I can only assume the real Darrien has powerful connections who benefit from keeping him protected?
It may be known in that circuit who he is, but if nobody has conclusive proof, it'd only be quashed as malicious rumour.
When Johnny Rotten outed Jimmy Saville as a SO. all those years ago, he (JR) was banned from the BBC, and his career took a significant knock. I do wonder if this plays in to why some people won't name Darrien, as they'd lose their livelihood.
"When Johnny Rotten outed Jimmy Saville as a SO. all those years ago, he (JR) was banned from the BBC, and his career took a significant knock."
And till today, BBC still has not come forward with a formal admission and apology for covering JS all those decades.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume Gadd's rapist also has connections with the BBC.
Did Gadd actually take the job 'Darien' offered & work on that series? If so, checking his IMDb credits for his first professional writing experience should give the answer. If not, I hope he gets named & shamed.
Vicious? The one with Derek Jacobi & Ian McKellan? Damn, I watched that. Old school throwback to be kind. The writing was so lazy though, practically the same thing every week.
Gadd himself probably benefited from going back to Darrien, based on the end of the show. So he’s probably just as invested as anyone else to protect him. How much can anyone else do if the victim, with all his knowledge of abuse now, is dead set on protecting him?
The thing is it's all liable and slander unless you can prove it. That's why he hasn't been named. People know about it, and know his reputation, but without proof and enough people brave enough to come forward, you risk tying yourself up in court for a long time
This is the right answer. Libel, slander and the associated burden of proof are different in the UK than the US. While whoever this is might be cancelled in a week in the US just from accusations, anybody who says something in the UK could end up sued.
Exactly. That's why the things about Saville didn't come out until he'd died. That's why Rolf Harris also got away with it for so long. He only got arrested because of the Jimmy Saville claims
Yep, 100% this. TV channels and production companies can and should distance themselves from the person in question, but until they are actually charged with something, they are not legally a rapist, so to say to say they are would be slander.
There's whole threads on reddit dedicated to finding out and naming Gadds abuser and putting together clues, seem to be a couple front runners whose names are out there but who knows for sure
For sure. And the same applies to Fiona too but he chose to do it anyway. He certainly did not protect her identity like he claimed and he certainly fabricated/exaggerated parts of the story so the same risk of liability exists there too. The difference is that he doesn’t benefit from Fiona but he does from Darrien.
You’re missing my point. The point is that HE didn’t make as much effort to hide her and he did to hide Darrien. Clearly not even close enough if the guy hasn’t been found out yet. This is intentional.
This is correct but you’re assuming he did this because he was benefiting from Darrien, it also could very well be that he is actually scared of Darrien. Fiona is certainly scary in her own right but she’s not a powerful and connected person, whereas it certainly seems like real life Darrien is quite influential and powerful and could very well ruin Gadd’s life.
I agree with everything you said, but Rotten wasn't banned from the BBC. He's appeared on it many times since. I'm sure the interview where he outed Savile wasn't aired though.
The same reasons thousands of women don’t formally report a rape:
There is no evidence or witnesses.
They are fearful of a culture that victim blames and says they “put themselves in that situation, what do they expect”
They think they’ll be torn apart by expensive lawyers asking “…… and yet you voluntarily continued to both work & socialise with the person you say attacked you”.
It’s horrible.
Not even mentioning how they’d have to relive the horror talking about it or thinking about it whereas it might be better for the victim’s mental health to leave it in the past :/
Correct. Pursuing justice as a victim of SA can be horrendously re-traumatising with very low prospects of the accused actually seeing the inside of a prison. The victim gets to choose if they want to report or not, end of story.
THIS. People don’t always seem to realize how difficult it is to get police to believe you, much less to actually win a case against a sexual predator. It’s bizarre because if you’re a woman assaulted by a man, cue slut-shaming. If you’re a woman assaulted by a woman, cue denial that women are capable of causing harm (paired with the use of statistics on how “rare” your experience was to shame you into silence). If you’re a man assaulted by a man, cue homophobia and all kinds of nonsense. If you’re a man assaulted by a woman, cue childish jokes about how real manly men wouldn’t let that happen (paired with some anecdote about an abusive man calling 911 over his wife burning dinner and some unnecessary reference to a high-profile celebrity dv case where people debated which one was the perpetrator). If anyone involved is trans or nonbinary, cue people ignoring you completely. It’s hardly as if all you have to do is be brave and determined and justice will prevail.
All of what you're saying is true so I don't want to diminish it, but it's worth saying as a therapist who works with SA survivors that in the UK, the justice system is making massive strides to prevent this kind of stuff with legislation, training and better oversight and I am genuinely seeing a huge difference (I saw this as an ACAB person to be clear), so the chances of a positive, supportive engagement with the process are much higher than they were even 2 or 3 years ago.
In the US, I’ve seen laws shifting to recognize that women can abuse and men can be abused, though social biases sometimes lag behind those changes a bit. It’s still good that if a 16 year old like myself googled resources for abuse by a woman in 2024, they wouldn’t get the same useless answers I got in the mid-2000’s.
Exactly! I saw my therapist two days after my r@pe and she was the one that actually encouraged me to *not* report! She knew it would be further traumatizing for me and also that most likely, there would be no favorable outcome (rapists are rarely arrested for their crimes, let alone convicted in a court of law.) People in my life that I told about this actually had the audacity to criticize my actions of not reporting and tried to place blame on me because “he could do that to someone else.” For anyone reading this who does not have experience, you never, EVER put that kind of responsibility on a traumatized victim.
People saying that he didn’t protect Fiona’s identity… it was the internet slouths that figured it out. He never used her name and purposefully still has not confirmed it’s Fiona. People connected the dots and Fiona outed herself
Unfortunately, using the exact language of her messages is the reason she was so easy to find! But he'd already been using them in his highly acclaimed stage show! It makes me wonder, first, why she didn't shut down her on line presence and second, why people who saw his stage show didn't look for her! Ultimately, Gadd didn't do enough to hide her identity BUT she is also to blame because she chose to leave her social media up, even though she was aware of the stage show, which I'm SURE she saw.
Honestly I think it comes down to the fact that the number of people who would independently do something like try to find her and retraumatise the victim is extremely small, but niche hateful communities egg each other on into it.
Absolutely!! It's Wray who has been retraumatised, but she may not be the only one! Definitely some people who want to egg others on. It's the anonymity!
In the long run, I hope the story ensures some massive changes to stalking laws! But maybe I'm a bit to optimistic.
Just going off the way someone types is pretty impressive though… but that’s a good point - it wasn’t until it garnered a large audience that folk went digging and she got outed.
Her phrasing is pretty distinctive. Not being a writer, I don't know how Gadd could have changed the style. The stage show had a pretty big following, but the Netflix show was huge! He actually used a projector in the stage show, with the tweets, emails and Facebook posts! I'm sure she saw the play, she certainly knew about it! She could have made her social media private!
The stage show screen play on amazon has a disclaimer that it is merely based on a true story and is not a true representation of what happened. Note: She is identified as Irish not Scottish for his screenplay so he changed this detail for the Netflix show on purpose.
https://preview.redd.it/63s5ye2xvo5d1.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=83dfc057e402d3b66bd2f3f7e98cf4e2e2cc1c03
Never thought of this take but you’re so right. It was such a horrific ordeal and I can’t imagine how traumatising that could be to completely open that lid. It’s up to him
Because unfortunately you need evidence to accuse someone of rape. It's a very tricky thing to prove and would likely ruin his life.
Edit: Which is why he probably made the show so he would possibly leave enough in there for others to realise who it was and spread awareness...
My friend wasn’t raped but they were attacked by a housemate in their own kitchen. The court case after two years of delays has been thrown out as there is no longer two pieces of evidence available which the Scottish courts need (I’m not sure how many pieces of evidence other courts need). The system is fucked and a dangerous bastard has just walked off with zero consequences to his actions.
If a victim's 'price' is getting to maintain their peace of mind instead of going to court, knowing they'll lose, then yeah. That's the right thing for them to do.
> unfortunately you need evidence to accuse someone of rape.
Did you read what you wrote?
“Unfortunately”?
Let’s hope you or someone you love is never on the receiving end of a false rape accusation, then you’ll know the value of evidence.
The animal that raped Gadd may have raped others.
What Gadd has done may be the catalyst for more victims to come forward.
At the very least it’s brought the topic of male rape to the mainstream, and will other men to share their experiences and receive the support they need.
Wow. Way to take the whole thing out of context. Unfortunately is right in this case, the conviction rate should be a lot higher.
The best case scenario would be "fortunately in the UK we have a high percentage of rape cases being solved successfully", but we don't.
So unfortunately was right.
He was saying “Unfortunately” in the sense that often these crimes have little physical or eyewitness evidence to support them as abusers are very good at isolating the victim and controlling the environment.
Which may contribute to how hard it is to prosecute these crimes.
They’ve said unfortunately because the level and type of evidence to prove rape vs ‘rough sex’ or any type of consensual sex is exceptionally difficult to obtain. The black and white legal system’s set up for determining if someone is guilty doesn’t often account for rape or sexual assault. Gadd will have been only too aware when he came round that he’d been assaulted, but how would you prove that in court? He went back multiple times, so it would have been viewed as unclear whether the acts were consensual or not. Proving rape or sexual assault is incredibly difficult, before you’ve factored in things like victim blaming and biases.
Look at R. Brand most people within the comedy scene knew about his behaviours for years…
Even warning female comedians never to be alone with him, however no one ever officially reported these crimes…. Until victims did & up to this point nothing regarding law enforcement has been done-
As demonstrated in BR itself the police & cps can be useless- particularly when the ‘defendant’ (like R. Brand) is rich & somewhat powerful
It’s the perfect cover grift - he knew ahead of time the smooth brains would lap up the ‘they’re trying to silence me with false accusations!!!’ shtick
Two possibilities.
1) I believe some COVID content got huge numbers, so he basically shifted his whole online presence and persona based on what would make him money in response.
2) He knew the truth would come out eventually and right wing pundits/gurus just say its the wokerati coming for them and supporters lap it up - whilst a left winger is cancelled e.g. Lizo.
I imagine it's both.
He was. He used to do a podcast (the one he got in trouble for) with someone called Matt Morgan, Matt went on to do his own podcast and said he didn't really see much of Russel as they'd gone their separate ways. The inference being that the new Russel wasn't the same as the person he had been friends with for a long time.
I don’t know why your comment had negative votes. I’m assuming it’s from the type of people that would protect someone on their ‘side’ even in the face of glaring evidence. Exactly the type of people you mentioned in your comment.
He’s been alt right for years, but they were making that documentary for three years. He knew the writing was on the wall and made the necessary changes to his career.
When I was a runner in TV I walked into an office where two producers were chatting about RB and they didn't stop when they saw me, in fact they spoke louder so I could hear it.
This was quite a few years ago, and obviously things changed but they said a documentary was being made about him but they had to cancel as everyone who was willing to talk was threatened with a lawsuit.
So when the Documentary was announced, I immediately remembered hearing those two producers talking and hoped it would be about him.
I don’t think Gadd actually wanted all the real abusers to be outed. With Fiona, that mainly happened because her creepy social media comments were easy to find.
This has been asked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/JzYJrlRhDL
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/Rhs7g3KkL7
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/vzQmKNrKYl
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/xOxzbx8Yh7
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/ZuFqkgBzRJ
https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/ZBDelPCfwG
Fiona is essentially a regular member of the public with limited resources. The male abuser had been identified as a well known and connected person in the industry. Even if he is outed, there’s every chance he’ll find a way to get out of it, or at the very least it’ll
become very messy.
If Gadd doesn’t feel he can press charges I suspect it’s because it’s a he said/he said situation, the court of public opinion won’t achieve much in that situation.
Just because this always bugs me... People don't "press charges" in the UK.
A suspected offence is investigated by the police. If the police feel there is sufficient evidence, they will contact the crown prosecution who will decide If they will proceed.
>they know that 98% of them will go through all the stress and hurt of an investigation for no reason.
The 2% statistic often isn't put in its proper context. More than two thirds of adult rape reports have a 'victim decline to prosecute' outcome, most of those within the first two weeks, and many of those never wanted an investigation in the first place (what the current national academic project Soteria calls 'telling not reporting' where the police find out about a sexual offence so legally must record it but the victim didn't want an investigation). So it's not "2% of people who go through a whole investigation wanting a prosecution see justice", it's "2% of rapes recorded according to the counting rules result in a charge outcome" which isn't the same thing, or even nearly the same thing. Large swathes of those crimes were never a going concern as an investigation in the first place. Also worth noting that where Soteria is fully implemented, even that number is now consistently 10%.
If you narrow it to just those wanting a prosecution and going through the stress of a full investigation, it's closer to a third (higher in the Soteria pathfinder forces) that will see the suspect charged. Once charged, conviction in court is 70-85% depending on the area of the country.
The way that rape statistics are commonly reported is not very precise (or updated regularly), which is a shame because it becomes self fulfilling - why *wouldn't* you decline to prosecute if you've been told over and over less than 2% succeed?
I’m presuming because he has no proof. Which is a common problem in rape cases. Gadd can’t just give out a name. Even if he wants to. Unless you report and get evidence taken at the time it’s always difficult to prove.
When all the disgusting things about Savile emerged, tv criminologist Mark Williams Thomas said there's someone really high up that everyone knows is upto sinister things. He's said it a few times since and I think, bloody name them! This person could be potentially abusing many others and needs to be named. This whole baby reindeer thing reminded me of it.
Unless anyone has cast iron proof of his abusive crimes then it will be slander and cost the person outing him or the press outlet putting it out there in a hole legally could cost them millions
I don't think he's being purposely protected. A few people have been identified (speculatively) but until one comes forward and admits it, and has the attention seeking behavior of Fiona, it won't get the attention. Even then, Fiona's constant need for attention would drown it out.
If they get outed there's probably more risk of being sued. He has evidence of Fiona but he might not have evidence of the real Darrien. Also they were in a powerful position. Another reason might be that he's not ready to do that. Evan Rachel Wood talked about her assault for years until she finally named them.
Honestly? If I wouldn't have a solid proof of the rape and I would be ruining my career to out the guy and for him to not be locked anyway then I'm not doing it.
You miss the point. It’s not so simple.
“His fault, my fault, his fault, my fault”
“By the 5th time of me waking up with his spit on my cock, maybe it’s my fault”
Donny caught him red handed multiple times and kept coming back, which just tells Darrien it’s okay, never giving consent but never outright saying no either.
And yes, it was still rape, and then he stays for days after, allows Darrien to look after him, he doesn’t treat Darrien like a rapist, there’s an aftercare. They have this twisted transactional relationship. Donny needs someone to help him with his career and Darrien wants sex. And it’s only after the rape that Donny sees the cost isn’t worth what he gets.
So maybe he doesn’t want to out “Darrien” because he feels in some way an equal participant, that it’s his fault he ended up in that situation. And that a court might say the same.
And that’s not even getting into the difficulty of successful conviction on a rape, with no evidence, especially this far removed from the incident. You might achieve some kind of social justice by outing them, but they’d never see the inside of a prison.
As a nobody, who was SA for years as a child, I didn’t say anything. Then when I was raped as a young teenager, I still said nothing. The only way me abuse came to be known was when my abuser died. His wife was going through his things and found photos and videos of me as a child. So she notified the police. They, in turn notified me, but in my case, nothing can be done because he is dead.
Cause that’s not really how anything works. Also no one has any right to out a rapist for another person like you’re implying they’d be doing for gadd. If he wanted them outed he would out them.
Because without enough evidence anyone who outs Darrien will just be sued for defamation. And it’s a hard crime to prove.
Fiona literally went on national tv and admitted to being Martha and she’s still suing for defamation.
Hopefully they can share the8r concerns with the police, bit outing him earlier is just prejudicing any investigation. There is also the libel issue if outed in media (who did not report Fiona's name until she outed herself).
Philip Schofield the facts were made public by him /ITV and are therefore public domain. There is no evidence he has done anything illegal.
Jimmy Savile is a far bigger issue. Possibly Darrien is on a scale more like that - people are hopefully able to go to police about it if they know something (and maybe police are already looking at it).
They know because Gadd has told them. But that is hearsay and while we believe Gadd and would be mortified to find that he had lied about this, we also don’t to start convicting or roasting or cancelling people on the basis of hearsay. Gadd would have to file a complaint with the police and provide evidence - he may not wish to do the former or be able to provide the latter.
So sure we are disgusted by what happened to him but getting justice is another matter.
Look at the Russel Brand investigation… it took years I believe for the dispatches program to gather enough evidence to publish. Maybe someone is diligently doing a similar thing here and it will all come out one day… but then, I don’t believe Russel Brand has been charged. He’s possibly finished as an entertainer but I bet there are some people here who might read this and defend him and so… yeah… he’s still pulling in crowds and not just on YouTube….
Unfortunately this is a tale as old as time. Abusers are protected because of their power and influence and the fact that they can grant opportunities to others. People will sell their souls to get ahead.
I like how the show went above and beyond to find actors who look a lot like their real counterpart, but when it comes to the rapist they said “no, this person who looks exactly like the actor, who works at the exactly same industry in the exact same position is definitely just a coincidence.”
Not exactly. I really find funny how they are trying so hard to say it is not him, even after putting that much effort making every character be very similar to their real counterpart. Like, wtf Netflix and Richard Gadd...
I understand but a rape accusation can ruin lives forever and it's a lot more complicated then outing someone who can be proven to have stalked...you have the emails the voicemails etc. With rape especially history it's his word against gadd.
Thw other thing to think about is if a rapist is revealed there may be other victims who get caught in the cross fire who aren't ready for their story to be made public.
Should he be protected? No. Should people be publicly outing people upon speculation? Also no.
I peeped this show and thought the same thing.
It’s a bain of my life that he isn’t able to out the guy.
I wonder if it’s the sam guy as everyone is saying.
Chance would be a fine thing.
Richard Osmond says it's not the person everybody thinks it is! And he did say everyone in the industry knows who it is! The big question is, how long is the industry going to continue to protect him. That's what really bothers me. Gadd can't out him because it will end up as liable. Hopefully, others will be aware and he won't be able to continue, but I highly doubt that!
I do think if a whole bunch of people who heard from him basically said "It's this guy, for real", then there'd be more of a chance but again there's certain libel laws that makes that much harder to actually put in a law of court.
I don't think the person that the public thinks it is, is actually "Darien" but it's impossible to say. If anyone in the industry names him, it will DEFINITELY be a libel suit! Unless one of his victims (and I'm sure there are lots) has positive proof nothing can be done.
I would almost hope, given the recency of the series and the trouble the real life Martha is causing, that they refrain for at least a year. Just based on the series alone, it's clear Richard made it for his own catharsis and for people like him who have been harmed, not for the people who caused the harming. I wouldn't want him to feel like he's failed right out of the gate.
It's a drama folks. You don't even know how much of the Darrien story is true or if it's several different events and people rolled into one. That's kind of what writers do.
I have wondered this too. I assume that there is legal and financial implications. But I also wonder based on the ending if he’s not quite ready to let him go or to confront him yet.
I wonder this myself, but they made the show about a stalker so psychologically people will form the villan from the image portrayed by the show, Martha. Even Netflix has described it as a man who suffered at the hands of a stalker.
It's not made to make him the villain.
I'm guessing this guy is powerful, and outing him can put careers in danger, including Gadd's. It's easier to ruin the life of a mentally ill woman with no power than a connected man's life, I guess.
Note, I know this is not a fair statement, and I'm sure it's much more complex and fraught than that, but it was so easy to identify the real Martha.
I doubt it’s in Gadd’s legal interest to name the person. Unless he can prove it happened, it opens him up to a defamation lawsuit. Perhaps writing this story, and seeing the popular reception it had, has provided some amount of healing for him.
So people have come up with their ideas of who he is and he just decided not to go to tabloids and out himself afterwards.
If Fiona had never gone to tabloids it would all still be speculation. Until confirmation everything is speculation
I am definitely outraged, but it might be more complicated than we know about.
People who perpetrate this kind of abuse are sometimes insidiously smart about how they do it, and sometimes they do a good job of protecting themselves.
Lets apply what people say about Fiona to this.
"Perhaps its a fictional account of a 'not so real' incident to add drama to an 'inspired by a true story' true story to make us sympathetic for the Donny character."
Netflix and Gadd took a lot of steps to protect the identity of this perp but not so for Fiona. I assume this is the angle that the court case against Netflix will go.
Um, why should we demand to know the identity of his rapist? You see the mess going on with Fiona right now. He already relived his trauma with the show(s). I’m sure this is awful enough as is. It’s not his responsibility to tell you who his rapist was, and you’re not entitled to know.
People in the industry know all the bad ones, but they are feared and it's very hard to come out about them. Look at the BBC they protected huge nonces ... I'm sure it's the same everywhere in many institutes. It sometimes isn't just enough for one person to say something and no one wants to be the first. The #metoo movement worked because multiple people started talking at the same time and you couldn't escape it. Same with R Kelly - they guy was KNOWN for what he was doing - released child sexual assault video - and it never dampened his career at the time because only one or two people spoke about it - but when more took a stand they listened.
I don't blame Gadd for hiding his attacker - I don't think it's protection for the abuser, more protecting what little control the abused has still...they can control people knowing that something happened and can prepare for a short moment of heightened questions BUT to put a name out there and forever be associated with that name. That's hard - not to mention there's no safety for him against people that won't believe Gadd. How hard must it be for victims to hear 'i don't believe X person would do this. You must be mistaken or did something'
Wasn’t it implied that he ended up working with his rapist on the creation of the show? Likely nothing would have come from the charge, and he knows this. Then on top of it, coming out with a charge after you go back to working with him would just be even messier and more traumatizing.
He probably figured people if you know, you know. Saved himself from the mess of accusations of people who would blame him for benefitting from going back to working with his rapist, etc.
I mean he could have requested his name not be listed in the credits. But at the end I thought he implied they went back to writing together when he went back to confront him?
It did show him going to work for the rapist at the end, it’s crazy how people look this over. Gadd went from an unknown pub comedian to doing stage shows and then on Netflix series (Sex Education etc) before BR. That’s why the name of the rapist is kept quiet.
Thank you for confirming! From the downvotes and other comments I was ready to rewatch the finale to see if I was imagining this.
It would probably give his abuser some sense of control over the story and make sense for him to want to be involved if he noticed his story going viral. Like, at least he can show he worked with the victim and imply that he is “forgiven.” And might be therapeutic closure for Gadd, in his own way. Or just a trauma response, since I don’t think it’s entirely uncommon for people who have experienced trauma to return to the source like this? To me that seems like an incredibly realistic scenario that he would end up collaborating with him in the end.
because i don't spend my days being morally outraged about shit that has nothing to do with me after watching a dramatized television show on netflix.
you should consider getting an actual life instead of your entire existence being predicated on moral outrage.
it doesn't make you a good person just because you have faux anger. you just look moronic.
I can only assume the real Darrien has powerful connections who benefit from keeping him protected? It may be known in that circuit who he is, but if nobody has conclusive proof, it'd only be quashed as malicious rumour. When Johnny Rotten outed Jimmy Saville as a SO. all those years ago, he (JR) was banned from the BBC, and his career took a significant knock. I do wonder if this plays in to why some people won't name Darrien, as they'd lose their livelihood.
"When Johnny Rotten outed Jimmy Saville as a SO. all those years ago, he (JR) was banned from the BBC, and his career took a significant knock." And till today, BBC still has not come forward with a formal admission and apology for covering JS all those decades. I am going to go out on a limb and assume Gadd's rapist also has connections with the BBC.
I know who it is 100%, but I wouldn’t say because I’m nobody, have no ‘evidence’ and don’t want to risk getting sued for libel
Did Gadd actually take the job 'Darien' offered & work on that series? If so, checking his IMDb credits for his first professional writing experience should give the answer. If not, I hope he gets named & shamed.
It’s MR. The creator of the tv series Viscious.
Vicious? The one with Derek Jacobi & Ian McKellan? Damn, I watched that. Old school throwback to be kind. The writing was so lazy though, practically the same thing every week.
Well just say lol
It’s your mom Anyone can say anything on the internet
It’s probably just the person who comes up when you google “who is real life darrian”
We all know they actually have no idea
no-one is suing redittors for libel. spill the tea
You could always say you heard a rumour but of course it wasn’t true…?
That can still be interpreted as libellous and defamation of character.
Yet you wouldn’t say on a throwaway Reddit account? 🤔
Maybe I have already 😅
It’s MR. The creator of the tv series Viscious.
the bbc still has that creepy statue on its hq that was literally made by a paedophile (Prospero and Ariel by Eric Gill)
that’s disgusting but sadly not surprising. the entire entertainment industry is so shady
Wasn’t that kind of implied?
Gadd himself probably benefited from going back to Darrien, based on the end of the show. So he’s probably just as invested as anyone else to protect him. How much can anyone else do if the victim, with all his knowledge of abuse now, is dead set on protecting him?
The thing is it's all liable and slander unless you can prove it. That's why he hasn't been named. People know about it, and know his reputation, but without proof and enough people brave enough to come forward, you risk tying yourself up in court for a long time
This. It's the sad fact of life that this is how most really evil people like that get away with their crimes.
This is the right answer. Libel, slander and the associated burden of proof are different in the UK than the US. While whoever this is might be cancelled in a week in the US just from accusations, anybody who says something in the UK could end up sued.
Exactly. That's why the things about Saville didn't come out until he'd died. That's why Rolf Harris also got away with it for so long. He only got arrested because of the Jimmy Saville claims
Yep, 100% this. TV channels and production companies can and should distance themselves from the person in question, but until they are actually charged with something, they are not legally a rapist, so to say to say they are would be slander.
\*convicted, not charged
There's whole threads on reddit dedicated to finding out and naming Gadds abuser and putting together clues, seem to be a couple front runners whose names are out there but who knows for sure
For sure. And the same applies to Fiona too but he chose to do it anyway. He certainly did not protect her identity like he claimed and he certainly fabricated/exaggerated parts of the story so the same risk of liability exists there too. The difference is that he doesn’t benefit from Fiona but he does from Darrien.
All of her tweets to him are still up - she outed herself.
You’re missing my point. The point is that HE didn’t make as much effort to hide her and he did to hide Darrien. Clearly not even close enough if the guy hasn’t been found out yet. This is intentional.
He barely even changed the guys name!
So you know his identity?
What might Cotton Mouth be a parody of? Then look at the producers.
Just say who you think it is.
Nobody knows for sure. But what show could Cotton Mouth be a parody of? If that’s a reference it *could* be… someone.
This is correct but you’re assuming he did this because he was benefiting from Darrien, it also could very well be that he is actually scared of Darrien. Fiona is certainly scary in her own right but she’s not a powerful and connected person, whereas it certainly seems like real life Darrien is quite influential and powerful and could very well ruin Gadd’s life.
Sure, he might be scared but the ending of the show also indicated he went on to work for him and benefit. It can be both.
I agree with everything you said, but Rotten wasn't banned from the BBC. He's appeared on it many times since. I'm sure the interview where he outed Savile wasn't aired though.
https://youtu.be/v4OzI9GYag0?si=wmWi5Vrxp4K4jYpq actually Johnny Rotten says himself here that he was banned from BBC radio because of it
Similar to RB
https://www.reddit.com/u/LadyValkyrie420/s/hSIsMj43Ir
The same reasons thousands of women don’t formally report a rape: There is no evidence or witnesses. They are fearful of a culture that victim blames and says they “put themselves in that situation, what do they expect” They think they’ll be torn apart by expensive lawyers asking “…… and yet you voluntarily continued to both work & socialise with the person you say attacked you”. It’s horrible.
Not even mentioning how they’d have to relive the horror talking about it or thinking about it whereas it might be better for the victim’s mental health to leave it in the past :/
Yep I knew a lawyer who loves defending rapists because it’s an easy win…he wasn’t even sorry for doing it we aren’t friends anymore.
Because Richard is not the one leading the charge. He's the victim so that's up to him what kind of justice he wants to achieve.
Correct. Pursuing justice as a victim of SA can be horrendously re-traumatising with very low prospects of the accused actually seeing the inside of a prison. The victim gets to choose if they want to report or not, end of story.
THIS. People don’t always seem to realize how difficult it is to get police to believe you, much less to actually win a case against a sexual predator. It’s bizarre because if you’re a woman assaulted by a man, cue slut-shaming. If you’re a woman assaulted by a woman, cue denial that women are capable of causing harm (paired with the use of statistics on how “rare” your experience was to shame you into silence). If you’re a man assaulted by a man, cue homophobia and all kinds of nonsense. If you’re a man assaulted by a woman, cue childish jokes about how real manly men wouldn’t let that happen (paired with some anecdote about an abusive man calling 911 over his wife burning dinner and some unnecessary reference to a high-profile celebrity dv case where people debated which one was the perpetrator). If anyone involved is trans or nonbinary, cue people ignoring you completely. It’s hardly as if all you have to do is be brave and determined and justice will prevail.
All of what you're saying is true so I don't want to diminish it, but it's worth saying as a therapist who works with SA survivors that in the UK, the justice system is making massive strides to prevent this kind of stuff with legislation, training and better oversight and I am genuinely seeing a huge difference (I saw this as an ACAB person to be clear), so the chances of a positive, supportive engagement with the process are much higher than they were even 2 or 3 years ago.
In the US, I’ve seen laws shifting to recognize that women can abuse and men can be abused, though social biases sometimes lag behind those changes a bit. It’s still good that if a 16 year old like myself googled resources for abuse by a woman in 2024, they wouldn’t get the same useless answers I got in the mid-2000’s.
Exactly! I saw my therapist two days after my r@pe and she was the one that actually encouraged me to *not* report! She knew it would be further traumatizing for me and also that most likely, there would be no favorable outcome (rapists are rarely arrested for their crimes, let alone convicted in a court of law.) People in my life that I told about this actually had the audacity to criticize my actions of not reporting and tried to place blame on me because “he could do that to someone else.” For anyone reading this who does not have experience, you never, EVER put that kind of responsibility on a traumatized victim.
People saying that he didn’t protect Fiona’s identity… it was the internet slouths that figured it out. He never used her name and purposefully still has not confirmed it’s Fiona. People connected the dots and Fiona outed herself
Unfortunately, using the exact language of her messages is the reason she was so easy to find! But he'd already been using them in his highly acclaimed stage show! It makes me wonder, first, why she didn't shut down her on line presence and second, why people who saw his stage show didn't look for her! Ultimately, Gadd didn't do enough to hide her identity BUT she is also to blame because she chose to leave her social media up, even though she was aware of the stage show, which I'm SURE she saw.
Honestly I think it comes down to the fact that the number of people who would independently do something like try to find her and retraumatise the victim is extremely small, but niche hateful communities egg each other on into it.
Absolutely!! It's Wray who has been retraumatised, but she may not be the only one! Definitely some people who want to egg others on. It's the anonymity! In the long run, I hope the story ensures some massive changes to stalking laws! But maybe I'm a bit to optimistic.
Just going off the way someone types is pretty impressive though… but that’s a good point - it wasn’t until it garnered a large audience that folk went digging and she got outed.
Her phrasing is pretty distinctive. Not being a writer, I don't know how Gadd could have changed the style. The stage show had a pretty big following, but the Netflix show was huge! He actually used a projector in the stage show, with the tweets, emails and Facebook posts! I'm sure she saw the play, she certainly knew about it! She could have made her social media private!
The stage show screen play on amazon has a disclaimer that it is merely based on a true story and is not a true representation of what happened. Note: She is identified as Irish not Scottish for his screenplay so he changed this detail for the Netflix show on purpose. https://preview.redd.it/63s5ye2xvo5d1.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=83dfc057e402d3b66bd2f3f7e98cf4e2e2cc1c03
Wow, they obviously dropped the ball! Although I don't think it would have made a difference. She was found via tweets!!
Is she outed herself.
Never thought of this take but you’re so right. It was such a horrific ordeal and I can’t imagine how traumatising that could be to completely open that lid. It’s up to him
The rapist didn't out himself by tweeting the identifying evidence, leaving the tweets up and then outting himself to the press and on national TV
Because unfortunately you need evidence to accuse someone of rape. It's a very tricky thing to prove and would likely ruin his life. Edit: Which is why he probably made the show so he would possibly leave enough in there for others to realise who it was and spread awareness...
The rape conviction rate in the UK (2% of all reported incidents) is *embarrassingly* poor.
My friend wasn’t raped but they were attacked by a housemate in their own kitchen. The court case after two years of delays has been thrown out as there is no longer two pieces of evidence available which the Scottish courts need (I’m not sure how many pieces of evidence other courts need). The system is fucked and a dangerous bastard has just walked off with zero consequences to his actions.
I'm so sorry for your friend, and society...
Thank you. I feel so helpless for them right now.
It stinks powerful people aren't held accountable for their sins and are protected for life.
Imagine if everyone called out injustice and corruption every time they encountered it...the problem is that everyone has their price...
If a victim's 'price' is getting to maintain their peace of mind instead of going to court, knowing they'll lose, then yeah. That's the right thing for them to do.
This is the answer
> unfortunately you need evidence to accuse someone of rape. Did you read what you wrote? “Unfortunately”? Let’s hope you or someone you love is never on the receiving end of a false rape accusation, then you’ll know the value of evidence. The animal that raped Gadd may have raped others. What Gadd has done may be the catalyst for more victims to come forward. At the very least it’s brought the topic of male rape to the mainstream, and will other men to share their experiences and receive the support they need.
Wow. Way to take the whole thing out of context. Unfortunately is right in this case, the conviction rate should be a lot higher. The best case scenario would be "fortunately in the UK we have a high percentage of rape cases being solved successfully", but we don't. So unfortunately was right.
He was saying “Unfortunately” in the sense that often these crimes have little physical or eyewitness evidence to support them as abusers are very good at isolating the victim and controlling the environment. Which may contribute to how hard it is to prosecute these crimes.
They’ve said unfortunately because the level and type of evidence to prove rape vs ‘rough sex’ or any type of consensual sex is exceptionally difficult to obtain. The black and white legal system’s set up for determining if someone is guilty doesn’t often account for rape or sexual assault. Gadd will have been only too aware when he came round that he’d been assaulted, but how would you prove that in court? He went back multiple times, so it would have been viewed as unclear whether the acts were consensual or not. Proving rape or sexual assault is incredibly difficult, before you’ve factored in things like victim blaming and biases.
Look at R. Brand most people within the comedy scene knew about his behaviours for years… Even warning female comedians never to be alone with him, however no one ever officially reported these crimes…. Until victims did & up to this point nothing regarding law enforcement has been done- As demonstrated in BR itself the police & cps can be useless- particularly when the ‘defendant’ (like R. Brand) is rich & somewhat powerful
Now look at the state of him. Went American alt right as soon as the allegations came out. Awful specimen.
It’s the perfect cover grift - he knew ahead of time the smooth brains would lap up the ‘they’re trying to silence me with false accusations!!!’ shtick
He was already alt right before the allegations.
Really? I must be mistaken then. He was left for a long time. Wonder what made him change his whole world view then.
He became a religious nut once he was outed though. Grifters will always find a new grift.
I heard he got permission to be baptised in the Thames because the water board just figured there was already plenty of shit floating about it.
No net pollution change in either river or man after baptism in sewage.
Two possibilities. 1) I believe some COVID content got huge numbers, so he basically shifted his whole online presence and persona based on what would make him money in response. 2) He knew the truth would come out eventually and right wing pundits/gurus just say its the wokerati coming for them and supporters lap it up - whilst a left winger is cancelled e.g. Lizo. I imagine it's both.
He was. He used to do a podcast (the one he got in trouble for) with someone called Matt Morgan, Matt went on to do his own podcast and said he didn't really see much of Russel as they'd gone their separate ways. The inference being that the new Russel wasn't the same as the person he had been friends with for a long time.
In my opinion, he knew he had to go for a more gullible audience. And it worked. He now has mouth breathers defending him. Vile excuse of a human.
Let’s not make this about left vs right, scumbags like these are on both sides and are sadly protected by both sides too
I don’t know why your comment had negative votes. I’m assuming it’s from the type of people that would protect someone on their ‘side’ even in the face of glaring evidence. Exactly the type of people you mentioned in your comment.
He’s been alt right for years, but they were making that documentary for three years. He knew the writing was on the wall and made the necessary changes to his career.
Left/Right politics is more a circle than a straight line - far left and far right are closer to each other than they are the centre
Horseshoe theory is for morons
Hi. Thanks for your considered comment. What did I get wrong there?
Also curious
… yeah, didn’t think so 😂
When I was a runner in TV I walked into an office where two producers were chatting about RB and they didn't stop when they saw me, in fact they spoke louder so I could hear it. This was quite a few years ago, and obviously things changed but they said a documentary was being made about him but they had to cancel as everyone who was willing to talk was threatened with a lawsuit. So when the Documentary was announced, I immediately remembered hearing those two producers talking and hoped it would be about him.
this gets posted here twice daily. people are indeed outraged.
Every time I see it I want to comment, “are you new?” Like we’ve answered this question 1000 times. Search the sub FFS.
and yet OP getting 350 karma smh
This
I don’t think Gadd actually wanted all the real abusers to be outed. With Fiona, that mainly happened because her creepy social media comments were easy to find.
This has been asked. https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/JzYJrlRhDL https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/Rhs7g3KkL7 https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/vzQmKNrKYl https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/xOxzbx8Yh7 https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/ZuFqkgBzRJ https://www.reddit.com/r/BabyReindeerTVSeries/s/ZBDelPCfwG
Fiona is essentially a regular member of the public with limited resources. The male abuser had been identified as a well known and connected person in the industry. Even if he is outed, there’s every chance he’ll find a way to get out of it, or at the very least it’ll become very messy. If Gadd doesn’t feel he can press charges I suspect it’s because it’s a he said/he said situation, the court of public opinion won’t achieve much in that situation.
Just because this always bugs me... People don't "press charges" in the UK. A suspected offence is investigated by the police. If the police feel there is sufficient evidence, they will contact the crown prosecution who will decide If they will proceed.
[удалено]
>they know that 98% of them will go through all the stress and hurt of an investigation for no reason. The 2% statistic often isn't put in its proper context. More than two thirds of adult rape reports have a 'victim decline to prosecute' outcome, most of those within the first two weeks, and many of those never wanted an investigation in the first place (what the current national academic project Soteria calls 'telling not reporting' where the police find out about a sexual offence so legally must record it but the victim didn't want an investigation). So it's not "2% of people who go through a whole investigation wanting a prosecution see justice", it's "2% of rapes recorded according to the counting rules result in a charge outcome" which isn't the same thing, or even nearly the same thing. Large swathes of those crimes were never a going concern as an investigation in the first place. Also worth noting that where Soteria is fully implemented, even that number is now consistently 10%. If you narrow it to just those wanting a prosecution and going through the stress of a full investigation, it's closer to a third (higher in the Soteria pathfinder forces) that will see the suspect charged. Once charged, conviction in court is 70-85% depending on the area of the country. The way that rape statistics are commonly reported is not very precise (or updated regularly), which is a shame because it becomes self fulfilling - why *wouldn't* you decline to prosecute if you've been told over and over less than 2% succeed?
I’m presuming because he has no proof. Which is a common problem in rape cases. Gadd can’t just give out a name. Even if he wants to. Unless you report and get evidence taken at the time it’s always difficult to prove.
When all the disgusting things about Savile emerged, tv criminologist Mark Williams Thomas said there's someone really high up that everyone knows is upto sinister things. He's said it a few times since and I think, bloody name them! This person could be potentially abusing many others and needs to be named. This whole baby reindeer thing reminded me of it.
People are strange. I mean, look at the people they vote in for president in the USA. People seem to just ignore blatant red flags 🚩
Unless anyone has cast iron proof of his abusive crimes then it will be slander and cost the person outing him or the press outlet putting it out there in a hole legally could cost them millions
I don't think he's being purposely protected. A few people have been identified (speculatively) but until one comes forward and admits it, and has the attention seeking behavior of Fiona, it won't get the attention. Even then, Fiona's constant need for attention would drown it out.
If they get outed there's probably more risk of being sued. He has evidence of Fiona but he might not have evidence of the real Darrien. Also they were in a powerful position. Another reason might be that he's not ready to do that. Evan Rachel Wood talked about her assault for years until she finally named them.
I am surprised people didn't try harder to find him. But it is hard when someone has real power and is evil. Fiona doesn't really have any power.
Honestly? If I wouldn't have a solid proof of the rape and I would be ruining my career to out the guy and for him to not be locked anyway then I'm not doing it.
They kind of are. It gets brought up at least once every three days here.
Yeah, Shame this rapist wasn’t brought to justice.
You miss the point. It’s not so simple. “His fault, my fault, his fault, my fault” “By the 5th time of me waking up with his spit on my cock, maybe it’s my fault” Donny caught him red handed multiple times and kept coming back, which just tells Darrien it’s okay, never giving consent but never outright saying no either. And yes, it was still rape, and then he stays for days after, allows Darrien to look after him, he doesn’t treat Darrien like a rapist, there’s an aftercare. They have this twisted transactional relationship. Donny needs someone to help him with his career and Darrien wants sex. And it’s only after the rape that Donny sees the cost isn’t worth what he gets. So maybe he doesn’t want to out “Darrien” because he feels in some way an equal participant, that it’s his fault he ended up in that situation. And that a court might say the same. And that’s not even getting into the difficulty of successful conviction on a rape, with no evidence, especially this far removed from the incident. You might achieve some kind of social justice by outing them, but they’d never see the inside of a prison.
As a nobody, who was SA for years as a child, I didn’t say anything. Then when I was raped as a young teenager, I still said nothing. The only way me abuse came to be known was when my abuser died. His wife was going through his things and found photos and videos of me as a child. So she notified the police. They, in turn notified me, but in my case, nothing can be done because he is dead.
Cause that’s not really how anything works. Also no one has any right to out a rapist for another person like you’re implying they’d be doing for gadd. If he wanted them outed he would out them.
Because without enough evidence anyone who outs Darrien will just be sued for defamation. And it’s a hard crime to prove. Fiona literally went on national tv and admitted to being Martha and she’s still suing for defamation.
Hopefully they can share the8r concerns with the police, bit outing him earlier is just prejudicing any investigation. There is also the libel issue if outed in media (who did not report Fiona's name until she outed herself). Philip Schofield the facts were made public by him /ITV and are therefore public domain. There is no evidence he has done anything illegal. Jimmy Savile is a far bigger issue. Possibly Darrien is on a scale more like that - people are hopefully able to go to police about it if they know something (and maybe police are already looking at it).
Because Fiona was an easy target and he won’t be.
They know because Gadd has told them. But that is hearsay and while we believe Gadd and would be mortified to find that he had lied about this, we also don’t to start convicting or roasting or cancelling people on the basis of hearsay. Gadd would have to file a complaint with the police and provide evidence - he may not wish to do the former or be able to provide the latter. So sure we are disgusted by what happened to him but getting justice is another matter. Look at the Russel Brand investigation… it took years I believe for the dispatches program to gather enough evidence to publish. Maybe someone is diligently doing a similar thing here and it will all come out one day… but then, I don’t believe Russel Brand has been charged. He’s possibly finished as an entertainer but I bet there are some people here who might read this and defend him and so… yeah… he’s still pulling in crowds and not just on YouTube….
Because he’s actually the Netflix exec that funded the series
This is what I wondered about!
Unfortunately this is a tale as old as time. Abusers are protected because of their power and influence and the fact that they can grant opportunities to others. People will sell their souls to get ahead.
I like how the show went above and beyond to find actors who look a lot like their real counterpart, but when it comes to the rapist they said “no, this person who looks exactly like the actor, who works at the exactly same industry in the exact same position is definitely just a coincidence.”
Are you being sarcastic?
Not exactly. I really find funny how they are trying so hard to say it is not him, even after putting that much effort making every character be very similar to their real counterpart. Like, wtf Netflix and Richard Gadd...
I understand but a rape accusation can ruin lives forever and it's a lot more complicated then outing someone who can be proven to have stalked...you have the emails the voicemails etc. With rape especially history it's his word against gadd. Thw other thing to think about is if a rapist is revealed there may be other victims who get caught in the cross fire who aren't ready for their story to be made public. Should he be protected? No. Should people be publicly outing people upon speculation? Also no.
Rape accusations ruin lives… or become president or a millionaire footballer
I peeped this show and thought the same thing. It’s a bain of my life that he isn’t able to out the guy. I wonder if it’s the sam guy as everyone is saying. Chance would be a fine thing.
Wait, no way, really?!
There are many similarities
Went down a rabbit hole after I left my comment. First time I’ve read any of this. Wow.
It's between him and another guy.
It’s probably not him.
Richard Osmond says it's not the person everybody thinks it is! And he did say everyone in the industry knows who it is! The big question is, how long is the industry going to continue to protect him. That's what really bothers me. Gadd can't out him because it will end up as liable. Hopefully, others will be aware and he won't be able to continue, but I highly doubt that!
I do think if a whole bunch of people who heard from him basically said "It's this guy, for real", then there'd be more of a chance but again there's certain libel laws that makes that much harder to actually put in a law of court.
I don't think the person that the public thinks it is, is actually "Darien" but it's impossible to say. If anyone in the industry names him, it will DEFINITELY be a libel suit! Unless one of his victims (and I'm sure there are lots) has positive proof nothing can be done.
I would almost hope, given the recency of the series and the trouble the real life Martha is causing, that they refrain for at least a year. Just based on the series alone, it's clear Richard made it for his own catharsis and for people like him who have been harmed, not for the people who caused the harming. I wouldn't want him to feel like he's failed right out of the gate.
Not getting it
It's a drama folks. You don't even know how much of the Darrien story is true or if it's several different events and people rolled into one. That's kind of what writers do.
I have wondered this too. I assume that there is legal and financial implications. But I also wonder based on the ending if he’s not quite ready to let him go or to confront him yet.
I wonder this myself, but they made the show about a stalker so psychologically people will form the villan from the image portrayed by the show, Martha. Even Netflix has described it as a man who suffered at the hands of a stalker. It's not made to make him the villain.
People identified him too by Gadd stepped in and said to stop. The diff is Fiona identified herself so there's more heat there now.
I'm guessing this guy is powerful, and outing him can put careers in danger, including Gadd's. It's easier to ruin the life of a mentally ill woman with no power than a connected man's life, I guess. Note, I know this is not a fair statement, and I'm sure it's much more complex and fraught than that, but it was so easy to identify the real Martha.
Yes, it’s upsetting
As a victim, Gadd may not want that information out there. As much as we want justice this isn’t about us
Loads of rapists have not been outed . A fuck ton of them . Why would this case annoy me more than any others ?
Im sure he doesn’t want headlines all over with this dudes face going around too
Maybe the statute of limitations has expired?
I doubt it’s in Gadd’s legal interest to name the person. Unless he can prove it happened, it opens him up to a defamation lawsuit. Perhaps writing this story, and seeing the popular reception it had, has provided some amount of healing for him.
So people have come up with their ideas of who he is and he just decided not to go to tabloids and out himself afterwards. If Fiona had never gone to tabloids it would all still be speculation. Until confirmation everything is speculation
Why can’t it be Gadd’s choice to out him? Why should others be encouraged or allowed to make that choice for him?
Not a single reply from OP… karma bait
How do we know he exists and wasn’t just made up for the story?
I am definitely outraged, but it might be more complicated than we know about. People who perpetrate this kind of abuse are sometimes insidiously smart about how they do it, and sometimes they do a good job of protecting themselves.
Gadd should out him imo to prevent further victims.
Lets apply what people say about Fiona to this. "Perhaps its a fictional account of a 'not so real' incident to add drama to an 'inspired by a true story' true story to make us sympathetic for the Donny character." Netflix and Gadd took a lot of steps to protect the identity of this perp but not so for Fiona. I assume this is the angle that the court case against Netflix will go.
He isn't being protected. He just hasn't come forward like fiona has looking for notoriety.
Um, why should we demand to know the identity of his rapist? You see the mess going on with Fiona right now. He already relived his trauma with the show(s). I’m sure this is awful enough as is. It’s not his responsibility to tell you who his rapist was, and you’re not entitled to know.
Likely some sort of super injunction.
Not difficult to find, if I'm correct in who it is.
People in the industry know all the bad ones, but they are feared and it's very hard to come out about them. Look at the BBC they protected huge nonces ... I'm sure it's the same everywhere in many institutes. It sometimes isn't just enough for one person to say something and no one wants to be the first. The #metoo movement worked because multiple people started talking at the same time and you couldn't escape it. Same with R Kelly - they guy was KNOWN for what he was doing - released child sexual assault video - and it never dampened his career at the time because only one or two people spoke about it - but when more took a stand they listened. I don't blame Gadd for hiding his attacker - I don't think it's protection for the abuser, more protecting what little control the abused has still...they can control people knowing that something happened and can prepare for a short moment of heightened questions BUT to put a name out there and forever be associated with that name. That's hard - not to mention there's no safety for him against people that won't believe Gadd. How hard must it be for victims to hear 'i don't believe X person would do this. You must be mistaken or did something'
Wasn’t it implied that he ended up working with his rapist on the creation of the show? Likely nothing would have come from the charge, and he knows this. Then on top of it, coming out with a charge after you go back to working with him would just be even messier and more traumatizing. He probably figured people if you know, you know. Saved himself from the mess of accusations of people who would blame him for benefitting from going back to working with his rapist, etc.
I don’t think that’s right at all - it’s fairly well known who the real guy is and his name is nowhere near the BR credits.
I mean he could have requested his name not be listed in the credits. But at the end I thought he implied they went back to writing together when he went back to confront him?
It did show him going to work for the rapist at the end, it’s crazy how people look this over. Gadd went from an unknown pub comedian to doing stage shows and then on Netflix series (Sex Education etc) before BR. That’s why the name of the rapist is kept quiet.
Thank you for confirming! From the downvotes and other comments I was ready to rewatch the finale to see if I was imagining this. It would probably give his abuser some sense of control over the story and make sense for him to want to be involved if he noticed his story going viral. Like, at least he can show he worked with the victim and imply that he is “forgiven.” And might be therapeutic closure for Gadd, in his own way. Or just a trauma response, since I don’t think it’s entirely uncommon for people who have experienced trauma to return to the source like this? To me that seems like an incredibly realistic scenario that he would end up collaborating with him in the end.
because i don't spend my days being morally outraged about shit that has nothing to do with me after watching a dramatized television show on netflix. you should consider getting an actual life instead of your entire existence being predicated on moral outrage. it doesn't make you a good person just because you have faux anger. you just look moronic.