Please explain how he lost if they had to edit and chop up the video to the point where more than half of it was gone when they released it on their channel? Right there proves that the BBC lost if they had to edit out parts and rearrange his answers to certain questions to make the video look better.
Many people are easy marks for a charming sociopath. I.e. Sammy The Bull Gravano who is now on every other podcast mesmerizing hosts with his homicidal career.
Really what this boils down to is the following: can the minions of authority (at any level) who press charges and prosecute people, are they entitled to DO SO for someone who (they feel) has committed a crime, even if the person that they feel is a "victim" does not feel victimized and will not testify? The answer of course is yes. That is the correct answer. Of course he can be prosecuted even if the "state" (whatever the state is) has no victims willing to take the stand. Whether or not the state will WIN in court (under the parameters of no actual victims here in the courtroom) is another question. Also what is the crime? Prostitution? Human trafficking? Here is a good looking, intelligent, athlete, convincing women (that he sleeps with) to open up an Only Fans account so that they both may profit. So now, the "state" is OUTRAGED at this because they see the girl (who is in LOOOOOOVE with Andrew Tate) submitting to a man that the "state" hates, for whatever reason. That is who Tate calls "The Matrix." This is fascinating. In some ways, its not all that much different than the "state" prosecuting someone in matters of domestic violence. Perhaps the "victim" has second thoughts afterwards and refuses to take the stand against the assailant and the state doesn't have much of a case, but it doesn't matter. The state sees an attack against a person as an attack against the "state" even if the person refuses to call themselves a victim. And so it goes when emotions like love are involved.
I believe you are forcing a narrative upon yourself trying to convince yourself and other that he lost the interview, I would say you’re even trying a bit too much to prove it where you’ve lost the light of things, but yeah ok whatever makes you live calmly
its a theme so normies on the internet could even grasp the comphresion behind the theme by comparing it from the movie the matrix, except people are too blind to see past the physical limitations that have constrained and indoctrinated you since birth and the day you were given that 9 digit social security number, so you can eat shit work die, so when you speak against unorthodox ideologies it proves how sophisticated the psychological operations are and how precise they have been orchestrated by the principalities of evil for we not wrestle with the flesh and blood put the forces of evil, you people will soon find out that your reality has been manipulated since birth.
@@eli83627 average physicalist, that has no comprehension beyond their limitations of there eyes, with such intricate complexion attributes of each human, the transcendental entities of evil still have the wool over your eyes. love you bro hope you are able to bask in the glory of the light, and get to taste the nontangible realm of eternity one day
Because she was not a journalist or an interviewer. she was a performance artist. If you’re doing an honest interview of anyone, you want to document the person in front of you, not the one that you have in your head. It doesn’t matter if you’re interviewing Satan himself. It doesn’t even matter if he’s guilty. Do an actual interview, documenting reality, not a Kabuki theater skit, to further an agenda.
@@danielbailey2255 well, the job for an interview,if you’re not propagandist- no I take that back even if you are, is to display highlight the person in front of you with their own words and beliefs. Gotchu games, trick editing in the other cheats to turn the interviewer to “get someone” not serve as an interview, it does not let people see what’s there. If you want to go after an interviewee, give them enough rope to hang themselves, but this sort of flagrant disrespect for the art of interviewing that the BBC pulled, is disgusting. I don’t care if you’re interviewing Hitler, Charles Manson, or Stalin, or even Satan himself, an interviewer’s job is not to do anything but draw out the interviewee. If you can always analysis later, but a good interview is not a roasting.
@@PCJustice70 there are alot of variables in a interview she was dueling one of the most manipulative people around an he is lying threw his teeth I'd say the point of a interview varies between interviews the police conduct interviews with the intention of catching out falsehoods it's a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type thing
Even if he is innocent this sort of showing in court will land him in jail. Tate just gets defensive and plays the victim card whenever he's asked to explain himself. If he didn't keep shifting the focus off himself he'd look less guilty. Should've answered the questions factually with humility instead of getting so triggered every time she spoke, he was just interested in attacking the interviewer and destroying her credibility and all he did was juvenile strawmans of her arguments, dodged questions, and lied.
I found it difficult to spot the 'colossal intellect' this guy refers to 😅 Tate actually comes across as a bit of a moron tbh which is why he looks completely lost and panicky facing someone who easily sees through his bullshit spiel.
@@leecummins1549 yeah I'd say he's like a really smart 13 year old - can easily influence other kids and gullible adults, but hits a brick wall against anyone with ok critical thinking. My main beef with him is that I've never heard anything particularly original or interesting from him - the quite good things he says I've heard a million times from better men. The bad things he's said are really deplorable or shallow and materialistic.
Nah they wouldn't hire this wanna be lawyer. For one his hammer analogy is a fail. No girls were taken to his house without their consent. Therefore saying that if you asked someone if you can pay them too beat them with a hammer would be more accurate. It's not like what he said. The Tate brothers weren't going around kidnapping women. If you watch the videos you will see the girls partying, laughing, and having a good time. Those girls do not look like they were kidnapped.
Andrew Tate isn't good at debates at all. He's just a logical fallacy, faulty reasoning machine gun, but he says it so confidently that people buy his BS. He would get rekt in a debate with Destiny that's why his curiously obsequious brother chickened out of debating Destiny.
I am no fan of the tates but cuckstiny shouldn’t really be the one to debate him lol. I would much rather have bruce rivers or joe rogan debate him and ask real questions without being intimidated.
SHe made andrew lie in front of the entire world, few days before he goes to court. She did perfectly well Politicians are way better at this, andrew shouldve gotten some training
@@cmap1503she did misquote him multiple times which lead to all the Andrew Tate meatriders down playing what she said. Overall she did a pretty bad job Andrew lied straight to her face and she allowed him to continue forward without trouble
I don’t like taste . Some things he says is good and some bad . Not a fan by any measure but he wiped the floor with her . This is brainwashing and delusion
My friend I sorry but I have to say your interpretation is distorted. 1: The journalist posed loaded questions, which are designed to manipulate or trap the respondent by assuming something that may not be true or by including an unwarranted assumption within the question itself. However, Andrew skillfully explained the truth using layman's terms and basic logic. 2: Using basic logic, Andrew discredited everything the journalist said. For example, when she asked, "You said you the most dangerous man in the world,". Professional fighters like Ali and Mike Tyson have also made similar claims, rendering the loaded question ineffective. - Andrew Tate is a professional fighter 3: The interviewer's questions lack common sense as they are presented more as statements than genuine inquiries. This disregard for logical questioning undermines the integrity of the interview and reflects poorly on the interviewer's approach. 4: It is evident that the interviewer did not thoroughly research or watch Andrew's videos, as he rightly points out. By her failure to respond or assert that she has done the necessary preparation, she inadvertently admits to the accuracy of Andrew's claims about her questions. This situation is akin to someone telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're merely reading from a piece of paper, only for you to prove that they were correct in their assessment.
I think the body language portrayed by the reporter has enabled Andrew to really carry the conversation. Her arguments seem to be almost discredited by her posture and looking down.
@@Applleheead with so many of her staff members behind the camera and ON camera I doubt that safety was an issue. BBC sent 1 of their "top reporters"; a tiny woman, to face a towering behemoth.. she turned out stone cold and determined. Dissociation maybe..
I'll be honest I didn't find her impressive, for a BBC journalist I found her to be petulant through a thin veil of professionalism via basic non-conversive questioning, utilising his comments as a weapon against him, which were provided in such short snippets that it was obviously done to purposefully erode the context. Her demeanor was telling and as the person giving the interview it came across as nothing more than an attack. This woman didn't do enough research and didn't think about how she wanted the interview to develop to get her desire outcome. In times of old she'd have gotten the sack for this lack of professionalism. The BBC was trusted to be fair in interviews and ask tough questions, they'd interview presidents, dictators, war lords, but this was just an attack. I'm no Andrew Tate fan, I've always questioned how he makes so much money and I think he's putting on an act, but this was no great take down of the man.
Nor an attack,just questions of statements he himself made in his take on life.she was impressive as tate coulnt sway,confuse or over talk her.she stayed on format.
Trafficer described how he recruited girls, he put it on his own website. During the interview he claimed he never said it. 😂😂 lot of Tate simps remember his clips about girls recruitment. You just didn't know it was a crime at that time. Now you all have amnesia. Discousting.
@j.ceasar if he had really done that then surely he would have been on trial by now, no? The fact that after nearly 18 months of investigations, he still hasn't even been put on trial for supposed human trafficking, speaks volumes in my opinion. They are clutching at straws! 😳🥺🫣
@@PaulMac-tj4dq That's exactly what is happening. He was officially charged just some months ago. It can take years until it's done. And why are you acting as if you have more information than the romanian government? You dont.
name anyone who works for the BBC who has donated as much as him to charity or teaches people how to obtain money/wealth to better their own life ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
Oh,just stop the hammer analogy for fxxx sake! Also If they were going to charge him based on text messages one would think they'd have done it by now! BBCs attempt to bring him down has back fired big time!
You have any idea of the police practices of romania or any country? obviously he isnt going to be charged on texts but it was HIS PHONE they used to release alot of indicting text recipts. his website shows you everything, additionally. I remember months ago you all were like in a week he'll be out. HE IS STILL detained within his house as police continue to build more evidence and establish an undeniable case that will leave no wiggle room in his inevitable prosecution. The hammer analogy is used to show how ridiculous tates arguments are, you cant see it when he talks, you lack the critical reasoning, so this man applies an analogy to the same principles and you say "for fucks sake", when his arguments get beamed in the face of logic every prefice of tates fails, every argument returns to being a circular dick rub to the face, if you can see it ;) have a good day tatertot(don't bother replyig)-MORGAZ
>you said a womans intimate parts belong to her male partner is that correct? was it sarcasm? so you were being sarcastic when you said a womans intimate parts belong to her male partner?
Yes they have no interest on informing themselves, properly. They've been told to hate something and therefore they do. Informing themselves may remove their biases.
👍 he’s dangerous because he’s waking people up from the matrix of lies and agenda of people who wish to shape the world around their narrow world view.
You know what baffles me? Why did none of these interviewers go to him with all this video footage to show during the interview? Like literally none of them.
also you didnt mention that hes saying '''the average man is far worse than me'' this is called a Two Quo Que Falacy (you too falacy) basically the other men / average men is irrelevant from his actions, and also hes presupposing that the moral line is the average man. Hes also shifting the goal post by saying ''look at these women who say good things about me'' again this is not relevant to the women that have been wronged by him.
People like andrew tate, he's a good man and a positive force on countless young men, you've just read two headlines and rode the blind hate train which is exactly what the matrix wants.
This guy lost lost me as soon as he said dont listen to children who suck Andrew off how mature off u lad 😂😂 if a person disagree with u doesn't make them a child we all dont think the same and thats beautiful. The truth is the fact not feeling 😂😂😂
@@Saltytomatoe not really i just love how different we all are thats all and different ideas make the world go around the day we all think the same is the day the world will not move forward i celebrate different in ideas and thoughts so i can learn more for myself
@@stevenicol1 how sensitive of u my lady 😂😂😂😂😂 where did i take about him and did u read anything i said but its ok u can say wat every u like its a free world 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@kenlee4356 why? If they've got concrete evidence. As a government body you don't waste money holding someone in prison then realising them and then paying authorities to watch his house. Seems to me they have nothing really and are still looking. If you have evidence of sexual cohersion, sexual assault or rape you dont keep someone on house arrest wasting tax money. You'd charge him immediately. Bottom line if it take months to charge someone yet you claim you have evidence. Your lying.
@@kenlee4356 and they confiscated all his stuff and went through all of it such as his phone, computer, cameras at his house, etc.. and they still haven't found anything yet. Wow imagine that
@@jordash9992 how do you know they havent found anything yet? All you know is they havent publicised anything yet. Also, they have found enough evidence to get him in house arrest
Hold on, he has a machete video and he has a video where he has a knife in his hands. Now you are saying that she ment the knife video where he didn’t even say to hit a women with the knife he just had it in his hand? I mean stop it. She mention A and you bring up B that has nothing to do with it.
The fact that you have to rely on Internet resources to prove your point, highlights and proves that Andrew Tate is correct, you can't rely on Internet resources you can find some guide but never prove your point with Internet resources unless you have been the one experience yourself, it's so easy to talk shit against people but so hard to prove it, nice try 👏👏👏👏👏👏
A better example is when a cop goes to a domestic assault and sees the wife with a black eye and broken nose but she doesn't want to press charges. The cop not only will arrest the husband but he has no choice but to arrest him because of department policy. Even with the wife pleading with the cop to not take him away he gets charged and hopefully convicted. This also applies to trafficking victims who don't believe they are victims so the State takes it upon itself to press charges even if the girls insist that they haven't been victimized.
These interviews are designed to spread a certain narrative. Only very smart or very stupid people would ever agree to one because the house usually wins. The interviewer was definitely well prepared but her tactics were essential for this format. He would have walked all over the average reporter.
Is the contention Tate doing crimes or Tate not being nice? Could we first get clear on that? Everyone, except for Tate, is mixing those up and it's super frustrating. You cannot win, or lose, if there are no rules.
So is it possible that the person/person saying that I hit them with the hammer are lying. She was so emotional conducting this interview, I don't see how you think that she is a stone cold killer. She bottled this interview.
It’s a camera that Tate himself set up so he could have his own recording of the full interview Because he knows how the bbc chop and edit their videos before they release it to the public to make people like Tate look bad
We saw the entire video She came there to 'demolish' him and lost. Don't bring a butter kn*fe to a mache*e fight. The fact that she refused to shake his had at the end of the interview shows her unwillingness to accept defeat.
@@More_Row No she did NOT. Her information was erroneous, biased and wasn't thoroughly fact-checked. Interview 'clips' is not the entire interview. I used to watch his content, hence why I KNOW that she is lying. She came with an agenda, and she clearly failed, hence why she's angry. Her pseudo-Journalism career is over, hence why the interview was removed. Had she done a so-called 'good job', the interview would have been trending for all the viewers to see. If she wants to be a 'feminist crusader', go defend REAL women's rights from the trans community. She clearly failed in the Andrew Tate, department.
@@PeachesandCream225 The questions were never dodged. He simply told her that her questions were biased and erroneous. When he responded, and she didn't like the response, she made it 'personal.' She needs to go back to Journalism 101... 1. Know the subject that you're interviewing. 2. Get the REAL story, not the biased clips you were given to work with. 3. If you're going to reveal your sources, let the viewers get an insight as to who 'Sophie' is, and give the individual a chance to defend themselves. Until she actually presents or produces a real-life "Sophie"...I'm going to say that her story has no credibility and is indeed, in fact, 'fictional.'
Your missing the point. The fact that she was so hostile, discredited the whole interview. So no one really cares was said this interview. Since dirty tricks were involved. She might of won the battle but lost the war. 😅
While it is widely acknowledged, even among his fans, that he employs gaslighting techniques and displays manipulative behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean he "lost" the interview. It is crucial to consider that the BBC sent an underprepared interviewer who failed to present evidence in its proper context. When faced with his denial, she appeared at a loss for words, seemingly unprepared for the encounter. It seems she underestimated the magnitude of the situation.
Wrong. There is no victim until a crime has been established. There can be complainants but until a crime has been established, you cannot call them victim.
I am an Andrew Tate fan and I found your video genuinely fascinating to see the opinion from the other side. Even if you believe Andrew to be guilty, I ask you this. Is the BBC attempting to do a hit piece? I assume you answer yes because it is quite clear to see the interviewer telling him that he is a bad person which wouldn't be the case if it was an unbiased interview. Now I ask you this, why would you want to listen to a hit piece from a news service that is designed to push out propaganda? Wouldn't you want to hear both sides instead of trying to prove your beliefs correct because if your beliefs are right that you should be able to hear both sides and still keep your original opinion, this is one of the reasons I watched this video because it is important to hear both sides. Like if you agree.
They were not trying to do a hit piece. Although the journalist was doing a lousy job and lost control of the interview, most of the BBC viewers don't know and don't care who Tate is. He's only a celebrity in the UA-cam world of male influencers and this interview was a footnote of the feed of real news.
She nailed him but sadly I do think it’ll LOOK like he won. I, and I assume most normal humans, assume that people tell the truth. And he looks so damn convinced that he’s truth telling!! I caught myself getting indignated with him, when he was either misdirecting or straight up lying!!! That’s fucking insane… 🤦🏻♂️
@@johnharrison8815 I used to like Tate moderately. But I got convinced he was bad when I saw the videos of him teaching the loverboy method, aka describing how to pimp women for cams. It is OK to change one's mind. Not everything is a Matrix attack. Just ask yourself this: how would you distinguish a universe in which Andrew Tate was bad, vs good? If you can't come up with a way to distinguish those two cases, you're just blindly believing anything you're told.
@@solnassant1291 don’t disagree with you. I like him for the most part but I can see where people dislike him. I think if he’s found guilty with evidence I’ll change my opinion on him but same if he’s found innocent I think others should also reconsider their opinion. 🤷🏽♂️
Perhaps it’s not because he’s manipulating you. Perhaps it’s because he said something interesting that opened your eyes. It’s part of healthy debate and conversation.
@@youtubesucks3882 Well I’ve seen multiple videos of people on the internet defending Andrew Tate that look like they are in their late 20’s to early 30’s. Maybe even older.
most people don’t see how theres people with so much power over us that will do as much as they can to not let people expose the reality of the world to the public. Andrew Tate has exposed a lot of truth to the world, as they are some humor he has that wouldn't be accepted by everyone, it is too much for people to take this seriously when people do way worse things on tiktok. The examples this guy from this UA-cam channel has set are very justified, therefore it isn't enough evidence to clarify his wrong doing, same goes with the things BBC has said. Andrew tate helps a lot of people and i myself have seen the best of my abilities when influenced by this man, many people get bad influenced by him but this is because they don’t understand Andrew Tate’s real messages to the world. They will always be a surten extent to what people with high power will want the people they rule to know, i am really grateful for this man and i might have to even myself go back to watching his videos as they significantly made me be a good man, i have watched a far long extent of his content and i encourage people to do so, just make sure you have long videos that can be found in the app Rumble
This could be your best video so far. You're great at identifying the tricks and techniques used, shining a light on them, and then explaining just what it is we're looking at. Fantastic stuff!!
How was this a great video? First of all his hammer analogy sucked. He stated that it's like paying someone to keep quiet after beating them with a hammer. But failed to mention that all the girls knew what they were getting into beforehand. So a more accurate analogy would be asking someone if you can beat them with a hammer if you pay them money for it. So his hammer analogy is irrelevant and I stopped listening after he kept bringing the hammer analogy up which was About half way through the video. Cause how can someone be so dumb to believe that he actually is making a good point with the hammer analogy 😅. But I realize most Tate haters aren't that intelligent to begin with since you have to have a low IQ to believe everything the media says instead of doing your own research and watching the whole Tate videos instead of watching a 15 second video that was taken out of context. Smh
This is the type of guy who would have been beat TF up everyday had he gone to public school. Mouthy with no physical ability to protect himself. Throws out insults with no manly ability to protect himself. Where's the logic in this?
@@BrakaInu you obviously didn’t watch this video. Imagine coming to a video, commenting after 5 seconds and leaving when this dude literally pulls up his lies and evidence against him….
How is it in any way interesting, even to the audience, when she asks "did you say X" (always one sentence that sounds bad out of context) and EVERYONE (she, Tate, the audience) know he did in fact say it. Not only that, they all already have an opinion about statement X. I would assume that she and the audience, if they actually want to learn something, would like to know WHY he said it or WHAT he meant. To either get that information, or hear an explanation or see if it matches their already formed opinion.
I don't care what this man has done, if the case is weak, throw it out. Tell the prosecution and police to do their jobs properly. I hate a sloppy prosecution
I'd agree that technically he "lost" in majority situations. But since she as the one asking questions and not someone being interrogated, was in naturally such more of a power position, she has the high ground and her spot was pretty easy to take. Even if he technically lost, he is waay more impressive, it's incredible the speed at which he is capable of coming up with constant excuses and re-frames on the spot in real time to save his a**. Especially in a situation of being caught red handed.
Apparently the conversation he had in prison was recorded, he gave Luk instructions to get the women to say they are not victims. They were probably scared to go against him.
@@bramvdp4191 oh I get you so he can take an insta girl that's earning fk all and give her wages of 40 grand a month and take 80 for being multiple things yeah I'd hate someone to do that for me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don’t understand why can someone win in an interview. In the interview, BBC clearly prepared loaded questions that are misleading and very bias towards Andrew. Since, Andrew cannot incriminate himself because he is within the country of Romania, he wasn’t allowed to talk about the case, hence the frequent loaded questions from BBC. A little too pushy, it clearly shows the Media’s bias towards him. Imo he was just setting things straight
I’m honestly ashamed that I used to like the Tate brothers.
Same bro
I'm ashamed of you both too.
No wonder..u r all genz..just one advice, take life lessons from ur elders, not from internet..
@@philmckrakin6752 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good for you! We all need our lessons sometimes.
Tatertots will be sour on the comments here. Also it's pretty telling when he says "I'm the most famous person in world", what a clown
99% are losers in comments
They are sour in comments everywhere
well the thing is jesus is the most famous person in the world he said he was the most googled man not famous person
Saying absolutely not is very different from saying no. Andrew Tate isn't as intelligent as he thinks he is.
Tate is so arrogantly loud about his ‘innocence’ when he’s literally snitched on himself. 😂😂😂
The BBC seems to be making the interview very hard to find in the UK.
This is odd if they won the debate.
Took 2 seconds to find it from 4 days ago on bbc website... what you talking shit for ?
@@Saltytomatoe says the one whose literally on every comment talking shit.
@@Saltytomatoethey deleted it off their UA-cam page, you know, where people can comment their thoughts and observations.
@@Saltytomatoe That's not the full interview you sucker
@@Saltytomatoe just checked the photo..definitely checks out.
I'm stoic also Andrew Tate: literally shouting and screaming in every video of him
Indeed 🤣
Oh he is very nervous, gives me vibes of female during shark week
Please explain how he lost if they had to edit and chop up the video to the point where more than half of it was gone when they released it on their channel? Right there proves that the BBC lost if they had to edit out parts and rearrange his answers to certain questions to make the video look better.
They cant Upload a 40min Trashtalk lol
Agree
@@EinEgomane2 They still took it down
@@TheInternetofRandom idk what Video you mean, cuz the 40 min Talk is from Tates cam
You realise tate was a spoiled child through all of that interview... bbc done tate a favour by chopping it up
Many people are easy marks for a charming sociopath.
I.e. Sammy The Bull Gravano who is now on every other podcast mesmerizing hosts with his homicidal career.
Really what this boils down to is the following: can the minions of authority (at any level) who press charges and prosecute people, are they entitled to DO SO for someone who (they feel) has committed a crime, even if the person that they feel is a "victim" does not feel victimized and will not testify? The answer of course is yes. That is the correct answer. Of course he can be prosecuted even if the "state" (whatever the state is) has no victims willing to take the stand. Whether or not the state will WIN in court (under the parameters of no actual victims here in the courtroom) is another question.
Also what is the crime? Prostitution? Human trafficking? Here is a good looking, intelligent, athlete, convincing women (that he sleeps with) to open up an Only Fans account so that they both may profit. So now, the "state" is OUTRAGED at this because they see the girl (who is in LOOOOOOVE with Andrew Tate) submitting to a man that the "state" hates, for whatever reason. That is who Tate calls "The Matrix."
This is fascinating. In some ways, its not all that much different than the "state" prosecuting someone in matters of domestic violence. Perhaps the "victim" has second thoughts afterwards and refuses to take the stand against the assailant and the state doesn't have much of a case, but it doesn't matter. The state sees an attack against a person as an attack against the "state" even if the person refuses to call themselves a victim. And so it goes when emotions like love are involved.
ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
~
I believe you are forcing a narrative upon yourself trying to convince yourself and other that he lost the interview, I would say you’re even trying a bit too much to prove it where you’ve lost the light of things, but yeah ok whatever makes you live calmly
I wanna see this guy interview Andrew Tate!
the amount of people who cant see tru Andrew Tate compulsive lying and mania just makes me sad about the world we are living.
don't worry. Many millions do. He is not even good at it.
Most of his fans are high schoolers who won't go to prom because they can't find a date. Nothing to worry about.
Same here, we live in idiocrathy era when Bugatti makes u a valuable human
The matrix theme is just ludicrous.... 😂😂😂
its a theme so normies on the internet could even grasp the comphresion behind the theme by comparing it from the movie the matrix, except people are too blind to see past the physical limitations that have constrained and indoctrinated you since birth and the day you were given that 9 digit social security number, so you can eat shit work die, so when you speak against unorthodox ideologies it proves how sophisticated the psychological operations are and how precise they have been orchestrated by the principalities of evil for we not wrestle with the flesh and blood put the forces of evil, you people will soon find out that your reality has been manipulated since birth.
Are you trying to start a job in bbc I don’t know what this video proves
average tate consumer mental gymnastics
@@eli83627 average physicalist, that has no comprehension beyond their limitations of there eyes, with such intricate complexion attributes of each human, the transcendental entities of evil still have the wool over your eyes. love you bro hope you are able to bask in the glory of the light, and get to taste the nontangible realm of eternity one day
This BBC interviewer should be sacked!!
Why? Give one good reason.
Because she was not a journalist or an interviewer. she was a performance artist. If you’re doing an honest interview of anyone, you want to document the person in front of you, not the one that you have in your head. It doesn’t matter if you’re interviewing Satan himself. It doesn’t even matter if he’s guilty. Do an actual interview, documenting reality, not a Kabuki theater skit, to further an agenda.
Why,?
@@danielbailey2255 well, the job for an interview,if you’re not propagandist- no I take that back even if you are, is to display highlight the person in front of you with their own words and beliefs.
Gotchu games, trick editing in the other cheats to turn the interviewer to “get someone” not serve as an interview, it does not let people see what’s there. If you want to go after an interviewee, give them enough rope to hang themselves, but this sort of flagrant disrespect for the art of interviewing that the BBC pulled, is disgusting.
I don’t care if you’re interviewing Hitler, Charles Manson, or Stalin, or even Satan himself, an interviewer’s job is not to do anything but draw out the interviewee. If you can always analysis later, but a good interview is not a roasting.
@@PCJustice70 there are alot of variables in a interview she was dueling one of the most manipulative people around an he is lying threw his teeth I'd say the point of a interview varies between interviews the police conduct interviews with the intention of catching out falsehoods it's a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type thing
Even if he is innocent this sort of showing in court will land him in jail. Tate just gets defensive and plays the victim card whenever he's asked to explain himself.
If he didn't keep shifting the focus off himself he'd look less guilty. Should've answered the questions factually with humility instead of getting so triggered every time she spoke, he was just interested in attacking the interviewer and destroying her credibility and all he did was juvenile strawmans of her arguments, dodged questions, and lied.
ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
I found it difficult to spot the 'colossal intellect' this guy refers to 😅 Tate actually comes across as a bit of a moron tbh which is why he looks completely lost and panicky facing someone who easily sees through his bullshit spiel.
@@leecummins1549 yeah I'd say he's like a really smart 13 year old - can easily influence other kids and gullible adults, but hits a brick wall against anyone with ok critical thinking.
My main beef with him is that I've never heard anything particularly original or interesting from him - the quite good things he says I've heard a million times from better men. The bad things he's said are really deplorable or shallow and materialistic.
Does BBC pay this guy?😂
awh Charlie's upset
Nah they wouldn't hire this wanna be lawyer. For one his hammer analogy is a fail. No girls were taken to his house without their consent. Therefore saying that if you asked someone if you can pay them too beat them with a hammer would be more accurate. It's not like what he said. The Tate brothers weren't going around kidnapping women. If you watch the videos you will see the girls partying, laughing, and having a good time. Those girls do not look like they were kidnapped.
1000%
Yes they actually do 😂
I think he simps for lucy😂😂😂
Andrew Tate isn't good at debates at all. He's just a logical fallacy, faulty reasoning machine gun, but he says it so confidently that people buy his BS. He would get rekt in a debate with Destiny that's why his curiously obsequious brother chickened out of debating Destiny.
💯
I am no fan of the tates but cuckstiny shouldn’t really be the one to debate him lol. I would much rather have bruce rivers or joe rogan debate him and ask real questions without being intimidated.
You're being WAY too generous to this interviewer. Apart from a few bits of admirable stonewalling, she was terrible.
SHe made andrew lie in front of the entire world, few days before he goes to court.
She did perfectly well
Politicians are way better at this, andrew shouldve gotten some training
He should really have been keeping his mouth shut.. His ego just cant do it..
@@cmap1503she did misquote him multiple times which lead to all the Andrew Tate meatriders down playing what she said. Overall she did a pretty bad job Andrew lied straight to her face and she allowed him to continue forward without trouble
She s been tough but Tate’s target it’s to make how many more people could, to believe his prosecuted by BBC and legacy media.
It’s ended like that
You can tell these comments didn’t spend even 5 seconds watching the video 😂
what comments exactly?
average physicalist normie that believes everything hes told
@@anthonymachado-n9d you’re a child lil bro. Shut up. You speak from opinions not facts.
you are trying really hard to get hired by BBC aren't you lmao
She did she caught him red handed lying. Every other journo pay him lip service. She did not.
How can you win an interview?
😂
Then how can BBC lose in this interview as per many followers of TATE
Yup I even wonder why this looked like a debate it's an INTERVIEW
Dude😂😂😂 oh man ... Come on BBC ain't paying you or you ain't getting famous with this stuff
Dead*ss 😂
2:10 yes we had huge fight with Tate’s fan coz he also wanted to lock me inside house 🏠 this is crazy in 21st century
Great video. I can't believe people still fall for Tate's charade.
I suffered from Tate’s fan so much, I can’t even imagine if fan is like this than WHAT should be the master
ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
let that do be a lesson, anyman who worships tate or suggests you to do XXX work is dangerous man and should be left alone@@MatrixofLife
Great botting. I can't believe people like you fake this for likes
I don’t like taste . Some things he says is good and some bad . Not a fan by any measure but he wiped the floor with her . This is brainwashing and delusion
This is a reach, you know what's weirder than the Tate Fanboys. The tate haters I find you all weird. That hammer analogy was terrible.
Yeah theyre both weird
My friend I sorry but I have to say your interpretation is distorted.
1: The journalist posed loaded questions, which are designed to manipulate or trap the respondent by assuming something that may not be true or by including an unwarranted assumption within the question itself. However, Andrew skillfully explained the truth using layman's terms and basic logic.
2: Using basic logic, Andrew discredited everything the journalist said. For example, when she asked, "You said you the most dangerous man in the world,". Professional fighters like Ali and Mike Tyson have also made similar claims, rendering the loaded question ineffective. - Andrew Tate is a professional fighter
3: The interviewer's questions lack common sense as they are presented more as statements than genuine inquiries. This disregard for logical questioning undermines the integrity of the interview and reflects poorly on the interviewer's approach.
4: It is evident that the interviewer did not thoroughly research or watch Andrew's videos, as he rightly points out. By her failure to respond or assert that she has done the necessary preparation, she inadvertently admits to the accuracy of Andrew's claims about her questions. This situation is akin to someone telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're merely reading from a piece of paper, only for you to prove that they were correct in their assessment.
Andrew nail her so badly 😭😂. I don't know what u get doing this.😅 Loser
I think the body language portrayed by the reporter has enabled Andrew to really carry the conversation. Her arguments seem to be almost discredited by her posture and looking down.
tate did not carry anything outside of trying to over talk,etc.
yup she seems like she was depressed and needing of some SSRIs
I read that as intimidated but braving it 🤷
@@Applleheead with so many of her staff members behind the camera and ON camera I doubt that safety was an issue.
BBC sent 1 of their "top reporters"; a tiny woman, to face a towering behemoth.. she turned out stone cold and determined.
Dissociation maybe..
@@sirij8784 she obviously needs a degree from Hustlas University and a new Bugatti.. Depression is a myth created by the matrix 🙄🤦♂️
You ignore the fact that some of his accusers have already been caught out lying. Very dishonest.
She NAILED him it was very satisfying to watch him get flustered and lose his cool
You obviously don’t understand anything, how many boosters shots have you taken?
@@len3169 lmao facts.
@@len3169 😂
Hahahahahaha 😂😂😂
Tell me where?
I'll be honest I didn't find her impressive, for a BBC journalist I found her to be petulant through a thin veil of professionalism via basic non-conversive questioning, utilising his comments as a weapon against him, which were provided in such short snippets that it was obviously done to purposefully erode the context. Her demeanor was telling and as the person giving the interview it came across as nothing more than an attack. This woman didn't do enough research and didn't think about how she wanted the interview to develop to get her desire outcome. In times of old she'd have gotten the sack for this lack of professionalism. The BBC was trusted to be fair in interviews and ask tough questions, they'd interview presidents, dictators, war lords, but this was just an attack. I'm no Andrew Tate fan, I've always questioned how he makes so much money and I think he's putting on an act, but this was no great take down of the man.
Nor an attack,just questions of statements he himself made in his take on life.she was impressive as tate coulnt sway,confuse or over talk her.she stayed on format.
Trafficer described how he recruited girls, he put it on his own website. During the interview he claimed he never said it. 😂😂 lot of Tate simps remember his clips about girls recruitment. You just didn't know it was a crime at that time. Now you all have amnesia. Discousting.
I felt bad for her. I was always taught to respect our elders and he smashed her in all faucets
she just like another bbc🤡
Look at his knee *puts the comentary on tate*. Hence, completely invalid
if the BBC won the interview. Why did they block the video in the uk not even 24 hours after it being released?
They didn't.
@j.ceasar they cut out huge portions of the interview where Tate was tying the bbc "journalist" in knots! 😅
@@PaulMac-tj4dq I'm not going to argue with a person who supports human trafficking.
@j.ceasar if he had really done that then surely he would have been on trial by now, no? The fact that after nearly 18 months of investigations, he still hasn't even been put on trial for supposed human trafficking, speaks volumes in my opinion. They are clutching at straws! 😳🥺🫣
@@PaulMac-tj4dq That's exactly what is happening. He was officially charged just some months ago.
It can take years until it's done.
And why are you acting as if you have more information than the romanian government? You dont.
Did BBC conduct the Prince Andrew interview the same way they did this one?
andrew used to sell drugs
He said “I’m such a nice person” 😂
name anyone who works for the BBC who has donated as much as him to charity or teaches people how to obtain money/wealth to better their own life ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
This whole channel is sarcastic right?
But,
Why BBC hiding this interview?
Because everyone knows the bbc is fake news
I genuinely don’t think Tate is actually smart. He’s an “I speak more loudly than you therefore I am correct.” Type
Sure buddy, maybe listen to what he says
Oh,just stop the hammer analogy for fxxx sake! Also If they were going to charge him based on text messages one would think they'd have done it by now! BBCs attempt to bring him down has back fired big time!
You have any idea of the police practices of romania or any country? obviously he isnt going to be charged on texts but it was HIS PHONE they used to release alot of indicting text recipts. his website shows you everything, additionally. I remember months ago you all were like in a week he'll be out. HE IS STILL detained within his house as police continue to build more evidence and establish an undeniable case that will leave no wiggle room in his inevitable prosecution. The hammer analogy is used to show how ridiculous tates arguments are, you cant see it when he talks, you lack the critical reasoning, so this man applies an analogy to the same principles and you say "for fucks sake", when his arguments get beamed in the face of logic every prefice of tates fails, every argument returns to being a circular dick rub to the face, if you can see it ;)
have a good day tatertot(don't bother replyig)-MORGAZ
>you said a womans intimate parts belong to her male partner is that correct?
was it sarcasm?
so you were being sarcastic when you said a womans intimate parts belong to her male partner?
Listen to full video. He explained. 😊
@@moviesfan5513 I was about to say the same, these comments are just people who seeing clips of the interview
Yes they have no interest on informing themselves, properly.
They've been told to hate something and therefore they do. Informing themselves may remove their biases.
Wait, do you not understand what he meant when he said "I'm the most dangerous man in the world"?
👍 he’s dangerous because he’s waking people up from the matrix of lies and agenda of people who wish to shape the world around their narrow world view.
"this woman is iron..."..?? "Stone cold killer"..?? Hey bro are you sure you're watching the right interview? Or even the correct video?
This is also a perfect example of how too G will fold under pressure from a prosecutor especially if they use a female.
You know what baffles me?
Why did none of these interviewers go to him with all this video footage to show during the interview? Like literally none of them.
And the bbc had to remove the interview out if embarrassment ,,,,, explains it all really !
also you didnt mention that hes saying '''the average man is far worse than me'' this is called a Two Quo Que Falacy (you too falacy) basically the other men / average men is irrelevant from his actions, and also hes presupposing that the moral line is the average man.
Hes also shifting the goal post by saying ''look at these women who say good things about me'' again this is not relevant to the women that have been wronged by him.
the comment section under that video is ridiculous everyones riding his train so hard its insane
People like andrew tate, he's a good man and a positive force on countless young men, you've just read two headlines and rode the blind hate train which is exactly what the matrix wants.
@@misteryolo7248 that's what people said about Jimmy Savile
@@misteryolo7248the incel whisperers are chomos. Good men are not pdf's
This guy lost lost me as soon as he said dont listen to children who suck Andrew off how mature off u lad 😂😂 if a person disagree with u doesn't make them a child we all dont think the same and thats beautiful. The truth is the fact not feeling 😂😂😂
Sounds like he hit a nerve
@@Saltytomatoe not really i just love how different we all are thats all and different ideas make the world go around the day we all think the same is the day the world will not move forward i celebrate different in ideas and thoughts so i can learn more for myself
@@darkL45 you would be his girl if he asked, just admit it.
@@stevenicol1 how sensitive of u my lady 😂😂😂😂😂 where did i take about him and did u read anything i said but its ok u can say wat every u like its a free world 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@darkL45 don't be ashamed my man, nothing wrong with fancying a male.
Lol can’t believe you think this after even the BBC deleted the video 😂😂
If theres evidence why has he not been charged. I think hes innocent.
Because he's still being investigated
@kenlee4356 why? If they've got concrete evidence. As a government body you don't waste money holding someone in prison then realising them and then paying authorities to watch his house. Seems to me they have nothing really and are still looking. If you have evidence of sexual cohersion, sexual assault or rape you dont keep someone on house arrest wasting tax money. You'd charge him immediately. Bottom line if it take months to charge someone yet you claim you have evidence. Your lying.
@@kenlee4356 and they confiscated all his stuff and went through all of it such as his phone, computer, cameras at his house, etc.. and they still haven't found anything yet. Wow imagine that
@@jordash9992 because these things take time
@@jordash9992 how do you know they havent found anything yet? All you know is they havent publicised anything yet. Also, they have found enough evidence to get him in house arrest
Hold on, he has a machete video and he has a video where he has a knife in his hands. Now you are saying that she ment the knife video where he didn’t even say to hit a women with the knife he just had it in his hand? I mean stop it. She mention A and you bring up B that has nothing to do with it.
3:35 He's getting angry and bullying and he feels dangerous at this point.
and you dont see the full video
it actually 30 mins length. cut down more than half.
I thought at first they where trying to hang him but the more that goes on he looks guilty
Theres fucking jump cuts
The fact that you have to rely on Internet resources to prove your point, highlights and proves that Andrew Tate is correct, you can't rely on Internet resources you can find some guide but never prove your point with Internet resources unless you have been the one experience yourself, it's so easy to talk shit against people but so hard to prove it, nice try 👏👏👏👏👏👏
The only problem you have with tate is that Tate is no 1 and has accepted Islam
A better example is when a cop goes to a domestic assault and sees the wife with a black eye and broken nose but she doesn't want to press charges. The cop not only will arrest the husband but he has no choice but to arrest him because of department policy. Even with the wife pleading with the cop to not take him away he gets charged and hopefully convicted. This also applies to trafficking victims who don't believe they are victims so the State takes it upon itself to press charges even if the girls insist that they haven't been victimized.
These interviews are designed to spread a certain narrative. Only very smart or very stupid people would ever agree to one because the house usually wins. The interviewer was definitely well prepared but her tactics were essential for this format. He would have walked all over the average reporter.
Is the contention Tate doing crimes or Tate not being nice? Could we first get clear on that? Everyone, except for Tate, is mixing those up and it's super frustrating.
You cannot win, or lose, if there are no rules.
Not about win ning,...
Only the truth...
So is it possible that the person/person saying that I hit them with the hammer are lying.
She was so emotional conducting this interview, I don't see how you think that she is a stone cold killer. She bottled this interview.
Andrew Tate is a legend
@@R0ll3Napper no, for all same people
Andrew Tate said on court document that his followers are LOSER.
@@kdvytc yes
Yaa he earn money by selling nukes of women which is haraam
Holy what a bunch of sheep in this comment section 😂
Sheep are the kids sending Tate $50 every month...
You are sounding extremely bias here mate I’m sure if police went through all your wtsapp messages ever they won’t all be squeaky clean !
Their audio is shocking for a BBC production
It’s a camera that Tate himself set up so he could have his own recording of the full interview
Because he knows how the bbc chop and edit their videos before they release it to the public to make people like Tate look bad
We saw the entire video
She came there to 'demolish' him and lost.
Don't bring a butter kn*fe to a mache*e fight.
The fact that she refused to shake his had at the end of the interview shows her unwillingness to accept defeat.
Why would she shake is hand at the end if she believes these things he's done are true. Which she does
Really? He literally tried to dodge every question or literally lie
@@More_Row
No she did NOT.
Her information was erroneous, biased and wasn't thoroughly fact-checked.
Interview 'clips' is not the entire interview. I used to watch his content, hence why I KNOW that she is lying.
She came with an agenda, and she clearly failed, hence why she's angry. Her pseudo-Journalism career is over, hence why the interview was removed.
Had she done a so-called 'good job', the interview would have been trending for all the viewers to see.
If she wants to be a 'feminist crusader', go defend REAL women's rights from the trans community.
She clearly failed in the Andrew Tate, department.
@@PeachesandCream225
The questions were never dodged.
He simply told her that her questions were biased and erroneous.
When he responded, and she didn't like the response, she made it 'personal.'
She needs to go back to Journalism 101...
1. Know the subject that you're interviewing.
2. Get the REAL story, not the biased clips you were given to work with.
3. If you're going to reveal your sources, let the viewers get an insight as to who 'Sophie' is, and give the individual a chance to defend themselves.
Until she actually presents or produces a real-life "Sophie"...I'm going to say that her story has no credibility and is indeed, in fact, 'fictional.'
Those who know do not need a knife.some want a machete,yet only cut themselves
25.000 50000 duizend this man payes to talk about him who is losing
How did he lose the interview? The bbc interviewer had absolutely zero evidence to the things she said.
Also, her body language was appalling, her questions were loaded and leading and her behaviour was very unprofessional. A real disappointment.
This reaction video was entirely emotionally manipulative. Especially the hammer bit.
Bro if bbc won the debate then why would they cut the debate down 😂
Your missing the point. The fact that she was so hostile, discredited the whole interview. So no one really cares was said this interview. Since dirty tricks were involved. She might of won the battle but lost the war. 😅
Apostate prophet did the best videos exposing the tater and his brother
While it is widely acknowledged, even among his fans, that he employs gaslighting techniques and displays manipulative behavior, it doesn't necessarily mean he "lost" the interview. It is crucial to consider that the BBC sent an underprepared interviewer who failed to present evidence in its proper context. When faced with his denial, she appeared at a loss for words, seemingly unprepared for the encounter. It seems she underestimated the magnitude of the situation.
Wrong. There is no victim until a crime has been established. There can be complainants but until a crime has been established, you cannot call them victim.
I am an Andrew Tate fan and I found your video genuinely fascinating to see the opinion from the other side. Even if you believe Andrew to be guilty, I ask you this. Is the BBC attempting to do a hit piece? I assume you answer yes because it is quite clear to see the interviewer telling him that he is a bad person which wouldn't be the case if it was an unbiased interview. Now I ask you this, why would you want to listen to a hit piece from a news service that is designed to push out propaganda? Wouldn't you want to hear both sides instead of trying to prove your beliefs correct because if your beliefs are right that you should be able to hear both sides and still keep your original opinion, this is one of the reasons I watched this video because it is important to hear both sides. Like if you agree.
They were not trying to do a hit piece. Although the journalist was doing a lousy job and lost control of the interview, most of the BBC viewers don't know and don't care who Tate is. He's only a celebrity in the UA-cam world of male influencers and this interview was a footnote of the feed of real news.
I hope u r not crazy fan who wants to lock women at home without permission to go out?
He got too emotional....poor thing....where is the control of the rational man he brags to be
BBC? Is that you?
curb ur iq
He has such a ego he thought he could go on Social Media and convince people before they find out the truth.
She nailed him but sadly I do think it’ll LOOK like he won. I, and I assume most normal humans, assume that people tell the truth. And he looks so damn convinced that he’s truth telling!!
I caught myself getting indignated with him, when he was either misdirecting or straight up lying!!! That’s fucking insane… 🤦🏻♂️
@solnassant1291: Where’s the evidence that he is lying? If you actually believe what the BBC says, then you are the problem in the world. 🤡
You should use your own thoughts than the thoughts you’re programmed to think
@@johnharrison8815 I used to like Tate moderately. But I got convinced he was bad when I saw the videos of him teaching the loverboy method, aka describing how to pimp women for cams. It is OK to change one's mind. Not everything is a Matrix attack. Just ask yourself this: how would you distinguish a universe in which Andrew Tate was bad, vs good? If you can't come up with a way to distinguish those two cases, you're just blindly believing anything you're told.
How can you win an interview…?
@@solnassant1291 don’t disagree with you. I like him for the most part but I can see where people dislike him. I think if he’s found guilty with evidence I’ll change my opinion on him but same if he’s found innocent I think others should also reconsider their opinion. 🤷🏽♂️
people don’t realize how good andrew is at manipulating. every time i see a clip of him i always come back to that realization.
Perhaps it’s not because he’s manipulating you. Perhaps it’s because he said something interesting that opened your eyes. It’s part of healthy debate and conversation.
Is he really? I feel like you are only impressed by him if you are young
@@PeachesandCream225 I disagree. In fact I would say the majority of his fans are around his age.
@@ViperV977 I disagree. In fact I would say the majority of his fans are around 14 of age.
@@youtubesucks3882 Well I’ve seen multiple videos of people on the internet defending Andrew Tate that look like they are in their late 20’s to early 30’s. Maybe even older.
most people don’t see how theres people with so much power over us that will do as much as they can to not let people expose the reality of the world to the public. Andrew Tate has exposed a lot of truth to the world, as they are some humor he has that wouldn't be accepted by everyone, it is too much for people to take this seriously when people do way worse things on tiktok. The examples this guy from this UA-cam channel has set are very justified, therefore it isn't enough evidence to clarify his wrong doing, same goes with the things BBC has said. Andrew tate helps a lot of people and i myself have seen the best of my abilities when influenced by this man, many people get bad influenced by him but this is because they don’t understand Andrew Tate’s real messages to the world. They will always be a surten extent to what people with high power will want the people they rule to know, i am really grateful for this man and i might have to even myself go back to watching his videos as they significantly made me be a good man, i have watched a far long extent of his content and i encourage people to do so, just make sure you have long videos that can be found in the app Rumble
This could be your best video so far. You're great at identifying the tricks and techniques used, shining a light on them, and then explaining just what it is we're looking at. Fantastic stuff!!
How was this a great video? First of all his hammer analogy sucked. He stated that it's like paying someone to keep quiet after beating them with a hammer. But failed to mention that all the girls knew what they were getting into beforehand. So a more accurate analogy would be asking someone if you can beat them with a hammer if you pay them money for it. So his hammer analogy is irrelevant and I stopped listening after he kept bringing the hammer analogy up which was About half way through the video. Cause how can someone be so dumb to believe that he actually is making a good point with the hammer analogy 😅. But I realize most Tate haters aren't that intelligent to begin with since you have to have a low IQ to believe everything the media says instead of doing your own research and watching the whole Tate videos instead of watching a 15 second video that was taken out of context. Smh
ua-cam.com/video/tTBWfkE7BXU/v-deo.html
This is the type of guy who would have been beat TF up everyday had he gone to public school.
Mouthy with no physical ability to protect himself.
Throws out insults with no manly ability to protect himself. Where's the logic in this?
I’m like you cuz but I’m skeptical of anyone who tells me not to read the comments
Cause he knows he is talking some BS..
@@BrakaInu you obviously didn’t watch this video. Imagine coming to a video, commenting after 5 seconds and leaving when this dude literally pulls up his lies and evidence against him….
How is it in any way interesting, even to the audience, when she asks "did you say X" (always one sentence that sounds bad out of context) and EVERYONE (she, Tate, the audience) know he did in fact say it. Not only that, they all already have an opinion about statement X.
I would assume that she and the audience, if they actually want to learn something, would like to know WHY he said it or WHAT he meant. To either get that information, or hear an explanation or see if it matches their already formed opinion.
This dude is in bed with the matrix
I don't care what this man has done, if the case is weak, throw it out. Tell the prosecution and police to do their jobs properly. I hate a sloppy prosecution
This is why he converted to islam
I'd agree that technically he "lost" in majority situations. But since she as the one asking questions and not someone being interrogated, was in naturally such more of a power position, she has the high ground and her spot was pretty easy to take. Even if he technically lost, he is waay more impressive, it's incredible the speed at which he is capable of coming up with constant excuses and re-frames on the spot in real time to save his a**. Especially in a situation of being caught red handed.
Offering a job is automatically taking advantage of somone?? 🤔
I have just one thing for you: look at yourself in the mirror.
that's all.
He rated himself out in the videos he made himself and put on the Internet for everyone to see.
Where did this guy get the info that Tate paid these girls not to speak up?
It was in the media
@@Applleheead and the evidence for this is were?
Apparently the conversation he had in prison was recorded, he gave Luk instructions to get the women to say they are not victims. They were probably scared to go against him.
This man thinks he's so inteligent😂
😂😂😂very funny look like a standup comedy.
I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree.
So he is manipulating women into earning thousand of pounds ok got ya
Exactly 😂 I think this guy is trying to score a job in BBC
Yeah so he can rip them off for most of their moneu
@@bramvdp4191 oh I get you so he can take an insta girl that's earning fk all and give her wages of 40 grand a month and take 80 for being multiple things yeah I'd hate someone to do that for me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yeah so he can take all that money and make them prisoners in the house? OK get ya
Deluded 😂😂😂
I don’t understand why can someone win in an interview. In the interview, BBC clearly prepared loaded questions that are misleading and very bias towards Andrew. Since, Andrew cannot incriminate himself because he is within the country of Romania, he wasn’t allowed to talk about the case, hence the frequent loaded questions from BBC. A little too pushy, it clearly shows the Media’s bias towards him. Imo he was just setting things straight