All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 18, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
14:11
20240518_baby-reindeer-mailbag-ive-personally-emailed-richa
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Setting The Record Straight 00:10:01
Welcome to a special edition of Morgan's Mailbag, which today is all about just one interview.
This show is incredible.
Baby Reindeer got absolutely obsessed.
A beef curtain.
I need not move.
Everybody is talking about Baby Reindeer.
Rail fans are trying to find the real people behind the story.
Because it does depict real life events.
Flown up so quickly and so fast all around the world that I didn't expect it.
Look down the barrel of that camera.
To people who still doubt you, what do you say to them?
Yes, my one-on-one with Fiona Harvey, aka the real Martha from Baby Reindeer, has been watched more than 12 million times on our uncensored YouTube channel and literally tens of millions more across other social platforms.
It's also provoked hundreds of thousands of comments, reactions, questions and hot takes from the media world, which tend to be often pretty cold.
I'll be reacting to a selection of those, but before we get started, a quick reminder of the interview that got the whole world talking.
What do you hope to achieve in this interview?
I came on your show because you're a veteran broadcaster.
I think you'll give me a fair hearing.
I find it quite obscene.
I find it horrifying, misogynistic.
Some of the death threats have been really terrible online.
I don't think I sent him anything.
You're basically accusing both him but also Netflix of lying about it.
I am.
Did you go to jail?
Did you have anything?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
Did Netflix ever contact you?
No, no one's contacted me.
Never.
Never.
What do you feel about Richard Gadd?
I think he's psychotic.
Were you ever in love with him?
Yes.
It's a silly squish.
Okay, here's just a snapshot of your instant reactions.
Ant Brittanier said, this is the most fascinating interview I've ever watched.
The lies are crazy.
At Eric Johnson, 9663 wrote, the longer this interview went on, the more she confirmed to everyone she's exactly like the character in the show.
This interview was a disaster for her.
And having watched my interview, Ant John O'Gibb gave a shout out to actress Jessica Gunning, who played Martha in Baby Reindeer, saying the actor who played Martha deserves an Emmy.
She nailed that role.
Ha ha ha.
Oh my God.
So several things to unpick there.
One is that, yeah, the actress did play the role very well of the real life Fiona Harvey.
Very well.
Too well, you might think.
If the whole desire of Richard Gadd, the author, of course, about whose story this is, and Netflix was to hide the identity of the real life people behind these characters, then why would you choose an actress who looks quite similar to her and who you may speak exactly like her?
And why would you then use extracts from posts and messages in the series, which could be immediately traced back to Fiona Harvey?
So I think there was a real duty of care failing, I think, by everyone involved in this, which meant that she was identified.
That, of course, is why she decided to come on my show because she wanted to have her say as everyone was having their say about her.
Now it's fair to say the vast majority of you agree that the similarity between Fiona and Martha was striking.
Alice Moore, however, thinks there's still room for doubt.
Wow, this is really fascinating.
I don't know what to believe now.
I think she's quirky.
I don't think she's as mad as the character.
The character seemed a lot more vulnerable in a way that she couldn't hide it.
Whereas this lady doesn't come across as a stalker to me.
Well, look, I don't know if she is a stalker in the way that Richard Gadd has categorized her to be.
I do think she sent a lot of messages to him.
I do think she probably had an unhealthy obsession with him.
But was she a convicted criminal for the stalking?
Did she ever get found guilty of stalking him?
Netflix and Richard Gadd say yes, she did, but no one can produce a shred of evidence that that ever happened.
And so the whole credibility, frankly, of their position, this is a true story, is in a perilous place unless we see that evidence of a court case and a conviction.
A lot of the initial commentary around the interview focused on whether we were right to give Fiona a platform at all.
At Amy Bulldog9689 said, this woman is clearly mentally unwell.
I think it's unethical to put her on TV to satisfy his audience's morbid curiosity.
Well, how do you know she's mentally unwell?
That's your assessment.
We've seen no independent evidence that she has a mental illness.
We've seen no evidence she ever got convicted of any crime.
So who are you, frankly, to judge whether she's vulnerable or not?
She volunteered to come on the show.
She wanted to set the record straight.
Everyone was talking about her.
And Richard Gadd, of course, let's remember, has talked openly about his own mental health problems.
He was given a platform despite that.
So why shouldn't Fiona Harvey, given what happened to her?
Well, interestingly, at Gem D573 said, to balance things up, we need to now give the person behind the baby reindeer phenomenon an invitation.
Get Richard Gadd on your show now.
It's only fair.
I completely agree.
I've personally emailed Richard Gadd, although, of course, I accept his inbox may be a little full.
And I don't mean that glibly.
I mean, it really might be.
So I hope he reads it.
I hope he does come on the show.
I certainly wouldn't give him a hard time.
He, I think, has gone into this with the best of intentions.
But has he blurred the lines of his own story from non-fiction to fiction?
Did he invent the fact that she got convicted or not?
I'd love to know the answer to that because that's the big part of the last episode.
Speaking of Richard Gadd, all this has been going on.
He's been on the red carpet in America and then at the BAFTAs, soaking up the plaudits for his acclaimed drama, and quite rightly, it's a great piece of work.
But in response to the controversy surrounding the identity of the real Martha and other characters in the series, he's now drawing a line saying in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, I don't think I'll ever comment on it ever again.
That may be a little convenient, Richard.
I've got to be honest with you.
I hear you're a great guy from people I know who know you, who've worked with you, and you're a very talented writer, and you've had a massive success with this series.
But you can't just suddenly stop talking about it given the repercussions that have spun off this series, in particular for people like Fiona Harvey.
There was a duty of care failure, regardless of whether everything in that series was true.
You allow people to find out who she was far too easily.
And on these crucial questions about whether she was convicted and went to prison, you've got to produce some evidence or some answers or an apology and probably a large check to her.
Equally, Netflix is also facing growing questions about their duty of care policy in the wake of the interview, such as when their policy achief appeared in front of a British parliamentary select committee and said this.
Baby Reindeer is an extraordinary story.
And it is obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker.
We did take every reasonable precaution in disguising the real-life identities of the people involved in that story.
All of this, of course, raises the question of whether Fiona Harvey might have a legal case against Netflix.
In a follow-up debate, we discussed all these various legal questions.
And Mark Garagos, a top Hollywood Entertainment lawyer, had this to say.
And as somebody who is currently adverse to Netflix, I will tell you, in my experience, at least, they do tend to take great liberties when they represent what the particular facts are.
And specifically in America, you have a doctrine, both defamation by defamation per se, the accusing her of being a criminal and kind of doubling down on it by saying she served time.
If that is not true, she's got a whale of a case.
There's a lot of reaction to this.
At Safety Propaganda wrote, Netflix absolutely bombed the marketing.
All they had to say was based on a true story and they'd be surely covered legally.
At Corrie FPV, on the other hand, doesn't think there's a case to answer.
Netflix can say based on a true story and then sensationalize and make it more dramatic.
That's how TV works.
Well, they didn't say based on a true story.
They said this is a true story.
And then their executive said that again under oath in Parliament.
So that was their wording, not ours.
At Colino FG feels any discussion of legal action is all a moot point.
She will never sue.
She knows exactly that he has all the evidence.
Well, she probably does have the evidence, Richard Gadd, of her emails and texts and handwritten letters and voicemail.
I'm sure he does, which is why Netflix has been so specific about the volume that he received.
But we haven't seen, of course, the replies to any of that.
Although we do know by his own admission that he did lead her on a few times and that he also did stuff to her pictures on his laptop, which was a little bit odd.
So there are weird dynamics about this whole story, which make it, frankly, a bit of a mess.
And one of the country's top king's counsels, Chris Doer, does think there could be a case for Netflix to answer.
He came on uncensored to say this.
Chris, like I said, you spoke to Fiona.
As a result of that, will you be taking her case up?
I'm in discussions now with a law firm in London with a view to taking the case forward.
At Heshington, Mugar B wrote in response that nuance would be exaggeration for dramatic effect.
Making anything up to make the story more captivating without consent is why this isn't good for Netflix.
Possibly the receipts may still come out.
They might.
They might.
If it turns out she did go to court and did confess to the crime and was convicted of stalking Richard Gadd, that is game over for this debate as far as Richard Gadd and Netflix and Clark Olmer Films are concerned.
It would be a validation of their claim it's a true story.
But if Fiona Harvey's telling the truth and there was no conviction, no court case or anything else like it, then that's going to be a big problem for them legally.
Unfortunately, this fascinating discussion was somewhat overshadowed by the contribution of one of the other panel members.
Iman's Disgrace And Stalking 00:03:18
We invited Iman Aiton on because she had called me out from my interview on other platforms like Good Morning Britain.
And I wanted to hear what she had to say to my face.
I don't know where the truth lies.
No, you do know.
You do know.
Hang on.
Don't ever say that.
I've never said it again.
In my life, Iman, I don't know.
You do know.
Don't interrupt.
Sorry, can I interrupt?
I'm sorry, I'm really annoyed.
Chris, you know better.
You're a lawyer.
Oh, sorry.
Am I correct in saying you're a lawyer?
It's a KC.
It's a King's Counsel.
Okay, perfect.
Right.
Extremely senior lawyer.
If you did your homework, you would have realised that Richard Gadd made it very clear that Netflix fictionalised the story.
Let me read it.
Yes, they did.
They said it.
They made it very clear.
And yet you're saying you won't have to fictionalized it.
No, I'm talking about it.
She's done none of those things.
This documentary should have never been made or they should have clarified.
One extreme to the next with all due respect.
And I know I keep interrupting, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Louise Etchell on X said four out of five panelists treated each other with respect and had a very intelligent and enlightening conversation.
Well done, gentlemen.
This seemed challenging under the circumstances.
At Harlequin, 55 compared Iman unfavourably to the real Martha.
Oh dear, Fiona was a lot easier to watch than Iman.
That says a lot because that interview had me squirming.
How embarrassing is she?
I would have muted it.
Iman did post a message on her own social media about the incident and said that don't want to invite me back.
You're a coward.
What you should have said was, Iman, you were disgraced and you embarrassed yourself.
And I'll do what I do best, grill your mind's channel again and hold you to account.
But instead, you took the cowardly approach.
Actually, you know what?
I'm under no obligation to do any of that.
I invite guests on in good intentions.
You'd had a bit of a lengthy suspended sentence for calling me a racist ridiculously before.
I graciously decided to put that behind us and invite you back.
And you blew it.
Sorry, Iman, but you blew it.
You were unbelievably rude and aggressively rude to all the other panelists and you ruined the debate, which was actually a very good debate.
So no, I'm afraid that's it.
You will not be back on this show.
Thankfully, at SoCal G310, thought the contribution from our US panelists made up for things.
Piers, thank you for eventually allowing Tatum and the guy from Popcorn Planet to talk.
They should sit on a bus bench outside all night until you put them on again.
Yeah, they were great, actually.
Very, very entertaining, very insightful.
Just the kind of guests that I like to discuss these kind of things.
Well, almost time to wrap this special edition of Morgan's Mailbag, but before we do, I thought this comment from at Kiefer Fleming6345 is worth reflecting on.
Whatever is true or lies from both sides, it's an awful, sad situation.
Stalking is absolutely horrendous.
I hope anyone who's gone through it is healing.
Yeah, I completely agree.
I've had a bit of it myself, been on the receiving end of a few stalkers, not as bad as this.
It's a very uncomfortable and difficult thing to experience.
I know other people who've had a horrendous time.
So I don't trivialize it at all.
But this is a messy story.
And anyone who thinks there's a clean version of this hasn't really been following it.
Richard Gabb, by his own admission, is a very damaged man who went through a lot of drug abuse and promiscuous sex and clearly had a strange relationship with the person he calls this stalker where he led her on by his own admission.
How much we don't know.
How much of what he wrote and what he put on the Netflix show is actually true.
We still don't really know.
So I wait to see that.
No Clean Version Exists 00:00:52
But yeah, ultimately, it's a sad story with no real winners here.
And to his credit, he's never called Fiona Harvey a villain.
And I think we would wish them all, I certainly do, to come through this better than they went into it.
And finally, after the huge reaction to our baby reindeer coverage, at the single mum entrepreneur has this suggestion.
Lots of material for baby reindeer 2.
Come on, Netflix, let's do this.
Well, you know what?
If I know my streamers, they're probably already planning it now.
Question is, who plays me?
Will it be Brad or Leo?
That's it for this week's mailbag.
Remember, if you want to watch the whole interview, as well as the debates that followed, all available now on our YouTube channel.
Like and subscribe while you're there.
We're the fastest growing YouTube channel of its kind anywhere in the world.
We're approaching 3 million subscribers.
Great content and it will keep coming.
Until next time, keep it
Export Selection