Latest news with #AndrewTate
News.com.au
2 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
‘Bad and sick people': Donald Trump cries ‘fake news' again as media reports on Pentagon intelligence
At the turn of the century, or thereabouts, our world entered its 'creep' era. Hindsight tells us Bill Clinton was the harbinger. 'Mega-famous man who is obviously, palpably creepy, but thrives anyway because he has a legion of fans whose sunk emotional costs compel them to excuse pretty much any indiscretion' has become an entire genre of human being. Bill walked so bizarre mediocrities like Russell Brand could run. (You can insert your own, more colourful verbs there, should you wish.) But the creep era is not just about lecherousness. The word has many uses. There's mission creep, like we saw in Iraq, where the effort to neutralise non-existent weapons of mass destruction morphed into a decade of glacial 'nation building'. There is bracket creep, the tax problem everyone acknowledges but nobody fixes. There's Internet Brain creep, a serious disorder best illustrated by the cautionary life of balding fecal stain Andrew Tate. And now we also have definition creep. Particularly insidious and frustrating, that one, for those among us who still think words should mean things (me, my primary school teacher Mrs Wright, whoever is in charge of compiling the Oxford dictionary, and surprisingly few others, it would seem). Consider, as an example, the word 'woke'. It began its life as the successor to 'political correctness'; as a descriptor for the political left's weirdest overreaches. It still masquerades as that. But the word is now used, all too frequently and lazily, to mock and undermine anything to the left of oh, say, Pauline Hanson. That is definition creep. The bucket of things that could be described as 'woke' has kept growing, and growing, and growing, to the point that it now includes even the blandest, most conventionally progressive of stances. I do not have a problem with the Aboriginal flag flying atop the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I love the Maori verse of my country's national anthem. Illegal immigrants should get due process under the law, like anyone else, before they are deported. We probably should have more women serving as major CEOs. If someone is born biologically male, but ends up identifying as female, I don't give the slightest s***. For these incredibly boring opinions, which place me smack bang in the middle of modern Western society, I could now be labelled irredeemably woke. Let's go in the other direction for the sake of balance. Fascism! The word has a meaning. Yet it's applied to almost everything Donald Trump does. Enforcing America's immigration laws? Fascism. Firing the inspectors-general inside the US government? Fascism. Trying to implement policy changes through executive fiat rather than legislation, which is something every other president in living memory has done? Fascism! There's a 'boy who cried wolf' dynamic here, don't you think? If you scream 'fascism' every day, no one will listen to you when something actually fascistic happens. Something like ........ a sustained, deliberate effort to discredit any news coverage that strays beyond the sycophantic and flirts with seeking accountability. Which points us to perhaps the single greatest victim of definition creep in recent years: the term 'fake news'. It sprang from the American presidential election in 2016, and originally referred to literal fake news, i.e. foreign actors concocting entirely fictional stories, and making them go viral, in an effort to influence voters. And what does it mean now? Any news coverage Donald Trump or his followers don't like. Even when the coverage is accurate. Simple as that. The latest example concerns Mr Trump's strikes on Iran, which targeted three nuclear enrichment sites. In the immediate aftermath of those strikes, the President claimed, 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated'. That was echoed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said the strikes 'took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb'. All of which may be true. You and I, sitting on our bums in Australia, don't know. Nor did Mr Trump when he uttered that unambiguous quote above. It will take time for the American intelligence community to reach anything approaching a certain conclusion. A couple of days after Mr Trump's triumphalist announcement, multiple American media outlets, led by CNN and The New York Times, revealed an initial assessment from US military intelligence at the Pentagon, which said the strikes had actually left most of Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact. Those reports were accurate. They conveyed a real intelligence assessment compiled by Mr Trump's own Pentagon. The White House did not dispute the assessment's existence, nor its source, nor the idea that its contents had been characterised correctly. The CIA later offered a sunnier view on the effect of Mr Trump's strikes, and the President himself cited Israeli intelligence to suggest the Pentagon's assessment was wrong. But again, the key point here is: neither CNN nor The New York Times concocted the story out of nowhere. They correctly summarised the Pentagon's initial assessment, which did not fit Mr Trump's narrative. For that, both outlets were subjected to a deluge of abuse. 'FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN,' said Ms Leavitt. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' 'We just caught the Failing New York Times, working with Fake News CNN, cheating again!' said Mr Trump. 'They tried to demean the great work our B-2 pilots did, and they were wrong in doing so. These reporters are just BAD AND SICK PEOPLE. 'You would think they would be proud of the great success we had, instead of trying to always make our Country look bad. TOTAL OBLITERATION!' At another point, speaking to reporters, Mr Trump again accused the media of demeaning the efforts of the American pilots. 'They put their lives on the line, and then they have real scum, real scum, come out and write reports that are as negative as they could possibly be,' he said. 'It should be the opposite. You should make them heroes and heroines.' Heroines! So woke, Donald. One last little rant, here, against CNN's national security reporter. 'Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out 'like a dog',' said Mr Trump. 'Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!' Rightio. So. Putting aside the fact that the President of the United States, amid a potentially catastrophic conflagration in the Middle East, is spending his time posting unhinged critiques of TV news reporters on social media, as though he has nothing more important to do. And the fact that everyone just accepts this as fine and normal behaviour. Putting that aside. Ms Bertrand reported nothing false. And as penance for her crime, which was to convey the news accurately, the most powerful man on Earth, who leads what is supposed to be a liberal democracy, says she should be 'thrown out like a dog'.
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Judge moves Andrew Tate's sexual violence trial forward
Andrew Tate is a former kickboxer and reality TV show contestant. (EPA Images pic) LONDON : Self-avowed misogynist influencer Andrew Tate who is being sued by four women in a UK court over claims of sexual violence today had his trial brought forward. The civil case had been listed for trial in February 2027 but a judge at London's High Court said she was 'very keen to get on' with the case and fixed the trial start date for June 22, 2026. 'We just need to make this happen, really,' High Court judge Christina Lambert said. 'It is not in anyone's interests that this case goes into the long grass of 2027,' she added. Tate, 38, a former kickboxer and reality TV show contestant, moved to Romania years ago after first starting a webcam business in Britain. He became famous in 2016 when he appeared on the 'Big Brother' UK reality television show, but was removed after a controversial video emerged. He then turned to social media platforms to promote his often misogynistic and divisive views on how to be successful. In court documents, one woman claimed Tate 'would strangle her or grab her by her throat if she spoke back to him or said anything that he did not like'. The documents also alleged that Tate 'had weapons, including firearms, which were often pointed at her' and that he had 'indicated to her that he would like to kill someone if he could'. A lawyer for Tate previously told the court there was a 'total denial of wrongdoing' by his client. After the hearing, the four claimants welcomed the judge's decision. 'We've already spent years waiting for justice, and so it's of some comfort to hear that Andrew Tate will face these allegations in a court earlier than the original plan of 2027,' they said in a statement. A spokesman for Tate previously said: 'He denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm.'
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Science
- The Guardian
The online ‘manosphere' poses a real threat to society
The harms associated with the 'manosphere' have been addressed in lots of academic work, including our own, and it is encouraging to see Ofcom – tasked with making online platforms comply with the law on online safety – take an interest. However, having read Ofcom's research and the Guardian's article on it (Society may have overestimated risk of the 'manosphere', UK researchers say, 13 June), we wish to stress that the manosphere poses a very real risk to society and that underestimating the problem will only contribute to it. The research consisted of 39 interviews with people who have seen and/or created manosphere content. While there is value in such a study, both Ofcom and the Guardian acknowledge that those with more extreme views may refuse to participate. Interviewees may also aim to present themselves, and their community, in a more positive light, downplaying misogynistic views. Interviewees' claims – such as finding 'entertainment' in the videos of Andrew Tate – were not questioned by the Ofcom study. Promoting traditional gender roles and discussing perceived immutable differences between men and women was also seen as merely 'ambiguous[ly]' misogynistic. But misogyny is more than explicitly declaring to hate women. The article's headline uses the results of a small-scale study to draw conclusions about 'society' as a whole. This is untenable; indeed, the original report states that findings 'point to a range of risk factors that may increase the likelihood of harm'. That the harm has been overestimated appears to be the interpretation of the managing director of the research agency, who spoke separately to the Guardian. Online misogyny and its mainstreaming is a pervasive issue that is difficult to identify and monitor, and requires a whole-society solution. Ofcom should work with academics and safeguarding professionals: together, we have a chance to address the risks posed by the manosphere – but only if they are taken seriously. Prof Veronika Koller Lancaster University, Dr Jessica Aiston Queen Mary University London, Dr Alexandra Krendel University of Southampton, Dr Mark McGlashan University of Liverpool
Glasgow Times
3 days ago
- Glasgow Times
Trial of High Court claims against Andrew Tate brought forward to next summer
Four women are suing the former professional kickboxer over allegations of sexual violence, including that he grabbed one by the throat on several occasions in 2015, assaulted her with a belt and pointed a gun at her face. Tate's barristers told an earlier court hearing that there was 'total denial of wrongdoing'. In written submissions for a hearing on Wednesday, barristers for the women said that following a preliminary hearing in April this year, a 16-day trial had been listed to start on February 22 2027. But Mrs Justice Lambert told the court in London that she was 'very keen to get on' with the case and that it should be listed sooner, fixing the trial to start on June 22 2026. The trial could last up to five weeks, with a further preliminary hearing expected to take place at a later date. She said: 'We just need to make this happen, really. 'It is not in anyone's interests that this case goes into the long grass of 2027.' Following the short hearing, the four claimants said: 'We welcome the judge's decision to bring our case forward. 'We've already spent years waiting for justice, and so it's of some comfort to hear that Andrew Tate will face these allegations in a court earlier than the original plan of 2027.' Andrew Tate is being sued over allegations of sexual violence (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda, File) The hearing in April was told that the case is believed to be a legal first as it will consider whether allegations of coercive control, in a civil context, could amount to intentional infliction of harm. Judge Richard Armstrong said that the claimants were 'seeking damages likely to reach six figures'. The women are bringing a civil case against Tate at the High Court after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute in 2019. Three of the British accusers were the subject of an investigation by Hertfordshire Constabulary, which was closed in 2019. In court documents, one woman suing Tate claimed he 'would strangle her or grab her by her throat if she spoke back to him or said anything that he did not like… until she told him that she loved him or apologised for whatever he demanded at the time'. She said he, and his brother Tristan Tate, 'played good cop and bad cop to manipulate her', and that Tate allegedly put her in a headlock or whipped her with a belt if she did not get out of bed and do work for his webcam business. One woman said Tate and his brother Tristan 'played good cop and bad cop to manipulate her' (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda, File) The documents also allege Tate 'had weapons, including firearms, which were often pointed at her' and that he had 'indicated to her that he would like to kill someone if he could'. Tate said that her account was 'fabrication' and a 'pack of lies', and has previously described the allegations as 'unproven and untested'. In a statement, a spokesperson for Tate previously said: 'He denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm. 'These are civil claims, brought years after the alleged events and following a CPS decision not to pursue criminal charges. 'It is deeply troubling that such graphic and one-sided accounts are being publicised before any judicial assessment has taken place.' The statement added: 'Mr Tate will defend himself vigorously and remains confident the truth will prevail.'
The Independent
3 days ago
- The Independent
Trial of High Court claims against Andrew Tate brought forward to next summer
The trial of civil claims against social media influencer Andrew Tate is due to be held months earlier than originally planned after a High Court judge said she was 'very keen to get on' with the case. Four women are suing the former professional kickboxer over allegations of sexual violence, including that he grabbed one by the throat on several occasions in 2015, assaulted her with a belt and pointed a gun at her face. Tate's barristers told an earlier court hearing that there was 'total denial of wrongdoing'. In written submissions for a hearing on Wednesday, barristers for the women said that following a preliminary hearing in April this year, a 16-day trial had been listed to start on February 22 2027. But Mrs Justice Lambert told the court in London that she was 'very keen to get on' with the case and that it should be listed sooner, fixing the trial to start on June 22 2026. The trial could last up to five weeks, with a further preliminary hearing expected to take place at a later date. She said: 'We just need to make this happen, really. 'It is not in anyone's interests that this case goes into the long grass of 2027.' Following the short hearing, the four claimants said: 'We welcome the judge's decision to bring our case forward. 'We've already spent years waiting for justice, and so it's of some comfort to hear that Andrew Tate will face these allegations in a court earlier than the original plan of 2027.' Matt Jury, managing partner of law firm McCue Jury & Partners, which represents the women, said: 'We commend the judge's decision to move the trial forward to next summer. 'It's another step toward justice that's already been far too long in coming.' The hearing in April was told that the case is believed to be a legal first as it will consider whether allegations of coercive control, in a civil context, could amount to intentional infliction of harm. Judge Richard Armstrong said that the claimants were 'seeking damages likely to reach six figures'. The women are bringing a civil case against Tate at the High Court after the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute in 2019, with their allegations including rape and sexual assault. Three of the British accusers were the subject of an investigation by Hertfordshire Constabulary, which was closed in 2019. In court documents, one woman suing Tate claimed he 'would strangle her or grab her by her throat if she spoke back to him or said anything that he did not like… until she told him that she loved him or apologised for whatever he demanded at the time'. She said he, and his brother Tristan Tate, 'played good cop and bad cop to manipulate her', and that Tate allegedly put her in a headlock or whipped her with a belt if she did not get out of bed and do work for his webcam business. The documents also allege Tate 'had weapons, including firearms, which were often pointed at her' and that he had 'indicated to her that he would like to kill someone if he could'. Tate said that her account was 'fabrication' and a 'pack of lies', and has previously described the allegations as 'unproven and untested'. In a statement, a spokesperson for Tate previously said: 'He denies ever threatening anyone with a firearm, engaging in non-consensual acts or subjecting any individual to physical or psychological harm. 'These are civil claims, brought years after the alleged events and following a CPS decision not to pursue criminal charges. 'It is deeply troubling that such graphic and one-sided accounts are being publicised before any judicial assessment has taken place.' The statement added: 'Mr Tate will defend himself vigorously and remains confident the truth will prevail.'
