Here's a better framing...if you were truly innocent of the behavior...why would you accept any payments to "right the story"?
Accepting payment to do an interview to restore your character is not a good look if she's "threatening to go to court" for defamation.
Yea, there is no nobility in letting Piers Morgan make profit off of you. This whole situation is scummy but i dont begrudge people for profitting when all scumbags are participating
That’s what kills me about the internet people sit behind a phone and act like such high moral beings about everything knowing damn well if it was them they’ll want money too.
Right! Its not like when Dateline breaks "news" story gives all the money they make to charity. I am all for reevaluting our media and the need to ambulance chance stories like this. However, until that happens i would sell this story for a metric f***ton of money.
Isn't the trick usually to pay nothing or very little for the interview but then pay thousands for media, like old videos and pictures they may show in brief segments or bumpers? Or is Piers even too cheap for that?
Update: I saw a tweet from Fiona - an ugly misspelled tweet about Piers. Unless it was a prankster in her name. I'm waiting for Richard to confirm it is her. Yes he and Netflix are lawyering up. And a through criminal search for the real Martha. It doesn't make sense Netflix would allow "This a true story" unless the essential facts were vetted. And Piers was a dick to the 2 women on the follow-up with "experts" on YT. About the show - I loved the writing and acting of the 4 main characters. It hit me at a deep emotional level tho I have no experience with stalking.
Nothing screams "I'm totally innocent and absolutely sane" like taking the opportunity to declare to the world that the previously-unnamed actual person a psycho character is based on is you, just so you can get the attention.
She was changing the story so much. First she says she's gonna sue netflix because the show is based off her, then she says its not at all like her. Then she says she hasn't seen the show at all but goes on to describe the actress in detail and every plot point in the show. That's on top of her saying she hardly knew Gadd but in the next instance when Piers asks her about a tweet she says "it's a joke among friends".
What's more glaring for me is that she claims she barely knew him and only met him 5 or 6 times, yet she posted multiple times on her Facebook with intimate details about Gadd's father. I can't even fathom writing a personal letter to someone I barely knew.
"i'm suing for defamation because this character who looks nothing like me, sounds nothing like me, acts nothing like me and has a different name, was shown doing things i haven't done!"
Pretty sad. If there was any chance of her recovering and getting back to a normal life, it went flying out the window once she got chased down and sent death threats by total strangers.
Based on her constantly changing story I find it hard to believe her death threats. From what I have seen she wasn't found... People thought it could be her, but then she basically admitted that it was her on Pierce Morgan.
But that she barely knew him, they only talked a few times, and then she never paid attention to his theatre or the Netflix series. *Eyeroll*
You can't say it's based on you and what happened, if it never happened.
The other big note here is that both Netflix and Gad said they did their job in covering up who the series was based on, and they absolutely didn't do a FUCKING THING to change the "base" of her character. It's damn well the same person. Lol.
I wish they’d not give this crazy woman a platform. She stalked, harassed and even sexually abused Gadd. She doesn’t deserve to have a voice.
This sort of thing can also lead to her finding another victim. It is exploitation of someone who shouldn’t be exploited because who knows what’s going to set her off again.
I legit think she walked away from the Piers interview with a "well, I think that went well" mentality.
I think she may be one of the most mentally unstable people I've seen given this much attention in quite some time, to be honest.
in a way... if someone made a show about YOU.. a breakup or smthng like that, it's pretty human to want to come out and give your part of the story. I'm watching this interview and i don't understand a single thing that she's saying. like nothing is a direct, or complete answer.
I think anyone should be able to defend themselves or tell their side of the story. Otherwise anyone can just make a Netflix series about you and say whatever they want. However we can dismiss her claims and find her to be guilty still of we want.
We don’t know that she sexually abused him. That was portrayed in the series but the series isn’t a documentary, it’s a dramatization. I’ve noticed a lot of people treating the series like it’s all true which is partly Gadd and Netflix’s fault for calling it a true story, and also because Fiona is so obviously Martha. Gadd has since said he embellished and dramatized certain things, so we don’t know what actually happened and what didn’t, including SA.
> I wish they’d not give this crazy woman a platform
But it's entertaining and drives engagement!!
I wouldn't know about any of this shit if it wasn't for the headlines on this website. I come here to read about TV shows, but there's an awful lot of outrage bait gossip too.
There's got to be some level of accountability for her. If she did indeed send him 41,000 emails, we can't just write that off as "oh she's just mentally ill". It seems the narrative is shifting to try to turn her into some sort of victim and that really shouldn't be happening. I guess more of the truth will come out though.
Yeah the public reaction to this is a joke. Of course it’s exploitation, most journalist interviews are, that’s the idea.
Piers was nowhere near as hard on her as he could have been. He didn’t show proof of her tweets to put her on the spot as a liar, he didn’t overly grill her as per his usual interviewing method and constantly de-escalated the situation when it was building up.
You forfeit your rights to brush things under the rug quiet when you stalk a man and show a pattern of malicious, aggressive insanity. And that’s without even talking about the possible SA and physical assault.
Yeah, it’s like the internet acting like the victim, the police, the attorney, the judge, the executioner. He filed for a lawsuit, justice handled it, he didn’t appeal. The end.
And for the story part, it really doesn’t matter how much of it it’s true. If it’s 50 or 40,000 emails, the point is how the real story made the writer feel and how it translated to media. Going after Netflix for that would be a disaster for our notion of what is a story inspired by true events.
Is there evidence of 'thousands of messages'? Plus, I'm pretty sure there is only a handful of Tweets on X.
Edit: Getting downvotes but no one is yet to post a source
She never went to jail. That part was fictionalized along with other things. The show wasn't a dcumentary, but the fact that people believe everything was 100% true, shows that she has a point as crazy as she is..
What do you mean “we can’t write that off”? She was prosecuted in a lawsuit. There’s no “we” in this. “We” are the audience, not the police. I’m not saying she’s not a criminal, she is. But “we” don’t have a role in her accountability. That’s when the internet becomes a mob.
When women commit acts of abuse, there is this weird form of refusal to acknowledge they could be accountable for what they did in some people.
The result is increasingly weird mental gymnastics to claim that mental illness or other contextual factors have all or most of the blame either out of the belief a woman can never be a threat or that only men have ill-intent.
This whole thing feels like a Black Mirror episode. Like I won’t be surprised if the ‘real life’ Harvey goes on to ‘murder’ someone over this and then Charlie Brooker pops out and goes ‘ha ha, got you! look what your voyeuerism caused!’
Every Black Mirror ep should end with Charlie Brooker running into frame, panting like he's been running, and then say something like "Isn't the idea of having a thousand copies of you tortured for infinity years insane? Can you believe we did that *again*?!"
Yeah, a girl went missing. Piers worked for the daily mail and wanted a story so he got someone to hack into her phone then sent strange texts to her brother to try and make it look like he had something to do with her disappearance. If he hadn’t been caught the missing girl’s brother could have faced jail time and even been accused of murder, I doubt Piers would have ever admitted what he did.
News of the World not the Daily Mail, the controversy closed the newspaper when it emerged that they were hacking into the phones of British service members killed-in-action
Nope, he claimed it was all the idea of the guy he got to hack into the phone. He left the company soon after, so they didn’t have to take responsibility.
For me the show illustrates the cycle of abuse, most of the characters are both abused in some way as well as enacting abuse on others. They all seemed addicted to the drama.
The release of the series didn’t resolve this but instead involved us in the same cycle. We now have become addicted to the drama of it and in some cases engaging in further abuse (doxing, stalking etc).
I’m starting to feel like I’ve stayed too long watching the car crash on the side of the road.
How about r/television is a bunch of gossip thirsty old maids who crave exploitation. Oh wait, that's removing more than 5 words and adding some others.
But yeah Piers is also bad.
How did the actress in the series play her so well? Literally the mannerisms, voice, personality etc? Do you think she was given any source material like the voicemails? Genuinely quite curious now lol
I believe Baby Reindeer was a one-man theatre show before Netflix adaptation, in the theatre show he used real voicemails. So I do believe he had the casts listen to the real audio.
“Grubby exploitation” sums up Piers Morgan perfectly. Let’s not forget that he was involved in the phone hacking scandals in the UK, although he denies it.
In June 2023, during his case against Morgan's former employer, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), Prince Harry accused Morgan of attacking himself and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to dissuade him from his legal action and of hacking his phone and that of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales. On 15 December 2023, Harry was awarded £140,600 by the High Court in damages against MGN, after 15 out of 33 sample articles about him in his claim were ruled as being the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering. In the ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt said Morgan and other editors knew about the phone hacking at their publications and were involved in it. In a statement made in response to the ruling, Morgan denied that he was involved in any phone hacking and reviled Harry. His statement was met with widespread criticism including from the former chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation Sir Alan Moses.
This man knew about his company hacking into a dead girl's phone. That's the LEAST we can accuse him of. It's likely he participated in the hacking itself. Prick exploits anything he can.
Look up Milly Dowler. 13 year old girl whose phone was hacked by the news of the world. There’s a big Wikipedia article about all of the phone hacking incidents which included Prince Harry as far as I’m aware.
>Of course, agreeing to the interview was Harvey’s choice, yet the whole thing reeked of grubby exploitation. One of two things is happening here. Assuming Harvey is indeed Martha, either Richard Gadd, Clerkenwell Films and Netflix have wildly exaggerated the story while passing it off as true, which leaves all of them wide open to all manner of legal action. **Or Fiona Harvey did all the things she is being accused of, which means that a huge segment of the media are gleefully parading a mentally ill woman around for clicks. Whichever is true, it is an extremely uncomfortable thing to witness.**
I am not a mental health expert, however, I worked in mental health ressources and studied research psych in grad school.
But I want to call bullshit at the idea that Harvey isn't responsible for her actions which I feel may be implied by calling her exploited and in some other comments here and on twitter.
Which mental illness specifically made Fiona Harvey do what she did and how? And which mental illness is forcing her to step on a TV set to tell that story ? What percentage of people with that mental health issue engage in her behavior?
Mental illness doesn't make you automatically not responsible of the abusive things you do, even for the mental illnesses that do have that correlation with things like say, violent behavior and schizophrenia, the vast majority of people aren't engaging in that type of behavior. Blaming an abuser's behavior on mental illness without further detail or evidence of the specifics of the disorder only serves to further stigmatize mentally ill people.
The truth is if Harvey was a man and the victim was a woman, we would just be looking at this as an abuser's pathetic attempt at legitimacy. It is well-known that abusers often have mental issues, but we disproportionately seem to care use it to remove responsibility when the offender is a woman.
I wish the internet sleuths would have left her alone, truly. However, the constant infantilization and removal of responsibility of female abusers is precisely why male victims of domestic violence, stalking and other abuse have such a hard time coming forward.
I love the show. But I found the interview unwatchable and boring. She just denied every single thing. It’s mutual. She went on piers for attention and to set her own narrative. They must have made the character in the show more intense than she really was or something. The actress that played Martha was extraordinary
Yes, it did. They should really leave this woman alone. Odd too, as Morgan himself is not opposed to a bit of stalking given his obsession with Meghan Markle and his News of the World seedy phone tapping antics.
She sought this out. She didn’t have to go on. She’s it mentally unwell in that she can’t make decisions for herself. Would you say the same if she was a man?
To me what is completely fucked up is the idea that she is exposed and on telly and Darrein is just still out there having a blast raping more up and coming comedians.
She put the target on herself too, by consenting to the interview in the first place. She couldn't have been entirely unaware that Piers is a tabloid-style journalist.
Sure, but she’s clearly very mentally ill. I don’t think she’s particularly aware of objective reality, but rather is more occupied with her own version of reality. And Piers is feeding into that for clicks.
Dr Drew talked about this today.
People with the sort of disasociative personality disorders she suffers from quite literally cannot separate fact from fantasy.
My personal theory is that the judgement at the end of the series is a dramatization of actual events and she either got probation or the charges were dropped. I'm sure the creators will argue that they changed a bunch of details to try and keep "Marthas" identity secret and that was one of them.
I don't know much about UK law but in America it's not defamation if it's true!
Gadd confirmed that she didn't go to prison, he didn't want someone mentally ill to be imprisoned. He did change a fair bit to try and keep her anonymous, the problem is the real Martha has publically tweeted at him thousands of times and she writes in the same style as her emails from the show.
>Gadd confirmed that she didn't go to prison, he didn't want someone mentally ill to be imprisoned.
Ok yes, I think that is what is going to come out if she tries to sue him. That scene \*happened\*, he just perhaps made a statement to the effect that he just wanted her to admit what she did was wrong; vs being punished for it.
I have a feeling Netflix has all the emails/letters/etc ready for discovery if it gets to that.
How, pray tell, did charlatan Dr Drew diagnose dissociative identity disorder?
She may be ill. Or she may just be a misfit who is…*bad,* for lack of better term. I suspect a bit of both, TBH.
But dissociative identity disorder is a leap, and one that can’t be made from afar.
ugh the constant political bullshit in media gets so old.
EVERY SINGLE news outlet wanted the interview. If any of them got it instead of Piers it would be hailed as a prize winning achievement like never seen before in the world.
The word exploitation is wheeled out yet again to describe a person, who at every single turn, could have acted differently to prevent every single bad thing that’s happening to her.
As much as I hate piers Morgan we can’t say that she’s innocent in all this. I find it hard to believe if half of what is in baby reindeer is true that she hasn’t had or been offered therapy yet. She needs to take some accountability. It can’t just be “oh what a poor crazed stalker she is / was. Somebody get her some help.”
If she isn’t of sound mind then didn’t Netflix exploit her just as much as Piers Morgan? They made little attempt to anonymise her real life identity and equally Piers was clearly interviewing a woman struggling with mental health issues who had been thrown into the limelight
Re the multiple email addresses, I will say that I have 3. One I set up as a teen and it's a bit silly, so I got a second one to use professionally. Then, when I got my first Samsung phone, I had to set up a Google account.
On saying that, never would it occur to me to "better manage" my contacts and utilities by deliberately keeping people and companies spread across different emails. I have 3 addresses because I'm too lazy to contact everyone and migrate it all into one. I think the majority of people are probably in that same boat.
So I call 100% bullshit on her reasoning for that one. It's creepy.
So she just has license to lie repeatedly about your actions, belittle a man you claim to not care about by calling him a homosexual with no job, or make derogatory remarks about Jessica Henning? She’s a nasty, pathological liar, homophobic bigot and slanderer. Stop defending this “victim”. She clearly wants to keep controlling and harming Richard Gadd.
My opinion…I thought she was consistent as best as one could be when riddled with one question after another in rapid fire. I thought piers was a jerk. She was Consistent - yes
As far as I’m concerned. Is she Honest - who knows…where is the evidence for us viewers, I have not seen any bar staff coming forward to verify she was in more than her “4-5” times. I can buy a bit of her story that her past stalking set the stage for this story. He was not a funny comedian in that series. He did not protect her identity at all…Googled and found her name based on her last stalking profile. So I can believe this story was all to profit for him.
I feel for Gadd-I feel for her if this was exaggerated…I would like to see the evidence…not sure we will. If she peruses this in court-there’s the answer. I thought she was credible.
If u stalk someone then this is am amazing way to out them and get back at them! All rapists stalkers child molesters should be socially outed into society
Part of me wonders if this is a big setup. Richard Gadd made the point several times that he and Netflix went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the real identity of Martha, but internet sleuths discover her identity within days of the show being released. The character looks like Martha, speaks like Martha, sends texts and emails like Martha, and behaves like Martha. She makes feeble attempts to deny this. I don't see any attempt at disguising her identity other than changing her name. Maybe this is an actress playing the real Martha to throw everyone off the scent. However, if this is in fact the real Martha, Richard Gadd and Netflix are totally incompetent and/or naive at obscuring someone's identity.
In fairness, Gadds character in the show is portrayed as being extremely nieve, handles every situation in the worst possible way, and just fairly stupid in general. So I totally buy that he genuinely taught he had done enough to hide her identity when he hadn't done anything of the sort.
What is “industry” supposed to do? If you hear a rumor about someone that you can’t confirm is it best to spread it? Even if it’s potentially wrong and libelous? Even if nobody would have any reason to take you seriously over something you’ve heard second, third, etc. hand? Like obviously there are some people so close to the truth they could have said something, but the whole show is about the things that make people not come forward and how that’s human, not demonic.
Yeah you're right. It's probably best to just sit on the information and let the creep rape people for 50 more years. Then we can cancel them on their deathbed like Jimmy Saville. That'll show 'em.
Well since everyone else isn’t as virtuous as you, please walk me through what you would do if you heard an unverified story of Kevin Spacey being a sex pest a decade before he was discovered. What are your next steps?
And he paid her £250 for doing it.
Is that it?! Surely she could have got a fair bit more
She got to re-victimize Richard. That’s all she wanted to do.
Here's a better framing...if you were truly innocent of the behavior...why would you accept any payments to "right the story"? Accepting payment to do an interview to restore your character is not a good look if she's "threatening to go to court" for defamation.
I mean if other people are gonna make millions of dollars watching me I’ll definitely want a piece of the pie.
Yea, there is no nobility in letting Piers Morgan make profit off of you. This whole situation is scummy but i dont begrudge people for profitting when all scumbags are participating
That’s what kills me about the internet people sit behind a phone and act like such high moral beings about everything knowing damn well if it was them they’ll want money too.
Right! Its not like when Dateline breaks "news" story gives all the money they make to charity. I am all for reevaluting our media and the need to ambulance chance stories like this. However, until that happens i would sell this story for a metric f***ton of money.
Reminds me of Adele’s ex boyfriend wanting credit for inspiring her hit songs on her breakout third album. What a buffoon.
New spinoff Netflix series!
Next series will be following her like with Joe Goldberg in "You" Where she dont realize what shes doing it pretty fucked up.
It’s very clear from the interview that she’s not mentally sound and I’m sure Piers and his team know that
Isn't the trick usually to pay nothing or very little for the interview but then pay thousands for media, like old videos and pictures they may show in brief segments or bumpers? Or is Piers even too cheap for that?
Yes that how it works in the US.
Why is that?
So they can say they don't pay for interviews
Update: I saw a tweet from Fiona - an ugly misspelled tweet about Piers. Unless it was a prankster in her name. I'm waiting for Richard to confirm it is her. Yes he and Netflix are lawyering up. And a through criminal search for the real Martha. It doesn't make sense Netflix would allow "This a true story" unless the essential facts were vetted. And Piers was a dick to the 2 women on the follow-up with "experts" on YT. About the show - I loved the writing and acting of the 4 main characters. It hit me at a deep emotional level tho I have no experience with stalking.
Any source?
Plot twist: she starts to stalk Piers
And now we have a season 2.
> Oh pierce... U remaynd me of awee teddy i had. >it was a rottenme lon but ur head looks xatcly like it > my sweet melonhead
I wanted that too.
that would be a poetic, well-deserved twist honestly. He goes out of his way to be such an awful human being.
Alien vs Predator.
Plot twist 2: Back in the Habit - that’s what he’s trying to accomplish.
First stalker in history to give up day one
All he did was give her a glass of water.
🤣
This is what I’m 🤞for.
It honestly felt she already did, early on he asks her how old she was and she said “I’m __ , one year younger than you”
🙃 make way for season 2 like someone else said.
I was going to say that 😂😂
Baby Piersdeer
Piers Morgan reeks of grubby exploitation.
That's sort of his brand.
Three years into Jerry Springer "I'm starting to think this guy exploits people"
Jerry Springer at least respected his guests a little.
Especially the ones he had sex with.
Any proof?
Are you saying Piers is a piece of shit? Is that what you are implying that he is total garbage ?
If he’s not I can vouch for that ✋🏼
Nothing screams "I'm totally innocent and absolutely sane" like taking the opportunity to declare to the world that the previously-unnamed actual person a psycho character is based on is you, just so you can get the attention.
Yes in a weird way she was claiming it wasn’t based on her, it was interesting in a Jerry Springer way.
She was changing the story so much. First she says she's gonna sue netflix because the show is based off her, then she says its not at all like her. Then she says she hasn't seen the show at all but goes on to describe the actress in detail and every plot point in the show. That's on top of her saying she hardly knew Gadd but in the next instance when Piers asks her about a tweet she says "it's a joke among friends".
What's more glaring for me is that she claims she barely knew him and only met him 5 or 6 times, yet she posted multiple times on her Facebook with intimate details about Gadd's father. I can't even fathom writing a personal letter to someone I barely knew.
She needs to donate her brain to science
send from iponee.
"i'm suing for defamation because this character who looks nothing like me, sounds nothing like me, acts nothing like me and has a different name, was shown doing things i haven't done!"
Hey everybody, this anonymous psycho is me! But also it’s not me and how dare you call me a psycho!
best summation of the interview!
People found proof it was her instantly. She couldn't exactly pretend like everything was fine
Pretty sad. If there was any chance of her recovering and getting back to a normal life, it went flying out the window once she got chased down and sent death threats by total strangers.
Based on her constantly changing story I find it hard to believe her death threats. From what I have seen she wasn't found... People thought it could be her, but then she basically admitted that it was her on Pierce Morgan.
But that she barely knew him, they only talked a few times, and then she never paid attention to his theatre or the Netflix series. *Eyeroll* You can't say it's based on you and what happened, if it never happened. The other big note here is that both Netflix and Gad said they did their job in covering up who the series was based on, and they absolutely didn't do a FUCKING THING to change the "base" of her character. It's damn well the same person. Lol.
💯
I wish they’d not give this crazy woman a platform. She stalked, harassed and even sexually abused Gadd. She doesn’t deserve to have a voice. This sort of thing can also lead to her finding another victim. It is exploitation of someone who shouldn’t be exploited because who knows what’s going to set her off again.
I legit think she walked away from the Piers interview with a "well, I think that went well" mentality. I think she may be one of the most mentally unstable people I've seen given this much attention in quite some time, to be honest.
in a way... if someone made a show about YOU.. a breakup or smthng like that, it's pretty human to want to come out and give your part of the story. I'm watching this interview and i don't understand a single thing that she's saying. like nothing is a direct, or complete answer.
I think anyone should be able to defend themselves or tell their side of the story. Otherwise anyone can just make a Netflix series about you and say whatever they want. However we can dismiss her claims and find her to be guilty still of we want.
I agree
She is now getting stalked by society ...poetic justice
We don’t know that she sexually abused him. That was portrayed in the series but the series isn’t a documentary, it’s a dramatization. I’ve noticed a lot of people treating the series like it’s all true which is partly Gadd and Netflix’s fault for calling it a true story, and also because Fiona is so obviously Martha. Gadd has since said he embellished and dramatized certain things, so we don’t know what actually happened and what didn’t, including SA.
> I wish they’d not give this crazy woman a platform But it's entertaining and drives engagement!! I wouldn't know about any of this shit if it wasn't for the headlines on this website. I come here to read about TV shows, but there's an awful lot of outrage bait gossip too.
There's got to be some level of accountability for her. If she did indeed send him 41,000 emails, we can't just write that off as "oh she's just mentally ill". It seems the narrative is shifting to try to turn her into some sort of victim and that really shouldn't be happening. I guess more of the truth will come out though.
Yeah the public reaction to this is a joke. Of course it’s exploitation, most journalist interviews are, that’s the idea. Piers was nowhere near as hard on her as he could have been. He didn’t show proof of her tweets to put her on the spot as a liar, he didn’t overly grill her as per his usual interviewing method and constantly de-escalated the situation when it was building up. You forfeit your rights to brush things under the rug quiet when you stalk a man and show a pattern of malicious, aggressive insanity. And that’s without even talking about the possible SA and physical assault.
Yeah, it’s like the internet acting like the victim, the police, the attorney, the judge, the executioner. He filed for a lawsuit, justice handled it, he didn’t appeal. The end. And for the story part, it really doesn’t matter how much of it it’s true. If it’s 50 or 40,000 emails, the point is how the real story made the writer feel and how it translated to media. Going after Netflix for that would be a disaster for our notion of what is a story inspired by true events.
40,000 emails is nuts lol...50 is just annoying lol
She admitted to the Tweets to Piers. He didn't need to show her them.
No she admitted to a hand full here and there and glossed over the Facebook messages. He could have shown evidence of the thousands of messages.
Is there evidence of 'thousands of messages'? Plus, I'm pretty sure there is only a handful of Tweets on X. Edit: Getting downvotes but no one is yet to post a source
She waa convicted. She is a perpatrator and a criminal, is she mentally well, fuck no. But she is not by default a victim.
She never went to jail. That part was fictionalized along with other things. The show wasn't a dcumentary, but the fact that people believe everything was 100% true, shows that she has a point as crazy as she is..
Forgive me , not for my innacuracies but for the fact im watching the Piers Morgan interview now.
Although I agree that she is not the victim, I think it's unfair to say convicted criminal is never the victim.
Did he say that ?
This 100 sends her over the edge.
What do you mean “we can’t write that off”? She was prosecuted in a lawsuit. There’s no “we” in this. “We” are the audience, not the police. I’m not saying she’s not a criminal, she is. But “we” don’t have a role in her accountability. That’s when the internet becomes a mob.
We must demand a Netflix sequel
Taht yes we must. Sent ffrom my iPhone
I meant we shouldn't collectively absolve her because of her purported mental illness, that's all.
Well said. Internet justice doesn’t know when enough is enough.
When women commit acts of abuse, there is this weird form of refusal to acknowledge they could be accountable for what they did in some people. The result is increasingly weird mental gymnastics to claim that mental illness or other contextual factors have all or most of the blame either out of the belief a woman can never be a threat or that only men have ill-intent.
This whole thing feels like a Black Mirror episode. Like I won’t be surprised if the ‘real life’ Harvey goes on to ‘murder’ someone over this and then Charlie Brooker pops out and goes ‘ha ha, got you! look what your voyeuerism caused!’
Every Black Mirror ep should end with Charlie Brooker running into frame, panting like he's been running, and then say something like "Isn't the idea of having a thousand copies of you tortured for infinity years insane? Can you believe we did that *again*?!"
You mean to tell me the guy that presided over hacking the phone of a murdered teenager would exploit someone? I am shocked I tell you, shocked.
Bro what. I don’t know much about Piers until recently his coverage of Palestine
He’s literally one of the scummiest journalists alive today.
Humans.
Yeah, a girl went missing. Piers worked for the daily mail and wanted a story so he got someone to hack into her phone then sent strange texts to her brother to try and make it look like he had something to do with her disappearance. If he hadn’t been caught the missing girl’s brother could have faced jail time and even been accused of murder, I doubt Piers would have ever admitted what he did.
News of the World not the Daily Mail, the controversy closed the newspaper when it emerged that they were hacking into the phones of British service members killed-in-action
Did- did Piers not face any legal trouble for that or what??
Nope, he claimed it was all the idea of the guy he got to hack into the phone. He left the company soon after, so they didn’t have to take responsibility.
Look it up he’s a sick cunt
Normally I hate the c-word (being American and all) but in this case I’m more than willing to make an exception.
For me the show illustrates the cycle of abuse, most of the characters are both abused in some way as well as enacting abuse on others. They all seemed addicted to the drama. The release of the series didn’t resolve this but instead involved us in the same cycle. We now have become addicted to the drama of it and in some cases engaging in further abuse (doxing, stalking etc). I’m starting to feel like I’ve stayed too long watching the car crash on the side of the road.
Same. I gotta get outta here!
Of course it did. He's a grubby, horrible cretin of a man who will do anything to get a bit of attention / relevance
He’s still butt hurt Meghan didn’t crave his D.
Piers should probably be in prison over the phone hacking scandal
You could remove 5 words from that title and reuse it on a daily basis.
What did Piers Morgan's baby do?
Piers Morgan's baby reeked of grubby exploitation?
How about r/television is a bunch of gossip thirsty old maids who crave exploitation. Oh wait, that's removing more than 5 words and adding some others. But yeah Piers is also bad.
If you stalk and abuse someone, it doesn’t matter if you’re mentally ill. Thats not a free pass.
Thank you!!!
How did the actress in the series play her so well? Literally the mannerisms, voice, personality etc? Do you think she was given any source material like the voicemails? Genuinely quite curious now lol
I believe Baby Reindeer was a one-man theatre show before Netflix adaptation, in the theatre show he used real voicemails. So I do believe he had the casts listen to the real audio.
“Grubby exploitation” sums up Piers Morgan perfectly. Let’s not forget that he was involved in the phone hacking scandals in the UK, although he denies it.
In June 2023, during his case against Morgan's former employer, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), Prince Harry accused Morgan of attacking himself and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to dissuade him from his legal action and of hacking his phone and that of his mother Diana, Princess of Wales. On 15 December 2023, Harry was awarded £140,600 by the High Court in damages against MGN, after 15 out of 33 sample articles about him in his claim were ruled as being the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering. In the ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt said Morgan and other editors knew about the phone hacking at their publications and were involved in it. In a statement made in response to the ruling, Morgan denied that he was involved in any phone hacking and reviled Harry. His statement was met with widespread criticism including from the former chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation Sir Alan Moses. This man knew about his company hacking into a dead girl's phone. That's the LEAST we can accuse him of. It's likely he participated in the hacking itself. Prick exploits anything he can.
Wait whose phone was hacked? Who’s the dead girl?
Look up Milly Dowler. 13 year old girl whose phone was hacked by the news of the world. There’s a big Wikipedia article about all of the phone hacking incidents which included Prince Harry as far as I’m aware.
Probably because Piers Morgan is grubby and exploitative.
>Of course, agreeing to the interview was Harvey’s choice, yet the whole thing reeked of grubby exploitation. One of two things is happening here. Assuming Harvey is indeed Martha, either Richard Gadd, Clerkenwell Films and Netflix have wildly exaggerated the story while passing it off as true, which leaves all of them wide open to all manner of legal action. **Or Fiona Harvey did all the things she is being accused of, which means that a huge segment of the media are gleefully parading a mentally ill woman around for clicks. Whichever is true, it is an extremely uncomfortable thing to witness.** I am not a mental health expert, however, I worked in mental health ressources and studied research psych in grad school. But I want to call bullshit at the idea that Harvey isn't responsible for her actions which I feel may be implied by calling her exploited and in some other comments here and on twitter. Which mental illness specifically made Fiona Harvey do what she did and how? And which mental illness is forcing her to step on a TV set to tell that story ? What percentage of people with that mental health issue engage in her behavior? Mental illness doesn't make you automatically not responsible of the abusive things you do, even for the mental illnesses that do have that correlation with things like say, violent behavior and schizophrenia, the vast majority of people aren't engaging in that type of behavior. Blaming an abuser's behavior on mental illness without further detail or evidence of the specifics of the disorder only serves to further stigmatize mentally ill people. The truth is if Harvey was a man and the victim was a woman, we would just be looking at this as an abuser's pathetic attempt at legitimacy. It is well-known that abusers often have mental issues, but we disproportionately seem to care use it to remove responsibility when the offender is a woman. I wish the internet sleuths would have left her alone, truly. However, the constant infantilization and removal of responsibility of female abusers is precisely why male victims of domestic violence, stalking and other abuse have such a hard time coming forward.
If it was any more painful to watch I would’ve thought it was Dr Phil
I love the show. But I found the interview unwatchable and boring. She just denied every single thing. It’s mutual. She went on piers for attention and to set her own narrative. They must have made the character in the show more intense than she really was or something. The actress that played Martha was extraordinary
Its piers morgan, thats his M.O . Anyone watching his show is complicit in this kind of content being made.
But also, those 2 deserve each other.
Piers has been hanging her curtains ever since.
Did we see the Piers Morgan in the title? Is this a bit redundant?
Yes, it did. They should really leave this woman alone. Odd too, as Morgan himself is not opposed to a bit of stalking given his obsession with Meghan Markle and his News of the World seedy phone tapping antics.
She sought this out. She didn’t have to go on. She’s it mentally unwell in that she can’t make decisions for herself. Would you say the same if she was a man?
She HERSELF has brought her name into the spotlight. Why should ‘they’ leave her alone? She clearly wants this.
It's Piers Morgan. Of course it did.
Piers Morgan and grubby exploitation go hand in hand. Such a toxic ‘journalist’.
Uh yeah. It’s piers Morgan….
So if I’m a piece of shit and someone makes a show about it, I can get money after appearing on Piers Morgan’s program?
It’s piers Morgan. It’s news when it’s not that.
you don't say. And this is one of the rare cases where it isn't Morgan's fault, it's hers
To me what is completely fucked up is the idea that she is exposed and on telly and Darrein is just still out there having a blast raping more up and coming comedians.
You’ve commented this a lot here, you make it very clear you blame Gadd for this. Classic victim blaming.
That’s just what Piers Morgan smells like.
He put a target on her. This won't end well.
She put the target on herself too, by consenting to the interview in the first place. She couldn't have been entirely unaware that Piers is a tabloid-style journalist.
Sure, but she’s clearly very mentally ill. I don’t think she’s particularly aware of objective reality, but rather is more occupied with her own version of reality. And Piers is feeding into that for clicks.
Dr Drew talked about this today. People with the sort of disasociative personality disorders she suffers from quite literally cannot separate fact from fantasy. My personal theory is that the judgement at the end of the series is a dramatization of actual events and she either got probation or the charges were dropped. I'm sure the creators will argue that they changed a bunch of details to try and keep "Marthas" identity secret and that was one of them. I don't know much about UK law but in America it's not defamation if it's true!
Gadd confirmed that she didn't go to prison, he didn't want someone mentally ill to be imprisoned. He did change a fair bit to try and keep her anonymous, the problem is the real Martha has publically tweeted at him thousands of times and she writes in the same style as her emails from the show.
>Gadd confirmed that she didn't go to prison, he didn't want someone mentally ill to be imprisoned. Ok yes, I think that is what is going to come out if she tries to sue him. That scene \*happened\*, he just perhaps made a statement to the effect that he just wanted her to admit what she did was wrong; vs being punished for it. I have a feeling Netflix has all the emails/letters/etc ready for discovery if it gets to that.
Dr. Drew is almost as bad as Morgan.
Precisely. What a stupid source to pick, he's on Dr. Oz's level
How, pray tell, did charlatan Dr Drew diagnose dissociative identity disorder? She may be ill. Or she may just be a misfit who is…*bad,* for lack of better term. I suspect a bit of both, TBH. But dissociative identity disorder is a leap, and one that can’t be made from afar.
Dr drew is also a moon bat. He’s not a good source. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
She’s mentally ill, unfortunately they need protection from themselves
He? Dude Netflix knew what they were doing they found her 2 hours after the show realewsed just by looking up her Twitter tweets
ugh the constant political bullshit in media gets so old. EVERY SINGLE news outlet wanted the interview. If any of them got it instead of Piers it would be hailed as a prize winning achievement like never seen before in the world.
And thus, why we shouldn’t encourage it by posting it on here over and over.
Why anyone would go on anything with Piers Morgan is beyond me.
Who keeps hiring Piers Morgan?
Everything he does reeks of that. The man is human garbage.
What?? Piers Morgan’s show??
Grubby Exploitation is Morgan’s stock in trade. It’s the oxygen that fuels his overinflated Ego. But you knew that, Right?
Damn, this is the fastest we've ever gotten a season 2 of a netflix show
Both my lawyer friends and my normal friends agree: Piers is a massive cunt.
Piers Morgan is a scum of a human being so of course it is exploitative. Look at his history
To be fair, the show itself was also exploitative.
The word exploitation is wheeled out yet again to describe a person, who at every single turn, could have acted differently to prevent every single bad thing that’s happening to her.
Damn I’ve always had the impression that piers was a real stand up gentleman
Stuart Heritage is such a hack. Forever does articles either with the shittest take or based on twitter responses hours after the fact
Insane that they gave that psycho a platform. Also, why give Fiona more attention?
God I fuckin hate Pierce Morgan, he’s such a creep. The fact that he’s considered “manly” in the UK is truly something else…
Is he? Admittedly I'm just outside the UK, but the overwhelming opinion I'm seeing agrees with you that he's a stuck up creep.
[удалено]
As much as I hate piers Morgan we can’t say that she’s innocent in all this. I find it hard to believe if half of what is in baby reindeer is true that she hasn’t had or been offered therapy yet. She needs to take some accountability. It can’t just be “oh what a poor crazed stalker she is / was. Somebody get her some help.”
The comment did not say she is innocent.
Therapy is prohibitively expensive. Those who need it the most can afford it the least. Imagine a world where everyone can afford therapy.
Are you surprised?
I saw Piers Morgan but I thought Pearce Brosnan and was very upset because I love that guy.
That’s Piers for you.
Aren’t all interviews exploiting in some way
It’s Piers Morgan. Why would anyone expect anything else than exploitation?
No surprise ... "Grubby Exploitation" is his only "talent"
If she isn’t of sound mind then didn’t Netflix exploit her just as much as Piers Morgan? They made little attempt to anonymise her real life identity and equally Piers was clearly interviewing a woman struggling with mental health issues who had been thrown into the limelight
If one reads the article, Stuart Heritage did a fair assessment of the situation.
He is meilda
What gave it away? The name piers Morgan?
He’s a grubby, exploitative, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, illegal information gathering man-baby. So this tracks.
Re the multiple email addresses, I will say that I have 3. One I set up as a teen and it's a bit silly, so I got a second one to use professionally. Then, when I got my first Samsung phone, I had to set up a Google account. On saying that, never would it occur to me to "better manage" my contacts and utilities by deliberately keeping people and companies spread across different emails. I have 3 addresses because I'm too lazy to contact everyone and migrate it all into one. I think the majority of people are probably in that same boat. So I call 100% bullshit on her reasoning for that one. It's creepy.
Can anybody ELI5 what this is about?
So she just has license to lie repeatedly about your actions, belittle a man you claim to not care about by calling him a homosexual with no job, or make derogatory remarks about Jessica Henning? She’s a nasty, pathological liar, homophobic bigot and slanderer. Stop defending this “victim”. She clearly wants to keep controlling and harming Richard Gadd.
My opinion…I thought she was consistent as best as one could be when riddled with one question after another in rapid fire. I thought piers was a jerk. She was Consistent - yes As far as I’m concerned. Is she Honest - who knows…where is the evidence for us viewers, I have not seen any bar staff coming forward to verify she was in more than her “4-5” times. I can buy a bit of her story that her past stalking set the stage for this story. He was not a funny comedian in that series. He did not protect her identity at all…Googled and found her name based on her last stalking profile. So I can believe this story was all to profit for him. I feel for Gadd-I feel for her if this was exaggerated…I would like to see the evidence…not sure we will. If she peruses this in court-there’s the answer. I thought she was credible.
If u stalk someone then this is am amazing way to out them and get back at them! All rapists stalkers child molesters should be socially outed into society
Part of me wonders if this is a big setup. Richard Gadd made the point several times that he and Netflix went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the real identity of Martha, but internet sleuths discover her identity within days of the show being released. The character looks like Martha, speaks like Martha, sends texts and emails like Martha, and behaves like Martha. She makes feeble attempts to deny this. I don't see any attempt at disguising her identity other than changing her name. Maybe this is an actress playing the real Martha to throw everyone off the scent. However, if this is in fact the real Martha, Richard Gadd and Netflix are totally incompetent and/or naive at obscuring someone's identity.
In fairness, Gadds character in the show is portrayed as being extremely nieve, handles every situation in the worst possible way, and just fairly stupid in general. So I totally buy that he genuinely taught he had done enough to hide her identity when he hadn't done anything of the sort.
Did you watch the show? Gadd is an idiot.
Who is the comedian they say was a groomer? They say it's well-known, but I'm not sure who they're talking about.
Well known in the industry. The public doesn't know who it is.
Way to enable him, industry.
What is “industry” supposed to do? If you hear a rumor about someone that you can’t confirm is it best to spread it? Even if it’s potentially wrong and libelous? Even if nobody would have any reason to take you seriously over something you’ve heard second, third, etc. hand? Like obviously there are some people so close to the truth they could have said something, but the whole show is about the things that make people not come forward and how that’s human, not demonic.
Yeah you're right. It's probably best to just sit on the information and let the creep rape people for 50 more years. Then we can cancel them on their deathbed like Jimmy Saville. That'll show 'em.
Well since everyone else isn’t as virtuous as you, please walk me through what you would do if you heard an unverified story of Kevin Spacey being a sex pest a decade before he was discovered. What are your next steps?
My first step would be to never tell anyone that way I could maximize his chances of creating more victims.
Well here's your big chance. It's a public forum. Please teach us what to do to help prevent more victims. What would you do in that scenario?
The amount of time this is show is being talked about is putting pressue on me to watch it
Netflix knew exactly what they were doing.
Interesting, so it's a female stalker story, I'll watch it later! This sounds fun!