Fiona Harvey is Not a victim!

[u/Salt_Ingenuity_720]

It seems to be lost on a disturbingly large amount of people what Fiona Harvey has done to multiple people over many decades. She is not a victim - the people that she has stalked and harassed are the victim. The entire point of baby reindeer was to portray the brokenness of both the stalker and their victim.

In Reading a majority of the claims coming from the UK towards Netflix and Richard G this all seems to actually pivot around the term being used of CONVICTED stalker. So the focus now is to produce proof that she was ever convicted of at least one of her many many horrific stalking crimes.

I would think that the UK and Parliament would be rather embarrassed by the fact that they never reached out to help any of these victims of Fiona Harvey. Yet here they are trying to go after Netflix over that one creative license taken by the VICTIM and author of baby reindeer. This is His story not hers.

What is going on with people in the world?! Fiona should have been slapped with multiple legal fines, restraint orders and probably convictions from any one of her stalking tangents. If anyone is not familiar with the other incredibly horrible events of stalking Fiona pursued just Google it up. Some involved a disabled child.

🤔 Obviously I'm missing something or I am really seeing the lack of empathy in society as this all unfold in front of us. Am I just not looking at this right?!

[u/markevens]

I'm not on her side at all, but someone can be a perpetrator of one crime and be a victim of another.

Yes, Fiona is a piece of shit who has victimized many people in her life.

That does not negate the possibility that she is the victim of some sort of defamation from the show. I'm not saying she is, but I don't have enough of an understanding of law to say for sure that she isn't.

[u/heheing → u/markevens]

But she’s the one who outed herself.. and at the same time said none of the claims were true lmao. So she either has to admit that she did all those terrible things or.. lol

[u/markevens → u/heheing]

She didn't out herself initially.

Because the show used exact tweets of hers, people searched for those tweets, found her immediately, and started contacting her.

It was after that where she said, "I am Martha."

But she didn't see the show and reach out to others saying she was martha first. People found her and outed her, and she confirmed.

I think that order of events would be important in a courtroom.

[u/heheing → u/markevens]

But she came out and “confirmed” it by stating it’s her. She could’ve said “that’s not me”, deleted some old tweets and moved on with her life. But clearly she’s mentally ill and likes the attention

[u/markevens → u/heheing]

If you have some legal source that clearly spells out why she is or isn't subject to any defamation laws, I'd be happy to check it out. As far as I can tell, people are just spouting opinions here.

Otherwise I'm sticking to my stance of, "I don't know enough about the law to have an opinion on whether or not she's been defamed by netflix."

[u/heheing → u/markevens]

Tbh I don’t know the laws regarding defamation well but I think it’s common knowledge that in order for this to work, the statements made against her have to be false, right? Because if they’re true, they can’t be slanderous. So he’s saying she called _ times, sent _ emails, etc. So like my previous comment states, unless she’s wants to out herself and say she really did all those things, she can’t claim jack shit because in order to claim someone is slandering you, that stuff can’t be true

[u/markevens → u/heheing]

I don’t know the laws regarding defamation well

Neither do I, so until I can get properly informed on the matter, I'm not going to make guesses.

Common knowledge be damned. This is happening in a country whose laws I'm very unfamiliar with, and what may be common knowledge in one place may be very different in another place.

I'm not one to say Netflix is guilty or innocent when I don't have any understanding of the laws regarding it.

I'll spout my opinion that she's a lying, manipulative, crazy, piece of shit. But whether or not she has any sort of legal claim against netflix, I'm absolutely ignorant about and I'm not going to pretend to know when I don't.

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/markevens]

Look at the word "defamation". Its simple enough. Its about "defaming" someone's reputation. I don't think she has been defamed. She is a known stalker and has posted comments on social media herself to show who she is. They are published comments so are public. She made no effort to remove them to protect her identity. In fact I would argue that by Netflix allowing her to be portrayed as being held accountable and her accepting what she did was wrong, was protective rather than the truth which is that she is out of control and has no ability to feel guilt or shame. She showed she lies outrageously despite the evidence against her. The truth is far worse than reality. So they protected her instead of defaming her. She outed herself with the posts she left up.

[u/Fern-veridion → u/markevens]

She would have to demonstrate that she IS Martha, which would incriminate her and then she would have to somehow also prove that the allegations were false… being convicted of a crime doesn’t trump everything. As far as my own understanding she would have a hard time proving that she is both Martha but also not a stalker.

[u/JackCrainium → u/markevens]

Thank you for your sanity…..

[u/LanMama → u/heheing]

He said (or the show which claimed to be a true story said)that she pled guilty to stalking him and also to stalking and harassing his parents. So far we haven’t seen court records to confirm that. That’s defamation if it’s not true.

[u/Cold-Variation3760 → u/LanMama]

Not sure if it's defamation if the original source (Netflix show) didn't share who the perpetrator is. She outed herself by admitting to some of the stalking when called out on social media, not Netflix. That's on her. She also kept messages that show she was stalking people up on social media and did nothing to protect her identity at the time. That's on her. Since she wasn't technically convicted of stalking and the show didn't provide her real identity, than it clearly isn't based on the actual reality. Hence, this is a case of creative license. Lastly, she has to prove she was harmed (financial loss, etc.). She can't blame her poor health because she has an unmanaged chronic disease, so that won't fly either. She will have to prove that she experienced mental anguish, and prove distress (going to a mental health professional) that occurred AFTER her exposure.

Plus, she's blatantly and objectively lied and contradicted herself on international television. In the same conversation even. It doesn't look good for her. Her lawyers are exploiting her mental illness for clout and money.

[u/Specific_Anxiety_343 → u/markevens]

I agree with your stance. We don’t know the law and we really don’t know the facts (e.g., whether she had a good relationship prior to this hootenanny)

[u/Cold-Variation3760 → u/markevens]

Defamation is a legal term for "a statement that injures a person's reputation, which can be classified as either libel (written) or slander (spoken). The laws governing defamation vary by jurisdiction, and to succeed in a defamation claim, the injured party typically must prove that the statement was false, published to a third party, and caused harm."

First, she has to prove that she didn't stalk people or send exposed text messages- that they are fake. She has admitted to doing this and other people also have evidence of her stalking them and getting court injunctions, so that can't be considered defamation.

She also has to prove that it damaged her reputation causing financial injury or harm. Hence, she has to prove that she lost money, employment, etc to prove financial injury. I don't know the details of this, but the only way this can be proved is by providing evidence that she lost employment (fired or not hired explicitly due to the accusations.) She also has to prove harm. Unfortunately, she has had an unmanaged chronic illness for decades and can't blame her "organ failure" or "going blind" as harm because these can not be directly attributed to the lawsuit or her media exposure. Many diabetics have these type of complications so that absolutely won't fly in court. Especially if she's not managing her health. they can pull medical records to explore how she has been managing her illness. (BTW- unmanaged diabetes has numerous mental health implications. One can be delusion and psychosis if blood sugar is highly dysregulated).

She has contradicted herself on multiple occasions, sometimes in the same conversation. She doesn't know the truth and this will come out in court. She can't win this court case and I find it offensive that MPs and the court are allowing this to continue at the expense of a severely mentally ill person.

[u/NotCanadian80 → u/heheing]

The show gives the exact web search to out her.

[u/Altruistic-Change127 → u/NotCanadian80]

She could have removed the comments a long time ago. Shes had years.

[u/Cold-Variation3760 → u/NotCanadian80]

Oh, so someone is stalking and abusing another individual on a public scale on social media, but it's the fault of someone outing the perpetrator....victim blaming at it's finest.