Baby Reindeer (Netflix)

[tommers]

This shit is exactly what I felt uneasy about. She's planning to sue Netflix? They're both just playing out their issues, but in public now. And we all sit there and lap it all up. Awful.

 

[kabbes]

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if she successfully sues Netflix for damages.

On what basis?

 

[skyscraper101]

On what basis?

On the basis of failing to protect her identity well enough, and the resulting death threats and harassment causing her health to suffer. Richard Osman was alluding to it on his podcast as being something that's taken very seriously in TV circles outside of Netflix so there may well be a case to answer here.

 

[kabbes]

On the basis of failing to protect her identity well enough, and the resulting death threats and harassment causing her health to suffer. Richard Osman was alluding to it on his podcast as being something that's taken very seriously in TV circles outside of Netflix so there may well be a case to answer here.

What’s the relevant law that requires TV companies to protect the identity of somebody who has done something wrong?

 

[skyscraper101]

What’s the relevant law that requires TV companies to protect the identity of somebody who has done something wrong?

Honestly I don't know. I'm not saying there is or isn't one, I just said I'd be unsurprised if she was successful in pursuing a case.

 

[kabbes]

Honestly I don't know. I'm not saying there is or isn't one, I just said I'd be unsurprised if she was successful in pursuing a case.

I’m no lawyer, but I do know that if you’re going to sue then you have to show that the other party was legally negligent, and that their negligence caused you financial damages. Is either thing true, here? Merely having hurt feelings isn’t enough, and neither is suffering third-party abuse.

 

[belboid]

Defamation.

Some of the things in the series weren't true (it is fictionalised, after all) but so many were, it's (arguably) impossible to tell one from the other. As Netflix (and Gadd) did not make sufficient effort to disguise her identity, it left her wide open to abuse and was likely to cause serious harm to her reputation. There is no need for a direct financial cost (although any repetitional harm can be argued to be a finical harm too, as it would likely impact on employability). All this was made clear in the Crystal (& others). v Laurence Fox case.

 

[kabbes]

There’s no way she would win a defamation case. Even leaving aside the “fictionalised” thing, you can only win a defamation case if you can show that your reputation has been sufficiently damaged by the statements about you that it requires financial redress. Or, I suppose, you could win a pound, if it’s just the principle you care about. But even then — in what way is a real-life stalker’s reputation damaged by being representated as a stalker?

 

[marty21]

The psychodrama irl has out me off watching the series now - haven't seen her interview with Morgan, I'm guessing it's a car crash. She'll probably end up writing a book as well.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It took people about 2 seconds to find the 'real Martha'. The "real Darrien", by contrast, may well never be known to the public despite Richard Osman claiming that, within the comedy industry, 'everyone knows' who he is. So fucking sickening - just like Savile, Weinstein, Brand and others, these high powered men are protected by their status and their expensive lawyers and get away with what they do for decades, and perhaps never face the ramifications.

 

[Silas Loom]

Another reason to hate newspapers and everyone who writes for them: the convention of referring to people with mild curiosity and the ability to use a search engine contemptuously as “Internet sleuths” or “obsessive fans”.

Why do they do it? Simply because journalistic practice is to give away as many juicy details as is possible without actually identifying individuals, and they need to pretend that jigsaw identification is only possible when unusual people go to absurd lengths.

 

[kabbes]

I’m wracking my brains here to think how Martha could win a meaningful defamation settlement. She would need to pick on something in the show that wasn’t true about her and then successfully convince the jury that this particular untruth was the critical thing that had cost/would cost her material financial damages. But what could that be?

 

[belboid]

There’s no way she would win a defamation case. Even leaving aside the “fictionalised” thing, you can only win a defamation case if you can show that your reputation has been sufficiently damaged by the statements about you that it requires financial redress. Or, I suppose, you could win a pound, if it’s just the principle you care about. But even then — in what way is a real-life stalker’s reputation damaged by being representated as a stalker?

Well, no, it's if you have suffered serious reputational harm. Financial losses are only necessary of you are a body trading for profit.

Of course, the definition of 'serious' is still evolving (the specific law only came in in 2021) and the fact that she undoubtedly did some of the things in the show will be held against her. I would be very doubtful that she'd win. But if (and it's a bloody big if) her claims not to have sent more than two dozen messages are true, then she does have a case.

As I say, I dont think it is likely she would win, but it isn't imppossble.

 

[marty21]

I’m wracking my brains here to think how Martha could win a meaningful defamation settlement. She would need to pick on something in the show that wasn’t true about her and then successfully convince the jury that this particular untruth was the critical thing that had cost/would cost her material financial damages. But what could that be?

Also a danger that she may have done this with others and they come out to support Gadd and give evidence.

 

[Dystopiary]

Also a danger that she may have done this with others and they come out to support Gadd and give evidence.

Yeah, she's allegedly on record as having done stuff like that before Gadd.

 

[salem]

I’m wracking my brains here to think how Martha could win a meaningful defamation settlement. She would need to pick on something in the show that wasn’t true about her and then successfully convince the jury that this particular untruth was the critical thing that had cost/would cost her material financial damages. But what could that be?

She has been portrayed as being a stalker and carrying out sexual and violent assaults. In the show received a 9 month prison sentence as a result of these actions against Gadd.

My understanding is that in reality she wasn't convicted of any of these offences carried out in the show. I understand she has previous convictions but from a long time ago and nothing as bad as the show portrayed.

The show has been shared with a worldwide audience and with enough clues (her own words no less) that link 'Martha' to her. Before she confirmed it was her many people managed to find her real identity without much difficulty.

Without a doubt she'll be getting abuse in public, struggle to get a job, may need to be rehomed etc.

I suspect if it did go to court there's a fair chance she'd talk herself out of any pay-out mind.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Doesn’t significant psychological harm also count for defamation cases?

 

[Nanker Phelge]

There are cases where stalking has resulted in Murder; why is Morgan platforming a stalker? He is poking the bear to gain likes. He has also allowed her the stage from which she's made further disparaging remarks about Gadd and it was clear that she couldn't help herself as she called him names and commented negatively on his appearance, his sexuality and his mental health. Is that safe for anyone involved?

This 'real life Martha' hasn't been outed by Netflix, or Gadd, but by internet curtain twitchers, the press and by her own actions. She was in knots during that interview, I can't see a court case going at all well for her. She contradicted herself over and over; enough for one to suspect she was lying at times. I note she also claims The Daily Mail contacted her, despite them reporting it the other way around; They also poked the bear to gain clicks. No doubt pretending to be helping her share her side of things.

This right to reply nonsense that Morgan is weilding as reasonable is a fucking joke. She hasn't been accused of anything by Gadd, or Netflix, so who is she replying to? She has only exposed herself further, and invited more scrutiny. To what end? As someone with so many lawyer friends, she sure knows how to ignore sense and make poor choices which harm her own defense. If, as she suggested, she has a team providing legal counsel then why is she on a youtube channel exposing her flawed defence to the poster boy for the phone hacking scandal? Now she feels 'used'? I am sure she does, because she has been. They have used someone who might be very unwell, and needs help more than she needs £250.

Gadd has written a drama which jumps off claiming to be a true story. At the beginning of the film Fargo it says on the screen 'This is a True Story'. Fargo is not a true story. The difference here is that Gadd has gone on to do numerous interviews where he has cemented his claim, and made a point of stating that this all happened to him. He hasn't clarified what, if anything, has been embellished or adopted during the writing, or during the development from stand up to stage to screen. Maybe every single thing is true, maybe most of it is, maybe the idea came from truth. I don't know. It's a TV drama, and I don't expect the truth to be true all the time on TV. He possibly should have avoided the interviews and remained as mysterious about the stalker has he has been about the rapist.

It makes me so angry that yet another sexual predator is moving about out there while people in the entertainment business claim to know who they are and not one thinks it would be right to expose them and stop them from harming others. Expose that person FFS! Someone please stand up and get that person stopped. You get no points for saying later that you knew all along! Grow a spine.

 

[skyscraper101]

I think the argument is, large parts of the story was fictionalized, yet in the opening episode it clearly states "this is a true story" - so there may well be a case for defamation given how easy it was for everyone to identify her and cause her 'distress'.

 

[Silas Loom]

Charlie Brooker writes these indictments of media and celebrity much better and more succinctly than real life does.

 

[Nanker Phelge]

Charlie Brooker writes these indictments of media and celebrity much better and more succinctly than real life does.

FIona will be on Celebrity Big Brother by the end of the year!

 

[krtek a houby]

Totally empathize with the writer and if his stalker comes undone when she gets famous, so be it.

These situations are never black and white, simple etc. they're messy, upsetting and can cause you to doubt your sanity. Especially when the stalker is convincing.

Obviously, she shouldn't have been identified and given a platform but find it difficult to feel sorry for her, given her behaviour towards him and other victims.

 

[Mumbles274]

I still think the plot twist is she's been part of it the whole time. And season 2 is her as herself, telling the origins story. If not, I want the rights to that story

 

[bcuster]

I still think the plot twist is she's been part of it the whole time. And season 2 is her as herself, telling the origins story. If not, I want the rights to that story

Excellent idea. Are you a writer?

 

[krtek a houby]

I still think the plot twist is she's been part of it the whole time. And season 2 is her as herself, telling the origins story. If not, I want the rights to that story

Hope not.

Abusers should not get a platform.

 

[Mumbles274]

Hope not.

Abusers should not get a platform.

Yeah, but what about if gadd says this was always planned or not. But if She's part of this. Plot twist. It's not about whether she did it or not, but it's got to be important for peeps to tell their story if they are doing so as much as victims.. Within reason. If both sides agree the story can be told as such, maybe it helps to spread awareness and make things less taboo, make peeps able to seek help. Maybe the story is about her trying to live with her MH that compels her to do it. Maybe it's about it's a story and she has earned her right to tell it? It's a complex one and no one knows what will happen. I'd still find my idea of a pre planned and wrttin plot twist award winning lol x

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Totally empathize with the writer and if his stalker comes undone when she gets famous, so be it.

These situations are never black and white, simple etc. they're messy, upsetting and can cause you to doubt your sanity. Especially when the stalker is convincing.

Obviously, she shouldn't have been identified and given a platform but find it difficult to feel sorry for her, given her behaviour towards him and other victims.

The thing I find myself idly wondering about (but not enough to listen to the interview/search for an answer) is what her life has been like since she stopped stalking Gadd. Did she continue to form problematic obsessions with other people? Or did she reflect, stop, heal? Even just a little?

I remember on a training placement hearing something one adult had historically done to another adult, and finding it really difficult to move past in a situation where I was meant to have some objectivity. And my supervisor gently asking if I would want to be judged by the worst thing I had ever done for the rest of my life? Obviously situations vary and all have their own complexities, and in some cases it’s impossible to move beyond that worst thing, but it’s a question that’s always stayed with me.

 

[ouirdeaux]

She stalked someone else before. Ages ago.

Baby Reindeer: Fiona Harvey’s real name uncovers 25 year old stalking case - Dexerto

In The Real Martha Uncensored, Fiona Harvey told Piers Morgan about a detail that sheds further light on a 25 year old stalking case.

www.dexerto.com

 

[kabbes]

Doesn’t significant psychological harm also count for defamation cases?

It won’t win you a big settlement even if you can prove it. In the very most extreme cases, it’ll be a handful of tens of thousands. At the more typical end, it will be more like a few thousand. And to prove it, you’ll have to show that the lies about you specifically caused that distress.

 

[scifisam]

It won’t win you a big settlement even if you can prove it. In the very most extreme cases, it’ll be a handful of tens of thousands. At the more typical end, it will be more like a few thousand. And to prove it, you’ll have to show that the lies about you specifically caused that distress.

Quite a bit more in the Lozza Fox case...

I shouldn't think she's got a case unless the scenes where she beat up his GF and sexually assaulted him were made up - that'd be fairly serious if so. Hopefully Gadd did not invent those parts though (and there'd be witnesses for the beating). Even then they'd probably be able to argue that they didn't intend for her to be identified and never claimed that every single part was factual.