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

I’m fairly certain it’s a certain Mr Blobby

It depends what the story is that these outlets want to publish. If it’s that a police investigation has been launched and he has been arrested or charged, then that’s a legitimate news story in the public interest and should not be suppressed.

If it’s allegations that people are making, then these media organisations should be telling them to take them to the police, not make a news story out of them.

Everyone is entitled to due process, however reprehensible we may find their alleged behaviour.

the pasted article extract, it mentions ‘girlfriend’ rather than wife

They should print and be damned. The whole system of preventing the names of the accused being made public and discussions of ongoing cases is ridiculous and outdated. People should be able to talk about things openly without fear of recrimination.

I may be talking nonsense, but are these sorts of stories not sometimes run so that others affected may feel supported to report their cases?

If I remember correctly, there was a documentary run about Russell Brand before he was charged with anything.

Yea I’ve heard lots of rumours lately. If it’s true I’ll be gutted.

Who are you suggesting by this post?

without adding to speculation my reply to "well he might harm himself" would be that he could go into protective monitored custody to prevent that...

And that it is coercive behaviour and that it is to stop.

He’s had severe depression in the past. For once, this ain’t blackmail.

meh. He is treated like everyone else. Otherwise it is one more case of "two tier" justice where the rich get away with everything and the poor have their lives ruined.

AI seems to think that DW was not in hospital this year

So long as its not Tom Hanks yes I know he's American

AI also just told me that US oil prices are high because of the war in Ukraine... Seems to have forgotten all about Hormuz.

i don't think it matters who it is. (except in a wider way so that other victims come forward, and people know to avoid getting into certain situations with the person)

What does matter is the attempted coercion of "i will hurt myself". As pp pointed out the Samaritans advise not going along with this kind of behaviour.

As the judge said (from the Times article) we should start from the assumption of open justice. Which mostly means names and allegations can be published (as they would in the case of Joe Bloggs)

And then there is the MASSIVE issue of money being able to buy you protection from the normal course of the law and society. I will go to the barricades to stop this.

Well yes, Im not saying its the gospel

How do people know he was in hospital then, from the injunction paperwork?

I dont agree with SM allegations by the way, but reporting of any criminal proceedings should be reported as they would with any of us.

4 days ago the Daily Mail had a photo of DW at a restaurant with a friend. The article made a point of trying to convince the reader he was unwell and it was his first public appearance in months.

I think we should avoid trial by media, innocent until the court decides otherwise. Thereafter deserving of punishment. People have been named in the past and found innocent - Cliff Richard as one example.

Another famous person who’d rather hire an expensive law firm that be accountable for the accusations against them. I really don’t agree with these injunctions that get used to quash a story.

Why on earth would AI know if a celebrity is in a private hospital?!

But there’s a high profile case currently in the courts, that would’ve never got there had it not been for an expose on TV.

Well everyone here appears to know, so where did the information come from? AI just trawls the same information everyone here has?

This.

We can not live in a world where people can behave as they please, and then threaten to harm themselves if the truth is made public.

Equally if some harms themselves after the truth is made public, it is not the fault of the truth or the exposure of truth.

Of the 2 main men speculated on here one has a wife and the other doesn’t (and I can’t imagine he has a GF either now)

Nobody here knows anything, it’s just speculation. AI scrapes information from everywhere online and a celebrity discreetly staying in a private hospital is unlikely to get covered in the media, that’s one reason they spend tens of thousands of pounds at any one time in the hospital.

Maybe we should just be glad he is contributing to an attempt at trickle down economics, via solicitors?

I actually don't care who it is, I do know the precedent it sets to all men when accused of anything thereafter if whoever it is is pandered to. As if the legal system needs more men making these excuses not to get to trial! If they want more backlog this would be a surefire way to get it.

I agree, but I remember the Caroline Flack threads where for some reason people portrayed her as a victim.