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

Yes that's true.

I doubt she will take it to court anyway, but who knows.

I think if he was dead, he would have ben identified.

He's being protected cos he's alive and influential and not an easily exploited disordered woman.

@Unopenedpackofmenssocks yes sorry bad typo.

The people on the show were saying that Fiona Harvey would have a clear case for defamation.

I wonder if the alleged rapist is dead so that's why he isn't being outed.

Hasn't the alleged rapist been incorrectly identified, according to Osman the real culprit has been known about for years. The whole netflix saga has put lots of people at real risk of harm, they should be held accountable and ashamed.

I am not sure. He's batshit too.

What a horrendous thing to do to a vulnerable woman.. he knew she'd be outed. What about the alleged rapist.
There is something very off about both of them..

Hes also a covert narcissist...

Because remember that the flip side of this is that she is saying that he fabricated 41,000 emails and is psychotic. So she’s also defaming him.

Do you mean have a legal case for defamation? Not face one?

To be fair.

If she did her own YouTube video and had a friend interviewing her -we'd all watch that anyway.

So better it's done "professionally" for us viewers.

Has anyone watched the follow up to the PM interview?

The people talking some seemed to think that Fiona Harvey would face a legal case for defamation if some of the stuff in baby reindeer is proved to not be true. Such as the jail sentence and sexual assault.

It's all fascinating. I do believe that she stalked him but it does seem unfair to her that people now believe she violently and sexually assaulted him and others if she didn't.

Morgan was probably the only one unethical enough to do it.

The rapist should be in prison for a long time. It is not for me to pass comment on why RG has not reported it. Even if the public do correctly identified him (and I believe internet sleuths are trying!) it would be impossible to charge him. FH identified herself and spoke out. Out of all the platforms, I have no idea why she’s choose Piers Morgan who is exploitative and a disgrace. Nobody comes out of this well.

Ah I see the profile now. Why not post the comment? The profile is public and everyone knows you can't really remove anything anymore. It's all so fascinating and yes we're all a bit uncomfortable with our fascination but it's human nature.

Yes, presumably with Fargo it was just "poetic licence" since no real characters were involved. A bit different in this case.

I'm only halfway through watching the series, and so far it's interesting that you could view the whole thing as a comedy of errors about people struggling with their identity – including "Donny" who poses as a builder, and his partner who reverses gender.

In real life, Baby Reindeer started as one-man fringe theatre and was therefore fairly low-key. I wonder how much RG lost control of things once Netflix got their claws into it. They'd obviously want to exploit sensational value for maximum profit.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out, primarily as a case of business ethics.

Personally, it's given me extra pause for thought because I'm writing a book describing my abusive first marriage and how I gradually got myself out of it. I've often wondered if it's fair to share my side of a story that involves someone who might not have been 100% mentally well, and now I really doubt it.

I do think that RD is himself a damaged and slightly vulnerable person. This is all on Netflix. I hope there is some kind of accountability for them. Not because I think FH’s actions (whatever they were) were defensible, but because it’s a huge violation of broadcasting ethics.

😁 If I had an ounce of writing talent, I’d be knocking out Emotionally True series by the dozen.

@Changingplace blimey that does now put him in a pretty poor light. Emotionally true smacks a bit of alternative facts.

Exactky this. If you dont stay on for the 4th year you get an Ordinary Degree, no classification, rather than an Honours Degree, 2:1, 2:2 etc. Or at least that was the case when I was at Edinburgh uni.

When I was there a few did this and were consideerd to have 'dropped out' in third year, even though they did get an Ordinary Degree. One got pregnant and left to have the baby and a couple left due to stress/mental health issues. I wonder if that was the case here. I'd have thought it would have been difficult to ever practice Law without the full Honours degree?

I felt a bit sprry for her on this part. She was answering honestly and truthfully and PM was bullying her for a grade, when he didnt understand what an Ordinary Degree is (or was).

Well obviously she shouldn’t receive money for it 🤷‍♀️ No one’s saying she should.

The point is that lots of people have profited from this, and they wouldn’t have made nearly as much money if they’d kept to the facts.

I'm sure the series Fargo said it was a true story,I wondered at the time how they got away with saying that.

Exactly

For those saying imagine if the roles were reversed, and it was a man doing the stalking:

A female comedian gets harassed by a man; the man sends her multiple messages, including threatening increasingly threatening one, he turns up at her work, makes her feel scared and intimidated

She makes a live comedy show about it, which runs for a long time and gets critical acclaim. Then Netflix/a production company approach her about it and it becomes a TV series.

The female comedian writes a tv series, claiming the following are true:

• The stalker assaulted the female comedians boyfriend.
• the stalker had a previous conviction for a violent crime (assaulting an ex-lover’s elderly mother)
• the stalker served four years in prison for this
• the stalker received a custodial sentence for their actions forwards the female comedian
• It is incredibly easy to find identity of stalker

I imagine in this scenario, the female comedian would be receiving a fuck load of abuse. Especially if, like RD, she was attractive. And times that by two again for playing herself in the series.

She's an alleged perpetrator according to him (should be easy to prove - why didn’t he take her to court? We know the prison sentence is a lie). Why has he chosen to create plays/ a Netflix show instead?

He is now no better than her - he may not be stalking her, but he is now the cause of the same type of behaviour towards her.

Me saying this does not change how I feel about stalkers. It is possible to have strong feelings one way and also see nuance in other situations.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter how bad the first wrong is.

What about the rapist?

I find the statements very odd about only the men made money. She is a perpetrator and should in no way profit from her behaviour, regardless of whether some of the tv series was exaggerated.