Piers Morgan interview with real Baby Reindeer Martha

[Luxell934]

I am strangely looking forward to hearing her side….shame it’s with Piers Morgan though 🙈

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/tv/baby-reindeer-real-martha-piers-morgan-fiona-harvey-richard-gadd-112360-20240508

It does make you wonder, it’s all very convenient isn’t it. He wanted to be famous and voila here we are. How do we know any of it is true? They could be in it together or he’s paid her knowing she’s a bit mentally unstable.

I completely agree. Leaves a bad taste in your mouth, all of it.

Any of it. It's just the latest social media fad everyone has grabbed onto. A bit like the whole black / blue / white / gold dress a few years back.

You can read her tweets to him from 2014 on twitter/X whatever its called now. Unless they were doing a really long game scam, I think it's real.

feel really uncomfortable about Richard Gadd, he seems to be an arrogant twat who is happy to exploit this woman's MH difficulties for his own fame.

I disagree, I think he can exploit his experience however he wants tbh.

Sadly, her Facebook and Twitter posts going back many years show it is all real. Richard Gadd didn’t have to write this show, he should have thought of the possible consequences for her and saying ‘she’s mentally ill, don’t go after her’ is a bit rich - the only reason she’s been hauled out of obscurity in the first place is his show. He is a very wealthy man, he could have arranged private mental health support for her.

@GimmeGin

Did you clock on that you had met her irl before she was outed?

I hadn't watched it till friends (who'd also encountered her) started messaging to share that it was her.

Within 5 minutes of watching though it was obvious. She has changed a bit and she really is like that.

Hadn't changed. Sorry typo.

Richard Gadd is the victim here. He's allowed to tell his story. If she didn't want to be 'outed' or have the story told then she shouldn't have stalked him.

Richard Gadd didn’t have to write this show, he should have thought of the possible consequences for her and saying ‘she’s mentally ill, don’t go after her’ is a bit rich - the only reason she’s been hauled out of obscurity in the first place is his show. He is a very wealthy man, he could have arranged private mental health support for her.

why is it his responsibility to arrange support for her? That’s unreal!

I’m conflicted about all of it. But I’m fascinated as I know a man who is basically the male version of Martha. Jailed twice for very serious stalking. The obsessive and weird Facebook ramblings, all of it identical in presentation. I’d love to know what condition they’re suffering from. They are most certainly mentally unwell. I really don’t think a man would be given the level of sympathy Martha has though. But then a female victim wouldn’t have made a TV series identifying her stalker.

Can someone tell me her Facebook handle if allowed please x

I had a male stalker when I was 22, it lasted for over two years. The last thing I'd ever want to do is to draw his attention to me again or see him splashed all over social media, the papers, TV etc trying to justify or argue about his stalking of me. It would be like poking a bear if I went public about him. Richard Gadd must have known how all this would antagonise "Martha". I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to tell his story but she's obviously extremely disturbed and, as others have said, his portrayal of her hasn't stopped her from being easily identified. She was bound to retaliate.

There is a good The Rest of Entertainment episode where they discuss this and what a balls-up Netflix have made of ensuring that people are not harmed by it (both Martha and the various producers who have been incorrectly identified). Essentially a combination of no one anticipating what a hit the show would be and general sloppy legalling (which is an issue for the channel because once someone is identifiable, it's then potentially libellous unless every detail is correct, which it probably isn't, and indeed she is suing).

That's all leaving aside the ethical questions about making her identifiable, which RG clearly was concerned about (given that he has said that every effort was made not to make her identifiable). Turns out you need to take greater care for a hit Netflix show than for Edinburgh, who knew.

I would be interested to hear her side, it is only fair after all. I have seen her alleged facebook page and to some she may come across as unstable but maybe she is trying to justify herself against an onslaught she did not see coming? I mean if I was innocent I would try and get my voice heard but this is a show that has gone around the world with only one persons version of events.

When and where is it being shown?

Maybe because he stands to make significant sums of money from his deal with Netflix and the ramifications for her are potentially very damaging. He acknowledged that she is severely mentally ill and has t had the treatment she requires. It’s just having a duty of care to other human beings, isn’t it? This is real life, real people, made into entertainment without their consent.

I mean if I was innocent I would try and get my voice heard but this is a show that has gone around the world with only one persons version of events.

most stories centre one persons experience though so it’s not unusual. But I thought she was liked to other stalking?

yes he can. But hers?

I don't think I will watch this. Martha isn't a well woman. I hope Piers Morgan has good security around him and his family.

All speculation and nobody has disputed the fact she is a working solicitor and if she had gone to prison for anything would she be able to practice stil?

Maybe because he stands to make significant sums of money from his deal with Netflix and the ramifications for her are potentially very damaging. He acknowledged that she is severely mentally ill and has t had the treatment she requires. It’s just having a duty of care to other human beings, isn’t it? This is real life, real people, made into entertainment without their consent.

I don’t really understand this logic, no one can write about their experiences potentially make money out of it without a duty of care to their abusive boss, stalker, rapist, etc?

It’s just having a duty of care to other human beings, isn’t it?. Where was her duty of care though? Where do you draw the line with this?

This is real life, real people, made into entertainment without their consent. But society is responsible for this too, look at the Nicola Bully threads on here. I don’t think the women should have been outed or hounded but I believe he should be able to write about his experiences.

Arrange private mental health support for his own stalker??

That's mental.

yes he can. But hers?

How can he talk about his story without mentioning her?

I think it’s fine for her to have a platform to tell her side however I don’t think an interview with PM is anything other than car crash tv

I do hate the aspect of the women in this has been outed and put on display and the male rapist is still anonymous (with Richard Osman saying its well known in the industry who did it) and living his life. He should be outed as the criminal rapist he is, not being protected. Typical patriarchy.

I think it's more that she can be identified easily from the show and so what he's said may then be defamatory if it's not all true, no? She had no right to reply in the show itself, which is often an option in true crime shows where people are asked if they would like to be involved and refused (with allegations made about them that have to be able to stand up legally). Defamation is also connected to 'serious harm' and so I'm not a lawyer at all, but my guess is this is going to be at least plausible as a case (unlike if, say, Mavis from no30 says you never put your bins out on FB).