David Walliams

He's worth £120 million - he will style this out in the shadows and retire to somewhere where he can be rich and anonymous to most and pap shots will appear from time to time reminding us that he is still alive.

I wouldn’t be too shocked if he does try to kill himself.
It’s the abuse of power that tends to drive a lot of this and so much of it goes on. So depressing isn’t it.

To me, having read all the Guardian content, it sounds like he has a history of grooming (how many?) 15 and 16 year old girls. I don't know if that's illegal but it's disgusting and given his status as a children's author, in my mind even more so. He is professionally destroyed. Maybe that's what's made him suicidal, maybe there's more to come out. Time will tell.

I didn’t talk about the legality of it. I said that it’s not as unproblematic as that poster suggests.

I think you know very well. But if I believe that one of my children has committed an offence and I pay off a witness or a victim so that they do not press charges then I am guilty. I suppose I could just pay them off believing that nothing had happened but it's probably worth a bit of reflection.

Actually- and I’m not just saying this - I always liked Matt. Somehow he didn’t give off the nasty vibes I got from DW. I know that sounds suspicious now!

I did enjoy the Vicki Pollard on trial in Thailand sketch with Dawn French as her mother. I probably shouldn’t have, but I did!

I didn’t talk about the legality of it. I said that it’s not as unproblematic as that poster suggests.

I'm so glad this and others behaving awfully is being exposed. Remember when the Sun did a countdown to Charlotte Church becoming 16 so legal to have sex? It was awful then and it's super awful now and it's right that it's shouted from the hilltops that grown men messing about with young women is disgusting. We all know men who would do it and ones that wouldn't. Then and now

Who do you think was an accessory, and to what offence?

"But what then is the status of Accessory after the Fact?"

In the UK that is typically referred to as 'Assisting an Offender' and is an offence

"Where a person has committed a relevant offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other relevant offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence."

In the case of 'Alex' he knew she was still at school when he contacted her. She thought he was helping her with work experience.

This is not 'men just being men'.

What on earth are you on about?

The Guardian article is not behind a paywall. You can read it.

Yep! You got that right

I'm not even reading these comments. Yes. Of course it's him.

@Bloozie @EarringsandLipstick @CoffeeCantata You might never have liked Little Britain, but in its day it had viewing figures of 9.5 million.

I'm not saying this applies to any of you individually, but I expect there will be thousands of people now saying they 'never liked' Walliams or Little Britain, just as Russell Brand was a complete pariah shunned by all and sundry whose TV output had viewing figures of nil and whose book was totally unsold and pulped after its first print run, or at least you would think so, based on what people are saying now.

I think people will, rightly, never fully forgive the Beeb over Savile, which they are fully responsible for; but I personally think the media (particularly the entertainment side) in general has a serious problem with men thinking they are too big to be challenged.

By all means the BBC has institutional issues, but let’s not pretend the other broadcasters are any better.

Brand, prior to becoming a Hollywood star, I mostly associate with C4 (particularly the ‘golden era’ of Big Brother), and Philip Schofield, despite starting in the broom cupboard, obviously spent most of his career on ITV.

As for Walliams, while he did do work for the BBC and got his big break with Little Britain, he also did just as much work on ITV (BGT). Also, in this case the worst organisation was HarperCollins, as they knew he was a risk by having to seriously change their working policies, yet not to the extent that they would lose profits; in fact, they would rather a woman be sexually assaulted than lose a transcript, which shows how little they cared about VAWAG 😡😡

It’s like the 70s all over again.Who next? Noel?

From what I’ve read (so far) there’s been no criminality- sleaziness, inappropriate behaviour yes- no wonder he wanted to try to prevent himself being identified . I do worry that events of decades ago with no indication of lack of consent can be reframed by the participants in a way that completely destroys someone.

Mea Culpa - I didn't realise it was just being discussed in an entirely legal context. But what then is the status of Accessory after the Fact?

That's how i feel, always hated the black face and the incontinent older woman was especially horrible. However I did find Vicky Pollard funny, and the slimming club was amusing and "computer says no" made me laugh. Always when stuff comes out there are an absolute slew of people saying they always hated the person in question, never watched them, always knew they were a wrong un. I laughed at some of Little Britain but there is no way i would want to watch it now and I laughed at Russell Brand when he first rose to fame. Time passed and I changed my opinion

LOL @ me

I really am being taken to school today. I need to just shut up.

This is what I think.

It’s not so much due to its time - I didn’t watch LB when it went out. I’ve seen bits since then and what struck me wasn’t so much racism, sexism and misogyny (although they’re all there) as the nastiness of the sketches. Beyond the dated attitudes, I found it just left a nasty taste in my mouth. It makes sense now we know what a vile person DW is.

Email and letters.

There is no mention of ‘abuse of power’ in the Sexual Offences Act. The phrase is ‘abuse of trust’ and it is limited to the positions (teachers, medical professionals etc) listed in sections 21-23 of the act.

The Queen paying off Giuffre to keep her quiet has nothing to do with it. Potentially Giuffre was trafficked, which is in itself a crime but has nothing to do with abuse of trust.