Favourite TV Series

The abuser in it

Spoiler

Looks uncannily like someone he worked with as a writer on Brass Eye in real life, and in the programme, the show the abuser worked on is called Cotton Mouth, so he’s not exactly been subtle with it. If it’s true he’s been very obvious about who he is in real life, so can’t really turn round and blame people for realising who it is. If it isn’t true then he’s really chucked an innocent person under the bus. It’s a great show, but I think he’s been very careless about how he’s gone about it. Something being true always drives more interest, so it’s a dangerous game to play if you use that as a means to sell the show, but sail a bit close to the wind with how you portray the real life people

 

Waiting anxiously to see who replaces Ralph Little in Death in Paradise.

He was the best DI imo.

 

Hannah Ricketts is quite wonderful isn’t she!

 

Reply as

Spoiler

Is it that obvious who it is? A search of Twitter for ‘Baby Reindeer Brass Eye’ produces zero results. I haven’t seen a single name mentioned, but even so, the writer is clear that it’s full of red herrings.

 

It’s not obvious to you or I no

Spoiler

Because we don’t work in Televison/Theatre Comedy, but obviously those that do have made a link between someone in real life and the abuser in the show, which has then leaked out to the rest of us. If you google Sean Foley you’ll have to admit he has more than a passing resemblance to the person he cast in the show. Sean Foley also wrote for Brass Eye, and Cotton Mouth/Brass Eye is hardly subtle. If this guy isn’t the absuser (which Gadd says he isn’t) then he’s really done a number on him. It also hasn’t helped that this Foley chap just so happened to have stepped down from his job at the same time as the show came out. I think it’s a great show, but apparently he’s also gone to barely any lengths to disguise who the stalker was in real life, so it seems a bit rich to turn round and tell people not look into it on any more detail. People shouldn’t, but it stands to treason they will, so if he doesn’t want them to it stands to reason he needs to make the necessary adjustments in his writing to prevent it

 

Spoiler

This is just a summary of Twitter speculation. Gadd has been clear that the characters have been greatly changed, so any likeness to either perpetrator isn’t really convincing at all unless you choose to ignore that.

Thing is, what do we expect here? Surely it’s ok for victims to tell their story? Are they not allowed to do so simply because someone may triangulate who?

 

Spoiler

Well of course they’re allowed to tell their story, but is he telling his story? Either he was groomed and sexually abused by a writer he worked with, or he wasn’t. If he that part is true, then why is he effectively outing them on his show, but then backtracking when people try to work out who they are? And if he wasn’t actually abused he’s been incredibly clumsy with his casting and his plot-lines to implicate a real person. Everyone knows something being true gives a story more weight and more popularity, so if you’re going to court the whole ‘it’s a true story’ angle you’ve also got to accept the consequences of doing that, and make sure if you’re making a genuine accusation you’re ready for the fallout from doing that (and ready to go to the police about it if you haven’t already, something he makes a point of saying he hates himself for not doing in the show). And if it is just entertainment and didn’t actually happen, you need to make sure you’re protecting real life people from the crossfire. It’s very obvious if it’s the latter he hasn’t done that at all from the way this Sean Foley guy was immediately identified.

You say he has said the characters have been greatly changed? That doesn’t mean they actually have. Darrian looks EXACTLY like Sean Foley, and worked on a show that is a clear pseudonym of the one in the show. The people who have apparently found ‘Martha’ by using verbatim tweets that he used in the show say she’s near identical to the person in the show. Just because he says he’s done something it doesn’t mean he actually has, and to my eyes he actually hasn’t, at all

Have you actually watched it?

 

Spoiler

Yep, I’ve watched it all.

Your argument falls down when you believe it’s a true story, but don’t believe the writer did what he said when he changed the details of the protagonists. The ‘likeness’ is just that and those who believe it are choosing to ignore where it doesn’t correspond.

No one has made a verified id on either, though ‘Martha’ shouldn’t be so hard as it went to court. What we have is gossip.

 

The writer himself has told us it’s a true story:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/sep/10/richard-gadd-stalker-baby-reindeer

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/aug/22/richard-gadd-edinburgh-festival-fringe-comedy

I don’t care if it’s real or fiction, but if the writer says it’s true then you tend to believe it, don’t think he’s lying about what happened in that article then? Even down to the stuff about his parents getting involved?

 

I’m not sure what you are asking here. I do believe it and I also believe what he says about disguising the individuals or at least nothing sufficient has emerged for me to doubt that or to want to doubt that (there’s a very strong and evident desire amongst the internet sleuths).

If you believe the writer, then when he claims to have disguised the identity any amateur sleuth should conclude it won’t be someone who resembles the actor in the role. Gadd could of course be hinting, but production companies don’t usually allow writers to cast. They have people for that.

I also imagine Netflix would take a very careful look at all of its output, but especially something claiming to be true.

 

I mean, I think the term ‘internet sleuth’ is slightly overkill, anybody with Google could fine her easily enough, based on him using real life quotes that are in the public domain:

 

Well yes, it went to court and she’s left a trail. That’s her doing, not his. For anyone determined enough, she could be found from the court record, her previous and the trail she left. His disguising her is simply not to make the role a direct copy. In some respects, he hasn’t, if he has used some of her language, but what of it? Why shouldn’t he repeat what was said or published? This is simply a matter of degrees. He could have given her gills and a trunk and the court record would have still revealed her.

My second para refers to the second individual, not ‘Martha.’ No one can claim to have definitively established that identity unless Gadd confirms it.

 

And now we know. It’s Don Gilet, best known for Eastenders.

Nice a black actor finally gets to play the lead role in a series set in the Caribbean.

 

She’s actually English, but does a very good American accent.

 

There’s to be one more Gavin and Stacey.

They’ve just announced an episode for Christmas Day.

(sorry to be mentioning Christmas when it’s only May lol)

 

The perfect time to do the washing up on Christmas day.

 

I’ve never seen an episode of Gavin and Stacey.

 

Me neither.

 

It’s easy, harmless watching.

 

Any particular reason ? It’s sweet, gentle and funny, you should give it a try and watch the first couple of episodes.
It’s a million miles away from the smarmy self confident guy James cordon has become if that’s the main turn off.

 

No, it’s just something that’s never really crossed my path. It’s true that I’m not keen on the smug Corden, but I was only vaguely aware until more recently that he was in it. I find that, if you don’t discover a TV series near the start, it’s rare to go back and catch up on it. (The only one I can think of where I did that was Spooks years ago. I started watching in about season 3 and got the first two on DVD.) In general, the more people bang on about something, or it’s referred to endlessly elsewhere, the less I’m motivated to see it.

 

I used to feel the same way until I discovered Curb. And FBI. And True detective.

 

True Detective is a great example of one where I was on it right from the start (and banged on about it!) and have enjoyed it ever since - even the less good seasons. The other two I’ve never seen.

 

Breaking Bad I only went back to a couple of years ago, but it was great because as soon as I did it I could go straight onto BCS and I caught up lost as the last series was out.

 

Curb is fantastic.

 

Yeah, but you like Friends.

 

Would echo TuTs thoughts, though. G&S is definitely worth a watch, and that comes from a fan of Curb, the office, Peep show etc. it’s not in their league by any stretch, but there is some good humour in there.

 

WWTW is right, if you don't get into something at the start, it's harder to pick it up. I did pick up Peep Show later on, although I've still only got to season 4. Hard to find the time.

Seems to me that G&S was a bit of a slow burner, it eventually became very popular but I don't recall much hype at the start.

 

It was definitely a slow burner, think it started on BBC3 and then made it to BBC1.

I think maybe comedies are easier to go back to though, as it’s more about the comedy, whereas drama etc. you notice the fact they’re dated far more, maybe that’s just me though. I can watch old episodes of curb and peep show and not think about how old they are, but I’d never do that with a drama.

 

Yes exactly this.