It’s the same as Daniel Sloss getting praise. For what? Speaking in vague generalities? I don’t buy the “well she may have been sued”. There’s clearly sufficient evidence if the Times and Channel 4 have gone after him. Katherine did the bare minimum. Told HIM he was a predator? Cool, well done.Stopped listening to her podcast a while ago but I do remember her mentioning this on there. I’m genuinely surprised that so many “fans” are commenting like this when she didn’t really do anything (that im aware of) that could’ve helped the victims/other potential victims other than create more interest in herself…
Theroux then asked: 'You were in the papers recently for saying there was a 'predator' that you worked with, that you had informed the employers that he was a predator?'
Ms Ryan clarified that she hadn't told his employers, but that 'I informed him to his face that he was a predator.'
View attachment 2455157
Yeah I just don’t get it at all. This show/investigation has apparently been in the works for a couple of years which tells you even more about the people who only started alluding to there being a “well known predator in comedy that had been known about for years” in the last year or so. Absolute wimps the lot of them.It’s the same as Daniel Sloss getting praise. For what? Speaking in vague generalities? I don’t buy the “well she may have been sued”. There’s clearly sufficient evidence if the Times and Channel 4 have gone after him. Katherine did the bare minimum. Told HIM he was a predator? Cool, well done.
It’s the same as all the chat on the Secret Celeb Gossip thread about well known TV stars being outed for crimes ONCE they’re dead. Either speak up or shut up.Yeah I just don’t get it at all. This show/investigation has apparently been in the works for a couple of years which tells you even more about the people who only started alluding to there being a “well known predator in comedy that had been known about for years” in the last year or so. Absolute wimps the lot of them.
What was Katherine supposed to do exactly? She couldn’t go to the police on the behalves of the women who were assaulted.It’s the same as Daniel Sloss getting praise. For what? Speaking in vague generalities? I don’t buy the “well she may have been sued”. There’s clearly sufficient evidence if the Times and Channel 4 have gone after him. Katherine did the bare minimum. Told HIM he was a predator? Cool, well done.
Have I ever said anything to the contrary of anything you outline here? No. But for someone who seemingly wields a fair amount of power in the industry, she, by her own admission, didn’t speak to his employers, just him. And then made reference to his behaviour countless times.What was Katherine supposed to do exactly? She couldn’t go to the police on the behalves of the women who were assaulted.
The legal system is fucked when it comes to sexual crimes.
Hardly any women report, and can you blame them? Look at the discourse on social media. Full of men and women alike criticising victims for being whores, desperate for attention and/or money. Adamant that without “proof” the perp is innocent. I swear there could even be concrete proof (like video) and there would still be swathes of people denying it. Who can blame women who have been raped/assaulted for being too scared to speak to police, have their lives and reputations dragged through the mud, only to be told the police can’t take the case any further due to lack of evidence?
And of the women who do go to the police, look at the statistics. Virtually none lead to a conviction. Rape is basically legal in this country.
Where's she said anything to suggest this? Maybe I've missed it.. But she did the bare minimum and can’t now pretend to be the one who was at the vanguard of his (overdue) downfall.
His employers knew. There was no need to tell them. Everyone knew. Katherine was just one of dozens, even hundreds of people, who knew. She said it was a “litigious minefield”, in other words, the balance of power was very much with Russell Brand, and working against the people who could have called him out.Have I ever said anything to the contrary of anything you outline here? No. But for someone who seemingly wields a fair amount of power in the industry, she, by her own admission, didn’t speak to his employers, just him. And then made reference to his behaviour countless times.
Is it incumbent upon her to fight victims’ corners? No. Can she report on their behalf? No. But she did the bare minimum and can’t now pretend to be the one who was at the vanguard of his (overdue) downfall.
Very trueAs opposed to any other time throughout the history?
Isn’t it so depressing!And somehow a man’s actions become a women’s responsibility again… tale as old as time.