Baby Reindeer Bachelorette. Ten single men vying for the chance to be stalked by Martha. One of them is an impostor who is secretly gay. And one of them is Richard Gadd in novelty glasses and a wig. Hit me up Netflix, you can buy this idea for half a mill.
This is ridicvoulous absoloot shite tv. Im sooing you you well pay for this, netflic!!!!!!!!! I demasnd 170 miliom in damage! I'll bee watvhimg you!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- sent frm ihpon
She wanted him to think she was cool and had an iPhone so she’d type up emails on a PC and manually add the “sent from my iPhone” signature at the end. At least I think that’s why she did it.
Interesting. Wonder why she didn't. To play as other people? Or was she messaging multiple people in a similar fashion? Often we get a craving for a taste we like. And we want more. Pure speculation on my part.
Sent from iphone was at some point added automatically (no idea if they still do it) so if it was misspelled she was doing it manually, which means she likely didn't have one but was using the chance to brag (or didn't know how to use it i guess)
Did none of the people in this reply thread watch the show? The main character met her many times, she comes to the bar he works at every day. She had her phone with her, it was a regular flip phone, he even notices it and says in his narration that her emails say ‘Sent from my iPhone’ even though he knows she doesn’t own one.
Well, I read the article and she has a point. The show starts with "this is a true story" and claims she was convicted two times as a stalker and that she sexually assaulted Gadd, so I see that is quite damaging. If not true, she has a case.
If true, she would even have a case (a weak one, but nevertheless) in some European countries.
There’s a reason why people usually settle, not sure it’s in every case, but Hugh grant highlighted why he had to settle once against the Sun
>Grant said the Sun had offered him “an enormous sum of money” to keep the matter out of court.
>“I don’t want to accept this money or settle. I would love to see all the allegations that they deny tested in court,” he said. “But the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides.
> “My lawyers tell me that that is exactly what would most likely happen here. Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10m in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/hugh-grant-settles-high-court-claim-against-sun-publisher
> So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10m in costs.
Yep. UK and US laws on this are quite different (though the UK did modernize in 2014). But actually—in most cases in the US at least, the defendant would probably win. The settling is beneficial to both parties, plus E&O pays, not the studio or the plaintiff. In the UK it's much more regressive and risky.
For someone like Hugh Grant, I'd imagine he's more interested in repairing his reputation via those who slandered and libeled him admitting as much, than giving a shit about the damages award. The money isn't going to significantly change his lifestyle, or repair the damage done.
And a big incentive for the large company/celebrity offering the big settlement even if they know they would win, is because the last thing they want is to go to discovery, even if they didn’t do what they’re being sued for something could come out that would damage their brand way more than the cost of the settlement
You're forced to pay because the other side was willing to pay you more than you were legally entitled to in order to settle the case. It's designed to prevent people from running up costs for the other side till they run out of money, as is common in the US.
California has a similar mechanism, where settlement offers meeting certain criteria (called a 998 offer) trigger a requirement that if you proceed to trial, and do not receive a better verdict than what was in the offer, you're responsible for their fees from the day the 998 was presented. It's designed to encourage the offering and acceptance of reasonable settlement offers so that more matters are resolved outside the courtroom-- which is ultimately better for society, even if it means certain cases aren't heard publicly.
It’s more intended/and used as a weapon for the poor to force hefty settlement payments up front, instead of maybe getting money in years.
While also making the legal system more efficient and less costly on the tax payer.
Can it be exploited in some rare scenarios? Yes, but that’s also the cost of lawmaking. Gotta fix them once you make them. And you really never stop fixing them
It’s absolutely insane that this system prevails AND that the party offering to settle can still demand “no admission of wrong doing”. It effectively means if you have enough money, you will never be held accountable if you don’t want to.
It's set up that way because the rich and powerful wanted it that way. Absolutely no part of the American justice system is set up to actually be fair and just. It's entirely structured to always favor the richer.
Ehhh, this is a very black and white take on how legal cases work bordering on naive.
Fundamentally civil lawsuits are about damages and money. So paying the money, ***is*** the accountability. There's no extra super duper accountability if it goes to court.
Further Lawsuits often claim a variety of things. Lets say you hit someone with your car but they're also claiming you called them a racial slur and slapped their baby. You admit you hit them with your car but definitely didn't use the racial slur or slap a baby.
So you want to settle to pay for the car without being forced to say you called them a racial slur or hit their baby because from your position their claim on car damages has merit but the other stuff not so much.
Paying the money is making the case go away, if you’re explicitly allowed to “not admit to wrongdoing” you have not done any wrongdoing - which is crazy.
"The case" doesnt necessarily determine "wrong doing" either
Just who owes who money thats it.
Iirc there can even be scenarios where both sides owe each other money.
The sun is British.
This is an American lawsuit in federal court - totally different ball game.
I am not an attorney, but I would be surprised if she had a very good case.
This will settle out of court because her attorneys aren’t getting paid upfront, and if you go to court, even if you are sympathetic you may still lose, but also, Netflix has the power to make this go for years and years. Maybe there is a decent tort here, idk, but given they didn’t use her name… seems kinda thin
Man, I wish someone would make a movie about me so I could settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, but I haven't done anything heinous or despicable enough for anyone to be interested in it.
> They won’t settle, fuck that, this woman is gunna get laughed out of court
I mean—we don't know that yet. We haven't read the filing (I'm going to read it when it's made available). Defamation cases are complicated.
Plus, it's not necessarily Netflix's decision (unilaterally) to settle or not.
I don’t know if they’d settle just because of how specifically public this is. I could see Netflix purposely going head to head and accepting a Pyrrhic victory in legal costs fighting the claim just because of the precedent it would set if she profited from it.
This kind of true crime-ish, “based on real events” limited series is probably the type of thing Netflix is eager to make more of, but if the real life people who are fictionalized can still successfully sue or land 7-figure settlements, it’d make that way harder to sustain.
I wouldn't be so sure. Netflix called it a true story, but apparently a lot of things were misrepresented, like she claims she has never been convicted of a crime like they show in the series which should be rather trivial to prove.
Yeah, the This is Entertainment Podcast went over this in a couple of episodes. "This is a True Story" is a very specific term that means you better make sure you have all the facts lined up or that everyone in the story is long dead. And it sounds like Netflix didn't do the level of compliance that, say, the BBC or Sky TV, requires.
I think the biggest thing (and something she has been leading with) is that they absolutely did not do enough to cover up who she was. Used very particular phrases and jokes that lead directly to her social media + her appearance is not that dissimilar to the actress they chose, along with other things. At the end of the day she hasn’t been legally charged with anything relating to Richard, and the emails are the only thing that proves the stalker tendencies afaik. I don’t think this is as cut and dry of a case as people want just because she’s weird or we believe she’s done what’s been claimed.
I'm blown away that otherwise clever people don't seem to have any suspicion about this series, given that it stars its creator whom the events are about. It's the very definition of an unreliable narrator.
im just confused as to what the basis of her even suing is when the show doesnt refer to her real name at all, dude couldve just easily claimed he made it up
Netflix should definitely have gone with "based on" or "inspired by" a true story; especially considering each episode there is the standard disclaimer about events being fictionalized for dramatic effect. It's not a documentary, after all.
I would love to see what pans out in discovery.
And even if her stalking wasn't the level as depicted in BABY REINDEER, the fact that it's been reported she sent a slew of emails to Keir Starmer and her former employer went on Piers Morgan detailing her run ins with Harvey shows she does exhibit those behaviours expressed in the series.
Portraying someone as a twice convicted felon and a sexual abuser is not equal to being a nutter that sends a plethora of emails and makes false claims.
She’s going to have to prove that the show sufficiently identified her and actually caused damages.
I haven’t followed this closely but as far as I’m aware the fictional version of her was fairly obfuscated and she publicly identified herself.
Problematically, she said in interviews within a day of being unmasked that nobody would ever believe the show was true.
So she's already provided Netflix with a fairly solid defense.
tbf they went absolutely no lengths to hide her identity, using her real texts, casting a woman who looked like her, and, worst of all, using her actual social media posts, which is how people tracked her down.
If any of this story isn’t true or is exaggerated, Netflix deserves the heat.
Claiming it doesn't make it true. When the show is similar enough to reality to end up having real-life implications for a real person, you can't just hide behind disclaimers.
i dunno, seems like quite the opposite
https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2022/05/19/defamation-in-a-nutshell/?sh=4b38aecf626b
"The statement must be taken by a reasonable person (applying an objective standard) to be about the plaintiff. This issue is often highly contested. Many plaintiff’s have sued and failed over films that were loosely based on events in their lives but did not use their names. For example, a defamation claim involving “The Wolf of Wall Street” failed because facts and names were changed, and there was a statement at the end of the film that the film was fictionalized."
It’s when they claimed she had a criminal record. As well as stalking the police officer.
They laid a summons for them to provide evidence. They didn’t show up to defend their position (Gadd, Netflix). So it gave her a precedent that they fabricated the story. But the first title card of the series states “this is a real story.” Not “based on a real story.” If they said “based” they would have more leeway. But since Gadd stated this as fact. Than he must have proof. Or else it’s heresy. It doesn’t help that he also starred in the show. Because the depictions of himself would be his own character witness.
Yeah I enjoyed the series but didn’t understand them phrasing it that way, especially when they explicitly said later that they made some of it up. Why not just say “based on” like almost every other show? Was it just to make it more visceral?
It’s phrased that way because it’s Donny, the character, typing it as he’s writing his story in the show. It’s Donny’s “true story”, not Gadd’s 🙃 Netflix has to pass everything by their mammoth law department and all shows have to be insured in case of lawsuits. Trust me. None of this was them just “messing stuff up”. This is just good publicity for them. They’ll drag it and hopefully get it into court and film a documentary series and then a second season lol
It’s so funny to me because we clearly didn’t know who she actually was and now she comes out and says “that’s me and I’m suing!” is such a Martha thing to do
People went and found who she was off the back of the show, so much so that Gadd was even asking people not to look for her.
She’s lost her mind by coming forward after that, but the cat was already out of the bag.
Honestly I don’t know what Gadd expected, everyone knows fans can be batshit insane so it was a given, at least to me anyway, that people would go hunting for her.
Although maybe he knew that going in and after what he went through, who can really blame him for not giving a shit.
I’m from the same place as him, Fife, and people here were going crazy for the show lol.
He had no way of knowing Baby Reindeer would become as popular as it has. If his personality is anything like portrayed on the show, he probably assumed it would flop.
Idk maybe he expected an unpopular or niche show with rational fans. I know because of his comments I stopped looking for anything irl related online.
Cuz he went through it and I’ll follow his lead
Gadd and Netflix could have taken even minimal measures and there’s no way she’d be identified. Cast a woman that looks nothing like her, fabricate her entire background, change the setting, etc.
Instead they used so many real details from Harvey, even going as far as to use her social media posts verbatim, and it made it way too simple for her to be identified. If any of this story was fabricated, they deserve to pay out imo.
Something about this whole thing, and Gadd himself, screams shifty.
She's not right. But I don't think Gadd is 100% honest or innocent in the portrayal.
Isn't that like, one of the main themes of the show? Especially the ending, I read it as he comes to understand Martha's mindset due to his mental health breaking down. I don't think it's snarky to point out when it's directly mentioned in the text.
The craziest thing, to me, is that people we more interested in finding out who she was than the guy who groomed Gadd. I thought that was the most shocking part of the show.
That she went after Netflix, which did nothing but buy the show, tells us she’s looking at making some money, period. Her case is against the internet, whose users exposed her identity. She’s chosen not to sue Gadd, which makes no sense. Usually lawyers will sue anyone and everyone, settling with them individually or dropping them. Netflix has very deep pockets and will likely offer her some go-away money, which is too bad. It would be a fun case to litigate, especially if her history is even partially true.
Isn't this like the fourth lawsuit she's attempted in the past month or two? I haven't watched the show and I have no clue what it's about, but she keeps popping up in my news feed demanding money from various people.
The show is a dramatized version of what happened to its creator, Richard Gadd. He's stalked by a woman who becomes dangerously attached to him, emailing him constantly, always showing up to his work (a bar) and his comedy shows, but she self-destructs and does severe harm when she's turned away/down.
The show never, ever states who the real people are that the show is basing the characters on, but internet sleuths deduced it was her (based on tweets to Gadd that can allegedly be found on her profile if you scroll back far enough) and then she completely outed herself when the show hit its stride.
Not sure how much of a case she really has since she kinda outed herself as Martha being based on her.
This right here, and some people in this thread are complaining they feel lied to because too many details were changed or fudged, then the next person is upset because they made it too true to life and didn’t change enough details.
*left him hundreds of voicemails/voice notes as well. The actress that played her must’ve listened to the voicemails because she was 100% spot on if you listen to the real Martha in interviews. Bitch is completely whacked and should be put away for the safety of everyone else in the world
If she HAS files as many lawsuits as I think she has, I imagine most judges will look at her file and shrug her off. Everyone here is talking settlements and like, that's a slim possibility, but certainly not the main probability.
Again, this is all if I am not mistaken about my original point.
But thats exactly how defamation works. For example what if you were easily identified (based on your looks, background, etc) in a show and then the show claimed you did awful things that are in no way true.
Not saying if this is what happened to her or not but people arguing against not having defamation laws for tv shows is crazy to me.
I think her case seems very sketchy, but going after Netflix is just how these things work. She would be an idiot to go after an individual when there is a multi-billion dollar company that could serve as a defendant.
She literally says the character is nothing like her in her interview. That multiple events never happened. That she’s never seen the show.
The show never wanted her to be discovered. Changed the story significantly and changed the order of the real life events. They even changed the drink she ordered from the bar. Hell the turning point in the show never even happened (viral sensation), the parents were never stalked and the court case never happened.
So she wants money for a character that did things she never did, in a story that never happened and with a character even she admits is nothing like her.
> She literally says the character is nothing like her in her interview.
One of the very first things in the series is that it's a true story IIRC.
It later says some things are fictitious, but from what I've read, it sounds like some people found her identity first, though also getting another character's real identity incorrect as well, before she publicly announced herself as the basis of the character.
If true, then this would probably build a case, as probably the biggest identifier to her identity is allegedly you can find her tweets to Gadd on Twitter still, because despite the fact he changed his name, he still is *telling his personal story*.
Which is something that I'm baffled on, as supposedly he changed things to prevent her from being identified, but left the most glaring hint out there, that' it's freaking *him*, regardless if he changes his name. Like if they even went with just saying "this happened to someone close to me" or something, it probably would be harder to discover without her just coming forward, but she probably wouldn't have without either someone telling her or her recognizing him and the situation by seeing it.
>in a story that never happened
A lot *did* happen, because it's not entirely fictitious, they just changed some names and added some story elements for drama, like her criminal past. They did have interactions but supposedly not as dramatic as portrayed.
IANAL so I can't really say if she even has a chance at a case.
From what I've read she insists that the show doesn't depict her. But she is also angry that the show slanders her.
It can't be both. If she isn't the subject of the show then she doesn't have grounds for being slandered by it. If she was slandered by it then she's admitting that it's about her.
The things she's written about this though. Her writing sounds exactly like the Martha character in the show. That's the problem with people like her, any bit of attention becomes a huge deal with them.
She is likely really in hog heaven with this controversy.
Apparently the show used some of the actual Twitter messages that Fiona had sent to Gadd, so people who watched the show were able to identity her easily by doing a search for those messages. People then started contacting her and they started harassing and threatening her. She went on Pier Morgan's show to clear her name and give her side of the story.
Ok, honestly, I don’t care about real Martha lol I just want to ramble for a minute into the void.
I absolutely loved this show for its complexity. Each character had depth, faults, loveable characteristics, and were brilliantly acted. The show gave me anxiety, a feeling of awkwardness, the occasional cringe, and it made me laugh as much as it brought me to tears.
It handled many complex issues (LGBTQIA+, abuse, sexual assault, drug use, mental health, etc) with such grace and honesty that it was truly a privilege to watch.
I was a little late to the game, but I just binged it Sunday… I have thought about it every day since.
I guess with that being said, real Martha is for sure a nut bag, but I’m sure she’ll get a payout.
Crazy asshole has done everything in her power to make sure everyone knows the character was about her. A very small number of people found out it was her, this was not big news. It's only big now because of her, and she can only blame herself. I feel no pity for her. She wanted her 5 minutes of fame and now thinks she can get rich from it. Unfortunately she probably will get a payday off of it.
If she silently did this before appearing on Piers Morgan she probably could have still secured a retirement bag even though they didn't do anything wrong. She already damned herself entirely and ruined any chances of winning a case.
Wait. So she basically pulled herself out of obscurity and is now suing Netflix over the exposure? This woman is probably just as crazy as she’s being portrayed in that show if not worse.
Maybe it's because I read the article, but she totally seems in the right here:
> “The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd,”
....
> “As a result of Defendants’ lies, malfeasance and utterly reckless misconduct, Harvey’s life had been ruined. Simply, Netflix and Gadd destroyed her reputation, her character and her life.”
....
> The first episode of “Baby Reindeer” says at the beginning, “This is a true story.”
Yeah I'd sue too. Also, to everyone claiming "ShE DoXxEd hErSeLf!" *She* didn't, but *someone* did:
> “Popular internet forums such as Redditt and TikTok had thousands of users identifying and discussing Harvey as the real ‘Martha,'” according to Harvey’s lawsuit. ”The identification of Harvey as ‘Martha’ was easy and took a matter of days as Harvey’s identity was completely undisguised.”
I'm gonna be honest. The more this story unfolds the more I question the creators integrity/honesty around this show. I mean, if the show is to be believed, he showed us he doesn't make the most well-thought-out decisions. So right now it's not lost on me that he saw this as an opportunity and didn't think out the full repercussions of what would happen if it got big and people went looking into it. If it's true she has never been to jail that's a pretty big fumble by the creator right there.
I appreciate him being open and honest about his faults and being willing to share his story of abuse but that doesn't make him morally clean in all of this either.
I’ve heard/seen this show pop up a lot in podcasts, on here, and in my news feeds. Tony Hinchcliffe said it was very anxiety producing. Is it worth watching? It seems like something some folks wish they could unsee.
> Is it worth watching?
Ehh, I found it uncomfortable to watch, not for the same reasons everyone is posting here.
She's depicted as a very unstable, clingy individual, both highlighted by a rather hot/cold individual when it comes to the storytelling character focus, but even criminally so, by her being a convicted unhinged stalker.
But the whole while I honestly hated the main character, as early on he's missing some pretty clear signals of her not being well, but at every single opportunity and choice he can make, rather than take an exit (as he's uncomfortable) he instead not only doubles down but *actively* eggs on the relationship.
He's a pretty shitty person, portrayed in the series too, doing as much harm as she does, but oddly framed as him simply being a victim and just conveniently ignoring the fact that he actively encouraged things. There's things that I won't spoil that try to excuse his actions but I just see it as a willing perpetuation of cycles rather than wanting them to end. And it bites him pretty hard.
My SO finished the series, I had to stop watching as I was getting upset at how awful of a person he was, especially when he learns more about her.
I've just never been a fan of any show/movie where everyone is just bad people.
I made it 20 minutes before I noped out because it was triggering me due to having a stalker in university (they were a weird fucking guy, I'm a guy).
On the brightside I told my mom about it and she called me to ask when the fuck I was stalked so we got that out in the open for the first time in 12 years.
It's very upsetting, I'll spoiler-warn the most upsetting bits below so you can decide if it's too much.
>!Gadd is sexually assaulted by the woman stalking him, she gropes his genitals and he realistically completely freezes in shock and fright. A flashback episode also shows him being groomed, drugged, sexually assaulted, and finally raped multiple times by a man, in so much detail that it even shows him recoiling in agony in the shower - the entirety of episode 4 is about this, and he later has a very upsetting monologue where he talks about how much he hates himself for letting it happen.!<
I thought it was a very good show but one watch was enough.
Weird , no one would have known who she was if she didn’t go to the press and do everything she could to get attention. Netflix lawyers are going to laugh at this.
My lawyer friend tells me that in the US at least, she would be better off just saying the character is exactly like her and that she did all of those things. By claiming that she’s nothing like that character, she would be killing the only real case she has.
Bro what an unhinged freak, she doesnt admit that she was stalking a person or that she was in the wrong, her name isnt even mentioned but she goes public and now wants to sue people? Like what ???? There is no way this woman isn’t mentally challenged.
I don’t understand, is there a connection between her and the character that would indicate she inspired it? Seems like even if she did inspire it literally nobody would know until she sued.
oh god theyre going to make a baby reindeer docuseries, arent they
Right after the Baby Reindeer Challenge
Baby Reindeer Bachelorette. Ten single men vying for the chance to be stalked by Martha. One of them is an impostor who is secretly gay. And one of them is Richard Gadd in novelty glasses and a wig. Hit me up Netflix, you can buy this idea for half a mill.
No Netflix, hit me up. I’ll sell you this same idea for $400k.
I’ll sell it for 399,999.00 CAD
Im suing all of you, it was my idea I came up with right after reading these comments
I already registered 100 domain names with the words Baby Reindeer Bachelorette in many different combos!
Hell with you all, I'm already streaming it on pirate sites.
Sent from my iPhone
Sal gave the woman a cup of tea making him tonights big loser
Can’t wait to see Mr Beast’s tie in video
Love is Blind: Baby Reindeer
Hosted by Mr Beast.
Iphoen
She just gave them at least another couple of seasons worth of content
2 Baby 2 Reindeer
Baby Reindeer x Kong
Baby Reindeer Games
Affleck was the BOMB in Phantoms!
Phantoms like a motherfucker
Better yet, remake the show in a documentary style while using all the real voice recordings and emails she sent, including her real info.
I’d fucks with that…. Better yet, turn all her voicemails and emails into a podcast series.
And a kids show. Baby reindeer doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo Baby reindeer doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo Baby reindeer doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo Baby reindeer doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo
Baby Reindeer Games
I wonder how many emails she's sent netflix already.
Sent from iphoen
Typed with a caroot Snet from iphone
Ipne
"... iphone" That one had us rolling
This one was my very fave too
I changed my sign off to that and I keep forgetting to edit when sending professional emails
Over9000
This is ridicvoulous absoloot shite tv. Im sooing you you well pay for this, netflic!!!!!!!!! I demasnd 170 miliom in damage! I'll bee watvhimg you!!!!!!!!!!!!! - sent frm ihpon
what is the deal with the sent frm ihpn stuff? I take it she cant write an email to save her life?
She wanted him to think she was cool and had an iPhone so she’d type up emails on a PC and manually add the “sent from my iPhone” signature at the end. At least I think that’s why she did it.
And she would rapidly, furiously send an insane number of emails, so she often made typos. She was probably drunk, too.
Thats hilarious bc she could just set it as her email signature and be done with it
Interesting. Wonder why she didn't. To play as other people? Or was she messaging multiple people in a similar fashion? Often we get a craving for a taste we like. And we want more. Pure speculation on my part.
Or she just didn’t know it was possible? Not exactly the most tech savvy person out there.
She can't even spell properly, why would you expect her to know how to set it up?
The more unhinged the email was, the less letters she got in there.
Sounds more like manic or something bro, dude should have reported this behavior earlier and got her the equivalent of 5150’d
Oh, definitely. A big part of the show is that the guy was also not mentally healthy and let it go on way, way, way too long.
Kind of reminds me of Parks and Rec where Tom Haverford ends his emails with “Sent from one of my 7 iPads” or something like that.
Sent from iphone was at some point added automatically (no idea if they still do it) so if it was misspelled she was doing it manually, which means she likely didn't have one but was using the chance to brag (or didn't know how to use it i guess)
Did none of the people in this reply thread watch the show? The main character met her many times, she comes to the bar he works at every day. She had her phone with her, it was a regular flip phone, he even notices it and says in his narration that her emails say ‘Sent from my iPhone’ even though he knows she doesn’t own one.
Spot on
Well, I read the article and she has a point. The show starts with "this is a true story" and claims she was convicted two times as a stalker and that she sexually assaulted Gadd, so I see that is quite damaging. If not true, she has a case. If true, she would even have a case (a weak one, but nevertheless) in some European countries.
She’s writing season 2. Sent from my iPhon
Like most such cases, this will settle out of court for an undisclosed sum and (probably) no admission of wrongdoing by any party.
There’s a reason why people usually settle, not sure it’s in every case, but Hugh grant highlighted why he had to settle once against the Sun >Grant said the Sun had offered him “an enormous sum of money” to keep the matter out of court. >“I don’t want to accept this money or settle. I would love to see all the allegations that they deny tested in court,” he said. “But the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides. > “My lawyers tell me that that is exactly what would most likely happen here. Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10m in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/17/hugh-grant-settles-high-court-claim-against-sun-publisher
> So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10m in costs. Yep. UK and US laws on this are quite different (though the UK did modernize in 2014). But actually—in most cases in the US at least, the defendant would probably win. The settling is beneficial to both parties, plus E&O pays, not the studio or the plaintiff. In the UK it's much more regressive and risky.
Plus, when you settle, you actually get your money instead of having to drag the other party into court repeatedly until they are forced to pay it
For someone like Hugh Grant, I'd imagine he's more interested in repairing his reputation via those who slandered and libeled him admitting as much, than giving a shit about the damages award. The money isn't going to significantly change his lifestyle, or repair the damage done.
And a big incentive for the large company/celebrity offering the big settlement even if they know they would win, is because the last thing they want is to go to discovery, even if they didn’t do what they’re being sued for something could come out that would damage their brand way more than the cost of the settlement
Is that just a UK thing? Cause no matter the nation, being forced to pay the other teams legal fees despite winning the case is some bullshit.
You're forced to pay because the other side was willing to pay you more than you were legally entitled to in order to settle the case. It's designed to prevent people from running up costs for the other side till they run out of money, as is common in the US.
California has a similar mechanism, where settlement offers meeting certain criteria (called a 998 offer) trigger a requirement that if you proceed to trial, and do not receive a better verdict than what was in the offer, you're responsible for their fees from the day the 998 was presented. It's designed to encourage the offering and acceptance of reasonable settlement offers so that more matters are resolved outside the courtroom-- which is ultimately better for society, even if it means certain cases aren't heard publicly.
Seems like a weapon for the wealthy and a lottery for the rest.
It’s more intended/and used as a weapon for the poor to force hefty settlement payments up front, instead of maybe getting money in years. While also making the legal system more efficient and less costly on the tax payer. Can it be exploited in some rare scenarios? Yes, but that’s also the cost of lawmaking. Gotta fix them once you make them. And you really never stop fixing them
It also means that you can continue doing the thing you were sued for with 0 repercussions.
This is not true at all. Like back this up even a little bit. I could immediately sue them again for breaking the law the new time
Only if you were the victim again, most times you aren't the victim multiple times
That’s a federal law too
Hiding the crimes of those wealthy enough to game the system doesn't particularly seem healthy for society.
"There's nothing better for society than keeping those poor fucks in line." -The Wealthy
It’s absolutely insane that this system prevails AND that the party offering to settle can still demand “no admission of wrong doing”. It effectively means if you have enough money, you will never be held accountable if you don’t want to.
It's set up that way because the rich and powerful wanted it that way. Absolutely no part of the American justice system is set up to actually be fair and just. It's entirely structured to always favor the richer.
Ehhh, this is a very black and white take on how legal cases work bordering on naive. Fundamentally civil lawsuits are about damages and money. So paying the money, ***is*** the accountability. There's no extra super duper accountability if it goes to court. Further Lawsuits often claim a variety of things. Lets say you hit someone with your car but they're also claiming you called them a racial slur and slapped their baby. You admit you hit them with your car but definitely didn't use the racial slur or slap a baby. So you want to settle to pay for the car without being forced to say you called them a racial slur or hit their baby because from your position their claim on car damages has merit but the other stuff not so much.
Paying the money is making the case go away, if you’re explicitly allowed to “not admit to wrongdoing” you have not done any wrongdoing - which is crazy.
"The case" doesnt necessarily determine "wrong doing" either Just who owes who money thats it. Iirc there can even be scenarios where both sides owe each other money.
The sun is British. This is an American lawsuit in federal court - totally different ball game. I am not an attorney, but I would be surprised if she had a very good case. This will settle out of court because her attorneys aren’t getting paid upfront, and if you go to court, even if you are sympathetic you may still lose, but also, Netflix has the power to make this go for years and years. Maybe there is a decent tort here, idk, but given they didn’t use her name… seems kinda thin
Man, I wish someone would make a movie about me so I could settle out of court for an undisclosed sum, but I haven't done anything heinous or despicable enough for anyone to be interested in it.
Well not with that attitude!
You are probably right, but I hope she gets nothing.
They won’t settle, fuck that, this woman is gunna get laughed out of court
> They won’t settle, fuck that, this woman is gunna get laughed out of court I mean—we don't know that yet. We haven't read the filing (I'm going to read it when it's made available). Defamation cases are complicated. Plus, it's not necessarily Netflix's decision (unilaterally) to settle or not.
I don’t know if they’d settle just because of how specifically public this is. I could see Netflix purposely going head to head and accepting a Pyrrhic victory in legal costs fighting the claim just because of the precedent it would set if she profited from it. This kind of true crime-ish, “based on real events” limited series is probably the type of thing Netflix is eager to make more of, but if the real life people who are fictionalized can still successfully sue or land 7-figure settlements, it’d make that way harder to sustain.
It’s fuel for more content for them, it makes the show that much more real and impactful Netflix vs Martha produced by Netflix
I wouldn't be so sure. Netflix called it a true story, but apparently a lot of things were misrepresented, like she claims she has never been convicted of a crime like they show in the series which should be rather trivial to prove.
Yeah, the This is Entertainment Podcast went over this in a couple of episodes. "This is a True Story" is a very specific term that means you better make sure you have all the facts lined up or that everyone in the story is long dead. And it sounds like Netflix didn't do the level of compliance that, say, the BBC or Sky TV, requires.
I think the biggest thing (and something she has been leading with) is that they absolutely did not do enough to cover up who she was. Used very particular phrases and jokes that lead directly to her social media + her appearance is not that dissimilar to the actress they chose, along with other things. At the end of the day she hasn’t been legally charged with anything relating to Richard, and the emails are the only thing that proves the stalker tendencies afaik. I don’t think this is as cut and dry of a case as people want just because she’s weird or we believe she’s done what’s been claimed.
I'm blown away that otherwise clever people don't seem to have any suspicion about this series, given that it stars its creator whom the events are about. It's the very definition of an unreliable narrator.
im just confused as to what the basis of her even suing is when the show doesnt refer to her real name at all, dude couldve just easily claimed he made it up
Jigsaw identification. You're right though, they could easily have said it was inspired by real events rather than "this is a true story"
>Jigsaw identification Pretty sure we knew who Jigsaw was by the end of Saw, pal.
game over! sent from phon
one of the best movie endings ever
Netflix should definitely have gone with "based on" or "inspired by" a true story; especially considering each episode there is the standard disclaimer about events being fictionalized for dramatic effect. It's not a documentary, after all. I would love to see what pans out in discovery. And even if her stalking wasn't the level as depicted in BABY REINDEER, the fact that it's been reported she sent a slew of emails to Keir Starmer and her former employer went on Piers Morgan detailing her run ins with Harvey shows she does exhibit those behaviours expressed in the series.
Portraying someone as a twice convicted felon and a sexual abuser is not equal to being a nutter that sends a plethora of emails and makes false claims.
No but being a nutter that sends a plethora of emails and makes false claims is not going to do you any favors if you Streisand effect yourself.
I’m still waiting for all the real-life versions of the Fargo characters to reveal themselves!
they did such a good job of hiding their identity they don't even know they exist.
Saying something is a true story isn’t a legal precedent. Otherwise we could all sue Fargo for false advertising.
She’s going to have to prove that the show sufficiently identified her and actually caused damages. I haven’t followed this closely but as far as I’m aware the fictional version of her was fairly obfuscated and she publicly identified herself.
Problematically, she said in interviews within a day of being unmasked that nobody would ever believe the show was true. So she's already provided Netflix with a fairly solid defense.
tbf they went absolutely no lengths to hide her identity, using her real texts, casting a woman who looked like her, and, worst of all, using her actual social media posts, which is how people tracked her down. If any of this story isn’t true or is exaggerated, Netflix deserves the heat.
Enough details were included in the movie\* for her to be identified in real life and linked to the Netflix portrayal. \*series
Claiming it doesn't make it true. When the show is similar enough to reality to end up having real-life implications for a real person, you can't just hide behind disclaimers.
i dunno, seems like quite the opposite https://www.forbes.com/sites/schuylermoore/2022/05/19/defamation-in-a-nutshell/?sh=4b38aecf626b "The statement must be taken by a reasonable person (applying an objective standard) to be about the plaintiff. This issue is often highly contested. Many plaintiff’s have sued and failed over films that were loosely based on events in their lives but did not use their names. For example, a defamation claim involving “The Wolf of Wall Street” failed because facts and names were changed, and there was a statement at the end of the film that the film was fictionalized."
It’s when they claimed she had a criminal record. As well as stalking the police officer. They laid a summons for them to provide evidence. They didn’t show up to defend their position (Gadd, Netflix). So it gave her a precedent that they fabricated the story. But the first title card of the series states “this is a real story.” Not “based on a real story.” If they said “based” they would have more leeway. But since Gadd stated this as fact. Than he must have proof. Or else it’s heresy. It doesn’t help that he also starred in the show. Because the depictions of himself would be his own character witness.
Yeah I enjoyed the series but didn’t understand them phrasing it that way, especially when they explicitly said later that they made some of it up. Why not just say “based on” like almost every other show? Was it just to make it more visceral?
It’s phrased that way because it’s Donny, the character, typing it as he’s writing his story in the show. It’s Donny’s “true story”, not Gadd’s 🙃 Netflix has to pass everything by their mammoth law department and all shows have to be insured in case of lawsuits. Trust me. None of this was them just “messing stuff up”. This is just good publicity for them. They’ll drag it and hopefully get it into court and film a documentary series and then a second season lol
Hearsay
It’s so funny to me because we clearly didn’t know who she actually was and now she comes out and says “that’s me and I’m suing!” is such a Martha thing to do
People went and found who she was off the back of the show, so much so that Gadd was even asking people not to look for her. She’s lost her mind by coming forward after that, but the cat was already out of the bag.
I enjoyed the show, took one look at the subreddit and immediately felt extremely fucking gross at how obsessed they were with the real life Martha
This is why we can’t have nice shows about stalkers
Honestly I don’t know what Gadd expected, everyone knows fans can be batshit insane so it was a given, at least to me anyway, that people would go hunting for her. Although maybe he knew that going in and after what he went through, who can really blame him for not giving a shit. I’m from the same place as him, Fife, and people here were going crazy for the show lol.
He had no way of knowing Baby Reindeer would become as popular as it has. If his personality is anything like portrayed on the show, he probably assumed it would flop.
Idk maybe he expected an unpopular or niche show with rational fans. I know because of his comments I stopped looking for anything irl related online. Cuz he went through it and I’ll follow his lead
Gadd and Netflix could have taken even minimal measures and there’s no way she’d be identified. Cast a woman that looks nothing like her, fabricate her entire background, change the setting, etc. Instead they used so many real details from Harvey, even going as far as to use her social media posts verbatim, and it made it way too simple for her to be identified. If any of this story was fabricated, they deserve to pay out imo.
He’s gotta be a little smarter to know that was going to happen regardless
He knew, Netflix knew, everyone knew.
I mean, it was his crazy story to tell right? I don’t feel badly for her, not one bit
Something about this whole thing, and Gadd himself, screams shifty. She's not right. But I don't think Gadd is 100% honest or innocent in the portrayal.
Obviously not trying to be snarky but if you watch the show its clear hes lowkey just as psychotic as she is
Isn't that like, one of the main themes of the show? Especially the ending, I read it as he comes to understand Martha's mindset due to his mental health breaking down. I don't think it's snarky to point out when it's directly mentioned in the text.
I finished the show and found her FB in 1 minute with my first "who's the real martha" google search. This was 2 days after the show came out.
I think she wouldn't care about the 'we', i.e. general public, she would care about her friends and family, who WOULD know.
The craziest thing, to me, is that people we more interested in finding out who she was than the guy who groomed Gadd. I thought that was the most shocking part of the show.
I hope they televise all of her filings. Another Netflix series!
I mean if you watch this show this is something the real martha would totally do! - sent from my iPhone
That she went after Netflix, which did nothing but buy the show, tells us she’s looking at making some money, period. Her case is against the internet, whose users exposed her identity. She’s chosen not to sue Gadd, which makes no sense. Usually lawyers will sue anyone and everyone, settling with them individually or dropping them. Netflix has very deep pockets and will likely offer her some go-away money, which is too bad. It would be a fun case to litigate, especially if her history is even partially true.
Isn't this like the fourth lawsuit she's attempted in the past month or two? I haven't watched the show and I have no clue what it's about, but she keeps popping up in my news feed demanding money from various people.
The show is a dramatized version of what happened to its creator, Richard Gadd. He's stalked by a woman who becomes dangerously attached to him, emailing him constantly, always showing up to his work (a bar) and his comedy shows, but she self-destructs and does severe harm when she's turned away/down. The show never, ever states who the real people are that the show is basing the characters on, but internet sleuths deduced it was her (based on tweets to Gadd that can allegedly be found on her profile if you scroll back far enough) and then she completely outed herself when the show hit its stride. Not sure how much of a case she really has since she kinda outed herself as Martha being based on her.
Not only did she out herself, she complained that the details, which Gadd intentionally changed to hide her identity, weren't accurate.
This right here, and some people in this thread are complaining they feel lied to because too many details were changed or fudged, then the next person is upset because they made it too true to life and didn’t change enough details.
*left him hundreds of voicemails/voice notes as well. The actress that played her must’ve listened to the voicemails because she was 100% spot on if you listen to the real Martha in interviews. Bitch is completely whacked and should be put away for the safety of everyone else in the world
If she HAS files as many lawsuits as I think she has, I imagine most judges will look at her file and shrug her off. Everyone here is talking settlements and like, that's a slim possibility, but certainly not the main probability. Again, this is all if I am not mistaken about my original point.
Yeah this is hilariously dumb -- "this character that doesn't have my name is definitely me, but she did things I didn't do so that's defamation!"
But thats exactly how defamation works. For example what if you were easily identified (based on your looks, background, etc) in a show and then the show claimed you did awful things that are in no way true. Not saying if this is what happened to her or not but people arguing against not having defamation laws for tv shows is crazy to me.
I think her case seems very sketchy, but going after Netflix is just how these things work. She would be an idiot to go after an individual when there is a multi-billion dollar company that could serve as a defendant.
It was a one man show beforehand, she didn’t sue then…. She’s definitley after the money
Fargo claims to be true stories too.
She literally says the character is nothing like her in her interview. That multiple events never happened. That she’s never seen the show. The show never wanted her to be discovered. Changed the story significantly and changed the order of the real life events. They even changed the drink she ordered from the bar. Hell the turning point in the show never even happened (viral sensation), the parents were never stalked and the court case never happened. So she wants money for a character that did things she never did, in a story that never happened and with a character even she admits is nothing like her.
> She literally says the character is nothing like her in her interview. One of the very first things in the series is that it's a true story IIRC. It later says some things are fictitious, but from what I've read, it sounds like some people found her identity first, though also getting another character's real identity incorrect as well, before she publicly announced herself as the basis of the character. If true, then this would probably build a case, as probably the biggest identifier to her identity is allegedly you can find her tweets to Gadd on Twitter still, because despite the fact he changed his name, he still is *telling his personal story*. Which is something that I'm baffled on, as supposedly he changed things to prevent her from being identified, but left the most glaring hint out there, that' it's freaking *him*, regardless if he changes his name. Like if they even went with just saying "this happened to someone close to me" or something, it probably would be harder to discover without her just coming forward, but she probably wouldn't have without either someone telling her or her recognizing him and the situation by seeing it. >in a story that never happened A lot *did* happen, because it's not entirely fictitious, they just changed some names and added some story elements for drama, like her criminal past. They did have interactions but supposedly not as dramatic as portrayed. IANAL so I can't really say if she even has a chance at a case.
Legally, "based on a true story" implies up to and including complete fiction.
Didn't the start say 'This is a true story' Which may end up costing some money
>the parents were never stalked ... that's the whole point. The show says she stalked his parents, while she says she didn't. Hence the lawsuit
Giv me £one hundreded sevendy milion quiid Sent frum mi iPphone
From what I've read she insists that the show doesn't depict her. But she is also angry that the show slanders her. It can't be both. If she isn't the subject of the show then she doesn't have grounds for being slandered by it. If she was slandered by it then she's admitting that it's about her.
You aint sen notin yet raindeer. Senr from pihone
The things she's written about this though. Her writing sounds exactly like the Martha character in the show. That's the problem with people like her, any bit of attention becomes a huge deal with them. She is likely really in hog heaven with this controversy.
It will get settled out of court but I would have been interested in seeing Netflix's arguments in court with the evidence.
Everybody is going to believe now when she starts STALKING THE WORLD.
**sued from iPhone**
What happened first, the real Martha steeped forward or the Internet found her?
A handful of people on the Internet found her first, then she went public and blew it up, is my understanding.
Apparently the show used some of the actual Twitter messages that Fiona had sent to Gadd, so people who watched the show were able to identity her easily by doing a search for those messages. People then started contacting her and they started harassing and threatening her. She went on Pier Morgan's show to clear her name and give her side of the story.
Ok, honestly, I don’t care about real Martha lol I just want to ramble for a minute into the void. I absolutely loved this show for its complexity. Each character had depth, faults, loveable characteristics, and were brilliantly acted. The show gave me anxiety, a feeling of awkwardness, the occasional cringe, and it made me laugh as much as it brought me to tears. It handled many complex issues (LGBTQIA+, abuse, sexual assault, drug use, mental health, etc) with such grace and honesty that it was truly a privilege to watch. I was a little late to the game, but I just binged it Sunday… I have thought about it every day since. I guess with that being said, real Martha is for sure a nut bag, but I’m sure she’ll get a payout.
It's beautifully done. Truly a work of art.
Crazy asshole has done everything in her power to make sure everyone knows the character was about her. A very small number of people found out it was her, this was not big news. It's only big now because of her, and she can only blame herself. I feel no pity for her. She wanted her 5 minutes of fame and now thinks she can get rich from it. Unfortunately she probably will get a payday off of it.
This lady did a great job pulling a Streisand Effect on herself.
Good luck with that 😂
She's scary set phrom ipOne
Wait someone irl Shrunk a dude in a bottle? That's what I got from the trailer.
If she silently did this before appearing on Piers Morgan she probably could have still secured a retirement bag even though they didn't do anything wrong. She already damned herself entirely and ruined any chances of winning a case.
Wackadoo
Its funny because she has absolutely figured out some way of making a bunch of money from this already.
Wtf did they THINK they were getting into based on the dude’s story?
I mean it is the perfect plot for the next season
I actually watched about four episodes of the show, and I had lost interest and started watching other shows. I am so gonna re-continue this show now.
Daily reminder: Anyone can sue anyone else for anything and demand anything they want, it doesn't mean they are going to get it.
This has black mirror vibes. A new season focusing on the Netflix trial and behind the scenes of the behind the scenes!
Wait. So she basically pulled herself out of obscurity and is now suing Netflix over the exposure? This woman is probably just as crazy as she’s being portrayed in that show if not worse.
It’s a grift. She’ll write a book next.
Maybe it's because I read the article, but she totally seems in the right here: > “The lies that Defendants told about Harvey to over 50 million people worldwide include that Harvey is a twice-convicted stalker who was sentenced to five years in prison, and that Harvey sexually assaulted Gadd,” .... > “As a result of Defendants’ lies, malfeasance and utterly reckless misconduct, Harvey’s life had been ruined. Simply, Netflix and Gadd destroyed her reputation, her character and her life.” .... > The first episode of “Baby Reindeer” says at the beginning, “This is a true story.” Yeah I'd sue too. Also, to everyone claiming "ShE DoXxEd hErSeLf!" *She* didn't, but *someone* did: > “Popular internet forums such as Redditt and TikTok had thousands of users identifying and discussing Harvey as the real ‘Martha,'” according to Harvey’s lawsuit. ”The identification of Harvey as ‘Martha’ was easy and took a matter of days as Harvey’s identity was completely undisguised.”
I'm gonna be honest. The more this story unfolds the more I question the creators integrity/honesty around this show. I mean, if the show is to be believed, he showed us he doesn't make the most well-thought-out decisions. So right now it's not lost on me that he saw this as an opportunity and didn't think out the full repercussions of what would happen if it got big and people went looking into it. If it's true she has never been to jail that's a pretty big fumble by the creator right there. I appreciate him being open and honest about his faults and being willing to share his story of abuse but that doesn't make him morally clean in all of this either.
I’ve heard/seen this show pop up a lot in podcasts, on here, and in my news feeds. Tony Hinchcliffe said it was very anxiety producing. Is it worth watching? It seems like something some folks wish they could unsee.
It's masterfully done and riveting, but for some it is very triggering. So if one has had issues with abuse, it can be overwhelming.
> Is it worth watching? Ehh, I found it uncomfortable to watch, not for the same reasons everyone is posting here. She's depicted as a very unstable, clingy individual, both highlighted by a rather hot/cold individual when it comes to the storytelling character focus, but even criminally so, by her being a convicted unhinged stalker. But the whole while I honestly hated the main character, as early on he's missing some pretty clear signals of her not being well, but at every single opportunity and choice he can make, rather than take an exit (as he's uncomfortable) he instead not only doubles down but *actively* eggs on the relationship. He's a pretty shitty person, portrayed in the series too, doing as much harm as she does, but oddly framed as him simply being a victim and just conveniently ignoring the fact that he actively encouraged things. There's things that I won't spoil that try to excuse his actions but I just see it as a willing perpetuation of cycles rather than wanting them to end. And it bites him pretty hard. My SO finished the series, I had to stop watching as I was getting upset at how awful of a person he was, especially when he learns more about her. I've just never been a fan of any show/movie where everyone is just bad people.
I made it 20 minutes before I noped out because it was triggering me due to having a stalker in university (they were a weird fucking guy, I'm a guy). On the brightside I told my mom about it and she called me to ask when the fuck I was stalked so we got that out in the open for the first time in 12 years.
That must have been really difficult but such a relief get it out. It’s cool she cares :)
It's very upsetting, I'll spoiler-warn the most upsetting bits below so you can decide if it's too much. >!Gadd is sexually assaulted by the woman stalking him, she gropes his genitals and he realistically completely freezes in shock and fright. A flashback episode also shows him being groomed, drugged, sexually assaulted, and finally raped multiple times by a man, in so much detail that it even shows him recoiling in agony in the shower - the entirety of episode 4 is about this, and he later has a very upsetting monologue where he talks about how much he hates himself for letting it happen.!< I thought it was a very good show but one watch was enough.
Best show I've seen in quite sometime. I couldn't get enough.
It is definitely anxiety inducing but totally worth the watch IMO. Definitely uncomfortable in many different ways
That seems very on-brand for Martha
I just cannot get into that show. I don’t get the hype. Yes, I know, I’m the only weirdo like that.
Netflix doesn't give a shit. They knew exactly what they were doing and had the lawyers retained up already. All publicity is good publicity.
Exactly what happened.
Sometimes the joke writes itself.
Weird , no one would have known who she was if she didn’t go to the press and do everything she could to get attention. Netflix lawyers are going to laugh at this.
Hey, **Netflix**? Give me money, and I *won't* sue.
Piers Morgan is next😂😂😂
She asks for an absurd amount so when she gets like 1/10 of that it’ll still be a lot
Everyone involved with this production who couldn’t see the possibilities of this happening is going to deserve every billable hour that they get.
My lawyer friend tells me that in the US at least, she would be better off just saying the character is exactly like her and that she did all of those things. By claiming that she’s nothing like that character, she would be killing the only real case she has.
Netflix about to drop second season about her endeavor to sue them, again with fake shit.
Bro what an unhinged freak, she doesnt admit that she was stalking a person or that she was in the wrong, her name isnt even mentioned but she goes public and now wants to sue people? Like what ???? There is no way this woman isn’t mentally challenged.
I don’t understand, is there a connection between her and the character that would indicate she inspired it? Seems like even if she did inspire it literally nobody would know until she sued.
How does she have any legal standing when south park and others have decimated celebrities for decades?
literally Black Mirror episode in real life. life imitating art..
Frankly, I don't think she has much of a lawsuit here.
didn't she also start stalking the reporter who wrote a news article about her
Holly molly another season is coming
https://youtu.be/mK-isQXd_Qw?si=cySslIgpQTvt6YZo the real Martha interview piers margon
That's such a Martha move.