Fiona Harvey’s Lawyers Just Dropped The Most HYPOCRITICAL Statement EVER!

34 thoughts on “Fiona Harvey’s Lawyers Just Dropped The Most HYPOCRITICAL Statement EVER!”

1. What’s your thoughts on this? 🤔

2. You cant have it both.. either you want this story to be absolutely true (in which you leave things as much as possible authentic -places, events etc-) or you want it to be disquised and thus you change events, places etc… netflix changed Fiona's name, they changed events so she could clearly denie the story is about her.. if she can prove she was never convicted and other events aren't true then it is obviously not her, she has the proof it is not her. Netflix never stated that the series is about Fiona Harvey so how is defamation gonna work in this instance? She is the one that it says it is about her by hed own admissions. She never came out publically and said "this is not about me". That is not on netflix. And so if the story (obviously, by her own testimonu that things in the series dont apply to her) is not about her, then why should she get any money if it's not a true story, thats up to the law (if the the law has laws on if an artistic piece of work claims something is true actually has to be 100% true. I beg anybody to show me the laws that claim when somebody says something is true, it has to be 100% factual in an entertainment settings.. politicians lie, news outlets lie, pharmaceutical advertisements lie, althoughbmany times they let people believe they are telling the truth. Yet nobody is sueing them. Now here is the kicker.. go on netflix and look at the genre category of "baby reindeer" and then go the genre category of "einstein and bomb" and tell me which portrays a true story? Because the sub title of baby reindeer says "this is a true story" doesnt make it obglicated to be a true story. When Red Bull in their advertisement says that "it gives you wings" doesnt mean it literally gives you wings.lol. from the genre category on netflix of baby reindeer it is obvious that baby reindeer never portrayed itself as a true story, its a british comedy drama. Nothing else. If people want to believe the "this is a true story" marketing without doing any research then that's on them.. the genre classification,.. the disclaimer in the endcredits.. it's been staring in their face all the time.. there is fine print on every product, it's up to the consumer to find them and read them. Dont blame netflix for your own laziness, they just try to sell their product.

3. the funny thing is once she loses this lawsuit she’s going to start stalking her lawyers

4. In Australia, we have an anthem for people such as Harvey: Look at moi, look at moi, look at moi. 😅 Yeah, she wanted to be found. She obviously craves attention, any attention. How curious that so many people support a stalker and an abuser.

5. She didn't break the law? I think under the malicious communications act…she probably has…

6. If fiona ever takes the stand they will lose! She is utterly unlikeable and creepy

7. Not gonna lie, I'm scared about her winning. If Fiona dies then you know Yolanda Saldivar (and the like) would want to sue Netflix next. She is supposed to be on parole (or probation) soon…

8. In the Morgan interview she claimed she had never been subject to an interim interdict, indeed she said that no such thing exists in Scottish law. Well her first victim Laura, a very impressive lawyer, proved on Morgan’s show that she was subject to such an order! Laura was wholly credible and I sincerely hope she is a witness for Netflix because this monster put her through hell! It seems the key point of contention is if she was subject to a criminal prosecution as claimed in the show. As others have said, if the show is substantially true then Netflix may get away with it.

9. Well, it's giving plenty of material to continue exploiting the story. Perhaps, she should sign a contract instead.

10. And what about Laura, who Piers inerviewed too? She ain't lying!

11. They always say here in the US that it's hard to prove defamation, but I don't know about this case because it's so public .

12. She has provided a Basic DBS check which only lists unspent convictions. Any decent lawyer will clock this and insist on an enhanced DBS check and that this point the Roth Law firm’s case will possibly be sick below the waterline. This is because Roth obviously doesn’t understand English law.

13. Didn't it say it's based on a teue story, normally that means some things did happen and some didn't in real life

14. The statement gadd made about her not being able to recognise herself was actually true cus that b is in complete denial she not only thinks she looks different to Martha but implies that she’s better looking than the actress who plays her. The delulu is trululu with her. So gadd was right, Fiona didn’t recognise herself in Martha cuz she’s a narcissist

15. From what her last victim said on peirs is that she probably isn’t missing any lost profits as she was implying that her career is already dead as she hasn’t been employed (at least as a lawyer.) so there is no loss of earnings. That’s what she meant by “what’s it worth?” She agreed there was a case but she was trying to get a cross that it will only payout based on damages for loss of earnings which she doesn’t believe Fiona has had due to being unemployable BECAUSE of her behaviour. In fact because of the series she’s probably made more money than she otherwise would’ve even if all she earns was £200 from peirs but I would wager she’s earns more than that in total.

    Bottom line for me is, she can’t say that, it’s not her but it is her. And that the show outed her when in fact the internet did, and she stupidly confirmed it and to top it all off the cherry on top for me is how she confirms it’s true with her own words and actions and then says the show wasn’t true enough, it was 100% factual which means her first argument is out the window cus that’s her clearly saying it IS in fact her but then complain Netflix didn’t do enough to hide her identity. How could they hide her identity and be 100% truthful. If she was smart she’d have said nothing cus the fact that something were different like the conviction would always leave some room for the benefit of the doubt. But SHE stripped that away from herself. I don’t see how this case won’t jus get thrown out due to all the contradictions

16. From what her last victim said on peirs is that she probably isn’t missing any lost profits as she was implying that her career is already dead as she hasn’t been employed (at least as a lawyer.) so there is no loss of earnings. That’s what she meant by “what’s it worth?” She agreed there was a case but she was trying to get across that it will only payout based on damages for loss of earnings which she doesn’t believe Fiona has had due to being unemployable BECAUSE of her behaviour. In fact because of the series she’s probably made more money than she otherwise would’ve even if all she earnt was £200 from peirs but I would wager she’s earnt more than that in total.

    Bottom line for me is, she can’t say that, it’s not her but it is her. And that the show outed her when in fact the internet did, and she stupidly confirmed it and to top it all off the cherry on top for me is how she confirms it’s true with her own words and actions and then says the show wasn’t true enough, it wasnt 100% factual and she thinks it needed to be which means that identifying her would’ve been even easier. which means her first argument is out the window cus that’s her clearly saying it IS in fact her but then complain Netflix didn’t do enough to hide her identity. How could they hide her identity and be 100% truthful. In order to mask who she is some lies would need to be there. She can’t make it make sense. If she was smart she’d have said nothing cus the fact that somethings were different like the conviction would always leave some room for the benefit of the doubt. Also she vehemently denies the likeness of Martha to herself with one hand and insults the actress while doing so then with the other hand she says it’s clearly her. Bitch what? She does or doesn’t look like u, make ur mind up, luv. But SHE stripped that away from herself. I don’t see how this case won’t jus get thrown out due to all the contradictions

17. If you look at pictures of FH at the time of the harassment of RG, she did in fact look different than she does now. She was a lot slimmer and younger, the opposite of how the actress looks. The only thing is that she uses a Scottish accent. RG would have remembered her looking a lot different. 🤷‍♀️

18. Aww boo hoo she has to face the consequences of her actions 😢

19. I wanna Netflix to hired the lady that represented Johnny Deep to get this nonsense destroyed on court, this lady is delusional

20. I hate the fixation these news outlets have on Fiona not having a conviction. It’s a well known fact that so many crimes like this are unreported for a multitude of reasons. Gadd even stated in an interview that the real Martha did not go to jail as he could not bring himself to put a mentally ill woman into a cell.

21. You really need to up your reading game.

22. I hope it goes before a jury.

23. Im sorry is she unicorn. There a lot people in Scotland who look and sound similar. They share similarities but so do others.

24. This had given me headache 😅

25. I really want the court hearings to be televised live. Just like at Johnny Depps trial, this woman will be exposed for what she is.

26. "This is a woman who is afraid to leave her apartment." – Good!! "She literally sits at home all day. She's afraid." – Good!! "She's gotten death threats." – I'm sorry, but Good!! "She's gotten a slew of scary communications from people." – Good!! .. This is what she did to Gadd, so she is just getting what she dished out. The only difference is now she doesn't know who to torment first of those doing it. I've been bullied and victimised before, in a very similar way to Gadd, for 20 years. I recognise a lot of the traits of my aggressor in Fiona Harvey during her interviews. This woman is just getting what she has dished out to many others. Though I feel sorry that her comeuppance is coming from so many different angles – Hopefully this will make her think.

27. Netflix are keeping their powder dry while Fiona and her lawyers are making all the noise and rightly so. Her behaviour towards Keir Starmer and Laura Wray shows a pattern of behaviour which speaks for itself – relentless pursuit of victims. I'm sure Netflix will blow their accusers out of the water if this does come to court. Yes they didn’t exactly hide her identity and she perhaps deserves some compensation for that, but to claim damage to her reputation is stretching things too far because her public posts/tweets show exactly what her character is. And as for loss of earnings, she's never held down a job in her chosen profession because of her own self-sabotaging behaviour. I think Netflix will wipe the floor with them.

28. actually baby reindeer 🦌portrays Martha as a victim as well
    She's the one who needs help..Gadd was quite open about his sexuality and his own problems too.

29. Ithink they’re hoping to force Gadd to settle out of court for some huge sum…then they (and, more dangerously Fiona) claim victory and that truth is on their side.

    This will set a dangerous precedent if a dangerous stalker (and I do believe she is one, just by her own words) is allowed to profit legally based on a technicality. Netflix just wrapped up the story in a way that’s more satisfying for the audience than the (possible) reality of her getting away with it, which let’s face it usually happens. That’s very common in such stories.

    And Netflix do say at the end of each episode that it is a dramatised version of real events. They do say it. The part with them saying “This is a true story” right at the start is the victim typing his story to tell it to us, the audience. There are other things he types throughout the story as he’s writing his story down for us.

    I think the only thing they might really be able to get him on is the fact she’s large and Scottish and called him Baby Reindeer, but the rest of it is her own fault. She IS a stalker. She did send abusive communications over many years, not just to Gadd, but to that Lawyer lady and to Keir Starmer, and others, and those people will be there in court to tell their stories. Some of it really is dire too, like her habit of reporting innocent parents to child protection if she feels they’ve wronged her in some way. That’s not going to go down well with a jury.

    This does have Depp v Heard vibes in that the lawyers are putting out a lot of very questionable statements early on utterly in defence of someone who really doesn’t seem very nice at all. Like in that case, I think they’re just wanting to force an out of court settlement. Wisely, Gadd is staying silent. I don’t think her lawyers want to see the inside of a court at all. I think they just want a slice of that OOC settlement 💰.

    Imho

30. And what about Laura Wray? If the show is not true then none of it is her so why doesn't the lawsuit contain one single mention of her. Because Fiona is what they say she is imo

31. Why did she say it wasn't her then she called Richard gladd baby reindeer, so yes it's her, one thing is for sure, I wouldn't want to know her. Nooooo way

32. Feels to me like this Roth Law Firm are in it for publicity.

33. These lawyers are going to end up going the way of all the lawyers who were stupid enough to get involved with. She poisons everything she comes into contact with.

34. All lawyers are 😂

Comments are closed.