BREAKING: Andrew Tate On Legal Win “Another Step Closer to Complete Exoneration!”

Controversial influencer Andrew Tate will face no criminal charges over allegations made by multiple women who are suing him in a UK High Court civil case. Four women have accused Tate of sexual violence in 2015. The Crown Prosecution Service said today that the legal test to bring criminal charges had not been met in that case specifically. Well, Andrew Tate joins me now to discuss this. Andrew Tate, welcome back to Uncensored. Just to be clear, for those who have not been following the multiple cases that you've been involved with, tell me what it is that you've been addressed with today in relation to these

specific charges. Yeah, for anyone who's not been following, I can make it very simple. I became the most Googled man in the world, and I was saying things they didn't like. And all of a sudden, every single country I'd ever stepped foot in started attacking me with all these strange legal cases from decades ago.

And the process is the punishment. You and I have been speaking for a long time. We're old friends. And every time we speak, there seems to be some new case against me and you quite, you know, rightly say we'll wait to see what happens in court.

And here we are four or five years later and they all fall by the wayside. So every single member of parliament, Vice News, BBC, every single person who said they've spoken to my victims has spoken to one of these girls. And the CPS has just said that these girls don't even have enough evidence to allow me to be charged, proving that they were lying all along. We know that people lie, both men and women, especially when there's a financial incentive. So this is just one step

closer to my complete exoneration, sir. Okay, but as I understand it, and correct me if your understanding is different to this, as I understand it, this is one case involving four women who are concurrently running a high court civil case against you. So they will have their case in a civil case, but it won't be criminal now.

But that doesn't impact the other constabulary which brought 21 charges against you and your brother Tristan earlier this year, right? That's still ongoing and still separate to this.

That's correct. So these four girls, they did a crowdfund and they begged the world for money. And they spoke to loads of MPs and Vice News, etc. And it turns out they have no evidence at all. They begged the world for money and now they're suing me for money. They're desperate for money. And then they went to the police and the police said they have no evidence. So that's all gone. The reason that the case against me here with these four girls was thrown out is because I know who the four girls are. So I simply just sent the text messages. Remember, I've been investigated. I haven't resisted any investigations. I'm one of the most investigated

men on the planet. I'm more innocent than probably everyone else in that studio because I've been investigated head to toe. I have cooperated with the police. I provided proof. I provided text message conversations that these girls are lying and the case was thrown out. The other case you're describing with the 21 charges from forever ago, the CPS won't tell me who the girls are because they know if they tell me who the girls are, then I will prove that the girls are lying before they can charge, remand, drag me through a trial. So their intention is to not tell me who they are, which is incredible to me,

that they're saying you're charged and you need to go to jail, we want to remand you, here's an extradition warrant, but we won't tell you who the people are. So I can't possibly defend myself attack but once I find out who they are that case will once again be dismissed just like this one was. Okay, no I'm going to make the point I just want to be clear to viewers who are trying to follow all this because it's complicated. It's complicated and I hate to interrupt you sir

because I want you to talk. The only reason it's complicated is because they are trying very hard

to drag up imaginary cases from the sky and they keep collapsing. It'd be very simple if I'd done something wrong. If you do something wrong, you go to jail. No, but I think it's important to use the correct language about what has happened here. It is a significant development. Clearly, the case that was brought against you by Hertfordshire police involving these four women, they have said they couldn't find evidence

that met the bar for a criminal prosecution against you. It doesn't mean they can't continue, trafficking and controlling prostitution for gain. Tristan faces 11 charges connected to one alleged victim, including rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking. So that is ongoing. Nothing that's happened today has any bearing on that prosecution by Beveridge Police. That's correct.

That's correct. And the reason that's ongoing, unlike the other one from Harbinger Police, is because they won't tell me who these victims are. And they won't because they know I'll get it thrown out in a week. I'll just say, well here's the text messages proving they're lying. That's the end of the case, just like happened with the Bedfordshire one. So correct, these girls can still sue me civilly. I can sue you civilly for having a terrible shirt, sir.

It doesn't mean anything. I mean, they're desperate for money. I'm a very famous, very rich, very handsome, very charismatic, very well-known, very tall, very sexy individual. And lots of people want my money, and that's fine.

They're gonna lose in civil case too, because they know they've done nothing wrong. And the CPS has already said I've done nothing wrong twice now. So it is what it is. It's just, you know, it's quite interesting, Piers. If I was truly guilty of crimes, imagine how frustrating it would be to watch me for four years never go to jail. I mean, it's obvious to the whole world now that the process is the punishment for me,

that I've never done anything wrong. Everyone knows I've done nothing wrong. The whole purpose of this is just to drag me to court, slander me in the media, make me spend money on lawyers, tie me up in litigation, restrict my movements. And that's all they're trying to do. The process itself is the punishment. They know I've done nothing wrong from the beginning. And you have sons too. And I like to believe that

if your son was accused by all these different states from all around the world of all these heinous acts for four years. And he had to suffer jail and house arrest and lose all his money and have his name slandered four years later when all the cases started falling by the wayside because the Los Angeles case has also fallen apart and collapsed.

You yourself as a father would be standing there saying, this is incredible, this is insane that we have an innocent man here

who's just endlessly attacked. Well look, as I've said to you, as I've said to you repeatedly, I don't know whether you're guilty or not. I follow, I follow the process. I'm a journalist. I don't look upon it as a father or someone that knows you or any of these things. To me, the fair and proper way is called due process.

And my only concern with you is have you been afforded due process? What is interesting to me is the length of time this is all taking. That doesn't seem to me to be normal. You do hear stories like it but it seems to me out of the norm and it's certainly significant today that the criminal prosecution against you by one of these two British police constabularies has now been dropped leaving a civil case there. That is clearly not an irrelevant fact as you and I debate this whole scenario surrounding you. But my question with the Bedfordshire police,

from a legal perspective, are they obliged to tell you who the accusers are?

Well, that's what's so interesting. So you made a fantastic point there about this taking so long. The reason it's taking so long is because these cases are imaginary and they're stretching to the very, very limits of the law to try and pin something on my name. If I had done something wrong, it wouldn't be taking so long.

So it's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain now that this is all a setup from the state. As for Bedforshire, they are legally obliged to tell me who the victims are, the supposed alleged victims, but they only have to do that once I have been remanded. And if I go to the UK, I'll be remanded after this extradition warrant is executed, but that can't be executed currently because the Romanian state has a case against me for tax evasion, which will take at least 10 to 11 years.

So this is something that's going to take 10 or 11 more years to eventually be satisfied. It's pretty ridiculous all in all. The whole thing is asinine and I've done nothing wrong. And it's just crazy that the process itself is the punishment. We're going through all this garbage for so many years.

And I like to think, and I respect your point of view. You made a very great point. You're a journalist. You follow the updates, completely correct, that's a very professional way to handle it, but I think also we're human and from a humanistic perspective anybody with a functioning mind can look at what's happened to me across these last four years and come to the conclusion they were out to get me, they don't have much,

they're desperate to try and pin something on me and they can't seem to make it stick and that's why it's taking so long, nothing's really happening, a lot of these cases are falling by the wayside. If I was truly guilty of anything, considering how much they don't like me, I think we both agree I'd be in jail.

The case that you mention in Romania, which has to be resolved in totality before you can be extradited back to the UK to face these charges from Bedfordshire police, my understanding is that that whole case is ongoing. It's not just relating to tax issues, but the whole case involving the human trafficking, rape allegations and so on, that is still unresolved.

Isn't that correct?

Yeah, so what happened there is in December of last year, the entire case under the Biden admin was thrown back to prosecutors for irregular evidence, basically corruption. The entire case file was littered with corruption. They had lied and made multiple mistakes.

They had made false translations. They had made false documents for false girls who didn't exist. They lied from head to toe. It's the kind of thing that a prosecutor would go to jail for in a serious country,

but of course we're in Romania. And even the Romanian court threw the entire file back and said, there's irregularities in evidence. Basically, it was all corrupt. And the entire file was thrown back to the prosecutor and the prosecutor was told, he has to fix this file. Here we stand nearly 11 months later,

the file is just sitting on his desk. He hasn't fixed anything, he hasn't changed anything. And the reason for that is because how can you fix things you've made up? You can't. So he's stuck with this vile...

Right, but this is why the language around this is important because there are people already, I see all over social media, who are seizing this development today which is a not insignificant development, that's why I wanted to talk to you, but they're seizing on it to say Andrew Tate's been cleared of all wrongdoing. And they're saying he was cleared of all wrongdoing in Romania, but that's not actually technically correct as we sit here.

Well, technically, yes, it is actually. The case was sent to court. The file, the indictment was put together and sent to court. It went to the preliminary chamber, which is the Romanian version of checking if there's even a case to go to trial and it was rejected by the preliminary chamber for irregularities in the evidence saying that this is a falsified case, this is a political case where you've just lied about evidence prosecutors, give me something real. That's

what the judge said, it's gone back to his desk for 11 months and what's happened to it since I'm

not sure. Right but my point being it's unresolved and that is the reason... Well, hang on, and that's why you've not been extradited back to the UK to face the other charges. I mean, that's from a legal perspective, that is where you are, right?

By Romanian law, when the case is rejected in the preliminary chamber, it goes back on the prosecutor's desk and it can remain there for up to 10 years to basically be tried again at his discretion. So I understand he's going to try again at some point, perhaps with some of the financial crime, as we all know, I have lots and lots of money. I'm very, very rich. So the Romanians seem to be unhappy about parts of that.

So perhaps he's going to send it back without the human trafficking and just the tax, or maybe he'll leave a bit of the human trafficking in there, I'm not sure what he's going to eventually send it back with, but when he does send it back that means it's 10 years before the British state can even attempt to extradite me so I'll have to just drive around Transylvania in my supercars

for 10 years while dealing with the Romanian court system. Well I mean that does seem to be a preposterous situation if indeed they did decide to string this out for many more years, which of course, you know, look, like I said to you, I don't know about your guilt or otherwise. I simply follow the news as it develops. But certainly if you're one of the women that are still awaiting the prosecution for the Bedfordshire charges, the idea that they would just in terms of due process for them, the idea that their allegations would not terms of due process for them, the idea that

their allegations would not be tested in court until potentially 10 years have elapsed on the Romania case, I mean I'm sure you would agree that isn't due

process, that isn't fair on them either. Well I would agree that this whole thing from the beginning has been a farce. I would agree that yes the prosecutor now has a choice, he can either throw the entire file out and I get extradited to the UK, but then the Romanian state owes me a whole bunch of money for false imprisonment. So they can't do that. So they have to send something to court, of course, and that's going to take 10 years. So this whole thing from the beginning has been a farce. The whole thing's been a setup from the beginning. I've never done anything wrong from the beginning. And when we first met, when you were here and we were discussing Israel-Gaza and all those things,

all of our discussions were around this Romania case, which was thrown out after our meeting. And now we have this new British case, which popped up after our meeting, and one of them already got thrown out already. And then there's another one, which they're trying to extradite me on, but they won't tell me who the victims are. I mean, Pierce, if they said to your son 20 years ago, he hurt a girl, but we won't tell you who, where, when, we won't tell you anything. We'll just say 20 years ago, you hurt a girl,

and we won't give you any details. Of course, you're gonna sit there and go, well, this is twofold. One is to stop me voluntarily going to England because they know I'm a political force and they know I'll overthrow Labour. And secondly, the main reason is so that every time my name is said, people talk about the

allegations against me as opposed to my ideas. They don't want anyone to talk about my fantastic ideas or my fantastic influence, they want people to talk about the allegations against me, which is why they try and keep these allegations open and going on for so long. There is no due process, Piers, because there is no guilt. There isn't even any victims in a lot of this.

The reality is we don't know that yet. And in relation to your ideas, as you heard from me to your face in our last interview, which got pretty passionate, as it often does. You know I don't share some of your ideas, I think some of them are reprehensible but it is a fact as I say to people that when I walk around I'd say one in five young men who come up to me want to talk about you and you know what they ask me is he guilty and I don't know, I don't know but I do know

they're going to see headlines like today, and they're going to see it immediately spun incorrectly by a lot of people on both sides, people that hate you and people that love you. And they're going to spin it to suit their agenda. And that is why it's really important to me,

as a journalist, to keep to the facts as we know them. So the question about Romania, if they decide to make a final decision about you, say for argument's sake, they drop the charges against you tomorrow, you would then be presumably immediately extradited to the UK. Is that your understanding?

I don't think it would work immediately. They would have to file to drop the charges and they would have to justify to drop the charges and they'd have to explain why they put me through all of these things while they don't have a case. And then CETO would come involved because the European court would have to get involved for why I was falsely imprisoned.

And I was locked up for three years and they'd owe me about $100 million in false and lost income. And then there'd be a whole case around that. All my judicial processes would have to finish in Romania before I could be extradited. So either way, it's a minimum of 10 years.

Is your instinct that you don't know who's brought these allegations to Bedfordshire police in these 21 charges, but is your, we know it's three women in your case, one in Tristan's case. Is it your belief that all of those women are more likely than not to have worked for you and Tristan?

Absolutely not. I know every girl who worked for me, and they all contacted me and defended me. Every single girl who's ever worked for me has defended me. What happened is, when the Romanian case started to fall apart after we were let out of jail, and the British foreign office who wrote to the Romanians and said, destroy these guys,

the Romanian said there's nothing to destroy them with. Then the National Crime Agency launched something called Operation Moonwalk and they called 2000 women who had ever known me, my gardener's daughter, my neighbors who I used to live next to,

2000 women and amongst those 2000, they managed to find three girls who, of course, are lying for financial gain. And they've come up with this entire bogus case. And I've said, OK, who are the girls? And they're saying, we're not telling you.

We're not going to tell you when. We're not going to tell you where. We're not going to tell you who. And it's a whole big farce from the beginning. If you call 2000 women, who a man has ever known throughout his entire life, of course you can find three liars. Considering that 20% of people are on antidepressants and 10% of people have mental health issues,

I'm surprised he only found three of the 2000. But it's a whole farce from the beginning. It's never gonna stand up in court. It's not fair. And if they did the same thing to your sons, called 2,000 women they'd ever interacted with, they'd find three girls to lie to. That's just human nature. So the whole thing's been a setup from the beginning.

None of it's ever been fair. None of it's ever been fair.

Your UK solicitor, Andrew Ford, welcomed today's decision and said, "'Despite much external pressure, "'the evidence speaks for itself in this case, have rightly confirmed the evidence is inadequate to provide any realistic prospect of conviction. The reason the CPS made this decision will become obvious when the evidence is played out

during the civil proceedings. So, what is he suggesting there? What do you believe is gonna come out of the civil case,

which is going to make this decision by the CPS obvious? Well, I have an upcoming civil case, so I have to be careful what I say. But in a hypothetical scenario, if girls are going to accuse a man of rape or sexual assault, and then it continue to see him for years afterwards and continue to text him and continue to buy him birthday presents, and continue to beg to be to want to be with him, and continue to call his

phone and sit outside his house when he doesn't reply to them and then start asking him for money and getting very angry when they don't get money. I think it's pretty clear to see the motivations behind a false criminal accusation. I don't think anybody with a functioning mind, you know, is going to be confused about why this is happening.

And the Bedfordshire case is garbage too. All of this is garbage. Piers, I understand you're a journalist, I understand you have to be very careful what you say, however you are a father to sons and it's very unfair that we live in a world now where any man can just be unfairly attacked, unfairly lied about and they have to suffer the process of this entire insanity for years before eventually it turns out the girls

whether that's a male who's been accused of things, a woman who's making the allegations, the legal system should work properly. And there are far too many examples where it doesn't work properly. I don't know in your case, like I keep saying,

I have no idea how this is all gonna finally unravel. All we do know as a fact today is that so far you have not been convicted of any crimes. That that is the only fact that we know for sure.

Yeah, and that's a very important fact because if we keep in mind I was enemy number one of the system, I was the most Googled man on the planet, that federal agencies from three different countries, America, UK, Germany, Poland, Romania, sorry, five different countries have investigated me, that I've handed over all of my

electronics. If I had done anything, if I had smoked weed, if I had taken steroids, if I had gone to an orgy, if I had had a homosexual experience, if I had done anything, all of these things would be all over the paper. And what do they have on me? Nothing. I'm cleaner than 99% of the people you walk past in the mall. Because if anyone else had their lives investigated to the level mine's been, you'd see a whole bunch of skeletons in their closet. I haven't done anything. I raise my children. I work hard. I train hard. I don't do drugs.

I don't drink. I haven't done anything. and they're very disappointed by how clean my life is. And that's the truth, because they have been desperate to put me in a cell, desperate, and they've given endless, the NCA, Operation Moonwalk, Britain, as broke as it is, dedicated hundreds of thousands of pounds to trying to put me in jail,

as if they don't have other things to pay for as the streets of London run with blood. They have tried so hard and they are failing. I am an innocent man. It is not that hard to put a guilty man in jail.

Final question. You've talked before about having a relationship of kind with some of the Trump family. Have you heard from any of them

recently? No, I think they've got much bigger concerns than my cases. I don't think they're very interested in any of my cases. I've always been a Trump fan. I think he's the best choice for America. I think he's doing a fantastic thing. But they're not interested in trying to help me in any way.

When I went to America, when I first got released from Romania, I didn't hear from them either. So I haven't heard from them, but I think that perhaps a lot of Republicans understand because of what happened to our great president, that the legal systems are very often weaponized by the enemies of truth to attack people who have done nothing wrong. Remember, Trump himself went through a whole bunch of bogus legal cases. Trump himself was actually convicted. I haven't even been convicted.

Trump himself was convicted of all these stupid allegations and heinous crimes on very little evidence. So I think most functioning people now understand the legal system can be weaponised and they understand that what's happening to me is very clearly lawfare. I'm very clearly a victim of a corrupt system because I'm speaking the truth against the matrix and anybody with a functioning mind can see that.

Well, it remains to be seen whether any of what you just said is correct. What we do know with Donald Trump actually, just to be technically correct, he wasn't convicted of anything other than one set of charges relating to a one-night stand with a porn star, which I thought at the time was utterly ridiculous. Ridiculous overreach against a President of the United States who had only recently been in office and made a mockery of the justice system in America. The other cases, as we know, they are no longer active, they were

discontinued, but that particular one that they convicted him of, I thought was a complete farce.

Absolute ridiculous, absolute ridiculous overreach of the American judicial system. It was an absolute ridiculous overreach of the British judicial system to put people in jail for Facebook messages, and it's an absolute ridiculous overreach of the Romanian judicial system to lock me in my house for three years and then have the case thrown out because they made up the victims because it was all completely fake. Please understand in any other country which isn't so corrupt, prosecutors would be in jail for what they did to me here. You can't just make up victims and make up papers and print out lies and put people in jail. Let me ask you a question. Just talking to you today, you sound very calm, very direct,

completely different to how you were in our last interview where you started ranting quite regularly about all sorts of stuff. And at the end of it, we got into it about your views about women's place in society. You said they should have no right to vote, they should have no power, they should not have any job, they should stay at home and so on. That is exactly what I thought. I got a lot of feedback to that which was whatever you think of Andrew Tate, whether you think he's

guilty or not of these charges and we just don't know yet because they're still ongoing, but whatever you think of him he does himself absolutely no favours in the way that he talks about women and he does it so brazenly and with such apparent pride. You know when you think back to our last exchange, are you entirely comfortable with the way that you

talked about women in that interview? Absolutely, I think you just misunderstand me. Women are very powerful creatures, in fact they're magical creatures because they give life and a woman's power is to give life and to be a feminine woman who is the head of a beautiful family and to have as many children with the man she loves as possible. That is what women are fantastic at.

That is what society needs. Our birth rates are collapsing. And that's what inspires men to be the best selves. When men see they have a wife who's had their children, that makes a man want to be a good man for that woman. I never said women are powerless. I said that protecting society is the job of men.

Police officers should be men, and that the voting and the political matters and the judicial system, a lot of that should be men, because we are evolutionarily designed to protect territory in a way that females perhaps aren't. And it's our job to protect women.

We're not trying to protect ourselves. A man's trying to protect his wife, protect his kids, protect his society, protect his town. And I think that the reason that the Western societies are in such trouble now is that everything is conflated. The men are doing the things that women are actually good at innately. And the women are doing things

that the men are innately good at. I believe we have God-given talents. And I believe if we all stick to what we're naturally good at, it will optimize our society. It's not a matter of saying that women have no power. It's not a matter of trying to subjugate women at all. It's a matter of protection. It's a matter of me understanding as a man,

I have certain duties and certain jobs to do. And I believe a woman has certain duties and certain jobs to do. And that's why I have so many fantastic relationships with women. That's why I have so many children.

That's why I take up to me and admire me and love me. If I was truly a misogynist, I wouldn't be suffering from all of these offspring and all of these beautiful relationships

which I have. So, I think it's just a matter of misunderstanding. As you were talking, I just reminded you that this weekend the England women's rugby team became world champions and I watched that game. I don't think they need any help from you and I don't think they need need guidance about what a woman's place in the world should be. They're world champions because they play a sport at a supremely elite level. I watched it and could not believe the staggering amount of skill and power and pace on display in a women's rugby match. And that's to their great credit.

So they shouldn't all be kept at home because actually that's not what most women want to do.

about the criminal cases involving me? Just suspicious. Do you think something strange has happened?

Well, I don't think it even matters what I think about it. I think what matters is have you, at the moment, been convicted of any crime? People say, why do you platform Andrew Tate? And I said, why shouldn't I? They said, because he's a criminal. He's an abuser. He's this, he's this and this.

And I said, well, actually, as things stand, he has not been convicted of any of those crimes. He's been accused by a lot of people, but the significance of today is that a whole police case against you in one police force has, from a criminal perspective, been dropped.

They said the evidence didn't reach the bar for criminal prosecution. That is noteworthy. That's why I've got you on today to discuss it. And I appreciate you coming on.

Thank you very much, sir.

Well, joining me in the studio now to react to this breaking news is Samara Gill, host of Triggered, along with historian and commentator, Tessa Dunlop. So Tessa, because I can't quite get my head round why we have to go through year after year after year of his name and his brother's name and all these lurid allegations and nothing ever seems to come to the point of a criminal conviction. And in fact, today we hear the news that a whole slew of charges against them have now been dropped from one of the two British police forces taking action against them.

What is your view?

My view is I've never heard you give so much space to an individual on your Uncensored programme. Oh, to speak in such an unfettered fashion and not be interrupted.

But more specifically... Well, hang on, hang on. Just to be clear, I interviewed him only literally, like, ten days ago, and we got into a slanging match about various things, including what I think are his pretty odious views about women's place in society. But he's entitled to have those views, right?

The question for me is, is he a criminal?

Because if he is, it's different. Two secs. Andrew, platforming himself there as a victim, it is well known that in 20... Well, it might not be well known, but it should be well known. In 2024, only 3% of the rape cases reported to the British police resulted in a charge, let alone a conviction.

But what does that have to do with him?

Because a lot of what he's being charged for, sex with a minor, sex trafficking, etc, involve the two key witnesses being the accused and the accuser, and it is very, very hard to bring the bar high enough for a criminal case, which incidentally is proof beyond reasonable doubt. You'll remember Prince Andrew and the Virginia Goofrey case was a civil case. In a civil case, it's balance of probabilities.

Are you suggesting to me here that we think, the majority of the British public, think that Prince Andrew, for example, is entirely innocent simply because it didn't reach the bar of a criminal case.

Well, all we know about Prince Andrew is that it never got tested in a court of law, in a civil court of law, because at the last minute he gave Virginia Dufresne a reported $11, $12 million to make that case go away with no om admission of liability. So again, as a journalist, I just don't think it's helpful for people to take an extreme view

about these things either way. I agree with you. We don't actually know for a fact what Andrew's culpability is in relation to any of the-

He makes out he's this big victim.

No, I'm talking about Prince, I'm sorry, just to be clear. I was talking about Prince Andrew, right. We can all have our view of what he did and how he paid this girl loads of money and the tragedy that unfurled. The key there is it's a civil case. No, I understand. Most of these cases are civil. I understand. But I'm making the point we don't know about his guilt, Prince Andrew. He's resolutely and consistently denied any wrongdoing. All we do know, and people can make their own minds up

about what they feel about that, is that he gave her millions of dollars to make that case go away, having said, I'm gonna clear my name in court. On Andrew Tate, he's fell to this slew of allegations, they're all extremely serious, right? Everyone has probably got a view about Andrew Tate,

which skews what they think of him before they even get into these kind of things. You know, he's a very abrasive, bombastic, confrontational character by nature.

And has a voice. None of those alleged, let's call them victims, have a voice. None of them have a platform on the Piers Morgan Uncensored show. And the way in which he makes out it's something against him that the women are anonymous,

it's a well-known fact that if you are accused accuse somebody of being a race rapist, the victim comes off much worse, which is why female victims or those accusing men of raping are granted anonymity. It's not him single

day. Tessa, I don't disagree with you. And it's so triggering to watch him do this crap here. It's crap. No, it may be triggering to you. It is triggering as a woman. A magical creature who's a woman. It doesn't mean to say that the right way to interview him is to convict him before he's been convicted.

No, I'm not convicting him.

That's really what you want me to do. But do we give him the proper- You want me to scream at Andrew Tate and say- No, I don't want you to. You are a sex abuser. No, I question you platforming him.

But actually, I prefer not to do that. Romania is a country I know very well. I wonder why Andrew Tate chose to go and establish his business emporium in Romania.

Well, explain your connection with Romania.

Oh, I've done a PhD on the history. I work over there a lot. I'm married to a Romanian. I know the country inside out. He thought he was on a buy there, an easy wicket. And guess what?

He came unstuck. And yes, one of the cases has been sent back. it's under investigation for procedural errors, but a second, much broader case means he's trapped in Romania. Good. That's thanks to Romania's programme. I'm sorry, good. Good because I think it stinks. Hang on. Tessa, fine. Good because you hate him. No, I don't hate him. I don't hate him.

It sounds like you do. No, I don't hate him. Which you're perfectly entitled to. I don't hate him, clearly stuck, whether it's... Be careful what you say. Okay, let's just remember what he's under investigation for. Sex with a minor, money laundering, trafficking. It may well be that he's untouchable but I'm very glad that Romania is making sure due process is being done.

Let me bring Samar in. I mean look, I remember the very recent case of P Diddy. Okay, P Diddy had an unbelievably huge number of incredibly serious charges. And we know how that played out in the end. This is why, as a journalist,

it's not my position to be an activist who has a view about Andrew Tate either way. These are serious charges. People are making serious allegations.

My view is the position to take is to just follow where the facts go. What do you think?

Well, I agree with you, but a lot of people don't have that perspective we always see the media and the people being judged jury and Executioner to people before they have been found guilty and the issue is and of today's dropping of the charges of the criminal case is it's gonna strengthen Tate's message that it is a witch hunt after him. The public, the politicisation of the justice system is out to get him.

No, I agree. And by the way, Tess, you can shake your head.

You platformed the message. We didn't need to hear his message if you hadn't platformed

him, please. I didn't need to interview interview Andrew Tate on the day that the criminal charges from one of the two police forces get dropped. I do think that's interesting and significant. But let's clarify why that is, because it's very difficult

when you're bringing a case to proof. We don't have to clarify it. As a statistically, we aside your obvious bias, we don't have to clarify anything, because the Crown Prosecution Service said the legal test to bring criminal charges had not been met.

They said, ''We undertook a further review of a case file in relation ''to allegations of assault and rape between 2013 and 2015. ''Following careful consideration of the evidence provided by Hertfordshire Constabulary, we concluded that our legal test for prosecution was not met and that no further action should be taken. And to be clear, Andrew Tait said on your show that the police had no evidence. That was an outright lie. They don't have no evidence, they just didn't meet the evidence. I've never met Andrew Tate socially in my entire life.

Just to clarify. He can call me what he likes. Didn't it bother you that he kept on talking about your sons? He kept on making a parallel between himself and your sons. I don't want to give him a platform in the meantime. Those women aren't. They're caring, anonymous because they know that if they came out boom. What if they are lying? Well if they are lying due process will make sure that Andrew Tate is evaluated in Florida, in Romania, in Britain. Well, the American case is...

There's no further development on that. That's stopped. The case here, though, if they're lying, we don't know yet. Because the civil case that his lawyer says... Two cases, yeah. His lawyer says here, the civil case, it will become clear when people hear the evidence. So let's wait and see what the evidence says.

But there's no doubt that the police have concluded after a lengthy investigation that the evidence that was put forward of a crime has not been met. That's

not unusual in the vast majority of rape cases, even when they lead to a charge they don't result in a conviction. All right, Samara. I think we go down such a dangerous path when we say let's de-platform someone who as of today, as of just your interview right now, he has not been convicted of any criminal wrongdoing. He has not been found guilty, which is the big thing. So why are we treating him

as if he has been? I think it really diminishes other cases that get brought forward. We really

shouldn't be doing this. It's a very dangerous. I do think trial by trial by public jury, right, on social media, trial by media, all trial by media actually, but particularly these days where social media can be so toxic and tribal. I've watched immediately the way this development's broken on social media, what people have done.

Andrew Tate supporters have immediately rushed to falsely claim he's been cleared of all charges, right? Including Romania, not true. Including everything in the UK, not true. Others have gone the other way, and they've raced to say, this means nothing,

he's guilty, he's this, he's that. And I'm sitting there looking at this as a journalist going, why don't we just stick to the facts here? Why don't we wait and see if Andrew Tate actually, along with his brother, actually ever gets into a courtroom in a criminal case and has a chance to defend himself against allegations.

Because if that never happens, if, as he says, the Romanian system clogs this down for years and years to come, the accusers, they're not served any good public service by that. He isn't, obviously, either, but nor are the public. The public will never be able to work out whether he's guilty or not.

But you know what's really interesting about this? He kept on making out he was the victim. He even tried to trash Romania, suggesting it was their failed judicial system that meant he's trapped there. Oh, poor Andrew, the victim. This is a reminder of just how difficult it is for every woman who is sexually assaulted

or raped by a man.

Look at it from the other way round.

I have a problem with that, you see, because Samara, my problem with that statement is not that Tessa statistically isn't correct. I am correct. I know, I'm not saying that. The rate of conviction for rape cases is 1%.

It's outrageous, right? It's shocking. It shouldn't be like that. I totally agree with you. However, I don't believe in looking at other cases when someone is facing serious charges.

I believe, Samara, I'm just going, what is this person facing? Where is the evidence? Who's saying what? Has it been properly investigated? Has it reached a court?

Is everybody under oath and so on? That to me is what I call due process. It's not just shouting, well, he's got away with it or he's this or he's cleared or he's guilty. It's none of those things.

I mean, I'm really sick of this, let's believe all women thing. I think this is an overhang from the Me Too movement.

I don't think we should, we don't need to believe all women. By the way, that was a big problem in the Me Too campaign. Massively. The big problem came when I heard senior police officers saying it's incumbent to believe all women. No, no, no, no. It's not incumbent to believe any accuser. You listen to an accuser, you take their allegations seriously, and you investigate those allegations.

What you do not do as a police officer, in particular, you do not make a presumption of guilt, which is what they were inferring. If you believe an accuser, you are convicting that person they're accusing before they've had any chance to defend themselves.

Just to be clear, as someone who lumbers under an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement, it is incredibly hard to prove something has happened. What do you want me to do? Catch the fluid, preserve it in a pot after 10 years. My point is, I'm sorry to be lewd, my case didn't involve fluids, just to be clear. But the point is, it is incredibly difficult. The two witnesses are the accused

and the accused and it comes down against the woman every time.

We've got to leave it there. It's a really interesting debate, right? And he gets everybody going good, bad and ugly. A lot of it is ugly. A lot of his views about women and their place in society, however he tried to sugarcoat it, I vehemently disagree with and I've called him out on it many times. But I have always said when I've interviewed him, to be clear, I will follow the evidence and the facts

as they're presented in the public domain. I won't listen to social media. I won't have people tell me, you can't do this, you can't do that. If the guy is not being convicted of any crime, which is absolutely the case right now, then he, whether you hate him or like him or even don't care about him, he is entitled to due process.

I don't waste an emotion on him. I just don't like the fact he platformed himself as if he was a victim.

All right. you don't know he's not a victim. You might think he's got horrible views, but actually, by saying what you've just said, you don't know that. It may be that he is exactly what he's portraying himself as, which is a victim of a vengeful justice system around the world to try and silence him. I don't know. Or a matrix, as your friend refers to it. A matrix. All against Andrew Tate and other men like him. If you keep taunting me about him calling me a friend... I've never met him socially in my life, right? But the reality is, I think it's just better to stick to facts with Tate.

And let's see where it takes us. So don't platform him, because he talks rubbish most of the time. And if he's convicted of crimes, I will be the first to be guilty. Just remember how difficult it is to bring criminal convictions against a man. Separate issue. Anyway, thank you both very much.

Thank you, my friend.

You are my friend. I'm Piers Morgan. I'm a black lesbian.

Hollywood has been trying to remove masculinity

for it seems like the last decade.

There were tears that ran down my face, but I did not cry.

I mean, that's crying.

Your tweet about a sex tape coming next is quite disgusting. Inevitable.

And incredibly disgusting.

Americans are fat pigs and British people have effed up teeth, but we're allies.

When we say good genes are the ones that...

What a load of crap.

I saw Beyonce do a jeans ad. Everybody drooled over it. Should trans athletes have their own category now? Should trans athletes have their own category now? What's the answer?