For her to prove defamation - she has to prove loss of earnings/future earnings or damage to her reputation. I honestly don't think she can prove either......if she's claiming benefits at 58 years old, the likelihood of her working in the future is improbable. Her reputation has been damaged for the last 27 years, since harassing Laura, her husband, child and employees. Chris Daw must have taken on the case shortly after he was on Piers Morgan. I doubt he knew about the 276 vicious emails to Keir Starmer that were revealed in the last few days.
They didn’t though. And it’s a bit late to add it now!
Defamation is the group word : spoken word = slander - libel = written form
They have it -or similar- at the end of each episode stating that characters and situations have been created for dramatic purposes.
So she could sue gadd but not netflix because they acted in information they were given?
It is very difficult and usually only successful when you're a celebrity or large business owner etc. It's not enough that someones lies about you - you have to show you've lost something that gives rise to damages. In my opinion Fiona has not. She does not have work or a livelihood to lose. She is not a public figure who might lose work such as Johnny Depp. As has also been pointed out over and over again, neither Gadd nor Netflix have said Fiona is Martha, even now. Truth is a defence to defamation, anything about stalking I expect will be covered under that. People keep saying it's not enough that Netflix said 'it's a true story' with some other statement at the end - without being a media lawyer, I would really expect that the Netflix legal team either knows enough about media law to know they've sufficiently covered themselves, OR they have already built a realistic quantum settlement into the budget for the show, on the basis that this has all riled up a lot of attention for the platform.
It's very obvious how she can be on benefits. Would you employ her? Plus many people have health issues that you can't see - you can't tell who has cancer by looking at them.I can't understand how she can be on benefits. She has no obvious health conditions (if you ignore the mh issues). She's apparently a qualified lawyer living in London where there would be plenty of jobs. My guess is she is on pip due to mh issues
To be honest I know very little about benefits as no personal experience, fortunately. I do know that if you're on JSA they expect you to take any job that you're fit enough to do. I do see lots of pip applications at work though & I know how strict that is. Of course we have no idea about why she doesn't wor,k, but it is probably fair to assume she's unemployable due to her vile personality.
Thank you, that's really informative and has helped my understanding.
So you could argue the premiss is true - there are stalkers out there who’s actions have far reaching consequences, it’s incredibly hard to prove the stalking & obtain some resolution through law, the stalker can’t identify with the harm they have done as the don’t see that pouring all that attention on someone is wrong or harmful, the abused has the potential to become the abuser, people who suffer trauma may be left open to further abuse and it takes one show (good or so bad it’s good) to really turn around an entertainers career.
Just a few of my musings having had an extremely long week at work!
TV gold! Also a big fan of watching her deposition - what a mess!
I doubt they'd let the cameras in to our court rooms - I wish they would!!!TV gold! Also a big fan of watching her deposition - what a mess!
Would be great to see Fiona on the stand
"