“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.

Haaaa! Just got this, nicely done!

Worse secret ever

Do you think this individual being dropped/axed from various projects, books no longer sold/reprinted, Alton Towers suddenly announcing the permanent closure of a themed area of their resort are all purely coincidental?

It's quite clear, following the paper trail, that there's been a lot going on in readiness for this news being in the public domain, and the inevitable scandal/damage that follows when it is. It's obviously a very serious situation and not just tabloid tittle-tattle.

Most people accused of crimes have their names attached to the story. See current Russel Brand story. Why should they be allowed to keep the fact they’ve been accused secret? It’s still going through court and they may be found not guilty, but I don’t think it should be a problem to have their names in the paper with the court proceedings.

Lives are also ruined by the kind of behaviour these allegations are about.

Brilliant.

It's also only wealthy folk who can afford the process of injunction/appeal.

Completely unrelated, I am sure, but legalnewsfeed.com had a story on 7 August saying:

"In a separate legal matter, well-known children’s book author [NAMED IN THE ARTICLE] has launched an injunction against ITN and the Guardian. This action highlights ongoing tensions between public figures and the media, particularly around issues of privacy and defamation. The case promises to attract significant attention given Walliams’ public persona and the prominence of the media organizations involved."

Surely they wouldn't have named the person seeking an injunction from being named before the injunction was made, would they? The name is still on their website (I just removed it here).

You've only removed one instance of his name. You left the other one in. You wally(ams)

There are many people called Walliams. Probably.
But I just noticed @Drivingmissmaisie posted the link upthread before me. Must be The World's Worst-kept Secret. Title for a new shit book, perhaps?

There has never been one of these cases where I've thought what a shame, he seemed like such a nice man. All sleazy as hell, and I know that having never met them.

The people who actually know them and continued to perpetuate their careers have lots of questions to answer IMO.

It’s interesting that two men allegedly both accused of such crimes and in the news recently are widely seen as camp/effeminate. The other one (currently in court) has actually previously said it was a tactic to make women feel safe and increase his chances of pulling (or allegedly raping them). One of his alleged victims said she thought he was gay and was therefore safe. I wonder if this second camp celeb had the same MO.

Saville was alive for quite a long time with everybody knowing what he was doing and wasn’t prosecuted.

There is a long history of celebrities whose behaviour has been an open secret and women and children are asked to modify their behaviour to avoid being alone with them and the celeb gets to carry on. I think very few of these would have reached the stage of prosecution if they hadn’t been named in the media and the authorities had their hand forced.

I think even my half deaf, half blind, 20yo senile cat knows who it is at this point 😂

Yes.
He always had the reek of someone hiding in plain sight.

Sean Lock is much missed...

So many interesting court cases currently going on here in Little Britain. We’ve certainly Got Talent for them.

Well done to the judge for not allowing this injunction and well done to ITN & the Guardian for refusing to be intimidated by the celebrity’s manipulative tactics.

I think I know what you're getting at, but don't put his name out there on a thread like this!

Oh Sean Lock knew a wrong un when he came across them.

well its not jimmy saville, gary glitter phillip schofield, ian watkins huw edwards, rolf harris. p diddy.....carry it on

🙈 Just did a bit of researching. But honestly had no idea beforehand

May I play devils advocate?
We often see in the papers and on the news, when these stories break, the accuser being addressed as Miss A whilst the accused has his name splashed all over. Before any trial has begun his name has been dragged through the mud and a guilty verdict decided by the press and readers. Surely he should be accorded the same anonymity.

If he’s found guilty haul him over the coals and scream his name from the rooftops.
Mud sticks even when an innocent verdict is found.

Yep I googled a bit and found stuff out👍

Were he alive Saville would have been prosecuted and jailed.
But the point is, he wasn't prosecuted despite his appalling behaviour being an open secret in media circles for years. The current case is a celeb doing the same kind of things as Saville - again an open secret - but trying to find a way to wriggle out of facing the music. Rest assured, Saville would have pulled exactly the same kind of stunt had he still been alive.

Try googling "male celebrity seeking injunction" or similar.

UK Injunctions only hold in places where UK courts have jurisdiction. There are plenty of non-UK sources reporting precisely what is going on, including identity, because they are not bound by the temporary Injunction.