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.

Many countries have something like this enshrined in their law - it seems a good idea protecting teenagers from older predatory men but not criminalising the same teens for having sex with their peers

It's sometimes called the 'Romeo and Juliet clause'

.

deleted as made no sense with a quote fail

He or she.

@Mulledjuice agree, the interview was great on a number of points, not just NDAs

Seems a good idea. Is there an argument against this?

I question why she made and maintained contact with him at all when she did not reciprocate his feelings.

Whatever I wear, wherever I go, yes means yes and no means no 🎵

That ring any bells?

She went to dinner with him. Possibly at that point she thought she might have been interested in something beyond friendship. Possibly not.

Either way, she made it clear she was only interested in friendship. She set that boundary.

If he continued to be in touch with her after she said that, then it should have been on the basis that he understood and respected that. It is far from impossible for a man and woman to be friends if one of them fancies the other. You just have to not be a shit person.

I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me, so I will leave it there.

Whatever I wear, wherever I go, yes means yes and no means no 🎵

No did mean no - she refused to have sex with him - and they didn't have sex. She has not claimed that Walliams raped her.

If this were an allegation of rape, I would absolutely believe it had a place, a very strong place, in a list of allegations.

But it is not an allegation of rape.

agree @Headtorch - if anything I feel like DW has benefitted from this coming out hot on the heels of the RB verdict.

Don’t get me wrong, DW is a deeply creepy man who should never be on TV again and definitely deserves a police looking-at for some of the allegations relating to girls under 16. However, compared to the utter sadism of RB’s crimes and his psychopathic affect, DW ‘merely’ looks like a rather sad and pathetic middle-aged perve in comparison. That is in NO WAY minimising or excusing his behaviour - which appears to have been totally morally bankrupt and disgusting - but I’m not sure he could be charged with anything. I may be proved wrong, but I hope not for the sake of all the young women he’s come into contact with over his career 😕

jesus, how hard is is to just TREAT WOMEN AND GIRLS LIKE ACTUAL HUMANS WITH INNER LIVES AND BOUNDARIES? It’s a low fucking bar and plenty of men manage it.

What about the word children is so hard for people to understand?

Lucy Beaumont's stuff today is just really important. I take my hat off to her, and am not at all surprised that she connected having blown the whistle on DW with having previously worked in a school. Children are children. Children who are legally just past being children don't emerge into safety and invulnerability the moment they reach 18.

thank you for sharing it

I don't believe attitudes to this stuff was vastly different 20 years ago, I don't remember people thinking age gaps like this and this kind pursuit by an older man towards a girl to be acceptable. Even thirty years ago I had an incident at around 15 maybe even 14 where I was being harassed in the cinema by a man who was in his mid- late twenties, he followed me to the place I was meeting my friend as she had gone to the loo. We became worried and ran to a phone box to call my Dad, he was there within 10 minutes, the man was still nearby so once we were in the car my Dad drove near to him, wound do the window and asked what the hell he thought he was doing chatting to young girls and harassing us, he said he will be notifying the police and drove off. Equally, in school a boy in year 11 going out with younger girl in year 9 was teased about this and name called.

I don’t think I need therapy or am damaged/hurt/vulnerable for expecting the allegations to have been worse given the hype, but thanks for your diagnosis 😮

He is clearly a creep and immoral and I’m not defending him but if he has done anything illegal he will be held to account now I imagine.

To think it’s not that bad, a person isn’t thinking in a healthy way. They are desensitised and there will be reasons for that.

In your opinion- I’m assuming though you are a medical professional to make such statements?

I don’t work for David Walliams btw - I just felt I had to respond to someone saying I was damaged because of an opinion on a tv programme.

Please feel free to respond and get the last word - I don’t intend to get into a debate with you!

As Lucy Beaumont said, if your 40 year old mate rocks up to a night out hand in hand with a 16 or 17 year old, surely you think that’s fundamentally not right?

I was talking to DD about this. Every generation talks about the culture 'back then'. But rape culture is always the culture. But decent men always know the truth. My granddad who would be about 110 were he alive knew. And we knew in 2004 as well.

Predators are predators and the ones who try to stay just this side of the law don't even have the excuse of compulsive behaviour. They know and they don't care about the girls. They care about themselves. See also narc suicide threats.

To write children's books, with lots of girls growing up loving you, and then groom vulnerable children so you can exploit them when the risk to you of being jailed has just disappeared is sick. It's exploitation, it's premeditated, and it's that bad.

FFS we're on MUMSnet. At least name this shit.

I genuinely hope that anyone who doesn’t think it’s that bad, gets help to see that it is.

Government ministers are telling the TV and entertainment industry to sort their act out in response to the Walliams programme last night.

I find it troubling that the role played by HarperCollins - and the role they didn't play - seems to be being brushed aside.

And it’s a PERVASIVE issue. Sorry. Not shouting at you. Shouting at the bloody misogynistic patriarchy that has devalued women for decades and today I’m feeling so angry. It’s not the entertainment industry, it’s society as a whole needs to change including all workplaces that aren’t on top of this.

It’s obvious this thread and many comments on it are from Walliam’s PR agency/friends and family.

Agree- and on other threads.

Maybe it wasn't criminal, but people saying "it's no big deal" are hypocrites, unless they would pimp out their older teenage children to much older celebs with smiles on their faces.

Lots of us are damaged though... I was SA'd by my own dad, so, yes, DW does seem rather gentlemany in comparison and doesn't seem too bad in the scheme of things (compared to people who rape. Compared to parents who sa their own children).
You are very lucky that you have a healthy perspective on these things. I wish I had. I've had therapy but I think you'd need a lifetime of it and would still never catch up to completely to "healthy thinking" people (sadly) on this topic. However I'm grateful to hear different perspectives from people like yourself as it is free therapy :) and free learning:)

If it wasn't a 'big deal' DW wouldn't have spent all the money trying to get a super injunction.

(How much does one of them cost? Tens of thousands at least , probably more.)

Experts yesterday were estimating he spent at least £250k on the injunction in total.