I just watched the Walliams programme and...

[Headtorch]

I don't think it was that bad?

Maybe with all the hype I expected it to be on the RB scale, but it isn't.

Undoubtedly a sleaze and probably several cases that could be brought for workplace harassment, but as terrible as I expected. Enough that those companies should refuse to employ him though, which they have, now it's come out.

Which I guess shows how low the bar is.

I also watched it and agree - I’m wondering though if it will prompt other women to come forward with more serious allegations.

From what was shown sleazebag covers it, in my opinion, but I’m guessing there could be more to come out.

Really? He’s clearly a serial groomer with an established pattern of behaviour. As a middle aged man he used his celebrity to gain access to and build inappropriately close relationships with 15 year old girls so he could sleep with them the moment they reached the age of consent. He claims that he was simply motivated by wanting to help fans who were interested in media careers, but why was this mentorship only on offer to teenaged girls? As far as we know, he never offered to read draft scripts written by aspiring male scriptwriters…

The majority of it probably isn’t illegal, but it’s hugely ethically dubious behaviour. I wouldn’t be friends with a 50 year old man who preferred the company of a never-ending stream of teenaged girls - would you?

I think this sums up where I'm at with it all. Full disclosure, I haven't watched the documentary yet but I've read about it all in depth.

From what I understand, the current grooming laws weren't in place at the time these incidences were said to have happened, so there isn't much question of legality. I believe the stricter grooming law didn't come into force until 2017. I think that at the time the incidences were alleged to have happened, the person would have had to not only groom the under-16 but also have travelled to meet them with the sole intent of carrying out sexual acts, while the victim was still aged under 16. This law came into force in 2004. I think the women have all said they didn't have sex with him while they were younger than 16.

The only law that I think he might have broken is inducing a minor to send nude or sexually explicit photos - that law was in place and covers everyone under the age of 18. If they can prove this - and presumably they can with the texts? - he could be in trouble with this one.

But largely, I think Walliams is a creepy, despicable man who deliberately took advantage of young and naive girls, abusing his fame to try and coerce them into carrying out sexual acts.

I think probably it doesn't cross the threshold of criminality, but that doesn't stop him from being vile. I think any grown man who courts 15 and 16 year olds - even 17 yr olds - is pretty disgusting, if I'm honest. They're barely more than children no matter how grown up the youngsters think they are (as did we at that age).

I don't think something has to be criminal to be utterly unethical and immoral. I am so glad the injunction failed - how dare he try and use his wealth to try and silence women! Maybe he should have tried being a bit less predatory in the first place.

It does show how low the bar is if you think what he has done isn’t too bad. He groomed children and very young adults, some who he knew were very vulnerable and had been abused when they were younger. He’s a sexual predator. But sure, it’s not that bad because Russel Brand. I mean when you compare him to RB, he’s a gentleman really. FFS.

I would suggest that anyone that thinks this isn’t too bad would benefit from therapy to work out why they think that because healthy thinking people think this is horrendous.

DW took the exact kind of precautions that a predator takes when he knows that he may have to answer for it some day and wants to minimise the legal risk. Which tells us a fuck of a lot about him.

He checked the ages of his victims very carefully, made sure he stayed in touch with the right kind of encouraging words etc. Teenagers in his dressing room at BGT with the door shut.

If a man is attracted to a young woman and asks her age, and the answer is “15” then the only response is “best of luck with your GCSEs” not “let’s stay in touch until you’re ‘legal’ “

Separately, one of the allegations was about him kissing the mouth and breasts of a 15 year old, which would be sexual activity with a minor.

Additionally, I believe that the grooming aspect may mean that consent ‘gained’ later when the young women were over 16 isn’t sufficient, but I am not sure how this might work legally.

i read the lengthy Guardian article and had the same thought OP.

You’re joking. The one where he clearly groomed an under age girl?!

You don't think a 36 YO man meeting a 15 YO child to kiss and lick her breasts, then attempt to force her hand to touch his erection is "that bad"?

Not to mention the clear pattern of meeting 15 - 17 YO children and luring them in with flattery and promises of career help, only to have sex with them and then discard them (AKA grooming). Sounds very much like an up and coming Harvey Weinstein casting couch.

Plus the time he invited a vulnerable young woman, who'd grown up between her grandparents home and the care system, to live with him when she became homeless, and would then "plead" for her to get bed with him and "pawing" at her until she was so scared she left his home a few days after arriving.

If we are now at the point of comparing sex offenders to see whose worse then you could just as easily say Russell Brand isn't that bad because he didn’t attack children, or he wasn't Peter Sutcliffe, so it's not so bad.

If we have reached a point where someome being exposed for this sort of thing feels like some sort of anti climax or let down because it's not as heinous as the acts of another predator then that's very concerning for society. Anyone eyeing up under 16's as potential near future sexual partners must be feeling an a attraction at that point, which puts them firmly in the category of hebephilia.

DW needs to be investigated further, and hopefully other victims will be confident enough to come forward and provide more evidence that could lead to conviction.

Well said @LifesNotEnidBlyton

I think David’s team are working overtime on threads on here and other social media.

Anyone that thinks this isn’t too bad is damaged/hurt/vulnerable in some way and needs help to see abuse for what it is. I feel sorry for innocent people who don’t recognise it but there are also people whose mission is to minimise.

Good interview about the role of NDAs

news.sky.com/video/comedian-lucy-beaumont-i-offered-to-pay-legal-fees-for-woman-who-signed-walliams-nda-13610774

Agree, wonder how many posters here would be happy to see their 16 yo sleeping with a 30-40 year old celeb because "the age of consent" has been met.

Isn’t there a woman who says when she was 15 he took her home sucked on her breast and tried to put his hand down her trousers? I find that “bad”. And illegal.

Where was the program, please. I was expecting it last night but somehow missed it, despite googling. I'm useless.

If you don’t think “it’s that bad” your bar is incredibly low and I’d be worried for anyone you’re supposed to protect from creeps like him.

here

It’s on itvx called David Walliams Power and silence.

Yes. Premeditated. Calculating. Manipulative. Coercive. Grooming.

Sexual assault of a minor. Child sexual
abuse. Doing that with a five, eight or twelve year old - people would be clearly calling it CSA. 15 is still a minor. It’s CSA.

There is a law against people in a position of trust having sex with U18s (in their care). Such as teachers, youth keaders etc.

Morally, this could be the same. He used his position to get access to teenagers. Legally... im not a lawyer. I dont know if a mentor would be covered.

Hes not safe around children.

Considering how long the allegations span (pretty much from the moment he got famous all the way through to recent years) what are the chances the guardian and ITN managed to find every single victim over what seems to be about 20 years.

I’ll be shocked if there’s not plenty more who now have the confidence to speak up, and sadly many more who do not feel able to.

Don’t be one of the reasons a victim doesn’t feel like they cannot say what happened to them.

@MrsRobinsonsHandprintsits available on ITV X (ITV's free streaming service).

I watched it last night. I think they've made a mistake in releasing it so close to Russell Brand's trial, I don't know it this was intentional on ITV's part, maybe they wanted to continue the public questioning of acceptable behaviour? But naturally people will compare the two.

The grooming described was horrible to listen to. All the women were definitely vulnerable by virtue of their age and backgrounds. Make no mistake that he came across as a sleazy womaniser who only put himself and his sexual desire first. I didn't realise what a previous poster has said that at the time grooming wasn't illegal? (Or maybe I've misunderstood the post). It was chilling to see that he clearly knew exactly how young some of the girls were when he started messaging them. He stated he thought one of them was 18, but he knew exactly how old she was when he started messaging her two years ago so I don't buy that. In any event with someone who was clearly very young any decent man would have checked. His preference for barely legal women as he continued to get even older felt very very icky.

My husband and I got to the end and found ourselves saying that our view of him has been changed, and he did use his position of power to get what he wanted. It's notable that all headlines are saying accused of sexual misconduct, not assault. I think because of the timing of the documentary release people are likely to downplay his behaviour - people will inevitably compare this to the Brand dispatches documentary, which literally focused 100% on illegal activity - sexual assault and rape. There were definitely a couple of people in the Walliams documentary who experienced things that we would view as illegal now (the grooming and incident of indecent touching with an underage girl). I promise I am not in any way excusing his disgusting and immoral behaviour, but a lot of the documentary focussed on highlighly immoral and creepy -but not illegal- behaviour.

its a bit woolly as whilst what he did was wrong it wasn’t actually illegal

i can kind of excuse (?) behaviour in the early 2000s in a way, in that that is just what happened, and famous men expected to be surrounded by beautiful young g women /girls , and said young women and girls were intoxicated by the proximity to fame, and probably thought that if they were deeply uncomfortable they were the only one - everyone else seemed to be having a great time (and the idea that it’s something that your parents wouldn’t approve of does also add an extra frisson)

But to carry on after the revelations of Savile and all of #me too is stupid - that’s when it was made explicit that those behaviours weren’t ok and just because it’s what happened and wasn’t technically illegal didn’t mean it was right.

I had the same thoughts as the OP. And then I sat with that for a while and realised that it was horrific that I was so dismissive. I was consistently "in relationships" with men in their mid and late 20s from age 14 onwards, and it's only now, in my 40s, I'm seeing it for what it is. Society then- in the late 90s and early 00s- was just a perfect hunting ground for nonces.
I think a lot of women will be looking up and reassessing their past experiences in light of theDW case.

Really interesting (and awful!) that Lucy Beaumont herself was taken off by an older celebrity when she was a teenager and her mum fortunately found her before anything happened. And that she later reported rumours to the Met but they couldn’t do anything without a direct report.

OP, it's because it's come so soon after the Russell Brand trial. There's no actual rapes, that we know of, reported yet - so it doesn't seem so bad. Ironically it has helped Walliams by being able to come out now - I think it's worked in Walliam's favour.