She wrote some defamatory statements about Richard Gadd, Piers Morgan and the RUclipsr Popcorn Planet on her Facebook page, which has now mysteriously been taken down. She is an awful person. Some redditors were able to screenshot the posts before she privated her page.
I agree, Martha I felt some sympathy for because at times she appeared so vulnerable but with Fiona I just see as a vindictive bitter and dangerous person.
It says in the credits "this program is based on a true story: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."
Sure does! But that “THIS IS A TRUE STORY” (Not based on/inspired bybut IS “A TRUE STORY” ) I think is the noose they’re going to hang themselves by. For example: movies like “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” start off by telling you “based on a true story/true events” and you watch a long movie about a chainsaw-wielding-maniac that you find out later is based on Ed Gein; who 1-didn’t live in Texas, 2-Never was accused of chasing people with a chainsaw…I could go on…THE POINT IS: “Based on a true story/Inspired by true events” are disclaimers that give ALOT OF ROOM FOR “ARTISTIC LICENSE”/“Nuance”/“exaggeration”. But saying “This IS a True Story” really puts you on the hook! Seriously. If they just added the words “based on” at the beginning, this discussion wouldn’t happen!
I think it’s true because she’s in complete denial (la la land) like a lot of stalkers that can’t see what they did is wrong. They never admit they are in the wrong or that it even did happen in the first place. They would rather insinuate the other person is delusional.
If she is so adamant that she didn't do a single thing that is shown in the show, wouldn't it be a case of Netflix/Gadd being able to say 'if you didn't do any of this then its clearly not based on you'? I don't see how she could have a case when the only people tying her to the show are some Redditors and herself. If Gadd had agreed at any point, I could see how she could have potentially some leg to stand on. But the only person saying its definitely based on her, is Fiona herself.
I think Netflix said that it was a true story at the beginnjng and 'based' on a true story at the end. I wonder if that was a deliberate attempt to'sort of cover their backsides' from any of the anticipated reprocusions?
The best thing about the show is that it is showing people what personality disorders are and what they look like in real life. Its generally only those whose work puts them into contact with them regulary have any clue as to what they are. Although peoples gut reaction about her red flags shows people can see danger without any training.
'This is a true story' is written by Donny at the beginning of the show. Not Netflix. Donny is writing this story. You can hear him typing on the keyboard to type those words. Donny is a fictional character, played by the actor who it happened to in real life. Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of every episode, stating it's dramatized for effect. They're covered. It's not their fault people don't wait until the end of the episode to see that. It's there. And always has been. Chris Daw (solicitor) hasn't taken the case on. He's just helped her by pointing her in the right direction. She has yet to form a 'team of solicitors/lawyers'. No matter who takes the case, if anyone does, they'll still get their pay...and possibly fame, interviews etc following the case IF it gets to court. Martha aka Fiona may not have been to prison but she could have injunctions against her, which is still a 'conviction' for a criminal act. Netflix aren't stupid. They'll have all this covered.
Thoroughly enjoyed your analysis Luke. Fiona was very careful with her wording on the piers interview. She was definate about no court and no prison time. I’m wondering if she was detained in a mental health facility as part of the process. Time will tell. Take care Luke. 🥰♥️
In Scotland a 3 year degree is called an ordinary degree. It is pass/fail - no grade She would have to do an extra year to get her graded honours degree with a 1st 2nd etc.
The interview made me believe that Fiona is unstable and Richard Gadd has the right to tell his story. Nothing is completely accurate 100%, and Netflix started an artistic license was taken. Fiona made her own situation much worse. The actress did a great job and clearly had tons of reference material to work with. Hence, Fiona went off deep end.
Narcissists are counting on the fact that they get ignored and to them it’s another way of keeping society controlled by the fear they create. I think exposing them and the harm they cause is the better way to protect their victims and deter their destructive behaviors. They hope to be ignored so that they can continue harassing people and don’t get held accountable
A “Basic DBS” only goes back 5 years. That’s what her attorney showed. Much of her stalking and harassment dates back to 1997. An “Enhanced DBS” will show all types of infractions. If it was a mental health facility, tougher but accessible. We’ll see.
I find it very hard to believe that she has any kind of law degree. There is record of working at a law firm for all of a week before being fired, however nothing is said in what role she was briefly employed, it could have been a receptionist or cleaner🤔
She's not a solicitor just has a degree from the 80s. I believe she worse than we know. Her insults throughout the interview show she is bitter towards everyone and targets people and gets obsessed.
There are so many things that point to her not being sufficiently qualified to be practicing law. Her terrible spelling and grammar would be problematic, but then you see her odd speech patterns and arrogant attitude and I can't imagine any clients being ok with that, never mind an employer. She was so evasive, so she perhaps lied about her qualifications and the firm either didn't check before hiring her, or were still waiting for replies/references etc and sacked her once made aware?
@@craftinghome absolutely agree with everything you said, however I still find it stretch to believe she would have been employed as a solicitor. Surely she would have been interviewed for the position and as you quite rightly pointed out even her speaking style is a big red flag, hence why I think it more likely that she was employed in a totally different job role at the firm.
But Richard Gadd already did say parts of it were fictional but that doesn’t matter because she said Martha wasn’t her and she didn’t know Richard so her case makes no sense if it’s another woman
Something you may want to investigate nobody else has on this issue, according to her FB she has been trying to sue her local council for years. So hardly surprising she wants another case.
@@jewelssunsun9450 OK, I missed that. Where did you see/ hear that RG has verified that vital bit of the puzzle ? Piers doesn't know about it as he's being asking RG for an interview for a while. If it's true, Fiona will be able to sue big time ! That should be all over the media I would have thought !
@user-xc3fp1pj6e He was on both This Morning and Lorraine a few weeks ago. He said it on one of them. I can't remember which. There is a disclaimer in the ending credits that some of it is fictional. This may cover the discrepancies.
Correction...she said she didn't sound like the region she came from, she thought she was from another area of Scotland, she didn't work out the actress was actually English, so she did a fab job with the accent. Uni grades I believe she said she got an ordinary degree...see below, it's basically a fail! First-Class Honours (70% and above): a first class degree, usually referred to as a ‘first’ or 1st, is the highest honours degree you can achieve Upper Second-Class Honours (60-70%): there are two levels of second class degree. An upper second class, known as a 2:1 or two-one, is the higher of the two levels Lower Second-Class Honours (50-60%): a 2.2 or two-two is the lower level of the second class degree Third-Class Honours (40-50%): known as a ‘third’ or 3rd, this degree is the lowest honours degree achievable Ordinary Degree: If an honours student fails to achieve a third class by a small margin, they may be awarded an ordinary degree i.e. without honours. And finally studying law is not the same as law school/ lawyer. You can study psychology it doesn't make you a psychologist. On that note repeatedly stating this is your 'analysis' and hashtagging this as psychology is missrepresenting yourself and this use of language/words is incorrect. Post is long enough so I won't explain the definition and use of the word analysis, it can be looked up. Like you said you never went to university therefore I suspect this is language you have picked up, these are your views, opinions and observations, all of which are valid. Not being snarky, it would be remiss not to mention this.😊
Thanks for that lol I know a lot more about how university results work now. I’m not a psychologist at all but people who like psychology may enjoy someone’s analysis on the subject hence the tag. Even if she Jessica was Scottish the accent is irrelevant, she’s a just acting lol Fiona is clearly not a nice person and I believe she did a lot of these horrible things to Richard, though he was definitely no angel. Thank you for the comment and interaction
You are absolutely correct in your description of degree grades awarded. Having said that, you've informed me on the subject of ordinary degrees because I had never heard of that grade. I have a 2:1, and I honestly can't imagine forgetting what my degree grade was even after almost 25 years of graduating. You're also correct about the wording used by the content creator but I can understand that, as you mentioned, people pick words like analysis up rather than using the more appropriate terms of opinion, view or observation.
Hi, I believe anyone can analyse anything and it doesn’t make/ or mean you are protesting to be be a professional. For example I can analyse a football match and give my thoughts on it, like I have here with this subject. You can analyse my content and form an opinion. Thanks for commenting I appreciate it
@Breaktheice123 the difference is that analysing something, in simple terms, means one critically evaluates work in such a way that uses data to understand the issue and interpret that data. What you are doing is closer to the other terms suggested. Having said that, intention is not to be critical of your word choice or you. It's your video, and you can use whichever words you want. Discussion is good for the RUclips algorithm, so it's all good. I enjoy your content 😁
I only watched two episodes , then went and watched the interview with Piers Morgan . She clearly didn’t want to respond about her law degree ! Crikey imagine if she never went to prison ! Netflix will be kicking themselves they never put Based on a true story !
Yes this has been said. The ending of show even says some parts have been dramatized etc! He said They needed “closure” for the show where in reality there was none
On the credits it's written "Based on the play Baby Reindeer by Richard Gadd" And then on the final shot of the credits it says "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes" Richard Gadd said the serie should be seen in the realm of art. And the serie is in the "dramas/comedies" genre. Not docuserie or documentary. "True Story" is part of the title and promotion ... brilliant played by Netflix. But a shame to Richard Gadd, who had his story, his show faded on the background of "will Fiona sue and win over Netflix"
The first thing it says is “this is a true story” Even if it’s followed by what you stated…that is some serious misdirection and quite sly and calculating of Netflix It may backfire …
It is a true story ... and the credits doesn't make it less a true story. It's not "absolutely 100%" accurate, they make it clear on the credits, that some things were fictionalised. That was the words everybody says were missing "based on / fictionalised" - but they are there on the credits, from the first episode (I just checked on Netflix). Neither Richard Gadd or Netflix said it was "100% absolutely true", and after Fionas interview, we are sure that story happened - and Netflix made it a serie, always stating there were parts fictionalised.
Netflix have covered their backsides with the credits at the end stating that it's 'based on a true story's. They would have solicitors & lawers in the background advising them on where to 'draw the line' / the legal boundaries to adhere in order to create a drama without the potential legal reprocusions.
8:28 I thought she said it WAS flattering; did I misunderstand her in the interview? It’s def possible since i thought she said she HASNT SEEN the actress then went on to describe that “we’re both Scottish, we both have dark hair…”?
I wasn't sure if id like it but i ended up really loving it, its definitely an interesting show that made me want to keep watching so I think you should give it a go!
Am I right in saying that someone else has come forward more recently since this video & claimed they’re the real Martha & now suing Netflix?! 😮 & why can’t I get the Eminem’s slim shady from repeatedly going round in my head lol 😂
![ian - Fit Check (Feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDGWDBg45Dw/mqdefault.jpg)
shes unable to talk about anyone without a backhanded insult - this is what nasty people do - thanks for the clip
Exactly
I think she's worse than Martha. I think Gadd was nice in his portrait of her. He gives her nuance, where Fiona just seems awful.
She wrote some defamatory statements about Richard Gadd, Piers Morgan and the RUclipsr Popcorn Planet on her Facebook page, which has now mysteriously been taken down. She is an awful person. Some redditors were able to screenshot the posts before she privated her page.
I agree, Martha I felt some sympathy for because at times she appeared so vulnerable but with Fiona I just see as a vindictive bitter and dangerous person.
It says in the credits "this program is based on a true story: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."
Yes, it lets you go past them to jump to the next episode
Sure does! But that “THIS IS A TRUE STORY” (Not based on/inspired bybut IS “A TRUE STORY” ) I think is the noose they’re going to hang themselves by. For example: movies like “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” start off by telling you “based on a true story/true events” and you watch a long movie about a chainsaw-wielding-maniac that you find out later is based on Ed Gein; who 1-didn’t live in Texas, 2-Never was accused of chasing people with a chainsaw…I could go on…THE POINT IS: “Based on a true story/Inspired by true events” are disclaimers that give ALOT OF ROOM FOR “ARTISTIC LICENSE”/“Nuance”/“exaggeration”. But saying “This IS a True Story” really puts you on the hook! Seriously. If they just added the words “based on” at the beginning, this discussion wouldn’t happen!
I think it’s true because she’s in complete denial (la la land) like a lot of stalkers that can’t see what they did is wrong. They never admit they are in the wrong or that it even did happen in the first place. They would rather insinuate the other person is delusional.
If she is so adamant that she didn't do a single thing that is shown in the show, wouldn't it be a case of Netflix/Gadd being able to say 'if you didn't do any of this then its clearly not based on you'?
I don't see how she could have a case when the only people tying her to the show are some Redditors and herself.
If Gadd had agreed at any point, I could see how she could have potentially some leg to stand on. But the only person saying its definitely based on her, is Fiona herself.
I think Netflix said that it was a true story at the beginnjng and 'based' on a true story at the end. I wonder if that was a deliberate attempt to'sort of cover their backsides' from any of the anticipated reprocusions?
I think she's a liar liar pants on fire 😂
Haha Pinocchio
Wellcome back Luke …. Sent from my iPhone 🤣
Hi Martha x
Lol
The best thing about the show is that it is showing people what personality disorders are and what they look like in real life. Its generally only those whose work puts them into contact with them regulary have any clue as to what they are. Although peoples gut reaction about her red flags shows people can see danger without any training.
'This is a true story' is written by Donny at the beginning of the show. Not Netflix. Donny is writing this story. You can hear him typing on the keyboard to type those words. Donny is a fictional character, played by the actor who it happened to in real life. Netflix has a disclaimer at the end of every episode, stating it's dramatized for effect. They're covered. It's not their fault people don't wait until the end of the episode to see that. It's there. And always has been. Chris Daw (solicitor) hasn't taken the case on. He's just helped her by pointing her in the right direction. She has yet to form a 'team of solicitors/lawyers'. No matter who takes the case, if anyone does, they'll still get their pay...and possibly fame, interviews etc following the case IF it gets to court. Martha aka Fiona may not have been to prison but she could have injunctions against her, which is still a 'conviction' for a criminal act. Netflix aren't stupid. They'll have all this covered.
Thoroughly enjoyed your analysis Luke.
Fiona was very careful with her wording on the piers interview. She was definate about no court and no prison time. I’m wondering if she was detained in a mental health facility as part of the process.
Time will tell.
Take care Luke. 🥰♥️
In Scotland a 3 year degree is called an ordinary degree. It is pass/fail - no grade She would have to do an extra year to get her graded honours degree with a 1st 2nd etc.
The interview made me believe that Fiona is unstable and Richard Gadd has the right to tell his story. Nothing is completely accurate 100%, and Netflix started an artistic license was taken. Fiona made her own situation much worse. The actress did a great job and clearly had tons of reference material to work with. Hence, Fiona went off deep end.
💯%!
Narcissists are counting on the fact that they get ignored and to them it’s another way of keeping society controlled by the fear they create. I think exposing them and the harm they cause is the better way to protect their victims and deter their destructive behaviors. They hope to be ignored so that they can continue harassing people and don’t get held accountable
A “Basic DBS” only goes back 5 years. That’s what her attorney showed. Much of her stalking and harassment dates back to 1997. An “Enhanced DBS” will show all types of infractions. If it was a mental health facility, tougher but accessible. We’ll see.
In 1997 Gadd would of been a kid
I find it very hard to believe that she has any kind of law degree. There is record of working at a law firm for all of a week before being fired, however nothing is said in what role she was briefly employed, it could have been a receptionist or cleaner🤔
She's not a solicitor just has a degree from the 80s. I believe she worse than we know. Her insults throughout the interview show she is bitter towards everyone and targets people and gets obsessed.
There are so many things that point to her not being sufficiently qualified to be practicing law. Her terrible spelling and grammar would be problematic, but then you see her odd speech patterns and arrogant attitude and I can't imagine any clients being ok with that, never mind an employer. She was so evasive, so she perhaps lied about her qualifications and the firm either didn't check before hiring her, or were still waiting for replies/references etc and sacked her once made aware?
@@craftinghome absolutely agree with everything you said, however I still find it stretch to believe she would have been employed as a solicitor. Surely she would have been interviewed for the position and as you quite rightly pointed out even her speaking style is a big red flag, hence why I think it more likely that she was employed in a totally different job role at the firm.
She was a trainee in the law firm for 7 days, 10 years after passing her law degree…. So yeah, never had a proper job!
so many of these facts should be easily quantifiable
But Richard Gadd already did say parts of it were fictional but that doesn’t matter because she said Martha wasn’t her and she didn’t know Richard so her case makes no sense if it’s another woman
Something you may want to investigate nobody else has on this issue, according to her FB she has been trying to sue her local council for years. So hardly surprising she wants another case.
She says she has a boyfriend. I wonder if he knows that.
Haha
🤣
I doubt it ! 😂😂😂
He does now !
Pers Morgan DID give her water…
I agree with you 💯 %.
Surprised that the court/prison denial has not been verified or not as yet.
Yeah it’s weird isn’t it.
I've heard it's because of how their court system works there. It's not an open system like in the US.
She didn't go to jail in real life. Verified by Richard Gadd.
@@jewelssunsun9450
OK, I missed that. Where did you see/ hear that RG has verified that vital bit of the puzzle ?
Piers doesn't know about it as he's being asking RG for an interview for a while.
If it's true, Fiona will be able to sue big time ! That should be all over the media I would have thought !
@user-xc3fp1pj6e He was on both This Morning and Lorraine a few weeks ago. He said it on one of them. I can't remember which. There is a disclaimer in the ending credits that some of it is fictional. This may cover the discrepancies.
Correction...she said she didn't sound like the region she came from, she thought she was from another area of Scotland, she didn't work out the actress was actually English, so she did a fab job with the accent.
Uni grades I believe she said she got an ordinary degree...see below, it's basically a fail!
First-Class Honours (70% and above): a first class degree, usually referred to as a ‘first’ or 1st, is the highest honours degree you can achieve
Upper Second-Class Honours (60-70%): there are two levels of second class degree. An upper second class, known as a 2:1 or two-one, is the higher of the two levels
Lower Second-Class Honours (50-60%): a 2.2 or two-two is the lower level of the second class degree
Third-Class Honours (40-50%): known as a ‘third’ or 3rd, this degree is the lowest honours degree achievable
Ordinary Degree: If an honours student fails to achieve a third class by a small margin, they may be awarded an ordinary degree i.e. without honours.
And finally studying law is not the same as law school/ lawyer.
You can study psychology it doesn't make you a psychologist.
On that note repeatedly stating this is your 'analysis' and hashtagging this as psychology is missrepresenting yourself and this use of language/words is incorrect. Post is long enough so I won't explain the definition and use of the word analysis, it can be looked up.
Like you said you never went to university therefore I suspect this is language you have picked up, these are your views, opinions and observations, all of which are valid.
Not being snarky, it would be remiss not to mention this.😊
Thanks for that lol I know a lot more about how university results work now.
I’m not a psychologist at all but people who like psychology may enjoy someone’s analysis on the subject hence the tag.
Even if she Jessica was Scottish the accent is irrelevant, she’s a just acting lol
Fiona is clearly not a nice person and I believe she did a lot of these horrible things to Richard, though he was definitely no angel.
Thank you for the comment and interaction
You are absolutely correct in your description of degree grades awarded. Having said that, you've informed me on the subject of ordinary degrees because I had never heard of that grade. I have a 2:1, and I honestly can't imagine forgetting what my degree grade was even after almost 25 years of graduating. You're also correct about the wording used by the content creator but I can understand that, as you mentioned, people pick words like analysis up rather than using the more appropriate terms of opinion, view or observation.
Hi, I believe anyone can analyse anything and it doesn’t make/ or mean you are protesting to be be a professional.
For example I can analyse a football match and give my thoughts on it, like I have here with this subject.
You can analyse my content and form an opinion.
Thanks for commenting I appreciate it
@Breaktheice123 the difference is that analysing something, in simple terms, means one critically evaluates work in such a way that uses data to understand the issue and interpret that data. What you are doing is closer to the other terms suggested. Having said that, intention is not to be critical of your word choice or you. It's your video, and you can use whichever words you want. Discussion is good for the RUclips algorithm, so it's all good. I enjoy your content 😁
I get what you’re saying. Thank you ✌️ ❤️
I only watched two episodes , then went and watched the interview with Piers Morgan . She clearly didn’t want to respond about her law degree ! Crikey imagine if she never went to prison ! Netflix will be kicking themselves they never put Based on a true story !
She didn't go to prison, and Netflix put a disclaimer in the end credits that some of it is fictional.
Gadd has said that the last part of the show where Martha is convicted is dramatized for the show.
Where has he said this?
Yes this has been said. The ending of show even says some parts have been dramatized etc!
He said They needed “closure” for the show where in reality there was none
First clue was the Martha/Fiona is so narsasisstic she would have NEVER if admitted guilt
@@staceysoden3047that makes sense. Based on what she did in the interview.
@Breaktheice123 He said it on TV weeks ago. This Morning and/or Lorraine.
I just found this channel and I’m very pleased.
I saw the Madeline Mcann video and subbed immediately
Thank you ❤
Thank you, which video led you to me?
On the credits it's written "Based on the play Baby Reindeer by Richard Gadd"
And then on the final shot of the credits it says "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations, and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic purposes"
Richard Gadd said the serie should be seen in the realm of art.
And the serie is in the "dramas/comedies" genre. Not docuserie or documentary.
"True Story" is part of the title and promotion ... brilliant played by Netflix.
But a shame to Richard Gadd, who had his story, his show faded on the background of "will Fiona sue and win over Netflix"
Actually Fiona is making the show and story even bigger! There’s no “faded in the background”, she’s blasting it to the forefront!
The first thing it says is “this is a true story”
Even if it’s followed by what you stated…that is some serious misdirection and quite sly and calculating of Netflix
It may backfire …
It is a true story ... and the credits doesn't make it less a true story.
It's not "absolutely 100%" accurate, they make it clear on the credits, that some things were fictionalised. That was the words everybody says were missing "based on / fictionalised" - but they are there on the credits, from the first episode (I just checked on Netflix).
Neither Richard Gadd or Netflix said it was "100% absolutely true", and after Fionas interview, we are sure that story happened - and Netflix made it a serie, always stating there were parts fictionalised.
Netflix have covered their backsides with the credits at the end stating that it's 'based on a true story's. They would have solicitors & lawers in the background advising them on where to 'draw the line' / the legal boundaries to adhere in order to create a drama without the potential legal reprocusions.
Why are Netflix F-ed, as they haven’t said it’s a story about that dog, have they
What dog?
She's been ranting about Jessica Gunning on her Facebook or weeks. Calling her fat and ugly etc.
lol erm….no comment
Jessica Gunning is a phenomal actress and is much prettier than Fiona herself! Also has a much better "aura" and vibe than the thing she plays!
8:28 I thought she said it WAS flattering; did I misunderstand her in the interview? It’s def possible since i thought she said she HASNT SEEN the actress then went on to describe that “we’re both Scottish, we both have dark hair…”?
She said it’s not flattering which was a bit nasty and out of order. Shows her character
@@Breaktheice123 Oh I see, thank you for clarifying!
No, she isn't. She said it herself during the interview. She's filled with so many contradictions.
I haven’t seen this reindeer thing that everyone is on about, not sure I would like it!!
I wasn't sure if id like it but i ended up really loving it, its definitely an interesting show that made me want to keep watching so I think you should give it a go!
I wasn't going to watch it, but gave in and watched it. Ended up watching it back to back.
Two minutes in ,have only watched episode 1 so will watch the rest of your video later ! Thanks for saying spoiler alert !
She definitely has issues.
Thanks for covering this Luke- I now know not to watch it!! 😻🤷♀️👏
It’s a very Interesting watch but yeah, probably a bit pointless now considering the spoilers haha
Am I right in saying that someone else has come forward more recently since this video & claimed they’re the real Martha & now suing Netflix?! 😮 & why can’t I get the Eminem’s slim shady from repeatedly going round in my head lol 😂
I’m not too sure I’ll have to look into it. Haha why is that song looping through your mind?
Is she a stalker or just a nasty little internet troll ?
Think she could be a bit of both
Definitely both! She’s terrifying