Main Edition
US
FR
The thrill of the chase (Baby Reindeer)
The teeth were the detail that stuck with me. A friend had gone to the sentencing of the woman who stalked me — I can’t really call her “my stalker”, because she turned out to have many victims and I was only a minor interest of hers. Her main targets were two gay male writers: in just six months, she sent them thousands of emails and hundreds of tweets, many of them homophobic.
In late 2013, she was found guilty of harassment and given a suspended custodial sentence. “Stalking” borrows its name from the language of hunting. When it happens to you, you know that you’re the prey, even if it’s hard to say exactly what you imagine will happen to you at the end of the chase. So I was eager to know something, anything, about this person who had caused me so much angst and misery from behind her screen name.
The stalker was gaunt and scruffy, said my friend. So overwhelmed by the courtroom she could barely look up, never mind speak. Terrible teeth. I felt both good and bad about this. Good, because it’s nice to believe that the people who torment you are ultimately tormented by being themselves. Bad, because it was embarrassing to have been psychologically scarred by someone so obviously pathetic. Bad, because the only reason she’d been able to get to me was that I’d welcomed her in.
I had posted a tweet about an outrageous piece in a lad mag and it went viral. In reponse to it, there had been firings, apologies and a donation to a women’s charity. It was 2010, and though I’d written a few bylined pieces, this was one of my first experiences of being a somebody. I liked it. A day later, the stalker arrived in my mentions: who do we go after next, she asked. Did it feel a little off? Yes. Did I follow her? Also yes.
I hadn’t thought about any of this for about 10 years, and then, when I was watching Baby Reindeer, it all came rushing back. In the show, main character Donny (played by, and based on, the show’s writer and star Richard Gadd) is working in a bar when Martha walks in. She’s crying. Something, obviously, is not quite right about her: she claims to be a high-powered lawyer, but says she doesn’t have enough money for a cup of tea.
Donny feels sorry for her. He gives her a cup of tea on the house, and this becomes the inciting incident for a nightmarish harassment campaign spanning years. In real life, Gadd says he received 41,071 emails, 744 tweets and 350 hours of voicemail from his stalker — making the woman who pursued me look like a rank amateur. If that was all Baby Reindeer was about, though, it wouldn’t be a very interesting show.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA brilliant piece, and useful. A couple things strike me.
First, the degree to which, apparently, we now take digital harassment to be simply “stalking.” I’m in my late fifties, and though I agree that digital harassment is parallel to physical stalking, I think there’s something slightly off about simply equating them. (Interesting herein is that the writer’s advice for fending off a potential digital stalker is the same as sound advice vis a vis trolls: Don’t feed them.)
Second, the consideration of how victims are often implicated in their own victimisation is just right. And this was hard to pull off. Kudos to Ditum.
I assume she isn’t a natural demographic for lads mags. Her motivation for reading them is to find something to be outraged about. She duly did and seems unconcerned by the subsequent sackings.
That’s also digital harassment with real physical world consequences.
I noticed this as well. She damaged and possibly destroyed several people’s livelihoods because they wrote something she didn’t like. There’s no shortage of vindictiveness in cancel culture, and she seemed to say she revelled in it.
This has the unhappy effect of attracting the attention of an even more disturbed woman – “who do we go after next?” – and was horrified at the prospect of, perhaps, being befriended by a needier, even more fervent cancel culture warrior.
Perhaps it was her stalker’s poor dental health.
She then continues on to imply that when women are stalked, it’s almost always the man’s fault. When men are stalked, it’s also almost always the man’s fault.
I’m not sure which parts of this story I like less. But perhaps the author is well advised to keep her jeremiads digital, rather than trying to take away people’s jobs in the real world, and to not encourage that behavior in others.
It’s unlikely that anybody lost their job because a single writer (female or otherwise) didn’t like the piece that they wrote. Media is an outrage industry; pieces that make people angry are the money-makers. In order for people to be sacked, the author must have uncovered some serious wrongdoing. And isn’t that what journalism ought to be for?
An excellent point that a lot of people seem to be upset about.
Interesting that the only bit that the male readers are upset about is people losing their jobs, not the content that needed to be complained about! Says a lot about mindsets.
Losing your job can be quite a big deal if you have a family, and that family expects food and shelter.
I think what jarred with readers was that the author (in an otherwise interesting article) seemed to register satisfaction at the firings she brought about, rather than regarding them as, say, an “unfortunate necessity”.
and?
Valid point. I’m in the camp that says answer speech with more speech rather than try to shut it down. And she doesn’t seem, at least re: her mention of that episide early in her career, to indicate that she’s now rejected the “shut them down” approach. Hope she has.
Lads mags were (do they still exist?) vehicles for casual misogyny and bear some responsibility for recent-ish versions of dysfunctional objectification of women by weak minded men. Tearing a new one for an author of dross for dead heads doesn’t seem so bad to me as long as it stopped short of calling for cancellation.
“bear some responsibility for recent-ish versions of dysfunctional objectification of women by weak minded men.” According to you?
The author, or the stalker? Or both?
She probably was the demographic for rapists to rape, if the trivialisation of rape was the topic of the article.
You do know women have male friends and fanily who quite often share unfo and articles from tbe lads mags with their women friends, dont you? We dont have to read them to know what is in them…abd as for reporting an article /person, why shouldnt women report? Especially if the article is about women? Only way to change behaviours if men wont police them!
Report them for what? Free speech?
Report them to whom? For what? Something that offended you? No offense, but that is pretty weak tea.
But this man was subject to both physical and digital stalking. It struck me quite intensely that the physical stalking was worse.
I think the punters here should watch Baby Reindeer before commenting, regardless of what Sarah is saying.
Sarah had my sympathy until the fourth paragraph.
At which point, she became something worse than a random stalker.
Yes, it seems that what goes around comes around.
You meet the nicest people at a Twitter pile on!
I thought this was a very good, honest and interesting article.
It should make us all think more about our own role in being a victim. If I walk down the street juggling my gold bars and shouting about it I can hardly be surprised if I am beaten up and robbed. That does not mean I was not the victim of a crime or that the thieves should not be punished, in fact just as much as a ‘normal’ robbery. Clearly they should but my stupidity was just that.
Similarly women should be able to walk down the street in provocative clothes and not be sexually assaulted. But we have to acknowledge that, living as we do in a real world, it was stupid. Maybe they should be ashamed of their stupidity.
I find it interesting that at the time of writing there is an equal number of up votes and down votes. I’m very much ‘up’ here; could one of the down voters explain why they did so? I’d be interested as the post seems to me pure common sense.
Because: what counts as provocative? Short sleeves, a tank top? Should women be forced to wear the hijab or burqa, because men can’t be trusted to mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves? That’s how it actually works in Islamic countries…most Westerners put the onus on men to treat women respectfully (and the law to enforce those norms) so that women might have the audacity to be themselves.
Exactly. Is a sleeveless top provocative but a short sleeve is okay? Dress above the knee is sexy but below the knee isn’t? A woman is asking for it when her top is too tight? Most rapes are committed by someone she knows. So why should she be afraid of him, regardless of how she dresses. Eighty-five-year-old women are raped. Too sexy? I don’t think rapists care what a woman is wearing. They are opportunists. Nor do I think most men would rape a woman just because she looks sexy.
Just for information: “someone she knows” includes the bloke she met at the club 30 mins before. It is not limited to someone she knows quite well.
Oh come on. I’m a female and I know when I’m trying to attract attention vs just wearing a sleeveless shirt or above the knee skirt.
Trying to attract attention doesn’t mean trying to attract a rapist.
You don’t put jam on the table to attract wasps – but the wasps still turn up.
No one is saying women are trying to attract rapists. The most anyone is saying is that it is wise for women to behave in a way that reduces risk.
Also, I don’t think anyone is saying that the woman’s dress or behaviour makes it less of a crime.
‘Also, I don’t think anyone is saying that the woman’s dress or behaviour makes it less of a crime.’
Then why does anyone mention women’s clothes etc whenever the topic turns to rape? It’s classic blame the victim stuff – or at least it’s how it comes across.
No harm in warning women about the risks of over-indulgence in alcohol or drugs – but the same warning should be given to men for the risks that they face.
They are saying that it increases risk, not that it reduces the seriousness of the crime. I’m not saying I agree by the way. I’m just clarifying.
This is black and white thinking. The burqa is not the only alternative to dressing provocatively. Also the comment does not mention forcing anybody to do anything.
The current “luxury belief” is that women should be able to act like men, drink like men. But that idea is completely wrong. Women are the target of rapists. If you get raped, it can be a trauma which lasts for years. Men do not have that problem. Reality is NOT symmetric about risks.
Women metabolize alcohol differently than do men. They are smaller on average. If women match men drink for drink, women will become far drunker. Reality is not symmetric about alcohol.
The inability to understand this basic truth leads many idiots into condemning those who state the truth – women are not men, they should be MORE CAREFUL than men.
However, women are not the only targets of rapists. Men who are imprisoned are very frequently victims, as are men in highly sexually segregated cultures, for example in Afghanistan.
It isn’t entirely men who are rapists, either. Certainly sexual abuse between women occurs, as again can be seen in women’s prisons, or in many women’s only environs, such as all women’s schools, or female only religious orders.
In the US, there are disturbing trends among female teachers seducing underage boys, and there are of course such things as pedophilia and ephebephilia throughout society. These aren’t crimes restricted only to “celibate” religious orders.
Feminism instructed us all for years that men are nearly always offenders, violators, and oppressors, and that men are the ones who threaten, intimidate, or abuse women, with the latter nearly always being entirely innocent victims. Men, boys, and masculinity itself are all viewed by many feminists as criminals, or criminality.
To any thinking person, that should be a very, very naive view.
In the UK, only someone with a p***s can be found guilty of rape. Everything else is sexual assault.
amen
The majority of rapes do not involve alcohol unliess it is the rapist who has been drinking.And females are more likely to be raped by someone they know, but not someone they met 30 minutes ago in a club/pub. Maybe go read up on the facts and figures rather than repeating the myths.
Rape is an act of violence and a demonstration of the rapist’s power over the victim whom he sees as an object or a plaything. His property to use as he wishes. It has naff all to do with sexual attraction and what the woman was wearing.
That’s the feminist interpretation, but it is not the only one, and there isn’t a lot of evidence for it. Feminists tend to interpret all relationships between men and women as relationships of power. Sexual attraction almost certainly plays a role – though of course only a tiny minority of men are capable of rape.
I think what you meant was this … All men who have a p***s are caoable of rape. Only a minority actually carry out rape.
I meant psychologically capable. Obviously any person with hands is physically capable of strangling another person. Few are psychologically capable of doing so.
I would agree that – thankfully – only a small minority of men are willing and able to rape.
But for those few that do rape, power must be an element of it. Plus a belief that women are chattels and there for their convenience.
The key question is whether it is the exercise of power which is the attraction, or whether it is just the means of getting what they want. Unscrupulous people, and people lacking empathy will use power to get what they want, whatever that happens to be. They just can’t see why not.
There may also be people addicted to the exercise of power for powers sake, and some may use rape as a way of gratifying that need.
Where I think we have gone very badly wrong in the past is equating what are clearly pathologies or psychological issues with some supposed generalised male/female power dynamic.
Obviously I understand why this was done: it’s an ideological attempt to pathologize normal, healthy masculinity by association. And it’s been highly damaging.
Women aged 15-35 are the most likely to be raped. i.e when they’re at their most sexually attractive.
There are no votes at all, there must be something wrong with the system.
The book “The gift of fear” discusses how to be safe in the world. It emphasizes taking measures to ensure that you are safe. The book DOES NOT GIVE THE EXCUSE THAT YOU “SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE CAREFUL”.
Women in today’s world are given terrible advice. Wear whatever you want. Drink as much as you wish. If you get raped, it is the fault of the rapist.
Of course it is the fault of the rapist. But the rapist will not carry the memories of the rape violation for his life. He will, in many cases, simply go on raping stupid careless women.
No victim blsming there then… So alk men who get the cr*p kicked out of them or are stabbed are responsible because they were drunk, drinking, wearing the wrong football shirt, cheering on the wrong team. Or just being stupid enough to walk into someone’s fist, boot or knife. Stupid, careless men!
I’ve downvoted you for wilfully misreading the comment. If you are simply stupid and really did misunderstand it, my sincere apologies.
Nasty and not true. Children get raped the whole time.
Surely we can call agree that women should be able to do whatever they like at all times and never be held accountable for the consequences in any way.
That is an absolutely outrageous and unacceptable attitude to air publicly in this day and age.
What decent and reasonable people can agree on is that women should be able to do whatever they like at all times, and hold men accountable for the consequences in every way.
I get your point. You don’t walk unarmed into an area where man eating tigers are known to be on the loose. But I would say you focus too much on provocative clothing. Perhaps the advice needs to be something like: if you are going to go out dressed like that, make sure you stick with your friends and don’t walk home alone. And whatever you do don’t go off alone with some bloke you’ve only just met and had no chance to evaluate.
Even if a woman ignores all this advice, she is likely to be perfectly safe. But she is increasing the risk of something terrible happening. And that is just not wise. And bromides like “men should learn not to ….” Aren’t really going to help once it’s happened.
“Pity explains the cup of tea, but it doesn’t explain why he would continue to indulge her on repeat visits; why he would give her his email; why he would agree to take her for coffee.”
In fairness, in the show she gets his email from his professional website. The rest is true though.
I found everyone in the show thoroughly disliikeable, with a couple of exceptions like his mum and dad. But maybe that was the point.
Its still not worth watching.
My partner wanted to watch and I suffered through it. I hate watching people do stupid things or fail to take the most obvious courses of action to solve their problems.
Baby Reindeer is like watching a horror movie where eveyone is shouting, leave the house; but they never do.
I knew nothing about Gadd, and watched the first episode with a sense of horror- mainly at his utter fecklessness. Then I started on episode 2 and gave up after 5 minutes because I felt he really deserved what was coming his way. He had no boundaries, was narcissistic and unlikeable and created a co-dependency with hsi stalker who was so very obviously off her rocker right from the first meeting. To find out the rest of it from an internet discussion was rather shocking. Gadd enjoys and profits from the drama, as even he acknowledges and is very manipulative. Unfortunately in a society that that is very used to blurring real life with the fictional, this is catnip programming. Gadd, his stalker and his rapist are in a 4-way death dance with a very silly public audience. Pass.
I devoured Gavin DeBecker’s books and articles on personal safety and the characteristics of dangerous people and dangerous situations. I LOVE being more informed and empowered to navigate this world, where safety never has and never will be guaranteed to anyone.
Shorter Baby Reindeer/anyone who seeks a public profile and then whines about being stalked:
‘Look at me me me I wannabe famous and beloved by random strangers oh yes love me me me random strangers for I’m special adore me me me oh no some random stranger is looking at me me me go away you horrible random stranger help police arrest this horrible random stranger who is looking at me me me oh no now not enough random strangers are looking at me me me anymore looks like I’m going to have to make a hit TV show/write another public article about me me me and the random stranger who wouldn’t stop looking at me me me oh no now lots of random strangers are looking at me me me again…’
One has long run out of f**ks to give about celebrities and their narcissist self-obsessions. One waits stoically for the day a smart government recognises them formally as the distinct species of sociopathic pests they are, and commences a program to quietly and humanely prevent them from breeding.
Brave and balanced. Thank you, Ms. Ditum.
“In the book The Gift of Fear, Gavin de Becker argues that most violent situations are recognisable before they turn violent.” True, but in so doing, a lot of non-violent situations would also be recognised as violent. If you went to the police about every person who gave you the creeps, then the police would soon tire of you and not act when you do genuinely need help.
I was only 1 of at least 7 of a stalker coworker’s concurrent targets 2009-2012, at the endless & obvious delight of the Head of the IT Department at the Victorian Electoral Commission (Australia), to whom my manager reported to.
The worse the stalker’s open abuse of me became, the more obviously the Head of the IT Department adored the IT Helpdesk Assistant stalker. He used to look right through me whenever we crossed paths, he didn’t even nod, when I greeted him in the morning, even though I was in a high responsibility role in his department.
The stalker’s crimes are ongoing.
Last home break-in on the 2nd of May 2024, leaving me the usual sick psycho signs as dozens of times before. I am writing this on the 5th of May 2024. Last obvious cyber-crime less than 4 hours ago.
The stalker had unrestricted access to every woman’s home address in our state, likely the whole of Australia from about 2007 + where to find people in witness protection. Because voting is compulsory in Australia.
Guess who would value the whereabouts of people in witness protection the most?
In the process of trying to stop the stalker’s increasingly devastating crimes (I had to give up trying to earn a salary due to his crimes in 2017), I found out that Australia never had functional law-enforcement.
In Australia crime is managed via our police terrorising crime witnesses & victims into silence, if ignoring them/blocking crime reporting attempts don’t make them go away. We have no FBI equivalent.
Since in 2019 I declared self-representation against Victoria Police as they forced me to fight at court as an accused criminal in an admitted silencing attempt, tried to entrap me 2x & openly participated in the stalker’s crimes, I have been subjected to a wide range of remote physical harm types: Australia’s government/military insider bikers violate the Geneva Convention terrorising crime witnesses & victims in the witnesses’/victims’ own homes. Without any risk of prosecution.
I won at court anyway.
Prosecutors bluff.
I wrote down times of immutable audio harassments & electric shocks (yes, you’ve read it right) delivered to my brain/chest likely via the Power Over Internet protocol over an 18 hour period a few days ago. There were 38 individual attacks, i.e. 2+ per hour.
Last Geneva Convention violations (a double) against me in my home while trying to sleep less than 20 hours ago – twice around 3am from memory. These were a new type causing drastic, involuntary movement, jerking me into a wide awake state in spite of the double doze of sleeping pills I took by then.
I didn’t bother writing down the details of the attacks.
There is no point. There is no authority in Australia to which it would be safe, let alone effective to try to report what I am forced to live with.
While the effects of these attacks are far from negligible, there is nothing I can do to stop them. I take pain-killers, sleeping pills & try to sleep in between attacks.
I never even dated the stalker, or any of his accomplices.
I never called any of them a friend of any kind.
There is no point in moving anywhere in Australia, because the stalker & his government insider accomplices will always know where I live. I am in no position to uproot myself for an overseas destination in my old age either.
Government/military crimes & corruption are internal affairs, no one from outside of prosperous Australia will do anything about the consequences – no one knows about Australia’s lawlessness even in Australia, until they try to report a serious crime.
I tried every organisation, including Amnesty International to no avail.
As an MBA e-commerce world-champion I was a migrant success story until the stalker added me to his list of concurrent targets. I worked 70-100 hours a week being addicted to solving business problems & loving my ability to give back to society via supporting a wide range of charities mostly in Africa & individuals on an as needed basis. I am a Business Analyst.
I am also an ex-refugee who paid an extremely high price 30+ years ago for the privilege of bringing my young children to Australia, expecting Australia to be a country of law & order, where obeying the law, respecting customs & working hard will afford us peace.
I am so outraged & so horrified by what I am forced to learn about Australia’s government/military insider bikers’ risk-free criminality, I lost all fear.
Having exhausted all legal avenues to stop the stalker, I make public interest disclosures like this. See my ‘perfect crimes’ article on LinkedIn for some details.
#ididnotstaysilent
I’m sorry, this isn’t possible using PoE, unless you wired yourself into your Ethernet connection. PoE is used to supply power to Ethernet-connected equipment like VoIP phones. In addition, PoE is typically 48V DC, which is minimally perceptible to a human being. And it’s put on Ethernet at the destination end, so the power supply would have to be in your house.
So you’re crediting your stalker with being able to broadcast muscle twitches, à la the Havana Embassy attacks.
It’s no wonder the police ignore you. Get help, and not from a lawyer.
Thank you for your comment.
Please see my reply to both, you and Clare Knight below.
Please keep going.
Silence & secrecy aid crime.
I’m disappointed you’re still at your madness, Katalin. We’ve heard it all before and it gets SO boring. It’s obsessive and paranoid.
The worst thing that can happen, when having to resort to broadcasting to the whole world serious, devastating crimes routinely unpunished is being ignored.
Thank you to both of you for your comments, and if others join in, I thank them too.
With a bit of luck the risk-free criminality of bikers from Victoria Police, the Australian Signals Directorate & from Defence Australia, whose daytime salaries are paid by their victims’ taxes will become a little less easy.
Thank you once again, please keep going.
PS: from the comments it is apparent I need to mention that Australia’s corrupt police officers participating in crimes showing off their risk-free criminality commit bizarre crimes to discredit witnesses & victims.
These bizarre crimes often include vastly disproportionate resources to achieve a trivial, or even bafflingly pointless outcome.
I have been subjected to a wide range of crimes also that involve technology civilian experts did not know about at the time – the civilian experts someone like me may be able to reach, desperately trying to reduce the onslaught of crimes against me.
I gave up all tech defence attempts in 2022, when I experienced a Faraday Cage breach. This was doable by then, definitely not trivial. You can find details of how this can be done e.g. on this website – take out the spaces: https : // blog.avast.com/ exploiting-air-gaps-avast
As I am forced to learn daily still (last Geneva Convention violation at dawn today), committing even the most devastating crimes from the victims’ perspective is trivial for the perpetrators in Australia. Crimes don’t make sense for this reason also. Many of the crimes against me were evidently committed for their own sakes.
Similarly to art for art’s sake: independent of any social value or utilitarian function.
Thank you for everyone’s comments.
Evil is not succeeding in the complete absence of any opposition even in Australia.
#ididnotstaysilent
The electric shock technology has a name: “transcranial direct current stimulation”. I came across it by accident in this DARPA article – remove spaces – https: // www . darpa . mil/ program/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology
How did it become part of Australian organised crime arsenals?
Maybe via the many criminal ADF members whose crimes were never punished?
Remove spaces also: https :// www. heraldsun. com.au/news/national/adf-fails-to-report-crimes-convicted-military-personnel-walk-free-in-civilian-life/news-story/debe853751b5c6d2fc37630030440e8f
Because in Australia not even confirmed war-crimes as serious as killing disabled, unarmed civilians are punished: https :// www. bbc. com/news/world-australia-54996581
I’d say stalkers have a right to stalk, if they do it peacefully, and stalkees have a right to ignore them.
You wouldn’t be saying this if you were the one being stalked. Believe me, you wouldn’t. It’s very scary and has an adverse impact on the victim even if done without aggression. The very act of intruding in someone else’s life is an act of aggression.
What’s the difference between a stalker and ‘journalist’ then?
Very little. Especially when it comes to tabloid hacks.
Touche.
I had a “peaceful“ stalker from age 14 to 16, a man in his mid-30s. He followed me to school many mornings and home many evenings, tho we couldn’t be sure of when he’d show up. It disrupted my entire high school experience, and the lives of everyone in my family. But he was, as you say, “peaceful.” There was no direct, physical violence. Why should this not be an actionable harm, to me and to my siblings and to my parents at the time?