There would never be a lawsuit… settlements out of court are part of Netflix budget. She might get some money but the more she does interviews the less credible she becomes for a law suit.
Their wording of “true story” worries me that even if they’re slightly off due to artistic license, over a small detail, could be enough to allow her the win
Why? They wouldn't want anything to do with this shitshow - and I wouldn't blame them! Getting stalked is bad enough and the information is out there and available, and that's all that needs to be the situation. No-one needs to come forward for the entertainment of others - they should be protected from eejits on the internet instead!
So if a middle aged man stalked a 20 something woman for 3 years, would we all still be asking the duty of care or would we be discussing why he hasnt been arrested or punished yet?
Oh come on! There are hundreds if not thousands of documentaries of women being stalked, attacked, SA'd and murdered on Netflix, Amazon etc and there isn't anywhere near as much fuss about it. And these are TRUE stories with evidence and police interviews and everything
Oh come on! There are literally hundreds of documentaries (that are actually true) about men doing far worse than she has been accused of and there is no uproar about them
@@gillb9222 which ones? If they’re in jail or were at some point it doesn’t count. This is about a woman who is a stalker and was physically aggressive to several people she worked with after being fired and then moving on to stalk someone else and none of these people ended up pursuing charges because they felt bad for her mental illness.
Literally at the end of every episode - "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes." This is getting ridiculous. She can't have it both ways where Martha is absolutely not her and absolutely her
It's not at the end of the episode, It's at the end of the credits, and it's unreadable- on a page with other things, not there long enough to read the page. Stop.
This isn't true. Stalkers found her. And they have said she is and that it is also a true story. It's nonsense. She got a solicitor and here we are at parliament - this isn't going well for netflix. Remember , this is either British or Scottish law... Not the USA
I'm confused. Why are MPs questioning Netflix on this? Are they the police or arbiters of TV/streaming dramas and how true they are? I don't get it. Shouldn't MPs be in parliament sorting the mess of this country out? I genuinely want to know.
It's the Communications Committee who oversee the legality of such things which is doing their jobs - it's just part of the laws of the land - and if they weren't doing this - then the mess the country is in would be worse! Also, they have been appearing in the committee to answer questions since the start of their streaming in the UK service in order to continue to stream in the UK as they have to abide by the Communications laws - it's just not been blown up because - well - no other series has caused this problem before! It's not like they only do this the whole of the time - it's a few of them for part of the time and it's part of the role of being an MP!
@@LucyStormbringerLastic On what do you base those two claims? (This whole conversation is evidence for her lawsuit. Every nasty comment or unproven comment here is bolstering her case.)
Exactly?! Since when are we so worried about the perpetrators?! Are we yet proving that as a society well trash men’s story but we say believe all women but let’s coddle the perpetrator if the perpetrator is a woman??
@@labitcoineragt3596I'm worried about the male rapist they left walking the streets... She's been used as a deflection. So it's still covering for a male.
Perfect example of when you put your info or business out on the internet, it is out there forever. Netflix and Richard should not be held accountable for that.
@@ginismoja2459 exactly. Now she's using all this for her big 15 min of fame doing interviews and stuff all over. Not someone who feels threatened. Also, it makes me sick that the roles of victim and predator are being switched around. She has been caught lying over and over, just in what she has said, she's proven everything he has said- except the jail thing and, to be honest, her only saving grace on the show was admitting she was guilty in court. If that's not true, it won't be good.
Also, they haven't ruined her reputation as she had previous for stalking and harrassment. Her reputation and career had already been ruined by herself. She hasn't suffered loss of earnings as she is making money from this. Her tweets have been in the public domain for anyone to see.
On top of blaming him and Netflix, the guy that SA him hasn't been exposed bc he has kept his mouth shut and not run around saying, "its me its me! Look at me! Will you give me an interview? And I want $1 million!"
There’s already a reporter though can’t remember where they worked, who said that she had allegedly called 50 times in a single day! It’s definitely giving Martha
Awwwww poor STALKER. Now people can choose to avoid her. Poor thing. She is not the victim here that is the point here. He is not even her first victim.
if it was inevitable that she was recognisable, why has the male rapist not been outed, If his portrayal is accurate, then he needs to be exposed and punished.
If she did it. Then She did it. She needs to go to therapy, because her victim shouldn't be silenced because his stalker might have more psychological issues. Imagine if the victim was a woman. Nobody would be saying,she should not talk about what happened,because her stalker might have psychological issues.
About time somebody said this! Do people really think a giant like Netflix would be so stupid not to cover themselves? She has no case! Trying for her 15 minutes of fame. She obviously didn't do well at law school. Piers etc know this graphic was there but chose to exploit an obviously psychologically ill woman. Why didn't she come out earlier when the play was running? She sees £s from this - she's got no hope. Richard needs to stop hiding, man up and do some interviews about this. The Cohen brothers (Fargo etc) put the "Based on a true story" slide at the beginning of all their stuff, it's a running joke. Look at all the pre-screening work The Blair Witch Project did, creating the website, releasing teasers, plotting the whole myth - brilliant work (for such a crap movie lol). The Netflix publicity department must be sooo happy with all this; couldn't buy this publicity. If Fiona wants finacial compensation, she DOES in fact need to prove the character is her, even though she's denying most of it. 😳🙄😉
I’m sorry but even actors who play fictional characters get threatened online because of roles they’ve played! The public are crazy! Humans are crazy! The people who are allegedly threatening her need to be held accountable! NOT Netflix or Richard Gadd. She wants the money but has she pushed for charges of the people “stalking” her?! 🧐
I don't get how them saying 'this is a true story' matters at all.. It's a fictional series, we know they can say whatever they want. Tiger King claimed to be a docuseries but straight up lied about pretty much everything. The conjuring says "based on true events" and barely nods to the real case it's "based" on. It's netflix, if it's a fictional series, they could literally say "every single detail of this is real and actually happened and everything you see is a primary source from the actual events" and we should still realise that doesn't mean anything.
If you look at the closing credits it does state on screen that it's "based" on some true events. I don't think it's advisable for her to sue. As a lot of stuff like her Facebook comments dating back long before this series was put out that hints about her behaviour. Also those alleged online communication and alleged letters, will probably be forensically be examined. DNA / fingerprints handwriting style. And e. mail/ voice mail I.P. address traced. That happened with previous convicted stalkers. This will run and run.
How do you sue someone for defamation when the character has a completely different name lol also Fargo show and movie says "This is a true Story" before every episode, when it's in fact a fully fictional show.
If martha on the show is according to her, nothing like her etc, isnt that the main point of them changing things etc to hide the real person from the real person?! If shes claiming the character is nothing like her, then good. But you getting your spotlight for 15mins of fame, isnt richards or Netflix's fault? She came out to reveal herself (despite the fans going detective crazy on the matter).
This show was told from Richard Gadd’s point of view. He can’t have known what she was thinking or why she was doing the things she did. He didn’t exactly make himself look like a completely innocent person, he admitted that he led her on, that he enjoyed the attention. I think the disclaimer at the end of the show covers both Gadd and Netflix for any exaggerations and fictional portions of the show. She didn’t have to out herself on Piers Morgan’s show. She contacted them. She could’ve just stayed away and let people find something else to fill their time. Or she could’ve gone on the show and told her side of the story, how she ended up in that situation with Gadd. Now instead she is trying to extort money from Piers Morgan and planning lawsuits against Gadd and Netflix. I think that would be the wrong thing for her to do. All her electronic devices, computers, tablets, phones, etc…would have to be given to authorities to do a complete forensic examination to find out if she did in fact do the things he said. She might be subjected to a polygraph examination. She might be asked to have a psychological evaluation too. Every single bit of evidence that Gadd may have kept, emails, texts, voicemails, etc..would become public knowledge. Their attorneys would do the FOIA request for any and all legal documents, arrest records, transcripts etc.. Her life would be laid bare. Instead of possibly making her life better, it will make it worse.
I do not feel sorry for her for how she did him and the MP. And how many more people has she done this to that are afraid of her and won’t speak out? She is victimizing these the Gadd and the MP all over again.
I wonder when the r*pist will be outed. While I think most of us would agree that Fiona Harvey is the real stalker, there is something so unfair about the person who committed actual assault on several occasions would be able to live in peace. They say his identity is an open secret in their community… I wonder for how long.
If I knew a guy a few years ago, who ended up making a Netflix series about someone who stalked him back when I knew him, I would know that it was obviously someone else and not me. I wouldn’t come out and say “yeah, it was me, but I didn’t do it”. There’s no logic to that
Fiona Harvey is clearly unhinged and thought she could make a quick buck out of it. She’s not telling the whole story or being truthful. It’ll all come out in the wash in the end but I reckon Gadd and Netflix are shitting themselves. Hindsight is always 20/20 and the “Based on the true story” phrase would have saved a whole lot of hassle.
@@karenm8239 shut up Karen! Some lunatics personal issues are NOT more important than the security of the country and the welfare of the people as a collective!!
Can testify that the " has been fictionalized" has been there since week one release before Harvey ever came forward. B4 I ever googled any details I wasn't,"looking for it" the LAST episode states she was never charged and leaves it's disclaimer for an extended time. I read it with out my glasses which is really saying something 😅
If she hadn't been arrested it would have been an amazing ending if the played the ending as is an then put " Martha was not arrested or convinced of her crimes and denyes them today with no remorse" then it would be more realistic and shocking as normally stalkers get away with their crimes
Totally agree - it would have made it far more realistic for what is really true! Sadly stalkers always get away with victimising people and rarely take accountability or responsibility :(
This is the tv gold Netflix has been trying for since “Making A Murderer”. And when season 2 of the 3 Body Problem comes out we will all forget about this. But I love the drama!
I don’t know how you can ask how they could be prepared for the internet finding her. They made NO effort to change her identity and surely should have had a team checking social media for clues
actually youre wrong. the whole reason she came out and said it was her is that people used the Facebook messages from the show and found them on twitter and found her account. All Netflix did was take the real tweets and change them to facebook messages. then everyone started harassing her and threatening her which made her come foreward. Also, even though they say its based one a true story at the end of the credits, That Netlix guy literally said its a true story and she is a convicted stalker, so even if they try to tell the courts thats its a work of fiction and they have that in the credits, that defense is thrown out because they told them its real. they even market it as a true story. they even say martha is a scottish lawyer. they even got an actress who resembles her. This is why Parliament is getting involved. The reason why Netflix and Gadd have shut up about the whole thing is that everything they have said contradicts each other. Gadd told an interviewer, he made up the conviction scene. Netflix told parliament it really happened. Clear evidence Netflix failed very, very much at hiding her identity and are lying about it.
People are confusing "inspired by," "based on," and "IS," a true story. I believe there are legal implications (which also could be legally country dependent) on the use of these terms and the degree of creative license that would be considered permissable. The question is in UK (and perhaps USA) law, if you are stating that a series, movie, book etc. IS a true story then does that inferrence mean FACTUAL? I am not a lawyer or a legal expert just thinking through the reasoning. There is also the issue of "Due Care." Using the extracts from tweets, post, etc., that Ms. Harvey posted in real life made it very easy for people to track her down. They googled (phrases and spelling mistakes) her tweets/posts etc. and her identity was revealed very quickly. Personally, I think this could be a huge legal mistake that Netflix made regarding "Due Care." Last but not least the issue of slander. Was Ms. Harvey convicted and sentenced to Prison? Even if she is a pathological liar, if she was not convicted and sentenced to Prison, then perhaps this could be a slander lawsuit. I also find it alarming to afford protection to the rapist and sexual predator who violated Mr. Gadd. To think that no one in the Entertainment Industry has stepped forward with charges against this person for years is distressing. The ongoing protection of sexual predators in the Entertainment and Music industry seem to be the norm.
Here is something EVERYONE seems to be missing. In order to prove defamation, you have to prove you damaged the reputation of someone. It is very hard to damage the reputation of a manipulative, lying, gaslighting stalker. And in fact, the scene in the show where Marth pleads guilty and cries is one of the most UPLIFTING and humanizing elements of the show. In my humble opinion, it improves her image, rather than damaging it, because she finally takes responsibility for her actions. A jury might see it that way as well. So if this is the only major detail they added, I don't think it's defamatory. At all.
It claims its a true story and also claims in the credits this program based on real events;however certain characters,names,incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.Maybe get them on the starments before the uk parliament?
When you bring a lawsuit, the details of your life become public. I have a feeling shes not going to like the details about her life getting out, bc i dont believe they will be very pretty. Especially after wqtching her pierce morgan interview.
I'm not at all convinced that Fiona Harvey is innocent as she certainly has written lots of bizarre FB posts. However, I think that the Netflix producer's explanation was weak. Netflix only did the weakest effort to protect her identity. And did they take any steps to see if she was actually arrested, convicted, and incarcerated? I'd like to know.
@edluacoles yep, and that's the thing...they haven't produced anything. They haven't even commented except to tell a parliamentary group that actually they didn't tell the truth when they said it was a true story and he has said it was 'in a fictional world'. I have not clue about what is true and frankly I don't care but no-one else knows either and people are being vile. At some point they need to admit it isn't true or provide evidence or it goes to court and it all comes out then. People's behaviour is a disgrace, this is a human being who may or may not have done something and may or may not have MH issues and they are being absolutely torn apart on no evidence at all
When it says "This is a true story" it is typed out, as though Gadd is writing it , it's from his perspective, how he saw it........That's what I took it to mean. That's why the disclaimer comes at the end. They know very few people get through the credits.
Ok need to ask if anyone knows if it was a prison sentence or was she sent to a mental health ward. Because it is harder to get any information if prison wasn't were she was institutionalised.
The Court case is still a public record and the trial would be covered by the press. When defendants are found guilty and sent to hospitals, it's always reported and isn't secret.
MPs want more evidence??? Shouldn’t they be more concerned with letting an unaccountable/unelected body take our sovereignty why the hell are MPs getting involved this is a court matter not a political one
I think that anyone who watches something that isn't recorded live in the moment should assume that nothing is exactly correct and isc fictionalized to some point. People don't even post their social media statuses 100% facility. "The beach trip was so perfect!" But in reality it rained for half the time and you got into an argument with your boyfriend.
What baffles me is...... Why on Earth did NETFLIX allow the actual victim of the stalking play the main character, despite changing his name for the show? That is truly mental and because of that, it was so very easy to find out who Martha really is. I don't care about the text messages people claim they investigated, they already had a head start because of Richard being the main character. NETFLIX are in trouble. Secondly, if it is all true, then Fiona has served her time in prison, paid for her ways in the eyes of the law and should be left alone. This has now become a witch hunt. The lass needs counselling and help, not being dragged around the news and on social media across the world. They claim they hid the identities of all the characters except the crucial one, the victim. Anyone that knows Richard will know who Fiona is. NETFLIX you seriously fucked up !
She may have served her time but he is totally within his rights to write a series on his life experiences. The amount of films and novels based on real events and include credits or authorship of the victim is more than you’d imagine. SHE chose to come out publicly. Netflix included disclaimers. I don’t see what your issue is really.
@@Lee.Willcox I mean, he’d already written and performed a one man show about the same thing. Having a different actor wouldn’t have stopped anyone from tracking her down. He would still have been in the credits whether or not he starred in the role.
@@edluacoles Damn, of course he has. Although I'd never heard of him until Baby Reindeer and also I had to look that up because of all the chat. Sorry if I come across as argumentative, I just think the mental case (if she is one) should be left alone, especially if she has done time. Help the nutter rather than send her death threats. Not that you have of course but other mentals out there have been. I am just soft at heart. I appreciate that chat though.
@@Lee.Willcox not at all, I agree a duty of care wasn’t really carried out properly and more could’ve been done, like not using her actual tweets verbatim, which are easily traced back to her. I do think the show tried to present her fairly, showing some sympathy for her clear mental illness, but you’re right, there’s plenty nutcases out there who are punishing her for stalking by… stalking her. I think you and I probably agree more than we both originally thought!
He brought up the former employer and listen lots of women and guys possibly have experience w obsessed people I certainly have. I never thought about making a story using them to make money. I was just thrilled that it was over and done with
It’s pretty clear to me that piers and his probono lawyers have dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of suing such a large company. They are also using an easily manipulated, severely mentally ill woman in order to do so. If the case is won I doubt Fiona will see more than a drop in the ocean of the settlement. So sad these sharks exist.
I watched an interview with Gadd from a couple of years ago (the only one I could find) and he is talking about how he had deliberately made it as shocking as possible because he believes that the more shocking it is the more people will find it funny. He says himself that he wrote it that way for comedic value. That sounds pretty sick in itself imo. The interview is on YT somewhere if you wish to look it up
If the series had been entirely true, and she was convicted, then her being revealed wouldn't have been a problem... she would be a convicted criminal. But if she isn't, and it has been over dramatised then it really is a problem. How dramatised is it? Because the woman has been made to look like a complete nut job.
Exactly and she has been torn apart on social media, has had death threats apparently, it must have affected things like her job. People have been absolutely vile
@@gillb9222 scary isn't it. They need to come forward and tell us which parts were dramatised and how much so? I really hope that what she said about him finding out about her history and running with a narrative isn't true.... but it could well be.
So if Fiona is going to now take legal action against Richard and Netflix - she is then effectively continuing to be the aggressor against that man. Stalked him, comes out and slanders him on the Piers Morgan show and now will lawyer up and go after him again.... How insane....
Gadd himself said he was not a "victim" of "Martha." This producer is clearly nervous, but also he is outright lying. And he's never seen the show, apparently.
@@kayleighcarr4956 I'm a woman. What's your problem? As Audre Lourde says, "Your silence will not protect you," kayleigh. The mob that is attacking this woman will do the same to you, and no one will be left to help you, if you keep pushing all the women away. Guarantee the men wont help you.
Who would win in the lawsuit? 🤔
Ms. Harvey would never win in a thousand years. Her story is inconsistent and kept changing.
Netflix and Gadd I hope. The stalker I have zero sympathy for. I hope the publicity affects her by stopping her criminal activities into the future.
There would never be a lawsuit… settlements out of court are part of Netflix budget. She might get some money but the more she does interviews the less credible she becomes for a law suit.
dude OJ Simpson won. Anything can happen in a court room. If she didn't go to prison or plead guilty, even if all else is true, is deformation.
Their wording of “true story” worries me that even if they’re slightly off due to artistic license, over a small detail, could be enough to allow her the win
We need all of Fiona’s victims to come forward . Her interview with piers showed clearly that she was lying .
Why?
They wouldn't want anything to do with this shitshow - and I wouldn't blame them! Getting stalked is bad enough and the information is out there and available, and that's all that needs to be the situation. No-one needs to come forward for the entertainment of others - they should be protected from eejits on the internet instead!
Let's be honest. She's just upset she wasn't cast as Martha and pissed she couldn't play herself and Richard did. 😅😅
😅 could well be.
So if a middle aged man stalked a 20 something woman for 3 years, would we all still be asking the duty of care or would we be discussing why he hasnt been arrested or punished yet?
even in the movie she did nothing criminal. the assaults are a separate issue and in the movie he did not go to the police about them, either.
Oh come on! There are hundreds if not thousands of documentaries of women being stalked, attacked, SA'd and murdered on Netflix, Amazon etc and there isn't anywhere near as much fuss about it. And these are TRUE stories with evidence and police interviews and everything
Exactly!
Oh come on! There are literally hundreds of documentaries (that are actually true) about men doing far worse than she has been accused of and there is no uproar about them
@@gillb9222 which ones? If they’re in jail or were at some point it doesn’t count. This is about a woman who is a stalker and was physically aggressive to several people she worked with after being fired and then moving on to stalk someone else and none of these people ended up pursuing charges because they felt bad for her mental illness.
Literally at the end of every episode - "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."
This is getting ridiculous. She can't have it both ways where Martha is absolutely not her and absolutely her
Nobody sees the end credits. They should have written that at the beginning instead of 'this is a true story'.
I think people should the difference between a drama and a documentary.
100% correct!
It's not at the end of the episode, It's at the end of the credits, and it's unreadable- on a page with other things, not there long enough to read the page. Stop.
@@ginismoja2459 unless it's a documentary, every true story film is going to have fictionalized content
Unless Netflix or Richard Gadd go on record saying “Martha” is Fiona Harvey, then they have nothing to prove. She herself claims it’s not her.
She claims it's not her as in she didn't do the things they say she did. Not that it's not her as in its portraying another person.
@@ginismoja2459thankyou as so many people are getting in a muddle with this and I want to tell them as well 😂
Yep ~ she can't have it both ways.
This right here
This isn't true. Stalkers found her. And they have said she is and that it is also a true story. It's nonsense. She got a solicitor and here we are at parliament - this isn't going well for netflix. Remember , this is either British or Scottish law... Not the USA
I'm confused. Why are MPs questioning Netflix on this? Are they the police or arbiters of TV/streaming dramas and how true they are? I don't get it. Shouldn't MPs be in parliament sorting the mess of this country out? I genuinely want to know.
It's the Communications Committee who oversee the legality of such things which is doing their jobs - it's just part of the laws of the land - and if they weren't doing this - then the mess the country is in would be worse! Also, they have been appearing in the committee to answer questions since the start of their streaming in the UK service in order to continue to stream in the UK as they have to abide by the Communications laws - it's just not been blown up because - well - no other series has caused this problem before!
It's not like they only do this the whole of the time - it's a few of them for part of the time and it's part of the role of being an MP!
@@rsh793 Brill. Thanks so much for the comprehensive answer. Every day's a school day. It now makes sense and thank you.
I think her supposed “Lawyer friends” should have stopped her from coming out tbh
And herself being a lawyer 😅 all right grades...
She probably wants money more than to clear her name
@@louiselill1528 And that would be wrong because... ? Netlix and Gadd also wanted money- or do you think this was a volunteer for charity thing?
@@anona2889 you are right my apology
@@LucyStormbringerLastic On what do you base those two claims? (This whole conversation is evidence for her lawsuit. Every nasty comment or unproven comment here is bolstering her case.)
Why coddle criminals? She shouldn't stalk others.
Exactly?! Since when are we so worried about the perpetrators?! Are we yet proving that as a society well trash men’s story but we say believe all women but let’s coddle the perpetrator if the perpetrator is a woman??
Who has proved that she did?
@@gillb9222im pretty sure theyre talking about the real life “Martha” not Fiona Harvey as Ridchard and Netflix never named the real life “Martha”
And what about all the people now stalking her?
@@labitcoineragt3596I'm worried about the male rapist they left walking the streets... She's been used as a deflection. So it's still covering for a male.
She outed herself by doing that bonkers interview where she was clearly off her rocker and full of it
Perfect example of when you put your info or business out on the internet, it is out there forever. Netflix and Richard should not be held accountable for that.
She could have deleted the tweets.
@@ginismoja2459 exactly. Now she's using all this for her big 15 min of fame doing interviews and stuff all over. Not someone who feels threatened. Also, it makes me sick that the roles of victim and predator are being switched around. She has been caught lying over and over, just in what she has said, she's proven everything he has said- except the jail thing and, to be honest, her only saving grace on the show was admitting she was guilty in court. If that's not true, it won't be good.
Also, they haven't ruined her reputation as she had previous for stalking and harrassment. Her reputation and career had already been ruined by herself. She hasn't suffered loss of earnings as she is making money from this. Her tweets have been in the public domain for anyone to see.
On top of blaming him and Netflix, the guy that SA him hasn't been exposed bc he has kept his mouth shut and not run around saying, "its me its me! Look at me! Will you give me an interview? And I want $1 million!"
isn't it dangerous that she has a press tour while being an alleged stalker? someone might be next ...
There’s already a reporter though can’t remember where they worked, who said that she had allegedly called 50 times in a single day! It’s definitely giving Martha
@@serinadelmar6012 😳😱
This is so dangerous, if we’re to center the perpetrators then victims will never be able to speak
Awwwww poor STALKER. Now people can choose to avoid her. Poor thing. She is not the victim here that is the point here. He is not even her first victim.
Exactly. I feel zero sympathy for her.
Everyone keeps talking about duty of care. Surely that goes out of the window as soon as someone breaks the law and becomes a serial stalker?!
if it was inevitable that she was recognisable, why has the male rapist not been outed, If his portrayal is accurate, then he needs to be exposed and punished.
If she did it. Then She did it. She needs to go to therapy, because her victim shouldn't be silenced because his stalker might have more psychological issues. Imagine if the victim was a woman. Nobody would be saying,she should not talk about what happened,because her stalker might have psychological issues.
Richard still hasnt confirmed Fiona is Martha. For all we know this Fiona chick is some random 😅😅
About time somebody said this! Do people really think a giant like Netflix would be so stupid not to cover themselves? She has no case! Trying for her 15 minutes of fame. She obviously didn't do well at law school. Piers etc know this graphic was there but chose to exploit an obviously psychologically ill woman. Why didn't she come out earlier when the play was running? She sees £s from this - she's got no hope. Richard needs to stop hiding, man up and do some interviews about this.
The Cohen brothers (Fargo etc) put the "Based on a true story" slide at the beginning of all their stuff, it's a running joke. Look at all the pre-screening work The Blair Witch Project did, creating the website, releasing teasers, plotting the whole myth - brilliant work (for such a crap movie lol). The Netflix publicity department must be sooo happy with all this; couldn't buy this publicity. If Fiona wants finacial compensation, she DOES in fact need to prove the character is her, even though she's denying most of it. 😳🙄😉
I’m sorry but even actors who play fictional characters get threatened online because of roles they’ve played! The public are crazy! Humans are crazy!
The people who are allegedly threatening her need to be held accountable! NOT Netflix or Richard Gadd. She wants the money but has she pushed for charges of the people “stalking” her?! 🧐
I don't get how them saying 'this is a true story' matters at all.. It's a fictional series, we know they can say whatever they want. Tiger King claimed to be a docuseries but straight up lied about pretty much everything. The conjuring says "based on true events" and barely nods to the real case it's "based" on.
It's netflix, if it's a fictional series, they could literally say "every single detail of this is real and actually happened and everything you see is a primary source from the actual events" and we should still realise that doesn't mean anything.
If you look at the closing credits it does state on screen that it's "based" on some true events. I don't think it's advisable for her to sue. As a lot of stuff like her Facebook comments dating back long before this series was put out that hints about her behaviour. Also those alleged online communication and alleged letters, will probably be forensically be examined. DNA / fingerprints handwriting style. And e. mail/ voice mail I.P. address traced. That happened with previous convicted stalkers. This will run and run.
How do you sue someone for defamation when the character has a completely different name lol also Fargo show and movie says "This is a true Story" before every episode, when it's in fact a fully fictional show.
Perhaps Gadd had more than one stalker and the character was a combination of people and stalking events?
If martha on the show is according to her, nothing like her etc, isnt that the main point of them changing things etc to hide the real person from the real person?! If shes claiming the character is nothing like her, then good. But you getting your spotlight for 15mins of fame, isnt richards or Netflix's fault? She came out to reveal herself (despite the fans going detective crazy on the matter).
This show was told from Richard Gadd’s point of view. He can’t have known what she was thinking or why she was doing the things she did. He didn’t exactly make himself look like a completely innocent person, he admitted that he led her on, that he enjoyed the attention. I think the disclaimer at the end of the show covers both Gadd and Netflix for any exaggerations and fictional portions of the show.
She didn’t have to out herself on Piers Morgan’s show. She contacted them. She could’ve just stayed away and let people find something else to fill their time. Or she could’ve gone on the show and told her side of the story, how she ended up in that situation with Gadd.
Now instead she is trying to extort money from Piers Morgan and planning lawsuits against Gadd and Netflix.
I think that would be the wrong thing for her to do.
All her electronic devices, computers, tablets, phones, etc…would have to be given to authorities to do a complete forensic examination to find out if she did in fact do the things he said. She might be subjected to a polygraph examination. She might be asked to have a psychological evaluation too.
Every single bit of evidence that Gadd may have kept, emails, texts, voicemails, etc..would become public knowledge.
Their attorneys would do the FOIA request for any and all legal documents, arrest records, transcripts etc..
Her life would be laid bare. Instead of possibly making her life better, it will make it worse.
I do not feel sorry for her for how she did him and the MP. And how many more people has she done this to that are afraid of her and won’t speak out? She is victimizing these the Gadd and the MP all over again.
I wonder when the r*pist will be outed. While I think most of us would agree that Fiona Harvey is the real stalker, there is something so unfair about the person who committed actual assault on several occasions would be able to live in peace. They say his identity is an open secret in their community… I wonder for how long.
I think you missed the fact that if she dose have all them emails there’s no case because it means it was true
If I knew a guy a few years ago, who ended up making a Netflix series about someone who stalked him back when I knew him, I would know that it was obviously someone else and not me. I wouldn’t come out and say “yeah, it was me, but I didn’t do it”. There’s no logic to that
I have a question. If Fiona denies she did any of the stalking and that Martha looks like her, how can she say the story is based on her?
Simply Said, very well said!!! Good luck to her suing Netflix 😂
The proof is already there through her old tweets. She doesn’t have to present them with 41k emails. Be serious.
You can pause Netflix credits btw
Yep
Fiona Harvey is clearly unhinged and thought she could make a quick buck out of it. She’s not telling the whole story or being truthful. It’ll all come out in the wash in the end but I reckon Gadd and Netflix are shitting themselves. Hindsight is always 20/20 and the “Based on the true story” phrase would have saved a whole lot of hassle.
There are way more important things for MP’s to be worried about! 🤬🤬
No there is not. Not till we get a new government. The MPs are paid to represent her. It's literally their job
Exactly
@@karenm8239 shut up Karen! Some lunatics personal issues are NOT more important than the security of the country and the welfare of the people as a collective!!
Can testify that the " has been fictionalized" has been there since week one release before Harvey ever came forward. B4 I ever googled any details I wasn't,"looking for it" the LAST episode states she was never charged and leaves it's disclaimer for an extended time. I read it with out my glasses which is really saying something 😅
Well, at least he's in the right forum to spew a bunch of lies 😂😅 Parliament perfect place
If she hadn't been arrested it would have been an amazing ending if the played the ending as is an then put " Martha was not arrested or convinced of her crimes and denyes them today with no remorse" then it would be more realistic and shocking as normally stalkers get away with their crimes
Totally agree - it would have made it far more realistic for what is really true! Sadly stalkers always get away with victimising people and rarely take accountability or responsibility :(
This is the tv gold Netflix has been trying for since “Making A Murderer”. And when season 2 of the 3 Body Problem comes out we will all forget about this. But I love the drama!
This is one of the stupidest things happening in the world right now.
I don’t know how you can ask how they could be prepared for the internet finding her. They made NO effort to change her identity and surely should have had a team checking social media for clues
The disclaimer that you mentioned at the end, was there when I watched that show about a month ago mid April. So it was not just recently added.
actually youre wrong. the whole reason she came out and said it was her is that people used the Facebook messages from the show and found them on twitter and found her account. All Netflix did was take the real tweets and change them to facebook messages. then everyone started harassing her and threatening her which made her come foreward. Also, even though they say its based one a true story at the end of the credits, That Netlix guy literally said its a true story and she is a convicted stalker, so even if they try to tell the courts thats its a work of fiction and they have that in the credits, that defense is thrown out because they told them its real. they even market it as a true story. they even say martha is a scottish lawyer. they even got an actress who resembles her. This is why Parliament is getting involved. The reason why Netflix and Gadd have shut up about the whole thing is that everything they have said contradicts each other. Gadd told an interviewer, he made up the conviction scene. Netflix told parliament it really happened. Clear evidence Netflix failed very, very much at hiding her identity and are lying about it.
Technically that have said it is true and that it is not true. They are liable.
Netflix loves this❤…. And i love you!
They didn’t take care obviously since they used the curtains line. They could have told the story and made it less obvious.
I wonder if Richard will meet Fiona again?
We also have claims from her family member saying she is lying so this is going to be very interesting to see how this ends if it ever does
Its crafty how they put the disclaimer at the end innit 😂
Don’t know who would win in UK. I live in USA.
She needs some kind of accountability maybe that’s why they put that in the show. Both Fiona and real life Darrien need to face the consequences.
People are confusing "inspired by," "based on," and "IS," a true story. I believe there are legal implications (which also could be legally country dependent) on the use of these terms and the degree of creative license that would be considered permissable. The question is in UK (and perhaps USA) law, if you are stating that a series, movie, book etc. IS a true story then does that inferrence mean FACTUAL? I am not a lawyer or a legal expert just thinking through the reasoning. There is also the issue of "Due Care." Using the extracts from tweets, post, etc., that Ms. Harvey posted in real life made it very easy for people to track her down. They googled (phrases and spelling mistakes) her tweets/posts etc. and her identity was revealed very quickly. Personally, I think this could be a huge legal mistake that Netflix made regarding "Due Care." Last but not least the issue of slander. Was Ms. Harvey convicted and sentenced to Prison? Even if she is a pathological liar, if she was not convicted and sentenced to Prison, then perhaps this could be a slander lawsuit. I also find it alarming to afford protection to the rapist and sexual predator who violated Mr. Gadd. To think that no one in the Entertainment Industry has stepped forward with charges against this person for years is distressing. The ongoing protection of sexual predators in the Entertainment and Music industry seem to be the norm.
Somebody is lying huh. Probably both of them.
Here is something EVERYONE seems to be missing. In order to prove defamation, you have to prove you damaged the reputation of someone. It is very hard to damage the reputation of a manipulative, lying, gaslighting stalker. And in fact, the scene in the show where Marth pleads guilty and cries is one of the most UPLIFTING and humanizing elements of the show. In my humble opinion, it improves her image, rather than damaging it, because she finally takes responsibility for her actions.
A jury might see it that way as well. So if this is the only major detail they added, I don't think it's defamatory. At all.
I watched it before the whole Fiona blew up 🙄🙄🙄 it’s been there the entire time 😑
Ikr added it later indeed! 😂
It claims its a true story and also claims in the credits this program based on real events;however certain characters,names,incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.Maybe get them on the starments before the uk parliament?
When you bring a lawsuit, the details of your life become public. I have a feeling shes not going to like the details about her life getting out, bc i dont believe they will be very pretty. Especially after wqtching her pierce morgan interview.
Nice top! ToonToon
I'm not at all convinced that Fiona Harvey is innocent as she certainly has written lots of bizarre FB posts. However, I think that the Netflix producer's explanation was weak. Netflix only did the weakest effort to protect her identity. And did they take any steps to see if she was actually arrested, convicted, and incarcerated? I'd like to know.
"a convicted stalker"
Seems to me she wasn't convicted for this but for someone else, so that's rather disingenuous.
It would be à shame to spoil two houses with Richard and Fiona, one is as broken as the other tbh.
Her family said she had been to prison
They have actually used messages from her that are on public forums so they cant deny its her
But as long as they have receipts of the other points of contact, this shouldn’t be an issue.
@edluacoles yep, and that's the thing...they haven't produced anything. They haven't even commented except to tell a parliamentary group that actually they didn't tell the truth when they said it was a true story and he has said it was 'in a fictional world'. I have not clue about what is true and frankly I don't care but no-one else knows either and people are being vile. At some point they need to admit it isn't true or provide evidence or it goes to court and it all comes out then. People's behaviour is a disgrace, this is a human being who may or may not have done something and may or may not have MH issues and they are being absolutely torn apart on no evidence at all
Didn't she state in Piers interview that she doesn't believe Martha is her
I dont think she will go ahead with it simply because if she has sent everything, it will come out in disclosure
Gadd literally said they did make changes to the story, in my opinion she has no case at all.
When it says "This is a true story" it is typed out, as though Gadd is writing it , it's from his perspective, how he saw it........That's what I took it to mean. That's why the disclaimer comes at the end. They know very few people get through the credits.
It's the characters true story. You see at the very end him typing his story which matches it being typed at the beginning
Ok need to ask if anyone knows if it was a prison sentence or was she sent to a mental health ward. Because it is harder to get any information if prison wasn't were she was institutionalised.
Genius. I think that really could be the answer…not that I know of course but seems plausible
The Court case is still a public record and the trial would be covered by the press. When defendants are found guilty and sent to hospitals, it's always reported and isn't secret.
I think the person who’s lying is called Fiiiiiiiooooooonnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaa
She denied it because she's a nutter. Yes she might not have gone to jail. But she 100%did it all.
Is it a revenge fantasy?
MPs want more evidence??? Shouldn’t they be more concerned with letting an unaccountable/unelected body take our sovereignty why the hell are MPs getting involved this is a court matter not a political one
Are you talking about the House of Lords?
@@serinadelmar6012 it doesn’t matter witch house it’s not there problem it’s police or courts
Here's some tough love help: don't be a stalker! You're welcome!
Morgan has contacted Gad so lets see if he answers lol
How many times does the Netflix representative some umm 🤷♂️
Umm who cares
I think that anyone who watches something that isn't recorded live in the moment should assume that nothing is exactly correct and isc fictionalized to some point.
People don't even post their social media statuses 100% facility. "The beach trip was so perfect!" But in reality it rained for half the time and you got into an argument with your boyfriend.
What baffles me is......
Why on Earth did NETFLIX allow the actual victim of the stalking play the main character, despite changing his name for the show? That is truly mental and because of that, it was so very easy to find out who Martha really is. I don't care about the text messages people claim they investigated, they already had a head start because of Richard being the main character. NETFLIX are in trouble. Secondly, if it is all true, then Fiona has served her time in prison, paid for her ways in the eyes of the law and should be left alone. This has now become a witch hunt. The lass needs counselling and help, not being dragged around the news and on social media across the world.
They claim they hid the identities of all the characters except the crucial one, the victim. Anyone that knows Richard will know who Fiona is. NETFLIX you seriously fucked up !
She may have served her time but he is totally within his rights to write a series on his life experiences. The amount of films and novels based on real events and include credits or authorship of the victim is more than you’d imagine. SHE chose to come out publicly. Netflix included disclaimers. I don’t see what your issue is really.
@@edluacoles I agree with you but at the same time, you don't understand the bigger issue and that is my issue with people like you.
@@Lee.Willcox I mean, he’d already written and performed a one man show about the same thing. Having a different actor wouldn’t have stopped anyone from tracking her down. He would still have been in the credits whether or not he starred in the role.
@@edluacoles Damn, of course he has. Although I'd never heard of him until Baby Reindeer and also I had to look that up because of all the chat. Sorry if I come across as argumentative, I just think the mental case (if she is one) should be left alone, especially if she has done time. Help the nutter rather than send her death threats. Not that you have of course but other mentals out there have been. I am just soft at heart. I appreciate that chat though.
@@Lee.Willcox not at all, I agree a duty of care wasn’t really carried out properly and more could’ve been done, like not using her actual tweets verbatim, which are easily traced back to her. I do think the show tried to present her fairly, showing some sympathy for her clear mental illness, but you’re right, there’s plenty nutcases out there who are punishing her for stalking by… stalking her. I think you and I probably agree more than we both originally thought!
Huge success disaster. I think they just invented this genre.
He brought up the former employer and listen lots of women and guys possibly have experience w obsessed people I certainly have. I never thought about making a story using them to make money. I was just thrilled that it was over and done with
She is 1000% right. They used deception and it has caused her to be threatened and harassed
Everything is based on her deception so there’s that 🙄
It’s pretty clear to me that piers and his probono lawyers have dollar signs in their eyes at the thought of suing such a large company. They are also using an easily manipulated, severely mentally ill woman in order to do so. If the case is won I doubt Fiona will see more than a drop in the ocean of the settlement. So sad these sharks exist.
I watched an interview with Gadd from a couple of years ago (the only one I could find) and he is talking about how he had deliberately made it as shocking as possible because he believes that the more shocking it is the more people will find it funny. He says himself that he wrote it that way for comedic value. That sounds pretty sick in itself imo. The interview is on YT somewhere if you wish to look it up
I'm gobsmacked that this would even go to court.
If the series had been entirely true, and she was convicted, then her being revealed wouldn't have been a problem... she would be a convicted criminal. But if she isn't, and it has been over dramatised then it really is a problem. How dramatised is it? Because the woman has been made to look like a complete nut job.
Exactly and she has been torn apart on social media, has had death threats apparently, it must have affected things like her job. People have been absolutely vile
@@gillb9222 scary isn't it. They need to come forward and tell us which parts were dramatised and how much so? I really hope that what she said about him finding out about her history and running with a narrative isn't true.... but it could well be.
Making transgender normalized. I haven't watched it, nor will I.
So if Fiona is going to now take legal action against Richard and Netflix - she is then effectively continuing to be the aggressor against that man. Stalked him, comes out and slanders him on the Piers Morgan show and now will lawyer up and go after him again.... How insane....
Gadd himself said he was not a "victim" of "Martha." This producer is clearly nervous, but also he is outright lying. And he's never seen the show, apparently.
Wow, you are everywhere writing this. Is this Fiona?
@@kayleighcarr4956 I'm a woman. What's your problem? As Audre Lourde says, "Your silence will not protect you," kayleigh. The mob that is attacking this woman will do the same to you, and no one will be left to help you, if you keep pushing all the women away. Guarantee the men wont help you.