Can Baby Reindeer sue Netflix? Fictional portrayals and Defamation.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- And a very tall chimney.
(Is the lass Baby Reindeer? I haven't seen it.)
That livestream: • Legal Friday 05-17-2024
#artoflaw baby reindeer #deppvheard #defamation
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
th-cam.com/users/blackbeltbarriste...
![ความรักของยักษ์เขียว (ทศกัณฐ์) - เดี่ยว ไออุ่น [OFFICIAL MUSICVIDEO 4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yCCy-QVHqK8/mqdefault.jpg)
She was identified before she "outed herself". There were articles about her and she was receiving hate on social media. That's why she came out in the first place.
I would definitely be interested in more videos on this.
Me as well. It's fascinating on a lot of levels.
Where I live (which is not the UK) the second she identified herself the possibility to win a defamation lawsuit in court went out the window.
I get that. She didn't out herself until she'd been named by the people who decided to play detective and in some cases, threatened by them. And, for the UK, they are negligent as they failed to provide anonymity. Gadd said the stalker wouldn't recognise herself - but half the world did within 5 minutes
In the US and Australia there have been very high profile cases in the past few years where the person claiming defamation wasn't named and "outed themselves".
I hate it when they shrink the credits at the end of a show, especially when I see a face but can't remember the name.
It's also insulting to all the 'craft' people who worked on the show whose only recognition is in the credits. Who recognises the name "Ken Morse" except for seeing a credit for "Rostrum Camera" on innumerable British TV programmes?
@@ianmason. Yes. At least the award shows like the BAFTAs show their appreciation in recognition of the fact that without them there would be no TV/films!
I'm always telling my boyfriend "these people worked hard on this, I want to know who they were!" He thinks I'm silly but I will click to watch the credits whenever I have the remote. Still haven't found a setting that changes it by default when ur watching
It would add to the defamation that a Netflix executive was in parliament or something and talked about this being a 'convicted stalker.'
You are correct. They stated under oath that it is a true story and she was convicted. I think they'll need to provide evidence when they are recalled
@@karenm8239 They can't provide any evidence she was convicted as it didn't happen. Otherwise, they would've done so immediately that there was a suggestion that it was untrue. I'm not saying Fiona isn't a wrong'un though.
@@ConstantiaVerted Not so. Her records have not been made public.
@@ConstantiaVerted I agree with you. It's just a waiting game until they're back at parliament at fail to prove things. Although, Gadd has said that this didn't happen and it was fictionalised. They've got a lot of contradictions to cover
@@karenm8239 There's no reason for them to be up in parliament- I don't know why they were there in the first place- maybe in a discussion about stalkers? :/ God willing, the next thing they will be up in is a court. I know what Fiona's like but I do think she should have a go.
And a jolly Good Morning to you. I enjoyed this video a lot. Clear explanation and 'straight line' talk through of the process and considerations along the way. Super! And magnificent scenery again. Thank you. 😊.
I would have loved to see the steam engine in place. I bet it would have been magnificent.
No doubt it would have been a wonderful sight to see! I used to work for an author who wrote prolifically about Steam trains and he really tried to get me into them, but I just enjoyed the beauty of them…I probably disappointed him! 😂
Apparently she outed herself, she didn’t need to do that. She also accused Richard Gadd in her Piers Morgan interview of stalking her which is defamatory towards him, isn’t it? She has no evidence to back this claim.
They also said that he was “psychotic”, a “forger” and that he had been recording her without her knowledge or consent (would that be entrapment or some sort of thing? I don’t think I’ve worded that correctly, so I apologise if I have). Surely that might’ve also been defamatory as well?
Holy hell - she's now done more defaming than he might have! Gadd hasn't said Fiona Harvey was Martha. He's not named her. On television, to Piers Morgan, Harvey named Gadd as several things! I've just realised - she's actually put herself in more hot water than she has to Gadd or Netflix!
He never named her. He never said, "Fiona Harvey". Oh my God - she's screwed herself. Gadd with Netflix selected, and possibly paid for, legal representation - Fiona Harvey with her defense counsel of ???? Somebody she knew at Uni?
I kind of hope she's just malignant and not because of a mental illness or disorder - because she has played herself and she may be about to get eviscerated in court.
@@batintheattic7293 Apparently she’s got a barrister called Daws, and he’s a KC, and he appeared on Piers Morgan’s show the other day (after the interview one) with a panel of people. Plus I don’t know if you’ve already seen that in the papers last night, but one of the red tops has said that she has been stalking Keir Starmer!! 😳😳
This. She talked a lot of crap about Gadd. If she sues him, he countersues. And since he DID have a positive public image and she was totally obscure, ge has more of a case.
They used tweets that were from her and still on his/her social media and the actor looks and talks just like her. They made no effort to protect her identity
Compliance doesn't trouble Netflix.
I'm glad Fred Dibnah didn't get near that one. It would probably have upset him to destroy it.
Equally likely, he would just have rebuilt it.
what if it goes out to milions? then it does hinder the persons ability to be employed
I don't think she has a job. If you saw how much she posts, it would be a feat of time management to get any real work done.
I follow Eric Hunley and was pleasantly surprised when YOU turned up. I enjoyed the show. I hope they invite you back.
I really love the different settings he uses for the videos. COOL!!!
Yes please , more on this case…..
I don’t think she cares. She just sees the £ signs.
Please keep us posted - this is so interesting. 🙏😊
Thank you so much!
That would be perfect for any stalker. On and on. That's why this programme is so different because most people know not to mention the stalker because they are so nasty and have nothing better to do.
I also thought the reindeer was a cute animal, or some cartoon!
Al, as usual, we want more! I’ve not watched it yet myself… may have to sit down and do that!
How relevant is it that netflix didn't say "based on", rather than "a true story" would they be completely free and clear for any potential case if they had included it?
That’s what I would like to know 🤔
They did say it -you’ve just heard the man say they did
As someone who works in fiction, I didn't even see the opening text as a declaration of any events being real. It wasn't until the actual disclaimer saying that it was based on a true story with some of the names and events being changed, that I realised it was actually based on true events. Saying "this is a true story" in text like that is basically the same as having a character turn to camera and say, "real story, bro." It was listed as a drama, so anything within that framework is considered fictional.
The 'true story' bit is typed on a computer and the whole series is about 'donny' typing his story and doing a timeline of events for the police. So maybe it's not Netflix declaring it's all true?
@@rachelletten2342 not sure if that'd stand up in court - a reasonable person wouldn't be reading into the media at that level, just the surface one? which is "this is true"
Fair comment is no defamation
I really enjoy your videos. You are a great teacher. More on this please!
I would love for you to go into more detail, defamation cases are always fascinating to me!
I love that you are easily distracted by dogs - I suffer from the same condition! Having no Netflix, I have no opinion on that show but AM interested in the legal ramifications. Updates would be received gratefully.
Thanks. Very interesting
It was a weird show from Netflix
It was!
I don't watch much TV either, if at all. I've heard about this story and would be interested to follow your commentary if you decide to do it. Thanks as always, Al.
Al the pal
What about "The Crown"?
Who is funding her case?
She’s basically emotionally empty to me. Her face has no character. Her eyes are empty
My previous comment was written while watching. Delighted that you have the same view pretty much. (My character flaw is that I bloody love being right 😬😂)
In the show, baby reindeer is the name she gives to her victim Richard Gadd. It’s a reference to a much cherished childhood toy.
Loving your videos, Mr R! No offence intended, but with the beanie hat, accent and infectious enthusiasm, i can't help expecting you to say "Ain't law BRILLIANT!" (This may be lost on you if you've never seen The Fast Show due to lack of TV).
On a more relevant note, is the common statement at the start of a programme "This is based on a true story. Some characters and events may have been changed for dramatic purposes" any sort of defence against an allegation of defamation? We aren't *told* which events have been changed, so we might believe that the portrayal of the person in this case HADN'T been changed.
Its been suggested that I should just do some livestreams walking around. So I could really go for that!
"Isn't judicial review brilliant....!"
I'd love to know your thoughts on the Trudy Warner case, the solicitor general's decision to prosecute in the first place and to appeal his case being thrown out. Thanks.
Yes please…keep you finger on the pulse on this one …..I’m really interested in this case..have watched The series and Piers interview…..why would he do the interview with her if he didn’t think, if she’s telling the truth, she may have a case to help! ….I don’t think he wd have done the interview just to expose her…mock her and make a lot of money.
I‘d be really interested if you follow up on this, Al. Precisely because I can see potential faults on both sides. I don‘t think it will meet the criteria of ‘this is a true story‘ - and ironically Richard Gadd claimed the stalker figure had been heavily disguised, which as you point out was laughably untrue. Her name was floating round internet discussions of the show within days, so you could argue she felt forced to out herself. Yet I also fear she would come across as an unreliable witness on the stand - in the Morgan interview she initially said ‘I didn’t send him anything’, then changed that minutes later to ‘x tweets, y texts, and a letter’. I’d have thought some sort of mediation process would be better than a full-blown (public) trial here.
Her nephew put on Facebook she was in for 4 1/2mth
She also stated it wasn’t her in the program
The “nephew” admitted he was not her nephew (just some random guy) who lied about her going to prison as a “joke”.
There is currently no evidence in the public domain that Fiona Harvey has ever been convicted of any crimes, let alone been sent to prison.
whats inherent juristiction? where does it come from? Whats its purpose?
I'd be more interested in the Bridgen/Hancock case. I have no idea who or what Baby Reindeer is. I must be so out of touch.
Perception is seen as truth.
If the other people who claim to have had dealings with this particular person have also come forward to give interviews in papers, then would they be the only ones who might have/would have guessed that this show was referring specifically to the person who has claimed that they were indeed the one and the same person?
But also if the person who claims that they are the antagonist and then gave a few interviews in the media, then could they have potentially “outed” themselves? And by coming forward like that, those who didn’t have any idea who they were (and didn’t actually care to) would have severely limited the number of people who now know about this person? And if the writer/actor might have actually been drawing on other experiences he might have had, and then amalgamated them all together into one story, would that make any difference to any potential case?
She is a compulsive liar so how can she be believed.
She's clearly mentally ill. Not surprised Piers Morgan has inserted himself in such a sorry mess.
How do you know? Do you know her?
Defamation damages in the Uk are about proven financial harm. And actual damage to reputation. And lack of truth.
It‘s really hard to see how someone who sent tens of thousands of emails to one person isn’t a stalker. If she sent those emails that is clearly stalking/harassment (which Gadd says he has)then it becomes harder to see how she’s been defamed.
But you are discounting the alleged death threats she received...would this not be an issue?
In the interview she not only outed herself as the real Martha, she also said she couldn't possibly be Martha. Which is it?
Also, she slandered Richard Gadd repeatedly. So if she sues him, she'll immediately be countersued.
I found it very odd that Gadd who had been through such a horrific experience would play “himself”. Gave up watching half way through, not one of the viewers who enjoyed it. My housemates thought the same. Cannot understand why the female stalker came out and has done interviews?
Catharsis perhaps? I watched it all, but I hated it because my child has been stalked and doxxed online for the past few years and it’s still continuing to this day and although we have given the Police all of the evidence and background information, they truly didn’t give a monkeys as to what damage this person was and still is, causing to my child and our family.
But I don’t understand why this person would choose to come forward, unless they were enjoying the attention or something?
@@TheDonna200 I’m so sorry to hear that your child and family are going through such an awful time and that you are not getting the proper support from the police.
Personally feel she has a case.
I do not have a TV so have not seen it.
so why comment?
@@magunra3k Because Al also does not have a TV and has not seen it.
@@andrewgilbertson5356 nobody gives a fuck what you havent seen,stop clogging up the comments with bollocks
Defamation by inference is still defamation
I watched The Body Language Guy do a body analysis of the Piers Morgan interview with Fiona - then I watched a couple episodes of Baby Reindeer and got hooked! I would recommend the body analysis first (the whole Piers Morgan interview is long). Then the series. There are two episodes that did not feature the Stalker - it was boring. Richard Gadd has made a ton of money telling his story, I don’t blame Fiona were wanting a portion of the money, there was no tale without her.
No tale without her, also no work or investments on the movie from her.