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

Mail saying the same.

Is it to give time for him to be sectioned?

So he can be named but there's going to be an appeal...so he can't be named. Why can't he hold his hands up and admit his crime? It must be REALLY bad 😡

Indeed

Bonkers The Guardian hasn't published yet.

A temp injunction is more reasonable. Let’s see how long this injunction is for

People that threaten S rarely do anyway. It's another way of showing power and control 😔

Anyway his career is dead in the water and his name is out there at least 🤔 He'll never work again 😀

They’re fuming

Disappointing

The judgment is here (all 332 paragraphs of it)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/PPT-v-ITN-Guardian-2026-EWHC-2818-KB-FINAL-for-hand-down.pdf

From the judgment

[326] Giving those consequences the very substantial weight which they deserve, I am nevertheless not satisfied that Article 8 requires the suppression of the proposed publications. The journalism concerns matters of substantial public interest; the restraint sought would be comprehensive and potentially indefinite; the information itself is not alleged to be private; and the Court is not in a position to find that the Defendants’ investigation lacks a proper evidential foundation or that the proposed publications make no genuine contribution to public debate.

[327] The son’s interests do not alter that conclusion. I recognise the probable effect upon him if the Claimant’s mental health deteriorates, if their relationship is interrupted by detention or if the Claimant dies. Those consequences are grave. But the Court lacks the direct and individualised evidence required to assess the son’s own position with the necessary intensity. His interests cannot, on the generalised evidence available, be treated as independently decisive of the balance.

[328] The availability of psychiatric treatment and protective measures is also relevant. It does not remove or trivialise the interference with the Claimant’s Article 8 rights. It does, however, mean that the State is taking measures directed towards protecting his life, psychological integrity and capacity to maintain his relationships. Article 8 does not require the Court to eliminate every source of psychiatric distress by imposing a prior restraint upon the lawful activities of private parties.

[329] In reaching that conclusion, I have not determined whether the Allegations are true. Nor have I decided that the anticipated consequences for the Claimant or his son are unimportant. The conclusion reflects the particular circumstances: the absence of a domestic cause of action; the nature and public-interest significance of the proposed journalism; the breadth and uncertain duration of the restraint sought; and the limitations of the evidence concerning the son’s independent rights.

[330] The Claimant has therefore failed to establish either a proper basis for relief under Article 8 or, if a direct proportionality assessment were available, that the Article 8 interests upon which he relies outweigh the rights of the Defendants, their sources and the public. Those rights include the Article 10 rights to impart and receive information and, insofar as the sources wish to communicate their own experiences, the Article 8 interests in personal autonomy identified in Roddy.

It isn't an injunction at all, he has lost the case. The person is appealing and the original ban on naming him under s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 is still in place until that is decided.

“But the judge Mr Justice Nicklin said a temporary injunction preventing the man from being named and the allegations published should remain in place, “

says temp injunction on the BBC

Thing is - we all know who it is- their life is already in pieces - just how long he got to get away with this behaviour should be questioned and people held to account. Too many 'star' have got away with deplorable behaviour for too long.

If he’s acutely unwell and at risk of harming himself then why is that not a medical and not a legal issue.

seems to me that the time he spends managing complex court cases might be better spent on his mental health. Unless whatever he has done is really, really bad.

which it, presumably, is.

i don’t understand - every man going though the legal process for serious offences could claim this. If there are victims then would a situation like this be perverting the court of justice.

If the matter is potentially criminal offence, would he still be afforded this level of anonymity. The claimant (that the term?) cites the effect on his son if these all came out.

I doubt the plod bother with potential psychological distress caused to the kids of people they investigate

Times making a point
x.com/pollybirkbeck/status/2117546857601941607?a=qhicMXrIrEqeBHVMd1A&s=46

Has DW not been outed as a sex abuser?

I have no doubt that he probably is suicidal. Just like Huw Edwards and Philip Schofield were about the allegations against them. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be reported. All three of them purposely put themselves in the public eye and made themselves out to be good family men. The public has a right to know it was all a sham.

Hopefully he will be getting the mental health support he needs but he does need to face the consequences of his actions.

It is pretty shit for him being dropped by everyone so publicly and to have these allegations hanging over him but guess what? It’s been pretty shit for all the people he’s upset/hurt/humiliated. We don’t know the details of the allegations but we do know he was publicly inappropriate and humiliated Mark Ronson amongst others so goodness know what he was up to behind closed doors.

PPT has lost the injunction case. Has immediately put in an appeal. So a hold now on the article, The Guardian, and the documentary, ITV, that was to be published and aired.

I don't care whether he's suicidal or not. If he is, it's because the appalling behaviour he's indulged in throughout his adult life is finally being brought out into the sunlight. If he needs psychiatric help he should get it, but that shouldn't stop the publishing of his misdeeds.

If he hadn't been such an abusive git he'd not be subject to feelings of shame and abandonment now, would he? This is entirely self-inflicted.

Eugh. How long does it take for the appeal to happen?

Alton Towers announcing the closure of ‘David Walliams World’ today is just so obvious.

💯

It will just generate for publicity and interest for when they’re published/go to air.

PPT's legal representatives put an immediate appeal in. They obviously expected the judgement would not be in their favour.

I'm sure he got dropped from his publisher a few months back and I thought then, I wonder what's coming....

I've always thought he comes across as a creep

I don’t really understand how someone can attempt to die by suicide multiple times and fail to do so each time, I’m sure there is a good reason for that I’m jusy not aware of it,maybe fear or survival insitinct kicks in,

I think he’s now threatening the fourth or fifth attempt. But repeatedly failing to do so is normally more in the cry for help rather than don’t know how to do it bracket. Likely because I knew three people who died by suicide and all succeeded first time sadly, it would have been so much better for them and their families had they failed.

the judge is right, there is support for suicidal people. But it doesn’t mean the press should be silenced, it just means support needs to be in place before publication,

I’ve no doubt he will succeed at some point, it’s just a very tragic set of circumstances and I do feel sorry for everyone involved, from the victims to his family to even the judge having to rule on this, and the individual himself, who if the allegations are true, has made such a mess of a gilded life and caused so much trauma to so many,

if they are true. And I don’t believe in trial by media, he’d be better owning it, apologising, doing his time, then living out the rest of his life in peace that he’s paid his dues, rather than trying to hide from it,

but I don’t know the details like everyone else on here, and I don’t know if they are true either, irrelvant of my own thoughts on the matter,