David Walliams

Steve Coogan made jokes about Jimmy Savile being a pervert and a creep for years. Then he played him and was paid £££££. Then the show was sold all around the world and won him praise. More millions in Steves bank, not a penny to the victims. I was assaulted by Savile and wrote to the BBC to ask if they thought it was appropriate for them to profit from telling the victims story, when they had enabled the rapist. But I didn't get an answer because Operation Yewtree survivors are still listed as vexatious complainants by the BBC.
Its pretty wild eh?

To be fair to both Ross and Gervais (but particularly Gervais as this was right at the start of his career), we don’t know the context there at all. I gather it was a charity comedy event, they probably didn’t know who this girl was and perhaps it was commonplace for young people to be invited along. They’re posing for a quick photo, she isn’t sitting with them so presumably didn’t drink and dine alongside them. I don’t know, it’s easy to judge from snapshots. I doubt Gervais is complicit, he was very fresh on the scene when that pic was taken.

He has always had an unpleasant vibe about him, somehow. And some of his humour is distinctly misogynistic.

You get no context at all from that photograph?

Astonishing.

Gervais, appeared in Spaced, the 11 O'Clock Show, Meet Ricky Gervais 2000 and before. After that The Office and Extras.

He looks very established with Ross there. More so than sat-at-the-back Walliams.

But sure. I'd be more inclined to write it off if the picture was AFTER Ross chose to use a submitted joke about 16 year olds.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I guess its also possible that Ghislane just didn't notice Guiffre and Andrew together in that picture.

Now everyone will have an idea who the next one is too …..

Except a lot of people included in "everyone" are brain-dead morons.

The Daily Star has said there's another injunction out preventing allegations of a sexual nature coming out. They give no clues to the identity but confirm there are multiple complaints from women. Yet at least half the "guesses" being made by people on the report are suggesting GAY MEN.

This is a reliable rounding up of the current stories. The journalist on here says there is another injunction - so they will know who it is? From about 6:50 listing the lawyers protecting Brand ......

Page 94 | The Private Eye Podcast

The daily mail are saying there is another person with an injunction.

Yes, the journalist Justine Smith (in the podcast I shared above) alleged that there’s another man who has obtained an injunction. She alleges the man has ‘multiple, multiple victims’.

Which is exactly what I was referring to where half the suggestions of who it could be named gay men despite the allegations being assault on women.

Not doubting you, but where does it say the victims are assaults on women?

There's the Evelyn Scott comments, but no reason to suggest its the same perp.

It doesn’t say it’s women.

the thing is people are guessing anyone associated with walliams. But it could be anyone, from David Beckham on. Clearly not insinuating it’s him, but the point is it could be anyone, it doesn’t need to be someone who was mates qirh walliams.

Oh, then I totally agree. Walliams was obvious from the docket register reported elsewhere. "Lee" was obvious after a few hours of working out shared histories. This one will require diving into CE-File and then searching archived notices again like for Walliams and frankly, this time I'm going to wait for someone on Reddit to do it.

Urgh - this video is 'Little Britain in Australia', I think it's a documentary about their tour there, the opening 14 seconds is so gross I stopped it there and decided not to proceed any further.

Have you listened to the podcast where Justine Smith says: "I've spoken to one of the alleged victims in one of them; she's prepared to speak publicly and be named, but we still can't publish that."

Daily Star is pretty clear in its reporting too.

On the podcast Justine Smith says: "I've spoken to one of the alleged victims in one of them; she's prepared to speak publicly and be named, but we still can't publish that."

Right. I listened to it and totally missed that. Ta.

I picked up two novels by Ben Elton and the first one had so many yuk references to teenage girls in skirts. I skim read those sections then found the second novel did the same. He seems obsessed.

I dont understand these NDA's actually, who says the person cant disclose anything or talk to a therapist? What happens if they do?

Nothing much most likely. Most NDAs aren’t really enforceable. But most people aren’t willing to take the risk, especially if they are young and work in an industry where powerful men can see to it that you never work again.

Yes it is chilling to receive this letter - they are very young women - this from the Guardian article:

The letter was written by Jenny Afia, a renowned lawyer specialising in reputation management for the law firm Schillings. .... She also acted for Walliams. Afia wrote to the young woman, who was 19 at the time: “You are at a significant risk of committing a serious civil offence should you disclose, to the press or any other third party, private information or purported private information concerning our client.”
A spokesperson for Schillings said they had been instructed to write the letter as they had understood that the woman was going to “sell her story”, which Walliams believed was “an untruthful account”. Walliams’ lawyers add that he was concerned about the impact such a story could have on his family.
The legal letter demanded a written undertaking within 24 hours that the woman would not talk about her experience with Walliams. She had no representation and Sarah says she was shaken by the threat.
“If that was me, I’d have freaked out,” Sarah says. Looking back, she wonders if such action had a chilling effect on other women speaking out. “I think all this should have come out a long time ago.”

The Private Eye podcast also says how quick Brand was to resort to legal firms to shut anything down. This firm Schillings they say words to the effect "yes, it would be them".

Yes and no

I think we need to bear in mind there are lots of abusers and more often than not, they're not superior or have any status. The only thing they have in common is that they are men.

We do tend to hear about the celeb ones/famous ones, teachers, nurses, police officers, barristers, because they'll make news.

The binman down the road or the homeless bloke, doesnt tend to make the news

Reality is, men dont actually need status to do this or get away with it.

Look at the grooming scandals, just cabbies, no status, not high class people.

I dont understand though, under what law or legislation can they say there is a civil offence being committed if she speaks about it?

They can’t, all that can happen is he can sue her for libel. It’s not like a criminal conviction

What they seem to do is 'assume' that you are going to sell your story to the media and take that as an opportunity to frighten you. It is not a good way of using the law but neither are the injunctions. Walliams and Brand have millions so they just automatically go to Schillings, or one of the others.

It is not in the interest of the public and, as Justine Smith said in the podcast I share earlier, the perpetrators are then free to target other victims.