Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Thread gallery
19
Wildgoat · 17/10/2026 17:47

Laiste · 17/10/2026 17:28

So is it Walliams then? If it's not the name being hushed up but what he did?

Whomever it is has been granted temp anonymity until the trial , at rhe end of Oct, by the high court. as have the three journalists who wrote the articles, including one who is saying she is one of his victims, she needs privacy.

as said there is confusion on here, the injunction is not to hide who he is. The injunction is to stop the details of rhe allegations being made public. If he succeeds the articles and the details they contain, will never be allowed to be published, by anyone, if he fails, it won’t just be his name, it will be the details of rhe allegations being made, the allegations are about misconduct and a sexual offense,

Wildgoat · 17/10/2026 17:57

TheSunIsAlwaysThere · 17/10/2026 15:55

Thank you. I have no time for anyone who threatens suicide. This has reminded me of my now ex husband being forced into admitting an affair and said he'd thought of killing himself. I panicked as I still loved him at that point and he's my children's father. Three years later and happily divorced, not as fussed.

As much as I fully agree, I think this is slightly different to be fair. He has bipolar disorder, and severe depression, he first attempted suicide in his teens,. He also suffers severe anxiety, self loathing and insomnia. He is very mentally unwell, so I don’t think this is as simple as he is threatening suicide to stop it, more it is a very real risk he will succeed, his life is genuinly at risk. He’s tried twice in recent months, he is very very unwell.

however the judge and posters are corect, there is services available to prevent it, and help he can access. But a determined person will succeed.

his lawyers are using this as a way to stop it, and I don’t think that’s right,if he’s a suicide risk, which I don’t doubt he is, and a very real one at that, then he should be sectioned.

but I also need to balance that with the fact these are allegations. If there are criminal allegations it needs to be handled by the police, not the media. And people will read it and assume it’s true, it will be trial by media.

if The judge says it can be published then his lawyers can potentially appeal if they can show the judge applied the law wrong. So it could go on.past end of Oct.

i think the judge has a difficult decision, his job is purely to apply the law. Whomever it is beinf unwell is something that can’t sway his decision,

likelysuspect · 17/10/2026 18:03

Wildgoat · 17/10/2026 17:57

As much as I fully agree, I think this is slightly different to be fair. He has bipolar disorder, and severe depression, he first attempted suicide in his teens,. He also suffers severe anxiety, self loathing and insomnia. He is very mentally unwell, so I don’t think this is as simple as he is threatening suicide to stop it, more it is a very real risk he will succeed, his life is genuinly at risk. He’s tried twice in recent months, he is very very unwell.

however the judge and posters are corect, there is services available to prevent it, and help he can access. But a determined person will succeed.

his lawyers are using this as a way to stop it, and I don’t think that’s right,if he’s a suicide risk, which I don’t doubt he is, and a very real one at that, then he should be sectioned.

but I also need to balance that with the fact these are allegations. If there are criminal allegations it needs to be handled by the police, not the media. And people will read it and assume it’s true, it will be trial by media.

if The judge says it can be published then his lawyers can potentially appeal if they can show the judge applied the law wrong. So it could go on.past end of Oct.

i think the judge has a difficult decision, his job is purely to apply the law. Whomever it is beinf unwell is something that can’t sway his decision,

I dont think there are proper services to assist, as I said I have countless service user clients who have these types of symptoms and disorders. MH intervention is patchy, disconnected, slow often dismissive, medication is basic and one dimensional.

AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta · 17/10/2026 18:06

Wildgoat · 17/10/2026 17:57

As much as I fully agree, I think this is slightly different to be fair. He has bipolar disorder, and severe depression, he first attempted suicide in his teens,. He also suffers severe anxiety, self loathing and insomnia. He is very mentally unwell, so I don’t think this is as simple as he is threatening suicide to stop it, more it is a very real risk he will succeed, his life is genuinly at risk. He’s tried twice in recent months, he is very very unwell.

however the judge and posters are corect, there is services available to prevent it, and help he can access. But a determined person will succeed.

his lawyers are using this as a way to stop it, and I don’t think that’s right,if he’s a suicide risk, which I don’t doubt he is, and a very real one at that, then he should be sectioned.

but I also need to balance that with the fact these are allegations. If there are criminal allegations it needs to be handled by the police, not the media. And people will read it and assume it’s true, it will be trial by media.

if The judge says it can be published then his lawyers can potentially appeal if they can show the judge applied the law wrong. So it could go on.past end of Oct.

i think the judge has a difficult decision, his job is purely to apply the law. Whomever it is beinf unwell is something that can’t sway his decision,

This is an excellent post.

tommyhoundmum · 17/10/2026 18:10

noodlezoodle · 17/10/2026 02:51

I can't see a world in which this post doesn't get deleted.

But it's a very interesting situation, and if it's the person that 90% of this thread thinks it is, I believe it's an entirely cynical attempt to prevent publication. I also think it won't work.

Given the undisputed facts that are already in the public domain, the allegations must be so much worse than I expected.

I have only ever seen hints about this man. What has he done?

AnnaQuayRules · 17/10/2026 18:12

Greenseawitch · 17/10/2026 17:24

I mentioned this because there are rumours of an injunction that resulted on articles being removed recently on the topic the ex girlfriend of a well known Tory. This female academic is facing charges of possessing indecent images of minors but the mainstream media has been strangely quiet about it but X/Twitter were openly discussing it.

Similar to what this male celeb is now trying to achieve (silencing the media), but again X is being used to openly share his name and is proving more resilient than traditional media outlets.

I'm not on X or Reddit but I saw this reported somewhere. Michael Gove and an Oxford academic.

ithinkthereforeyouarewrong · 17/10/2026 18:22

Twilight7777 · 17/10/2026 01:12

Perhaps only fools know who the person is 😏

Is this a reference to the nineties sitcom in Peckham? Rather than the other posts ref DW

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 18:24

ithinkthereforeyouarewrong · 17/10/2026 18:22

Is this a reference to the nineties sitcom in Peckham? Rather than the other posts ref DW

Oh that's locked down tight forever I think.

ithinkthereforeyouarewrong · 17/10/2026 18:25

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 18:24

Oh that's locked down tight forever I think.

So it’s a thing DJ? I’ve never heard anything

likelysuspect · 17/10/2026 18:28

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 18:24

Oh that's locked down tight forever I think.

What is?

Talkinpeace · 17/10/2026 19:19

Andrew Marr had a superinjunction to cover up infidelity

the rich abuse the law

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 19:24

Saville and Harris really hurt the BBC. They can't afford anything more to escape just now. The government are musing on putting anyone using broadband with a charge to support our state television.

placemats · 17/10/2026 19:28

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 19:24

Saville and Harris really hurt the BBC. They can't afford anything more to escape just now. The government are musing on putting anyone using broadband with a charge to support our state television.

David is ITV.

placemats · 17/10/2026 19:30

justasking111 · 17/10/2026 19:24

Saville and Harris really hurt the BBC. They can't afford anything more to escape just now. The government are musing on putting anyone using broadband with a charge to support our state television.

Should we all just not have "state" TV? And pay for the privilege of watching dictator shite like GB News?

placemats · 17/10/2026 19:35

The allegations floating around this thread clearly demonstrate that white British men will certainly become millionaire celebrities and abuse the vulnerable in sight.

catspyjamas1 · 17/10/2026 19:57

AnnaQuayRules · 17/10/2026 18:12

I'm not on X or Reddit but I saw this reported somewhere. Michael Gove and an Oxford academic.

🤯 WHAT!?!!

SpidersAreShitheads · 17/10/2026 19:57

likelysuspect · 17/10/2026 18:03

I dont think there are proper services to assist, as I said I have countless service user clients who have these types of symptoms and disorders. MH intervention is patchy, disconnected, slow often dismissive, medication is basic and one dimensional.

I think that's absolutely true if you're trying to access MH support through the NHS. But I think that private healthcare is a very different beast and that there's plenty of support, care, treatment, and facilities available if you have the means to pay for it. While private treatment can't guarantee to eradicate any illness, it can give you access to medication/treatment that's not available on the NHS due to the cost.

On a more general note, if a male celebrity is wielding his MH as a means to try and avoid accountability for what he's done, I have little sympathy I'm afraid. He may well struggle more with the fallout than another person without the same MH difficulties, but no one forced him to act as he did. And as PP have pointed out, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

Weaponising suicidal ideation is incredibly manipulative, imo.

Also, celebrities who haven't been convicted aren't necessarily innocent. It just means the threshold for objective proof or conviction beyond reasonable doubt hasn't been met. Of course it doesn't mean that every allegation is true but I'm wary of declaring someone as innocent just because a court hasn't found them guilty. Neil Gaiman is an excellent example of this.

Supersimkin7 · 17/10/2026 20:37

I think we’re confusing justice in the courts v justice by media.

Judges loathe trial by tabloid but given they know better than anyone you can’t get convictions for sex crimes in court, they’re usually ok with letting stuff like DW out under free speech.

DW has been very ill indeed. He is a suicide risk. But so are lots of sex pests & they don’t get privacy, we say.

Well, what good does more hearsay about anyone do anyway? Let’s just have a trial.

Stinkybooks · 17/10/2026 21:31

@likelysuspect have a feel of a frosty horse…….
I think that’s where that clue leads. 😂

But the majority of comments on this thread think DW.
I’ve no clue either way!

MyObservations · 17/10/2026 22:05

@noodlezoodle what exactly are the undisputed facts in the public domain regarding DW? As far as I'm aware there are only allegations and it is on those allegations that led his publisher and the BBC to drop him.

Greenseawitch · 17/10/2026 22:26

At this point I am not sure what the point of trying to silence the media is as this man's name is all over X and being discussed on various online forums.

I also fail to see why his mental health would be more important than the mental well-being of the people he allegedly was inappropriate towards.

Just like Brand is trying to use 'finding religion' as an excuse, this one is using mental health as another cop out.

No sympathy from me since there have been rumours circulating about his behaviour for years and he enjoyed being enabled and protected because of his celebrity.

CrazyMidget · 17/10/2026 22:48

HammockFace · 17/10/2026 17:19

Ooofe, please not : (

Only Fools? Nicholas Lyndhurst?

WilliamTopazMcGonagallPoorPoetFromDundeeBeItTold · 17/10/2026 22:58

CrazyMidget · 17/10/2026 22:48

Only Fools? Nicholas Lyndhurst?

Unless I'm extremely poorly informed, I've never seen or heard the slightest suggestion of any impropriety whatsoever from Nicholas.

likelysuspect · 17/10/2026 23:00

Stinkybooks · 17/10/2026 21:31

@likelysuspect have a feel of a frosty horse…….
I think that’s where that clue leads. 😂

But the majority of comments on this thread think DW.
I’ve no clue either way!

Ive no idea what this means

So an actor in Only Fools and Horses can only be DJ or NL obviously, some scandal about them. Never heard of any. What is it?