Fiona Harvey To SUE Netflix | Piers Morgan Reads Out Her New Statement 

When she's on I immediately turn it off. I'm sure Piers realizes that he loses viewers when she's on. What a horrible person.

Am my fav was it’s fictional

Yeah, she's been banned. Thank God such an obnoxious person.

​@@GJ1607. Who are they speaking of? The Martha lady?

​@@ShindlersFiist imarn ayton

This is A whole other level, but yes, the irony has not gone unnoticed.

Definitely ironic but man I can imagine the press are far more intense than she ever was 😂

Yeah also this shows the stupidity of billion dollar company Netflix where they will have to pay millions to Fiona who is a stalker. So the stalker will get profited because of Netflix stupidity. They should fire their marketing team.

@@oceanpierit’s equally as traumatising.

Fiona is learning actions have consequences. "Please respect my privacy" 🙄😑 Right, as you did with your stalking victim(s).

So which is it, a true story or a dramatic fiction? It can’t be both. They called it a true story then also went on publicly calling her a convicted stalker. They made the character exactly the same as her. This is defamation, regardless if she’s a good person or not. She never went to prison and never sexually harassed him and sent 41,000 emails. Why can’t Richard prove this ?

​@@peaceandlove679 It essentially means 'based on a true story'. Overall the story is true but being a TV show or movie certain things are added, changed or dramatised for the sake of the experience. This has been happening since the first movie or TV show that are based on true stories.

@@cloudhigh6582 they never said based on a true story, they say it is a true story .

​@@peaceandlove679 go check AFTER credits

thank you!! Finally!!

We know who it is, He's keeping his mouth shut, nobody has actively named him. With Fiona the floodgates are open

I agree no one speak about that at all and they all know in the industry who that MAN is ...and are comfortable not to say anything disputing

@@CEvisonGISplease tell us who don’t know who this is 🫣

Totally agree everyone seems happy to protect a predator because he has clout.

Who is he?

Great job, Andy.. 👏 and nobody missed Imarn Ayton.. 🤦🏻‍♀️

It's always nice to see you here 👍

Good to see you on here again Andy!!!

Great job Andy 👏🏽👏🏽

So happy to see Andy again. I am excited for him to be a regular. Thanks Pierce!

That’s not the point.

I truly agree and I totally get your point and she needs to be pulled it for it... however netflix and Richard better be right about her being convicted or else they're screwed.

Because she's still nuts. Emails are forever

@@emilymschoener9193The point of what? Anybody could bring up a number of points conveyed by this entire interview. I think the point was very valid.

Many people have told her that she looks, sounds, behaves (mannerisms) like Martha. She also has the same occupation, used the same pub, and lived in the same area as Martha. She (Fiona) also coined the name ‘Baby Reindeer’ All this is known by me, and I have never seen Baby Reindeer either! The question I would ask is, how did the actress portray Fiona Harvey so accurately when she had apparently never met her! Who stalked who I wonder?

It's reputational damage. Everyone knows who Fiona Harvey is now it will effect her future prospect and Netflix has every obligation to rectify that. They've been lying and pushing agendas for years, this is going to be sweet justice.

She wants $$$$ she's a sociopath narcissistic person. She mentions how much money he is making, the list is long.

he's caused her to be harassed, death threatened, people irl turning on her etc. He's ruined her life. Don't downplay the reality of it and gaslight.

Rewind the first portion of the video on a slower speed.

@@RassionellMaddman she tried to ruin his life, im sure she can capitalize on her crazy too

And she knows it without watching it

@@Mika77Top Of course she has watched it ....a zillion times.

Thank you! She literally just repeated that in her own statement! Yet in her interview, she also said she did NOT send all the emails, voice mail etc... So Ms Harvey...which is is? Because both scenarios simply can't be true 😉

Yes! My exact question!!!

This isn't correct. Broadcasters have been saying that 'internet sleuths' and 'the media' outed Fiona first. I think this public outrage is mainly from men who are on the misogynist side of the spectrum, otherwise they'd be rightly pointing out that the MALE producer who repeatedly drugged and raped Richard was rather more outrageous behaviour than the stalking and sending of a barrage of emails and voice texts. Which behaviour would you least like to be subject to?

omg 😂.. I was thinking the same lol.

Yep...no Banshee policy works..

🤣🤣😂😂👍👍👍👍

She's probably watching this video going may I interrupt? May I interrupt?

I still have PTSD from that show 😂😂

Exactly that.

Exactly!!!

But Piers ignores this fact, otherwise he wouldn't be able to drum up a media storm for clicks. While supporting someone who is known as a stalker and really needs help, he has a narrative to smear others as bad actors for his own agenda given he is somewhat of an outcast now days.

Who's watching the credits at the end? I for one, never noticed this at all... I did see, the the rather unusual claim of a true story at the start, deviating from the usual "based on true events" etc we're used to for a half bs story

THIS! Honestly, this is going to go one of 2 ways. 1) Netflix admits they fucked up and Fiona gets the payout that she is clearly looking for, Netflix settles (I mean come on, she seems more concerned about money than she is her reputation) Or 2) Netflix has all the proof they need, and it goes to trial, and she end up empty handed and her reputation is even more embarrassing than it is now. (So she better hope she's telling the truth)

So if Netflix knew it wasn't factual, why did they repeatedly say it's a true story?? And exactly how much of it isn't factual and is dramatized? According to Fiona, in some cases they took little pieces of the truth and greatly dramatized it and in other instances completely created things up out of thin air. He says 14,000 emails, she says a handful. He says 100 letters, she says 1. He says she left voicemails, she said she never even had his number. He says she confessed to stalking and harassing him and went to prison. She said she's never even been charged with a crime let alone confessed and went to prison. There has been very little evidence put forth to prove any of Richard's claims about Fiona. How do we really know that when he was trying to come up with bits for his comedy routine, that he didn't fabricate almost everything for comedic purposes, and then kept taking it further and further because the crowd loved it, until eventually it became a Netflix show? There was an interview a while back where he said some of it has been fictionalized. Considering how much negative attention, threats, and backlash Fiona's received after they didn't do enough to protect her identity, I think they need to give more clarity on which parts were fictionalized for dramatic purposes. Imagine if she's facing all this backlash and it turns out her version of events is closer to reality than his.

This is your problem if you don’t but if they did add this disclaimer the defamation argument most likely won’t stand !!

I thought they found out who she was right after it aired. She didn't come out first.

she definitely didn’t care about privacy when she was tweeting HUNDREDS of times a day. my friend and i went through her twitter and it took us almost an hour just to scroll through 2016

Absolutely. I'm gobsmacked at the way these people are defending Martha 😭

She does appear to be mentally ill. Therefore vulnerable in one sense. But if she was convicted of multiple stalking cases, hard to pity her. She loves social media and posts like crazy.

They cant accuse someone of being a convicted convict if they aren’t though, even if they win failing duty of care to her they’ll lose on false criminal accusation, its basic slander and defamation

You made some very valid points. Also, when I watched the show, I didn't feel the conviction was a "tenet to the story" as Pier asserts. The stalking was a tenet, the thousands of emails & voicemails were a tenet, the verbal abuse was a tenet, the physical abuse at the hands of the other guy was too. The conviction felt more like a closing loop in script storytelling. Also, has anyone considered that the court scene/conviction could have been a detail changed on purpose just as her name was changed, or the length of how long the stalking went along, which went on for much longer than the 6 months portrayed in the show? But yes, the statement made in parliament raises issues if there was no conviction, and they could have saved themselved so much drama by stating "based on a true story."

Can you please provide a timestamp from the interview where Piers questioned Fiona whether she even was the real Martha? And I'm only asking that because I couldn't find it. Him asking that wouldn't even make any sense because she is without a question the real Martha. Just like you referred - they used her real social media posts in the show. Them changing her name might satisfy their duty of care requirements but only if it was actually "a true story". And let's be real - them portraying her as a convicted criminal who has done time in prison and SA:ing him under that bridge were not added there to satisfy duty of care requirements in case she comes forward and denies those allegations. That is insane! Some actions could've been done to make it harder for internet sleuths to find her . Like use a different wording in social media posts. Race swap could've also been considered - although I personally wouldn't like that because there was a scene where she assaults a trans woman and says she looks like a man.

@@juho8371 From the OG Pier Morgan x Fiona Harvey Interview: Timestamps listed of where FH states that she knew Martha was her. And/or then agrees that Martha cannot be her. ~03:35 - 06:13 FH explaining when she knew she was Martha from Baby Reindeer. PM: When did you know you were the person being depicted in this? FH: 5 years ago on BBC Breaking News I saw Mr. Gadd had written a play for the Edinburgh Festival and he was holding up placards “MPs wife stalker” and all of this and he called it “Baby Reindeer” that’s all I knew, and I thought ‘well I’ve only met this guy 2 or 3 times, I don’t know him’ and left it at that. I should have possibly injuncted at that stage. PM: And when did you know that Netflix were doing something? FH: 2 weeks ago - I had just moved flats - so it was 2 weeks ago past Saturday. PM: And how did you hear? FH: I saw on BBC Breaking News that he sold to Netflix and that he and both this character Martha, this Jessica actress, seemed to be promoting mercilessly. PM: Did you think then it was you that they were depicting? FH: I thought it was me they were depicting 5 years ago bc of this ‘MPs wife stalker’ article. That had been a number done on me by the Sunday Mail, 25 years ago when I was going Donald Jurs (? unclear in accent) parliamentary seat. So I knew, I had a vague idea then. The Daily Mail then approached me on the Wednesday, 2 weeks ago - so, sort of 2 weeks tomorrow, but 2 weeks ago if you see what I mean - and told me that I was getting death threats online, that I’d been outed as Martha. There were terrible TikTok videos and this is… - PM cuts off FH to ask a question as to whether she is still currently online. Jump to ~5:29 PM: That moment you realized, it was you that they were depicting, from what you were reading. The ‘sleuths’ as you say had found your tweets, they compared some of the phraseology, they done the math and they worked out this was you that was being depicted. How did that make you feel? FH: Absolutely horrendous. Absolutely horrendous. I couldn’t believe he’d done that and so long after first meeting. You know, we are talking 10-12 years ago. Really horrendous. I didn’t know who to trust. I was told that the Daily Mail don’t trust those “bleep bleeps” in Scotland. Whereas I found John Dingal (? unclear in accent) of the Daily Record completely wonderful, actually. He’s acted with total courtesy. I couldn’t believe this had happened. - Jump to 7:07 Discussion on whether or not FH is, or is not Martha. PM: I mean, there is no doubt he has problems. If you watch the… given that he’d written it about himself. If you watch the whole thing as I did - all 5-6 episodes, whatever it is - he has a lot of problems. He’s quite open about that. The question I guess, which we will come to, is how much of the way he depicts you is true? And your position is that it’s just not factual. FH: It’s a work of fiction. It’s a work of hyperbole as I’ve said. There are 2 true facts in that his name is Richard Gadd and he worked as a jobbing Batman on benefits in the Hawley Arms, and we met 2-3 times. Those are the only facts. - PM cuts off FH to ask direct comparisons of depictions in the show to real life. EX: did you have tea / no there wasn’t tea. Did you talk with him / he interrupted a convo. Did you get free drinks / no you don’t get free things from the Hawley Arms. Did she email him, text him, call him, write him letters, FB or TW message him, etc. Jump to ~14:32 PM: I mean, if it’s not you that sent all this then clearly, Martha cannot be you. FH: Yes, Martha cannot be me bc there are a number of allegations that have been put to me by journalists that are simply not true. There’s a whole play. It’s not just emails, there’s a SA in the canal, there’s… PM: But if the police looked at this, and if you sue for example, then this will go to a court of law and then on discovery people will look into all of this. The phone company will be asked about evidence of all of the text messages, the internet providers will provide all of the backups for the emails, Facebook will be asked about the FB messages, and so on. So all of this would come out in a court case. FH: In disclosure, yes. PM: And you’re prepared to do that? FH: Yes. Bc I didn’t write him the emails. PM: Who do you think did? FH: I have no idea, I think he probably made them up himself. I have no idea. 41,000 emails? PM: Yea. I mean, would you accept that someone who did that would be very obsessive about someone? FH: Yes, I mean that’s a lot of emails. And why now? Why didn’t he go to the police at the time? Or, this sorta of doesn’t make sense. PM: I mean, the fact that Netflix has said this is based on reality, this is a true story that Martha did - the real life Martha, the person they based this on, who Richard Gadd has written about - is the person that sent these, and he has the evidence to prove it. What your saying is that proves you CANNOT be Martha. FH: Yes. And I would like to see Netflix’s evidence for that. Which would come out in disclosure as well. PM: And you’re 100% sure it’s NOT you? FH: Yea. Absolutely. - PM starts to ask more direct comparison questions. EX: Did you go to his show? Did you shout out at his show? Attack on Terri. Sitting outside of RG house. Jump to ~17:06 FH: I haven’t seen the show. But… PM: I have, so I’m telling you (referring to details outlined in previous questions). FH: Yes. I got all the court allegations, the trial allegations… PM: I am going to come to that, but on that point, did you ever turn up at his house? FH: No. I don’t know where he lived. No absolutely not. PM: So whoever’s doing all this is somebody completely different. FH: Yes. This is a fictional character, hyperbole, exaggeration. This is a figment of his imagination. PM: They say it’s based on a real person. FH: Who’s they? Netflix? PM: Well Netflix and RG. FH: Well Netflix are about as mad as RG if they’re saying that, it’s absolutely not correct. - PM starts to ask more direct comparison questions. EX: Contacting RG parents. Prison. Charged with any offenses. Jump to ~19:36 PM: But that’s a fundamental point here bc if they basically have a key point in their drama, which they say is a true story, which involved you admitting to intimidating RG and getting a 9 month prison sentence, and that is completely untrue. FH: That’s completely untrue. Very, very defamatory to me. Very career damaging and I wanted to rebut that completely on this show. I’m not a stalker, I’ve not been to jail, I’ve not got injunctions, interdicts. This is just complete nonsense. But it’s, you’ll know yourself if you’re charged with a criminal offense, it will go: fine, bigger fine, whatever, very few people go to jail nowadays. PM: Well you will have is a police record. - PM starts to ask more direct comparison questions. EX: Have you ever changed your name? Did Netflix ever contact you? Jump to ~21:01 PM: Did RG tell you what he was doing? (Context around contacting her on creating the play and Netflix series) FH: No. I had worked it out when I saw the festival Baby Reindeer advert on BBC Breaking News. PM: He had a professional which was a show he did (? unclear as PM and FH were speaking at the same time). FH: I just happened to see that, I was looking up the news for something else. PM: Cause that’s where he hoped… (? unclear, FH began speaking) FH: I just happened to see that. PM: Well that’s where he started telling the story and that’s got picked up… FH: I was shocked. I was shocked. And I think Martha back then was a barstool. I seem to recall reading that, it wasn’t an actress or a person, it was a barstool. - PM shows RG and Jessica speaking in an interview. Comparison questions continue. Jump to ~41:56 PM: I understand. And I understand that it’s obviously put your life into a very difficult position. And their central claim that they made all of the effort not to lead to you being identified, I don’t think stands water. FH: I don’t think it stands water. PM: To me it’s pretty… I could have… listen I’ve been a journalist for 40 years. I could have discovered it was you in about 10 minutes, once I had watched that. FH: Yes I agree. I discovered it was me when I saw the BBC Breaking News “Baby Reindeer” show at the Edinburgh Festival. When I was googling up just the news that day or the weather or something and this came up. And it was, he was holding a placard or a newspaper article “MPs wife stalker” all you need to do is google that. Then I saw the name of the show and I thought “bloody hell, what’s he up to?” And I tried to get a friend to see the show bc she was based in Edinburgh but she was on holiday and nobody I know had seen that show either. So I was really shocked, I was very upset for 2-3 days and then the general plan of action among my close friends was “look just like him get on with things, he’s not going to be that damaging. You don’t really know him. This will go away”. Hahaha famous last words. PM: When did you last have any contact with him? FH: Years ago. PM: Do you remember when? FH: Years ago. No. I left the Hawley Arms, didn’t go back, and he was calling me a stalker and things. And there were various things happening in the Hawley Arms, you know, other women were warning me about them and everything, yea. PM: About him? FH: About him and others with bad conduct. - PM asks further comparison questions and the interview continues.

I think it is almost impossible to protect the identity of a person that has been on twitter a public platform or many other platforms. We all have google Also changing the character type to much would take away from the theme of the story

To your first question - isn't it as simple as Fiona probably had a thing with Gadd, maybe some emails and tweets (she's clearly a bit odd). So when Gadd depicts this person in his show it's clearly her since the all the contextual evidence lines up, but they've gone way over what was 'true', hence why she is upset. I don't understand the argument that some people are making, questioning how she can simultaneously say that Martha is her while claiming innocence. It's pretty simple - the foundation of the story is probably true but perhaps its been exaggerated

I think this is why Netflix are being silent.. why the hell no one is mentioning it is beyond me

Because then they will have no content for the clicks.

@@parfaay Otherwise they wouldnt be able to generate this much content.

No screenwriter in their right mind fictionalises the big stuff like convictions. It’s crazy that it has gone out there in that format.

But at the beginning when there is a captive audience it says it is a ‘true story’. At the end when people are drifting away it says ‘dramatised fiction’. Well which is it?

Yeah. And we can actually hear everyone’s opinions without being screamed at and interrupted…

Except Andy (you can tell the other panelists are baffled as to his inclusion.) Does he just ‘play to the crowds’? Me thinks most certainly

Popcorn is correct. Fiona is crazy. She might think she can the ride the woke wave and cash in on this but she will get trashed. All her dirty laundry is coming out. The cops should sieze her computer before it's too late. She should be in jail. That lying little fatty McPigeyes is a narcissistic menace. She might not have been convicted but how many must com forward for ppl to realize she isn't a victim of any kind.

@@NeverBelieveALie just a guy that sits in his basement talking about movies…. hes reaching for attention and clicks

That's a good point. She IS the one claiming to be Martha, but then again, there might be a case made that Netflix and Gadd didn't conceal her identity enough, as it clearly is her based on her Tweets etc.

They found her on the internet and started harassing her there's a huge liability case

Yes. Any “true story” could have Internet sleuths thinking they found people from the movie and harass them.

Nope you’re not the only one. But that is unreasonable and I doubt it’ll work.

How ironic that the only fictional part was her being held accountable, and even now, nobodies holding her accountable and instead, and trying to hold him to account Dying 🤣🤣🤣 fml

Right it's him telling a dramatized version of his story and maybe in his story he wanted her held accountable so in his version she is because it's a drama not a documentary

It only has it on the first episode on mine. But surely the series is a story. And the press releases they put out say it was true also

Unfortunately your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny as they depicted her in an earlier episode of serving 6 years for a previous stalking offence. In actual fact she again didn't receive any criminal conviction or even a charge relating to that case. You're giving netflix more credit than they deserve.

@@gamesandstuffs the fact is that he felt sorry for her, he even said so. She's now using the fact that she wasnt charged to appear innocent. These people never change

Because show watchers contacted her and gave her death threats believing she's the real Martha

@@constancedenchy9801 so she needs to direct her litigation at them, not Netflix

Mate, the murky truth is somewhere in the middle. Watch he programme again and understand the legalities of it.

Gadd did state that the jailing of the character was just a fictional arc for the end of the character.

Exactly.

I think they added this recently. I watched the show before all this mess and I’m pretty sure it said “based on a true story”

I expect one or two may be looking for a new job in the near future

I think the victim blaming here is even worse because the victim happens to be a man. Also I think a lot of people don't understand how trauma bonds work, or have never seen it at work. My take is, if you're a normal person who has never been abused to the extent that a part of yourself dies, then you shouldn't be judging people like Gadd for the decisions they make.

But you are ignoring the fact that Fiona is a victim as well. You can’t just lie about someone only because you went through bad things and your messed up. He’s the only masturbating over her pics and went to her for sex. As a woman, what would you think if a man is sexually flirting with you at a bar then pursues you for sex then acts like he doesn’t know you and makes this fantasy story about how you are stalking him. Sorry but Richard is mainly to blame here. She’s not perfect but this is her story as well so why isn’t she profiting from it and why wasn’t she even told a whole series based on her was going to be released. They completely hid this from her and did nothing to protect her identity.

He's not a victim ...how can anyone watching this deem him a victim 😅.

I also can't believe the audacity of these analysts. Especially this last speaker with headphones. Why would people be gobsmacked? Because Gadd brought to light the abuse men also go through at the hands of women (and in this case men?). This feeling sorry for the "small person" syndrome should stop. Piers has stretched this on "conviction", Did Fiona do all other things? Why are we not paying attention to the silent abuse of men in the entertainment industry. Piers is also milking this story for all its worth. I hope Fiona sues him too

​@@peaceandlove679 This happened much later in the show when he told Martha he is not interested at all and to leave him alone. Martha then sexually assaults him. How can you victim blame? Reverse the genders and you would not be defending a male stalker.

Exactly. Agree 💯 % OP An accepted drama CONVENTION is to add 'true story' at the beginning of a show. Netflix is covered because they have a disclaimer at the end - '...Based on a true story'. Note: FARGO, 1996 movie by the Coen brothers. In the first frames - “This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987..." The movie is not true! The Coen brothers have stated it's not true in many interviews -they wanted to set a tone. However the wood chipper scene was a true event. Richard Gadd had every right to write his story from his trauma ... he never said it was a Documentary.

Because Netflix compress the credits and push you on to the next episode way before the disclaimer. I watched the whole thing and never once saw the end credits, and I guarantee I'm in the majority

Nobody’s ignoring it - it’s the crux of the issue. Big stuff like convictions is never dramatised in these stories. A) There’s usually no need to because the true story is dramatic enough and usually includes big stuff that actually happened and B) No sensible or capable writer would fictionalise something major that didn’t happen. You only dramatise the small stuff, that links up the true stuff.

Because the opening clearly states this is a true story. That's the message. The back disclaimer is just to protect themselves but they built the brand as a true story. Hence the problem, imo.

Nobody would have seen it. Plus it’s still manipulating and lies. Us lot could make a documentary about Piers being Adolfs nephew then sayingTRUE STORY. Then in the final episode at the end “it’s all fiction” It’s still tarnishing a name with lies and 99% of people would not see it.

And that gives them carte blanche to potentially ruin someone's life? No...

@@Gadfly333 how could you defend a stalker who already ruined lives of few other ppl?

Piers has said he will NOT have her back on again...in last video on this.

Imarn is banned now, finally.

That woman is a dose!

Absolutely!

Same. I hadn't seen anything but her interview and it's like a bomb exploded.

I didn’t watch the show till I saw the Piers interview 😂

Me too

The show is dreadful honestly

Yes. I was able to watch this without that aggressive race baiter.

@@alisonlee3314 I’ve seen her in some cringey appearances before, but that was the 😬 of all time 😬 Let’s hope Piers is true to his word and doesn’t invite her back again 🤞💜

I was thinking exactly the same. So much better wasn't it

it was indeed lovely! Thanks for watching!!

​@@alisonlee3314I like the no Banshee policy Morgan has introduced...

Yes! This is so important. I’m so enraged by people’s response to his experiences - he explained it so much clearer than I have ever seen and, still, people are choosing to ignore it!

👏 👏 👏

the abuser is the man in power that allegedly raped him. You all are choosing to do a witch hunt against the woman because it's more convenient.

Well when lies are detected then you don't know the truth. People lie 🤷‍♀️

​@mmi940 it's not a documentary it's a drama!

Unfortunately not possible because she messaged him right in the era he said he was stalked and made specific tweets that he mentions in the show

@@etherspin But they never named her directly and could claim it was someone else...so she would have no case.

They could use her own words when she said it ISN'T her. His defense should be that it IS a true story, HIS!

The credits tell you its not martha, characters/events in the show are made up. Go back and watch the credits. Netflix and Gadd have done everything right and covered their arses.

@@teresaweott5536 the court will consider what's reasonable and consider it a very strong inference that she was "Martha" They'll probably also note that Gadd came out and denied the publics first guess as to who Darrien was but did not deny Fiona's identity which was in the media much faster

If this is true then why are so many saying so glad to have Andy back? Because they don't care about the people harmed.

Even if the woman was leafing him on??

Now I'm curious to know why she didn't attempt to sue the lawyer and her MP husband when that happened. Interesting...

@@schmemmmif you’re talking about the court case with Andy, it was proven in court that he was innocent.

because the biggest point of our criminal justice system is innocent until proven guilty. you need evidence to back up allegations we can't just blindy believe allegations without evidence. it's not showing sympathy it's asking for thr evidence to support this

Exactly.

Will anyone bother with inviting that woman on now she is more hated by the internet than Fiona 😂

She's probably watching this through the powder she's cleaning of the screen 😂

I honestly believe she was either high or drunk

his team prepared him, and I got the feeling that he became sympathetic to her state of mind/issues

He had alot of questions to ask her, how did u expect him to carry out a whole cross examination

You do realise she was confronted with this in front of millions of people. No way if someone did that they would come out and just admit it, of course they would play it down. Just like Gadd did when he said his friends replied to her emails, of course it wasn't him..... it was all them, Yeh right!

Piers is a seasoned interviewer. None of it went over his head. He was brilliant, and she contradicted herself lots of times. I think the woman is mentally ill, but we will have to wait and if she is a CONVICTED STALKER. I can't imagine Netflix not doing their due diligence, but we'll see. Very fascinating.

I think he gave her enough rope by just letting her be herself

Also ,if it is a "true" story,why was her name changed to Martha I'd say Netflix are on dodgy ground but they have had huge exposure over the story and as the saying goes "There's no such thing as bad publicity"... Still think this whole saga has got plenty to come out 🤔🇬🇧

​@@johnmccann5104Maybe because Gadd wasn't ready to tell her name, he wanted to keep some privacy.

you do know this is exactly how "free with purchase" and the small print of "terms and conditions" actually work in real life right? just ask anyone who subscribed to any of these digital media platforms where they bought media and now the company is deleting it (games and movies and the like) saying "well in our terms and conditions we said we could take away any of the content even if you purchased it as we saw fit." the land of the tiny print legal loophole is the world we live in.

Exactly 💯 %

They gave enough information to allow her to be identified, that's going to be a big problem for Netflix

They didn't outright name her but made it easy for people to identify her by using the same wording as her tweets.

​@@gamerlest509 she said she wasn't fat, she didn't look like the character martha - yeh. Maybe.

@@LucyStormbringerLastic she gained a lot of weight as she aged, but at that time, she wasn't overweight

You are assuming BR is true

It was super easy to find out her identity through twitter comments. Thats the problem.

It is, and had she laid low not come forwarded this probably would have just blown over.

​@@spookyladyUKpeople already identified her and started contacting her. You must be naive if you think the internet would have left her alone if she ignored it. Also she isn't a stable individual so why expect her to make a rational decision in staying quiet while people on the internet attack her for being a violent convicted stalker, which she has no record of being? Even the most same person would stay quiet. They would want to address it. So maybe you should ask why Richard Gadd is re-engaging his alleged stalker by not concealing her identity and fabricating very serious criminal offences? I mean he does like the attention this person gave him in the passed according to his own account of the story. He led her on. Re-engaged her when she left him alone. Now he re-engaged her again and this Fiona woman hasn't been bothering him for a long time. Does he enjoy the drama? Maybe he needs to seek professional help because he seems to want to mess with this mental ill person for his own validation. That's wrong.

​@@pillow4casestudies To be fair, if she wanted to put it behind her as soon as she got wind of the series she should have deleted the tweets.

This just isn’t how defamation works, it’s called jigsaw identifications.

You are assuming BR is true. It isnt.

Because it’s a woman,wouldn’t happen in the slightest if it was a man …

@@Globaldave1970 and if it was a man who was accused of doing this, do you think piers would give him a second of airtime? the answer is No.

"Very clear that she stalked him" based on what exactly? No evidence has been provided to show that any of it is true

Cause we are in the end times, good is bad and bad is good. Keep up lol

Absolutely. The response to this is bizarre. People supporting the abuser.

Trust Putrid Morgan to get involved in this rubbish. So now SHE is complaining about harassed! 😂

Yes everyone loves a black and white victim narrative .....no nuance.

Imagine if she was a man, he'd never get this amount of sympathy.

If you watch the series it shows that even after she stopped he re-engaged with her. He was turned on by her judging by what he did while watching her on his computer.

She has just issued a press statement stating her intentions to sue.

No, it doesn't. Literally the opposite.

She isn't the victim. She has placed herself in an odd situation by stalking him

It states that it is "a true story" in the intro. Also, even if she truly stalked him but wasn't arrested and convicted (which writer stated happened), she has a strong argument for defamation. Doesn't matter if she is "playing the victim" or not, you can't say someone was arrested and convicted if it isn't true. Maybe it is, we will see.

@@ElChingonFPV "certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes" is what comes up after every single episode. My nigga they didn't even name her. She literally has ZERO case LMFAOOO

Didn’t she have political aspirations years ago that weren’t Labour? I’m not sure if I heard correctly but it may have been for a different party in Scotland. If this is true, I personally am not taking Kier Starmer’s claims at face value just yet.

@@mysticjen379 I believe she wanted a Labour seat and/or tried to get one. She mentions it in her interview with Piers. I don’t believe these would have been released unless they were true. Starmer is a former prosecutor, he’s not daft.

Yes in 1997 - Scottish Mail article dated 2000, Fiona was temporarily hired as a trainee by Lawyer Laura Wray but was so undermining & destructive in the office Fiona was dismissed within days. She had to be escorted out by security & spent time outside yelling, swearing & being abusive. She then began stalking & harassing Laura's politician husband MP Jimmy Wray too. She'd previously stalked & abused MP Donald Dewar at his surgery practise & public meetings, swearing at him & everyone around. Fiona had tried to stand against MP Donald Dewar for his seat but failed. Later in 2000 she started stalking & harrassing Laura again. Fiona had tried working with 3 other Law firms as a trainee lawyer, but was never good with people in the office, to even get a trainee contract. Fiona never had a job when she was stalking Richard. Also dubious she had a bf then like she said.

@@mymai5859 Info-tastic. Tyvm.

He licking her ass because he doesn't want her to sue her, he did took advantage of her putting her on camera and paying her nothing compare to what RU-vid pay him of that 6 million views video interview

Omg that’s so true

Facts and it’s even better 😂

Trust me lol 😂😂😂😂😂I can’t wait to see the rest of the series

He knew, they knew, she knew.

Piers better play himself though.

Richard gadd stated she wasn't convicted and that part was made up for the show

Amazing how much trouble Netflix has caused by not hiding this poor woman's identity?. Season 2 baby reindeers revenge is going to be awesome

Show has made her life hell

you need one more laff emoji.

The disclaimer does not cover the alleged convictions, only that certain aspects have been fictionalised (i.e. characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue).

@@AdBlu111 The disclaimer would be pretty long if it listed every single part of the story that was fictionalized. Seems to me that the alleged convictions would fall under the "incidents" part of the disclaimer.

A Netflix executive stated in a UK parliamentary committee that it was a true story and made no mention of any fictionalisation.

I think I’d replace “great” with “scary”.

Because they didn’t want to keep her anonymous

No people found her because of her tweets

@@Nizam-pb5kp if she didnt have those tweets up, no one would have found her

Because Richard Gadd likes the attention from " Martha". Just like he depicts in the show every time she left him alone he re-engaged her because he likes attention. He liked the validation he got from her. Why else poke the bear like this. He could have easily concealed her identity. He made it so obvious who she was. Why else do that unless he wanted her response. He has a history of antagonizing her as well. This is an unwell person. Why re-engage her again if she is a violent stalker?

@@Iceicebaby0117Netflix put those tweets in the show though 😂 100% Netflix didn’t “take every reasonable precaution to keep her identity safe” which is precisely what they said they did before parliament and that’s the whole point

Absolutely

Internet sleuths tracked her down. Netflix/Gadd didn’t to a great job trying to hide her identity. They revealed her real tweets. She was outed. She is then allowed to come out and defend herself if anything false was written about her on the show.

@@andreawilks4405 🙏

The fact she sent 276 to Labour leader proves how excessive she is with them 😂

You prove she has a case just by they way you judge her without knowing if it's true or not. Most of the whole world that have seen the series have already made their mind out about Fiona Harvey just because they've seen a Netflix drama that said THIS IS A TRUE STORY. I don't doubt that her life has been affected after that. Who would want to hire someone like the character depicted? Who would want to even interact with that type of character? And if it turns out that she didn't go to jail, she didn't sexually assault Gadd, or physically assault his girlfriend, well she most definitely has a case.

@@Andrei-Marian Not as clear cut if she has a case. There is a disclaimer at the end of each episode stating that some characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.

@@daedaluspicard9843 People keep repeating this as if it has any relevance to her claim of being defamed, it doesn't

simply look at her tweets to him...

Noooooo any contact would kick of here stalking again!

Another satisfied customer.

Love him too ❤

Me too! Made me so happy seeing him get this win.

Did Piers introduce him as being 'single' in the beginning. ?

Not to you, obviously.

It won't reveal who she is though either.

That’s what the popcorned planet guy was saying ❤

Calling her doesn't adversely affect her anonymity. It would allow her to take down any social media posts that she thinks link her to the character if she wants to be on the safe side

Do they contact murderers before releasing documentaries/shows/movies about them ?

Because they made a character based on her. Everything about Martha is just like Fiona. They even changed her accent to be Scottish.

Yes he used his real name Richard Gadd is his real name 😂

@@mmi940 no he did not use his real name, his characters name in the show is Donny. Go rewatch.

@thegreatidk4891 you're right, my bad 🤭

I wouldn't say sided. But unless the documents are released the ball is sorta in her hands

I’m sure half-expected it otherwise he wouldn’t have portrayed himself in a negative light at times during the series when he seems to be leading her on and playing with her emotions.

God who is siding with her. No one 😅😅

I feel he’s just as bad as her tbh, she’s probably just jealous she is not getting a cut of the earnings.

I don't think pointing out that Gadd and netflix are clearly at fault is necessarily an indication of people siding with her. I think it's a perfectly viable opinion to think Gadd and Netflix have defamed her while at the same time believing she is damaged and that some of her behaviour is likely to have been highly inappropriate at best.

Well the Netflix representative in his words to UK hearings its on tape, you can watch it, He stated that it is based on a true story, not events. The other problem is that they never consent her too so basically they broke the Data protection Act( 2018). They along with Richard will pay her.

​@@DanielCool-qg2bmbut did they though?

She’ll get nothing, she didn’t have to confirm that she was the person that the story is based on. Netflix and Gadd have never confirmed that she is the person.

But at the start it said 'this is a true story' and all the press releases say 'not based on, this IS a true story' you can't have some small print at the end going 'heh just joking' the law doesn't work that way and given what industry insiders are saying...Netflix don't know what they're doing.

If she's on I won't bother to watch

Oh dear…just woman is enough…her colour is totally irrelevant

I absolutely agree, she’s awful, but that’s all you need to say for everyone to know who exactly is being referred to.

What’s her race got to do with anything though?

@@skaoxyzbecause she is black?

My thoughts exactly

True. But Netlfix's chief executive testified under oath in a parliamentary committee that the real Martha was a convicted stalker who spent time in prison. So far, there's no evidence of that. So the company is actually doubling down on claims that the entire story is true.

Because those things are usually the small stuff that keeps true narrative moving, not big things like convictions and assaults where there is no evidence they occurred. Watch a number of true movies and you’ll understand what I mean.

Piers knows this. He's just milking it for ad revenue

Still dont get it. I bet you are an American.

Gadds a narcissist too imo..loves attention...

@@Suzu52 I suspect that too. Covert Narc maybe.

It’s not about taking sides, but seeing what’s wrong and right.

Not taking up for her, but Netflix should have not made it so easy to identify her. She is mentally ill

She is receiving world wide HATE. Imagine having such hideous pressure on one’s psyche.

Call he said it the show Didn’t and Netflix said in parliament it’s based on a true story

I saw him on an interview with Lorraine Kelly she asked him if the real Martha went to prison and he said yes. Not defending her, but it's just what I saw.

​@@ladyowl8732 that's interesting...

@@jackjuniorsmart8171 it is based on a true story.

@@ladyowl8732 I saw that too, and was puzzled bc I saw him say otherwise on another interview