"Netflix WILL Settle!" | Barrister Analyses Baby Reindeer's Fiona Harvey Case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Barrister Andrew Eborn says Baby Reindeer's 'real life Martha' Fiona Harvey will have to prove she is "damaged" in her pursuit of suing Netflix.
"There is evidence she may have booked an appearance at a nightclub, is that a woman who is damaged and scorned?"
Fiona Harvey is seeking at least 170 million dollars (£133 million) after claiming to be the inspiration behind character Martha Scott, who stalks Gadd’s character Donny Dunn.
Responding to the lawsuit filed in California, Netflix said: “We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd’s right to tell his story.”
“Thanks to Netflix, for everything,” Gadd said, as he collected his Gotham award on Friday.
“I never thought in a million years, this dark, weird, messed up show would go on to have this universal love that it’s received and I’m so grateful to them for giving us this platform to tell the story to the world.”
Click here for more from Talk talk.tv
If you need any help visit: talk.tv/helplines
#babyreindeer #fionaharvey #netflix #netflixseries
She’s definitely a stalker just not a convicted one …
If only Laura Wray had pressed charges!
Laura did hint that she would sue Fiona if she wins against Netflix. She hadn't before because Fiona had no money.
@@gilliandawson6567 if she's only after money then it doesn't look good, she should have reported her to police at the time so Fiona would face justice. If there wasn't enough of case for her to be charged back then she won't need to worry about a lawsuit from Laura now.
@@theambivalentps2bloke60 she did go to the police but the laws at the time were very lax. She got a restraining order which helped but the police only did something if you were physically harmed. Ignored the daily stress & fear etc. Even now, sadly, we hear cases where someone is murdered by stalker where the police knew about the stalking and did nothing.
Well, Heather Burns allegedly read her personal history whilst working as a temp in a mental institution.
Apparently Fiona did have a conviction regarding harassment many years before.
She should automatically be DENIED ANY ABILITY TO SUE if she’s been proven of stalking or restraining orders due to stalking.
How can you quantify the damages to her image? She had none before this? She didn't even held a job for more than 2 weeks. She is living on benefits. Now the stalker is the victim? I want to stop the planet and leave.....mind blowing!
Completely agree. All backwards and bonkers! What dreadful ways she made people feel😡
Richard Gadd was broke & fairly unknown before he gained money / fame from lies presented as truth about her. Not hiding her identity properly also makes this case against him very strong. You may not like her but Gadd did wrong here regardless.
@@theambivalentps2bloke60is not about liking her or not. It's about demonstrating damages. She has no job/ never kept one for long, so no damages to her professional image. She has no income, so no loss of it either. We are talking from a legal stand point.
Not to mention what she did to Laura Wray and her family! Let's not pretend this woman is a saint and a victim.
At least Gadd worked hard to create the show, Harvey is just trying to get a big payout. She didn't sue Gadd, she sued Netflix because that's where the big cash is.
@@paulahanro1760👏 Thank you. You saved me from writing logical common sense!!
@paulahanro1760 Her case is for deformation, negligence & privacy violations, these cases are taken very seriously in the US. Gadd & Netflix made millions from a misleading show that was ficionalised & presented as a true story. They failed to protect her identity & as a result she was harassed by thousands of people / had numerous death threats etc. If you think there isn't strong case here that could see a large pay out then you're mistaken. Likelihood is Netflix will try to settle & Harvey will receive a considerable sum.
She has no case. I guarantee you they will find out she has indeed been prosecuted. She's a psychopath
Yep.
Id say there will be alot of evidence in the emails that might prove the case It feels the victims are being punnished twice for telling there story
Let her get the money, and counter sue her for harassment, emotional distress, physical and mental abuse. There seems to be many victims to her ways, they will leave her bone dry, so she can go back to the rat hole she belongs
This case is her way of taking power over the narrative and gaslight her victims. She should not be allowed to monetize over the trauma she caused.
One hundred percent!
What's happening here is that Baby Reindeer is proving a gigantic financial success and everyone now wants a slice of the cake !!
netflix did not name her in the programme neither did the man that it was about she is the one that came forward
Fans of the show criss referenced the tweets on the show with real tweets. She was already outed before she came forward herself.
the fan who revealed her should get a case😅
I don’t want Netflix to settle, not even for $1. It’s a matter of principle.
Law does not care what you want
I don’t think they will settle - the whole saga is getting loads of attention. Also they can probably show that Harvey has a conviction. Google Heather Burns and Rob McDowall.
@@theresasarjeant7673 Why?
@@glassonion5474why what?
@@theresasarjeant7673 WHY do people need to look up Heather Burns and Rob Macdowell ofcourse.
She's complaining about all the attention she got when people realised who she was after the series came out so why make herself even more visable by going on Piers Morgan tv program.
Because she's a narc, craves attention and is jealous that Richard Gaad is successfully making a lot of money.
@amandaward6455 I don't believe she got any attention at all. The only attention she she garnered was from her Piers Morgan interview. The only one interview she ever did!
She even asked producers to be on his program. She was not invited. She was not known at all.
Why should a woman that is proven as a stalker and that is guilty of the crime win millions of Dollars...... That sends the wrong message to all crazy women like her.......
She’s not guilty of the crime, though
She's never legally been convicted of anything, that is her point. She still a psycho though of course 😂
It's the law. Law must rule, without it we are doomed. The irony will be she will win money but will lose absolutely everything else, very quickly
She is not a stalker. You can easily prove Laura to be a liar if you know where to look.
Even worse, what message does it send to victims? Tell your story and risk your stalker/abuser getting a load of money, even if you never say their names.
I don’t believe she will get a penny
When will this end?? We have such a short attention span, and this has been going on forever now. Interesting that it has held up for so long.
She's probably busy using a public computer right now writing fake, nasty, harassing, death threatening emails to herself to print out and use as evidence she is being stalked and deserves monetary compensation!!
The whole entire series is false . Reindeer is the real stalker and a liar.
@@heikikawaii1799 Ok Fiona.
@@glassonion5474 knew someone would called me that. I don’t mind I’d love to be names after the rich and wealthy .
@@heikikawaii1799 Good luck with your harrassment Fiona.
Misspelled named as names!
Was that sent from ' My iPjone'?
Plot twist: she not the REAL Martha
Who gives a shyte?🤦♀️👎
DO NOT SETTLE NETFLIX
It didn't say BASED on a true story. It said THIS IS A TRUE STORY!
Comedian is pushing it. Not funny at all 😅
Make her a millionaire xx please so she can go away on an isle far away
Why does it really matter if they've said she was convicted, she still stalked and harassed people. Its worse that she wasn't convicted, there were no consequences at all.
It matters because if she was convicted of a criminal act or acts, she can legally be referred to as a criminal. A person who has not been tried and convicted in a court of law is entitled to their presumed good name and cannot be legally be referred to as a criminal.
She is still in a criminal to me, the laws around stalking are diabolical, that's the only reason she wasn't convicted imo@@dbgoestotheinternet7609
Good on her, Netflix screwed up, she was so identifiable & Netflix said she was a convicted of her crimes and she wasn’t!
Keywords from your comment: "Her crimes". Yep her crimes. and there's way more than portrayed on the series, as we're seeing with people speaking out about what she's done to them.
Just because she wasn't convicted doesn't mean she didn't deserve to be
Listen to the other interview piers Morgan did on the lawyer she harassed, she clearly is batshit crazy
She will have to PROVE she is the Martha character first! Only then can she take issue with a Netflix created (we don't know that for sure) conviction at the end of their "story".
@@LucyStormbringerLastic Delicious, absolutely.
But I've never seen it. I don't have Netflix.
I know enough from UA-cam though about the series.
I don't know American law.
I have read that the character Donny typed "This is a True story" at the beginning.
Plus there is a disclaimer at the end.
So a character writing 'this is a true story' means it's the characters version.
So I honestly think Netflix have covered all their tittles.
They're not even saying BASED on a true story. They wrote something like "This is a true story", which is not a 100% true. She denied being convicted and going to jail. She also denied attacking him at the bar and near the bridge and if she's right, they will pay a lot of money.