Just saw a comedian say that it was a known secret within the UK comedy scene that he was like this. Seems like it’s been known for a while but people have only just decided to come forward, which seems to be common in these cases.
“Ryan has previously spoken about her experience on Roast Battle, but has not named Brand or the show she was working on. In an appearance on BBC series Louis Theroux Interviews… last year, Ryan revealed that she confronted her unnamed co-star: “I – in front of loads of people, in the format of the show – said to this person’s face that they are a predator.”
Deadline has confirmed with multiple sources that she was referring to Brand and Roast Battle. Ryan told Theroux that she did not name her colleague because it was a “litigious minefield” and she had not personally been assaulted by Brand.”
That potential threat of litigation may have played a role.
That potential threat of litigation may have played a role.
Could she not have gone to the police? I know such and such is a sexual nonce please investigate?
With what evidence? What she knew was purely hearsay.
Fair enough, but it’s not her job to do police work and collect evidence. That’s for the police. I would imagine she could have gone to the police and said she’s heard some allegations and that they should investigate. If they tell her to get lost then that’s what she should be shouting about now: I went to the police and filed a complaint and even they didn’t believe us this puts women at risk.
“Did he assault you?”
“No”
“Do you have anyone looking to make a claim of assualt?”
“No”
“Good day then”
You can’t just go to the police and ask them to investigate industry hearsay.
Sorry I don’t get it 😞. It’s apparently so much of a “truth” that it was well known in the industry so much so that she’s calling him out on this roast programme but not enough of a “truth” that she feels she can go to the authorities or show promoters or the BBC or Channel 4 or any other outlet they share?
That says something really fucked up about how we protect the vulnerable in our society which allows this type of predatory behaviour to continue.
Totally, the people at fault here are the management company and production companies that sought to protect their high-value star over protecting female staff. In the dispatches they mention that one company thought it would be better to just not have women work with him, rather than not hire him at all.
But the police can’t move on anything without a direct accuser or proof so what else could be done?
Police require proof that they can ignore.
Unfortunately the UKs libel laws make these kind of things difficult, especially if you’re a smaller comedian and Brand was, for a bit, a Hollywood level star with the money and solicitors to bury you.
This investigation took four years across three media outlets to properly piece together, and gather enough evidence to get their legal teams to sign off on the release.
One person familiar with the matter said Brand was “absolutely furious” at being targeted by Ryan. This person said other comedians may have also called out Brand, though this has not been confirmed by those who worked on the show. Two other sources said he demanded that producers protect him from being roasted by his fellow comedians.
Snowflake literally gets off on sexual assault and rape, gets poor widdle fee-fees hurt when someone calls him on it. Excuse me while I go try to find my microscopic violin again …
He was regularly abused as a kid, so I’m certain he’s damaged quite severely, but I’d like more evidence before I bang the gavel, I’d suggest you do likewise.
He has had a number of days to organize his rebuttal and you know what he hasn’t done? He has never denied that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 37. He also apparently thinks that a ‘consensual relationship’ gives him free rein to do what he pleases - because he also has not said that these incidents never happened, just that the relationships were ‘consensual’.
So you know what? idgaf what his excuses are, I don’t care what he claims. And while I have sympathy for the abuse he’s gone through, you work through that on your own, in your twenties - you don’t take it out on other people in your late thirties. There’s a point where you move from abusee to abuser, and Brand has long since crossed that line.
Removed by mod
Well, that kind of reductive thinking is massively helpful. Do all the abusees who are over thirty know about the rules you’ve made up? People don’t realise how simple the matter is!
I’m not even defending the guy, I’m asking for people to avoid tunnel vision and take in the full facts, when they are all available.
I may not know the full facts, but I do know that Brand isn’t saying “These things never happened”, and that’s enough for me.
Enough for what, exactly? Keelhauling? Chemical castration? Written warning? What level of censure do you deem appropriate based on that fact?
People are allowed to have opinions about cases that haven’t been fully investigated yet. Jimmy Savile never got convicted but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t innocent.
He probably would’ve been, had he been alive when the evidence came forward. At the same time, it probably only came to light because he was dead. Either way, it’s pretty weighty, but as you say, people are welcome to their doubts.
Mother Theresa thought suffering brought you closer to God - as such, many of her charges were kept in pain - that was her opinion. Let’s not pretend opinions can’t be dangerous. You, for example, are making passionate, prejudicial assertions in lieu of the full facts; out for blood, death by keyboard. Your ‘opinions’ and others like it are the papilloma pustule on the internet’s prick, infectious ooze from a massive wang.
Let’s see what comes out and draw conclusions in our turn and quit all this frothing at the gash.
I’m not out for blood, but if I was a woman working in the media I’d certainly not take any meetings with Russell Brand. That’s why it’s important to have this information out there even while it’s being investigated.
Yeah, no problem with any of that, but snarky schadenfreude propagated on a preemptive assumption of guilt should be avoided. At least, that’s my opinion.
deleted by creator
And it’s not reductive to weigh the issue based solely on your circumstances?
There’s a weight of evidence to suggest a correlation. There’s evidence to the contrary, too, which should also be considered. I just wondered if anybody’s factoring it in at all, I certainly haven’t heard or read mentioned much in mainstream news.
deleted by creator
I wasn’t mentioning it in that spirit, certainly not in his defence. I think there’s a difference between understanding and condonation that many (to wit, you) fail to appreciate.
Also, I don’t think advocating reason and due process should be stigmatised, whatever the motivation.
deleted by creator
Because I don’t think it’s common knowledge, it goes some way to explaining (not excusing mind you, before you start salivating) what may or may not have happened. What’s more, I don’t think people want to know - or want others to know - because it muddies the waters and they just want good vs. bad.
I’m doing a great job sticking to my objectivity, it’s just that when all you’re surrounded by is half the story, anything contrary to the picture that that paints, looks like complete polar opposition.
Without meaning to derail the conversation about that creep; Katherine Ryan is the most gorgeous woman I’ve ever seen.
