David Walliams

[mrpenny]

To Think it could not have been DW??

My replies to you have been entirely consistent thanks.

You replied “yes and no” to my post where I pointed out that it wasn’t just in celebrity circles where these crimes are perpetuated and where nonetheless power and control is a significant factor.

Power imbalances with regard to a victim is a factor in a all sorts of non-celebrity professional and leisure settings which allows men to perpetuate these sorts of crimes; eg doctors, priests, managers, teachers, music and gymnastic coaches, for example.

I agree that the entitlement and celebrity status of these high profile men, and their money, allowed them to evade discovery, and I pointed out they have all tried to use poor mh as mitigating factors, but I think it’s wrong to think that the newest recruit to an ordinary army regiment , the wet behind the ears police trainee, the teenage music student, the child altar server in a church, aren’t as equally at risk as the potential victim working as a runner on a film set, in a tv studio or in a book publisher’s or at a post production party somewhere in Soho.

Power imbalances occur everywhere in society not just in the celebrity realm and it’s important to be aware of that.

I’ve just bought her book. I feel there has to be some level of public support as she probably will never work in TV again.

I think his ex-wife was forced to share her cancer diagnosis as well, so that the papers will leave her alone. Terrible for her & their son.

NDAs are usually used in work situations to prevent employees from disclosing sensitive information. However, they cannot be used to prevent somebody disclosing a crime or harassment, discrimination etc. Yes, they are legally binding.

So, for example, if a celebrity (or anyone) hires a full-time nanny to look after their children then they may require the nanny to sign an NDA. The NDA would prevent the nanny from telling the world about what the celebrity got up to. That is, unless they were breaking the law or something in which case the NDA doesn't apply.

There is also something called 'misuse of private information'. This actually came up in the DW judgment. As part of the reasoning for why the judge decided not to uphold the injunction was that:

[234] "The Claimant has not pleaded misuse of private information, breach of confidence..."

If you disclose information (or threaten to disclose) about a person where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy about that information then they can apply for an injunction to stop you doing that or apply for damages.

Not all information about a person would be covered by this but it can be quite wide ranging at times.

For example, it can include taking photos of their children. Both JK Rowling and the singer Paul Weller were successful in claiming damages against organisations that published photos of their children.

If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy then, like in the DW case, the judge will then have to balance the human rights Article 8 (privacy and family life) against Article 10 (freedom of expression) to decide whether to grant an injunction or damages.

What I find interesting is everyone jumping on Jonathan Ross MUST knowing something when all we can say is he MAY know something.

However no one is going for anyone at HarperCollins. Yet several staff there absolutely DID know. And quite some time ago. And did NOTHING.

Why is everyone more concerned about those who MIGHT have known rather than those who DID? I'd start with them first.

I suspect there are people out there thrilled that the attention is all on Ross.

@IdentifyingAsAWoollyMammoth

I think many of us have a balanced approach to this whole issue. It doesn't have to be either or, as you can see from my post above 2 days ago.

Some of us, yes, but the majority? I don't think so, based on MN threads and definitely not based on X for the last 48 hours.

There's a lot of focus on sm about the disparity between RB and others that have been given 18ths for rape and thinking it unfair or a conspiracy.

What's "18ths"? - 18-month prison sentences?

Yes, 18ths for some asylum seekers. Not sure if that's true or not but that's what some on sm are saying. That it's unfair, etc.

The far right are always going to find a way of bringing their eternal desire for victim status into it.

I thought the Government changed the sentencing rules and the rules around human rights and asylum seekers who commit crimes, especially sex crimes - to make it far easier to deport them back to their country of origin. So I am not sure what the “far right” are whingeing about.
www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-criminals-excluded-from-uk-under-strict-new-rules

I mean if they are whingeing that foreign criminals are being deported rather than serving the usual time in a UK jail at the cost of the UK taxpayer, then I am really utterly confused by what the “far right” want. Maybe they don’t want the prisons cleared after all to make way for other types of homegrown criminals? I wonder why.

Not many do go back, depends where eg Albania is higher. In contrast, Home Office data analysed by The Times shows that fewer than 1 in 20 offenders (under 5%) are deported to countries like Nigeria, Jamaica, Algeria (4.2%), Iraq (3.4%), and Somalia (0.6% to 2.7%).

Thanks re NDAs @Another2Cats

If it's the case that I'm thinking of then the offenders were children aged 13 and 14 at the time of the offence (although 14 and 15 when it came to court).

In that case, the two 14 year old boys eventually received four years each and the 13 year old was given an 18 month community sentence.

In the UK, children are generally given shorter sentences than adults. Although, whether children are given unduly lenient sentences is certainly a debate to be had, I don't feel that it is right to compare a 13 year old boy to Russell Brand in terms of the sentence received.

However, I would argue that certain offences are so serious that immediate custody should follow regardless of age and that a community sentence was inappropriate.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeal about unduly lenient sentencing but the court upheld the sentencing for the younger boy.

The case in the Court of Appeal was R v X, Y & Z [2026] EWCA Crim 845. It is very grim reading what happened.

Thank you for explaining that.

Was immediate custody had for those guilty of rape in this case?

For the two 14 year old boys yes (they got four years), but the 13 year old boy got an 18 month community sentence.

You'll be pleased to see that it is reported that Lucy has sold out her books and tickets to her tour are selling well too.

It's been really enlightening to have conversations with men around me and read men's comments online about David Walliams. So many of them are defending him. They really seem to think 16 and 17 year old girls are fair game. It's been a bit of an eye opener for me to be honest. Really disheartening. I think this will be an interesting conversation to have as the case unfolds further.

The far right need the population to be as scared as possible, scared people (broadly speaking) are more likely to support right wing leaders.

DD2 just asked me about Nvidia and what is wrong with rich men. Wasn’t sure what to say. One would assume that if you have power and money, you would take that responsibility seriously and want to set an example for the next generation and handle that power with care, not via your penis all round.

Chinese spies do seem to get everywhere.
Wr don’t know what goes on do we :(
So much sleaze

So the people subject to the NDA, signed it? Like a private agreement

Why did they do that?

This isnt really about rich men. Hopefully your daughter is aware of the vast numbers of sex offenders from all classes, the local news and local court listings are full of them. They're all the same no matter what their income.