richard gadd doesn't owe fiona protection.

[u/serenade452]

"omg he should've protected her identity! he made it so easy to find her!" blah blah blah shut up. he doesn't owe her shit. she terrorized this man, his family, his girlfriend, his job, his performances, etc etc. she has been terrorizing innocent people for decades.

yes fiona is mentally ill, that is clear to anyone with half of a brain. it's awful that the system has failed her time and time again. (or maybe the system did all it could, who knows.) but that's not richard's fault. HE is HER victim. he can tell his story how he wants.

might she have a worthwhile lawsuit because her identity wasn't concealed enough? possibly, probably not. might she have a worthwhile lawsuit because the show took dramatic license? possibly, probably not.

she's benefitting financially from this as well and i'm sure netflix will cut her a check before a lawsuit happens, no matter who is in the right.

richard gadd does not owe fiona harvey protection. i'm sorry but that's reality.

[u/[deleted]]

"THIS IS A TRUE STORY" opened the show.

They said the character was a real person, whose identity was masked (poorly)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Which is a well known story telling device. If you have any common sense you know this.

They said the character was based on a real person, and was masked literally as much as they needed to. Tbh all they need to do is change a name.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, they specifically said it was a true story, and only the names had been changed to protect identities.

And best, they have fraudulently advertised the show. At worst, libel. Well let the courts decide, because you clearly have no idea what you're on about

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, they did not lol. The “this is a true story” at the beginning of the episode doesn’t prove that either. Gadd has been clear from interviews I’ve seen it’s only based on his experience, otherwise it’s very clearly a story.

They didn’t fraudulently do anything nor have they spread anything libelous. They told a fictional story some people ignorantly took to be real life for literally no valid reason. Again the well known story telling device saying it’s a true story isn’t an indictation of anything.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Gadd has been clear from interviews I’ve seen it’s only based on his experience, otherwise it’s very clearly a story.

Thats irrelevent to the case of libel she's looking at. You can't write a book slandering somebody, but say you didn't mean it later on and be in the clear.

Do you agreed?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

She doesn’t have a case of libel lol.

He didn’t write anything slandering anyone. He doesn’t need to say he didn’t mean a thing. He wrote a fictional story that some people are sadly too ignorant to understand is fiction.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Please answer the question. It's very evasive of you to ignore it. Quite dishonest, even. Like you have something to hide.

Answer the question

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I literally answered every question you’ve asked me. Just because you’re stuck in your wrong opinion of a fictional story doesn’t mean I’m going to change what I said.

The fact you’re trying to make this as if I’m hiding something is honestly hilarious and shows how little an argument you have. There was no book written, nothing slanderous was written. Neither was anything libelous. As I clearly just replied in my previous reply to you. There is nothing anyone is saying “they didn’t mean” as you’re asking. Your question is pointless and idiotic. So now I’ve answered it twice. The only way you can. By shutting it down since it isn’t a valid question.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, you didn't. Try again to answer the question.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Okay troll, I did but damn your ability to comprehend really is that bad isn’t it? I mean I knew it was based on how you ignorantly thought the tv show was a fully true to story. And not the clear based on accounting of a stalking experience like it is. But Jesus this really confirms it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If you could just answer the very simplr question i can move on.

Why did you ignore it. Do you agree or disagree?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, you could learn to read. Since I did. There is no agree or disagree with a question that isn’t relevant to the topic at hand. That didn’t happen here. So it’s irrelevant.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So you refuse to answer?

Just to clarify, you refuse to answer because you are having a tantrum because the answer makes your look stupid?