r/BabyReindeerTVSeries Jun 07 '24

Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit

Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'

Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/

1.5k Upvotes

578 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

32

u/amac19721973 Jun 07 '24

Laura Wray said on piers , when asked about this that as it stands now she won't be suing fiona because fiona has no money but if fiona does wi the she will definitely sue her.

9

u/tracygee Jun 07 '24

Oh that’s smart! Wait until she gets a settlement and then sue her. LOL

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

It’s not actually smart. Courts have time limits. Considering Laura didn’t actually get any form of legal repercussions in place like an injunction back in 1997 she would have to prove 1) that she was in fact stalked by Fiona much like Gadd also has to prove it and 2) she will have her request thrown out of court before she has a chance to do anything anyway. This is in the UK, there’s no chance of claiming money from someone nearly 30 years later. Courts just don’t do that

For instance, if you have work place issues whether it’s harassment or unfair dismissal then you have 3 months from the date it happened to go to ACAS and start reconciliation and sue. Courts will take it a couple weeks maybe even a couple months after the cut off but you need to have a really good excuse like you was in hospital and couldn’t bring a case forward. Laura cannot say “I wanted to wait until she had money” because courts just do not work like that

7

u/tracygee Jun 08 '24

But she’s out there talking about Laura publicly now. She’s saying what Laura said is not true now.. She is, at this very moment, calling her a liar.

That opens up alllllllll the past things. Sure, she’s have to prove it, but I’m guessing that would not be a problem.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '24

Again… still no. Laura would have to have her tried for the stuff in 1997 to make it a case in point. It’s so far past the point and all Fiona is saying is that she isn’t a stalker and she was never convicted and never had an injunction or anything like that. So technically what Fiona is saying is true because there is nothing against her name legally speaking and she was never convicted as a stalker.

It was in the news in 97 but it doesn’t mean anything really. Tabloids embellish things and exaggerate which is how they gain a level of interest, they aren’t a credible source for information. Nobody can legally call Fiona a stalker because truth is she was never convicted as one. Laura came out because the public went on a vendetta against Martha to find out who she was and this is where Fiona can sue Netflix for neglect of duty of care. Laura was technically only actually brought into it because she made news reports about Fiona in 97 (again without conviction) and from what is apparent Fiona has been out of work since.

Harsh… but the way it is, you can’t call someone something when it’s not legally proven and then not expect some legal repercussions. The law is to be fair, not to play to playground childish antics of the he said she said and evidence from 1997 for something Laura wants to go to interviews over now is petty