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

thank you!
His defence "cite ECHR Article 3 on “inhuman or degrading treatment”. They mention the lifetime anonymity given to the killers of James Bulger. "

WOW.
also, maybe citing someone like Christopher Jefferies would have been more appropriate, if they believe that DW is innocent; as opposed to mentioning notorious and brutal childkillers.....

UK Court Injunctions only apply to areas within the jurisdiction of UK Courts, so any worldwide media source which is based entirely outside of these areas can continue to report any facts they like regardless of what any Injunction says, temporary or otherwise.

If the AI isn't UK based and/or UK owned, then I don't believe it would be in breach of the temporary Injunction if it is simply pulling information from non-UK sources which are reporting the facts and particulars. Even if it's accessible online from within the UK, this is still not a breach if the online material isn't being hosted in the UK

One of the great things about the Internet being beyond the meddling, interfering, and censorship of any single Court, Judiciary, Politician, or Government, and why it's wonderful watching 4Chan continually troll the utterly impotent Ofcom.

As Ian Hislop and others have been saying, if this injunction was granted, it would stifle press freedom as anybody could claim suicide risk as a way to shut down a story they didn't like. It is a tragedy if anybody takes their own life, but people have to be responsible for their own actions and can't hold society to ransom.

His ex-wife has recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. He should be supporting his son through this, not threatening suicide.

Of course it is selfish. Heartbreaking for sure, but selfish nevertheless.

Unless there is not one person who will be impacted by the decision. So - no one who will care or be left behind. No one will have to deal with the body and so on. Not often the case.

👏👏👏

I think the "...his son..." in the judgement gave that bit away.

Sorry for your loss @BoredZelda ! 😁

He’s very ill in hospital. His poor son, too.

If the courts worked for sex offences, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

But they don’t so we have to rely on trial by media.

According to The Times:

"The celebrity has been given a deadline of 4.30pm on November 9 to appeal."

Another week of this charade when most people already know who it is already? What a waste of time.

I really hope this doesn't get through appeal and the Guardian and ITN (who I'm quite certain have done all due diligence) can go ahead. I actually don't think it is necessarily 'in the public interest' to find out about 2 adults shagging completely consensually, but that's clearly not the case here.

I'm not a great believer in 'no smoke without fire' generally because people do lie and can invent things for all sorts of reasons, but in this case it isn't a whiff of smoke but great heaped fully alight bonfires, over 100 people, most not knowing each other.

The law can't be used to protect the well off from the consequences of their actions. The person in question is rich because of public acclaim and his fame and the counter side of that is when you screw up as massively as is alleged, people will be watching.

The closure of David Wallians World at Alton Towers....hmm I wonder if the two things could be connected. The individual is clearly David Walliams.

Whatever he has done is clearly something really really bad. I dont care if he is suicidal....if he is a wrongun then we have a right to know and he should be held to account and if he has done something criminal then he should be prosecuted and then sent to prison if convicted.

It’s not about who he is, the anonymity is simply as this is worked out, the injunction is about rhe allegations being made, he’s seeking an injunction to stop these being made public,

one of tne reporters is also alleging to be a victim, her, ppt and rhe other reporter have all be given anonymity at this point , even though the second didn’t wish it,

he is not seeking an injunction saying publish the allegations don’t name me, he’s seeking an injunction on the allegations themselves, the anonymity is simply what rhe judge has granted whilst it’s legally decided on whether the allegations can be published or not.

think about it, we know who it is, but does anyone know exactly what rhe allegations are, other than its sexual ? How many women, what is alleged to have happened, no, because he’s seeking an injunction to stop them being published, it’s not about who he is, it’s about what he’s alleged to have done

abd he’s saying if the allegations are made public he will kill himself.

to be balanced, he is also denying the allegations and it doesn’t appear there is criminal proceedings, as if there were it would normally be a very significant reference point for the judge as he’d not wish to prejudice a criminal case.

which indicates this is allegations with no criminal case currently under way,

DW is ill in hospital? Where did you hear this?

It’s in the court docs and he’s been in a psychiatric unit for a while now,

I can't work out if you are being facetious or not

An imposter thread!!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5595995-mystery-male-celebrity-loses-injunction-bid

I think you’re just not getting the Little Britain reference 😂😂