Baby Reindeer Netflix #3

[CocoLoco2]

I’ve not watched Peep Show, these comments are on Reddit

 

[greycloud]

The way I looked at it was - this was his truth, his true story. Trauma messes with memories and how we perceive things. I’ve said before - RG has included 4 victims - him, his dad, Teri and Martha. All vulnerable to abuse following trauma.

Plus netflix have said they have verified all the emails so it wasnt just 100 and blown out of proportion.

 

[AbnormalFrog]

I might be on my own with this opinion but I think it's awful that people are actively trying to uncover the man who SA him. He is entitled to share his story, his trauma publicly without people trying to out a huge part of his life that he is choosing to keep confidential. He gets to decide when he shares that information or if he seeks to pursue charges against the individual. People are so detached from reality whilst using social media, he's a real person. I can't imagine anyone would do that to someone they know outside of their wee rectangle. It's so intrusive.

Thank you for saying this. Total merail but something I found quite cathartic about BR was the fact he didn't report. I didn't report either and there's a weird stigma around not reporting. You can be weirdly blamed for the fact the perpetrator may attack again and, had you reported, you might have saved someone. There can be a really horrid grief and guilt around not reporting.

 

[No tea just coffee]

Thank you for saying this. Total merail but something I found quite cathartic about BR was the fact he didn't report. I didn't report either and there's a weird stigma around not reporting. You can be weirdly blamed for the fact the perpetrator may attack again and, had you reported, you might have saved someone. There can be a really horrid grief and guilt around not reporting.

I hate this stigma. Having worked in SA recovery the majority who I worked with hadn't reported. The system is so shocking most didn't see the point and just wanted to focus on their own recovery. Sometimes those who reported felt like they had been through more trauma when the case never went any further and were left feeling more hopeless and victimised.

 

[NitrousOxide]

I hate this stigma. Having worked in SA recovery the majority who I worked with hadn't reported. The system is so shocking most didn't see the point and just wanted to focus on their own recovery. Sometimes those who reported felt like they had been through more trauma when the case never went any further and were left feeling more hopeless and victimised.

The police advised me not to press charges because there was no point

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

Plus netflix have said they have verified all the emails so it wasnt just 100 and blown out of proportion.

I’d love to know how throughly they verified them though. Did they verify all 41,000 or whatever it was or just the specific ones they showed?

I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of “Martha”’s account and his and if so it should bite Netflix on the arse to be fair. They can’t lead with “this is a true story” and then lie for effect, nor should they make someone so obviously identifiable while claiming she won’t be.

 

[moggymogs]

So this Kyle guy claims he has a video of her being released from prison

they are fake i’ve seen the real image , it’s a guy being released from prison

 

[I'm not actually here]

She's still on fb just not posted anything for 2 days

In the interview, when PM asked her about her current use of social media she said sth like that she had gone off fb.... yesterday. I think in her twisted view of the world, that statement means to her that she can say she is no longer using it. Even though she may well be back on later today or tomorrow. RIght now ie at the time of the interview, she had made some sort of decision (which may not have included any actual ACTION e.g.deleting her account(s)) to gtfo as her account had been found and she was probably inundated with messages. This is all classic behaviour as I understand it of certain personality disorders. If questioned in future about her being back on FB, she will have some reason that makes absolute sense to her, even if it doesn't to the rest of us. "I needed to show evidence of the impact on my life for the court case" or wtte.
---

I’d love to know how throughly they verified them though. Did they verify all 41,000 or whatever it was or just the specific ones they showed?

I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of “Martha”’s account and his and if so it should bite Netflix on the arse to be fair. They can’t lead with “this is a true story” and then lie for effect, nor should they make someone so obviously identifiable while claiming she won’t be.

On that trailer that was shown, from Netflix, they said these are all real emails. And then showed a scroll of an inbox with a very random email address (numbers and letters rather than a name) and it seemed there were MANY. I suspect she has no idea how many she sent because she won't have kept a tally. She seems to be very impulsive, looking at her rapidly typed and riddled with spelling errors messages that we know are from her eg her tweets from years ago. Her brain probably works at 90 zillion miles an hour, so she won't be thinking how many emails she has sent each day. It will be about whatever the next perceived slight is, or the next thing she must say or do. Just my opinion.
---

I’d love to know how throughly they verified them though. Did they verify all 41,000 or whatever it was or just the specific ones they showed?

I firmly believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of “Martha”’s account and his and if so it should bite Netflix on the arse to be fair. They can’t lead with “this is a true story” and then lie for effect, nor should they make someone so obviously identifiable while claiming she won’t be.

Did Netflix ever claim she couldn't be identified, or was it only RG who stated that? Also, I think that final credit disclaimer is netflix's get out clause, legally. I am not sure how far a duty of care case would go in court. Nf could just say, oops, and pay a small sum to her if necessary. I suspect whatever they spend on a good KC in court will come back 200 fold in publicity for baby reindeer 2.
---
This is the Netflix disclaimer at the end of each programme. From Reddit.

 

[veevee04]

I get the not wanting to report but I feel like it comes from a different place with Richard Gadd.
I was SAed when I was 12 I told my parents and the legal action was worse than the actual assault. I watched my parents stressing and my family (my mother was already mentally unwell and it tipped her over the edge). My parents and me got accused of ruining a young man's life (he was 28) I managed to still get victim blamed at 12.
When it happened at 16 again I never told anyone , how could it have happened twice !!!!

I didn't want to put my family or myself through legal stuff again.
What I don't understand is with Richard gadd is that his family and friends being dragged into it all. Did they give consent to take part ?

I could probably write a book about my life but there's many people who I love who I want to protect their feelings and privacy.
Also re-enacting your abuse I couldn't do it.

That's why although I sympathise with him to some extent. He's mentally damaged himself and enjoys the attention definitely has cluster b traits.
duck knows the whole show is just messed up.

 

[thegoodnaysayer]

I’ve not watched Peep Show, these comments are on Reddit

View attachment 2930358

Why are people thinking it's Sam Bain? I've missed something here!

 

[AbnormalFrog]

In the interview, when PM asked her about her current use of social media she said sth like that she had gone off fb.... yesterday. I think in her twisted view of the world, that statement means to her that she can say she is no longer using it. Even though she may well be back on later today or tomorrow. RIght now ie at the time of the interview, she had made some sort of decision (which may not have included any actual ACTION e.g.deleting her account(s)) to gtfo as her account had been found and she was probably inundated with messages. This is all classic behaviour as I understand it of certain personality disorders. If questioned in future about her being back on FB, she will have some reason that makes absolute sense to her, even if it doesn't to the rest of us. "I needed to show evidence of the impact on my life for the court case" or wtte.
---

On that trailer that was shown, from Netflix, they said these are all real emails. And then showed a scroll of an inbox with a very random email address (numbers and letters rather than a name) and it seemed there were MANY. I suspect she has no idea how many she sent because she won't have kept a tally. She seems to be very impulsive, looking at her rapidly typed and riddled with spelling errors messages that we know are from her eg her tweets from years ago. Her brain probably works at 90 zillion miles an hour, so she won't be thinking how many emails she has sent each day. It will be about whatever the next perceived slight is, or the next thing she must say or do. Just my opinion.
---

Did Netflix ever claim she couldn't be identified, or was it only RG who stated that? Also, I think that final credit disclaimer is netflix's get out clause, legally. I am not sure how far a duty of care case would go in court. Nf could just say, oops, and pay a small sum to her if necessary. I suspect whatever they spend on a good KC in court will come back 200 fold in publicity for baby reindeer 2.
---
This is the Netflix disclaimer at the end of each programme. From Reddit.View attachment 2930585

Surely if this is there as a disclaimer she's not got a hope in hell

 

[Sir Lancelot]

Surely if this is there as a disclaimer she's not got a hope in hell

I think the confusion comes where it states at the beginning of each episode "This is a true story" but then says at the end of each episode that characters, situations and so on have been created for drama/are fiction etc.


At this point, I wonder if Richard Gadd just wants all this to go away.

 

[soupmodel]

I hate this stigma. Having worked in SA recovery the majority who I worked with hadn't reported. The system is so shocking most didn't see the point and just wanted to focus on their own recovery. Sometimes those who reported felt like they had been through more trauma when the case never went any further and were left feeling more hopeless and victimised.

Added a spoiler so there can be a trigger warning for anyone who doesn't want to read about sexual assault & suicide...

Spoiler

I think one of the huge issues is also the process victims go through when they report it. My friend was raped and it's quite traumatic for them, extremely invasive straight afterwards and to go through all of that and not get a conviction? A lot of officers even tried to convince her not to take it further too.

My friend's trial was awful, some of the women in the system were supportive of her, I'll give them that. She was terrified to be in the room with the man who assaulted her, luckily she was granted being streamed into the court so she didn't have to see him again.

He was convicted (possibly because he was from another country, where he had previous) but she had to listen to being called a prostitute by the defense, belittling her for how she dressed, said she was "asking for it" and all sorts .

Takes a huge toll mentally and if life-altering and devastating all-round. She would often disassociate and we would lose her for short periods of time when spending time together. She lost her job, she wasn't allowed to drive, ended up having seizures too. The PTSD was something she couldn't cope through and unfortunately she took her own life. All because of what another human forced upon her. I know that if that hadn't happened to her that night, she would still be here. She had her whole life ahead of her.

PS, did you know it only counts as the R-word in the eyes of the law if the man successfully "finishes"? So he was found guilty of sexual assault in the end. Disgusting

I'm sure it's only about 50% of them in Scotland that end in conviction, a lot get "not proven" too. The amount of evidence required is insane.

If it's this hard for female victims to speak up about, be supported/believed, have the strength and mental ability to get through a court trial, I'm sure RG is trying to highlight how men being assaulted by men is probably something that is rarely believed.

 

[doodlebug]

Surely if this is there as a disclaimer she's not got a hope in hell

You can still bring a defamation claim based on fictionalised events/characters. The test is whether a reasonable person would be able to recognise it as you… And I’m sure many people would believe that FH went to prison/attacked RG’s girlfriend/SA’d RG based on the series. I think if she wanted, she’d definitely have a claim.

 

[Sir Lancelot]

You can still bring a defamation claim based on fictionalised events/characters. The test is whether a reasonable person would be able to recognise it as you… And I’m sure many people would believe that FH went to prison/attacked RG’s girlfriend/SA’d RG based on the series. I think if she wanted, she’d definitely have a claim.

i still find it strange that Gadd said Martha wouldn't recognise herself and that the actress (Jessica...) said she didn't want to do an impression of anyone but just get to the heart of the character when they VERY bleeping CLEARLY made sure that Martha resembled Fiona Harvey who is supposedly the person who stalked Gadd.

The whole thing is weird, and I wonder how this will all end; there has been talk of a sequel, ffs. How would that work, exactly?!

 

[martha82]

i still find it strange that Gadd said Martha wouldn't recognise herself and that the actress (Jessica...) said she didn't want to do an impression of anyone but just get to the heart of the character when they VERY bleeping CLEARLY made sure that Martha resembled Fiona Harvey who is supposedly the person who stalked Gadd.

The whole thing is weird, and I wonder how this will all end; there has been talk of a sequel, ffs. How would that work, exactly?!

Is it not absolutely crazy, that the actress (Jessica) managed to completely nail “Fiona Harvey” / Martha without ever meeting her? Or seeing her? I expect could have listened to her voicemails and saw photos of her… but I think she represents her brilliantly!

 

[CabalofBolorneaise]

i still find it strange that Gadd said Martha wouldn't recognise herself and that the actress (Jessica...) said she didn't want to do an impression of anyone but just get to the heart of the character when they VERY bleeping CLEARLY made sure that Martha resembled Fiona Harvey who is supposedly the person who stalked Gadd.

The whole thing is weird, and I wonder how this will all end; there has been talk of a sequel, ffs. How would that work, exactly?!

Yeah there’s something all about this that just doesn’t seem right.

You can still bring a defamation claim based on fictionalised events/characters. The test is whether a reasonable person would be able to recognise it as you… And I’m sure many people would believe that FH went to prison/attacked RG’s girlfriend/SA’d RG based on the series. I think if she wanted, she’d definitely have a claim.

Me too. Piers Morgan’s interview proved it when he asked her about the SA and going to prison. He clearly believed they happened. If he does, a man who has presumably specifically researched it for the interview, any decent lawyer will be able to say that the general public are also likely to believe they happened.

Whether or not she also stalked him is almost irrelevant- you wouldn’t get away with doing a drama about Gino D’acampo’s burglary history and then inventing a bit on the end saying he also SA’d someone with no proof and a tiny cop out disclaimer. Defamation is defamation even if the person being defamed has committed other crimes.

 

[judgejohndeed]

She’s not got a hope in hell of defamation because it’s not enough to just have someone said something untrue about you. You have to prove loss of reputation in a way that gives rise to damages. So if she had been sacked for example - but she doesn’t work. She hasn’t lost anything tangible from this IMO. If she goes to court all she will do is put all the evidence of her stalking in the public domain.

 

[maggisojuicy]

Yeah there’s something all about this that just doesn’t seem right.




Me too. Piers Morgan’s interview proved it when he asked her about the SA and going to prison. He clearly believed they happened. If he does, a man who has presumably specifically researched it for the interview, any decent lawyer will be able to say that the general public are also likely to believe they happened.

Whether or not she also stalked him is almost irrelevant- you wouldn’t get away with doing a drama about Gino D’acampo’s burglary history and then inventing a bit on the end saying he also SA’d someone with no proof and a tiny cop out disclaimer. Defamation is defamation even if the person being defamed has committed other crimes.

Does it meet the definition of defamation though if she was not actually named by Gadd at any point and he actually made an attempt to disguise her by giving the character a different name. In fact it was Fiona that outed herself by constantly posting about Gadd on SM and going on a live TV interview genuinely I’m not legally minded so I’m wondering if anyone knows the ins and outs of defamation and whether she would have a case.

 

[judgejohndeed]

I also think Netflix would probably argue that the details about her going to prison etc were added in order to make her less identifiable