To think that everything Fiona Harvey said in her Piers Morgan interview was a lie? [Edit by MNHQ]

I don't care that she has a personality disorder or whatever her working diagnosis is. It doesn't absolve you of consequences when you set out to ruin lives.

We wouldn't be so protective if she was a male stalker, or saying she deserves a cut, or that the victim is lying, or any of the other nonsense on this thread.

Working on the assumption that the central premise of Gadd's story is true, and that he wouldn't be daft or cruel enough to make it up, then it's hard to feel any sympathy for her. I imagine quite satisfying to see the tables turned on her now actually. At least she was portrayed with some sympathy, as ill rather than evil.

What struck me most watching the PM interview was that Gadd claimed to have changed details to make Martha unrecognisable, but Fiona Harvey couldn't have been more recognisable. Fiona looks like Martha, sounds like Martha, has a legal background like Martha and, like Martha, has previous for stalking. Gadd clearly wanted to out her - anyone who has ever encountered her either at work or at university would have immediately recognised her and the most cursory internet search would have found her as PM pointed out. I think that might have been fair enough if Gadd had stuck to the facts of what happened (which would have been bad enough), but including scenes like the assault on his trans girlfriend was a step too far. PM appeared to be gently trying to steer Fiona in this direction by reminding her that voicemails and emails either existed or they didn't so she should perhaps focus on discussing stuff she could prove definitely didn't take place. Unfortunately Fiona seemed incapable of taking the hint and thus ended up digging herself into a bigger and bigger hole.

That’s a really interesting point about the actor. I wonder how she feels about it now having heard the PM interview.

although I’m still inclined to towards the theory that this is all a clever social experiment.

I wonder if they even know there are her friends or boyfriend

Well said

I wonder if any of her friends or boyfriends will come forward to defend her.

I suppose she must have been paid handsomely for the interview?

Yes it is fine to give people a voice who are able to provide consent and understand the implications of their decisions. She lives in such a fantasy world she is not able to see this. She clearly does have mental health issues, it doesn’t take an armchair detective to point out the blindingly obvious. It isn’t disability discrimination to protect someone who is being thrown into the public gaze and unable to navigate properly.

She faced consequences when she was taken to court.

Piers Morgan's interview has had 5,073,449 views in the first 21 hours. This is amazing. Does anyone know of other 'spectacles' with this sort of engagement?

Let's be honest, apart form the whole thing being super exploitative and unethical FH does have a point. She is the star of the show, both in the actual Netflix series as well as in PM's interview. Why should she not get a cut of this bonkers media extravaganza? It's not RG or his story that is attracting this sort of crazy world-wide attention, it's absolutely her, her persona is selling this and making some people mega $$$.

The academics work very hard at extracting meaning from it and looking for aspects they can award marks for, eg something could be illiterate but you can still work out roughly what the argument is meant to be, or that the student has done some research for the essay. All the pressure is to find things you can pass them for because it doesn’t look good to have a lot of them fail, so people get through who probably don’t have the literacy skills to do a job actually involving the degree subject.

I haven't seen it but from the above headlines, I'm not sure Piers Morgan drags people by force to be interviewed, isn't it done for money?

Anyone with google could identify her very quickly as she has a great many posts about Gadd over many years on her facebook account.

Initially the media did not name her but then she herself gave permission to the newspapers to identify her.

Who identified her as being the stalker or did she put herself forward.or is that all ,ies and part of a delusion. The court case and sentence is easy to prove and her emails and calls. Is there proof anything was sent from her ip address or phones. I don't understand why there's not more said about the producer who raped him, I find the whole thing uncomfortable and not really sure who or what I believe.

I've not yet watched the show and haven't seen the interview but from what I'm reading I think I'd agree with you on this.

PM is a nasty barrel scraping excuse for a journo and is no doubt loving all the attention this is generating.

And yes ... predatory abuser man continues to live his life as normal but let's all judge the clearly unwell woman

I thought it was pretty boring to be honest. Just her denial of everything. Predictable.

This is never going to court.

Firstly it would cost many thousands.

She could do it herself as a "lawyer" but she has already said she wont.
Her "boyfriend" also a "lawyer" could do it but she ruled him out too

No real lawyer is going to take that on a no win, no fee basis unless they are confident of a better than 50% chance of winning. So that rules all real lawyers out.

Saying you are going to sue and actually suing are not the same things.

This is never going to court.

I'm obviously not a body language expert but closing her eyes when speaking, drinking water , rapid blinking and eye movements and some of the things she said that contradicted herself. When she was watching the court scene her eyes moved as if she was trying to remember this.
Just her whole demeanour really.

I got about 15 minutes in and I can't bear watching any more.

This from the Guardian is good https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/10/piers-morgans-baby-reindeer-interview-fiona-harvey-reeked-grubby-exploitation?CMP=share_btn_url

I think she just has a very high opinion of herself, and a very low opinion of others. Expects everyone to just believe what she says, so she doesn't worry too much about what she says.

I think she has a severe personality disorder.

There’s an ethical question with NOT allowing Fiona speak.
If “we” decide she has MH issues, and “we” decide, for her own good, that she cannot appear in media. We are denying her freedom of speech, it’s disability discrimination. She is free to make mistakes & Eff-up her life.

she is not free to behave however she likes, and then get privacy / no consequences

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel really?
How on earth do they pass essays and reports when it's barely readable?

I see what you are saying. Many, many people (myself included) would not cope being filmed for tv and being put on the spot like that.

She didn't mumble, blush, burst out crying, need a moment to compose herself, lose her train of thought etc.

She did manage to speak fluently, even if the content was evasive and didn't answer the question. That is somewhat hard to do without just clamming up.

I think she just has such a high opinion of herself, and such a low opinion of others, that she doesn't really think through what she's saying. She just lets it flow and expects others to believe it, and gets very angry when they don't.

At the very end, when PM asked her to look into the camera and speak to the viewers, what she said was just garbage.

Why are people falling over themselves to point out her inaccuracies and lies? She’s a prolific stalker and lives in a fantasy work. Of course it is going to be lies! Many seem to be missing the real issue of the interview being unethical.

She wouldn't have "grades" with an ordinary Scots law degree. If she started a legal traineeship after university, she must also have a post-grad Diploma in Legal Practice. I wouldn't describe my post-grad DLP as "a degree" but it involves a year at university, so I wouldn't quibble if someone else described theirs as a post-grad degree.