Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
"Everyone knows who it is, but we're not going to tell you... Also, please stop speculating, it could ruin someone's career!"
Talk about muddying the waters here...
Well he's got a point in the latter half. It'd be very easy for a bunch of armchair internet detectives to convince themselves someone is the abuser and start harassing him when it could be someone completely unrelated.
And for his first point; if he's not the victim or hasn't witnessed the abuser's behaviour first hand it makes it pretty hard to do anything about. If he came out and named the guy and no victims came forward to corroborate, he'd be in a tricky situation.
Honestly the best thing we can hope for is that either Richard Gadd himself actually comes forward or other victims of the abuser see Baby Reindeer and that encourages them to speak up.
Also, UK libel laws are super tough—you can’t just accuse someone of something and expect not to get sued. Look at Katherine Ryan and (probably) Russell Brand.
It isn't just that they're tough, it's that they're incredibly costly as well and if you lose you can be made to pay the other parties legal fees - which when both sides can blow 200-300k before a case even sees a courtroom, is a heavy incentive to be very careful.
Wait his name literally means to steal
They did modernize them in 2013, thankfully, right after the Russell Brand settlement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
Is Brand suing Katherine Ryan? That would be a terrible move if he did. Even the stuff we know about from his past would look truly appalling in court.
Ryan described an abuser whose name was two things you do to cows (not her exact words, but pretty close), in reference to Brand. She had to speak in an inexact manner to avoid a suit.
Since his last lawsuit, the libel laws in the UK have changed substantially. Aside from other factors, it wouldn't be an easy case to make now.
What did Katherine Ryan do?
Your first paragraph has already happened.
I thought you were a bot and your post was saying his first paragraph had already been written verbatim on Reddit before. For a moment I was amazed.
That shit would have been so surreal lol.
We did it, Reddit!
Exactly what I thought!
This is why stuff like this and blind item gossip sucks. Everyone will speculate and someone will get accused of something they probably didn’t do.
The daily fail did it with Huw Edwards.... That poor dude
Osman's point is that there [are] similarities between the actor/ character in the show and the person who has been falsely accused - and that the person accused is innocent. He hasn't said anything in that article about not speculating, and isn't speculating himself (presumably because he knows who it is).
Meanwhile Gadd is asking people not to speculate, even though his own show is inevitably going to make that happen.
Edit - I've got three people (possibly one person, three accounts) replying to me below who all blocked me immediately, which is weird. Anyway - I accidentally missed out the word 'are'.
Hey, don't speculate, just watch my entire show about it and then shut up and don't think about it.
It really isn't hard to understand that someone wants to tell their story of abuse without expecting or wanting people to go out there and harass people who it might be.
What the fuck... Those are two totally different things. You can tell your life story and be raw and not expect people to think they need to fight your battle. He's an artist expressing not asking for judgment
Speculate but don't witch hunt, it's not hard.
Well apparently it is.
The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction on the internet. Speculating and making public accusations in and of itself is witch hunting.
The difference is that witches don't exist, whereas we now know of at least one rapist comedy TV writer out there.
The thing is currently is that we have to protect and support victims but we can’t be targeting abusers. That’s not to say they should be getting off scot free but we as a society, at least in the UK (my culture so the only one I can speak for) seem to pass over victims go straight for the “bad guy” which is rarely supported by anything - Gadd never asked anyone to target his abuser but people decided who his abuser was and attacked, which just added mental anguish to the person falsely accused by fans. We’re not mature enough as a society to really navigate abuse stuff yet. What we want is people to stop abusing others, and I really don’t see how sending death threats aids in that? Better sex ed about relationships and stricter ethical guidelines (and better consequences) for any kind of person in power are far more valuable.
look, I'm not in support of witch hunting and people sending death threats. That kinda stuff is awful.
i'm saying that when has it ever not been thus? When will it ever not be thus?
I don't think its a matter of social advancement. You put the cat amongst the pidgeons, what do you think is going to happen? If you blow a whistle, you can't control who responds to it.
I don't support the flooding of a town when I point out that towns flooding is a reasonably predictable outcome of blowing up a dam.
What about the similarities between the show and the person accused? You didn’t finish that sentence…
First point: The speculation is targeted at the wrong person. he is very clear about this if you listen to the whole podcast instead of cherry-picking, and badly editing, a single line.
Second point: The offences are alledged. No evidence, no proof, no investigation, etc.
Third point: And the entire point of that podcast! The use of "This story is true" is not fair as many of the points have been changed for dramatic effect. Including, but not least, the legal consequences for the stalker.
Kinda sad that the made-up part has to be the consequences and accountability for the predators. I guess Shawshank handled it better “I would like to tell you so and so fought the good fight and won, but this is no fairy tale world”
your third point is the most significant issue
I work in film/TV in London. I have absolutely no idea who it is. And in fact I suspect if you told me the name, I wouldn't even recognise it. I'm sure some people do know, but unlike Kevin Spacey and the London theatre world it is definitely not everyone.
It's like telling me that a well known casting director did the abuse. Dude, not every CSA is a top tier gladhander in the industry, you can't have good well-known people without mediocre nobodies to take every spot after Runner-Up Awards Nominees.
"If you know, you know", essentially
He has a friend that looks like the actor in the show that played the r*pist and they already assumed it was him and sent him death threats. The creator already said very publicly it wasn't him and the actor in the show looks nothing like the real person but when you google the actor it's all these story's connecting him for no reason.
*rapist
You can say the word. No one will get offended.
Yeah, I'm kinda done with these creators who make shows that leave more than enough breadcrumbs to figure things out and then act like asking people not to do it is going to prevent anything; bullshit, we've seen this a thousand times before, we know for a fact that if you leave anything that can be tied back to the person, and enough people see it, someone is going to fucking make that connection. This has happened before and it'll happen again.
What's the actual moral of #MeToo? It seems like you can be a horrible abusive piece of shit and get away with it as long as you're rich. This abuser got away with it, Cosby got away with it, Weinstein got away with it, Polanski got away with it. There are no consequences, it's just legal for these people.
Weinstein is in a Cali prison or some NY holding cell awaiting transfer/retrial
I wouldn’t say no consequences.
Cosby and Weinstein both lost money and power.
Weinstein is still convicted of his California crimes, and will be facing a retrial in NY. (Just one where the prosecution can’t overstep).
Importantly, by it becoming public, neither Weinstein or Cosby are likely to be able to continue abusing people.
So I guess the moral is that people should have come out sooner to protect others AND that the power of the prosecution has to be perfect every time (which is a good thing, but needs to be more equally available for the less rich and powerful).
All the women I know who have been sexually abused or assaulted not a single one ever went to the police. A few men I suspect if being raped by priests as children, have had destroyed lives, but also not got to the point of saying anything
They've been getting away with it for eternity.
It just never feels worth the trouble. And it's infinitely more likely to make everything worse.
This is the same level as the drake kendrik pedo stuff, no one said sit and let the perosn slide and get away with the shit, all it makes me believe is that these pp where all ok with whatever was done to them and others, until it could be if it them.
The similarity between the actor playing the rapist and the guy who people initially (and incorrectly) thought it was is insane.
So who is he?
Dan Schneider
Its not Dan Schneider.
I looked the producer up and he doesn't look that similar? He seems to be a bald man.
Really?? My jaw actually dropped when I saw him, but maybe it’s the specific photo that was used to compare. It’s the balding + beard + face shape + shade of hair that stuck out as similar to me.
Also the Bohemian kinda look he had lent heavily to Darrien. If it's not him Richard is a fucking idiot for casting the character like that.
Yeah just looked him up, that's an uncanny resemblance and not just in one photo
Yeah I thought it was the actor that played him lol. That's crazy
“It wasn’t me but if it was me, the actor in the show is way fatter and balder than me.”
who did people think it was?
A writer and director named Sean Foley. Richard Gadd directly addressed the speculation and said it's not him and not to harass him.
Damn poor dude...
Richard Gadd didn't actually say it wasn't him. Gadd just asked people to stop unfairly speculating.
Tbh I don’t think Netflix/Gadd expected the show to blow up as much as it has and were kinda irresponsible in how they kept all the details the same. You can’t write something THIS true to life and not expect massive speculation. That being said, the people speculating and trying to cancel people without confirmation are even worse, they’re parasocial ghouls.
It reminds me of the recent(ish) Rebecca
JessicaFerguson interview where she mentions being bullied by the lead actor in a movie she did. She wouldn't say who it was but it then caused a massive witch hunt trying to cancel various actors that it surely MUST have been.It's a real no win scenario. Important to know these things happen, but if you name names it could cause even worse blowback in various forms... But if you don't name the person, it causes wild speculation and false accusations too..
Rebecca
woops, thank you!
She was so good as Lady Jessica that people are confusing the names lol. I’m guilty myself
I mean whether it blows up or not they still published the series on Netflix, it's not exactly a confidential thing lol. They were prepared for it to go public
Netflix has a history of not giving two shits about the human cost of their shows. I remember when 13 Reasons Why came out and being completely blown away by just how much the show glamourised suicide as a way of 'getting back' at people who have wronged you.
I think deleting the suicide scene was a mistake, though. The original scene was fucking brutal. Nothing romantic about the way the actual act was depicted and I thought that was maybe it’s saving grace.
Contrary to what you might expect, graphic depictions of the act of suicide is very frowned upon by experts in the topic, it actually does encourage copycats. People specifically campaigned netflix to cut the scene.
The way it ended left so many questions, so people started digging.
They could have made it so that both parties got arrested and called it a day.
The problem with that is that then people start claiming that because some details were significantly altered that the entire thing must have been made up. There's no gray for some people.
For example, apparently the real Martha didn’t end up serving jail time. In the show, she's sentenced to nine months. Some lunatics are using this as "proof" that Gadd just made the whole thing up. Like, what? He's repeatedly said he changed dates and details to hide the identities of the individuals, and people still come out with that kind of BS logic?
Oprah walks in and sends everyone to jail. The End.
Care bears give everyone a hug and a cake. Credits roll.
norm macdonald voice "see idk i think the worst part, was the raping..."
you used that joke incorrectly lol, I wasn’t referring to the content of the show
After the AI images in that one true crime doc and that 4-episode miniseries about the Cecil Hotel that was 1 episode of content and 3 episodes of tawdry speculation from YouTubers, I assume all true crime stuff on Netflix is irresponsible tasteless drama garbage meant for terminally-online ghouls to devour.
This isn’t true crime. It’s a black comedy drama-thriller that happens to feature crimes that were true in its narrative.
It's not true crime, but it definitely trades on "this is a trueish story" and so I think deserves some of the comparisons.
Don't forget the MH370 "documentary" that spent two thirds of its time covering completely unhinged theories that are literal impossibilities.
I had to explain to my dad that "modern" true crime content isn't the same as stuff from 25 years ago and it has a completely different audience and style. This was after he started watching some random documentary and texted me asking why the hell there were women doing their makeup while being interviewed.
tbf older true crime stuff also has its issues. I’ve been watching the early Unsolved Mysteries episodes on Peacock and I had to skip one segment because it was straight up satanic panic bs