David Walliams

There was a whole thread on here about why Matt Lucas hasn't said anything since the documentary. Well over 100 posts, 80% saying "he must have known", "he must have seen things", "why hasn't he made a statement".

He's not worked with him very much in the last 12 or so years, whereas Amanda and Alesha have worked with him and awful lot in that time. There were specific allegations in the documentary about girls visiting him at BGT. The guy who spoke to Lucy Beaumont about what he saw the previous year sounds almost certain to be at BGT.

Hardly anyone asking the women what they "must have seen" or asking "why haven't they made a statement".

I suspect the answer is all of them gave been told by their lawyers to keep shtum for now, as they'll be damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I am wondering what Alesha and Amanda think about all of this.

Read somewhere of a schoolgirl on Instagram randomly got a follow by Walliams. He was 48 at the time. It was clear she was still at school because some of her grid was her and her mates in school uniform etc. She had never had any contact with him before, never followed him etc. She wanted to take her mum to a BGT recording for a birthday treat. He arranged the tickets. When she got there the guest tickets for all the seats DW had reserved were full of young girls. The production team moved her and her mum out of the DW guest area and put them in the front row. She noted DW kept looking at the empty seats. She went to see him afterwards with her mum and he said where were you, you were meant to see me before the show. He invited her to an aftershow party. A security guard showed them out and warned her mum to not attend the party. She went home with her mum. I don’t think she had any more contact with him. She is now an instagrammer, may have appeared on reality tv. He stopped following her when she aged out.

Now, Simon C, Amanda H and Aleysha D are not blind. Did they not see that his guest sections at the many shows that it takes to record one series, were all young girls. Amanda H has girls in the age range, would she not think it odd that a middle aged man was only inviting teenage girls? I am not blaming her for what he did, but it is just an indication that anything goes in that world. And not just that world - his publishers wouldn’t allow single young females to be alone with him.

Money is at the root of all this. Blind eyes being turned if they are earning them revenue. Nobody is that talented that can be given carte blanche to act immorally or illegally.

As pp said, I believe the law is changing for the better but, for example, a victim could have complained about the behaviour of a colleague at work but if the company cared more about the income stream provided by the person who behaved inappropriately, they might decide to recompense the victim and manage them out, but as a condition of receiving their pay off, they are forced to sign an NDA.

This is depressingly true.

True. Criminal acts by men don’t decrease as income goes down.

I'm not entirely sure who you're talking about.

But generally speaking, as well as an employment situation, NDAs are also used when companies want to keep sensitive information private.

For example, you might be visiting a company and they have some super secret process or something. They may require you to sign an NDA before they will show you that process.

In an entertainment setting, it may be that the NDA will be there so that people don't take photos or record any conversation that was had. A fan may have been told that they can speak to DW but they need to sign an NDA so that they don't share any photos they may take or repeat anything they spoke about.

However, if a person is a victim of crime (or reasonably believes that they are) then an NDA cannot prevent you talking to the police. For example, if a fan signed an NDA and then was subjected to unwanted physical contact then the NDA would not prevent them from reporting this to the police.

However, unless you actually know this then a young person may be fearful of reporting an offence to the police simply because they don't realise that they can go to the police regardless of having signed an NDA.

.

The law on NDAs changed last year and with any NDAs signed since then (so this doesn't apply to older NDAs) a victim of crime can also speak to a regulated professional (eg solicitor, doctor, nurse, social worker, teacher etc) or charity for the purpose of getting help or support. Even if you don't report anything to the police.

The new government guidance on this says:

"For example, you have been asked to sign an NDA by a high-profile acquaintance about an incident where they hit you. You report it to the police, and the individual is charged. You then go to a victim support service to get advice on how you navigate the criminal justice system and to get specialist support to help you mentally cope with the impact of the crime. During your engagement with this support service, you are able to tell them about the criminal conduct for the purpose of obtaining support from that service in relation to the crime, even if your NDA says you can’t."

You can now also talk to certain family members, a parent, child, or partner for the purpose of getting support in relation to any criminal activity even if the NDA says that you can't. But this doesn't cover other people such as a cousin or friends.

This isnt really about rich men. Hopefully your daughter is aware of the vast numbers of sex offenders from all classes, the local news and local court listings are full of them. They're all the same no matter what their income.

So the people subject to the NDA, signed it? Like a private agreement

Why did they do that?

Chinese spies do seem to get everywhere.
Wr don’t know what goes on do we :(
So much sleaze

DD2 just asked me about Nvidia and what is wrong with rich men. Wasn’t sure what to say. One would assume that if you have power and money, you would take that responsibility seriously and want to set an example for the next generation and handle that power with care, not via your penis all round.

The far right need the population to be as scared as possible, scared people (broadly speaking) are more likely to support right wing leaders.

It's been really enlightening to have conversations with men around me and read men's comments online about David Walliams. So many of them are defending him. They really seem to think 16 and 17 year old girls are fair game. It's been a bit of an eye opener for me to be honest. Really disheartening. I think this will be an interesting conversation to have as the case unfolds further.

You'll be pleased to see that it is reported that Lucy has sold out her books and tickets to her tour are selling well too.

For the two 14 year old boys yes (they got four years), but the 13 year old boy got an 18 month community sentence.

Thank you for explaining that.

Was immediate custody had for those guilty of rape in this case?

If it's the case that I'm thinking of then the offenders were children aged 13 and 14 at the time of the offence (although 14 and 15 when it came to court).

In that case, the two 14 year old boys eventually received four years each and the 13 year old was given an 18 month community sentence.

In the UK, children are generally given shorter sentences than adults. Although, whether children are given unduly lenient sentences is certainly a debate to be had, I don't feel that it is right to compare a 13 year old boy to Russell Brand in terms of the sentence received.

However, I would argue that certain offences are so serious that immediate custody should follow regardless of age and that a community sentence was inappropriate.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal about unduly lenient sentencing but the court upheld the sentencing for the younger boy.

The case in the Court of Appeal was R v X, Y & Z [2026] EWCA Crim 845. It is very grim reading what happened.

Thanks re NDAs @Another2Cats

Not many do go back, depends where eg Albania is higher. In contrast, Home Office data analysed by The Times shows that fewer than 1 in 20 offenders (under 5%) are deported to countries like Nigeria, Jamaica, Algeria (4.2%), Iraq (3.4%), and Somalia (0.6% to 2.7%).

I mean if they are whingeing that foreign criminals are being deported rather than serving the usual time in a UK jail at the cost of the UK taxpayer, then I am really utterly confused by what the “far right” want. Maybe they don’t want the prisons cleared after all to make way for other types of homegrown criminals? I wonder why.

I thought the Government changed the sentencing rules and the rules around human rights and asylum seekers who commit crimes, especially sex crimes - to make it far easier to deport them back to their country of origin. So I am not sure what the “far right” are whingeing about.
www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-criminals-excluded-from-uk-under-strict-new-rules

The far right are always going to find a way of bringing their eternal desire for victim status into it.

Yes, 18ths for some asylum seekers. Not sure if that's true or not but that's what some on sm are saying. That it's unfair, etc.

What's "18ths"? - 18-month prison sentences?

There's a lot of focus on sm about the disparity between RB and others that have been given 18ths for rape and thinking it unfair or a conspiracy.