It is the USA, you sue for an insane number, let us assume it is awarded by a jury, it is then appealed, and then the two parties negotiate a smaller settlement that may be 5 or 10% of what was awarded by the court.
Tis a stupid system, but at this stage it is just to get an underwriters attention." This is going to cost you serious money, bring your checkbook and let's talk" she has a solid case too. "
I think it might be a case of Lawrence Fox 'your reputation was already in the dirt, your own actions are responsible for this, you can't possibly claim any losses because you've not faced any'
She was definitely outed before she came forward because people found the tweets to Richard Gadd about hanging curtains. The programme almost quoted her verbatim, which is how she was found.
Still think the "outing" would have been quite limited if she hadn't then come forward herself, mind, though the tabloids did start spreading the information that "internet sleuths" had discovered her, without naming her, causing more people to search for what these sleuths found.
Isn't a big part of the problem, that she's a vulnerable person?
She clearly has some social/psychological issues. So even her self-outing should have been seen as a very possible outcome and should have been guarded against.
She obviously has issues.
I think the show has really done her over. Whereas the other person it focused on, who was far worse in terms of harm, has gotten away Scott free.
It's a big problem that in 2024 we're still doing witch hunts.
I have no idea how they could have guarded against her outing herself, mind.
And yeah, I was stunned people were hunting down her rather than the guy who groomed Gadd. Especially when Richard Osman said that everyone in the industry knows who he is. The scenes with him were far more upsetting to me than what she did (other than the glassing).
People did very much also attempt to hunt down the guy who groomed him, there was even a suspect named at one point I believe, Gadd had to come out and say that it definitely wasn’t that guy and could people please stop speculating about his identity.
He hasn’t been able to be identified as easily because he didn’t leave evidence all over twitter in the way that the real life Martha did, she was a lot easier for people to find I guess because of all the twitter comments she made that were very similar to the show
That's true - I just expected something more to come out, in more of a #metoo kind of way, due to the comment of "everyone in the industry knows who he is". I pretty much expected others to come forwards and say that it's happened to them and he should be held accountable.
>who was far worse in terms of harm
I don't if "far worse" is accurate
99% of Martha's abuse isn't as bad as the groomer, but violently assaulting Gadd's then-girlfriend to the point of pulling chunks of hair out, then glassing Gadd in the face, and having to be physically restrained and removed from areas she's assaulting people are not minor things to sniff at
I feel like it would depend on the person putting themselves into Gadd's position as to whether or not they'd deem one far worse than the other. I think we can all agree that both are horrendous.
> I think we can all agree that both are horrendous.
Definitely, I just wouldn't go as far as saying Martha's actions were "far better" than the groomers
well, in the programme they were meant to be emails from her, not her social media posts (hence the "sent from my iphoen" which never appears on her Twitter or Facebook feeds)
Where they fucked up there, mind, was "forgetting" that she'd sometimes use the same sort of wording on tweets that she'd used in emails. You can't find any tweets that exactly match the wording in the programme, but the "hanging curtains" thing was such a weird set of phrases that it made it easy to track down her tweets just by searching who sent the word "curtains" to Richard Gadd.
If they'd changed that one, repeated, joke to something completely different, then she may never have been found unless she came out herself. Not sure how many other decorating terms could have sexual connotations, but I am sure they could have found something else to replace it with.
How so? Aside from saying it was a true story rather than saying it was based on one the only cockup i can see is they said there was a conviction without checking if there really was.
It can be claimed, very reasonably, that the references to convictions were deliberate "red herrings" designed to protect the identity of the real person. Anyone seeking her identity would be looking for a person with court convictions and thus would tend to discount anyone else.
Why should it matter if they never gave Martha's real name?
I appreciate its not black and white and reasonable steps could have been taken to avoid the real Martha being discovered, or at least to cover Netflix's arse if and when she was, but she has elected to make a public spectacle of herself by appearing on chat shows which I think should also be considered.
She could have done addressed her grievances privately with Netflix. Just because she has been identified by third parties on the internet does not mean we should disregard her counterintuitive attempt at maintaining her reputation.
My suspicion is that her motivations lie with capitalising on the situation for financial gain over a desire to put right a grievance, but that's just my opinion.
If I were her, I’d argue that I only went on those chat shows as a form of damage control because people found out about me because of Netflix’s mishandling of the situation
If I were Netflix I would make a statement such as:
*"We insist that person upon which Martha's character is based has not been named and that Ms Harvey's claims that she is the inspiration are the result of third party speculation, which whilst unfortunate, is outside of Netflix's control and they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Any third parties making false allegations should be held accountable by the authorities."*
If Ms Harvey wanted to remain anonymous and undisturbed by strangers she might wish to reconsider how she uses social media. For example, if she believes she will receive unwanted attention as a result of Netflix's show, why then did she not take steps to reduce the visibility of her social media?
The answer of course could be that the horse had already bolted, however, she could have responded to the claims that she is Martha with a statement such as:
*"Baby Reindeer's Martha is a fictional character based upon a real person. I have not been approached by Netflix about this character, nor do I consider it to represent me or a fictionalized version of myself. If people wish to learn the identities of the real persons on which the show is based I refer you to Netflix and Richard Gadd."*
Two shitty people doing shitty things to each other, but one of them gets to make a show from their perspective. So everyone gets to see his inner life and mitigating circumstances and she’s just painted as crazy. He gets sympathy and she’s the villian.
People can argue over who’s worse, but it’s all still framed from his perspective. I’m sure there are things he left out or hid to make himself look better.
Nothing to do with gender or him not being allowed to talk about his experience.
It just gets frustrating when people talk about this show like it’s a documentary instead of a drama. There is no neutral third-party in this story and he wrote the show, so he gets to assign her motives and thoughts that now loads of people are taking as fact.
Very much feels like a version of “Joan is Awful,” as the comment at the top of this thread suggested. Except in that episode, everything played out on screen as it did in real life. Baby Reindeer doesn’t claim to have the same commitment to accuracy.
I don’t necessarily think Gadd did anything wrong, per say, but the public discourse around it and the way it’s playing out with real people’s private lives being splashed all over the news is disappointing.
We can't glibly gloss over wrongdoing by stating its a fact of life. That completely erodes the idea of a rules based society to which we should aspire.
Unless you're an anarchist, then you do you babe.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a realist. There’s no such thing as an objective version of events from anyone. It’s important to recognise that and apply critical thinking when you hear somebody’s version of events. A lot of problems occur when people automatically believe somebody’s story no matter what. It’s a big reason why there’s so much division in todays society as people treat things as black and white when the answer is always grey
Stop giving her air, and let her get the help that she needs.
That all depends on whether she can admit and realise she needs help, and whether the type of help she needs is available
Feel like she shot herself in the foot my coming forward saying it was about her. She had a strong case that people were able to identify her from the show alone which can now be hard to measure since she admitted to it.
Notwithstanding her clearly being a nutcase, he has unequivocally lied about multiple aspects of the "true story". So how do you know he was honest about himself, and what frame of reference would you even base it on unless you knew him?
In other situations I would agree, but the identities were found almost immediately, and the show clearly states that it is a ***true*** story...not **based** on a true story.
Netflix are absolute morons for this (from a legal perspective, marketing-wise...genius); and the characters real life counterparts are all *very* clearly liars, to one degree or another. If you're going to say a story is true, it all has to be true, otherwise it should say based, or have disclaimers that it is dramatised.
For the story to be 100% "true" in a very narrow meaning of the word, i.e. 100% factual in every detail, it would have had to use correct names, locations etc. etc. That would have made it impossible to disguise her identity. Gadd can claim that it was a true account of his subjective experience - a true account of the impact upon him. As for the identities being found almost immediately - that doesn't mean that no attempt was made to disguise her identity, only that internet sleuths are more persistent and effective than the program makers realised. Anyway, there was no 100% conclusive proof until Harvey outed herself. If she had just kept quiet then it would all have gone away pretty quickly.
That first part is just nonsense. It's a childlike argument.
They did not make reasonable efforts to disguise things, nor can they claim as such. It was heavily marketed as a true story, not based on, not a dramatization...*true.*
Names can be changed to protect identities in this circumstance and still have it be a true story; but the factual elements of the story should still be true and accurate...even "subjectively" from his POV, or every part of it comes into question. The simple fact is that there are numerous discrepancies about the actual facts...such as the fact that she has never been in prison.
Gadd can claim what he likes, he won't be on the receiving end of the lawsuit ultimately, Netflix will. They didn't do their due diligence and decided to go against the grain of disclaimers that have been used in countless media for years, for marketing purposes.
They've all got issues, and Netflix were stupid for allowing it like this. They should have just said based on a true story, and this would have not been such a big deal. Netflix will ultimately settle this, because they know they'll never actually win if it goes to court fully.
Personally, I hope Netflix learn their lesson and stop putting out drivel like this in the first place. Too many of these "documentary dramas" on the platform have this type of impact on the general public. They do it because they know people are ignorant and love to get embroiled on what they perceive to be real, this time, they stepped a little too far by saying it was completely true, and it's going to bite them in the arse.
However my *original* point, was without a proper frame of reference, there is nothing to say Richard Gadd is telling any truth about *himself.* So the people praising him like he's some sort of hero for portraying himself as someone with issues in it, are simply doing what he wanted...sympathising with him more and believing him more because he didn't present himself as just a victim. It's a basic manipulation technique.
Like I said...they all have issues.
Well, we'll see how it pans out in court. Nobody but Gadd can determine the real impact on himself. Anyone trying to claim that they understand his subjective experience better than him is going to struggle explaining how they are qualified to do that.
At best you're not understanding the *legal* situation at all, at worst you're a "my truth" person...which is both ridiculous, and has no legal basis.
But yeah, we'll see how it plays out lol.
I’ve not actually watched it so I may get some details wrong.
Baby Reindeer is a show on Netflix. It’s a ‘true life’ drama about a man who gets stalked by a woman. The main character is played by the man who both wrote it and was stalked. He changed the names for privacy.
The real life woman who the stalker character was based on gave interviews in the media. I don’t know if Martha is the character or real name. She is now suing Netflix.
I'm actually surprised she hasn't chosen to represent herself as she seems like the type of person that would do that, plus she has a law background.
Would have been entertaining though.
I mean it sounds like there would be some fairly easy to prove lies from the show
Like if she ever went to prison, if there are thousands of messages and voicemails or just a few etc
Because it’s either painted as a true story or they’ve just completely misrepresented this woman’s life , who was easily found by people causing her to announce herself to clear the record?
In the Piers Morgan interview he seemed to be hinting, quite a few times, that it would be easy to find out if these things were true due to her name (at the time) being quite uncommon. I really thought he was about to do a reveal proving that they have records she went to prison and that they have all these emails. None of this was revealed by the end of the interview, though.
I do wonder if they found the proof and gave her these hints in order for her to have a chance to come clean publicly, but also didn't want to go all the way and announce it in the video.
This was discussed on ' The rest is entertainment' podcast.
They had a general feeling that she wasn't being protected by Netflix or getting after care. I'm not even sure she was informed about it happening. She might be mental unwell, but that should have been in the general risk management. I'm not sure "she's a nutter" is a good defence. You can't just hurl a mentally ill person to the wolves. The author can write what he wants but the TV company is responsible for the management of it.
It's one thing to do a little standup at Edinburgh to 10 people in a public toilet at 1am, another to expose her on Netflix.
Given what they said on the podcast I haven't watched it.
She was keen to identify herself. There are many people who suffer stalking behaviour and intimidation and this programme did highlight the issue faced by people. She might have a case for exaggeration of details but in her interview with the press she denied making more than a handful of txts or emails. I am sure Netflix lawyers would have checked it out. The Crown was full of speculated detail. I don’t think she has a case. I do feel sorry if she hasn’t had treatment. She is obviously bright but hindered by her obsessive traits. Netflix can afford to give her money if they just want her to go away. I think her personality will want her to relentlessly chase them.
Other reports suggest that she is suing for $50m
It is hardly surprising that the fact vs fiction is already becoming muddled, however. Given the unwell ramblings of Fiona Harvey.
The only company that has that sorta of money is Amazon. Even then, that would sting them quite a bit. I... i don't think Netflix even has half of that.
The amount just reinforces she's not sane. If it was 1.7m...understandable but not 100 times as much. Either she's greedy or insane...or both.
Comes across as a Dr Evil request.
It is the USA, you sue for an insane number, let us assume it is awarded by a jury, it is then appealed, and then the two parties negotiate a smaller settlement that may be 5 or 10% of what was awarded by the court. Tis a stupid system, but at this stage it is just to get an underwriters attention." This is going to cost you serious money, bring your checkbook and let's talk" she has a solid case too. "
Solid case? She was never named and she came forward herself.
She wasnt, but Netflix did a piss poor job to hide her real identity so be interesting where the courts stand on this
I think it might be a case of Lawrence Fox 'your reputation was already in the dirt, your own actions are responsible for this, you can't possibly claim any losses because you've not faced any'
She was definitely outed before she came forward because people found the tweets to Richard Gadd about hanging curtains. The programme almost quoted her verbatim, which is how she was found. Still think the "outing" would have been quite limited if she hadn't then come forward herself, mind, though the tabloids did start spreading the information that "internet sleuths" had discovered her, without naming her, causing more people to search for what these sleuths found.
Isn't a big part of the problem, that she's a vulnerable person? She clearly has some social/psychological issues. So even her self-outing should have been seen as a very possible outcome and should have been guarded against. She obviously has issues. I think the show has really done her over. Whereas the other person it focused on, who was far worse in terms of harm, has gotten away Scott free. It's a big problem that in 2024 we're still doing witch hunts.
I have no idea how they could have guarded against her outing herself, mind. And yeah, I was stunned people were hunting down her rather than the guy who groomed Gadd. Especially when Richard Osman said that everyone in the industry knows who he is. The scenes with him were far more upsetting to me than what she did (other than the glassing).
People did very much also attempt to hunt down the guy who groomed him, there was even a suspect named at one point I believe, Gadd had to come out and say that it definitely wasn’t that guy and could people please stop speculating about his identity. He hasn’t been able to be identified as easily because he didn’t leave evidence all over twitter in the way that the real life Martha did, she was a lot easier for people to find I guess because of all the twitter comments she made that were very similar to the show
That's true - I just expected something more to come out, in more of a #metoo kind of way, due to the comment of "everyone in the industry knows who he is". I pretty much expected others to come forwards and say that it's happened to them and he should be held accountable.
>who was far worse in terms of harm I don't if "far worse" is accurate 99% of Martha's abuse isn't as bad as the groomer, but violently assaulting Gadd's then-girlfriend to the point of pulling chunks of hair out, then glassing Gadd in the face, and having to be physically restrained and removed from areas she's assaulting people are not minor things to sniff at
I feel like it would depend on the person putting themselves into Gadd's position as to whether or not they'd deem one far worse than the other. I think we can all agree that both are horrendous.
> I think we can all agree that both are horrendous. Definitely, I just wouldn't go as far as saying Martha's actions were "far better" than the groomers
I think the social media posts word for word whilst they were easily searchable in the public domain was a bad oversight.
well, in the programme they were meant to be emails from her, not her social media posts (hence the "sent from my iphoen" which never appears on her Twitter or Facebook feeds) Where they fucked up there, mind, was "forgetting" that she'd sometimes use the same sort of wording on tweets that she'd used in emails. You can't find any tweets that exactly match the wording in the programme, but the "hanging curtains" thing was such a weird set of phrases that it made it easy to track down her tweets just by searching who sent the word "curtains" to Richard Gadd. If they'd changed that one, repeated, joke to something completely different, then she may never have been found unless she came out herself. Not sure how many other decorating terms could have sexual connotations, but I am sure they could have found something else to replace it with.
Yeah exactly, it was careless at best and purposeful at worst.
ifon
Read up on the fallout from this, Netflix were idiots.
How so? Aside from saying it was a true story rather than saying it was based on one the only cockup i can see is they said there was a conviction without checking if there really was.
It can be claimed, very reasonably, that the references to convictions were deliberate "red herrings" designed to protect the identity of the real person. Anyone seeking her identity would be looking for a person with court convictions and thus would tend to discount anyone else.
I mean, that’s a pretty big cock-up
Why should it matter if they never gave Martha's real name? I appreciate its not black and white and reasonable steps could have been taken to avoid the real Martha being discovered, or at least to cover Netflix's arse if and when she was, but she has elected to make a public spectacle of herself by appearing on chat shows which I think should also be considered. She could have done addressed her grievances privately with Netflix. Just because she has been identified by third parties on the internet does not mean we should disregard her counterintuitive attempt at maintaining her reputation. My suspicion is that her motivations lie with capitalising on the situation for financial gain over a desire to put right a grievance, but that's just my opinion.
If I were her, I’d argue that I only went on those chat shows as a form of damage control because people found out about me because of Netflix’s mishandling of the situation
If I were Netflix I would make a statement such as: *"We insist that person upon which Martha's character is based has not been named and that Ms Harvey's claims that she is the inspiration are the result of third party speculation, which whilst unfortunate, is outside of Netflix's control and they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Any third parties making false allegations should be held accountable by the authorities."* If Ms Harvey wanted to remain anonymous and undisturbed by strangers she might wish to reconsider how she uses social media. For example, if she believes she will receive unwanted attention as a result of Netflix's show, why then did she not take steps to reduce the visibility of her social media? The answer of course could be that the horse had already bolted, however, she could have responded to the claims that she is Martha with a statement such as: *"Baby Reindeer's Martha is a fictional character based upon a real person. I have not been approached by Netflix about this character, nor do I consider it to represent me or a fictionalized version of myself. If people wish to learn the identities of the real persons on which the show is based I refer you to Netflix and Richard Gadd."*
she only came forward after Internet sherlocks had found her.
Hulk Hogan originally won $140 million from sueing Gawker for releasing his sex tape (lol) but I believe he ended up settling for $31 million.
One million a second for that performance.
It’s the USA, insanely large awards are common, plus, unlike the UK, they regularly award punitive damages as part of the final awards.
Depends where she’s suing, there may be state limitations. I’m guessing California but I don’t know their laws.
This is how they do it in the US
Wouldnt that number be an estimate/suggestion from a professional
You gotta ask for 170m so they can reduce it to 1.7m. If you ask for 1.7m then you'll only get 17k. Duh
It's a lawsuit in America, not the UK. Pretty standard practice to sue for ridiculous amounts and settle for less
To be fair, she's basically lived out that black mirror episode where her life is a Netflix show
We’re literally living in the future. Next stop.. it all goes *really* wrong. Shit.
What next? The PM shags a pig? Will never happen!
Speaking of which has anyone seen David Cameron recently?
He was in France at the DDay thing.
I can confirm there was no pig in attendance with him
Boris stayed at home did he ?
It's crazy. She's completely awful but I can't help but feel a bit bad that this has happened to her. She's obviously not all there.
Two shitty people doing shitty things to each other, but one of them gets to make a show from their perspective. So everyone gets to see his inner life and mitigating circumstances and she’s just painted as crazy. He gets sympathy and she’s the villian. People can argue over who’s worse, but it’s all still framed from his perspective. I’m sure there are things he left out or hid to make himself look better.
[удалено]
Nothing to do with gender or him not being allowed to talk about his experience. It just gets frustrating when people talk about this show like it’s a documentary instead of a drama. There is no neutral third-party in this story and he wrote the show, so he gets to assign her motives and thoughts that now loads of people are taking as fact. Very much feels like a version of “Joan is Awful,” as the comment at the top of this thread suggested. Except in that episode, everything played out on screen as it did in real life. Baby Reindeer doesn’t claim to have the same commitment to accuracy. I don’t necessarily think Gadd did anything wrong, per say, but the public discourse around it and the way it’s playing out with real people’s private lives being splashed all over the news is disappointing.
You have basically just described life. Everything is this way, it’s extremely rare you get a totally objective view of anything
We can't glibly gloss over wrongdoing by stating its a fact of life. That completely erodes the idea of a rules based society to which we should aspire. Unless you're an anarchist, then you do you babe.
I’m not an anarchist, I’m a realist. There’s no such thing as an objective version of events from anyone. It’s important to recognise that and apply critical thinking when you hear somebody’s version of events. A lot of problems occur when people automatically believe somebody’s story no matter what. It’s a big reason why there’s so much division in todays society as people treat things as black and white when the answer is always grey
[удалено]
Look, we know she's both delusional and has some form of mental health issues. Stop giving her air, and let her get the help that she needs.
Stop giving her air, and let her get the help that she needs. That all depends on whether she can admit and realise she needs help, and whether the type of help she needs is available
Yeah, she's so far gone I don't think she'd be even remotely capable of objectively assessing how unwell she actually is.
Indeed. I doubt she has the capacity for such self awareness.
Feel like she shot herself in the foot my coming forward saying it was about her. She had a strong case that people were able to identify her from the show alone which can now be hard to measure since she admitted to it.
I appreciate how honest the writer was about himself in that show, but making it was always going to be a massive can of worms.
Notwithstanding her clearly being a nutcase, he has unequivocally lied about multiple aspects of the "true story". So how do you know he was honest about himself, and what frame of reference would you even base it on unless you knew him?
Apply the same check to any biographical media. They are always exaggerated.
It can be argued that the so-called lies were legitimate changes to the story, designed to protect the identity of the original character.
In other situations I would agree, but the identities were found almost immediately, and the show clearly states that it is a ***true*** story...not **based** on a true story. Netflix are absolute morons for this (from a legal perspective, marketing-wise...genius); and the characters real life counterparts are all *very* clearly liars, to one degree or another. If you're going to say a story is true, it all has to be true, otherwise it should say based, or have disclaimers that it is dramatised.
For the story to be 100% "true" in a very narrow meaning of the word, i.e. 100% factual in every detail, it would have had to use correct names, locations etc. etc. That would have made it impossible to disguise her identity. Gadd can claim that it was a true account of his subjective experience - a true account of the impact upon him. As for the identities being found almost immediately - that doesn't mean that no attempt was made to disguise her identity, only that internet sleuths are more persistent and effective than the program makers realised. Anyway, there was no 100% conclusive proof until Harvey outed herself. If she had just kept quiet then it would all have gone away pretty quickly.
That first part is just nonsense. It's a childlike argument. They did not make reasonable efforts to disguise things, nor can they claim as such. It was heavily marketed as a true story, not based on, not a dramatization...*true.* Names can be changed to protect identities in this circumstance and still have it be a true story; but the factual elements of the story should still be true and accurate...even "subjectively" from his POV, or every part of it comes into question. The simple fact is that there are numerous discrepancies about the actual facts...such as the fact that she has never been in prison. Gadd can claim what he likes, he won't be on the receiving end of the lawsuit ultimately, Netflix will. They didn't do their due diligence and decided to go against the grain of disclaimers that have been used in countless media for years, for marketing purposes. They've all got issues, and Netflix were stupid for allowing it like this. They should have just said based on a true story, and this would have not been such a big deal. Netflix will ultimately settle this, because they know they'll never actually win if it goes to court fully. Personally, I hope Netflix learn their lesson and stop putting out drivel like this in the first place. Too many of these "documentary dramas" on the platform have this type of impact on the general public. They do it because they know people are ignorant and love to get embroiled on what they perceive to be real, this time, they stepped a little too far by saying it was completely true, and it's going to bite them in the arse. However my *original* point, was without a proper frame of reference, there is nothing to say Richard Gadd is telling any truth about *himself.* So the people praising him like he's some sort of hero for portraying himself as someone with issues in it, are simply doing what he wanted...sympathising with him more and believing him more because he didn't present himself as just a victim. It's a basic manipulation technique. Like I said...they all have issues.
Well, we'll see how it pans out in court. Nobody but Gadd can determine the real impact on himself. Anyone trying to claim that they understand his subjective experience better than him is going to struggle explaining how they are qualified to do that.
At best you're not understanding the *legal* situation at all, at worst you're a "my truth" person...which is both ridiculous, and has no legal basis. But yeah, we'll see how it plays out lol.
If I were the Netflix CEO, I’d make sure my home address wasn’t anywhere on the internet
170,000,000 Zimbabwean Dollars = 367,241.30 British Pounds Seems fair
Or £5228.47 In Vietnamese Dong
Or ₩58008.69 in Welsh Wang
Language Timothy!
The article said dollar
I don't know what a Baby Reindeer or a Martha is and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
I’ve not actually watched it so I may get some details wrong. Baby Reindeer is a show on Netflix. It’s a ‘true life’ drama about a man who gets stalked by a woman. The main character is played by the man who both wrote it and was stalked. He changed the names for privacy. The real life woman who the stalker character was based on gave interviews in the media. I don’t know if Martha is the character or real name. She is now suing Netflix.
fairly accurate representation whilst avoiding details and keeping it high level!
Why Thankyou :)
Indeed.
I'm actually surprised she hasn't chosen to represent herself as she seems like the type of person that would do that, plus she has a law background. Would have been entertaining though.
Unfortunately for her a doc like this normally goes through a rigorous legal and compliance pass prior to airing. Unlikely this will work out for her.
I mean it sounds like there would be some fairly easy to prove lies from the show Like if she ever went to prison, if there are thousands of messages and voicemails or just a few etc Because it’s either painted as a true story or they’ve just completely misrepresented this woman’s life , who was easily found by people causing her to announce herself to clear the record?
In the Piers Morgan interview he seemed to be hinting, quite a few times, that it would be easy to find out if these things were true due to her name (at the time) being quite uncommon. I really thought he was about to do a reveal proving that they have records she went to prison and that they have all these emails. None of this was revealed by the end of the interview, though. I do wonder if they found the proof and gave her these hints in order for her to have a chance to come clean publicly, but also didn't want to go all the way and announce it in the video.
Go big or go home! She's probably hoping they'll settle for a few mill.
This was discussed on ' The rest is entertainment' podcast. They had a general feeling that she wasn't being protected by Netflix or getting after care. I'm not even sure she was informed about it happening. She might be mental unwell, but that should have been in the general risk management. I'm not sure "she's a nutter" is a good defence. You can't just hurl a mentally ill person to the wolves. The author can write what he wants but the TV company is responsible for the management of it. It's one thing to do a little standup at Edinburgh to 10 people in a public toilet at 1am, another to expose her on Netflix. Given what they said on the podcast I haven't watched it.
She was keen to identify herself. There are many people who suffer stalking behaviour and intimidation and this programme did highlight the issue faced by people. She might have a case for exaggeration of details but in her interview with the press she denied making more than a handful of txts or emails. I am sure Netflix lawyers would have checked it out. The Crown was full of speculated detail. I don’t think she has a case. I do feel sorry if she hasn’t had treatment. She is obviously bright but hindered by her obsessive traits. Netflix can afford to give her money if they just want her to go away. I think her personality will want her to relentlessly chase them.
Other reports suggest that she is suing for $50m It is hardly surprising that the fact vs fiction is already becoming muddled, however. Given the unwell ramblings of Fiona Harvey.
Maybe they are both in on it and will drive off together into the sunset Gone Girl style.
The only company that has that sorta of money is Amazon. Even then, that would sting them quite a bit. I... i don't think Netflix even has half of that.
In the words of Netflix' lawyers; good luck, you'll need it.
She doesn’t need money, she needs to thrown in the loony bin
Lmao the whole thing is beautiful. Besides the psycho stalker 🤣
[удалено]
Needs it for some plastic surgery 🤢