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

But are those accounts real? You're making wild assumptions that they are. They might be but they might not.

We live in a world where people want there 5 minutes of fame and go down rabbit holes of believing things, often because they want it to be true. The best example I can think of is the woman that claimed she was Madeleine McCann. She harassed the McCann's for years and gathered thousands of followers on social media who were reposting the same things they'd read as 'fact'. Several people acted as witnesses for the woman to prove her case. It turned out that the girl was a fantasist and it was all just made up bollox which was proven by blood tests and a court case. And yet there are still groups out there accusing the McCann's of all sorts because they will not accept that the blood tests prove she is not their daughter. People are nuts. They will say and believe anything often with no clear reason why. That's the important thing to remember, people are nuts!

You have to take a step back and think. Not everything in the media is true. Why have the police not charged him if the case is so clear cut? Just stop and think before you come to conclusions. He might be guilty. But equally he might not. You have no idea.

I tend to believe women and girls when they say they’ve been sexually assaulted actually @OutOfTheOtherSide

But are those accounts real? You're making wild assumptions that they are. They might be but they might not.

You're seriously claiming over a hundred women could have decided to invent a story of sexual misconduct against a creep like Williams?

It's no wonder most women don't speak out.

I googled PPT and loads of Reddit articles about DW were listed at the top of the page

Yes and, of course, the whole point of this thread is that 'the well-known individual' won't let us hear their allegations. That is why currently we are waiting for a judge to decide whether they can even be heard.

Over 100 women speaking out is hardly comparable with one woman harassing the McCanns

Two things -

There is no way in the world both ITN and the Guardian would attend court and protest their right to publish unless their legal teams were 100% confident what they want to print is essentially true.

People do not ask for injunctions to prohibit the printing of material which is demonstrably untrue. An injunction will not be granted if there is no substance, because the UK has robust defamation laws which protect individuals from being slandered and defamed in any case.

Of course not everything in the media is true.

But the media don’t just receive an email from a random person about a high profile celebrity and think, ‘yeah that’s a goer - what a great story!’. They go to pains to make sure the story is at least probably true, and show their basis for this; because otherwise they can be sued for many millions of pounds.

Times that level of investigation by 100, and how likely do you think every single woman is lying and has somehow fabricated some evidence? Or made up a flimsy, easily disproved story where ‘PPT’ was actually filming or on the red carpet at the time?

Well let's hope you never make it on to a jury then. You can't just assume all women are telling the truth and all men are liars. You can't do that under any circumstances but certainly not without seeing all of the evidence. That is thankfully what our justice system is based in rather than your bias.

Double post.

It’s not just about the allegation it’s about what happens after.

Why is it then; in the majority of cases, the man doesn’t say ‘I have nothing to hide, in fact I was doing X that day and Y was with me and can provide a statement’.

Why instead is there an awful lot of denial, attempted gags on the media, before finally a police investigation and very usually charges?

It isn’t bias to point out these accusations are very rarely completely false and defamatory

PPT is not on trial in a court of law defending themselves from formal charges.

All this "he hasn't been found guilty/no criminal charges/how do you know the accusers aren't just lying" stuff is completely specious and wholly and utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that two media outlets are happy enough that the material they want to print is sufficiently grounded in truth that they would not be slandering or defaming the individual in question if they printed.

The individual is not even contending the stories are false, because if that was the contention then any attempt to gain an injunction would simply be dismissed, as there is no basis whatsoever for issuing an injunction to prevent the printing of stories which have no substance to begin with.

The purpose of Injunctions is to prevent the printing of material which would be damaging to the individual in question, but only whereby that risk surpasses public interest, or if it is deemed the story is simply salaciousness for the sake of it and there is no public interest.

This particular case is a twisted, disgraceful attempt to misapply human rights legislation which enshrines "right to life" by asserting that if these stories are printed the individual will kill themselves. "right to life" is not intended to protect abusers from being unmasked if and when they threaten to kill themselves as a result, it's intended to protect people who are at serious risk of being tortured and/or murdered for speaking the truth, protesting despotism and injustice and the like.

People also have the right to freedom of expression, which is why it's absolutely right that someone is able to say "this person abused me" without having necessarily made a formal complaint to police and the individual then being charged, tried, and convicted. There is nothing, and should never be anything, which gags people from telling the truth, and this is the nub of what this injunction is all about.

The fact there are no apparent criminal charges as of yet is irrelevant. For a start, the police do not take it upon themselves to charge people who are the subject of media stories. Someone has to make a formal complaint of suspected criminal behaviour in order for the police to investigate. It's entirely possible either nobody has yet done this, or they've been advised to hold off pending upcoming events, the police themselves are investigating and are simply biding their time, or the police also believe that it's prudent to wait for the allegations to be printed and then see if that results in more people coming forward and perhaps making formal complaints.

Again though, PPT is not on criminal trial, so points about not being formally charged, or not having been convicted are entirely irrelevant.

The following is something entirely different, of course, but I have stressed before that DW was disgracefully kept on by Harper Collins until they got a new, female, CEO:

Exclusive: David Walliams dropped by Harper Collins over inappropriate behaviour towards women

Brilliant post. Thank you.

A Laaaaadeeee

That sketch/ characters are the reason for half the topics on FWR

Do you really think the Guardian would spend money defending the right to publish if they hadn’t verified the 100 plus sources?!

Why are you protecting a man who has shown clearly who he is in plain sight. Regardless of the accounts in the article.

Please don’t insult my intelligence. The excerpts from the court case are clear - over 100 sources saying similar things.

He should not be protected just because he is rich and powerful. it’s misuse of the justice system.

The stats mean that it’s FAR more likely the woman is telling the truth.

In anonymous surveys a HUGE majority of women describe being sexually assaulted. When you compare that to the number of sexual assaults that are reported, then the ones that are taken to court and then the ones where a guilty verdict is found (ie where the evidence is incontrovertible), it’s OBVIOUS that in any situation where a woman claims she has been sexually assaulted it’s far more likely she is telling the truth than not.

When there are 100 plus saying the same thing….

Absolutely.

Probably worth bearing in mind that if the "100+" people is accurate, then it's entirely likely that includes a good few men and it's not just women alone making allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

From what is in public domain about PPT, I think it's clear there have been occasions where they have subjected people of both sexes to cruel, humiliating, and unwanted behaviour that they did not necessarily consent to.

This in no way diminishes the seriousness of this matter, it's just to emphasise that perfectly valid points about what women typically do or how women typically react to being the victims of unwanted behaviours likely doesn't entirely cover all the allegations against PPT.

If there are men making allegations, then IMO that just serves to emphasise all the more that this has been a long-standing pattern of behaviours by PPT, because we know men are statistically far less likely than women to report themselves as victims, so if this is indeed the case then I think you would be perfectly reasonable if you concluded this is even more damning. There comes a point whereby there are so many people alleging much the same thing of one particular individual, that you can not credibly or reasonably suggest they are all lying and/or fantasists or opportunists in any case.

You have answered your own question - 'very rarely' is not impossible. Destroying someone's life without reason is inappropriate. By all means destroy them if the accusations are found to be true but right now it's just newspapers selling stories.

If the accusations are found to be true by whom?

We don't know what the accusations are. The individual is not on trial.

The whole point of this case is that DW wants to silence these accusations. He doesn't want anyone to know who's accused him of what. They cannot be 'found to be true' if they cannot be spoken.

Right... so you can't destroy someone's life until the accusation you make is "found to be true".

So how do you make this accusation in the first place then, if it needs to be "found true" before you should be making it?

🤔

Should also point out that at this point the assertion is "allegations" and not "accusations". This is important, because the word "allegation" carries implicit meaning, specifically that this is just one version of an event being claimed and reported by an individual. It is not a report of criminal wrongdoing, it is not the same thing as the police charging, it is not the same thing as reporting of fact post-conviction.

This is also not just "the newspapers selling stories".

The Guardian group sells a newspaper, yes, but the other party involved is ITN. ITN were instrumental in supporting the people who finally revealed the truth about Jimmy Savile, a few others who have also faced legal consequences for previously unreported behaviours.

This isn't the likes of National Enquirer just making up nonsense about individuals they know do not have the means to legally pursue.

Almost all of the serious systemic abuse scandals which have resulted in prosecutions have been exposed in the media first. It then transpires that reports have been made to the police for years and nothing done.

To my knowledge this was the case with Russell Brand, who actually got an injunction against one complainant after she had reported him to the police for rape. It’s also been the situation with systemic abuse in children’s homes and Bradford.

Anyone who thinks the media should not be allowed to expose corruption on this level should think long and hard about what kind of society they want to live in where the powerful cannot be held to account.

If PPT believes the allegations are untrue he can engage with The Guardian and ITN via the right to reply they are duty bound to offer him for inclusion in the original article to demonstrate the allegations must be false and if they go ahead and publish despite this, he can vindicate his reputation by way of a libel action.

No. It’s 100 plus people talking to a newspaper about abuse and a rich and powerful man trying to shut them up. A poor man wouldn’t have the same power. Why should this man?

On the off-chance 100 plus people are lying (I can’t believe anyone would believe that) then he can sue them.