Baby Reindeer: Netflix boss quizzed over safeguarding failures in Select Committee 

Yep. It's mentioned in the story as well

She’s a stalker and they are literally safeguarding her, what else do you want woman?

Yes well at least smart people look at amber heard you can’t defame people and get away with it

If it was a lie in the movie yes.. but lets not pretend, women victims of stalking are in a bigger danger and high death rate... Men and women are not the same... Equal doesnt mean the same... Are you more afraid of a regular cat or a panther? Not the same level of threat... A female victim cannot defend herself against her tormentor, even in the show he was annoyed by her but not afraid of her.

@@kristina4395 I agree. Additionally, have you noticed all women stalkers are fat and ugly? I wonder why we dont see a beautiful woman stalking men?

You outed her, without any real proof! Fiona has been publicly attacked, for something that looks like wasn't completely accurate! Also, it probably was unintentional, he made out he liked her, flirted with her, showed interest, even going out for coffee! Strange way to act when not actually interested. He was teasing her. He liked the compliments, but didn't want to date her. Which from the sites looked at for a "woman" he wasn't straight, he liked the idea of a woman, why went on a trans dating site, actively, seeking one. He just should have been honest from the start, I believe none of this would have happened if was. Then you know, he could have blocked email, he didn't even need to give it, she was just a customer! He did that. As far as aware not been arrested! Even Piers Morgan said not received any evidenced to even suggest went to court. Never outed the rapist! It might not have affected Richard as much, but most people actually getting raped will class that as more damaging! Also, we forgetting he did follow as spy through her window? He admitted doing so himself, but that is fine.

What are you trying to say

@@kbbbnnnnnnnnnnn are you saying ‘he was asking for it?’ Imagine saying that to a woman Unbelievable

@@kbbbnnnnnnnnnnn I outed her? First I've heard of that

Never convicted. All fabricated

She has no criminal history though. Possibly an interdict issued against her by a former employer but that isn't a criminal conviction. Do I think she is volatile and obsessive? Yes. Is she a convicted violent stalker? No. There is no criminal history. The show is framed as a true story. They depicted her as a twice convicted violent stalker and SA perpetrator. That's a far cry from digital harassment. We also don't know if those messages and voice notes exist. Did Richard present them publicly? Who verified his story? They lied about the convictions and violence and her SAing him under a bridge. I don't want to cast doubt on him but don't present a story as true and then fictionalize major parts of it. If he failed to get justice then show that. It's important to raise awareness that most stalking victims don't get justice. Why exaggerate and fabricate convictions that never happened?

"Making a Stalker", season 2.

Where parts 2 through 9 are completely redundant? I’m in! Will watch.

Those "more important things" can happen in parallel. It's not an either or. The digital, culture, media and sport select committee scrutinises many areas, it's not just this one show from this one creator.

​@@PorthLlwyd It can't though. There are only so many hours in the day. These people need to prioritize what they spend their time on. And this doesn't seem that important to me. If an adult commits serious crimes, that is a matter of public record, and they do not have a reasonable expectation of anonymity.

@@andybrice2711 what else should this select committee be doing instead about quizzing the heads of a huge media business that has access to the minds of millions of people? Not all adults are the same. Some people have mental illnesses. And hounding by the public might have devastating effects on their mental wellbeing.

100% agree

But your watching it like 75 million others. Then complaining 😒.

They did sort it out, they made it happen and made their mates some money. Job done for them.

He is just evading the question. Obviously they hoped it would buzz for publicity. These people have no shame.

yeah but she wasn't found until after the netflix show came out. still a pretty lame reason to have this committee tho

There are several differences between the stage show, and this dramatised television version. The TV show, whilst containing narrative that was present in Gadd's previous one man version, also combines narrative from a preceding stage show ('Monkey See, Monkey Do') along with several fictionalised moments added for televisual dramatic effect. Whilst there are key traumatic moments reflected in both versions, the Netflix claim that 'This is a true story' should absolutely not be taken as gospel. To quote Gadd, "The skeleton of the story is absolutely true." The (1hr) stage show, whilst garnering significant critical success in the fringe theatre landscape of the UK, was by no means widely known in the mainstream consciousness. Within its stage life, it played to combined audiences of a few thousand, not a global audience of millions. It certainly didn't become part of internet meme culture, or the associated (grimly ironic) toxic obsessiveness of social media pitchfork mob mentality. Perhaps this is partly down to theatre audiences generally investing specific time/money to enter a physically communal environment to be told a story, which (hopefully) influences a level of maturity in the way that story is received, absorbed and processed. Whereas blindly binge watching something on a streaming platform, as this weeks 'must see', removes that increased level of nuanced personal investment/mature influence, leading to the kind of underthought analysis and distorted ownership that many are taking with this. I get the feeling that neither Richard Gadd, the production company, or Netflix envisioned the TV show gaining this global level of interest/media exposure, and perhaps naively felt that the public reaction to it would fall in line with that of its theatre audiences. That hasn't been the case, which does appear to raise legitimate safeguarding concerns.

She even went to his stageshows and supported him. There's publics tweets of that.

@@FahadAyaz OP is referring to the stage production of Baby Reindeer, not Gadd's much earlier stand-up shows.

She has actually tweeted about his show being excellent before and recommending people go see it!!!

That's just good casting. You wouldn't have Samuel L Jackson play Winston Churchill

@@zangrat Well said.

​@@zangratWinston Churchill was a public figure so your comment makes no sense, Martha wasn't known by the whole world at the time of filming. The dirty director on the other hand IS a public figure but they decided to cast a man who looks exactly like an innocent party in his role so you internet wannabe detectives are now stalking the wrong person. 🤦‍♀️ How does a show supposedly made to highlight the dangers of stalking manage to turn the audience into rabid stalkers themselves? The irony and hypocrisy would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing. Jfc

And letting the "victim" play the part

Oh please. There are lots of details of events and times and dates changed. And then people complain about that. Perhaps it's a good thing she's been identified. It may save someone else from being stalked relentlessly. I do wonder if people feel the same if this was a man stalking and harassing a woman. I doubt it in the extreme.

How about not having Richard Play the role

To be fair, it's not just social media but the whole internet that makes it all but impossible to keep identities hidden nowadays, especially for papers.

Cylok2871- Fiona has a ‘paper trail’. Posts on twitter. Past victims coming forward. Then outing herself as the ‘real Martha’. That is the difference between her situation and the real Darrien. Internet ‘sleuths’ have tried unsuccessfully to find out his true identity

@@thinkhaven7902exactly. It wild to think it’s even remotely comparable

I agree, also the fact that everybody calls "monster" to the woman stalker while the man who actually rape him is barely mentioned anywhere.

People have found out who he is as well to be fair though (it's not Sean Foley)

Lmao

Thanks Sherlock

She'll win regardless because they didn't protect her identity, thus opening her up to harassment. After making so easily identifiable, if only one detail depicted is untrue - she will also win a legal proceeding based on defamation. It's Netflix own fault ... They should have made the character completely different. Instead, they made the character in her likeness, made her easily identifiable, and then potentially invented some significant defamatory details. If their argument is they invented those details, if certain details were invented, to make her less identifiable, they are going to lose.

@@DD-co1zn Anyone want to bet £10 Fiona Harvey gets nowhere fast with any lawsuit against Netflix, especially after watching her on Piers. Her brain was too scattered & she was lying & constantly contradicting herself. The doozy was that she was going to represent herself. A trial would be cruel. She may have also stalked comedian Jane Godley as well. All very scary & sad.

@@user-wz2zw8wq2p her mental state is all the more reason Netflix should have protected her identity. Make no mistake, she has about 2 or 3 cases against Netflix, and she will win at least one of them. She doesn't have to be innocent of every thing she's accused of, she just has to be innocent of one. That, plus being made easily identifiable, means she will win something for sure. Netflix have been completely wreckless, with intent, to generate buzz to drive audience numbers up ... They won't be looked on favourably by the courts, even when challenged by someone like Fiona.

Incorrect. And, he could countersue. She would be toast.

100% we are in a living crisis because taxes money is wasted on this bs

Don't worry, they just keep printing more.

I am not from the uk i thought it was a sketch lmaooo

Promo?

Wow. Would you say that if it was a man that stalked and harassed for years, threatening, etc. Have you seen her actual Tweets? Her FB, anything? I'm absolutely amazed. If she were a man, she'd be put away.

@@LyndaHill Exactly. Her comments online are homophobic anti English. And she has made some really damaging allegations against the staff who worked at The Hawley Arms when she was a regular there. If the place was such an alleged awful place, makes you wonder why she still went in there ?

@@nutcracker2916 I just saw a post that her nephew apparently came out and said (rightly or wrongly) that she went to gaol for four months. I bet Piers Morgan has some more insights soon as I imagine he has a bank of researchers looking into all of this. Lawyers, too.

@@nutcracker2916 Something else to consider, that I've found no one talking about, is the fact that she was 48 when this all started and he was 24. Again, would people feel sorry for her if she was a male? His birthday is May 11, I looked up his bio to be rather surprised that it was actually his birthday. He is 35. To me, he looks ten years older. I wonder if these terrible events he went through have contributed to him looking more like 45.

😅 sent form my iphone

Select committee. Remember piers Morgan phone tapping scandal. Same same. It affects population and needs be investigated. I think that's a good thing. Imagine having a true story about you. You're called a paedophile. You get outed, but in actual fact it's not you. You're then left with no recourse to protect yourself and no one to protect you. I'd say you'd be pretty scared, well past being vindicated. So before we crap on our systems, breathe, let's have a good 🤔.

Nudge nudge..

Some things. Politician's are the people that create legislation around privacy and law, knowledge about issues regarding these subjects is something you'd want politicians to have.

Well, it puts people like Nadine Dorres in a job - once... erm.... laws to protect identity... urm stuff about freedom of speech... urm... see facebook and online mitigations? That. Stuff to tell naughty people that they rick being busted for saying too much, lke flashing willies/boobies etc to children and terrorising/traumatising propaganda.

Politicians can't help but feel they have any control over the Internet. It's hilarious.

It doesn't give anyone the right to expose them or endanger them or portray them in anyway without their consent !

@@skavengerr It does mean people can publish. It's part of the public record, there isn't a requirement to have their permission to publish established facts. This is why it's possible to make movies about real life events. The people harassing her are the ones operating outside the law.

@@joisagirlsname There are many lawsuits by families of film characters ( alive and deceased) against companies in the industry because of how their relatives were portrayed in films and series especially when based on true events. These things are still subject to consent and agreement

@@skavengerr IF she choses to go ahead with a lawsuit against them, they will have their enormous bank of lawyers stand up. They very obviously have all the emails, SMS, FB and Twitter posts (have you seen her Twitter posts about hanging curtains?) and her letters. The will also, no doubt have loads of witnesses coming forward. They would not have taken on this project without the lawyers combing over all he had to give them. If she sues, Richard Gadd could countersue her for all the damages, harm, stalking, intimidation, etc. And, she'd be toast. I reckon should should be greatful for the 250,000 pounds that she got for the Piers Morgan interview and leave it at that. The fact that she went on about how she had so many lawyer friends (she's been struck off for stalking), her lawyer boyfriend, etc, shows that she's extremely aware of the lawyers that Netflix, Richard Gadd, and, if she sues the Daily Mail, the lawyers they have. She's toast if she doesn't walk away from this with her 250,000.

But the real life woman wasn't convicted of anything

She's autistic, that doesn't make her deranged and a stalker, though. If she proves in court he fictionalised the entire show out of 4 harmless encounters with her in which he pursued her, and she then felt bad for him and engaged in some flirty banter and support for his work, will you apologise to the woman? She never went to prison for his previous claim of alleged stalking, and the previous one was political games. Which means he made up ever going to the police about her. I wonder what else has Gaad made up that people like you take at face value?

Piers Morgan said no evidence been found of arrest at all, or of the number of emails claimed!

You might be right, but should it be so? The show appears to be about the mental illness of both characters. What good is done by these recriminations?

@@Hercules_the_Great None, so why are they creating it by doing this circus with the committee

@@maxclarke7943 I'll give you that, that is just for the clicks.

Oh grow up

If she excepts she has issues then yes , they should , but at least Gadd admits to his flawed character.

@@nutcracker2916 She hasn't been given a netflix platform to put out her side, has she? In fact, she's only been on Piers Morgan thus far, how can you possibly expect her to state she has issues when she's flooded with bullies on the internet and has to defend herself? Richard Gadd didn't even give her the heads up, nor did Netflix. Give her a minute, not defending her, but Richard was given grace with all his mental issues, why isn't the same grace given to the person who is alleged to have done all the stalking? Also, it's "accept" not "except".

@@flinchfiles8445 She's constantly giving her "side" on her social media. She never stops!

They said nothing to hint to who he was, they changed his appearance and are protecting him so he can do it to other people.

Fabricated stories about real people? No

I think Gadd, this guy seems to think that gadd has suffered a lot of traumatic abuse and the story was a truthful account, but I think it’s been exaggerated and dramatised by gadd. He’s been doing these sketches on her for years, so he was probably not expecting her to come forward.

​@@l.jaynepritchard7294If you've seen the interview with Piers it's probably painfully obvious that she's not being truthful when the details of her story keep changing. I don't doubt that the show was likely embellished to be more entertaining but I think it probably was largely true overall.

He us protecting Darrian and no charges will be filed, it was 12 years ago... So he had free hands to do this to other people

You can say something is a true story when it's not.... Just look at Fargo (film & series). It's done to dramatize the situation and make it hit home harder

How dare you suggest that objective truth exists.

@@andybrice2711 Yes, I’ve certainly done it now 🙊😅

He's publicly said that the sentencing part of it wasn't true but they wanted there to be some closure in the show.

@@FahadAyaz So the statement "this is a true story" which Netflix stood by under oath isn't true then?

Because of all her tweets

​@@zangrat that the show referenced. Instead of, y'know, not referencing them.

​@@DD-co1znYes, because stalking, harassing and threatening fir years should just be allowed. Is it because she's a woman?

​@@zangratExactly. Bizarrely, the account is still up. Just reading her tweets is enough.

@@DD-co1zn well the show kinda has to reference it.... You know, for the stalking thing?

The rapist is still on thr loose

Some people want to make sure people that might have a mental illness are safeguard, regardless of whether they have been convicted of a crime.

She's clearly mentally ill, genius.

After watching the Piers Morgan interview I believe everything in the series.

@@osmanthusk.7384then you’ll be a idiot because even Richard said she never been to prison

@@vegetalover1009 well she should. So lock her up, what are you waiting for ? 😅

A better rhetorical question, why is the powerful male rapist so well protected while the mentally ill stalker was thrown to the wolves through easily Googlable details?

​@@thefelicitsTo be fair, the stalker is all over his public socials - that's how he was found. The man who physically abused him likely hasn't been as public but it's said that everyone in the industry knows who he's referring to.

​@@thefelicits so by your logic, is the male rapist not mentally ill also?

Gadd has openly said that in real life he didn't press charges. The real woman did however receive a conviction from her previous job.

Strangely, he must have two real lives because Netflix called the show “a true story”. He cannot have his cake and eat it.

@@brendanrobinson6860 I thought you'd watched the show. Martha is not quite all there. Are you really that surprised that people don't want to get involved? It's only because this woman was allowed to have a platform via Pierce Morgan and say enough lies and introduce doubt that anyone is even questioning it. But most aren't even doing that - and in this case there's a good enough reason for it. I amazed you don't see it.

@@brendanrobinson6860forget the show, there's more than enough REAL LIFE PROOF that what he's saying is true. As to the woman's convictions and her overall character.

@@bonhomiegal What convictions? To date nobody that has tried to fact check the show has been able to find a single conviction. In the show he says that she has been convinced of stalking her lawyer boss; had stalked a policeman, and had been sent to jail for stalking him. There is no public record of any of this. Be careful to believe the man with the "mic" He has had years to polish his version of events. All I am asking where are the real life witnesses to this drama. Why aren't they coming forward?

Coming soon to Amazon Prime.

I think the harsh answer is because there is no uprising for that issue because not many are aware of it....I wasn't. Probably because it's being hushed as some bigwig is making money from it. But everyone is aware of baby reindeer and so there is a huge inquest into it. It's beamed across the world so everyone is curious. The issues you mentioned are not. I think they should be, but unfortunately these media issues trump that. Sad but true.

Wow

This most be from Sophia because she's my mentor

I'd really like to get into crypto Investing. I have about $200k set aside, but I don't know anything about this market. Would you please provide the best approach to make money as well as a trustworthy resource for advice? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

That's really interesting! I've been thinking about investing in digital currencies lately but wondering how to do it, do anyone have any thought on that?

To obtain financial freedom, one must either be a business owner, an investor or both, generating passive income particullarly on a weekly or monthly basis. That's the key to living financially stable....

Laura Walker then Wray came forward and alleged she and her husband , back in 2002 had to get an injunction on her as she made her life hell for five years. Even accusing poor Laura of harming her disabled child. When she was investigated , the spiteful allegations made by Fiona ( Muir) now Harvey, were proved baseless.

There actually is record of this and her previous victim has also done an interview with a UK newspaper

@@96unicorns It doesn't mean anything if there wasn't a conviction, we know the risks of allowing a trial by media. Let the courts do their job.

@@nutcracker2916 doesn't mean there was a conviction, if it actually happened Laura she have sued and let the courts do their job. We're not going to allow a trial by media.

She’s never been convicted. Ever. It was made up for the show.

@@MrKeenunHow do you know? Where can I check this information? Thanks

@@jessl6239 considering it would be public record or dug up by now and he said he made it up, it’s on you to prove that she had. No records have been released and I think it’s pretty evident that she hasn’t.

I bet the papers back in the day when they plastered her face everywhere never got this.

@@mrcassette they are regulated and quite probably did get some scrutiny. Also, by deranged I assume you (the first poster) mean mentally unwell, so what next? If she had bad mental health then some treatment would have been part of any sentence, which could now be undone. She could sell her story a paper about her illness being exploited by Netflix for profit, the sudden interest in her could cause a relapse on her metal health or further deterioration. These are all questions that you hope would, and should, have been asked.

There isn't currently any evidence that Fiona Harvey was ever charged with anything or went to jail.

⁠@@grassygnoll3345mental illness doesn’t give people a pass at being awful. It’s an explanation, not an excuse. Victims have a right to share how they’ve been wronged, she is in charge of controlling her reaction after the story’s publication.

Or maybe she isn't?

But the conviction would be present in her criminal record. She has no convictions on record.

Thanks Columbo. We know how convictions work. Point is she's never had one and Gadd made it up.

How would he know she had a caution if it's not public record ? At any rate, if true that won't bode well for Netflix - they made her easily identifiable, based the character on her likeness, and claimed in the show that she was convicted (of stalking) and that there was ample public record of it in newspapers etc. even in this committee, the Netflix representative is saying she is a convicted stalker.

@@DD-co1zn victims I believe have a right to know, but it’s still one word against another as far as the wider public are concerned.

Why would anyone bother about a caution when he flat out said she was a convicted stalker when she evidently isn't? And not just once, twice. Said she was a twice convicted stalker. The real problem is that he knows he was just as bad as her (said so himself) so he never had an opportunity to go to the police because if it was true he wasn't so squeaky clean either but why was only one portrayed as a convicted stalker, why not him? Because it was his story and his show, someone had to come off better than other and he chose himself.

She's never been convicted.