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

I have never seen a Tv series that starts with the phrase This Is A True Story.

I have seen loads of series that start with Based on a true story, or Some elements have been changed etc…

But regardless, the fictional bits were all hugely damaging: prior conviction and prison sentence, assaulting Teri, and most importantly the custodial sentence for stalking RD.

I find it interesting people are willing to give compassion to Fiona due to her mental illness but not afford the same to Richard. It seems like they’re both competent adults. They have both made decisions that have impacted on one another.

While I agree he did say it was a true story, he did not say it was 100% true?

I agree, she came across better than I expected tbh. I wouldn't believe Gadd if he said it was raining now ,so who knows?

She admitted to PM that she did give Gadd the Baby Reindeer nickname so it was obvious it was about her.

They do have a duty of care to anyone who could be identified. Especially if retaliatory harm comes to someone. We don’t live in the Wild West.

The fact this even needs explaining to people is mind blowing. Explains why TV is so dumbed down nowadays.

Duty of care for a stalker!

He literally quoted a few of her tweets - word for word.

Whatever happened, Netflix have failed hugely in their duty of care.

I see the male rapist is full protected.

I’m not saying it’s not true, but we already know that some events weren’t true. But it doesn’t matter now, she will never have the right to defend herself or get a fair trial. Some people won’t have seen the articles were he says she didn’t go to prison and she didn’t beat up the transwoman, so they believe she did those things. One of the underlying tenets of the justice system is a defence and a fair trial, it’s not perfect, but it’s all we’ve got.

Ugh I wish people would stop saying "if it was a man.." as if there isn't a male perpetrator in this story.

There is a male perpetrator and what is happening to him is fuck all and safe anonymity.

I think the PM show was really inappropriate.If the dramatisation had been based on a male stalker and the victim female I wonder if he’d have been given the same airtime.

If the woman sold the story to netflix. Insisted on acting the main character herself to make millions. Stating its 100% true to events when it's not. Making it obvious to the world who the stalker is but protecting the actual rapist. Then yes I would question it

Would people be so quick to doubt the story if it was a woman sharing her ordeal of stalking and rape?

@Whatthechicken I agree. Gadd is a comedian. Comedians make up stories, exaggerate events, pretend events that happened to others actually happened to themselves. It’s part of creating comedy.

Some events may have been based on truth but Gadd was desperate to make a compelling story, he says himself that all he wants is to be famous.

we are all so quick to ridicule this woman, but what if he is the chief bullshitter?
Ultimately evidence verified by computer forensics will be able to prove either way.
But until we see that I think we should hold fire on the witch trial of Fiona Harvey.

If she didn't do any of those things - what makes her think it's about her?

I’m still desperately hoping it’s an elaborate black mirror type thing. But if it isn’t, all we have is a dramatised version of events and only one side of it. We have no proof that any of it/or how much of it is real. I am really uncomfortable with trials by social media - but I do understand that the justice system lets many down and this is the reason why some need to expose via this route.

She is clearly unwell, but just for a moment consider…. what if most of it was made up? She does has a right to reply - but the problem is she’s not a reliable witness anymore because of what we’ve been told about her via the drama, and she probably doesn’t have the money or the wherewithal to challenge the depiction of her.

If she did send 41k emails and everything else, why was it not reported (which I believe it wasn’t - that bit was made up) but instead made into a television series? I’m very dubious about the motives of it all and it should concern all of us. What if someone from my past made a drama, that was 50% made up about me and was embellished, what if everyone’s mind was made up before any evidence was produced? What if I didn’t have the means and money to take on the giants of Netflix to challenge their depiction?

I’m not defending her at all by the way, but I am saying that this is a very dangerous president to set. Anyone could say anything about anyone or make a tv drama out of it without producing a shred of evidence and ruin someone’s life before they are even aware of it. And if they are deemed to be an unreliable witness or if they don’t have the money then they have no defence.

In the 1980s, most law graduates at Aberdeen did a three year ordinary, followed by the one year post-grad Diploma in Legal Practice.

Just read your title - yea she's a lying manipulator 😂

Possibly someone has, but aye, an ordinary degree is 3 years, 4 years is honours. For law you need all 4 + the rest.

One of the most successful people at a worldwide level, also one of the most highly educated people I know, doesn't know how to pronounce hyperbole. In fact, I taught them. It's not the only word my friend gets wrong either.

@AbsolutelyGutted1 that sounds awful. I’m so sorry it happened to you.

Im not an apologist for Fiona’s behaviour. Even if 10% of the story was true, her behaviour was truly terrible.

My concern is that the series explicitly said it was a true story when so many elements weren’t. And those elements were all key to the story and hugely defamatory - most notably the back story about prior prison time and the custodial sentence she received for stalking RD.

My issue is with Netflix. Their compliance department should have been aware how easy it was to find out her identity, and with that in mind, they should not have falsely exaggerated crucial plot details.

Again, what happened to you was awful and I’m so sorry. I don’t want my posts to in any way minimise what happened to you or others in your situation.

FH may well be mentally unwell and vulnerable. She has a right to be on television like any other person. That said, I despite the exploitative odious little PM so I couldn’t bear to watch.
I watched Baby Reindeer though.

I've only read up to page 9 atm, but has anybody on here ever been on the receiving end of somebody like Martha/Fiona? I have. My exes mum.

She made dozens of fake Facebook accounts to message me abuse, posting pictures of my flat from the road side saying how she can't wait to get hold of me.

She used to follow me in her car and shout abuse out of the window. She posted letters to my neighbours telling them I was hacking their WiFi and all sorts of rubbish.

She managed to get hold of intimate pictures of me, from her son (?!) and made accounts in my name with those pictures on display, adding people from all over the town.

She contacted everybody she could find online who knew me in any capacity whatsoever and sent them messages telling them I'm a prostitute.

I went to the police and they did absolutely nothing and in hindsight I feel that was because she was a lot more credible on paper than I was.

I was 19, a care kid, no money, living in a shared house in a shit area. She was 50 and fancied herself as middle class, married with a detached house and a decent car in the drive. University educated. Money to waste on trumped up cease and desist letters she had a solicitor send to me after instructing them to write to me and demand I leave her alone (I never did a thing to her, it was purely retaliation for me reporting her to the police).

The things I reported her to the police for didn't tally up with the version of her that the police got, because surely somebody doing all of that to a teenage girl had to be seriously mentally ill right?

Except this woman wasn't seriously mentally ill, so the whole thing looked absolutely bonkers and as though I must be making it up.

She was just an incredibly nasty woman with too much time on her hands and that is what I'm seeing in that Fiona. They are cut from the same cloth. It actually triggered me a bit watching the PM interview because they are so alike.

It might seem incomprehensible to some people but perfectly sane people can and do behave like that. Some people are just bastards.

Personality disordered at best. The personality is the problem. Not vulnerable, weak or defenceless. Just nasty pieces of work.

Slow clap

I don't know about now, but in the 1980s, most of those of us at Aberdeen University did an Ordinary degree and then the Diploma in Legal Practice. She'd only be a solicitor if she then completed the two year traineeship. The year I graduated, there were 57 Ordinary graduates and 35 Honours graduates. (I looked it up today.)

The Law Society did a survey a few years ago and found that more than half of the women who qualified as solicitors in the 1980s were no longer solicitors thirty years later. The drop-out rate was far higher amongst woman (duh!) than men. So even if her life had gone well, the odds are that she wouldn't still be on the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland.

I'm a couple of years older and my year at Aberdeen was the first year with an equal male / female intake into the law degree. There was still an "Old Boys Network" which didn't make anything easier for women going into the profession.