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

"PPT - is this their initials?"
No, that'll be DEW.

He just slipped on a glace cherry.....

I've heard that none of that will come out until he's gone and even then its uncertain.

Assuming there is no evidence otherwise he'd be in court.

Mark Williams-Thomas, the man who exposed the truth about the extent of Jimmy Savile's offending and spent years and years investigating wider criminal conduct within the entertainment industry had the name of the individual you are suggesting put to him as yet another undisclosed offender. His response was that throughout all his investigations, interviews etc, he had not discovered a single piece of substantive evidence to suggest that there is anything whatsoever to the rumours about that particular individual. If there was anyone who I would expect to be "in the know", it's MWT, and yet there still isn't a single person making any sort of direct allegation against this person.

If it it DW then I do hope that they stop publishing his children's books.

Yes they have but only recently. Good for some of the indies, though:

Some indies ‘stopped stocking Walliams years ago’ as shops react after HarperCollins drops author

Sorry if it’s been mentioned (I have tried to keep up, honest!) but does the BBC still get involved with his books?

For a few years one of their big Christmas dramas would be a DW adaptation; I’m not keen on most of them but I did enjoy the one with Myrcella Baratheon

I suppose they wouldn’t make a statement about it so we just wouldn’t know?

There's a long piece of reporting about the court case in today's Guardian. Excerpts include:

"Many of the women making the allegations have been traumatised by PPT’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result, according to a written submission from the media groups."

"Millar said the investigation into PPT had spoken to more than 100 people, including 30 who gave first-hand accounts.

He told that court that since the Guardian and ITN first contacted PPT in May so he could respond to the allegations, deadlines had been repeatedly extended and unusual measures put in place in order to act responsibly, given PPT’s medical issues."

"A summary of an assessment of the claimant’s current wellbeing by an independent expert stated that he could not conclude either that suicide was inevitable if publication went ahead, or that psychiatric treatment could eliminate all risk.

The expert said that the risks could be lowered should the allegations be published while PPT was in an inpatient psychiatric setting."

It sounds to me as though the Guardian and ITN have bent over backwards to accomodate PPT, and my own feeling is that this has just been a very prolonged attempt on his part to prevent publication.

The trial has now concluded and the judge has retired to consider his ruling, so I expect this will all be over soon. I will be amazed if it does NOT result in publication.

Obviously, the following is a different case - a TV programme:

David Walliams has said his removal from Britain's Got Talent (BGT) led to "severe depression and suicidal thoughts" according to legal documents.

The legal documents quote a retired consultant psychiatrist and practicing Psychotherapist who has treated Mr Walliams for many years as saying that he is "plagued by uncontrollable negative thoughts" including "active suicidal thoughts". (BBC. 18 October 2023)

The legal documents quote a retired consultant psychiatrist and practicing Psychotherapist who has treated Mr Walliams for many years as saying that he is "plagued by uncontrollable negative thoughts" including "active suicidal thoughts". (BBC. 18 October 2023)

That's fine and well, but plenty of people have been dealing with precisely the same for most of their adult lives, and they don't get any special privileges from the Courts because of it.

If you are seriously unwell to the point whereby you can't be held to be responsible for your own behaviours, and you then commit some sort of offence, this is taken into account and you will be treated appropriately. But this is not what's happening here. There is no suggestion whatsoever that these mental health issues are the reason for the actual behaviours themselves, rather, the person responsible has been fully in control of their previous behaviour at all times and is now attempting to cynically use their poor mental health as a tool to prevent further exposure.

Again, I'm entirely convinced this is not about risk to wellbeing at all, and its entirely about attempting to ensure the risk of potential criminal consequences is minimised.

If I was on a jury I would follow the evidence. Obviously. 🙄

We had the example upthread of Craig Charles. He’s doing fine.

what the statistics show is that perpetrators of sexual and other forms of abuse are mostly men.

If I understand it right he was hospitalised already and this is nothing to do with him being found guilty or not guilty... this is simply to do with the press hounding him before the verdict. No one can take an injunction to stop having to go to court and stand trial, and if found guilty no one cam stop his victims from speaking up.

As I said already, no one would be able to take an injunction to stop having to go to court. Equally, if found guilty, you would not be able to stop victims from speaking up.

It’s the NHS that needs to manage the suicide risk. Not the court. Not the papers. Not the public. The (alleged) victims have experienced mental health issues due to their experiences so why does his mental health trump theirs? Sharing your story and being heard and validated is an important part of healing from trauma. If he can’t handle his behaviour being named and if he can’t handle the consequences of his actions that is for him and his doctors to handle. The news can’t publish anything without due diligence.

How do you know the victims are not getting support? And why is it important to put their stories out in the press - is it because they get a handsome pay for that?

Imagine the scenario: a person being accused of something. They have not been found guilty, these are rumours and speculations. They are famous so they are hounded down in the press relentlessly, and on social media, so there is nowhere they can turn to to avoid that. The victim is anonymous and they dont have the same sort of pressure. The person accused has mental health issues, cant deal with the pressure and kills themselves.

Do you think that Jason Arday deserved what he got?

Jason Arday was not a sex offender.

If DW was going to kill himself, he’d have done it already. I suppose he might once he’s on trial and realises he can’t wriggle off the hook.

Have you read the article? Over 100 accounts. Of sexual misconduct. With women and girls. Girls. You understand what that means?

These are accounts from people that are similar in nature and from people that mostly don’t know each other. This isn’t one ‘he said she said’ situation.

The law can decide re the injunction and any criminal charges.

The news will publish this if allowed because the victims deserve validation.

The health service will provide intervention for his mental health and manage the risk.

I read it but HE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND GULITY YET. This is the main point.

If I understand it rightly he tried several times already.

Do you think someone should die if they sexually assault someone?

Basically I agree with all the stuff about DW being a vile person etc etc. BUT. I absolutely hate the media circus that accompanies these trials and I hate "trial by mob" situations. This is between the court, the accused and the victim. Once he is found guilty, then it can be made public. Until then, everyone should fucking shut up.

Many of the women making the allegations have been traumatised by PPT’s alleged conduct and have suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result, according to a written submission from the media groups.
It states: “They believe that it is important that their allegations are publicly aired so that other women are protected and the full nature of his conduct is disclosed, and in order to assist the sources to recover from their own experiences.”

I’m not stupid.

If they print it and are found to have shared false information he can sue them.

Lots of men are not found guilty because of lack evidence. Doesn’t mean they are innocent.

The article isn’t about finding him legally guilty. It’s about sharing the victims stories. 100 plus people!! I care more about their right to have their voice heard than his right to anonymity.

Abuse thrives in darkness.