Injunction against ITN by a well known individual?

[TheRealSmurfette]

Who is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/16/well-known-individual-tries-to-secure-permanent-injunction-against-guardian-and-itn

I realise my view will be unpopular on MN but everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I so hate the precedent now of hounding people in the UK and hopping on the judgemental bandwagon without any evidence or knowing the person at all. It’s pretty horrible behaviour.

I think this is a witty reference to the Emily and Florence skit on Little Britain . . . 'I am a LADY'

Nah, DW is widely known to be a terrible person and a predator. There’s nothing innocent about him.

I don't want to name names, but if you look at reddit, or even ask GPT for those not subjected to UK laws, then the name is quite outing.

You know him personally then do you? 🙄

We know exactly how he speaks about people, he’s revolting.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/oct/19/britains-got-talent-company-knew-of-david-walliams-derogatory-remarks-when-it-offered-deal-say-court-papers

I agree with your basic point, but in this case the person everyone believes this is about has been removed from the business that was making a huge amount of money from sales of his stuff, and the loss of revenue and relationship damage if he was to sue them for defamation if they didn't have strong evidence is enough for me this time around.

But that is a different issue- and I agree there is merits to discussing that.

But currently, only the very wealthy can hide their misdemeanors/crimes.

I don't agree with injunctions at all.

I don’t agree with the hounding of people that the press often does(see Caroline Flack)particularly over allegations which are not the same as convictions. But it feels very uncomfortable that a rich man can control the narrative with money and power.
There is also the fact that often people feel more able to come forward (and be believed) if they hear about others who had the same / similar experiences.

Well I’ve got eyes and I’ve seen the video of him sexually assaulting someone on stage, plus, you know, all the evidence against him. Do you have to know someone personally to know they’re a wrong un? Is that actually what you think?

Of course it goes without saying that it is very important that every person is subject to a fair legal process.

And as someone who has had a member of my family take their own life, I understand all too well that mh problems should be treated very seriously.

However, I very much hope that the judge considers the state of the mh of the alleged victims in this case to be equally important too.

And I wonder why poor mh never seems to prevent these predatory men from offending in the first place?

I AM ANGRY!

So we don’t know for sure who this is but we do know that a rich, powerful man is using his wealth and power to try to silence a piece about him that will share the testimony of over 100 people.

So he “…has been accused of inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities with girls and young women...” (Guardian).

The barrister fighting the injunction: “…said it was in the public interest to publish the allegations given their similarity from various sources who mostly did not know each other, which “indicated a pattern of behaviour”.
“…Many of the women who have reported these allegations have been traumatised by the claimant’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result.” Press Gazette.

This is why I am SO angry…

Freud said that ‘hysteria’ in women was caused by sexual abuse. The rich powerful men that paid him to treat the women in their lives (remember women were not often financially independent then) didn’t like it (I wonder why and if it’s because they were the abusers?), so Freud was forced to back track (I am over simplifying but this is true).

Then ensued decades of (mostly) women being pathologised and labelled mad or bad, treated in all kinds of ways by psychiatry (medicated, straight jacketed, electric shock therapy, institutionalised, labelled, stigmatised etc) - for their very understandable reactions to being sexually abused by (mostly) men.

The Royal College of Psychiatry very recently published an apology for this pathologising and systemic gaslighting of victims of CSA. Including debunking the idea of ‘false memory syndrome’.

And here we have the same dynamic playing out in the court system. Powerful, wealthy man using his power and wealth to silence the voices of women who have (allegedly) been sexually abused and suffered the consequences of that.

So we understand from the court case that he wants to take his own life and has made attempts. May be because he is innocent (however surely you would conclude that the truth will out and hang tight) or (most likely IMO) because he can’t face having a mirror held up to his pattern of abusive behaviour. It’s the classic narcissistic abusers reaction if they can’t continue to manage the false narrative in their favour and others will see the real them behind the mask.

Whoever he is, a poorer man wouldn’t have this protection.

The (alleged) victims didn’t have protection.

It’s a misuse of power and wealth in my opinion.

Personally, I think his psychological reaction to the prospect of being unmasked (or wrongly accused) is his problem not the public’s. There are services to support him. He can be put on 24 hour observation. He can be forcefully medicated. These have been VERY commonly used interventions for ‘hysterical’ women (we now have other diagnostic labels) whilst trying to manage their understandable (but pathologised) reactions to sexual abuse.

Why should it be different because it’s a rich, powerful man?

I agree in a way, but dislike people using the law to silence what is probably information based on reliable evidence. Robert Maxwell used the law to bully people into silence whilst robbing people of their pensions. Ryan Giggs likewise though that backfired on him.

Yes that is true in a court of law, but doesn’t prevent free press otherwise. Free press actually helps investigations - I believe women only came forward re Brand who are now complainants in court, after seeing the Dispatches documentary.

It’s basically unheard of for complete strangers to collude to make a man out to be a sex pest for no reason other than shits and giggles, so I’m fairly comfortable with the odds of it all being true.

You don’t have to know someone personally to have an opinion on them? Particular when there is factual and visual evidence of them behaving extremely poorly, how ridiculous.

This is only relevant if your position is that we remove the police and justice system completely and rely on journalism/media accusations and reports for crimes or people accused of crimes.

Interesting. 🤔

And I wonder why poor mh never seems to prevent these predatory men from offending in the first place?

Indeed.

Abuse thrives in darkness. We need to shine a very bright light on it.

maybe the BBC could do an interview with Huw Edwards about this.
or Huw Edwards could write his opinion on his Substack I'm sure he will have an opinion!

I agree. Celebrities have a far better chance of fighting these so-called ‘false allegations’ simply because they have diary secretaries, cameras on them 24/7, it should be much easier to say ‘this complaint is bullshit, look I was in Cannes that day’ or whatever.

Or Pizza Express in Woking eh?

Well no matter how wrong the person is they are still might kill themselves - Jason Arday is a good example. And then everyone blames each other for "hounding them down".

Obviously you are right about this being used as a tactic but equally, if any precaution can be taken preventing a tragedy then this injunction is fully justified.

Prevention of suicide does not need an injunction.

To prevent his suicide he can be hospitalised, put under 24 hour observation, medicated and given an opportunity to talk.

The injunction is a misuse of power and wealth to silence victims of abuse.

You need to look at the you tube video of Walliams and Mark Ronson on stage.
Walliams behaviour looks like sexual assault in plain sight imo.