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

Well, yeah. I do think the world would be a much nicer place if all sex offenders died.

Russell Brand: 'Since these events occurred, there's been escalating recollection. It's been a deeply traumatic episode of my life I've focused on, at the expense of my marriage, my children and health.

Look at this prime example of a narcissist turning his abusive actions and the consequences into his own victimhood.

This is wholly inconsequential.

People are perfectly entitled to voice their experiences provided they are being truthful and honest.

If they are not, then there are established legal procedures to deal with untruthful and slanderous media stories.

Given that this is such high profile and so contentious that newspapers are willing to appear at a court hearing to protest their right to publish, it's unthinkable that they would be anything less than 100% confident that the material they wish to publish is substantively true.

AFAIK, there is not even any contention from the person in question that these accusations are, in fact, anything less than 100% true, which speaks volumes. No, the main thrust is that further publication of the allegations would damage their mental health. So it seems semantic arguments about guilt/innocence are rather moot when the person in question doesn't appear to be challenging the actual veracity of the content in the first place.

If the media reports substantively true stories of inappropriate behaviours, and these stories are so damaging for an individual that it collapses their mental health, then the responsibility for that still ultimately rests with the individual themselves as the perpetrator of the offending behaviours. Likewise, if an individual then takes it upon themselves to end their own life, the responsibility for that again rests with the individual themselves. Nobody "suicides" another person.

The idea that truth should be silenced because an offender can not contemplate dealing with honest, truthful revelations about their own behaviour is complete and utter nonsense and an offence to free expression. It's also reeks of silencing victims, and no, an offender does not become a victim in turn just because they have been unmasked as an offender.

Absolutely.

Apropos nothing

https://www.tmz.com/2026/10/28/david-walliams-removed-from-upcoming-project-following-allegations/

It took years, and a determined newspaper, to nail Odious Crispin. Who tried to sue the FT and backed out when many of the complainants offered to testify.

I mean, I’m not going to cry about it if they do? Why on earth would I?
Could be my daughter next so the less sex offenders around the better as far as I, and most women I know are concerned.

Do you think a someone should be allowed to sexually assault anyone they please ?

They should be allowed to sexually assault;

Your family members
Your friends
Teenagers
Children
Babies
You?

And then not face any retribution because they threaten to kill themselves.

I mean let's not stop there.

Let's not have elections, Trump threatens to kill himself if he doesn't win re election, so lets let him win.

All the power is with the abuser- they chose to sexually assault someone and they are choosing to end their life. The victims are powerless.

I just thought I’d say, because it’s been mentioned a couple of times, that the publications involved have not paid these women for their stories. They will have received inconsequential expenses (last time I did some work of this type for own of the publications involved it was 40p per mile and a £25 disturbance fee).

Where did I say all that? Let me simplify for you:

Abuse - bad.
Court - good
Hounding someone in the press before they are found guilty, making said person trying to kill themselves - very, very bad

You went on an absolute wild tangent here, no idea why.

Fair enough, however, we are talking allegations here, not conviction.

I find sex offenders as disguising as the next person but, as I said before, the press hounding people relentlessly is awful. There are plenty of examples when people actually did kill themselves over it.

Edited to add: I have no ide why some people on here connecting injunction to press with fair trial. There is zero connection. I also very much doubt this injunction would work if the person is found guilty - unless court orders this specifically, which I doubt it would.

Has anyone else cleared the house of DW books? My kids love them and despite my best efforts they kept appearing in the house.
I’ve just binned them! Finally! Not sure what took me so long.

I think it just a bit of rebalancing after decades of powerful rich men getting away with treating women and children like shit while maintaining their ‘good guy’ image in the media.

It does feel like it’s always been expected that some women are acceptable collateral damage, or should suffer to provide an acceptable margin of error. Yet with men this would be so unfair and if 1 innocent man could end up suffering, then everyone else should be given the benefit of the doubt and the survivors of abuse should have their right to speak to the press curtailed.

Women already pay this price with the very low rape conviction rate which is ‘unfortunate but necessary for fair trials’.

What’s the point? He’s already had the royalties from those books so throwing them away is achieving nothing. At least send them to the charity shop.

I agree. He won’t know you’ve thrown them away, you won’t get a refund. I wouldn’t deprive my kids of books they like to make an entirely symbolic gesture.

Apparently there is a video making the rounds of him talking to a girl with a massive hard on. Not very Little Britain like!

And according to an Enty blind, it is so much worse than we realise. I thought he was like Brand but no. So much worse. More like Savile.

But this person is not getting away with anything? if its DW he already has his career in the shitter, everyone knows he's a cunt and I assume if he did assault someone he is due in court at some point?

I dont really know what this injunction is in detail but if, for example, someone has been assaulted by him and has evidence proven in court - are they still not allowed to say anything?

Imagine if press start publishing allegations and rumours about him and he actually goes ahead and kills himself? Is this actually a desired outcome?

This is about a judge deciding whether the allegations can be heard. It has also been stated that you are wrong about the women concerned getting a handsome payout for those allegations being published.

I only wish the press had been this confident to fight to publish the allegations that were going round about Jimmy Savile while he was still alive. He was operating before Super injunctions even existed

Why should they hush up the scale of, or details of, his offending just because everyone already doesn’t like him? And who cares if he kills himself?

This mental health blackmail that seems so pervasive in society now needs to be shrugged off. So much ‘I’ll kill myself if you don’t do exactly what I want’.

I don’t care, I’m thoroughly bored of kowtowing to these silly threats. If he kills himself that’s his choice. It was also his choice not to do the behaviour that will likely be printed.

Has the judge actually decided to throw the case out? As in, the judge has decided not to allow a SA case to stand because the perpetrator is in the mental hospital after trying to kill himself? That is highly unusual and if this is what actually happened then yes, this is outrageous.

The Private Eye podcast said the person involved will have the right of appeal. Does that mean the judge could refuse to grant a permanent injunction, yet the media wouldn't be able to publish anything until the appeals process is exhausted?

I dont know if I would be comfortable saying what you have said above, even if I broadly agree. Jason Arday case really shook me, I believed (and still believe now) he was a fraud etc etc but I was upset reading that he killed himself. I was surprised myself by my reaction but it was just sad. Death is just so final.

Yeah, they are ignoring that in their fierce defence of sex offenders.

Well done for this - in these circumstances I completely understand your decision - put out with the recycling. As I shared last night it is to do with the actual content of these books, as well:

“We felt then, as we do now, that there are many other funny books, which are much more inclusive, positive and appropriate for young readers. There is language in his books which we find offensive and which promotes unkind attitudes… If asked by customers, we will have a discussion around the language in the books and explain that this is why we don’t stock them. For us as booksellers, recent events have just cemented our decision not to stock his books and we won’t be stocking them in the future.”

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