Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Outspoken. It's your dose of the
Speaker 1: hottest influencer and pop culture news twice a week. Coming
Speaker 1: up on today's show, Roxy Jusenko steps down from her
Speaker 1: ten million dollar house giveaway. Here's Morgan is under fire
Speaker 1: for interviewing Baby Reindeer's real life Martha, and journalist Antoinette
Speaker 1: Latoufe breaks her silence over the inspired Unemployed break. But first,
Speaker 1: what do you guys think about eating in the shower,
Speaker 1: because jar Dae Tunci has sparked debate after she uploaded
Speaker 1: a video of her chowing down on a burger in
Speaker 1: the shower. Well, I have been known to eat in
Speaker 1: the shower quite a bit, but I've never gone as
Speaker 1: far as having a burger. I've only had snacks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I have been known to also eat in the shower,
Speaker 1: which probably won't surprise OG listeners because we have been
Speaker 1: slammed for using our phone in the shower. That's gross.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever really eaten a meal, let
Speaker 1: alone a chocolate in the shower. Oh, you've got to
Speaker 1: try it. It's the best when you have a little
Speaker 1: snack and you take it in there and you're just
Speaker 1: so comfortable and warm. I do want to point out
Speaker 1: that Jade Twincy also is eight months pregnant, so I
Speaker 1: respect it even more as a fellow pregnant woman. I'm
Speaker 1: actually thankful that she reminded me of this because I
Speaker 1: haven't done it for so long. I can see how
Speaker 1: it would be nice in winter. And maybe this is
Speaker 1: something that a lot of mums do because it's probably
Speaker 1: the only time they get on their own. The worst
Speaker 1: thing is when you get caught out and you've left
Speaker 1: a wrapper in the shower and you just look like
Speaker 1: it absolutely pig to your part. I think I like
Speaker 1: when I have a shower at night time. Usually it's
Speaker 1: an everything shower where I'm scrubbing off tan or I'm
Speaker 1: shaving my legs so and I'm usually on my phone
Speaker 1: as well, so I don't have an extra hand to
Speaker 1: hold food. I can't let this get too out of hand.
Speaker 1: I feel like your partner, Amy is someone who could
Speaker 1: progress to eating in the shower because I don't mean
Speaker 1: to call you out. Often when I go in your
Speaker 1: bathroom there are empty soda water bottles and also beer bottles.
Speaker 1: I think Dale does love a shower beer now and
Speaker 1: then it is getting a little bit embarrassing, especially when
Speaker 1: I've left my chocolate wrapper and there's also beer cans
Speaker 1: in there.
Speaker 2: I had CAFC for dinner last night, and I feel good.
Speaker 1: I feel good that I've.
Speaker 2: Held my head.
Speaker 1: Hi, I was backed into a corner. My name is
Speaker 1: all over.
Speaker 2: This money can be made again by me.
Speaker 1: Roxy Jasenko has announced she's stepping away from the controversial
Speaker 1: ten million dollar house giveaway she was the face of.
Speaker 1: Now before we get into the recent drama, Kay, can
Speaker 1: you tell us more about this competition? Well, Roxy launched
Speaker 1: the promotion called Roxy's boot Camps, in a wave of
Speaker 1: publicity on March eighth. She was absolutely everywhere promoting this competition,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure she heavily regrets. Now so, she appeared
Speaker 1: on the Kyle and Jackie Oh Show and told the
Speaker 1: host that she was giving away a ten million dollar home.
Speaker 1: She also did an interview with Sunrise where she said,
Speaker 1: you need to incentivize people to study, and what better
Speaker 1: way than a ten million dollar house, a rolex or
Speaker 1: a burken bag. Now amongst the media attention, Domain ran
Speaker 1: with the headline Roxy Jasenko is giving away a ten
Speaker 1: million dollar Mediterranean style waterfront pad. This competition was much
Speaker 1: more complicated than your average home lottery, so to you
Speaker 1: had to sign up to the course. Prices ranged from
Speaker 1: twenty nine dollars for one month's access to the course
Speaker 1: and one entry into the competition to a four hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety nine dollar subscription which provided you then with
Speaker 1: five hundred entries. The main prize promoted was a ten
Speaker 1: million dollar home located in Cronulla, and the other prizes
Speaker 1: included a Rolex watch and a Burken bag, both valued
Speaker 1: at twenty thousand dollars. This is such a huge incentive
Speaker 1: to enter. It's not every day you see a ten
Speaker 1: million dollar house up for grabs, and that is why
Speaker 1: over seven thousand people signed up for Roxy's course. A
Speaker 1: big part of the issue is, though, that media reports
Speaker 1: didn't clearly state entrance only had a chance of winning
Speaker 1: the major prize. So the first red flag appeared during
Speaker 1: a Sunrise interview when Roxy deflected from answering the exact
Speaker 1: chances of winning the ten million dollar house. So this
Speaker 1: led publication Criche to dig into the terms and conditions,
Speaker 1: and it turned out the winning prize wasn't actually the house,
Speaker 1: but instead entry into another game of chance for the home.
Speaker 1: So In the secondary competition, in order to win the home,
Speaker 1: the entrant had to select two winning envelopes out of
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty available to win the house. So
Speaker 1: the odds of going on to pick the right envelope
Speaker 1: alone was one in sixty two thousand, two hundred and fifty. Now,
Speaker 1: Kraiki ended up contacting Roxy about the low odds, and
Speaker 1: she responded saying, there is a chance, and that is
Speaker 1: how we are communicating the offer and always have been.
Speaker 1: We are offering someone the chance to play to win
Speaker 1: the property and guaranteed consolation prizes if it is not
Speaker 1: one via the method. Now, the prizes that Roxy is
Speaker 1: referring to is the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: cash and also the Rolex and Burken Bag. So essentially
Speaker 1: this competition was committed to giving away those three prizes,
Speaker 1: and then it seems like it was very unlikely to
Speaker 1: actually go on to win the ten million dollar house.
Speaker 1: And as for this ten million dollar home, it has
Speaker 1: been revealed that it didn't even belong to Roxy, but
Speaker 1: instead it belonged to her business partner Yo of Tills
Speaker 1: and his associate Kasman Aloui. And according to the Sunday Telegraph.
Speaker 1: It was actually purchased in twenty twenty for three point
Speaker 1: four million dollars after it failed to sell at auction,
Speaker 1: but it was enlisted again late last year for ten million,
Speaker 1: but also didn't sell. Now The Daily Telegraph is also
Speaker 1: reporting that local Cronulla real estate agents have expressed doubts
Speaker 1: that the house would even reach the ten million dollar
Speaker 1: asking price. Now. On Friday night, Roxy did share an
Speaker 1: eight minute video announcing she was stepping down as director
Speaker 1: from Roxy's boot camps. The backstory is very interesting because
Speaker 1: she revealed that she had agreed to run the competition
Speaker 1: after being approached by a stranger who direct messaged her
Speaker 1: with the idea. She said, she went on to form
Speaker 1: a partnership with two people she said she didn't know.
Speaker 1: Did this shock anyone else? Well, particularly because Roxy does
Speaker 1: position herself as being a very savvy business woman and
Speaker 1: well connected. Yeah, Well, it didn't take long for her
Speaker 1: to regret her decision, because she claims three days after
Speaker 1: the emotion commenced that she felt really uncomfortable and she
Speaker 1: actually suggested to her new business partners that they refund
Speaker 1: all of the purchases. And she alleged that her request
Speaker 1: was rejected and that the promotion continued.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: The pr message was very clear in this video. I
Speaker 1: actually laughed watching it because she said the same thing
Speaker 1: over and over again. So she wanted her audience to
Speaker 1: know that she has done everything within her power to
Speaker 1: ensure that the three prizes are given to the winners. Now,
Speaker 1: she claims, after discovering the company bank accounts didn't have
Speaker 1: funds to cover the two hundred and fifty thousand dollar prize,
Speaker 1: that she tried to chip in the remaining twenty k
Speaker 1: that was missing. Now. She said she would do so
Speaker 1: if the money was put into a trust to protect it. Now,
Speaker 1: she said that that request was rejected and then she
Speaker 1: was told that she had to stand down as a
Speaker 1: director and she is now just a shareholder in the company.
Speaker 1: She also confirmed that she no longer has access to
Speaker 1: that bank account, so she can't guarantee that the two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollar parries will be paid. She did, however,
Speaker 1: say that she is holding the burken bag and the
Speaker 1: role AT's hostage. She also claimed that she's out of
Speaker 1: pocket three hundred and fifty thousand dollars now. On Saturday,
Speaker 1: Roxy did a follow up video confirming that she would
Speaker 1: be personally refunding all seven thousand plus customers who purchased
Speaker 1: a package from Roxy's boot camp. She said the course
Speaker 1: would also remain available to everyone who received a refund. Again,
Speaker 1: in this video, it was so clear that she was
Speaker 1: really sticking to the PR messaging. So she said so
Speaker 1: many times that she will be personally fitting the bill
Speaker 1: that the money is coming from her. I mean, obviously,
Speaker 1: if you are going to be paying that amount of money,
Speaker 1: your people to know that's from you. Well, there is
Speaker 1: a rule when you are communicating with people that you
Speaker 1: actually do have to reiterate those points over and over
Speaker 1: again for people to actually buy in and understand it.
Speaker 1: But it's not surprising that she has because how dirty
Speaker 1: would you bet your name is attached to this? This
Speaker 1: isn't a good look for her, oh, and a terrible look,
Speaker 1: and the fact that, I mean she has come out
Speaker 1: and said, look, this doesn't look good for me. My
Speaker 1: face is all over it. I did find her PR
Speaker 1: strategy around it very interesting because she is known as
Speaker 1: being a very glamorous PR queen, but she chose to
Speaker 1: film the video with no makeup on, in her pajamas,
Speaker 1: with her hair slipped back. That was a very intentional move.
Speaker 1: She was clearly trying to create sympathy for herself. She said,
Speaker 1: my hands are tired, I am exhausted, I feel bullied,
Speaker 1: I feel distressed, and I'm embarrassed. It is a clever
Speaker 1: move because it is in stark contrast to how she
Speaker 1: was portrayed in the advertisements for this ten million dollar giveaway.
Speaker 1: She was obviously very glamed up. It really humanized her
Speaker 1: as well. I fell and if I'm someone who has
Speaker 1: purchased one of these tickets and I'm sort of sitting
Speaker 1: at home thinking what the fuck is going on? I
Speaker 1: think one, Okay, she's clearly jumped on her social media
Speaker 1: as soon as she could to let me know the messaging.
Speaker 1: And also if she's sitting on there with a hair
Speaker 1: all done, in glamorous clothes, expensive jewelry, I'm thinking, oh,
Speaker 1: you've clearly run away with the peat. And it also
Speaker 1: looks like it's been pre planned, whereas this looks like
Speaker 1: she's just jumped on and she's been very emotive and
Speaker 1: wanting to just as you said, instantly get on there
Speaker 1: to update people. Yeah, there was definitely a sense of
Speaker 1: urgency to this. I also found it interesting that a
Speaker 1: month's providing the business details, she repeatedly spoke about her
Speaker 1: weight and how it had been impacted by the stress
Speaker 1: of the promotion. Let's writ to some of what she
Speaker 1: said regarding this.
Speaker 2: The course of the last two months, which to be
Speaker 2: really honest with you, feels like two and a half
Speaker 2: years for me, Um, it's been nothing short of distressing, stressful.
Speaker 2: I am forty nine kilos today alone. I have fainted twice,
Speaker 2: things that have never happened to me. And I have
Speaker 2: had many businesses. I've had many ups and downs, and
Speaker 2: I've powered through each and every one of them.
Speaker 1: In the second video, she followed up by telling her
Speaker 1: audience not to worry because she had eaten KFC tonight.
Speaker 1: Before I get what she was trying to do, she
Speaker 1: was trying to show that obviously, this competition is taken
Speaker 1: an emotional toll on her and it's causing her a
Speaker 1: lot of stress. But I just feel so uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: her constantly putting out there how much she weighs. I
Speaker 1: think it's quite irrelevant. You can just say I'm very
Speaker 1: stressed and I've lost weight. You don't have to say
Speaker 1: how much weight, but also using it as a method
Speaker 1: to gunner sympathy. When she has explicitly spoken on an
Speaker 1: Instagram story about how she works out five times a week,
Speaker 1: she was caught up in controversy because she said she
Speaker 1: only ate two boiled eggs and a Greek salad for dinner.
Speaker 1: She's spoken a lot about how she exercises five times
Speaker 1: a week. Her weight loss seems quite intentional, particularly because
Speaker 1: she also spoke about how she nearly died from taking
Speaker 1: a zepic, So it was strange to me that she
Speaker 1: was then blaming this weight loss on the stress of
Speaker 1: this competition. I wonder how many people they actually expected
Speaker 1: to sign up for this course, because it's come out
Speaker 1: that they've had seven thousand entries. If they all of
Speaker 1: those seven thousand people actually signed up to the four
Speaker 1: hundred ninety nine dollars subscription, that adds up to around
Speaker 1: three point four million dollars, it's obviously not an enough
Speaker 1: to even pay for the house. Yeah, and it's very
Speaker 1: unlikely that everyone is going to sign up to the
Speaker 1: top package.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Roxy's former business partner, Joseph Tills, spoke to The Sunday
Speaker 1: Telegraph and he confirmed that the competition will still go
Speaker 1: ahead without Roxy, so Yosef refuted Roxy's claims and said
Speaker 1: that the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars were safely
Speaker 1: sitting in the company's bank account, and he said that
Speaker 1: he only removed Roxy from the account after she shared
Speaker 1: the Instagram video on Friday night. Joseph claims that Roxy
Speaker 1: was also set to take fifty percent of the shareholding,
Speaker 1: while he and his other business partner would take twenty
Speaker 1: five percent each. He then went on to claim that
Speaker 1: Roxy resigned from the company in mid April, which resulted
Speaker 1: in him being locked out of the company accounts and
Speaker 1: the bank account being frozen. He also said he explored
Speaker 1: legal proceedings, but they were averted when he was granted
Speaker 1: access to the accounts on condition that Roxy was permitted
Speaker 1: to exit the business. Now it just seems like an
Speaker 1: absolute shit show. So there were attempts made to repair
Speaker 1: this relationship, and Joseph said that it became irreparable on
Speaker 1: May first. I think the most interesting part of his
Speaker 1: claim is that he said he and his business partner
Speaker 1: were actually the ones that wanted to originally resign from
Speaker 1: this business, and he claims that Roxy got wind of
Speaker 1: vis so that is why she then pulled the plug
Speaker 1: and announced publicly that she was stepping down as director.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like they're all trying to jump from
Speaker 1: this sinking ship. If I had purchased one of these tickets,
Speaker 1: that would not fill me with much confidence that I'm
Speaker 1: getting money. I question what these guys are saying because
Speaker 1: they have come to Roxy with this concept they are
Speaker 1: the brains behind this competition and she is merely the
Speaker 1: face of it. Well, I wouldn't say merely the face,
Speaker 1: because she also agreed to go ahead with it. These
Speaker 1: guys actually claim that they approached Roxy and said that
Speaker 1: they wanted a celebrity from the Ministry of Talent, which
Speaker 1: is a talent agency. She managed the position, and she said, no,
Speaker 1: I've actually got the reach, that is what they allege.
Speaker 1: I am so interested to see what happens when this
Speaker 1: competition is actually drawn, because Roxy said that she's refunding everyone.
Speaker 1: So doesn't that defunct the whole competition? Like, how can
Speaker 1: it still go ahead?
Speaker 3: I've got a photographic memory. I was top of the
Speaker 3: skill apart from the science. What grade did you get
Speaker 3: all right? Grads? I mean, not top of the or anything.
Speaker 3: When you do a degree, you get it. You're asking
Speaker 3: me what mace I got for thirteen subjects.
Speaker 1: I can't remember. Controversial UK broadcaster Piers Morgan is under
Speaker 1: fire for his face to face interview with the so
Speaker 1: called real life Marfa, who allegedly inspired the hit Netflix
Speaker 1: show Baby Reindeer.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Critics are questioning the ethics of paying and interviewing an
Speaker 1: alleged stalker, who the show's creator, Richard Gadd, claims is
Speaker 1: mentally ill. Sophie, You, like the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: has been captivated by this show. Yeah, this show has
Speaker 1: gripped me in a way that other shows haven't for
Speaker 1: quite some time. And I think it's down to the
Speaker 1: fact that it has been promoted as a true story.
Speaker 1: This isn't just based off a true story or inspired
Speaker 1: by real life events. Netflix has boldly said that this
Speaker 1: is a true story and the show is absolutely fascinating.
Speaker 1: It is written by Richard Gadd, who also plays himself
Speaker 1: on the show. See when I was watching her, I
Speaker 1: didn't realize and that adds a whole extra dimension to
Speaker 1: it because the show is just so confronting and raw. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it does explore how he became the point of obsession
Speaker 1: for a serial stalker called Martha whilst he was trying
Speaker 1: to make it as a comedian, and I think the
Speaker 1: fact that he plays himself in the show makes it
Speaker 1: even more powerful. What is pretty remarkable about this show
Speaker 1: is that it has turned its audience into armchair detectives.
Speaker 1: So after watching this show, fans have been trying to
Speaker 1: hunt down the real life Martha and it was actually
Speaker 1: relatively easy for them to find her because on the
Speaker 1: show they used real messages and emails that Richard says
Speaker 1: that the stalker sent him. And the interesting thing about
Speaker 1: the messages is they were written in such a specific
Speaker 1: way there were a lot of consistent ramatical and spelling errors. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and fans were able to cross reference the messages on
Speaker 1: social media to the ones on the show, and it
Speaker 1: wasn't long before TikTok users revealed who Martha was and
Speaker 1: they created all of these videos online which generated a
Speaker 1: lot of engagement and a lot of attention. Now, the
Speaker 1: real life Martha was revealed to be a fifty eight
Speaker 1: year old Scottish woman called Fiona Harvey, and not long
Speaker 1: after her identity was revealed, online journalist Piers Morgan was
Speaker 1: promoting that he had a world exclusive TV interview with her,
Speaker 1: so he wrote on ex world exclusive, the real life
Speaker 1: Martha from Baby Reindeer breaks cover and gives me the
Speaker 1: first TV interview about the smash hit Netflix show Fiona
Speaker 1: Harvey wants to have her say and set the record straight.
Speaker 1: Is she a psychostalker? I love that he finished with
Speaker 1: that line, because clearly the interview was already in the can.
Speaker 1: They would have had to do so much persuading to
Speaker 1: get her on the show. It's pretty incredible when you
Speaker 1: think a YouTube show actually beat out these huge networks
Speaker 1: to get this interview. Well, I think that that speaks
Speaker 1: more broadly about the entertainment industry though, because TV is dead.
Speaker 1: I mean Piers Morgan, he has two million followers or
Speaker 1: two million subscribers on his YouTube channel. In the space
Speaker 1: of three days, this YouTube has had nine million views. Now,
Speaker 1: this interview was very lengthy. It went for fifty four minutes,
Speaker 1: and I was glued to every single second of it,
Speaker 1: even though at times I felt uncomfortable that I was
Speaker 1: watching it. I think that's how a lot of people
Speaker 1: felt online. You almost felt guilty for watching it and
Speaker 1: buying into the sensationalism of it. All. It was like
Speaker 1: watching a car crash. You just could not look away.
Speaker 1: And it is clear that Peers used this lengthy interview
Speaker 1: style as a way to trip her up. I could
Speaker 1: just sense how much the producers had tried to say
Speaker 1: to Fiona how she and Peers were the same, because
Speaker 1: when he asked her, oh, so, what made you choose
Speaker 1: my show to appear on, she said that she knew
Speaker 1: he had all been persecuted like her. There was this
Speaker 1: connection there. However, I think once the interview went on,
Speaker 1: it became quite apparent what side Peers was on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the amount of smoke they would have blown up her
Speaker 1: ass to actually get her to agree to do the interview,
Speaker 1: and then the tables would turned sue quickly. Now, during
Speaker 1: this interview, Fiona did claim to have only met Richard
Speaker 1: a few times, and she did deny sending him forty
Speaker 1: one thousand emails and one hundred letters. Instead, she claimed
Speaker 1: that she sent him only a handful of emails and
Speaker 1: that he must have made up the rest himself. It's
Speaker 1: funny because rather than denying the fact that she contacted
Speaker 1: him via email, she just kept saying, oh, how would
Speaker 1: someone possibly send forty one thousand emails in the space.
Speaker 2: Of a year.
Speaker 1: It's like, yeah, I don't know if that's a good
Speaker 1: enough defense, And then she also said, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: think I did, and he's like, well, how do you
Speaker 1: not know if you've sent that many emails. She also
Speaker 1: denied that she's been convicted of stalking Richard or being
Speaker 1: sent to prison, and also claimed to be a lawyer,
Speaker 1: and she revealed her plans to sue both Richard and
Speaker 1: Netflix for defamation. She did reiterate that she personally wouldn't
Speaker 1: be suing them. She also said that her boyfriend was
Speaker 1: a lawyer and he wouldn't be suing that she would
Speaker 1: get a other lawyer to do so. Apparently she has
Speaker 1: been dating this lawyer for five years now. While she
Speaker 1: said the show was defamatory, she also claimed to have
Speaker 1: never watched any scene of the show, and in one
Speaker 1: notable moment during this interview, she also boasted about having
Speaker 1: a photographic memory, but was then unable to tell peers
Speaker 1: her law school grades. So there were just so many
Speaker 1: moments where peers managed to trip her up and make
Speaker 1: her look silly. This interview did her no favors whatsoever.
Speaker 1: There were so many inconsistencies, and at some points I
Speaker 1: felt like Peers was actually trying to help her out,
Speaker 1: but she just didn't take the bait at all, and
Speaker 1: some of her remarks about Richard have quickly become viral
Speaker 1: memes on TikTok. Let's throw to one of them.
Speaker 3: Leave me alone, please get a life, get a proper job.
Speaker 3: I am horrified what you've done.
Speaker 1: When I first saw these memes circulating, my first reaction
Speaker 1: was to send them on and have a bit of
Speaker 1: a laugh. But when you think about it, it's actually
Speaker 1: really sad that this mentally ill woman is being taken
Speaker 1: advantage of by a huge broadcaster and being mocked for
Speaker 1: all of our entertainment. This is also not going to
Speaker 1: be good for her legal case, because this will be
Speaker 1: used as evidence against her. What I found most surprising
Speaker 1: was following this interview, Fiona came out and admitted that
Speaker 1: she was paid only two hundred and fifty pounds for
Speaker 1: this exclusive, and it turned out that she had turned
Speaker 1: down a number of other morning shows. She said that
Speaker 1: she felt used by Peers and that the questions were
Speaker 1: rapid fire to try and trip her up. She also
Speaker 1: said it was fast paced to catch me off. God,
Speaker 1: has she not seen any other interviews by Piers Morgan
Speaker 1: because that is just his interview style. I do wonder
Speaker 1: if these morning shows didn't offer her any money, because
Speaker 1: ethically it looks really wrong to pay an accuse stalk
Speaker 1: her to get their side of events. Like I mean,
Speaker 1: if this was a male stalker, a male older stalker,
Speaker 1: I don't think that we would give them any airtime
Speaker 1: at all, let alone pay them for their time and
Speaker 1: their side of the story. The UK aren't really known
Speaker 1: for their media ethics and Piers has faced a lot
Speaker 1: of backlash from mental health campaigners and survivors of stalking
Speaker 1: over his decision to interview Fiona. Many people have called
Speaker 1: it irresponsible and bizarre, and I would agree with them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because after Baby Reindeer, Ed Richard did tell the media
Speaker 1: that the real person who inspired Martha was very mentally unwell,
Speaker 1: and he also did urge fans not to try and
Speaker 1: find her. So it was an interesting decision for a
Speaker 1: broadcaster to then go and spotlight this woman.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: While he did give her a platform to share her
Speaker 1: side of the story, Piers Morgan was always going to
Speaker 1: interrogate her. He fired questions at her and he did
Speaker 1: pull apart her story. Yeah, I think plenty of journalism
Speaker 1: students could learn a lot from watching Peters's interview techniques.
Speaker 1: While many people people are questioning the ethics over this interview,
Speaker 1: it is clear that he pulled this interview off pretty flawlessly.
Speaker 1: He demonstrated that he definitely has talent in interviewing people.
Speaker 1: He gave her enough room at the start of the
Speaker 1: interview so that she felt comfortable to share her side
Speaker 1: of things, but then he was very clever on jumping
Speaker 1: on all of her inconsistencies in an attempt to trip
Speaker 1: her up and to get her to admit what she
Speaker 1: had been accused of. While this may have been a
Speaker 1: masterclass in interviewing, it was not in ethics, because while
Speaker 1: Fiona may have agreed to do the interview, it's quite
Speaker 1: clear that she probably wasn't mentally fit to actually make
Speaker 1: that decision or fully understood the repercussions of that decision.
Speaker 1: If the show is anything to go by, she was
Speaker 1: portrayed as a very lonely person who didn't have a
Speaker 1: big support group around her, and if that is the
Speaker 1: case in real life, it means that she wouldn't have
Speaker 1: had the support of friends of family to actually step
Speaker 1: in and say this is a bad idea. I mean,
Speaker 1: she did mention that she hadn't told her mum about
Speaker 1: the interview. It's clear watching this interview that there's two
Speaker 1: possibilities at play. The first possibility is that Fiona is
Speaker 1: telling the truth and that Richard and Netflix have overly
Speaker 1: exaggerated this story and her character and passed it off
Speaker 1: as a true story. If this is the case, a
Speaker 1: woman has been defamed and both parties have left themselves
Speaker 1: open to legal action. I don't think that that is
Speaker 1: the case, but that is one scenario. The other scenario
Speaker 1: that is more feasible, in my opinion, is that Fiona
Speaker 1: did do all of these things that she's been accused of,
Speaker 1: and the media are parading around a mentally ill woman
Speaker 1: for clicks and entertainment. And the worst thing is that
Speaker 1: we're all lapping it up. Like I personally, as soon
Speaker 1: as this interview dropped, I couldn't get enough of it.
Speaker 1: I just could not stop watching it. It was such
Speaker 1: compelling viewing. So I think we do have to have
Speaker 1: a look at ourselves as well. I couldn't help but
Speaker 1: also think that Piers Morgan has opened her up for
Speaker 1: a counter defamation case because she kept making comments about
Speaker 1: how Richard gadd is psychotic and mentally ill himself, and
Speaker 1: also making derogatory comments about Netflix. Yeah, and I think
Speaker 1: even just mental health. Aside from this, the ethics of
Speaker 1: giving an alleged stalker the opportunity to give their side
Speaker 1: of the story and rebut a victim's claims, I think
Speaker 1: is just very unjustifiable. I think that gender, as I
Speaker 1: touched on, has really come into play with this decision.
Speaker 1: If this was a fifty eight year old man who
Speaker 1: stalked a much younger woman, we wouldn't have opened up
Speaker 1: the possibility to hear his side of events, and I
Speaker 1: don't think that he would have been spotlighted in this
Speaker 1: way in this show. Richard also made the point the
Speaker 1: police didn't take his matter seriously due to it being
Speaker 1: a woman who stalks him. And this is despite the
Speaker 1: fact that in Baby Reindeer, Martha actually sexually assaulted Richard's
Speaker 1: character on the show, So if any of that is true,
Speaker 1: and then also an alleged sexual predator has also been platformed,
Speaker 1: the whole thing is just uncomfortable. I don't understand how
Speaker 1: it's even gotten to this point, and I think Netflix
Speaker 1: are really to blame for it because they didn't have
Speaker 1: to come out and promote this as a true story.
Speaker 1: They could have easily said based on a true story.
Speaker 1: They clearly have all of the receipts. I think that
Speaker 1: it's quite clear that there's a lot of evidence to
Speaker 1: prove that this did happen to Richard. And I just
Speaker 1: feel so bad for Richard. You know, he's put it
Speaker 1: very bravely, put all of his darkest moments into this
Speaker 1: show out for the world to see it. But ethically, Sophie,
Speaker 1: if they had said based on a true story and
Speaker 1: people found this real Martha, then it wouldn't have such
Speaker 1: massive repercussions for this person. I just have found this
Speaker 1: interview to be so disrespectful to Richard, and I think
Speaker 1: what is so scary about this is this is far
Speaker 1: from the end of the story. People are saying that
Speaker 1: we are seeing Baby Reindeer two play out in real life,
Speaker 1: and through taking part of this interview, Fiona has become
Speaker 1: somewhat of a celebrity. In the interview, she even spoke
Speaker 1: about getting a potential book deal where she was going
Speaker 1: to expose her side of the story and as we speak,
Speaker 1: she probably has a ton of reality show producers or
Speaker 1: documentary makers who were knocking on her door offering her
Speaker 1: money to be involved, and I don't think that she
Speaker 1: should be able to profit on allegedly any of this
Speaker 1: behavior that has taken place. In saying that, though, do
Speaker 1: you think Richard could have avoided this by changing a
Speaker 1: few things up, particularly sharing the exact messages that she
Speaker 1: shared that were available on Twitter. I think it's a
Speaker 1: tough one because when the show exploded in popularity, he
Speaker 1: made a point of saying, I have tried to conceal
Speaker 1: the real people's identities by making the character slightly different. However,
Speaker 1: when we did meet the real life Martha, she looked
Speaker 1: bang on to her the actor on the shows absolutely uncanny. Yeah, resemblance.
Speaker 1: It was spot on. And also I've seen a lot
Speaker 1: of memes floating around saying that all of the other
Speaker 1: characters look very much like the actors as well. It's
Speaker 1: not just in appearance though, it's the fact that they
Speaker 1: would easily know that those tweets were available and could
Speaker 1: be searched. But I also think why does he he
Speaker 1: necessarily have to protect someone who made his life a
Speaker 1: living misery and how it protects him from a defamation case.
Speaker 1: But it's not defamat truf. It's true. There's the truth
Speaker 1: defense there as well. Yes, I know, but he probably
Speaker 1: doesn't want his show overshadowed by having to now go
Speaker 1: to court and relive all of overshadowed. This is probably
Speaker 1: the best thing for him if he's going to want
Speaker 1: to bring out a second series, while mentally it might
Speaker 1: be bad for him. I mean, the thing that is
Speaker 1: a bit awkward is in the show. In one of
Speaker 1: the last episodes, he admitted that he sort of became
Speaker 1: obsessed with her and he couldn't let her go. So
Speaker 1: a lot of people are saying, is this a way
Speaker 1: for her to still be in his life. Journalist Antoinette
Speaker 1: Latoufe has broken her silence, saying she was mortified by
Speaker 1: the response to her involvement in the inspired unemployeds prank
Speaker 1: last month.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Alongside Antoinette, high profile feminist you Miss Steins and Clementine
Speaker 1: Ford featured at the Love Unboxed event in Sydney last month,
Speaker 1: which was marketed as a thought provoking discussion on love
Speaker 1: and marriage. Now, the crowd at the time didn't know
Speaker 1: that the free Q and a style panel was part
Speaker 1: of The Inspired Unemployed's prank show called Impractical Jokers. So
Speaker 1: Jack Steele, who is one half of The Inspired Unemployed,
Speaker 1: appeared on the panel to give the perspective of a
Speaker 1: young male and some of his contributions to the panel
Speaker 1: were that he thinks chicks did consent and he really
Speaker 1: likes girl writers. Now, he was being fed these lines
Speaker 1: because the show was a prank show, so this was
Speaker 1: part of a punishment. The backlash was swift, and it
Speaker 1: seemed like people were more pissed off at the feminists
Speaker 1: that were on the panel rather than at the Inspired Unemployed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they definitely copped it a lot. Now, Antoinette has opened
Speaker 1: up on her podcast, explaining that she previously had been
Speaker 1: unable to comment about the incident as she and the
Speaker 1: other women had signed a non disclosure agreement. That's what
Speaker 1: a lot of people did guess at the time. She
Speaker 1: admitted that she and the other panelists had completely misread
Speaker 1: the situation and was mortified that the audience felt jeeps.
Speaker 1: So she explained that producers approached her to host the event,
Speaker 1: and she and the other hosts said that they answered
Speaker 1: the questions posted them on the panel very seriously, so
Speaker 1: they felt as though their audience was still getting something
Speaker 1: from the experiment. She said that they really thought that
Speaker 1: the joke would be on Jack and that the audience
Speaker 1: would enjoy being annoyed at him. However, when the joke
Speaker 1: was revealed, the producers were supposed to come up on
Speaker 1: stage and back the women and explain what happened, but
Speaker 1: they didn't come up on stage, and they were then
Speaker 1: left to deal with the upset and the situation as
Speaker 1: it unfolded. Well, Antoinette said, the great irony of it
Speaker 1: was the three women mopping up. We apologized profusely, and
Speaker 1: apologized repeatedly, and we listened and we heard. Then we realized, damn.
Speaker 1: We all thought this would land differently. We honestly did
Speaker 1: think it would land differently. It's clear they misread the
Speaker 1: situation completely. There is a lot of backtracking going on.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's fair to blame the producers because
Speaker 1: I personally don't think it would have made a difference
Speaker 1: if they came out and back them up. I think
Speaker 1: it was a bit naive to assume that Jack was
Speaker 1: simply going to be the butt of the joke, and
Speaker 1: that there wouldn't be men having a laugh about feminism,
Speaker 1: because even the fact that this was Jack's punishment to
Speaker 1: be put on a stage with feminists who were going
Speaker 1: to pick him to pieces, it's clear that the feminists
Speaker 1: were the butt of the jokes, not Jack. Maybe it
Speaker 1: was this allure of working with the inspired unemployed because
Speaker 1: they are extremely popular. Everything they touch seems to turn
Speaker 1: to gold, and while they do put out edgy jokes,
Speaker 1: people don't normally get too offended by them. They vereem lovable,
Speaker 1: they seem untouchable. The inspired unemployed are like teflon. They
Speaker 1: have slipped themselves out of this situation and left the
Speaker 1: women to explain themselves, which seems to be a reflection
Speaker 1: of what happens a lot of the time in society.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to hearing when Clementine Ford comes out
Speaker 1: and what she has to say about Well, if the
Speaker 1: NDA has already passed, surely she would have said something
Speaker 1: by now. I'm surprised that the NDA finishes before the
Speaker 1: episode is aired. That's what's confused me. I'm really interested
Speaker 1: to see this episode I think it air or yeah, well,
Speaker 1: if it does air, we'll get more of an idea
Speaker 1: of what's gone down. I think that is all we
Speaker 1: have time for today. Thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us for this episode. If you have enjoyed it, could
Speaker 1: you please make sure you are subscribed on Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: and also Spotify. And if you are a longtime listener
Speaker 1: of the show and really enjoy what we put out,
Speaker 1: we would really appreciate it if you could leave us
Speaker 1: a five start review. If you do want to hear
Speaker 1: more content from us, we release a subscriber episode every
Speaker 1: Thursday with bonus content. If you're not already an Outspoken
Speaker 1: Plus subscriber. All the details to sign up are in
Speaker 1: our show notes. This podcast was recorded on the traditional
Speaker 1: land of the Ghana people of the Adelaid Planes. We
Speaker 1: pay respect to elders past and present.