I'm sure it was just a transcript of his show he performed, I think you could buy it at the show, I could be wrong
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I can still see her facebook.......on one comment, some smart ass has put 'sent from my iFiona' 
....has he stated in the book that she's a 'convicted stalker'????
I think she deliberately made sure she is discoverable by opening up / keeping all tweets. She is very capable of planning ahead. She knew (by her own admission to Pierse) he had a stand up show about her for what - five years? She could have taken steps to protect herself then. Im not even sure how much "internet sleuths” discovered (although they are pretty good) and how much she put herself out there making her name known to the press etc.
No doubt she was trolled (there are plenty of sickos out there who look for victims and spend their life trolling others) and that is not right regardless of what she is like, but Im sure her "discovery" is very planned and staged - by her
It's a shocking turn of events to think that this awful woman, who is serial stalker, might actually walk away with some money here.
She has caused misery to a number of people and has apparently got away with it. The rates for conviction over stalking are very low in the UK.
If she can prove that Gadd lied about her having a conviction in the show, she might have a legal case against him and win. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen because she outed herself and its appalling to think that she could be rewarded for her horrible behaviour.
She has caused misery to a number of people and has apparently got away with it. The rates for conviction over stalking are very low in the UK.
If she can prove that Gadd lied about her having a conviction in the show, she might have a legal case against him and win. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen because she outed herself and its appalling to think that she could be rewarded for her horrible behaviour.
But also if she ends up with money, those she has stalked can sue her, plus she will lose all her housing benefits and other benefit payments that are means tested.
RG has never named FH as the perpetrator though
She's set her FB profile to private now.
I was listening to The Rest Is Entertainment podcast and they said that Netflix isn't governed by UK broadcasting laws (they're based in Amsterdam if I heard correctly), so Ofcom has no say over their output.
Also she says Martha isn't her then says she's going to sue Netflix and Gadd but neither named her and they did take steps to cover her identity (the argument is should they have planned for Internet sleuthing and done more?). What would she sue for? Can't be defamation or slander as she has stated Martha isn't her.
Also she says Martha isn't her then says she's going to sue Netflix and Gadd but neither named her and they did take steps to cover her identity (the argument is should they have planned for Internet sleuthing and done more?). What would she sue for? Can't be defamation or slander as she has stated Martha isn't her.
Finally got around to watching the Piers Morgan interview in full and I'm pretty sure FH is autistic. My BIL has what used to be known as Asperger's and has the exact same speaking patterns - sequential, few sub-clauses, pours it all out, breathes and pauses at unusual (to the NT listener) places, etc etc. It was uncanny.
If she does have an ASD then the obsessive communicating, inability to read social cues, inability to understand Gadd's intentions or imagine what he must be feeling, make a lot more sense.
I don't think it's BPD I think it's autism personally.
If she does have an ASD then the obsessive communicating, inability to read social cues, inability to understand Gadd's intentions or imagine what he must be feeling, make a lot more sense.
I don't think it's BPD I think it's autism personally.
I did wonder the same, her tone and pattern of speech reminds me of a family member too (who is a world away from her but also can't interpret social cues and can't understand sarcasm and jokes unless explicitly explained, which can be hard going for both sides in a conversation but they're the loveliest human and not in anyway a psycho, racist stalker type
)Please see post 114 and read the link.
She stalked a woman working at a mental health facility 20 years ago.
I don't know what's wrong with 'Martha' but if you read that story she was obviously under the care of a psychiatric clinic at some point.
Gadd and Netflix haven’t confirmed Fiona is Martha, have they? So is Fiona’s legal case that she thinks this show is about her and therefore defames her, despite there being many details in the show that don’t apply to her and nobody involved in creating it has said it is her? Surely their defence is then simply ‘it isn’t about her’ and that’s the end of it. Otherwise anyone could say it’s about them and claim defamation. It makes no sense. I think she’s a narcissist rather than being mentally ill.
I think there's some legal precedent about that. Someone sued some author (Martin Amis I'm thinking???) for a character in a book who they believed was based on them. And there's been other cases too, some going quite far back.
Her legal team don't need to demonstrate that she IS the inspiration for the Martha character, just that enough of the public BELIEVE that she is the inspiration for it to have affected her reputation, peace of mind and/or livelihood. In that case, Gadd's team saying 'she isn't' wouldn't be enough (and I think any judge experienced in libel would take that sort of defence with a whole mine's worth of salt anyway lol).
---
Yes, my BIL has too. Autistic people are way more likely than the general NT population to experience a serious mental health condition, and for it to duck up their lives to the extent of needing hospitalisation or ending up in trouble with the law. (The number of people in prisons who are on the autism spectrum, and could have been free if they'd had the proper supprt and understanding at an earlier point, is a bugbear of mine but this isn't the place for ranting lol) I think she's a very unwell person in addition to being significantly neuro atypical..
@moldwarp but as was pointed out on the last thread she hasn’t lost anything. She doesn’t have a livelihood. A quick google suggests ‘peace of mind’ isn’t enough for defamation lol…and she’s not a celebrity or business owner where it’s damaged her reputation. Seems a non starter. They are probably hoping Netflix will settle
Nah the livelihood bit covers loads of stuff eg your ability to earn money in future; you can argue psychological distress and she'll have a super strong case here especially if she has, as I suspect, a neurologicial disability...plus there's the reputation bit and she's been totally smeared on SM.
I think any no win no fee shark would be itching to get their hands all over this as they could argue failure of duty of care so well...
And yes I agree they will be seeking a chunky OOC settlement and so will NF.
She’s on benefits and shes never going to earn any money. She doesn’t have a job or a reputation to lose. She also doesn’t seem to have a disability and is very angry at the idea of having something mentally wrong. I expect legally psychiatric harm means having a legit breakdown not just whining on Facebook. I reckon it all goes nowhere and she’s just looking for a fat payout. Hope she gets nothing except maybe a few stalking convictions.
I do think she’ll get a large out of court settlement from this tbh.
Whatever we think about her personally there was a show made that is obviously based on her but has been marketed as a true story. Some of the things appear to be untrue (convictions). There was enough details that she was found relatively quickly so her identity wasn’t well protected. Also I don’t recall seeing any disclaimers, sometimes you’ll see a message along the lines of “some characteristics and events have been changed for dramatic effect blah blah blah etc etc”
If it was me, I’d be damn sure to be getting my money from whoever so I could go live my life in some remote destination because I wouldn’t be able to show my face again
She’s clearly a very nasty individual but I do genuinely think she has a case.
Whatever we think about her personally there was a show made that is obviously based on her but has been marketed as a true story. Some of the things appear to be untrue (convictions). There was enough details that she was found relatively quickly so her identity wasn’t well protected. Also I don’t recall seeing any disclaimers, sometimes you’ll see a message along the lines of “some characteristics and events have been changed for dramatic effect blah blah blah etc etc”
If it was me, I’d be damn sure to be getting my money from whoever so I could go live my life in some remote destination because I wouldn’t be able to show my face again
She’s clearly a very nasty individual but I do genuinely think she has a case.
It won't be long until she's back and she's turned on whoever is helping her with this case. She turns on everyone in the end
There a lot of legal terms being thrown around/used incorrectly by armchair lawyers.
I really don’t see that she has a case, she was found because there was still evidence online of her stalking, and it only gained traction because she was still there acting like a total stalker, and then an interview to say it was all about her, at this point she’s made 1000s of posts about it. She’s just not the victim she thinks she is.