Until this week, however, neither brother had faced a credible allegation that their sexual conduct extended to children.
Why This Charge Is Different
That changed this week. Among the charges leveled at Andrew Tate by the UK authorities are indictments relating to sexual images of a child.
There are a few things to note here.
First, while everybody is innocent until proven guilty, the charge Tate faces here is a black-or-white one: the image or images either exist, or do not. He is either connected to such images, or he is not. That the charge has been laid at all suggests strongly that police believe they have compelling evidence.
Second, there is a hierarchy of masculine shame and masculine honor, a code the Tates themselves have relied on for years to sustain their support. Whether or not women and feminists endorse that code, it draws a clear distinction between sexual conduct with women and sexual conduct with children.
Tate may well be able to assert, as he has in the past, that all of his adult female accusers were consenting and later changed their stories to seek out his wealth. He may equally claim, as he so often has, that many of his accusers are women who secretly desired to be dominated and later accused him only out of shame or regret that he had moved on. There is a cohort of young men who will willingly believe such claims, especially when they are combined with a conspiracy-adjacent notion that "the matrix", meaning law enforcement and the political establishment, is out to get him at all costs.
But a charge related to child sex abuse material is different: in such cases there can be no question of consent, since consent is moot with children. There can be no question of false regret, or money-seeking, since Tate has not been blackmailed and the alleged victims could never have consented in the first place.
Conspiracy or Misunderstanding
All that remains, then, is conspiracy or misunderstanding: that Tate either possessed such images accidentally, believing them to be of older women, or that the British state has gone to the trouble of faking child sex abuse images and then planting them on him, just to take down an internet influencer.
That latter theory, baseless, unlikely and evidence-free though it is, will of course be believed by a section of hardcore Tate followers. The House of Tate will not collapse overnight.
Something is worth noting, however. In his lengthy response to the latest charges, Tate denied the prosecution wholesale and portrayed the new charges as the latest stage of a political campaign against him. Yet he offered nothing close to the detailed explanations he has previously given for allegations involving adult women when it came to the charges concerning indecent images of children. Instead, he folded them into his broader claim that the authorities were simply piling on ever more lurid accusations in an effort to destroy him.
A Subtly Different Defense
There is a distinct difference there between past and present: until now, Tate's general modus operandi in dealing with such accusations has been elaborate. He tends to talk about supposedly exculpatory messages, women who continued communicating with him, procedural misconduct, political motives and accusers allegedly seeking money. On the child-image charges, however, the response is far less detailed: essentially, "They are accusing me of everything imaginable because they want to destroy me."
That will, of course, persuade some. And it remains perfectly possible that an acquittal will persuade almost all.
But.
For the first time, Tate faces a charge with real potential to damage him among his own audience, one that could push even his most devoted fans to reevaluate exactly who he is and ask, as so many have in similar scandals before them, whether they have been defrauded.
