David Walliams

Some of us, yes, but the majority? I don't think so, based on MN threads and definitely not based on X for the last 48 hours.

@IdentifyingAsAWoollyMammoth

I think many of us have a balanced approach to this whole issue. It doesn't have to be either or, as you can see from my post above 2 days ago.

What I find interesting is everyone jumping on Jonathan Ross MUST knowing something when all we can say is he MAY know something.

However no one is going for anyone at HarperCollins. Yet several staff there absolutely DID know. And quite some time ago. And did NOTHING.

Why is everyone more concerned about those who MIGHT have known rather than those who DID? I'd start with them first.

I suspect there are people out there thrilled that the attention is all on Ross.

NDAs are usually used in work situations to prevent employees from disclosing sensitive information. However, they cannot be used to prevent somebody disclosing a crime or harassment, discrimination etc. Yes, they are legally binding.

So, for example, if a celebrity (or anyone) hires a full-time nanny to look after their children then they may require the nanny to sign an NDA. The NDA would prevent the nanny from telling the world about what the celebrity got up to. That is, unless they were breaking the law or something in which case the NDA doesn't apply.

There is also something called 'misuse of private information'. This actually came up in the DW judgment. As part of the reasoning for why the judge decided not to uphold the injunction was that:

[234] "The Claimant has not pleaded misuse of private information, breach of confidence..."

If you disclose information (or threaten to disclose) about a person where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy about that information then they can apply for an injunction to stop you doing that or apply for damages.

Not all information about a person would be covered by this but it can be quite wide ranging at times.

For example, it can include taking photos of their children. Both JK Rowling and the singer Paul Weller were successful in claiming damages against organisations that published photos of their children.

If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy then, like in the DW case, the judge will then have to balance the human rights Article 8 (privacy and family life) against Article 10 (freedom of expression) to decide whether to grant an injunction or damages.

I think his ex-wife was forced to share her cancer diagnosis as well, so that the papers will leave her alone. Terrible for her & their son.

I’ve just bought her book. I feel there has to be some level of public support as she probably will never work in TV again.

My replies to you have been entirely consistent thanks.

You replied “yes and no” to my post where I pointed out that it wasn’t just in celebrity circles where these crimes are perpetuated and where nonetheless power and control is a significant factor.

Power imbalances with regard to a victim is a factor in a all sorts of non-celebrity professional and leisure settings which allows men to perpetuate these sorts of crimes; eg doctors, priests, managers, teachers, music and gymnastic coaches, for example.

I agree that the entitlement and celebrity status of these high profile men, and their money, allowed them to evade discovery, and I pointed out they have all tried to use poor mh as mitigating factors, but I think it’s wrong to think that the newest recruit to an ordinary army regiment , the wet behind the ears police trainee, the teenage music student, the child altar server in a church, aren’t as equally at risk as the potential victim working as a runner on a film set, in a tv studio or in a book publisher’s or at a post production party somewhere in Soho.

Power imbalances occur everywhere in society not just in the celebrity realm and it’s important to be aware of that.

Look, this is another case of The Emperor’s New Clothes. From Day 1, Walliams has been grotesque. His original comedies and characters were obscene, and he was an obvious weirdo. He’d have to be to act the way he did. Then the craziest thing ever - he gets reinvented as a children’s author (writing books I couldn’t read out to my child, as they were too vicious and mocking), becomes a feted host on BGT, and marries a super model.
I mean, WTAF?

Brand, too - always a freakster and squeaky-voiced lothario whose hair needed brushing raw with no detangling spray.

Im not sure what you thought you were answering or what you thought I was answering, your post doesnt make any sense in response to mine.

Mine was in response to a post saying that ones status enabled these men to get away with or commit these crimes.

What I don’t understand is that Walliams wasn’t really on my radar before Brand, the injunction and the tv programme power and silence

does this mean there are charges outside of what we know? Surely no jury can be independent based on what’s out there ?

I strongly disagree with this because you have missed out the most important element that all the research in this area points to; which is that sex crimes are as much about power and control as the physical abuse.

It doesn’t matter if someone is a bin man; if he is older, physically stronger, and more knowledgeable about the ways of the world than his vulnerable, gullible, younger, less physically strong victim, then the power imbalance is obvious.

Ditto the grooming gangs who weren’t high status but they deliberately picked on victims who were vulnerable as do most predators.

Even flashers rely on the element of surprise to gain control over their victims. And flashing by the way has been identified as an entry level sex offence that leads to progressively more serious offences.

Make no mistake about it, this is all about the sexual and psychological thrill that some men gain from exercising control over victims.

Do they or do they not refer to children as ‘young women’?

Bollocks. They’ve been the ones outing people. You’re just smearing .

I would speculate that as its the same media organisations, same solicitors, and same judge that it's related. So it's either Walliams part 2 (unlikely as it would be marked for transparency after no appeal) or it's someone whom the same investigation uncovered. This would seem on the face of it to be someone Walliams adjacent.

Not sure where the firm conclusion on who it is comes from.

Justine Smith, on the podcast, did say that the unnamed man obtained his injunction several months ago and remains "in the public eye."

😁

I think AI is a liar.

I thought that had been firmly established.

AI tells me that UNN is not a verified source and fringe outlet.

I told AI was not in the UK (shhh, I am) and that it could tell me who the celeb was. It said that apparently no one knows and the name has not even been released abroad.

I think AI is a liar.

So ITN and The Guardian again? Are there different initials in this file?

Case number for FTP is KB-2026-002854 filed in July for those with CE File access.

Same media organisations.

This might be the earlier Walliams filing but it's not marked as resolved.

Eh? Which gay men? And which guy?

Sam Fox is as just 16 when she first did Page 3. The countdown became a thing after that.

I think Melinda Messenger. I don't know why Emma Watson keeps being brought up. Pretty certain it was not her.

Wasn’t it Charlotte Church?

Was it Emma Watson where The Sun ran a vile countdown until her 16th birthday?

Some of the reporting on Walliams brought it to mind.