuals where the main outcome of the justice process is compensation, it can no longer be argued by Tate and his team that the case against them is motivated by financial damages which alleged victims would be entitled to after a successful civil case.
In this context, Andy Tate and his associates have come out with the claim that victims should not be able to come forward after 10 or 12 years, further pursuing the notion that Andy is the victim of some unfair treatment.
For the benefit of the notorious Luton brothers, and anyone else who might not be up to speed, we would like to remind you that the UK has no statute of limitations on serious offences such as rape. Andy's only hope it that these charges cannot be proven in a court of law. Personally, I have a feeling Tate will be trying to remember how many women he left with answerphone messages containing his now notorious line referring to how he enjoyed raping them? - Although in the interests of neutrality I must remind readers that Andrew Tate denies all wrongdoing and is considered innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
So, Andy, perhaps you understand the law and how it would not allow you to escape a reckoning in court regarding alleged horrendous crimes from a decade ago, merely because of the passing of time, but you are trying to tell us that you don't like the law. Well, let's be open minded and discuss how in that case, since we do live in a democracy and not a computer simulation or whatever you currently like to say, there are things you can do about it.
You could search for an existing political party who support your cause - in this case, introducing a statute of limitations on rape. But that is very unlikely to happen in the UK. It is already notoriously difficult to get a rape conviction here, where we prefer ten guilty persons to walk free than for one innocent person to be jailed, and the public want to do MORE to assist victims of rape on their uphill battle for justice, not set further hurdles in their path by introducing a statute of limitations. Who would it benefit? How many people, and indeed, how many innocent people, find themselves in the position of Andrew Tate, facing multiple rape accusations from their late 20's and early 30's?
The other option, of Tate standing as an MP candidate and hoping to get democratically elected, and then proposing the law change and seeking support from colleagues to have it pass into law - is dead before it even starts. Andy, you are entirely toxic to any constituency in this country, Conservative or Labour. The people of the UK are against what you stand for. We don't believe that women should be locked up by their boyfriends or husbands and not allowed out. And by the way, that isn't traditional mascullinity, it is simple, old-fashioned misogyny. And Brits don't want it and never did, outside of a few 'Neanderthals' with 'cavemen mindset', British culture doesn't contain these values. And that's why coercive control is illegal.
Andy, we don't want to take the right to anonymity away from rape victims or prevent them coming forward decades after their ordeals, to effectively allow perpetrators to get away with their acts if they manage to keep victims in fear for long enough.
For the average Brit, or at least those who have looked into the reality of rape and its impact on women, their brothers, their fathers, their children, their friends - it's a chilling thought that the path to justice could disappear after a set number of years.
Now, I am aware that a number of people out there believe Andy Tate has some near-supernatural powers of persuasion, possibly based on how he successfully sold double glazing to people who didn't need it and couldn't really afford it, and how he could instruct his webcam models to convince men to hand over their savings for a fake sob story. To them I would highlight, nothing in Tate's past makes him a 'James Bond' character and everything makes him a sleazy, unethical, conman/ salesman character. And for anyone from abroad who has not yet been told: the British establishment, and the British public, tends to recognise this type of individual rather well, and weed them out ruthlessly.
But maybe the lack of any viable political route wouldn't deter anyone as indefatigable, or as he likes to say, "indy-fit-eegable", as Andrew Tate. So is the answer perhaps revolution? After a successful revolt, with Tate declared ruler, he could bring in a Statute Of Limitations to prevent a prosecution being brought against him for his alleged misdeeds.
Could an Andy Tate Army rise up,
#FreeTate from house arrest, and take over the country by force?
Of course this could never happen. It is a complete fantasy, which he seeks to keep alive in the minds of his naive followers.
British democracy has layers of protection and institutions to uphold law and order, from our regular police men and women to our riot police armed with batons, eventually escalating to military police, and although it would never happen, the mechanism is in place to quite easily bring soldiers to the streets to contain the threat of any Andy Tate "Tater Tot" army.
Therefore we have to ask: is there any point in Andy Tate peddling these fantasies and talking of how he thinks things should be, for him or for his followers?
Why not admit, like anyone else, there are certain rules we all have to live by, and one which anyone who boasted as much as Andy Tate did about having Mafia associations ought to be familiar with is "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"?
I don't hear others who boasted about being "pimps and mafia associated criminals" complaining that they are being arrested on illegitimate grounds. Instead, they treat prison as a career hazard, a right of passage even. It is something to consider when we try to understand the remarkable character that is, Andrew Tate.
I hope I have bought both a dose of clarity and reality to this particular Tate legal red-herring talking point. Looking at the bigger picture, perhaps this whole notion of 'erasing the path' is symptomatic of Andrew Tate's attitude and way of functioning, whereby what he did 10 years ago, what he said three years ago, should all be forgotten and forgiven. Is it his great hope for his audience to be hypnotised by his latest Tate Speech, gaslit by his latest interview, and distracted by his latest fake charity donation, constantly moving on to consume the next message to come out of his media machine without examining the last one, moving on faster than they scrolled onto the next "Tate Motivational Tiktok"?
Whatever the reality of the Tate media operations, we are soon going to find out what happens when Tate leaves behind his preferred territory of social media and ventures into a Court Of Law, where statements are UNDER OATH, required to be TRUTHFUL and backed up by EVIDENCE. Tate has so far explored every avenue available to delay proceedings, waiting until the last moment to ask for extra time on a matter he could have solved months previously. But right now, the clock is ticking, for an an appointment in court, where Truth Awaits. I personally anticipate this controversial online influencer's showdown with truth to be a strong contender for Trial Of The Decade.
And that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned and stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.
Jason King
Birmingham City-Desk
Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews
Comments