Which way is it going to go?

[DoubleShotEspressox]

Sorry for the rag link -

https://mol.im/a/16259373

TDLR - celeb only known as PPT has been accused of sexual misconduct with over 30 witnesses giving accounts to police that the person in question abused their power as a celeb to abuse young women.

Celeb in question has said that if the stories are published, they will likely end their own life.

A judge this afternoon will rule on whether publishing the accusations will breach his human rights.

Is it likely that even if it does get sealed, public speculation will likely “out” him anyway?

AMIBU - Yes - innocent until proven guilty.
IAMNBU - It’s in the public interest to publish.

I don’t think they can set a legal precedent that someone can threaten suicide and allegations will be blocked from being reported. I just think it’s such a huge legal precedent to set that I can’t see how it’s possible to agree to it.

He’s outed anyway isn’t he?? I’ve thought it for years.

He has been ‘outed’ already - on multiple threads on MN alone.

Can you link any? I can’t find any!!

That’s what I thought - surely then every single person accused of anything will suggest that they are suicidal.

Everyone has guessed anyway

Imagine if “If you publish I will kill myself” became an accepted get out for abusers. Nothing would ever get published and abusers in the public eye get away with everything.What about their victims?
To have such a precedent would make a mockery of justice.

Surely if someone is innocent they’d want to clear their name?

Could someone link to a thread on here? I’ve clearly been living under a rock!

They might allow it until his criminal court case has been finished so I do think it's possible for the news outlets to be gagged temporarily.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5589779-injunction-against-itn-by-a-well-known-individual?page=1

It’s not a guess, foreign media are able to name him without repercussions, he’s been named in US media.

Obviously there has been rumours about him for years but US outlets confirmed this case is about him

Yep, there’s a link on page one of that other thread to an American Legal News site which names DW explicitly.

If the consequences of his own wickedness leads him to the conclusion that ending his life is his only option, he and he alone is to blame.

He shouldn't be allowed to use the threat of suicide to shield himself from public judgement.

I don't know who the person is, but I have seen two different names mentioned frequently.

Two different men with the same first name.

I find this situation very bizarre. Would he be granted anonymity if it were any other supposed crime such as fraud or murder? Surely any celebrity could pull this stunt for anything they've been caught out doing in that case!

Have the police investigated the claims? If there is enough evidence then the person should be charged, named publicly and brought to court. Otherwise its a case of innocent until proven guilty, which applies to everyone

That’s not what’s under consideration, though. Any criminal prosecution would be an entirely separate matter. What’s at issue here is whether the media has a right to publish the allegations as a public-interest story, or whether the alleged miscreant’s ‘right to life’, ‘private and family life’ and ‘right to avoid inhuman and degrading treatment’ supersedes it.

Multiple threads concerning this.

rumours have been reported in the print media. Do some googling not hard to find.

I can’t see anything that suggests the police are investigating.

But knowing his identity is only half of the story; it’s the details of what he’s allegedly done that will be suppressed, too which would be advantageous for him.

If the situation is that he’s identified he can just claim there are some false allegations against him. Wait for the fuss to die down.
However if it’s also reported that numerous, unconnected women and girls are saying the same thing about his behaviours towards them over a period of time then that’s pretty damning.

Yes I get that. But they are allegations. This person could actually be innocent. Not saying they ARE innocent. False allegations ARE made in some cases. They may be as guilty as hell but its up to the police to investigate thoroughly and the evidence needs to be tested in court. Not by the media.

This is my thought on it too.

So would you apply that to all people and all crimes? No reporting of any names until a conviction? And no reporting of any allegations of any wrongdoing at all until it’s been investigated by the police, charged, and convicted?

So no reporting of Prince Andrew, for example - it’s all allegations, he could have done nothing wrong (I’m not saying I believe that, it’s just the conclusion of saying allegations can be false and everything must be tested in court and not done by the media)

But the media is only reporting on the allegations. The court case is about whether the media has a public-interest right to publish the allegations.

Some or all may not be criminal matters, for one thing. The employee of Harper Collins who reportedly got a five-figure payout when she left the company after 'harassment' by DW wasn't making a criminal allegation, for instance -- she presumably raised a formal grievance within the company, on the grounds of her employers not taking reasonable steps to protect her from workplace sexual harassment etc.