Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

618 replies

Eshmee · 09/05/2024 21:20

Having watched her interview this evening, everything about her screamed 'liar'. Her language, her demeanor, her body language. I just wonder what other think?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
JeepSleeHack · 10/05/2024 21:56

And cancelled.

To think that everything Fiona Harvey said in her Piers Morgan interview was a lie? [Edit by MNHQ]
JeepSleeHack · 10/05/2024 21:53

Lifeomars · 10/05/2024 12:48

It harks back to the days of Jeremy Kyle, parading people who have vulnerabilities, mental health issues etc for public entertainment. Very unethical. It was a grim watch and I think it will massively backfire.

At least Jeremy Kyle show knew what it was. This is sneaky, insidious bullshit. Trussed up like powerful drama.

Babybreath · 10/05/2024 21:52

Just read that a DM journalist interviewed her and she's bombarded him with phone calls .

JeepSleeHack · 10/05/2024 21:45

Our fury should be directed at Netflix. They say they changers the details to help protect her anonymity, but the stuff it changed seems to be hugely exaggerating negative stuff about her. In the series, it claimed she had served time for prior offences and received a custodial sentence for stalking Richard - neither of these things are true

How can they claim it was ‘A True Story’ as per opening titles, and yet it be such bullshit.

It was no doubt a horrible experience for Richard, but it’s nothing compared to what happens to many women every day, too many of whom end up injured or dead.

And the focus on Fiona rather than the TV producer is just sickening. That man groomed and repeatedly assaulted Richard, yet his privilege protects him.

Netflix shame on you.

Charlize43 · 10/05/2024 21:20

Chilling:

'Early in the series, Donny discovers that Martha has been sent to prison after she accused a former employer and the employer's husband of abusing their deaf child. Over two decades ago, Scots lawyer Laura Wray took legal action over allegations of a similar nature Ms Harvey made against Laura and her husband, the late Labour MP Jimmy Wray.

Ms Wray says Ms Fiona Harvey falsely accused her and her husband of assaulting their three-year-old son who was born with a rare chromosomal disorder. She said: "We took an interim interdict. I don't think she responded and I don't think there was a full hearing after because it did the trick in stopping her coming near me. It was a long time ago and I haven't heard from her since. I've watched the Netflix show now and it's quite uncanny, put it that way."

peopleonthebusgoupanddown · 10/05/2024 21:16

Watching it now. She is very clearly not telling the truth.

The thing I don't understand is what her position is - she claims the things he says in Baby Reindeer aren't true, but also that she believes it's based on her.

If she hadn't done any of those things, why would she think it was based on her.

Springchickenonion · 10/05/2024 21:15

I watched it today. Admittedly I haven't watched the netflix series, however, she cMe across as someone with mental health issues. I don't think she should have been asked to do an interview.

I also think if there are exaggerated scenes and some made up for dramatic effect them it should at least pop up with one of those messages saying so.

They also should have made it harder to find the real person... he said he did but really didn't

TraitorsGate · 10/05/2024 21:13

For such a serios subject netflix should not have allowed any false or exaggerated scenes, it should have been factual and not advertised as a true story, all the allegations should have been researched and proven first. If the story needed telling, which it didnt, it could have been via a mainstream documentary. The whole thing is a total fuck up with no one coming out covered in glory. It's turned into a sensationalist money maker.

1nutcracker · 10/05/2024 21:00

Susieblue18 · 09/05/2024 23:59

Does anyone know if she is a lawyer. She said she had an ordinary law degree and a legal diploma. In Scotland you have to have a legal diploma to practice as a lawyer and need an honours degree to do the diploma so that was a bit odd.

That puzzled me too. And she isn’t on the Law Society of Scotland’s list of lawyers licensed to practise in Scotland.

commonsense61 · 10/05/2024 20:48

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

category12 · 10/05/2024 20:42

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 10/05/2024 20:32

Yeah, it's worrying that there's been this blurring of what she actually did - obviously her stalking is unacceptable and frightening on its own - but violence and sexual assault take it up a notch. And we don't know whether that was fact or "emotionally true".

She is potentially in danger of reprisals.

This whole thing is fucked up.

/////

Wow, so he made those details up? That's really not on. Wow.

We don't know what's true and what isn't.

Differentstarts · 10/05/2024 20:38

Don't worry rishi sunak will soon have her working and she will have a whole new set of people to stalk

tellmewhenthespaceshiplandscoz · 10/05/2024 20:32

Yeah, it's worrying that there's been this blurring of what she actually did - obviously her stalking is unacceptable and frightening on its own - but violence and sexual assault take it up a notch. And we don't know whether that was fact or "emotionally true".

She is potentially in danger of reprisals.

This whole thing is fucked up.

/////

Wow, so he made those details up? That's really not on. Wow.

Allimaskingforisalittlerespect · 10/05/2024 20:23

@NotThatWrong Did she get 250k or £250?

NotThatWrong · 10/05/2024 20:20

How has she £250k?

BananaLambo · 10/05/2024 20:20

I didn’t watch it. I am deeply uncomfortable with this whole situation. PM is an unethical shithead and he has got exactly what he wants out of this - everyone talking and debating about it. He’s sitting there now, watching the cash and fame roll in. Ultimately there is a deeply vulnerable human being at the other end of this. She clearly had a serious, persistent, mental health condition and PM has thrown her to the wolves without any appreciation of what might happen to her now. This is the man who oversaw the hacking of a dead 13 year olds phone. He does not deserve our attention or our money.

This will have a massive negative impact on her life. She will be like a circus freak and it’s unlikely she has the mental or financial resources to cope with it (I know she got £250k but that’s nowhere near enough to not need a job, or cope with the loss of privacy). Universities have ethics review panels to prevent something like this happening, and TV companies should be compelled to have them too. This was prurient, unnecessary, and will have done great harm to her and her family/friends.

Itloggedmeoutagain · 10/05/2024 19:58

Dazzledee · 09/05/2024 22:33

Yes, they were definitely at cross purposes. I've a 3 year degree from Scotland, so no Honours and therefore no classification. It was just a pass or fail. So she wasn't wrong with not being able to answer that as she would have only got a pass.

This was the only bit she wasn't lying about. The rest....

But why didn't she just say you just get a pass or a fail? He was pushing her because she wasn't answering the question she just kept saying it wasn't a great mark

RazzlePuff · 10/05/2024 19:49

Combattingthemoaners · 10/05/2024 17:36

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.

You would need a Judge to decide she doesn’t have “mental capacity”, or get her Sectioned. Good luck helping her with that!!!

Babybreath · 10/05/2024 19:38

Are there any lawyers on here ? Would you take on her lawsuit?

NotThatWrong · 10/05/2024 19:31

This whole thing is fucked up.

Reminds me of dogfighting, with a global audience. Hideous.

category12 · 10/05/2024 19:16

80schildhood · 10/05/2024 18:46

He has already admitted to making key parts of the story up including her criminal charges, jail time and the assault on his romantic interest. So if she did send him many, many emails and messages (stalking) does she not deserve any sympathy for the fact that he didn't just expose this but then embellished her behaviour.

Yeah, it's worrying that there's been this blurring of what she actually did - obviously her stalking is unacceptable and frightening on its own - but violence and sexual assault take it up a notch. And we don't know whether that was fact or "emotionally true".

She is potentially in danger of reprisals.

This whole thing is fucked up.

80schildhood · 10/05/2024 18:58

tiredandabitfat · 10/05/2024 18:55

Well, because she's a stalker?

What if Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive? Should he be getting a cut from Netflix?

If you act atrociously, you aren't guaranteed anonymity.

He probably would have a Netflix special tbf

tiredandabitfat · 10/05/2024 18:55

NotThatWrong · 10/05/2024 17:35

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 $$$.

Edited

Well, because she's a stalker?

What if Jeffrey Dahmer was still alive? Should he be getting a cut from Netflix?

If you act atrociously, you aren't guaranteed anonymity.

80schildhood · 10/05/2024 18:46

lemonmeringueno3 · 10/05/2024 18:27

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.

He has already admitted to making key parts of the story up including her criminal charges, jail time and the assault on his romantic interest. So if she did send him many, many emails and messages (stalking) does she not deserve any sympathy for the fact that he didn't just expose this but then embellished her behaviour.

Blue83 · 10/05/2024 18:27

She said she’s met him 2/3 times at the beginning then said met them 4/6 times.
i think PM went light on her, she lost her phone, he knew she has mental health I think that’s why he didn’t dig her out, I’ve been stalked it’s absolutely scary and you don’t know what they are capable of so to the last reader, man or woman we should all be protected and Richard/Don admitted he has mental health especially after his abuse, anyway it will all come out