UK parliament debate, May 2024 full video ru-vid.comrHQaf3Jj0uI #BabyReindeer #FionaHarvey #RichardGadd #PiersMorgan Fiona Harvey emails to Labour leader Keir Starmer • Baby Reindeer Fiona Ha...
You're worried about whether it is male or not and not the guy who turned him out. Also if my memory serves me correctly didn't he go over there and screw her?
I dont understand, unless i misunderstood something, didnt internet users find her within days because Netflix had her tweets verbatim in the tv series? and of course, its common for males to stalk females - sorry for the sterotype my male friends - Its not that common the other way and thats why it exploded!
The fact that she denies any stalking and even being convicted should be investigated and made public. Blatantly lying by both Netflix and Fiona, they're as bad as each other.
AN MP yesterday told of his horror after a stalker falsely accused him and his wife of abusing their disabled son. Labour's Jimmy Wray and wife Laura were visited by social workers investigating claims they had beaten four-year-old Frankie. The couple received death threats after Fiona Harvey, 36, was dismissed from Laura's former law firm. Wray, 63, said: "It is upsetting enough for Laura and myself, but for Frankie to be dragged into this was hugely distressing." FULL STORY - PAGE 5 COPYRIGHT 2002 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday
I totally agree with you and I don't agree with Fiona Harvey's behaviour, especially having endured stalking a few times myself, BUT the alleged (it's best to use that word in my country) r*pes are MUCH worse crimes! I'm pleased to know that some people are focusing on those horrendous incidents, instead of the stalking issue. 🙁
I actually don't see the problem here. If they did this documentary style - they'd likely use names. Like the Tinder Swindler. They anonymised everyone in Baby Reindeer. 99% of people couldn't be bothered to try to figure out who these people are - I certainly couldn't. Gadd made a thoughtful, artistic piece to heal. Then Fiona comes out saying it is about her (Despite "not watching the show"). To me, my big take away from the show was how complex humans are - how victims return to their abusers - and how things aren't black and white. I thought it was healing and thoughtful. Fiona for some reason thinks she should be financially compensated for this show? Which is odd lol. "I committed a crime against you. You've made art about it. Now compensate me" lol - get WRECKED.But clearly a lady that needs some help - needs to stop stalking people. I do find it weird that people are saying it was easy to find her identity - but they can't seem to find these police records? That Netflix says exist. So it'll be interesting to see how this all comes out in the end.
Respectfully, and this isn't a defence of Fiona Harvey who to my mind is more than likely guilty of some level of inappropriate behaviour towards Gadd, you're defeating your own point by stating that on one hand it's weird how there has been no one in the multiple weeks able to prove this woman is a 'convicted stalker' as stated but at the same time pouring scorn on her attempts to be compensated and telling her to get wrecked. If she isn't how can you then take any of the rest of the content at face value? The 40k emails, the 750+ tweets, the hours of voicemail, the assault on his gf, the harassment of his parents, the sexual assault beside the canal? Are we just to accept that these are all true despite them being caught out in the lie of her being a convicted stalker? Gadd himself has admitted that is not the case yet here we have a netfllix exec stating under oath that she is. Huge issues that need to be addressed.
You're the last person I expected to see here in the comments. Love your channel. OK. That was the knee-jerk reaction. Now it's time to actually read your comment...
I guess the truth about the police records will come out. She seems like a total weirdo, but it'll be interesting to see whether or not she does actually have any convictions. I wouldn't trust Netflix to be truthful. They are behind Meghan Markle and her husband's documentary and another one saying Amber Heard was not a domestic abuser (yeah, I lost way too many hours binge-watching that trial... That relationship was the best drama since Shakespeare, but to anyone who followed the trial the idea that she was some kind of innocent victim is pretty absurd). Netflix just don't seem to care about the truth very much.
its literally because netflix is making some things up even though they are saying its all true. no one is disputing she sent all the messages and emails etc. but the attacking of the family member and her going to court and admitting to it and then going to jail seem to be false. Gadd even admitted he made up the court stuff for the show, even though this video alone the Netflix employee is telling parliament that it is true and did happen lol.
@@SpilledMerlot-bq1jl The man asking questions above, numerous people of the many discussions online, in fact Piers himself had somewhat sympathetic (in keeping it balanced) moments. I never said commenters on this post per se - not that I owe you an explanation!
There was no cover up, and you have no idea about what you are talking about because you aren’t a girl and you have never been harassed by a man….. you are just saying this out of misogyny but if you looked into the subject you would have seen that it’s impossible to get your stalker arrested, women struggle to have their rap!sts arrested, do you think police is going to do anything for stalker? 3 out of 5 men are abusers, if we could get all the men who abused women in prison, it wouldn’t be much men around.
I. believe everything points to 'Martha' wanting to be identified after Netflix for the very reason of stirring up problems for Netflix and Gadd and to make money. All her speech and actions are pointed at coming out after the series (not the Ed show) and to claim she has been erroneously used in order to get money.
She is not a victim nor do I believe has mental health issues. She chose to confirm her identity and is now monetising it. There is no discussion of duty of care. They never named her. How is it that we are again victim blaming. This was a painfully honest account of what happened to this man I very much doubt he would lie about a conviction
You think she doesn’t have mental health issues? She can’t live a normal life, she’s so weird that everyone avoids her. Do you think she acts that way for fun? Only it doesn’t seem like her life is fun.
She most certainly does have mental health issues. She's quite clearly unhinged mate. I agree with the rest of what you are saying, but c'mon now. Even the bloody author and real victim, Richard Gadds, has stated at length that she needs help because she's not well in the head. But YOU don't believe it. so it must not be true eh? Ridiculous arrogance.
She wasn't named but it was inevitable that viewers would identify her, as they did. It also seems there is no available evidence she was convicted. They didn't have to make the actress so similar.
@@MrMacbridemax Maybe you should try to put yourself in the place of the victim and then tell me if you would protect your stalker. He made this show to try to explain how complicated things can be for victims of stalking. Seems people care more about out her than they do about him
Richard Gadd has said from the beginning that the court and prison parts were fictionalised for the show to bring closure to it. There are interviews that can be found online of him clearly saying this. He said that he didn’t bring charges against her but that he took out a restraining order against her. Piers Morgan , the rest of the media and Netflix wouldn’t have had to look very far to find this out, I found it out easily. Richard Gadd is covered as he said parts were fictionalised. Netflix aren’t covered and may end up getting sued a lot of money because they wrote on screen This is a true story. If they had written based on a true story or inspired by a true story they would be covered£, but they didn’t, so they aren’t.
WHY exactly, are we coddling a narcissistic convicted stalker? Producers can’t control what the public will do. She does seem to be enjoying the attention, which is really the goal now isn’t it? 🤨
@LucyStormbringerLastic no offence but have you watched the video? They specifically DO refer to her as a convicted stalker, the rest is just word salad that has nothing to do with my point. She is not a convicted stalker. That's what Netflix have described her as as highlighted in this video and have done so without any proof to back it up. That's defamation. I think Harvey is clearly guilty of some aspects of inappropriate behaviour related to Gadd and Wray previously but that's completely irrelevant to the point of if she has been defamed.
Let us not forget, she is now stalking Neil Sears who wrote the article for the mail online. The same paper she is suing. Plus she is harassing Piers Morgan.
@@bobbob9619 She’s demanding 1 million from her appearance instead of the £250 and if you watch Andy Signore ask Piers the question, Piers is evasive, stumbling. He admitted some forcefulness on her behalf, harassing. In Piers own words “She’s had a few intemperate messages”…
@@gillianlaing1073 Of course he can be harassed by her, it is whether he feels harassed. He certainly becomes rattled as he proves that frequently when he is exposed.
A victim has every right to tell their story without concern for the person that victimised them. The real person that Martha is based on is not more relevant than the victim. Any support she requires should come from her healthcare provider not her victim. If it was a woman telling her story would they have this much care for the man? Not even when the woman is lying do they care about the harm the man experiences. Such bs.
Apparently she was served with an interim interdict by the courts for a previous stalking case which is probably what he is referring to. This notion however that the show has to be the "truth" is a nonsense anyway. The writers changed the story to make it harder for people to identify her. It was done for her benefit but shes too clueless to understand. She has yet to decide if she is the woman in the show, because she has also denied it, or what if any incidents took place she "agrees" with. She wants to go to court but cant even decide on her version of reality to stick with for a court case.
Hold stalkers accountable. Stalking is a CRIME!!! Stalkers lie because they know full well what they are doing is WRONG!! They are hoping the public is both sympathetic and gullible.
She’s a narcissist !! She is so “ upset “ that she is loving every minute of it and going on Piers Morgan to lie her butt off. I hope she wins money from Netflix because the woman who tried to help her by giving her an internship and was subsequently stalked and harassed for years is going to sue Fiona and win !! Fiona doesn’t have a reputation or a career so how could Netflix damage it ??
They know what they’re doing, shame the public think they’re trying their best but are stupid which they aren’t, they like the public divided, frustrated and mentally Ill so they’re preoccupied battling those issues over battling them.
He can tell his story but must tell it 100% truthfully if it's positioned as such. Netflix can't have it both ways and should be held accountable if they didn't check facts
@@mobwatch8119 I am talking about Netflix and even Richard Gadd. It would be very easy for Netflix to show the evidence of her conviction to the public - if they have evidence of course.
Richard Gadd has said from the beginning that the court and prison part are fictionalised to give closure. He said that he didn’t make any charges against her but he did take out a restraining order against her .
You know what,if she says she's not been to jailor been convicted, then why is Netflix saying its a true story 🤔 she's gonna sue them,so I hope they checked all the facts before saying its a true story
@@gillianlaing1073 because it's not a documentary - adults usually understand that stories are changed when they're made into fiction which is what this is - STILL I don't understand why on earth they didn't say: 'based on a true story' which is the usual phraseology
She was found in like 10 seconds, so I call BS on the “protecting the people involved”. While what happened was terrible, it’s also decades ago and according to the Series she was convicted and went to jail. The reason our courts exist is to punish people for a crime. Once that punishment has been applied, their debt to society has been paid. If every crime was a lifetime sentence, why bother having the court system at all?
She didn't go to jail at all though and Richard Gadd has stated that some of the show was dramatised, in order to give closure. I'm thinking that Piers Morgan could've found out more information before the interview with Fiona Harvey, which I had to stop watching due to his interviewing technique, among other reasons. 🙉
Interesting because when I first googled who the real Martha was it brought up a completely different person and that took me a good half an hour to find I literally didn’t hear it was this woman until weeks later
I had a stalker & its very scary. She even broke into my house. I met her over a dating site only had one actual date. one time I knew she was on the way to my home & thought my best course of action was to just go out. went to the pub with my next door neighbour. hours later walking home i had a premonition & asked my neighbour to walk ahead & see if her car was in cul de sac came back & told me not only was her car on my drive she was sat on my front room!
It tears apart your feeling of saftey and so many other pieces that make us a normal grounded human being.Stalkers need to have harsher penalties imposed.The damage it does to the person being stalked is unrectifiable.
Don't you think she deserves to be exposed and she also needs professional psychiatric help? Also, Netflix and Richard Gadd didn't disclose her identity, people did. Being a victim of a very nasty stalker myself I feel very sorry for the real victim here, Richard Gadd.
@@deegralak-roe Help, Yes 'Exposed', No It's not as though she got away with it, she's served a prison sentence. She does though obviously need help, she's clearly not well.
I mean… anyone can look up her convictions when offering her a job… so her own life was ruined by her actions. if someone told the truth about her… its not something they wouldn’t soon find out. Tbh I wouldn’t have even thought of looking her up if Pierce Morgan hadn’t brought her on his show… so espentially she’s also defaming herself and all I got from everything is that the actress who played Martha did a FANTASTIC job at portraying the real life person.
What is overlooked is that Donnie Dunn’s character admitted to leading her on because he was lonely and liked having her as an audience. Not many women react that way toward a male stalker.
At the end of the day Richard is a victim and his stalker was convicted. Why should criminals be protected from the truth especially as a second time offender.
She wasn't convicted for the incident in 2002 and she wasn't convicted in relation to her behaviour towards Gadd. Is she the world's worst stalker or world's best lawyer? If she's guilty of all the allegations made against her why has she never went to court let alone jail? Or is it more likely that lots of people have been taken in by a story that's been heavily exaggerated and while there was probably inappropriate behaviour took place people are willing to burn anyone at the stake because they're judgemental arseholes? No multiple stalking convictions and jail terms, no sexual assault at a canal, no glass smashed off his head, no assault of his gf, no harassment of his parents, not as much communication as depicted. If that's closer to the truth it doesn't make her behaviour acceptable but it also doesn't make for a Netflix hit series either.
You can petition the Court in the UK to seal your records after you have served time. Same thing in the States. Its entirely at the discretion of the Judge.
If they did have tons of evidence they would have privately briefed it to tame journalists off the record by now, the fact Piers Morgan among others is saying nothing has come to light so far doesn't look good for Netflix. We know for a fact she wasn't convicted for either the Laura Wray incident or the Gadd incident from the people directly involved.
I feel this is such a double standard. If it were a man stalking a woman, certainly the man stalker would get away with it. They wouldn’t even believe the woman.
That's exactly right and can attest to it since I've experienced stalking a few times myself, including in regard to dangerous ex-neighbours! I don't have time to go into the details now though and it's probably best if I don't anyway. 🙁
AN MP yesterday told of his horror after a stalker falsely accused him and his wife of abusing their disabled son. Labour's Jimmy Wray and wife Laura were visited by social workers investigating claims they had beaten four-year-old Frankie. The couple received death threats after Fiona Harvey, 36, was dismissed from Laura's former law firm. Wray, 63, said: "It is upsetting enough for Laura and myself, but for Frankie to be dragged into this was hugely distressing." FULL STORY - PAGE 5 COPYRIGHT 2002 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday
@@relaxed7745 Agreed - but caution should apply to both sexes equally. What are the claims made in this series if not allegations mixed with fiction (with no clarification made as to what is fictional)? Do you see people worrying about it? When a woman is accused of something, you get "body language analysis" content, somehow always determining that she's lying.
He did say the person responsible was a convicted stalker though and they also allowed tweets posted from Fiona Harvey's twitter account to be used verbatim in the show. They then stated proudly during promotion of the show that this is a true story and that actual tweets were used thus allowing her to be identified within hours, they've made a complete arse of it Theres not even a question around this, if they can't prove she is a convicted stalker they have clearly defamed her.
@@scorpiorising7694 you are assuming that Fiona Harvey is his stalker. She could have had a few exchanges with GADD and he might have lifted some of her personality quirks in writing Baby Reindeer but the real "martha' could be a skinny blond woman. Remember that GADD and Netflix said they basically hid her identity. SO Fiona Harvey could be a scammer trying to earn some money OR she could be mental and think this story is about her (when she was just used as a part of an amalgam of the character)
@@americanpancakelive What? I suggest you maybe want to do some research before you spout nonsense Baby Reindeer contained tweets that were described by Gadd as 'the actual tweets sent by the stalker in real life', they trumpeted this during the promo for the series launching. Those tweets were then used to search for the identity of the stalker and were matched to Fiona Harvey's twitter account and date marked in 2016 when this was said to have taken place. That is how she was identified so quickly after the show aired and her identity then spread like wildfire. Back to the drawing board for you......
@@scorpiorising7694 pretty convenient- what we haven't seen are the ipone messages that GAAD received and who sent them. As I said earlier, clearly Fiona sent him tweets but I am sure a lot of people sent him tweets. he was an entertainer with a public twitter account. There has been absolutely no concrete evidence that FH is the "martha" depicted in Baby Reindeer and there is no evidence to suggest that the series was not fictionalized for greater impact. GAAD has already stated that "martha" was not actually convicted in the end. He also didn't break down in front of an audience as depicted in BR, he revealed his trauma in a one man show named Monkey See, Monkey Do. All Films and series that say they are True Stores are always embellished. So back to the drawing board for you...
No I think it was evident to anyone with a working brain that this was FICTIONALIZED. She came out on her own. Even if discovered she could've kept her mouth shut not she's exactly as portrayed so it's truly based on a true story
Netflix should just let this blow over. She didn't have to go on Piers Morgan's show. She effectively outed herself and has previous concerning behaviour revealed by a Scottish lawyer.
As a former police officer there are concerns here.. how did the police not act on 41000 emails, hundreds of hours of phone calls, stalking at work, assaulting the victims partner (with witnesses) and having been well known to police as stalking mps, healthcare workers and officers themselves? There's something not right here. I mean I watched the interview with piers Morgan and it's clear she's a sandwich short of the full picnic but really???
@LucyStormbringerLastic again, have you watched the video? That's a Netflix uk boss stating under oath that this was a true story and that she is a convicted stalker. I've already explained to you in a separate reply how their sloppiness in relation to the tweets used within the show was responsible for her being identified. Her identity was already widely known prior to having her interview, she also received multiple death threats as a consequence. If you don't understand defamation laws in the UK or are willing to accept facts then I'm not sure there's anything more I can tell you. Harvey has a King's Counsel advising lawyers relating to her case, multiple people such as Piers Morgan who is very experienced in relation to defamation laws have indicated she has a watertight case. Forgive me but randoms on RU-vid channels clinging to 'they put up a disclaimer in the end credits' are as naive as they are thick. No offence.
Although a fan of Baby Raindear, I do feel that Netflix should have used a different actresse to play Martha . No one that has a striking resemblance to the actual stalker.
Also, they should not have used RICHARD GADD acting as HIMSELF. I have all kinds of problems with that. It comes across as abuse of her. He has this smirk on his face constantly, I cannot help seeing it as duping delight. I don´t like the dude, I don´t trust him one bit.
@@asbisiI'm feeling extremely relieved about someone picking up on Richard Gadd's own highly narcissistic behaviour! I can attest to what you wrote as well because I used to know a troubled man who led a woman with an intellectual disability on and knew that she had a huge "crush" on him. She started stalking him and it has stopped now, but he did admit that knowing that she fancied him was an ego boost and he went to places with her, including her home, so did encourage it. 🙁
He doesn’t say she’s a convicted stalker. Clickbait. I never get why creators do this. You instantly lose trust with your audience when they see that you’ve lied. Don’t get it.
AN MP yesterday told of his horror after a stalker falsely accused him and his wife of abusing their disabled son. Labour's Jimmy Wray and wife Laura were visited by social workers investigating claims they had beaten four-year-old Frankie. The couple received death threats after Fiona Harvey, 36, was dismissed from Laura's former law firm. Wray, 63, said: "It is upsetting enough for Laura and myself, but for Frankie to be dragged into this was hugely distressing." FULL STORY - PAGE 5 COPYRIGHT 2002 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday
@@blazedray9903 She made it up the child was never abused she lied to get these people into trouble as she had beef with them. She is a dangerous sociopath.
Where does he say she IS a convicted stalker I never heard him say that what you say in the title he didn't say SHE Fiona did go to jail and was is a convicted stalker
I think it is important that we as a society not focus on the gender aspect because it takes away from the fact that stalking is WRONG. HARMFUL, and can be perpetuated by anyone. Baby Reindeer brings the problem to the forefront and I think it’s beneficial that it can be seen from a perspective that brings more attention to stalking being a problem that be experienced from either a male or female.
She's a "convicted stalker"??!!! Didn't she deny that she was on the Piers interview?? Woahhh and if she is one, then Fiona has no leg to stand on because then this would actually make it a true story. Since that's what is the major point of discussion
I get she’s mentally ill. But we name the stalkers that follow celebrities around and invade their space, even if they are mentally ill too. In this case I think he did her a favour by protecting her identity. As long as he didn’t slander her, which to the best of my knowledge he didn’t (stating the parts that were dramatised and those that are not), then it’s his fair game to use his story of stalking anyway he sees fit.
I saw her interview with Pierce Morgan and she's clearly disturbed. She kept contradicting herself which would make one think she's an habitual liar too. Donnie being raped and abused by Derrian was hard to watch. Why would Gadd put such a an intimate and demoralizing action out there for the world to see and make up a story about Martha stocking him. It doesn't make sense. I think there is truth to the story.
It was named 'Baby Reindeer'. A phrase 'Martha' used in the show and a phrase Fiona used. Surely, if you're going to hide the identity of the character you would provide an alternative name for the show?
It's a great name though you have to admit. let's think of alternatives for fun though. Cariboo boo, seal pup, baby narwhal, wee lil' duck. Baby Reindeer is one of those things you only get from Hawley Arms banter as Fiona so eloquently refers.
They are insulting people's intelligence by claiming they had tried to mask her identity. Using her social media posts and a reference to a specific stuffed toy? Then claiming she "wouldn't be able to recognise herself"? Maybe she did stalk him; who knows. But they're lying about these issues. Dishonesty never looks good.
What I dont understand is if this woman is so concerned about having been identified, why put yourself out in the public forum instead of just going to ground, right ot wrong.
She committed a crime, she is an adult, nothing to stop her being named and shamed. Why the he'll should Netflix call her and pamper her?! Would they call a murderer or burglar and ask them if it's ok to do a programme on them? Would 'Dispatches' or 60 minutes or the like do so? This is pathetic, imagine a man doing this to a woman. She's the one trying to get £1m for her sob story. She's a horrible woman.
Innocent until proven guilty, which is why it’s important to file charges. And lying about pressing charges when you didn’t is not ok. They said it’s a true story and it’s not. That’s a problem.
He says the person Martha is based on is a convicted stalker. So he's either refuting reports the character is based on Fiona Harvey or he's accusing Fiona Harvey of being a convicted stalker or he's just lying.
AN MP yesterday told of his horror after a stalker falsely accused him and his wife of abusing their disabled son. Labour's Jimmy Wray and wife Laura were visited by social workers investigating claims they had beaten four-year-old Frankie. The couple received death threats after Fiona Harvey, 36, was dismissed from Laura's former law firm. Wray, 63, said: "It is upsetting enough for Laura and myself, but for Frankie to be dragged into this was hugely distressing." FULL STORY - PAGE 5 COPYRIGHT 2002 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday
