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

He's currently on Taskmaster. He got skinny. Doesn't suit him.

And £5m (less fees) from the lawsuit against Freemantle

Then that is sadly their choice.

The threat of doing it can not absolve anyone of the choices they make.

Perhaps it’s more heightened now due to what happened to Jason Arday?

The male most referred to here also featuring heavily on X today, alongside a certain male who suddenly split with his gf in the past couple of weeks.
Concerning either May be able to purchase anonymity, but agree somewhere is likely to publish at some point…

Or someone who identifies as a man ...

Abusers often threaten suicide when they are faced with accountability. Sometimes they do kill themselves, and this is often partly as a way to punish their victim for doing something to challenge them.

Doesn't mean abusers shouldn't be held to account.

Yes but in a court of law, not in newspapers

And that includes the ones with enough millions in the bank to pay expensive lawyers to apply for high court injunctions!

In which case, still a man, not a lady...

A cod psychologist (raises hand 😀) might suggest that such behaviour is just trying to continue to exert control from beyond the grave. (Which also suggests that the best strategy is to ignore it. Marcus Aurelius and all that)

Interesting. Strangely, my first thought.

Oh, for the love of all that is Holy we need the smiley reaction ....

Think you are assuming this individual is guilty and whoever has said whatever is telling the truth.

Instead of jumping all over your own prejudices actually read the article it throws up at least 2 others that fit the description. One who I doubt very much would have been up to no good fits the description and I can see them committing suicide as they won’t have the fight to go through with a trial to prove their innocence.

The other, the stress would finish them off going through a trial given their physical health.

The article refers to a him.

This thread has named people and should be taken down.

The freedom to report a thread lies with all posters.

Does it really? Or did you say to yourself 'aha! I can shoehorn in another anti-trans comment here!'

Why.
An injunction has not been granted and the applicant has been readily named in the legal press.

The concern about such an argument is that in effect it could be used to silence any investigation going forward, as a precedent.

That cannot be allowed.

I see what you did there….

Yes, it does really. They are both cases where someone's own possible or attempted suicide is being used as a weapon to try to force others to suppress their right to free speech. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

In both cases it is possible to argue that it would be kinder or more humane to refrain from adding to the stress suffered by a person suffering from poor mental health, but in both cases that’s not the point.

Alternatively, if someone goes to court - under oath - and swears to that, then there is really not reason not to confine them against their will for their own (and others) safety,

It's a dangerous game to play, and best left to total idiots whose narcissism will destroy them one way or another.

.....David Walliams identifies as a man....

I'm so confused about all this "identifying" chat it is David Walliams.
He is a known pervert/predator.
I worked in the industry and it was widely known he was a predator.

Similarly Kevin Spaceys predelections were well known to anyone and everyone who was within spitting distance of the old Vic years before the scandal broke.