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

Agree. 100%.

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

I do not believe the judge is going to find in PPT's favour and award the Injunction. If they do I will be utterly flabbergasted.

The paragraph of yours I have quoted is precisely why the award of an Injunction here would set an utterly preposterous legal precedent.

If PPT is awarded an Injunction on the grounds that people telling the truth about his past behaviours might lead to his suicide, then from this point on a journalist can be prevented from asking any question, and any one of us could be silenced and prevented from telling the truth about something which we experienced, by the associated party simply claiming that having to provide an answer, or people hearing about real and truthful events, might cause them to commit suicide. It's a nonsense, utterly cynical, and frankly, an offensive abuse of the Injunction itself.

People do not have any right whatsoever to be protected from their own thoughts and feelings which might arise as a result of their own past behaviours being exposed. Likewise, Human Rights law intended to prevent persecution and harm is not, and never was, intended to protect people from persecuting and harming themselves.

It may seem glib and trite, but if you do not want to deal with the consequences of people speaking truth about your own behaviours, do not indulge in those behaviours in the first place. It really is that simple. People have every right to tell people about what they have experienced because of you, and your self-pity and mental wellbeing does not trump or invalidate that right.

But even the burden of proof in criminal law isn’t ’it must be impossible that they didn’t do it’, it’s beyond reasonable doubt.

So if they are ‘found to be true’, it won’t be at the bar you set anyway.

And I don’t want to see anyone ‘destroyed’, I want to see them held to account in a court of law. If they’ve destroyed their own lives through their behaviour well, that’s up to them.

Are you suggesting that women shouldn't be on jury service?

No. I'm suggesting that one particular poster who assumes all women tell the truth and all men tell lies shouldn't be on a jury. It's quite a leap for you to extrapolate one poster to all women.

That wasn't the assertion. The poster in question simply said that they tend to believe women and girls when they claim they have been the victim of a sexual assault.

You are the one who brought up juries for some reason.

The claim was not "If I was on a jury, I'd always believe the woman or girl, because they always tell the truth and men always lie", so I have no idea why you are implying it was.

Believing a person making a claim they have been assaulted, and sitting as a juror in a criminal trial where evidence and testimony are presented and you are asked to then convict or acquit based on nothing but the evidence are not one and the same thing, so you can not reasonably draw any assumptions about what a person would do in one of these scenario based on their view of the other.

I think if you judge on the basis of prejudice you should not be on a jury but that's a hard thing to recognise about yourself.

As a father of a daughter whom the state has tried to salt the earth rather than hear what she's had to say, I do think they have a point. That many women saying something suggests on the balance of probabilities that Tilly should not be anywhere near the DW Neverland. High principals.

It’s hardly necessary to work to the standard of a criminal prosecution if we’re talking online though or what appears in the papers. Too many people who are on juries seem unwilling to believe women (1 in 100 rapes result in a successful prosecution) so it would probably be better / fairer to have a few more jurors with some different perspectives frankly…

But that's not what the poster said. Perhaps those who have low comprehension skills should be exempt from jury duties. Do you agree?

This is disgusting. “People want their 5 minutes of fame”?! 5 minutes of fame by saying someone sexually assaulted you? So you can go into work and everyone thinks you’ve been raped, and you go to a family meal and everyone is thinking about you having been raped, and your neighbours look at you when you leave the house and mutter, ‘she’s the one that says she got raped by so and so’? Is that what you think women actually want? Just stop and think for one whole minute about who would want that.

Couldn’t agree more.

No one said all women tell the truth and all men tell lies. The facts point to it being statistically FAR more likely that a woman reporting sexual assault is telling the truth and a man denying it, threatening suicide and calling the accuser insane (all common behaviours when (mostly) men are held to account for their abuse) is lying. It’s just stats. It’s not opinion. Anyone on a jury has to make a decision on the case and the available evidence. But having bias towards believing the woman is just common sense based on facts.

You can demonstrate the difference by introducing a little bit of absurdity.

If you say to me "my husband ate cornflakes at breakfast this morning", then absent of anything which suggests this is untrue, there is no real reason for me to doubt you so I'm inclined to take it on face value and accept your husband did indeed eat cornflakes this morning. Perhaps I've seen him eat cornflakes before, perhaps he's told me in the past he eats cornflakes, perhaps I saw cornflakes in your cupboard. Regardless, there is no real reason for me to doubt you or presume you are lying.

However,

If I am a juror in a Criminal trial, your husband is the defendant, and the charge is that he ate cornflakes for breakfast, I'm going to want more, a lot more in fact, than just your testimony as a witness that he ate cornflakes before I return a guilty verdict and convict him.

The two processes are not the same thing, they don't require the same burden of proof, the thresholds for credibility, believability, and "conviction" are not the same, so you can not assume that just because I'll take your word on face value that this would also be the case in a court of law. It's not a valid or reasonable conclusion to come to.

There is one other pertinent and relevant fact here with regard to the "why has he not been charged/prosecuted then?" strawman. It's entirely possible for 100+ people to make allegations of completely inappropriate behaviour, and not one single instance of that behaviour to actually constitute a criminal offence. We can't talk about "rape" or "sexual assault" with regard to PPT because we don't yet know what the allegations are, and it's entirely possible that nobody is alleging rape or sexual assault. So perhaps it would be prudent to stop talking as if this is inevitably what is being alleged.

it's entirely possible that nobody is alleging rape or sexual assault

Indeed, all we know is that the allegations are of 'workplace misconduct'. These 100 people, whom 'PPT' is spending so much time & money on trying to silence, could be alleging that he steals out of their handbags or turns up drunk too often.

His publishers told young women not to be alone with him, after paying a five-figure settlement to a young woman who'd complained of him. Perhaps they took these serious steps because he swears a lot.

It's possible Harper Collins and the BBC have severed ties with him due to other misconduct, such as stealing from people's bags or staggering round the offices in his boxers. Neither organisation has a strong record of enforcing seemliness in their talents but, who knows? Not us, thanks to this ongoing case.

We saw David Walliams sexually assaulting Mark Ronson on camera. Ronson didn't look too happy at being debagged and handled, but perhaps 'PPT' isn't David Walliams or perhaps having your balls grabbed isn't sexual assault.

It's entirely possible ... or perhaps not entirely.

It's not David Walliams.

Who is it then?

Russell Brand 😜

There are similarities between the New Messiah, whose respect for women is only surpassed by his commitment to consensual sex, and PPT. Both have a longstanding reputation for arrogant egotism and sexual entitlement (quite undeserved, I'm sure). Both have often been called bullies but, then, definitions of bullying vary widely.

Both have self-harmed and sought extensive mental health treatment. I'm unaware of Brand having attempted suicide following a previous episode of losing work due to his misconduct, but it's quite possible. He and 'PPT' have certainly lost work and friends following recent alleged allegations.

Mind you, this could be said of every influential male facing multiple alleged allegations of this nature. PPT could be ex-prince Andrew, for instance 🤔Less influential characters have suffered much the same, while tragically lacking the financial clout to prevent alleged allegations being publicised.

The mental welfare of allegedly alleged sexual offenders should always be paramount. It's certainly more important than that of their alleged victims, who don't deserve to speak up without their allegedly alleged abusers' permission. They're only sluts and cunts, right? (Not my epithets; I quote Brand, Walliams and others here.)

©Sexual Abusers' Rights Assn.

Pages of discussion about PPT being confirmed as DW and then you come along and say "It's not David Walliams"😂

Oh come on, it's not Russell Brand is it.
Please don't confuse matters!

You are, of course, right about the need for more evidence in a legal process.

The point still stands however that if statistics show that most women in anonymous surveys state that they have witnessed men eating cornflakes …

and most men, when told off for eating cornflakes will say ‘no, no way, dude! How could you even think I’d eat cornflakes! I’m a toast kind of guy. What?! Wait! You don’t believe me? How could you even think I’d eat cornflakes! There is something wrong with cornflakes. They are weird. I’d not touch them with a barge pole. No. Don’t say it! Don’t tell people I eat cornflakes. Life won’t be worth living. I’m going to kill my self if you keep saying it!’

…then it’s most likely, based on the stats, that the man ate cornflakes and the woman is telling the truth.

You can’t convict someone on that but you can share your concerns about the disappearing cornflakes and why it’s problematic. You can stand by the women that are brave enough to say that the man ate the cornflakes - putting themselves at risk of being labelled - ‘you must have bought the cornflakes in the first place, if you put the cornflakes in front of him then what do you expect? You buy cornflakes too much, it’s your own fault. You are unhinged. You are lying. You are mad. You are venegeful.’ Etc.

Because we all want the cornflake eating to stop.

And for years cornflake eating has gone under the radar and been normalised.

We need the cornflake eating eating to be highlighted in the media. Cornflake eating thrives in darkness so a big bright light on it will help to stop it.

Statistically it’s unlikely that men’s lives will be ruined by being falsely accused of eating cornflakes, and they have legal redress if they believe that has happened, but if one or two are harmed by a false cornflake related accusation, that’s nothing in comparison to the 1000s upon 1000s of women who have been harmed over decades.

I wonder why PPT is even bothering. Everyone in the business knows it's him, everyone on social media discussing it has named him.

I'm wondering why charges have not been brought yet???

@GarlicEverything wasn’t confusing RB with PPT @Ineversaidthatactuallyjust stating that there were similarities and was being very tongue in cheek towards the end !
Sexual Abusers Rights Association -
Indeed !

But this is even simpler:

A reputable news organisation, with lawyers and in a country with strong libel laws, is willing to say that PPT eats cornflakes.

And a reputable publishing house arranged for their female staff to only deal with their star author in pairs - because he ate his cornflakes so messily?

Brand did once cite Walliams as an inspiration for comedy