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

The person I'm thinking of only has one son and the judgement refers to 'a son'

There really is no doubt who it is. Everyone knows who it is and that he has one son.

His anonymity has long gone but for now the articles / doc can’t be released. I don’t think he’s entered an appeal - his team are saying he’s currently not fit to give instructions. Back at the Priory I’d imagine.

In a completely separate court case, Co-Pilot states the following:

David Walliams loses injunction
David Walliams has lost his bid for a permanent injunction to prevent The Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations of inappropriate sexual activities. The High Court dismissed the claim, but the claimant continues to be protected by an anonymity and reporting restriction order pending appeal. This decision highlights the ongoing tensions between public figures and the media, particularly around issues of privacy and defamation. Walliams, who is known for his work as a children's author and comedian, has faced significant career setbacks following these allegations.

AI isn't able to be sued presumably

To be fair, Co-Pilot just regurgitates what it finds on-line.

PPT-v-ITN & Guardian [2026] EWHC 2818 (KB) FINAL for hand-down

Sometimes, (occasionally) when you hear that someone is a vile abuser, you are surprised. Not in this case. Not in the case of RB.

Can AI know for sure though? If you ask it where the source is from what does it say?

“The claimant is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The hospital exercises direct control over his care, observation, treatment, access to means of self-harm, leave and eventual discharge. It has assumed responsibility for the very risk with which article 2 is concerned.
The evidence establishes that the hospital can provide significant protection. Inpatient treatment cannot eliminate the risk, but it materially reduces the likelihood of suicide.”

I that a hint. 😉

Shhh ..... Mumsnet

If this man is so intent on taking his own life then he needs to be sectioned. The legal service isn’t a mental Health service.

And If he genuinely cared about his sons wellbeing he

1. wouldn’t have committed the alleged offences in the first place.
2. wouldnt even consider killing himself and leaving his son grieving
3. Would confess, take full accountability and show his son what to do after you have messed up - you own it. You accept the consequences with grace. You apologise sincerely to your victims and work to fully understand their experience and the impact your actions had (yeah right) and you repair it and make good in whatever way you can. He could serve his time out and use the time in prison to write a book about where he went wrong and how it feels now - how shit and ashamed it’s made him feel and what he’s learned about the impact. It could be aimed at young men to show them what happens when you behave in this way and he could donate all the proceeds to a suitable charity. Basically spend the rest of the time on this planet trying to do something to make a small positive difference. .

He won’t. He’s a twat. A narcissistic, self-serving twat.

😂

Is there a reason no criminal proceedings have taken place?

DJ has daughters.

He’ll be next

I think with RB that came after the media published? Which is probably why this man is so desperate to silence the media. Pure conjecture though.

No. 2 is unfair and unhelpful- it's ignorant (and very hurtful to many reading this) to dismiss suicide as "selfish".

Yes, it would be good to see the article, that is behind a Times paywall - Threatening suicide is cheap and wrong, Nov 2 . This is a subject that requires sensitive handling and I note that the journalist is Libby Purves - sadly her son, Nicholas a competent sailor and a poet, took his own life.

Haven't read the full thread, but this is also in the news today. You can probably connect the dots...

Staffordshire's Alton Towers closes World of David Walliams - BBC News

Here you go:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/257713d3-dd9a-434e-83ab-eda035997c38?shareToken=8900b98eccc500518a1694c4b715464f&ver=article

One has to be careful about this stuff.

I couldn't watch Would I Lie for a while following allegations on Mumsnet about a comedian known as RB. Very unfair on Rob Brydon.

'No intention to return to public life'? Why not if it's all made up rubbish?

My dad used suicide as a threat, probably once a month on average. It's the classic abusers threat.

I still feel so sorry for his mum and his son. His mum will have been through hell, hopefully his son will have been shielded.

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

There is no suggestion as of yet PPT is going through any sort of "legal process". The allegations are just that, allegations. They are not criminal charges, and even if they were no court Injunction would prevent the reporting of criminal proceedings because they are a matter of public record.

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

No.

At best, if there are formal criminal charges made, he might escape being named until such time he appears in court for the initial hearing, but at that point it becomes public domain and public record.

Is there a reason no criminal proceedings have taken place?

It's possible nobody has actually made a formal complaint about a suspected criminal offence. It's also possible they actually have, and it's currently being investigated, or either complainants, the police, or both, are simply biding their time until this plays out and potentially more complainants come forward.

This is what I think is the driver behind seeking the Injunction in the first place. Not mental health, not protecting relatives, it's a cynical attempt to minimise wider awareness of his particular behaviours and pre-empt more potential victims being inclined to speak out, thereby reducing the likelihood he does eventually face prosecution.

There remained legitimate concerns about both plagiarism and academic fraud.
Which he had tried to silence with allegations of 'racism'.
Had he not been such a prolific teller of tall tales, there would have been very little press interest in the story.