*"Everyone knows who it is, but we're not going to tell you... Also, please stop speculating, it could ruin someone's career!"*
Talk about muddying the waters here...
Well he's got a point in the latter half. It'd be very easy for a bunch of armchair internet detectives to convince themselves someone is the abuser and start harassing him when it could be someone completely unrelated.
And for his first point; if he's not the victim or hasn't witnessed the abuser's behaviour first hand it makes it pretty hard to do anything about. If he came out and named the guy and no victims came forward to corroborate, he'd be in a tricky situation.
Honestly the best thing we can hope for is that either Richard Gadd himself actually comes forward or other victims of the abuser see Baby Reindeer and that encourages them to speak up.
Also, UK libel laws are super tough—you can’t just accuse someone of something and expect not to get sued. Look at Katherine Ryan and (probably) Russell Brand.
It isn't just that they're tough, it's that they're incredibly costly as well and if you lose you can be made to pay the other parties legal fees - which when both sides can blow 200-300k before a case even sees a courtroom, is a heavy incentive to be very careful.
> UK libel laws are super tough
They did modernize them in 2013, thankfully, right after the Russell Brand settlement.
> The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Is Brand suing Katherine Ryan? That would be a terrible move if he did. Even the stuff we know about from his past would look truly appalling in court.
Ryan described an abuser whose name was two things you do to cows (not her exact words, but pretty close), in reference to Brand. She had to speak in an inexact manner to avoid a suit.
Those kind of word games does not protect someone from being sued for defamation. Even if you indirectly identify someone when making potentially defamatory statements you are still identifying them if they are pretty much the only person who would fit based on those descriptions and so everyone knows it's them.
> Is Brand suing Katherine Ryan?
Since his last lawsuit, the libel laws in the UK have changed substantially. Aside from other factors, it wouldn't be an easy case to make now.
Osman's point is that there [are] similarities between the actor/ character in the show and the person who has been falsely accused - and that the person accused is innocent. He hasn't said anything in that article about not speculating, and isn't speculating himself (presumably because he knows who it is).
Meanwhile Gadd is asking people not to speculate, even though his own show is inevitably going to make that happen.
Edit - I've got three people (possibly one person, three accounts) replying to me below who all blocked me immediately, which is weird. Anyway - I accidentally missed out the word 'are'.
It really isn't hard to understand that someone wants to tell their story of abuse without expecting or wanting people to go out there and harass people who it *might* be.
> Speculate but don't witch hunt, it's not hard.
The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction on the internet. Speculating and making public accusations in and of itself is witch hunting.
The thing is currently is that we have to protect and support victims but we can’t be targeting abusers. That’s not to say they should be getting off scot free but we as a society, at least in the UK (my culture so the only one I can speak for) seem to pass over victims go straight for the “bad guy” which is rarely supported by anything - Gadd never asked anyone to target his abuser but people decided who his abuser was and attacked, which just added mental anguish to the person falsely accused by fans.
We’re not mature enough as a society to really navigate abuse stuff yet.
What we want is people to stop abusing others, and I really don’t see how sending death threats aids in that? Better sex ed about relationships and stricter ethical guidelines (and better consequences) for any kind of person in power are far more valuable.
First point: The speculation is targeted at the wrong person. he is very clear about this if you listen to the whole podcast instead of cherry-picking, and badly editing, a single line.
Second point: The offences are alledged. No evidence, no proof, no investigation, etc.
Third point: And the entire point of that podcast! The use of "This story is true" is not fair as many of the points have been changed for dramatic effect. Including, but not least, the legal consequences for the stalker.
Kinda sad that the made-up part has to be the consequences and accountability for the predators. I guess Shawshank handled it better “I would like to tell you so and so fought the good fight and won, but this is no fairy tale world”
I work in film/TV in London. I have absolutely no idea who it is. And in fact I suspect if you told me the name, I wouldn't even recognise it. I'm sure some people do know, but unlike Kevin Spacey and the London theatre world it is definitely not everyone.
It's like telling me that a well known casting director did the abuse. Dude, not every CSA is a top tier gladhander in the industry, you can't have good well-known people without mediocre nobodies to take every spot after Runner-Up Awards Nominees.
He has a friend that looks like the actor in the show that played the r*pist and they already assumed it was him and sent him death threats. The creator already said very publicly it wasn't him and the actor in the show looks nothing like the real person but when you google the actor it's all these story's connecting him for no reason.
Really?? My jaw actually dropped when I saw him, but maybe it’s the specific photo that was used to compare. It’s the balding + beard + face shape + shade of hair that stuck out as similar to me.
Tbh I don’t think Netflix/Gadd expected the show to blow up as much as it has and were kinda irresponsible in how they kept all the details the same. You can’t write something THIS true to life and not expect massive speculation. That being said, the people speculating and trying to cancel people without confirmation are even worse, they’re parasocial ghouls.
It reminds me of the recent(ish) Rebecca ~~Jessica~~ Ferguson interview where she mentions being bullied by the lead actor in a movie she did. She wouldn't say who it was but it then caused a massive witch hunt trying to cancel various actors that it surely MUST have been.
It's a real no win scenario. Important to know these things happen, but if you name names it could cause even worse blowback in various forms... But if you don't name the person, it causes wild speculation and false accusations too..
I mean whether it blows up or not they still published the series on Netflix, it's not exactly a confidential thing lol. They were prepared for it to go public
Netflix has a history of not giving two shits about the human cost of their shows. I remember when 13 Reasons Why came out and being completely blown away by just how much the show glamourised suicide as a way of 'getting back' at people who have wronged you.
I think deleting the suicide scene was a mistake, though.
The original scene was fucking brutal. Nothing romantic about the way the actual act was depicted and I thought that was maybe it’s saving grace.
Contrary to what you might expect, graphic depictions of the act of suicide is very frowned upon by experts in the topic, it actually does encourage copycats. People specifically campaigned netflix to cut the scene.
The problem with that is that then people start claiming that because *some* details were significantly altered that the entire thing must have been made up. There's no gray for some people.
For example, apparently the real Martha didn’t end up serving jail time. In the show, she's sentenced to nine months. Some lunatics are using this as "proof" that Gadd just made the whole thing up. Like, what? He's repeatedly said he changed dates and details to hide the identities of the individuals, and people still come out with that kind of BS logic?
> That being said, the people speculating and trying to cancel people without confirmation are even worse
*norm macdonald voice* "see idk i think the worst part, was the raping..."
After the AI images in that one true crime doc and that 4-episode miniseries about the Cecil Hotel that was 1 episode of content and 3 episodes of tawdry speculation from YouTubers, I assume all true crime stuff on Netflix is irresponsible tasteless drama garbage meant for terminally-online ghouls to devour.
I had to explain to my dad that "modern" true crime content isn't the same as stuff from 25 years ago and it has a completely different audience and style. This was after he started watching some random documentary and texted me asking why the hell there were women doing their makeup while being interviewed.
tbf older true crime stuff also has its issues. I’ve been watching the early Unsolved Mysteries episodes on Peacock and I had to skip one segment because it was straight up satanic panic bs
lmao I literally JUST made a comment in a different thread talking about this shit with the first two seasons of UM. Even with its flaws I infinitely miss old-UM though because it was actually trying to solve cases and find killers on the run via their real call-center, every modern true crime show is basically voyeurism that isn't trying to solve shit.
I can't remember what it was, but apparently it was an actual crime "documentary" on some streaming platform that happened to have a bunch of those Makeup+Crime/GRWM girlies as interview subjects, and they were all doing the makeup schtick during their interviews
I can't stand those YouTubers. The casual gleeful way they talk about the gory details of someone's tragedy and death makes my skin crawl and my teeth hurt with how tacky it is.
Well yeah, CNN also had Jeff Wise doing a lot of their commentary on it, and he's the one shilling the "two people snuck into the electrics bay, hacked the plane and flew it to Afghanistan" theory.
He now uses that to play the victim like "of course *they* want me to look bad" because his theory is objectively nonsense.
Don't Fuck With Cats was my introduction to bullshit Netflix docs.
Cops work a murder using regular old methods, ignore internet idiots, and arrest the guy.
Internet idiots who had no influence and were ignored, pat themselves on the back.
I'm so far out of the demographic that watches this shit I didn't even know what that was until just now. It sounds like a documentary made by and for the same Redditors that searched for the Boston bomber?
that's actually a really good point they made on the podcast, in comparison to bbc compliance, basically saying "they treated this as a show that wouldn't be successful. but you have to treat every show for the case it would go viral"
I hate when after a predator has been arrested/exposed it comes out that its been an open secret in the industry. Knowing someone is a predator and is actively harming and not saying anything is such a scumbag move. How many people new to the industry could be saved from something super traumatic if they got arrested/exposed. "Everyone knows" doesn't help the people who are new to the industry or maybe they aren't even in the industry.
The problem here is that Britain’s libel laws make it impossible to report on the alleged crimes of people unless your evidence is 100% bulletproof. Russell Brand’s abuse was an open secret but [couldn’t be reported on for years](https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/24/russell-brand-and-why-the-allegations-took-so-long-to-surface). There was a member of parliament arrested for rape and [it took a year for his name to be published.](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-libel-privacy-law-defamation-westminster/)
In the Girl with The Dragon Tattoo, Mikael Blomkvist literally gets prison time for losing a Swedish libel case which was a 100% foreign concept for anyone in America reading that book.
Also Lisbeth owning a taser being on the same level of illegal as having a firearm, that blew my mind.
We carry on with our lives, generally.
The elaborate die hard scenarios Americans fantasise about don't really happen IRL, at least not more often than somebody having their own weapon used on them.
The situation in the book is not the same the Russel Brand thing, though. In the book, Blomkvist is investigating and figures out that Public Figure did Bad Thing A, but it is hard to prove. He is working on it, though, until Public Figure realizes what is going on. To protect himself, he leaks to Blomkvist that he did Bad Thing B. Blomkvist goes ahead and prints that. Public Figure then proves that he did not do Bad Thing B and Blomkvist is sent to jail (for a month, I think it was) for libel. The end of the book includes Blomkvist eventually proving that Public Figure did Bad Thing A.
But why would an American media organization care about some TV writer in another country? Granted, maybe now with all this press about this show, but then you can’t just publish heresay.
Yes, to add to this libel is a civil wrong, meaning it is tested to the civil threshold of the balance of probabilities NOT beyond all reasonable doubt like the criminal law. I.e 51% sure you commited the civil wrong and you are guilty.
If you accuse someone of rape publicly in writing and have nothing to offer beyond your own word on the matter then that person accused is going to have an easy job coming after you for all your money / assets after a civil court judge rules in their favour that what you say is libel.
Unlike the criminal law where you accuse them of rape and it falls to the police to collect evidence that they are guilty of that offence beyond all reasonable doubt.
For 99% of people it doesn't matter because most people won't take you to civil court but anyone with cash will.
> For 99% of people it doesn't matter because most people won't take you to civil court but anyone with cash will.
Yep. But right after Russell Brand's successful lawsuit, the UK changed their libel laws considerably, making them far more strict.
Every British tabloid does not report on multiple stories they know to be true because of the libel risk.
Jimmy Saville was well known to all the tabloids, but nobody published anything on it because they were concerned about the libel risk.
Fuck a year ago the Mail ran a story about a household name actor being a child abuser that they did not name, and said "it will all come out when he's dead."
Tbh while that’s awful, it’s also good that the law protects people who may be accused but innocent. That’s a tough line to walk between making sure they’re actual criminals and not letting them walk around free for too long
> The problem here is that Britain’s libel laws make it impossible to report on the alleged crimes of people unless your evidence is 100% bulletproof.
They did modernize them in 2013, thankfully, right after the Russell Brand settlement.
> The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
If the abuser has high up friends in industry who’ll back them no matter what, the risk of blacklisted is high even though that is illegal proving it is hard.
These careers are heavily gatekept on who you know with little to no hr for stand ups and it’s far easier for the abuser to label a victim as a jealous liar to their fame
Nobody spoke up about Harvey Weinstein for more than 30 years. Fundamentally, there are two kinds of people in the entertainment industry: poor hardworking grunts struggling to get by, and cowardly millionaires who enjoy their fame and fortune. You don't need British libel laws to keep a secret in that environment.
It's not determined by where it's published. At all.
To sue for libel in a UK court all you have to demonstrate is that a meaningful amount of people in the UK would come into contact with the allegation, which since the internet happened has become a low bar.
However, the US will not enforce a UK judgement against it's own citizens/companies. But that means you can't visit or ever have any UK assets because otherwise the litigants will collect against that.
You cant act on gossip, beyond telling those youre close to not to go near someone.
I work in the entertainment industry and was told of a popular performer living in the UK was a notorious pedophile, and that "everyone knew". What was I supposed to do on the otherside of the world? Call up a random london cop shop and say "Hey I just got told a story at a party"? I did try and tell a radio station once who were talking about how amazing the performer was, but my call was dumped and I was chastised for trying to ruin someones reputation. And yes, that person did end up getting jailed.
Unfortunately, "everybody knows" isnt evidence to a legal standard.
Everyone also “knew” about Bill Cosby and people had been coming forward for decades. But no one could prove anything. The only time they did get a conviction they broke so many rules that the court overturned the verdict and freed him.
And let’s not forget the “everybody knew” line tends to only come out AFTER the scandal breaks. All it means is there was a rumour that turned out to be true in that instance. But like most gossip that’s not always the case. Lives can be destroyed by false rumours and accusations.
You say that, yet there's a perfect example of why people probably don't do it.
In 2005, Courtney Love was asked if she had any advice to give to aspiring actors. She said "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a party, don't go". Did people go "Weinstein must be a really shady dude"? No, of course not.
People dismissed Courtney Love as being crazy, a jealous has-been. Nobody took her seriously. It took 17 years for people to look back at that answer and admit she was right all along. It did nothing to stop Weinstein's sexual abuse.
At the end of the day, you can't force a victim to come forward. And if you can't offer any story or proof, then you're putting yourself at risk of being blacklisted or sued. You ruined your own career and you didn't save anyone.
Also happened with the backlash to Sinead O'Connor when she brought up the Catholic Church's abuse scandals in the 90's.
Blowing the whistle can risk destroying your career *and* having nobody believe you either.
As someone that saw that live on TV, the main problem was that she said the right thing in a brave way but it was out of nowhere and it wasn't clear in the moment what she meant. It fueled sentiment against her. And that's before we start talking about how people felt about Catholics and the Pope at the time.
That all said she was right and Joe Pesci is still a dick.
You weren't kidding.
I found an article written the night she made that warning about Harvey Weinstein, at the roast of Pamela Anderson.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180614071727/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/arts/television/roasters-of-stacked-star-romp-high-to-low.html
Lots of focus on her behavior and the insults lobbed towards her, and a suggestion that the "bloated musician" needs to be in an institution. No mention of the warning against Weinstein.
It's insane how vitriolic things were against women in entertainment at that time, not that it's been completely solved now. Watch SNL or listen to stand-up comedy from that era and the hate was just so disproportionate.
It's true with Jimmy Savile as well. People love to feed into the conspiracies about Savile, but the fundamental truth is he was completely unashamed about shagging about with teenage girls, but nobody cared enough about young girls to see it as anything other than great banter from a legend.
Yeah Jimmy Savile wrote in his book about sleeping with an under-age girl. According to himself he was even called out by a police officer who he then responded by threatening to destroy her career because of his connections.
He wrote that openly in a *book*. It was published. Anyone could read about what a shitty person he was. But it obviously never garnered attention.
Irvine Welsh wrote a short story with a character who did this and was blatantly based on Jimmy Saville. People asked him years later why he hadn’t gone to the police and his reply was, go to them with what? It was a story he’d heard in a pub and he was a struggling writer.
He didn’t just hang around hospitals, he worked as a porter in a hospital so he had all kinds of access.
My favourite part of the documentary about him was when the cemetery workers who destroyed his tombstone were like “we showed up at night, and destroyed it, and didn’t take any pictures before or after”.
>fundamental truth is he was completely unashamed about shagging about
Not really true though, yeah he'd make some "jokes" sometimes, especially later on HIGNFY etc, and yeah there's footage of him groping on live TV. But on the other hand, he told papers for over 20y that he hated kids and couldn't stand being around them.
Asia Agento literally made an entire 'fiction' movie about being raped by Weinstein 'Scarlett Diva' in 2000. The actor looks very much like him.
Took 20 more years to get him tried and sentenced.
And all the while those Hollywood boys like Coery Haim and Brad Renfro are dead ( and Feldman too scared to truly speak out) because they've endured exactly what Gadd did.
There are people like that in my industry but if you ask someone, nobody will tell you more than a half-rumor because that's all that was told to them and they don't want to be seen as a source for information they expect to be unreliable. They don't want to invite consequences from a full accusation, especially when they are largely unrelated to the case and don't know much.
Despite that, they still want to give you the heads-up to be wary around a suspected predator. So it often comes about as a mix of people wanting to protect their own necks while still looking out for vulnerable people around them.
Nobody made us the cops and we're operating with incomplete info. Sometimes that's how an open secret survives.
So many great comments in this thread about what an "open secret" really is. People have this misconception that if somebody spoke up publicly it would all end. Not so, not even for victims. It's doubly rich when people act like it's suspicious for many victims to come forth around the same time, when in fact strength in numbers is way safer for them.
Gossip is one thing. Typically, you need first hand accounts and supporting evidence.
Unfortunately, most predators recognize this and simply focus on controlling victims through fear, destroying evidence and dismissing "busybodies" with threats of litigation.
You can have "open secrets" like this for decades without a sufficient case put before the appropriate prosecutorial entities.
I don't think it's fair to blame people who have no control over it, and it's only half fair to blame people who weren't involved with any wrong doing, but continue to voluntarily work with someone and/or hire them.
The only people with the power to change things are the predator themselves, and people who know for certain about what the predator is doing and are actively protecting them.
If your company hired someone who has some connections to the CEO and there were rumors that that person did some shady shit, would you quit your job? Would you protest and risk getting fired and/or sued? Or would you just avoid that person as well as you could given the circumstances, and hope the rumors are wrong?
It extends beyond the industry. The general public routinely misplaces their judgment on this kind of thing.
Take Steve Coogan, he played Jimmy Saville recently, worked directly with his victims to capture the essence of one of the most vile beings ever to slither across the earth. And when people saw it [they cast harsh judgment on ... Steve Coogan](https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/steve-coogan-responds-to-backlash-on-decision-to-play-jimmy-savile-in-new-bbc-drama-406031).
People were more outraged at a man portraying the reality, than the *actual fucking reality*.
It's a symptom of a wider problem with private industries and showbiz in particular. No accountability, no recourse, no justice, no fucks given.
And so people look for their outlet elsewhere, by attacking people like Coogan and, in the case of this program, random innocent producers.
[The Missing Stair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair)
Last few reports i saw about this specifically about "Hollywood" is that those folks doing awful stuff tend to be rich, well-connected, or both, which explains why folks are more prone to defend them, or at least ignore the problem.
There were some "open secrets" I was aware of in the tech industry. Around 50% of them, when they came out, were NOT what I thought they were going to be and actually the person that the rumor hinted at was the villain was actually the victim.
The worst is when you have a major movement like MeToo where everyone in Hollywood is patting themselves on the back and it's like, you cunts all knew about this shit, some had the power and fame to make change, but you sat back and let it happen.
100% agree. When I read rumours of Weinstein in the early 2000s and I live up in bumfruck Northern Ontario, Canada, there is a problem! They all knew and were complicit. Despicable.
I grew up in Kapuskasing, was still there in the early 2000s, and *also* heard rumours about Harvey Weinstein back then, when I was in high school!
*Really* hard to see what the excuse was for *all of Hollywood* in the intervening decades...
Worked in the UK TV industry with a lot of people who worked alongside Jimmy Saville. Almost every one of them would tell you everybody in the industry knew he was dodgy, knew not to be alone in a room with him if you were a young attractive runner, but nobody knew the details.
I imagine the situation is often similar to that. People share to stay away from these bad eggs but don't want to jeopordise their personal careers by revealing what it is.
There’s two sides to that particular coin though, we have some incredibly awful tabloid newspapers and those anti-libel/slander laws are the only thing preventing them from being even more awful and cruel. It’s not ideal, but if they were to loosen those laws they’d need to come up with something to regulate the press at the same time.
> It's particularly prevalent in the UK because of their anti-libel/slander laws.
I'm sort of blasting this, but they did modernize them in 2013, right after the Russell Brand settlement. /u/Flabby-Nonsense as well:
> The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
But what Richard Osman is saying is that he (and many others) know who Gadd *says* abused him. That is a very different thing from Osman having *evidence* that that person abused Gadd.
Start making accusations without evidence and, in my view, you are on very dodgy ground morally, nevermind legally, and it very easily leads to exactly the sort of scenario as has happened, with innocent people getting their name dragged through the mud by people who aren't bothered by lack of evidence. (I've commented earlier today on a post about internet vigilantes confronting an alleged paedophile, and an extremely depressing number of those commenting quite clearly regard the *accusation* - an accusation by a very dodgy internet "celebrity" to boot - as proof, prrof sufficient to justify anything that is done to "the pedo.")
Precisely. The Americans in this thread saying that these people are enabling predators don't understand how strong our libel and defamation laws are here. You need absolutely solid, concrete, well-documented evidence with receipts. And well-coined and connected predators feed off this and can scare most victims off with the threat of legal action because the depth of their pockets goes further than their victims'.
What name is everyone speculating on? I've not seen a single thing. So it seems libel laws work to some extent to protect those innocent until proven guilty. You can't even say they're suspected. Everyone is terrified of legal consequences.
I know absolutely nothing about this show other than the headlines I’ve read on this sub the past few weeks.
And every single one seems like it belongs on r/fauxmoi or some other gossip sub. What the fuck
You know how every year, Netflix has this one show that blows up like crazy completely unexpectedly because it doesn't fit any mold or algorithm (Queen's Gambit, Squid Game, etc)? This is that show for 2024. It was clearly meant to be super niche, but it's exploded worldwide.
It's a quick binge at around three hours total but it's also an awkward, painful, and disturbing train wreck that you can't stop watching.
My wife and I tuned in out of curiosity. Like many others, we plowed through the entire thing Sunday afternoon. What I thought was a breath if fresh air is how well they explained the main actors reasoning for all his decisions he makes. Most shows you walk away frustrated with how characters handle situations but this show really gets into his fucked up life. Was very clever and thought provoking
It reminded me of how thoughtfully Annie Weisman’s semi-autobiographical series *Physical* explored the behaviors and decisions of its protagonist and their connection to childhood sexual trauma.
Nothing like going in to see some light celebrity gossip and be confronted with politically extremist accelerationism.
Fauxmoi, where liberal progressive young women say Trump won't be that bad if it means punishing America for Biden.
Even American libel laws are such that you can't just publicly accuse someone of repeatedly drugging and raping you without some solid evidence. Given what's shown in the series happened several years ago, occurred when it was just the two of them alone together, and was something Gadd didn't recognize the reality of until much later (meaning he likely didn't tell anyone what was going on), it's likely a very "he said, she said" type of scenario where it'd be very difficult for Gadd to prove if the accused sued.
I think the emphasis was more on it's not the person everyone is saying it is so back off on the speculation and death threats, but yeah still frustrating that the name is known but they are getting away with it.
There's a very double edged gap between "everyone knows" and having enough evidence for an arrest/conviction.
It's meant to protect people in the cases where the obvious person that "everyone knows did it" is actually innocent, but the downside is that sometimes the guilty continue to go free if they successfully left little to no physical evidence.
A great, but unfortunate, example is Gary Ridgeway, also known as the Green River Killer. He was correctly identified by a task force in 1987, arrested, and interviewed while his home was searched. It took *14 more years* to forensically link him to any of his crimes, and he wasn't arrested again and tried until 2001. Police were only able to forensically link him to 4-5 of the over 70 murders he admitted to committing; for the other 40-something he was convicted of, the only evidence police have is that he confessed and was able to lead them to the bodies. And that was serial murder!
Nobody spoke up when Saville was being a predator and people knew in the industry. He was allowed to continue to hurt people. If you know who it is then tell the police. Sick of hearing all this BS from Celebrities but do nothing about it. They are just as bad if they are helping it stay covered.
I kinda feel like it was irresponsible of Netflix to make this show. I’m not blaming Richard Gadd here, this is his story and he has the right to share it however he wants, but there were clearly going to be consequences to this being released. The stalker was almost immediately identified despite Gadd claiming she wouldn’t even recognize herself, and she is now receiving media attention which is probably the worst possible thing for her mental health, as she seems to be still quite deranged. In addition to not expect that people would try to figure out who his abuser was and likely blame innocent bystanders seems naive at best.
Why is Gadd obligated to protect his abusers?
It’s so disgusting to me how everyone expects victims to sit down and shut up because the perps might, god forbid, have some negative consequences.
*"Everyone knows who it is, but we're not going to tell you... Also, please stop speculating, it could ruin someone's career!"* Talk about muddying the waters here...
Well he's got a point in the latter half. It'd be very easy for a bunch of armchair internet detectives to convince themselves someone is the abuser and start harassing him when it could be someone completely unrelated. And for his first point; if he's not the victim or hasn't witnessed the abuser's behaviour first hand it makes it pretty hard to do anything about. If he came out and named the guy and no victims came forward to corroborate, he'd be in a tricky situation. Honestly the best thing we can hope for is that either Richard Gadd himself actually comes forward or other victims of the abuser see Baby Reindeer and that encourages them to speak up.
Also, UK libel laws are super tough—you can’t just accuse someone of something and expect not to get sued. Look at Katherine Ryan and (probably) Russell Brand.
It isn't just that they're tough, it's that they're incredibly costly as well and if you lose you can be made to pay the other parties legal fees - which when both sides can blow 200-300k before a case even sees a courtroom, is a heavy incentive to be very careful.
Wait his name literally means to steal
> UK libel laws are super tough They did modernize them in 2013, thankfully, right after the Russell Brand settlement. > The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Is Brand suing Katherine Ryan? That would be a terrible move if he did. Even the stuff we know about from his past would look truly appalling in court.
Ryan described an abuser whose name was two things you do to cows (not her exact words, but pretty close), in reference to Brand. She had to speak in an inexact manner to avoid a suit.
What did Milk Herd do?
Pretty sure she meant her ex partner, Tip Juice
If you're juicing cows, you might be mistaken and actually have a bull.
I ain't no fancy cattle biologist, I just squeeze the dangly bits and liquid comes out
She was a stubborn cuss, but once I got her going..BANG! All at once.
Wait like a rustler? That’s very clever.
Those kind of word games does not protect someone from being sued for defamation. Even if you indirectly identify someone when making potentially defamatory statements you are still identifying them if they are pretty much the only person who would fit based on those descriptions and so everyone knows it's them.
> Is Brand suing Katherine Ryan? Since his last lawsuit, the libel laws in the UK have changed substantially. Aside from other factors, it wouldn't be an easy case to make now.
What did Katherine Ryan do?
Be generally awesome. But in particular she’s been calling him out on being a sex pest for a while.
Ooooh that fair enough on the calling out. And yes I do enjoy things she appears in.
Your first paragraph has already happened.
I thought you were a bot and your post was saying his first paragraph had already been written verbatim on Reddit before. For a moment I was amazed.
That shit would have been so surreal lol.
We did it, Reddit!
Exactly what I thought!
This is why stuff like this and blind item gossip sucks. Everyone will speculate and someone will get accused of something they probably didn’t do.
The daily fail did it with Huw Edwards.... That poor dude
Osman's point is that there [are] similarities between the actor/ character in the show and the person who has been falsely accused - and that the person accused is innocent. He hasn't said anything in that article about not speculating, and isn't speculating himself (presumably because he knows who it is). Meanwhile Gadd is asking people not to speculate, even though his own show is inevitably going to make that happen. Edit - I've got three people (possibly one person, three accounts) replying to me below who all blocked me immediately, which is weird. Anyway - I accidentally missed out the word 'are'.
Hey, don't speculate, just watch my entire show about it and then shut up and don't think about it.
It really isn't hard to understand that someone wants to tell their story of abuse without expecting or wanting people to go out there and harass people who it *might* be.
Speculate but don't witch hunt, it's not hard. Well apparently it is.
> Speculate but don't witch hunt, it's not hard. The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction on the internet. Speculating and making public accusations in and of itself is witch hunting.
The difference is that witches don't exist, whereas we now know of at least one rapist comedy TV writer out there.
The thing is currently is that we have to protect and support victims but we can’t be targeting abusers. That’s not to say they should be getting off scot free but we as a society, at least in the UK (my culture so the only one I can speak for) seem to pass over victims go straight for the “bad guy” which is rarely supported by anything - Gadd never asked anyone to target his abuser but people decided who his abuser was and attacked, which just added mental anguish to the person falsely accused by fans. We’re not mature enough as a society to really navigate abuse stuff yet. What we want is people to stop abusing others, and I really don’t see how sending death threats aids in that? Better sex ed about relationships and stricter ethical guidelines (and better consequences) for any kind of person in power are far more valuable.
What about the similarities between the show and the person accused? You didn’t finish that sentence…
First point: The speculation is targeted at the wrong person. he is very clear about this if you listen to the whole podcast instead of cherry-picking, and badly editing, a single line. Second point: The offences are alledged. No evidence, no proof, no investigation, etc. Third point: And the entire point of that podcast! The use of "This story is true" is not fair as many of the points have been changed for dramatic effect. Including, but not least, the legal consequences for the stalker.
Kinda sad that the made-up part has to be the consequences and accountability for the predators. I guess Shawshank handled it better “I would like to tell you so and so fought the good fight and won, but this is no fairy tale world”
your third point is the most significant issue
I work in film/TV in London. I have absolutely no idea who it is. And in fact I suspect if you told me the name, I wouldn't even recognise it. I'm sure some people do know, but unlike Kevin Spacey and the London theatre world it is definitely not everyone.
It's like telling me that a well known casting director did the abuse. Dude, not every CSA is a top tier gladhander in the industry, you can't have good well-known people without mediocre nobodies to take every spot after Runner-Up Awards Nominees.
"If you know, you know", essentially
He has a friend that looks like the actor in the show that played the r*pist and they already assumed it was him and sent him death threats. The creator already said very publicly it wasn't him and the actor in the show looks nothing like the real person but when you google the actor it's all these story's connecting him for no reason.
\*rapist
You can say the word. No one will get offended.
The similarity between the actor playing the rapist and the guy who people initially (and incorrectly) thought it was is insane.
So who is he?
Dan Schneider
Its not Dan Schneider.
I looked the producer up and he doesn't look that similar? He seems to be a bald man.
Really?? My jaw actually dropped when I saw him, but maybe it’s the specific photo that was used to compare. It’s the balding + beard + face shape + shade of hair that stuck out as similar to me.
Also the Bohemian kinda look he had lent heavily to Darrien. If it's not him Richard is a fucking idiot for casting the character like that.
Yeah just looked him up, that's an uncanny resemblance and not just in one photo
Yeah I thought it was the actor that played him lol. That's crazy
“It wasn’t me but if it was me, the actor in the show is way fatter and balder than me.”
who did people think it was?
A writer and director named Sean Foley. Richard Gadd directly addressed the speculation and said it's not him and not to harass him.
Damn poor dude...
Richard Gadd didn't actually say it wasn't him. Gadd just asked people to stop unfairly speculating.
Tbh I don’t think Netflix/Gadd expected the show to blow up as much as it has and were kinda irresponsible in how they kept all the details the same. You can’t write something THIS true to life and not expect massive speculation. That being said, the people speculating and trying to cancel people without confirmation are even worse, they’re parasocial ghouls.
It reminds me of the recent(ish) Rebecca ~~Jessica~~ Ferguson interview where she mentions being bullied by the lead actor in a movie she did. She wouldn't say who it was but it then caused a massive witch hunt trying to cancel various actors that it surely MUST have been. It's a real no win scenario. Important to know these things happen, but if you name names it could cause even worse blowback in various forms... But if you don't name the person, it causes wild speculation and false accusations too..
Rebecca
woops, thank you!
She was so good as Lady Jessica that people are confusing the names lol. I’m guilty myself
Haha that must be why it was stuck in my head 😅
I mean whether it blows up or not they still published the series on Netflix, it's not exactly a confidential thing lol. They were prepared for it to go public
Netflix has a history of not giving two shits about the human cost of their shows. I remember when 13 Reasons Why came out and being completely blown away by just how much the show glamourised suicide as a way of 'getting back' at people who have wronged you.
I think deleting the suicide scene was a mistake, though. The original scene was fucking brutal. Nothing romantic about the way the actual act was depicted and I thought that was maybe it’s saving grace.
Contrary to what you might expect, graphic depictions of the act of suicide is very frowned upon by experts in the topic, it actually does encourage copycats. People specifically campaigned netflix to cut the scene.
The way it ended left so many questions, so people started digging. They could have made it so that both parties got arrested and called it a day.
The problem with that is that then people start claiming that because *some* details were significantly altered that the entire thing must have been made up. There's no gray for some people. For example, apparently the real Martha didn’t end up serving jail time. In the show, she's sentenced to nine months. Some lunatics are using this as "proof" that Gadd just made the whole thing up. Like, what? He's repeatedly said he changed dates and details to hide the identities of the individuals, and people still come out with that kind of BS logic?
> That being said, the people speculating and trying to cancel people without confirmation are even worse *norm macdonald voice* "see idk i think the worst part, was the raping..."
you used that joke incorrectly lol, I wasn’t referring to the content of the show
After the AI images in that one true crime doc and that 4-episode miniseries about the Cecil Hotel that was 1 episode of content and 3 episodes of tawdry speculation from YouTubers, I assume all true crime stuff on Netflix is irresponsible tasteless drama garbage meant for terminally-online ghouls to devour.
This isn’t true crime. It’s a black comedy drama-thriller that happens to feature crimes that were true in its narrative.
It's not true crime, but it definitely trades on "this is a trueish story" and so I think deserves some of the comparisons.
Don't forget the MH370 "documentary" that spent two thirds of its time covering completely unhinged theories that are literal impossibilities.
I had to explain to my dad that "modern" true crime content isn't the same as stuff from 25 years ago and it has a completely different audience and style. This was after he started watching some random documentary and texted me asking why the hell there were women doing their makeup while being interviewed.
tbf older true crime stuff also has its issues. I’ve been watching the early Unsolved Mysteries episodes on Peacock and I had to skip one segment because it was straight up satanic panic bs
lmao I literally JUST made a comment in a different thread talking about this shit with the first two seasons of UM. Even with its flaws I infinitely miss old-UM though because it was actually trying to solve cases and find killers on the run via their real call-center, every modern true crime show is basically voyeurism that isn't trying to solve shit.
No, your dad is right, the true crime makeup or true crime meal channels should be deplatformed. It's gross.
I can't remember what it was, but apparently it was an actual crime "documentary" on some streaming platform that happened to have a bunch of those Makeup+Crime/GRWM girlies as interview subjects, and they were all doing the makeup schtick during their interviews I can't stand those YouTubers. The casual gleeful way they talk about the gory details of someone's tragedy and death makes my skin crawl and my teeth hurt with how tacky it is.
Don't forget Don Lemon suggesting on CNN that the plane was very possibly swallowed by a black hole.
Well yeah, CNN also had Jeff Wise doing a lot of their commentary on it, and he's the one shilling the "two people snuck into the electrics bay, hacked the plane and flew it to Afghanistan" theory. He now uses that to play the victim like "of course *they* want me to look bad" because his theory is objectively nonsense.
Don't Fuck With Cats was my introduction to bullshit Netflix docs. Cops work a murder using regular old methods, ignore internet idiots, and arrest the guy. Internet idiots who had no influence and were ignored, pat themselves on the back.
I'm so far out of the demographic that watches this shit I didn't even know what that was until just now. It sounds like a documentary made by and for the same Redditors that searched for the Boston bomber?
There’s also the Son of Sam one which spends most of its time on theories that it wasn’t Berkowitz.
That's not web sleuths though, that's some idiot who knows things and people and should know better.
After much consideration I’ve also come to this conclusion, irresponsible on Netflix’s part
that's actually a really good point they made on the podcast, in comparison to bbc compliance, basically saying "they treated this as a show that wouldn't be successful. but you have to treat every show for the case it would go viral"
I hate when after a predator has been arrested/exposed it comes out that its been an open secret in the industry. Knowing someone is a predator and is actively harming and not saying anything is such a scumbag move. How many people new to the industry could be saved from something super traumatic if they got arrested/exposed. "Everyone knows" doesn't help the people who are new to the industry or maybe they aren't even in the industry.
The problem here is that Britain’s libel laws make it impossible to report on the alleged crimes of people unless your evidence is 100% bulletproof. Russell Brand’s abuse was an open secret but [couldn’t be reported on for years](https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/24/russell-brand-and-why-the-allegations-took-so-long-to-surface). There was a member of parliament arrested for rape and [it took a year for his name to be published.](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-libel-privacy-law-defamation-westminster/)
In the Girl with The Dragon Tattoo, Mikael Blomkvist literally gets prison time for losing a Swedish libel case which was a 100% foreign concept for anyone in America reading that book. Also Lisbeth owning a taser being on the same level of illegal as having a firearm, that blew my mind.
Same in the UK, tasers/stun guns, pepper spray, both have the same restrictions and penalties as firearms.
Pepper spray??? What are women supposed to carry to protect themselves??
Nothing, carrying absolutely anything with the intention of using it as a weapon, even if purely for self defence, is a crime.
That's why you gotta carry a sock with a bunch of coins in it and make sure you have witnesses seeing you use it as an improvised wallet.
Legally, nothing. You shouldn't go out with something you expect to use as a weapon.
[удалено]
A man, apparently.
No they choose the bear
I'm America, we have the right to its arms
We carry on with our lives, generally. The elaborate die hard scenarios Americans fantasise about don't really happen IRL, at least not more often than somebody having their own weapon used on them.
The situation in the book is not the same the Russel Brand thing, though. In the book, Blomkvist is investigating and figures out that Public Figure did Bad Thing A, but it is hard to prove. He is working on it, though, until Public Figure realizes what is going on. To protect himself, he leaks to Blomkvist that he did Bad Thing B. Blomkvist goes ahead and prints that. Public Figure then proves that he did not do Bad Thing B and Blomkvist is sent to jail (for a month, I think it was) for libel. The end of the book includes Blomkvist eventually proving that Public Figure did Bad Thing A.
The end of the book includes him proving that he did Bad Thing A, B, C, D, E, F, and G tbh
Leak it to an American… confidentially.
But why would an American media organization care about some TV writer in another country? Granted, maybe now with all this press about this show, but then you can’t just publish heresay.
The same reason a British one would?
Yes, to add to this libel is a civil wrong, meaning it is tested to the civil threshold of the balance of probabilities NOT beyond all reasonable doubt like the criminal law. I.e 51% sure you commited the civil wrong and you are guilty. If you accuse someone of rape publicly in writing and have nothing to offer beyond your own word on the matter then that person accused is going to have an easy job coming after you for all your money / assets after a civil court judge rules in their favour that what you say is libel. Unlike the criminal law where you accuse them of rape and it falls to the police to collect evidence that they are guilty of that offence beyond all reasonable doubt. For 99% of people it doesn't matter because most people won't take you to civil court but anyone with cash will.
> For 99% of people it doesn't matter because most people won't take you to civil court but anyone with cash will. Yep. But right after Russell Brand's successful lawsuit, the UK changed their libel laws considerably, making them far more strict.
[удалено]
They sink the cost of the trial
Every British tabloid does not report on multiple stories they know to be true because of the libel risk. Jimmy Saville was well known to all the tabloids, but nobody published anything on it because they were concerned about the libel risk. Fuck a year ago the Mail ran a story about a household name actor being a child abuser that they did not name, and said "it will all come out when he's dead."
Tbh while that’s awful, it’s also good that the law protects people who may be accused but innocent. That’s a tough line to walk between making sure they’re actual criminals and not letting them walk around free for too long
> The problem here is that Britain’s libel laws make it impossible to report on the alleged crimes of people unless your evidence is 100% bulletproof. They did modernize them in 2013, thankfully, right after the Russell Brand settlement. > The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Can British subjects be sued in Britain for talking to American press, or would that be subject to American libel laws?
It's determined by where it's published
So why doesn’t someone just out this fucker to US media? Basically impossible to prove libel and slander here.
If the abuser has high up friends in industry who’ll back them no matter what, the risk of blacklisted is high even though that is illegal proving it is hard. These careers are heavily gatekept on who you know with little to no hr for stand ups and it’s far easier for the abuser to label a victim as a jealous liar to their fame
This does happen normally? Especially with super injunctions - you can just get it from US or European news.
Nobody spoke up about Harvey Weinstein for more than 30 years. Fundamentally, there are two kinds of people in the entertainment industry: poor hardworking grunts struggling to get by, and cowardly millionaires who enjoy their fame and fortune. You don't need British libel laws to keep a secret in that environment.
It's not determined by where it's published. At all. To sue for libel in a UK court all you have to demonstrate is that a meaningful amount of people in the UK would come into contact with the allegation, which since the internet happened has become a low bar. However, the US will not enforce a UK judgement against it's own citizens/companies. But that means you can't visit or ever have any UK assets because otherwise the litigants will collect against that.
Subjects?
You cant act on gossip, beyond telling those youre close to not to go near someone. I work in the entertainment industry and was told of a popular performer living in the UK was a notorious pedophile, and that "everyone knew". What was I supposed to do on the otherside of the world? Call up a random london cop shop and say "Hey I just got told a story at a party"? I did try and tell a radio station once who were talking about how amazing the performer was, but my call was dumped and I was chastised for trying to ruin someones reputation. And yes, that person did end up getting jailed. Unfortunately, "everybody knows" isnt evidence to a legal standard.
Everyone also “knew” about Bill Cosby and people had been coming forward for decades. But no one could prove anything. The only time they did get a conviction they broke so many rules that the court overturned the verdict and freed him.
And let’s not forget the “everybody knew” line tends to only come out AFTER the scandal breaks. All it means is there was a rumour that turned out to be true in that instance. But like most gossip that’s not always the case. Lives can be destroyed by false rumours and accusations.
You say that, yet there's a perfect example of why people probably don't do it. In 2005, Courtney Love was asked if she had any advice to give to aspiring actors. She said "If Harvey Weinstein invites you to a party, don't go". Did people go "Weinstein must be a really shady dude"? No, of course not. People dismissed Courtney Love as being crazy, a jealous has-been. Nobody took her seriously. It took 17 years for people to look back at that answer and admit she was right all along. It did nothing to stop Weinstein's sexual abuse. At the end of the day, you can't force a victim to come forward. And if you can't offer any story or proof, then you're putting yourself at risk of being blacklisted or sued. You ruined your own career and you didn't save anyone.
Also happened with the backlash to Sinead O'Connor when she brought up the Catholic Church's abuse scandals in the 90's. Blowing the whistle can risk destroying your career *and* having nobody believe you either.
Joe Pesci came off a real piece of shit during that whole episode.
As someone that saw that live on TV, the main problem was that she said the right thing in a brave way but it was out of nowhere and it wasn't clear in the moment what she meant. It fueled sentiment against her. And that's before we start talking about how people felt about Catholics and the Pope at the time. That all said she was right and Joe Pesci is still a dick.
Yup. Fuck Joe Pesci.
You weren't kidding. I found an article written the night she made that warning about Harvey Weinstein, at the roast of Pamela Anderson. https://web.archive.org/web/20180614071727/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/arts/television/roasters-of-stacked-star-romp-high-to-low.html Lots of focus on her behavior and the insults lobbed towards her, and a suggestion that the "bloated musician" needs to be in an institution. No mention of the warning against Weinstein.
It's insane how vitriolic things were against women in entertainment at that time, not that it's been completely solved now. Watch SNL or listen to stand-up comedy from that era and the hate was just so disproportionate.
There is a very explicit Harvey Weinstein is a rapist comment Jenna says in 30 Rock around 2009......
also a bill cosby one https://youtu.be/F8bBhsFCofg?feature=shared&t=15
It's true with Jimmy Savile as well. People love to feed into the conspiracies about Savile, but the fundamental truth is he was completely unashamed about shagging about with teenage girls, but nobody cared enough about young girls to see it as anything other than great banter from a legend.
Yeah Jimmy Savile wrote in his book about sleeping with an under-age girl. According to himself he was even called out by a police officer who he then responded by threatening to destroy her career because of his connections. He wrote that openly in a *book*. It was published. Anyone could read about what a shitty person he was. But it obviously never garnered attention.
He was also apparently a necrophiliac and liked to hang around hospitals for this reason .
Irvine Welsh wrote a short story with a character who did this and was blatantly based on Jimmy Saville. People asked him years later why he hadn’t gone to the police and his reply was, go to them with what? It was a story he’d heard in a pub and he was a struggling writer.
Which book? Not that I could understand a lick of it lol
It was a short story in the book Ecstasy if I remember rightly.
He didn’t just hang around hospitals, he worked as a porter in a hospital so he had all kinds of access. My favourite part of the documentary about him was when the cemetery workers who destroyed his tombstone were like “we showed up at night, and destroyed it, and didn’t take any pictures before or after”.
A children’s hospital he raised money for gave him a private room with a bed in it despite nurses complaining about him
>fundamental truth is he was completely unashamed about shagging about Not really true though, yeah he'd make some "jokes" sometimes, especially later on HIGNFY etc, and yeah there's footage of him groping on live TV. But on the other hand, he told papers for over 20y that he hated kids and couldn't stand being around them.
Asia Agento literally made an entire 'fiction' movie about being raped by Weinstein 'Scarlett Diva' in 2000. The actor looks very much like him. Took 20 more years to get him tried and sentenced. And all the while those Hollywood boys like Coery Haim and Brad Renfro are dead ( and Feldman too scared to truly speak out) because they've endured exactly what Gadd did.
If you watch more of the clip, she knows she's ending any future career by saying that, but still says it.
There are people like that in my industry but if you ask someone, nobody will tell you more than a half-rumor because that's all that was told to them and they don't want to be seen as a source for information they expect to be unreliable. They don't want to invite consequences from a full accusation, especially when they are largely unrelated to the case and don't know much. Despite that, they still want to give you the heads-up to be wary around a suspected predator. So it often comes about as a mix of people wanting to protect their own necks while still looking out for vulnerable people around them. Nobody made us the cops and we're operating with incomplete info. Sometimes that's how an open secret survives.
So many great comments in this thread about what an "open secret" really is. People have this misconception that if somebody spoke up publicly it would all end. Not so, not even for victims. It's doubly rich when people act like it's suspicious for many victims to come forth around the same time, when in fact strength in numbers is way safer for them.
Gossip is one thing. Typically, you need first hand accounts and supporting evidence. Unfortunately, most predators recognize this and simply focus on controlling victims through fear, destroying evidence and dismissing "busybodies" with threats of litigation. You can have "open secrets" like this for decades without a sufficient case put before the appropriate prosecutorial entities.
I don't think it's fair to blame people who have no control over it, and it's only half fair to blame people who weren't involved with any wrong doing, but continue to voluntarily work with someone and/or hire them. The only people with the power to change things are the predator themselves, and people who know for certain about what the predator is doing and are actively protecting them. If your company hired someone who has some connections to the CEO and there were rumors that that person did some shady shit, would you quit your job? Would you protest and risk getting fired and/or sued? Or would you just avoid that person as well as you could given the circumstances, and hope the rumors are wrong?
It extends beyond the industry. The general public routinely misplaces their judgment on this kind of thing. Take Steve Coogan, he played Jimmy Saville recently, worked directly with his victims to capture the essence of one of the most vile beings ever to slither across the earth. And when people saw it [they cast harsh judgment on ... Steve Coogan](https://www.joe.co.uk/entertainment/steve-coogan-responds-to-backlash-on-decision-to-play-jimmy-savile-in-new-bbc-drama-406031). People were more outraged at a man portraying the reality, than the *actual fucking reality*. It's a symptom of a wider problem with private industries and showbiz in particular. No accountability, no recourse, no justice, no fucks given. And so people look for their outlet elsewhere, by attacking people like Coogan and, in the case of this program, random innocent producers.
[The Missing Stair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair) Last few reports i saw about this specifically about "Hollywood" is that those folks doing awful stuff tend to be rich, well-connected, or both, which explains why folks are more prone to defend them, or at least ignore the problem.
There were some "open secrets" I was aware of in the tech industry. Around 50% of them, when they came out, were NOT what I thought they were going to be and actually the person that the rumor hinted at was the villain was actually the victim.
The worst is when you have a major movement like MeToo where everyone in Hollywood is patting themselves on the back and it's like, you cunts all knew about this shit, some had the power and fame to make change, but you sat back and let it happen.
100% agree. When I read rumours of Weinstein in the early 2000s and I live up in bumfruck Northern Ontario, Canada, there is a problem! They all knew and were complicit. Despicable.
I grew up in Kapuskasing, was still there in the early 2000s, and *also* heard rumours about Harvey Weinstein back then, when I was in high school! *Really* hard to see what the excuse was for *all of Hollywood* in the intervening decades...
Worked in the UK TV industry with a lot of people who worked alongside Jimmy Saville. Almost every one of them would tell you everybody in the industry knew he was dodgy, knew not to be alone in a room with him if you were a young attractive runner, but nobody knew the details. I imagine the situation is often similar to that. People share to stay away from these bad eggs but don't want to jeopordise their personal careers by revealing what it is.
It's particularly prevalent in the UK because of their anti-libel/slander laws.
There’s two sides to that particular coin though, we have some incredibly awful tabloid newspapers and those anti-libel/slander laws are the only thing preventing them from being even more awful and cruel. It’s not ideal, but if they were to loosen those laws they’d need to come up with something to regulate the press at the same time.
> It's particularly prevalent in the UK because of their anti-libel/slander laws. I'm sort of blasting this, but they did modernize them in 2013, right after the Russell Brand settlement. /u/Flabby-Nonsense as well: > The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by narrowing the criteria for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
We can leave it to Kat to let us know
Everyone knew the pedo teacher in our school. We never saw him do anything but we all heard the stories.
But what Richard Osman is saying is that he (and many others) know who Gadd *says* abused him. That is a very different thing from Osman having *evidence* that that person abused Gadd. Start making accusations without evidence and, in my view, you are on very dodgy ground morally, nevermind legally, and it very easily leads to exactly the sort of scenario as has happened, with innocent people getting their name dragged through the mud by people who aren't bothered by lack of evidence. (I've commented earlier today on a post about internet vigilantes confronting an alleged paedophile, and an extremely depressing number of those commenting quite clearly regard the *accusation* - an accusation by a very dodgy internet "celebrity" to boot - as proof, prrof sufficient to justify anything that is done to "the pedo.")
It's not their story to tell. If the victims don't want to tell the story, then having their story outed by someone else can be very traumatic.
Sounds like a job for The Thursday Stalker Club
Probably just trying to cover their asses to not get sued for slander or something.
Precisely. The Americans in this thread saying that these people are enabling predators don't understand how strong our libel and defamation laws are here. You need absolutely solid, concrete, well-documented evidence with receipts. And well-coined and connected predators feed off this and can scare most victims off with the threat of legal action because the depth of their pockets goes further than their victims'.
What name is everyone speculating on? I've not seen a single thing. So it seems libel laws work to some extent to protect those innocent until proven guilty. You can't even say they're suspected. Everyone is terrified of legal consequences.
Yeah I was scrolling through the comments to find somebody who just says who it is but nope
I know absolutely nothing about this show other than the headlines I’ve read on this sub the past few weeks. And every single one seems like it belongs on r/fauxmoi or some other gossip sub. What the fuck
You know how every year, Netflix has this one show that blows up like crazy completely unexpectedly because it doesn't fit any mold or algorithm (Queen's Gambit, Squid Game, etc)? This is that show for 2024. It was clearly meant to be super niche, but it's exploded worldwide. It's a quick binge at around three hours total but it's also an awkward, painful, and disturbing train wreck that you can't stop watching.
My wife and I tuned in out of curiosity. Like many others, we plowed through the entire thing Sunday afternoon. What I thought was a breath if fresh air is how well they explained the main actors reasoning for all his decisions he makes. Most shows you walk away frustrated with how characters handle situations but this show really gets into his fucked up life. Was very clever and thought provoking
It reminded me of how thoughtfully Annie Weisman’s semi-autobiographical series *Physical* explored the behaviors and decisions of its protagonist and their connection to childhood sexual trauma.
Wow that place is a cesspit
Nothing like going in to see some light celebrity gossip and be confronted with politically extremist accelerationism. Fauxmoi, where liberal progressive young women say Trump won't be that bad if it means punishing America for Biden.
So who is it
This is so stupid. Just say who it is.
“I know someone is a sexual predator but I’m not gonna tell you who” is a weird flex
"Ok fine, anyone you *wouldn't* recommend as a baby sitter then?"
that skan kkeeley sent from ipohen
As mentioned elsewhere itt, UK libel laws are pretty strict. If he says who it is without solid proof he could get sued.
Even American libel laws are such that you can't just publicly accuse someone of repeatedly drugging and raping you without some solid evidence. Given what's shown in the series happened several years ago, occurred when it was just the two of them alone together, and was something Gadd didn't recognize the reality of until much later (meaning he likely didn't tell anyone what was going on), it's likely a very "he said, she said" type of scenario where it'd be very difficult for Gadd to prove if the accused sued.
He can tell me, I’ll say it from Canada
>he ~~could~~ get sued *will
I think the emphasis was more on it's not the person everyone is saying it is so back off on the speculation and death threats, but yeah still frustrating that the name is known but they are getting away with it.
Its not a flex, listen to the podcast if you want context. Never assume the context of some random line quoted in a headline.
So many producers and actors like that man in Hollywood. I lived in LA as a model when I was 18. Most traumatizing experience of my life.
Fuck... Let it go. It's a ground breaking series and I'm glad it's being seen ...but it's crazy this level of online sleuthing ffs
Finally, getting to the real discussion. I’ve been waiting for this.
Internet Detectives are a cancer.
Everyone knows but nothing's done?
There's a very double edged gap between "everyone knows" and having enough evidence for an arrest/conviction. It's meant to protect people in the cases where the obvious person that "everyone knows did it" is actually innocent, but the downside is that sometimes the guilty continue to go free if they successfully left little to no physical evidence. A great, but unfortunate, example is Gary Ridgeway, also known as the Green River Killer. He was correctly identified by a task force in 1987, arrested, and interviewed while his home was searched. It took *14 more years* to forensically link him to any of his crimes, and he wasn't arrested again and tried until 2001. Police were only able to forensically link him to 4-5 of the over 70 murders he admitted to committing; for the other 40-something he was convicted of, the only evidence police have is that he confessed and was able to lead them to the bodies. And that was serial murder!
Nobody spoke up when Saville was being a predator and people knew in the industry. He was allowed to continue to hurt people. If you know who it is then tell the police. Sick of hearing all this BS from Celebrities but do nothing about it. They are just as bad if they are helping it stay covered.
I kinda feel like it was irresponsible of Netflix to make this show. I’m not blaming Richard Gadd here, this is his story and he has the right to share it however he wants, but there were clearly going to be consequences to this being released. The stalker was almost immediately identified despite Gadd claiming she wouldn’t even recognize herself, and she is now receiving media attention which is probably the worst possible thing for her mental health, as she seems to be still quite deranged. In addition to not expect that people would try to figure out who his abuser was and likely blame innocent bystanders seems naive at best.
I don't think victims should be prevented from telling their story because it might put a perpetrators mental health at risk.
Why is Gadd obligated to protect his abusers? It’s so disgusting to me how everyone expects victims to sit down and shut up because the perps might, god forbid, have some negative consequences.
> The stalker was almost immediately identified Didn't she come forward herself, and immediately went to the newspapers?
Yes and now apparently she’s stalking someone who interviewed her. She has a TV interview coming up too.
I’m genuinely curious if the genders were reversed if this would be an acceptable opinion
I do think Gadd was a bit naïve about how the internet would immediately work it out.
I don’t know