No one loves Andrew Tate more than Andrew Tate does. Except, he’d have you believe, a highly respected journalist.

The king of toxic masculinity has waged a war of words against BBC reporter Lucy Williamson since he sat down with her for an interview earlier this month.

Their discussion covered topics including an ongoing criminal investigation into the 36-year-old and his brother Tristan, and his noxious influence over impressionable young men.

But Tate was clearly less than impressed with how he came off in their conversation so has spent the last couple of weeks trying to discredit Williamson and the BBC itself.

Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

In a bizarre tweet posted on Tuesday morning, the self-styled misogynist claimed that it was “clear” from the moment they first met that he was “the object of her obsession”.

Writing in his preferred style of elaborate prose, he continued: “Fascination was woven into her veins, consuming her senses, a love untamed.

“Her every thought a delicate dance with my name. A whisper. Top G, Top G, Top G.”

He went on: “And today, she waited over 6 hours in the cold outside of Diicot's head office to show me support.

“My number one and most dedicated fan. Lucy <3.”

“Diicot” refers to Romania’s Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, which is currently looking into a host of serious allegations against Tate, including rape, forming an organised crime group and human trafficking.

He is currently under house arrest in the country having spent three months in a Bucharest jail, but was let out temporarily to attend an interview at the prosecutors’ office.

And clearly, his comments about Williamson’s “love” for the man known by his adoring fans as “Top G” are tongue-in-cheek.

Yet, just as clearly, Tate wants his legion of followers to believe that the BBC and its staff really are “obsessed” with him.

In a five-hour interview with podcaster Patrick Bet-David, released on Monday, the cigar-wielding provocateur moaned relentlessly about his treatment by the corporation.

“The only reason I even sat down with the BBC is because they were begging me,” he insisted.

He went on to claim that as soon as he sat down with Williamson, she (and her employers, by proxy) “instantly attack[ed] me”.

“They put the cameras on first and they attack me, expecting me to stutter and make a fool of myself, he told Bet-David.

It's kind of like they tried to sucker-punch me. I'm in the club and they're my friends shaking my hand and they tried to hit me and knock me out.”

But, he added in his characteristically modest way: “Yes, I destroyed the BBC, but of course I did because I'm smarter than all of them.”

To be clear, Tate agreed to the highly-publicised interview with “no set conditions”, according to the corporation, and was asked questions about the criminal charges levelled against him, his broader reputation, and deeply offensive comments he’s made over the years.

Those are pretty obvious topics, surely? Can it really be considered a “sucker-punch” to be grilled on the subjects for which you’re best known?

Apparently, yes. For someone like Tate, free speech is only acceptable when it’s on your terms.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.