“Mystery” Male Celebrity Loses Injunction Bid

[CaveMum]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqglwjdgg045o

The celebrity has lost his bid for a permanent injunction to prevent The Guardian and ITN from publishing allegations that he abused his status to attempt or attempt to engage in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women.”

There remains a temporary injunction preventing him from being named in order to allow an appeal against the judgement.

Knowing someone who nearly turned to suicide when "only" accused of stealing money, no one should have things splashed everywhere when they haven't been found guilty, At one time, many people argued rape victims shouldn't have anonymity. It's awful.
If it was you, or your child, would you want this? If they are guilty, then they can be punished when found guilty.

I feel for him, he’s very ill, but he couldn’t win or everyone would try it.

No sign he’s anything but a sleaze. Is anything going to court bar confidentiality?

Am I living under a rock? Who is it?

Agree 100%. The place for this is the police and the courts, not newspapers and TV programmes.

This is why these injunctions are pointless - because everyone knows who it is.

Rape victims are not the same as someone who has allegedly committed a crime though, are they?

I agree, they can be punished when found guilty. A free press isn’t a ‘punishment’ though. It is just reporting on facts. And the fact is that this person has been accused. A fair trial and free reporting CAN co-exist in a democracy. Rich people shouldn’t be able to buy their way out of that.

May I refer you to the op’s post at 14.49. There’s even a photo, for Christ’s sake!

I believe he changed his name at some point, but his birth name was David Williams.

His episode of Who Do You Think You Are was still on iPlayer a couple of days ago...

I mean, there's plenty of stuff about this individual that's already in the public domain in terms of inappropriate behaviour that's resulted in them being dropped from multiple roles/projects. And given the journalistic rigour that ITN/Guardian uphold, it is very, very unlikely to not be true. People who are innocent of wrongdoing don't usually have as many allegations about them.

Then stay off this thread then rather than being so sanctimonious and superior. Going to defend Jimmy Saville as well?

How does everyone seem to know who it is? Is there a solid basis for that? Or is it just a guess that has been repeated to the point it has started to be considered fact?

I agree and I find it very alarming the people that seem to be leaping to this persons defence so quickly.

Last year’s Christmas Celebrity Michael McIntyres Wheel is worth a watch.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I love when they do this.

I remember all the Downton Abbey stories on the front page alongside stories about an injunction...

This:

https://legalnewsfeed.com/2026/08/07/cleary-gottlieb-lawsuit-david-walliams-injunction-and-merck-trademark-dispute-lead-londons-legal-headlines/

This. How many controlling husbands threaten to kill themselves if a wife dares to leave. It's the oldest trick in the book. This would be just the same attempt at abusive control, but handed down by a court.

Of course it must fail.

How does everyone know who it is? I know people keep saying or hinting strongly here. But how do they know that to hint towards it? Are we basing it on any facts except this potential persons current contracts / contracts ending?

Naughty BBC!

I wonder how many Christmas specials David Walliams will be doing this year

I feel like I live online but honestly have no idea. The list of suspects is so long 😭

thank goodness I’ve never understood how this person came to be any shade of popular.

He's dead. This is about people who are alive and not convicted or even charged with any wrongdoing.

Lives can be ruined by "allegations" that are neither substatiated nor prosecuted.

Were he alive Saville would have been prosecuted and jailed.

Me too lol but then I found this thread 🤣

Quite a few papers pull that trick, they post the news article of the celeb who wants an injunction (who they can't name for legal resons) and then run a seperate article of the celeb in a different news story on the same page, so they name them without naming them if that makes sense, DM has used that tactic in the past...