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

DARVO.

Men. To protect yourselves from this awful scourge impacting your mental health;

DONT FUCKING ABUSE WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

It really isn’t that hard. Treat women as autonomous human beings. Not just objects there for your comfort and needs.

I agree.

From the link up thread it’s not him anyway.

>> I’d believe the woman over the man every time if I was pushed to pick and there was no evidence either way. <<

Please plead insanity if asked to serve on a jury.

He needs to be careful or one day he actually will succeed in killing himself. Three attempts?

Just because someone has not been charged or found guilty, does not mean that allegations against them have been proven false.

Just because there is insufficient evidence to support a charge, or to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

And horses? I wondered what the long face was for 😂

Females do this too. Your post is just man hate for the sake of it.

Is the person we are talking about female?

I often wonder in this day and age why allegations are allowed, rather than the person being anonymous until conviction. Even those individuals who are not guilty become pariahs, whereas in the past it would have been "forgotten" mainly due to lack of social media....

I see people, like that lady who put that cat in a bin made a pariah forever - yes what she did was disgraceful, but would never in past times have been so public.

Just musing generally but it does seem an age of conviction by social media/media, whereas it should be by court.

I'm not going anywhere near the video of him and Ronson, but I think on the part of many men there is this blind spot many have, as to someone who might be a known bully to other men somehow not behaving like that when it comes to women. I remember when the allegations about Harvey Weinstein first went public there were loads of guys in the industry saying "we knew he was a bastard but not like that".

The description here of the Ronson incident must touch on dark stuff that men might become subject to his abuse as well. Male on male sexual assault still something few men want to talk about. Like the omerta some have when they are aware someone is abusive to women

David Walliams gives me the creeps

It's not him.

😆

oh, I only just got this!

Of course it isn’t.

Craig Charles made a driver employed by the bbc buy him porn, and then smoked crack in his car all the way on the journey from London to Manchester. He was then consequently exposed cheating on his wife with prostitutes..

I've worked with all sorts of criminals.

Abusers and sex criminals are overwhelmingly male (as indeed are all criminals!)

The use of self-harm and threats of suicide to manipulate outcomes is definitely not gender specific. More men actually kill themselves but, as noted above, people who genuinely want to kill themselves don't usually threaten it or "fail" too many times.

Well suffering from poor MH does not make someone a victim. I am not a victim and I have poor MH (luckily currently treated) and have done for decades

She was a perpetrator of DV and ultimately did not want to face court sanctions

“Females”

Female what?

The word for human females is women.

I do always think of the Craig Charles situation when things like this crop up but it has to be said that is extremely extremely rare.

Try reading the post I quoted.

Seriously? 🙄

You probably want to have a word with the NHS then:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ais-equality-monitoring-er.pdf

https://mft.nhs.uk/app/uploads/2022/04/Equality-Diversity-Form.pdf

What is the serious MH condition he has suffered for, for years, a PP mentions this?

So if I get charged with something, can I say that if it is made public I will kill myself and make them not report it?

Yes. If you have enough power and wealth it seems

No.

Being formally charged with a crime is a matter of public record, and since judicial process in the UK takes place with full public transparency, no Injunction would prevent a criminal charge being reported.

The difference here is the man in question is seeking to have the press prevented from disclosing allegations. Allegations are just that, they are not Criminal charges. Thankfully the Law in the UK is such that you do not have to prove something printed about you is untrue, it's up to the media to prove they believe what they are printing to be true. This means that if someone does print something unfounded you then have a good chance of successfully suing them, but this also means you first of all require the means to do this, and secondly, you can trust that if newspapers are happy to print very serious accusations about someone, then their lawyers will have been over it forensically and there is a far greater likelihood than otherwise they are indeed somewhat accurate.

If the man in question here genuinely believed these accusations were baseless, then he'd have the media by the balls legally if they went ahead and printed anyway. While that doesn't prevent the problem of reputation being damaged even though the allegations later turn out to be baseless, it does suggest that the driver is the prevention of reputational damage because there is substance to the allegations, but more likely, printing of specifics may actually prompt further allegations to emerge and potentially strengthen any resulting criminal case. That's what I believe is really the motivation behind seeking the Injunction. Similar happened once the first accusations against Russell Brand emerged.