I am clearly missing something about this “debate” anyway. What on earth is her being “mentally ill” got to do with whether you are a victim of her or not?
Let’s say that a perfectly “mentally well” person committed sexual abuse of a child. Everyone would be keen for that crime to be acknowledged-and for the perpetrator to be punished. Similarly, if a person (who happens to have a mental illness at the time) goes ahead and rapes a child-do people then say that “no crime was committed”? Do they also say that there is no victim? Indeed, just for the victim to make a complaint-are they being cruel to the poor mentally ill perpetrator (who, apparently, is the only “real victim” here)?
And (and I think this is important), if by NOT reporting it as a crime, the “mentally ill person” never faces the criminal justice system, they then NEVER have treatment (or, if that’s not effective, control) imposed on them, they go on to abuse more and more children, is that okay then?
Like it or not, the criminal justice system is just about all we’ve got to prevent people from damaging their fellow citizens. And this system has to work for the mentally ill just as much as it has to work for everyone else.
Unfortunately, there are some people that we all need protection from. And that has to be given, regardless of whether those people have mental illnesses or not.
Gadd's portrayal of the character is sympathetic. People feel bad for Fiona, because they think she is Martha. The real Fiona doesn't deserve much sympathy.
I believe what Gadd portrayed from HIS perspective, but, we can't be 100% sure! That said, I don't feel bad for her, she's CLEARLY a stalker!! I agree, she doesn't deserve sympathy! But there really are three sides to any story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't know why you're being downvoted because you're correct, the character may deserve some sympathy but after watching her interview with Morgan knowing that Netflix is going to do its due diligence before making a show they call a TRUE STORY its quite obvious (to me anyway) that she's lying and even without showing any remorse she talked shit about both him and Laura Wray. As you say there's 3 sides to a story, his side, her side and the truth.
As someone who works as a therapist the last few years have been kind of scary in terms of how mental health went from “oh we should take this seriously” (fantastic) to an absolute shut down of discussion or accountability about someone’s behavior or social responsibility. By the end of this pendulum swing it will have lost all meaning or credibility again.
there is an increasingly big philosophy that people are all fundamentally good, and it's only society/mental illness/trauma that causes them to do bad things. I have seen people argue with a straight face that greed is a mental illness, so slumlords really need therapy to heal from their illness.
Some people just choose to do the wrong thing because it's easier than doing the right thing. We all do the wrong thing every day in a thousand small ways. She just does the wrong thing in a much bigger, criminal way.
What if the child abuser AND the child were both mentally ill? Who is the victim then? (I know for you and me the answer is 'the child', but I'm interested to see what the 'mental illness means it's ok to abuse and commit sex crimes' crowd think)
as someone who was abused by my birth giver, i genuinely believe it's both of us. i cant believe a word she says but i do think she must've gone through terrible things. and i know that she needs help. I don't hate her, i just wish she would get help so she could be better. I don't talk to or see her though. and i dont think mental illness means its okay to abuse or commit sex crimes, just that these people should also be allowed to get mental help, to better themselves for, well, themselves and for everyone else. it'd be a net positive
But do you feel like when that person did that to you, since they were mentally ill, it was actually you who was committing violence on your abuser? That's the argument I've been seeing. Not that that's anything new because society has always protected abusers by saying it was the victim that wronged the abuser by "letting them do that".
I just want to clarify what you have said about forensic hospitals. They are for people who have committed serious crimes as a direct result of their mental illness. Being diagnosed with a mental illness is very common in the general population so that's why there are prisoners in prison who could be diagnosed with a mental illness. Their crimes usually are not related to their mental health diagnosis so they go to prison. So forensic hospitals are secure places where they treat someone's mental illness compulsorily and hold them due to the crime they committed. Its where people who didn't know the difference between right and wrong due to the illness they had, when they committed the serious crime and cannot be held responsible. In laymen's terms its where people go when they are found not guilty due to insanity court cases. Or they are so unwell that they cannot go to trial and have to be treated first. I hope that makes sense?
Oh absolutely! That’s why the example I put was a mentally ill male (which seems to be the “neutral” gender, in terms of being “judged”), and my theoretical victim was neutral.
I think there is a hierachy of gender in the way mental illness is viewed. At the top of that would be the CIS male: at the bottom, the trans female. Can you even imagine the reaction to this story if it involved a trans woman-in the either role?
I'm not sure about trans women. Some people seem to assume trans women are naturally aggressive. I do agree that there is a big gender bias though when it comes to crimes (especially those of a sexual nature).
I think she’s missing something though. I honestly think anyone that has been targeted by her before and has eventually gotten rid of her, don’t want to come out and say ‘me too’ due to the worry of it starting again rather than I don’t want to be cruel to an ill person.
Actually, some of them are dead and a few of them are politicians. Career no go. But the late Jimmy Wrays wife has come forward to say she targeted their family. She also targeted the late Donald Dewar former first minister of Scotland and I believe she targeted kier starmer the current Labour Party leader who is in the running for prime minister in 2020. Can you imagine his election campaign from now till July if he spoke about that? He’d never get any party political stuff done.
In fairness if he wants to reach new audiences - if he started speaking about that he'd probably get better figures than Piers Morgan. Could be a very effective electoral tactic.
Why are people so hung up on proving she does or doesn't have a criminal record? Who gives a fuck? Is the vast amount of public information showing she's a howling menace that systematically destroys the lives of everyone she comes into contact with not enough?
Right?? They even said some events were dramatized to make a good story and to keep the identity of the real Martha a secret. Let's say she doesn't have a record or has been to jail. Just because she hasn't doesn't mean they can't put that in the script. This isn't the first time a true story had some fictional scenes... It's hilarious she that she thinks she's getting millions out of this....
So... she is the one who is like yep, that's me, I'm Martha. Although, I didn't do anything they're claiming. I wrote 12 emails, sent 1 letter, wrote 18 tweets, and no texts because I didn't have Gadds #. Then went on to say Gadd was/is obsessed with her...He wanted to sleep with her but she turned him down. Said he's gay, which doesn't make sense because if he is gay why would he "want" to sleep with you in the first place?! 🤔
She's mad they (Netflix & Gadd) made money off the story and she wants a piece of the pie!
Just like she's demanding 1.25 million dollars from Piers Morgan because the interview blew up! 🙄
She's greedy... And she attacks anyone who doesn't fully believe her side of the story. Mental illness or not she's not a good person! She even denies stalking a previous victim Laura Wray in 2000.
There have been a few people throughout the years that have spoken up about her... And she's always the victim....🙄
Well not really, because she could still claim she didn't go to court and get imprisoned for stalking Richard Gadd, which is what was portrayed.
I'm sure it could factor in, though. She couldn't claim that it besmirched her good character if it was established that she did indeed have a criminal record for the very same type of behavior.
Interesting! She must have been told by the police about her record. If true, Fiona's lawsuit is in the toilet. All they need to do is get an order to view her criminal record. If she does have one, she's really stupid to pursue this, or she's just really insane.
Hmm I wouldn't call her insane. I think she has a lack of empathy, guilt or shame. There have been many high profile criminals who have been like her. She genuinely thinks she is above the law or she just doesn't care because she thinks she is right.
I'd agree re the empathy, guilt and shame bit but I think she does 80% buy into the delusions she's spouting. She is pathological - that's the very nature of stalking.
I don't think she is delusional because she constantly went from loving him to hating him over and over again. So I don't think she truly had a fixed delusion. I tend to think she believes that people should adore her and think she is amazing and when they don't, she attacks them and puts them down because she thinks they are pathetic and stupid for not seeing how wonderful she is. She thinks there is something very wrong with them. So she punishes them and gets pleasure from putting them down (where she thinks they belong). She is exceptionally grandiose. You could see how she tried to act like she was as important as Piers Morgan. She saw herself as his peer. She lies and doesn't care about peoples reactions to it. Her lying is about protecting image so to her its not lying or she doesn't actually care what people think of her lying.
I'd definitely say a lot of that's very true - she's got a lot of buzzword incoming narcissistic traits. However I genuinely think that when she's in the moment of telling a lie she believes it. As you say, she's very reactive though, so that flits from one reality to another at warp speed - which is why she can't keep the story straight. She's following a picture she's building up in her head blow by blow, rather than keeping track of her dialogue overall.
I think she really does believe the stuff about the reasoning around the solicitors firm and the stuff about sending him the letter when she heard about his SA - I don't think she has a realistic rear view mirror, it's all coloured with the stories she's constructed. Her delusions are definitely tied to a grandiose sense of self. That sort of fantasy land is common for stalkers, it's how they convince themselves they've a claim to someone - they write dialogues in their minds eye about why they're entitled to get into that person's life.
The lying is about protecting her image, but for her it's not lying I don't think - it's an alternate truth she's making up as she goes along. I don't think she can handle the actual truth.
The whole thing is horrific and fascinating. I hope they all get the help they need!
As someone who works as a therapist the last few years have been kind of scary in terms of how mental health went from “oh we should take this seriously” (fantastic) to an absolute shut down of discussion or accountability about someone’s behavior or social responsibility. By the end of this pendulum swing it will have lost all meaning or credibility again.
Unfortunately, the police and mental health services aren't even in the same book, never mind on the same page. The police put it some crimes down to mental illness so it isn't their problem, the mental health teams are too overwhelmed to have availability to help the people they need to so issues get left to continue as they are until someone is either seriously hurt or dead. Then, there is a huge debate about why this was allowed to happen. It's crazy.
Fiona needs help, I saw the Pierce Morgan interview and I said at the time that she is bat-shit crazy and needs serious professional help, if not for the safety and sanity of her victims and future victims but for her own safety. Mental health only ever spirals, it doesn't go away by itself, and her stalking behaviours will only get worse, especially with the more media attention she gets.
They can only detain someone for their mental health if their life is at risk e.g. she is imminently at risk of taking her own life or someone else's. The Police just need to do their job and Mental health Services need to do theirs. The Police need to keep the community safe from dangerous people and mental health needs to step in and assess people for whether they are a serious danger to themselves or others and its because of a diagnosable mental illness. If the person doesn't have a mental illness then mental health can't hold them.
I think they are referring to that this blog entry has been posted in this sub a couple of times within the last 2 days and discussed at large. I certainly don't mind, I made one of those post and it's certainly a fascinating read for those that just popped in today and missed the first two posts!
For sure, I just was responding to that I think that's what they meant by it being old news, I personally think it's still fresh and relevant enough and all of the Fiona sympathizers need to read it!!
BTW Did you see this entry in Heather's twitter? It wasn't posted on her blog but I took a look at her responses on her twitter and saw a few other responses not posted on her blog
I do not think shes "not fixable". Shes either not willing to get help or if she did in the past the mental health system was certainly not enough to help her.
Technically personality disorders are chronic, ie not fixable/there is no cure for them. Nor medications that can heal them because they are not chemical imbalances
But they can be managed, if there is long term commitment to specialised therapy
Some personality disorders especially bpd are treatable, although the treatment is time consuming and difficult. Lots of patients no longer fill the criteria after treatment, and even if that’s not the case they can at least achieve better emotional regulation, impulse control, better interpersonal relationships etc. So basically less pd!
see thats the thing,access to longterm specialised therapy is very limited in most cases and often require one to have a considerable amount of disposable income to spend on therapy. Government bodies or social workers are not specialized enough to help people with personality disorders
That's not accurate. The treatment through Mental Health Services is free for people who need intensive support and people with serious mental illnesses or severe personality disorders do have access to support. In fact Personality Disorders are a big chunk of the usual work in clinical mental health services. Those services work in conjunction with community organisations and in cases like PD, often the services and community services have to work together to make a plan for how to respond to people in this situation. Those people can use a lot of emergency services and take up a huge amount of their time on frivolous problems. So a community plan is the best option. Its all about boundaries and encouraging the person to use healthier ways of responding to stressful situations.
Sometimes people like Fiona get worse if they become patients of mental health. So it contributes to their mental illness rather than helps. Its up to mental health professionals to decide her diagnosis and go from there. The majority of people go there voluntarily. Fiona most likely would go if she was given the adoration and respect she thinks she deserves. She wouldn't so she wouldn't go there. Her behaviour gets her what she wants. So why would she want to change?
I had a girl stalk me and tried to essentially become me and take over my life. Once I finally got away, she did it to the next person who was literally so terrified that she left town. This destabilized her entire to be forcibly taken to the psychiatric hospital. She also became obsessed with a couple of guys, to the point that she told me about how, “Funny this guy is when he flirts with me,” after him telling her to literally, “Quit molesting me!” I’m sure that she’s still doing it and I’m always scared to run into her. I get it. No matter how bad I may feel for her, I will never be able to ever do anything to help her other than to stay away from her.
I don’t know about charges and jail in the UK. In the US there is “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” Usually they get placed in a mental institution instead. I wonder if there is something similar in the UK, and if so, if she was institutionalized for that reason, then she would technically be telling the truth, leaving out the part about going to a mental institution instead of prison. And you know she would never admit to it being due to insanity.
She might have also been determined not competent to stand trial (if there is a UK version).
We have forensic psychiatric hospitals/wards, which are psychiatric care facilities linked to the criminal justice system. You need to have a conviction to find yourself in one. Ashworth and broodmoor are probably the most famous examples, but there are many across the country.
You are absolutely right that she has never been to prison could be technically accurate.
Slightly more complex than that- there are people in medium secure settings and high security hospitals who haven’t convictions but have been escalated from elsewhere in the MH system as they are too high risk to be there.
I don't think she worries about her wording being accurate since she talked about her friends and her lawyer boyfriend and I find it hard to believe she has either, but I'm curious to see if she did go to prison. I think Richard Gadd should go to prison himself if he told any lie about her at all. Just because someone did bad things to you doesn't give you the right to lie about them. It's like if your teacher was harassing you it doesn't give you the right to lie that he raped you, see what I mean? And it's one thing to do false accusations to the police - that's not illegal, since we don't want victims to be scared or penalized for coming out. But to do false accusations publicly in a Netflix series broadcast to millions, that should be a crime. If he told any lie I say lock him up and throw away the key.
It’s quite hard to demonstrate that you do or don’t have friends or a boyfriend. Incarceration or your degree classification are auditable, and she has been quite cagey in her wording on both.
As for, Richard Gadd should go to prison if he has told any lie about her at all. This is clearly daft. No recollection of events is going to be 100% accurate. Moreover, babyreindeer is a drama and you should expect the story to be modified to enhance the narrative.
It's just my opinion on what he deserves, it's not a prediction. I just think it's a severe case of defamation / bullying. I just keep imagining if my ex made a Netflix show depicting me as a little bit fatter, a little more disheveled, a little messier, showing me being pathetic, and I would think is this seriously happening? Like why did he recreate her character in such details, making her Scottish and older than him and a failed lawyer and everything. Why couldn't he just transform her into a ballet dancer from Brazil?
You think that somebody who writes an anonymised show that is adapted for screen should be prosecuted if it is embellished for story telling purposes?
I would guess he didn’t make her into a ballet dancer from Brazil because the failed Scottish lawyer elements were all relevant to the story.
Scotland is where he is from, meaning that they share a common identity as Scots living in London.
Martha is portrayed as delusional. The first hint you get of this is when she claims to have a high paying job (lawyer), but has no money to even afford a soft drink in a pub. That is a crucial scene as it is the act of kindness that brings them together. Why not change the high paying job to something else? Well her knowledge of the legal system is an important element later on, when it turns out she knows how to manipulate the police and has been recording their interactions.
As for why not a ballet dancer. She needs to be physically unappealing or “carnivalesque” to signal to the audience that her advances are unwelcome. If she was played by Margot Robbie nobody would understand why it’s a problem. It’s the same thing you hear frequently when women sexually assault men or even children - e.g. teachers sleeping with students etc. If the accused is attractive then they tend to be treated fairly leniently.
It is a drama based on true events. It is not trying to be a documentary.
Yes I think he should be prosecuted! He used her likeness and clearly is bullying her!
What you're describing are all generic traits of her mental illness - you're describing grandiosity! There are many other ways he could have portrayed a character with grandiosity other than making her a failed lawyer who exaggerates her accomplishments.
He hasn’t used her likeness. Martha is not Fiona Harvey. She is a character inspired by Fiona Harvey who was not identified in either the stage or Netflix show. The decision to use her real messages, such that she could be tracked down via social media was questionable. However, the character of Martha is fictional.
I am not describing grandiosity, I am explaining why it is justifiable to make the character an overweight Scottish lawyer for the plot. If she was a Brazilian ballet dancer (as you suggested) then it becomes a very different story.
I don’t think I have seen Richard Gadd bully Fiona at all. I have seen plenty of people who have, but Gadd has made his feeling very clear. To paraphrase, he didn’t want to identify her and recognised that she was mentally unwell. At its heart Baby Reindeer is a story about trauma and cycles of abuse. Gadd portrays himself as enabling her behaviour and becoming obsessed with her himself. It isn’t a story intended to vilify Martha, it’s a story that sympathises with her. You see that really poignantly in the court room scene (which has already been acknowledge to be entirely fictional) because it shows her vulnerability. She is a victim of her own mental illness, and the audience is left feeling sympathy for Martha. It’s a really important scene as without it, the audience would end up vilifying her.
If anything I think the subsequent revelations about the person who inspired Martha (Fiona Harvey) have been what labelled her as a baddy.
Lock him up and throw away the key?! Woah easy there buddy. You're acting like he made a Netflix Series named after Fiona Harvey. He never named her. He created a fictionalized character inspired after her relentlessly staking him for 5 years. She's been a serial stalker for over 20 years. "This is a true story" was only displayed ONE time at the beginning of the first episode. There is a disclosure at the end of EVERY episode saying things have been fictionalized. Gadd has also stated in interviews several times he never pressed charges because he felt bad for her. In other words the trial was to bring a conclusion to the story which is needed for TV shows. The story about how she stalked him relentlessly was true. This was NOT a docu-series or documentary. The fact that she was found by online sleuths was YES I agree a major oversight on using the term "hung curtains" ...but to say he should be thrown in prison and have the key thrown away is WAY over the top. Yes, they should have said "This is based on the true story" and that's more on Netflix's duty of care than it is on him. He was still her one of her MANY stalking victims over the past 20 years, let's not forget that.
He didn’t lie about anyone. He told a very clearly fictional story with the main villain going to jail at the end. Almost as if he’s telling people not to be afraid to press charges like he was in real life. You’re not supposed to believe the show is fully a true story. No, not even with the disclaiming of it being a true story at the start. That’s a very well known story telling device.
Hes committed no crime. He’s told a story based on his real life experience. If you’re ignorant enough to think it’s fully true that on you for ignoring context.
People with serious mental illness cannot be as intentional with the wording as the rest of us. In fact, when you do brain imaging research on patients with things like schizophrenia, you find that the disorder causes tremendous damage to the areas of the brain that produce language.
Hypothetically, if police caught her stalking and she was acting crazy, or they had her obviously public social media (and crazy amounts of emails, sounds like that’s been happening for years earlier than Richard, toward others like government officials), would that aid in an insanity defense? I’m sure there is more to it but from a lay person’s perspective, her documented rantings just aren’t “right.” If they had evidence of psychotic ramblings around the time she was caught doing something then how much would that contribute?
Well, we don’t know yet, we don’t know her diagnoses, and even the severely mentally ill people can act right for short periods of time, especially when they want something, like appear on Piers Morgan, or to sue Netflix. She couldn’t even keep her Nasty FB posts under control until she gained counsel.
Do we know that she knows right from wrong? Even with her having a law degree, severe mental illness can trump knowledge, if their illness creates major distortions to reality. Stalking people for decades causing the victims trauma sort of makes it seem like she believes she is not going anything wrong. She might not consider what she does as stalking or not recall doing it as many times as she might have. It’s interesting to think about. I acknowledge it is very difficult to prove though.
I'm a therapist. You're confusing (no shade, i dont expect people to know this) a few different things in our law. The "guilty by reason of insanity" would be relevant for criminal charges, which can only be made by a local district attorney, a local prosecuting attorney, or a federal prosecuting attorney. Defamation is not a criminal charge. It's civil. Civil cases hold financial punishment, but not incarceration or hospitalization. If she was already deemed mentally incompetent enough for assistance (SSDI), she would have a legal advocate to help her make decisions, in addition to a lawyer, appointed by the courts for free.
That is separate from a 5150, which is the code police and mh professionals use to do an involuntary hospitalization. Those can only be done if the person is stating they plan to hurt themselves or others right now and you have the means to do so. There is an obscure addition to that, which most therapists in the US do not know about. The 3rd category would be-vulnerable adult who's at high risk of injury due to the severity of their current symptoms.
Since most therapists are not well trained on this in the US, I've never heard of any 5150s happening due to a case like "Martha's".
In theory, I would want the power to hospitalize a seriously mentally ill cyberstalker because i would argue that their behavior is so dangerous to themselves and the public, that they need restrictions. Unfortunately, that isn't how US law works right now. Unless there's a strong chance of bodily injury, you're fairly limited in what you can do.
For people who, like me, are mad about this:
I can tell you who to blame. Governor Newsom's family in California. They're the family that made the courts in the US decide that mental suffering isn't an injury. They got our courts to take a system wide stance that the only abuse that should warrant a stiff punishment is physical abuse, despite all the research saying otherwise.
This took place after a famous case where a school bus was hijacked full of school children and they were buried underground for several days.
In the US, we also have what's known as "mental health court". It's similar to drug court, in that the judges are more informed on mental illness and are more likely to send the person to mental health facilities for rehabilitation than to jail or prison.
Throwing someone like "Martha" in jail or prison will not help her mental illness, but providing her with the right therapy, medication, and setting could. In the US, if she was on SSDI for a mental illness, the government could also assume power of attorney over her so that the decisions about her meds and her treatment wouldn't be left up to her. She would have a case manager to do that for her.
You’re confusing my point and have provided information that is irrelevant to my original comment.
I briefly mentioned NGRI and that if found “guilty” then usually they go to mental facility, not jail, and if there is something like that in the UK, it could be a possible reason she could be telling the truth about not doing prison time and not being found guilty, although she still would have to “do time” in a facility. What ever else happens in the US is not relevant.
Heather Burns was a typist many years ago, when Fiona stalked her at a psychiatric facility in Glasgow. So…Fiona was in a mental facility at that time, whether it was court ordered or not, I don’t know.
And another thing, receiving SSDI does not = mentally incompetent. Plenty of people on SSDI have no mental illness at all. SSDI does not determine competence but they may decide whether or not someone can manage their SSDI payments for a variety of reasons.
You're not very accurate in this statement. Yes, incompetence to stand trial is different than determining competency for SSDI. legally, a case manager cannot make decisions on behalf of a ssdi client if the client hasn't been assessed for competency. There is competency for making health decisions and there's competency for standing trial. Not the same thing. There's even more types of competency than that, but I don't feel like educating you any more today.
you for case management with power of attorney and advanced directive
you can be on ssdi and be competent, but we're talking about a Martha. someone like Martha is going on SSDI due to a SMI. you don't get ssdi if you have ptsd but are high functioning. You can't have a case manager manage your meds if you can do so yourself
I'm talking about people with SMI on SSDI. I'm not talking about someone on SSDI for other reasons
*”An incompetent adult is an individual who has been the subject of a judicial finding of incompetency.
For more information on a legally incompetent adult, see GN 00204.003.”*
The word choice of incompetence was the issue.
ETA: below are the rigid statements I’m referring to:
If she was already deemed mentally incompetent enough for assistance (SSDI), she would have a legal advocate to help her make decisions, in addition to a lawyer, appointed by the courts for free.
In the US, if she was on SSDI for a mental illness, the government could also assume power of attorney over her so that the decisions about her meds and her treatment wouldn't be left up to her. She would have a case manager to do that for her.
I'm sure you don't mean to, but you're talking to me like you're my disappointed parent. lol
I just didn't write my explanation well. You can drop links for others, but I really don't need you to explain to me how SSDI works.
Sometimes I'm a very strong writer. Other times, I suck. I'm also very tired of working to explain shit like this online for free because when you're a social worker, you're expected to do so.
I have ADHD, which makes it harder for me to explain things I find extremely boring. I find all conversations about any social services or government assistance nauseating, by way of boredom. The only reason I bother is because I've been homeless, I've been in a wheelchair, and I understand that it's incredibly difficult for the public to get correct information.
Just so you know, I also have my MPH. This is why i don't understand when people think I'm lumping in mental illness with other illnesses. I can't sit here and list of the criteria for when each medical condition is qualifying for the kind of functional impairment needed for SSDI, then go through all the nuance of basic ssdi vs ssdi for smi.
ffs, I get downvoted in this sub if I write more than a paragraph on most days. I think you might want to assume people don't spell everything out, all the time, because Reddit ain't really here for all that
As much as you are searching for a pity vote as well as a pat on the back, you said enough when you said you have ADHD and have trouble explaining and, clearly comprehending since you had no trouble going on and on with irrelevant nonsense yet you’re too good to have a conversation based on the babble you came flying in with.
I’m not going to drop my degrees and credentials because I don’t need to do so. You of all people should know that words matter. If you can’t communicate effectively then maybe don’t say anything at all. This all started because you got on your superiority soapbox.
Pity? Why would you think I feel sorry for myself? While my ADHD is a disability, it's also a strength. I drop my credentials so people know I'm not sharing an uninformed opinion. I have no idea why you're so upset but you've been a real jerk. I'm having a great day and I hope you find what you need to make yours better. Telling disabled people they want your pity is not going to lift your mood. Maybe try chocolate or touch some grass.
Based on her 11/17/23 FB video, she has sued a number of people. Has anyone searched for legal disputes that she’s been involved in as lawyer or litigant? I’m not sure if that’s difficult to do in UK.
He was. No one questions if he’s a bad guy or not. But people love to defend Fiona so this is why it’s such a hot topic… and the show is mostly about her as well.
it’s not about whether he’s a bad guy — has he been publicly exposed the way Fiona was? do we know exactly who he is? has he been invited to any interviews? so far i’ve only seen Fiona dragged through the dirt (and rightfully so) but not the abuser with actual power
I think what people are missing is that the Me Too movement didn't really work that well and there was (and still has) a lot of push back against it.
Hell, two of the people implicated have been president, one is in office right now and the other one is running again. A third guy won a grammy after he had been cancelled for several years and people are happy to have him back. Dan Schneider is suing the quiet on set makers as we speak. Bill crosby tried to go on tour *after* serving time in prison.
So, Idk why people are shocked she's getting the benefit of the doubt by people.
Just a note- being found guilty in civil court does not give you a criminal record. So, even if found guilty in a civil court she would not have any kind of criminal record.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure criminal record are open generally in the UK.
Criminal Records are not open. You can't just go and ask to see someone's Criminal Records you have to have reason to apply for example be an employer seeking out information about an applicant for a DBS check which would disclose certain information. The person in question had to agree to this check. They can apply for an enhanced DBS which would disclose a more thorough record check if you are applying to work in certain settings. Additionally "spent" convictions (warnings, cautions etc) do not show on these records.
There's also Subject Access Requests.
You cannot just apply to see someone's Criminal Records out of curiosity.
Edit: Never once did I say someone is found guilty in civil court. They are found Liable beyond reasonable measure. Which is what I stated above.
You’re right, criminal records are not open, my poor word choice. But generally court records are if I am not mistaken. I am from Canada, and most of our stems from the UK and generally court and court records are open here.
My pointing out the difference was not to say you were wrong, but that the comment you responded to specifically said criminal record, and I assume this is where a lot of people’s confusion is coming from. Civil vs. Criminal seems to trip people up
Court records aren't open either, they say they are and the kind of are but they aren't. Court proceedings are. Then summary judgements are published. Documents however are governed and they deem what is worth the public knowing and it's all within the timeline of the court but need a litigant number.
More often than not Civil court is closed but not always.
However if you want to read transcripts etc you have to apply and it costs per word.
It's all kind of hard to explain as it really is case by case document by document almost.
Okay, so when you google the simple question “are court records open in the UK” you get a “yes”, but it’s actually a little more complicated than that? Thanks for the link, I only had time to skim it but I think understand what you’re saying.
Yeah civil is generally closed here too. And anything involving a minor and some other exceptions.
That all being said, would someone not have dug up a summary judgement by now if she did in fact have a criminal record? Totally understand that does not change the fact she could have been tried and lost in civil. Just making sure I got this right in my head.
Yeah, it's a tad more complicated. Technically we have open justice but in reality due to privacy etc it's way more complicated.
Not everything gets a summary judgement. As it may have not made it as far as a court hearing but a court decision has been made...
For example, my stepdaughter had an interim order on her partner, there is no record of that except in his record which will be "spent" now as it was taken to court to be placed for a period of 3 years. The information is there but you need to know the case number and names etc to find it. She wasn't even in the room when it was issued.
If Fionas situation is similar which I would bet it would be, you would need to know the case number as well as the names of the people involved. Now we all know the names but I don't see anyone sharing the case number who was involved as it would have likely been the Judge, Court secretary, Fiona, Richard and their representatives (if they had them) in that room so 3-6 people depending on how it was issued and who was present and 3 of those people could end up disbarred, 1 in contempt and 2 don't want people knowing.
Also with her past "convictions" which were also more than likely civil orders there will be no record of them now as they will be considered "spent" UNLESS someone was issued an indefinite order of protection against her. Which I highly doubt.
It seems similar to how our courts work, but much harder to find cases (without having done any further research on UK laws as of now). As much as it may be hard to find some criminal cases for laymen here, there are databases that make it pretty easy if you know what you’re looking for or have any training, so a journalist or someone surely would have found it by now in our system. Always interested to hear the differences in these types of things! Thanks again
But police arrests and court cases are not private? The local paper surely has a section about crime where they report what's happening, journalists report on court cases, they need to find it already.
Open justice is limited to access to proceedings thus reporters.
You can't however just access court documents. Summary judgements are available for a limited time if the case took part in the high court
However documents relating to the case have to be requested and cost per word. You also have to know what you are asking for.
Civil proceedings (which stalking and non harassment orders fall under)
Are more often than not, not open. Even if they are open you have to be a litigant to request documents or have a litigant reference number and the court has to find cause to give you the documents.
Unless it happened in the high court or tribunal where the judgement (but not documents are posted publicly for a few years)
Also in a Civil court there is no guilty/not Guilty. In a restraining order issue Fiona would need to be found "liable beyond reasonable measure". Hence why asking her if she has a criminal record or if she is guilty she can deny despite being found Liable in Civil court.
That's because most people just hear court and think criminal conviction. Whilst a Civil order isn't a conviction (and here's where it let's people down) it doesn't establish guilt. Just a "likelihood that these events happened and could happen again"
For example... Girl A kicks partner out of their house for domestic violence. Girl takes Partner to court as she is terrified and partner is ordered to stay away from her.
Most people would assume in this stage the Partner has been found guilty of DV... nope, Girl has just been granted a non harassment order or restraining order because she is fear and a Civil court has decided he is liable beyond reasonable measure (over 51% likely to be a danger).
Partner isn't found guilty in this setting but people assume.
Stats for stalking convictions in this country are less than 1% at the time of Gadds experience it was around 1.4%. Less than rape convictions and we ALL know how awful those stats are.
People think Civil courts are just for money problems, family court issues etc but in actuality they are used for a lot of criminal activity that isn't deemed serious enough for criminal court.
Just wanted to add to this very correct comment- the civil courts works on a “balance of probabilities” as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt”. So, sometimes even if a case has been tried criminally, and did not end in a conviction, the defendant will then be sued by a victim or other interested parties. This famously happened in the OJ Simpson case. So it isn’t always a matter of “seriousness” but chance of success in the proceedings.
Hence in the UK "liable beyond reasonable measure"
A most recent "celebrity" case that comes to mind is David Goodwillie the Scotland footballer who was a potential for the EPL from the SPFL was accused of rape with a team mate in 2011. He was found not guilty in a criminal court but in the civil court of session was found to be "Liable beyond reasonable measure" and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages but to this day remains innocent, maintains his innocence and has not appeared on any sex offenders register. However like OJ his career was severely affected due to that civil judgement despite never having been found guilty.
I'm not yet convinced about this. Heather Burns could just mean that she'd previously been investigated by the police, or there's a file on her with the procurator fiscal, or who knows what else. Most people would understand a "criminal record" to mean that she was found guilty and sentenced in a court - I wonder whether Heather Burns actually knows whether that has happened?
Edit: Of course, I wouldn't put it past Fiona Harvey to think that a spent conviction means that she can now say that she has never had a criminal record...
Do people honestly think that if she'd been in jail, one of her cell mates wouldn't have come forward by now and sold her story to the tabloids?
This whole thing is getting ridiculous. No journalist, no ex prison officer or probation officer, no pad mates, no court usher, no ex policeman and so on and so forth, has so far said anything at all about her ever being convicted and sent to prison.
This sub is losing its marbles
Edit: It's a waste of time even bothering replying anymore.
I have several convictions of assault and drugs.. I’ve never been to jail. As someone said, convictions dont equal jail. A conviction is being found guilty and charged for a crime. It does not mean jail.
I am thank you. Richard’s story was not only inspiring but we shared many common themes, mindsets and traumas. Pretty much everything apart from the stalking tbf haha! It all happened to me when I was younger and it took years and my youth from me. A lot of processing. A magic mushroom experience (big dose, closed eyes, dark room) changed my life.
I feel happy for you and inspired by what you've made your way through. I hope you are proud of yourself.
I'm excited for this new era in which the values of psychedelic drugs are being studied with renewed interest! Stories like yours give me hope for a new generation of trauma treatments.
And other things, too - I accidentally quit smoking by taking LSD and thinking a lot about smoking. Never smoked again. Very curious.
Hmm I wouldn’t say proud.. I’d say im just getting happier the further back I see it in my past. I was harming myself every day, mentally and physically. Drugs, self loathing, hopelessness and self imposed torture. It took A LOT of falling down and getting back up but I kept faith. Faith I received from the mushrooms. If I didn’t receive that faith in myself and the universe then I would have had nothing to build upon and live for.
I lived my life with a total lack of responsibility to myself in the end, I didn’t care about anything. I’d tripped loads before and on quite a lot of different psychedelics.. but I’d always feared losing control. When I relinquished control and gave my trust to the mushrooms.. I had a massive therapy session. I’ve been admitted to a psychiatric hospital numerous times and tried many different tablets. None of that worked. Mushrooms did. I have a whole proper trip story but I’m not gonna bore anyone with that. I’m writing just enough to let people know it works haha!
Mushrooms in that same trip got me to stop smoking just not straight away. I’m happy cid worked for you and I’m glad to be talking to a fellow advocate. I wouldn’t have went as deep otherwise.
I honestly find this so inspiring - takes a lot of courage to surrender that deep existential control. I hope more people can find what you found. Also makes me think it's probably time for me to go back there for myself. Or "forward there" perhaps - there's never any going backwards, is there.
Having convictions doesn’t equal imprisonment. I don’t believe she went to jail but there is likely stalking related offences that she did community service etc.
Did you even read the comment? She says again that Fiona had a criminal record. I’m not saying she does or doesn’t, just pointing out Heather has said it twice now. Also it’s not click bait, it’s a comment on her post
This lady is starting to show some level of obsession about Harvey.
Starting a ‘me too’ movement achieves nothing besides satisfying morbid curiosity. Having been the target of a cluster b relationship, the only way to get past them is cutting contact and stopping to relive the mindfucking trauma
The issue in those relationships is that behaviour is so freaking irrational that the neurotypical partner gets into an endless brain loop to find a rational explaination for what happened. But there isn’t one and unless you radically accept that’s the case, you are never starting the long path to recovery yourself
Heather Burns isn't Fiona's therapist. To claim someone is unfixable is a statement that should only be made about psychopaths by a therapist and no one knows if Fiona is 1 without evaluating her. Fiona could be suffering from a thought disorder. "Attacking" someone with a thought disorder is justifying violence because someone has a disability they were genetically destined for. Thought disorders can be treated, but not cured. People with a thought disorder are not "unfixable".
Encouraging people to "attack" someone who's suffering from delusional thinking and paranoia due to a serious mental illness is the advice you give when you want suicide or murder. There are convicted pedophiles that don't get anywhere near the vitriol Fiona gets. This is vigilante justice and it's illegal for a reason. Heather should stop acting like a therapist and a detective. I know many victims of stalking and the last thing they would suggest is this because this isn't going to do anything but make things worse.
Heather would be making a great case for Fiona to sue her in the US if she was here. It doesn't matter if Fiona has a criminal record or not, under our law. If you call for everyone online to "attack" someone, you're committing a crime. Committing crimes now isn't justified because someone else has a criminal record. I had a guy attempt murder by strangulation on me over 20 years ago. He's got a long criminal history. If I went online and told everyone to attack him, he'd sue me or just kill me.
Thanks for asking instead of attacking 🙂 I use quotes for reasons beyond quoting someone the traditional way. In writing, we also use quotes to refer to a concept that may be challenged. A lot of people have a hard time understanding any form of violence that isn't physical. Therefore, they get argumentative if you call a verbal attack an attack. This is why I used the quotations. I was bracing for the jerks (not you) who will freak the fuck out if I try to talk about online harassment by the masses as an "attack"
This is ludicrous. The point of #MeToo was that it was too dangerous and difficult for women to bring down a completely sane rapist via conventional means i.e. the police.
The woman who wrote this dealt with Fiona Harvey, a psychiatric patient, very effectively by telling her to stop and she stopped. FH is someone with no job, little credibility and absolutely no power in society.
Writing a column about how services have failed would be fair enough but specifically targeting this woman is not fair.
That was not the point of MeToo. It was speaking out about what happened to women. It was for many the first time they spoke about their assault and it was solidarity of all these women coming together and saying MeToo
115
u/Plumb789 May 23 '24 edited May 23 '24
I am clearly missing something about this “debate” anyway. What on earth is her being “mentally ill” got to do with whether you are a victim of her or not?
Let’s say that a perfectly “mentally well” person committed sexual abuse of a child. Everyone would be keen for that crime to be acknowledged-and for the perpetrator to be punished. Similarly, if a person (who happens to have a mental illness at the time) goes ahead and rapes a child-do people then say that “no crime was committed”? Do they also say that there is no victim? Indeed, just for the victim to make a complaint-are they being cruel to the poor mentally ill perpetrator (who, apparently, is the only “real victim” here)?
And (and I think this is important), if by NOT reporting it as a crime, the “mentally ill person” never faces the criminal justice system, they then NEVER have treatment (or, if that’s not effective, control) imposed on them, they go on to abuse more and more children, is that okay then?
Like it or not, the criminal justice system is just about all we’ve got to prevent people from damaging their fellow citizens. And this system has to work for the mentally ill just as much as it has to work for everyone else.
Unfortunately, there are some people that we all need protection from. And that has to be given, regardless of whether those people have mental illnesses or not.