Predators taking about 'me too'..irony!! - Page 2

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Except for the Hrithik issue aren't all the other allegations based on gossip or even blinds? Kind of hard to call someone a predator based on conjecture no? Not saying she's absolutely innocent but not enough has been said against her to dismiss her and advocate for her imprisonment. Sajid has at least two women coming out on record speaking against him. Not the same thing.

Also there were always rumors of Ajay having an affair with her. So even if rumors of her sending him nudes are true wouldn't the fact that he reciprocated nullify the harassment argument? You can't exacatly argue power and control in this case because she never had any power over Ajay Devgan.

Originally posted by: Nova19

If she is telling the truth she could have easily proven it by supplying her phone and laptop and helping the police investigation instead of stonewalling. Unfortunately, because there was technically no crime in Hrithik's detailed and official statement to the police (since a woman can do absolutely positively anything to a man and not be legally charged with sexual harassment) the police had no grounds to compel her to cooperate. A man can be charged with sexual harassment but she has only ever alleged Hrithik is guilty in interviews despite claiming an awful lot like stalking, harassing, hacking her accounts, etc Kangana has never officially lodged a complaint. Kind of interesting...she was so amazingly hurt by him that she can't stop attacking him 4-5 years later, but not so hurt she can't file a police complaint?

Originally posted by: ponymo

Obviously taking a legal recourse is up to the victim. If s/he doesn't come forward, then there's no grounds to investigate.

Sending unsolicited nudes and other objectionable content is harassment, so Hrithik could have complained against her. In such a case, it would have compelled her to co-operate. But he didn't.

Originally posted by: whispermist

Police could have made Kangana turn in her phone or laptop if they had a warrant. They must not have had a case so what could they do?

Most metoo stories are going to go the same way. There can hardly be a lot of proof for this.

Originally posted by: cricketfan1

Why 'except for Hrithik'? Why is that not enough?

Originally posted by: Nova19

No this is absolutely untrue. The law specifically specifies a female victim. Hrithik is, to the best of my knowledge, male 😆. If you don't believe me read the IPC.

And as for "taking a legal recourse is up to the victim ", I agree. And if a woman is trying repeatedly to publicly assassinate the character of a man while actively avoiding an investigation he is pushing for because she knows an investigation will clear him and hang her? Taking legal recourse in that case should also be up to the victim (the real victim), shouldnt it?

Originally posted by: ponymo

@Bold: If that's the case then it's definitely messed up, and the law needs to be amended to include men too. There shouldn't gender bias because both genders can be victims.

But I still have to hear Kangana's version about not giving mobile/laptop. If she didn't co-operate because she would get 'caught', then she is in the wrong. But again, that will only be another speculation at this point. So I'll wait until I hear both sides of the story.