“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.

I just remember Cliff, Paul Gambacini and Harvey Proctor who hadn't done anything but you had the BBC flying helicoptors over Cliff's house and the other two losing their jobs and in Harvey Proctor's case, his home.

The computer has a response…

I agree. Its widely acknowledged that rape and sexual assault victims can be badly let down by the criminal justice system. Not guilty in a legal context does not mean the incident did not occur, its just so hard to prove to the criminal standard. Many reports of rape or sexual assault don’t get taken to the prosecution stage and the victim is left to deal with the trauma of the incident but also the trauma of knowing the perpetrator wont face justice.

I don’t condone a mass public hounding, but victims shouldn’t have to be silent to protect their rapists reputation.

What have I missed about Downton Abbey…?!?!

What I find interesting especially in the current climate and with the internet why those in the public eye cant behave a bit less worse.

There are quite a few Celebs who dont seem to be very nice which is one thing but at least manage to keep their libido's under control.

The Press Summary is very readable, and helps clarify where responsibility lies for the rights and protections available to people in this kind of situation.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited/

As an aside, I remember Philip Schofield asking if people wanted him to die, during his own exposure.

This case helps clarify the broader issues and frees us up from the ultimatums that are often imposed to silence us.

Public interest for all bar mere unsubstantiated rumours.

I would think it will not be too long before people will have forgotten about him, but as soon as an other injunction is mentioned he will be mentioned.

That was Hugh Bonneville visiting prostitutes

From hospital inpatient, I would take this to mean The Priory where they will admit and diagnose anyone with the budget for it....

I think it was entirely the right decision to deny the injunction. It reeks of male privilege.

Enjoy

observer.com/2016/05/beloved-british-family-man-burned-by-escorts-breach-of-contract/

As we are all too aware, a not guilty verdict by no means demonstrates innocence when it comes to sexual crimes.

https://news.vaquill.com/item/6364f114-960d-4668-95bd-da9e00659a01

I wonder who it could be?

How do the press find out about allegations? Does this mean that victims have a file with the police .? And if so why isn't the person arrested and charged . The title article said that he used his celebrity to attempt to cause harm . But I don't get how that can be a criminal act . I am neither condemn or supporting him as I have no idea about his life . And not really been following the story . But it would be terrible to be accused publicly if you were not guilty . Is this what the Guardian want to publish ? And how can we know unless the evidence is presented at a trial .

Have you been following the recent Russell Brand case, closely? Have you read the questions the Defence barristers have put to the victims? Or what the Defence barristers said about these women in the summing up?
If not go and have a read then come back and explain why you think the vast majority of women who are sexually abused, never go to the police.
Until we change the court system, women have every right to put their stores to journalists because they aren’t going to get justice in this country.

No! Not Mr Brown…! Wish I hadn’t asked now.

So he could be an inpatient at The Gordon and out having coffee with a nurse or he could be at The Nightingale which is a private hospital in Marylebone and where Huw Edwards retreated to and been considered well enough for a home visit during the day.

We don't know which hospital but, as he is currently detained under the MHA, it will necessarily be NHS funded care. If the state deprives someone of their liberty, the state also pays for, and has full responsibility for the care.

I would be very interested to know more detail about the types of private/NHS care that has been used throughout the many months since he received notice of the planned publications and documentary.

It is possible/likely that some hospital stays have been more luxurious than others. I would love to know how many of the 10 doctors he has seen were state or privately funded.

At least one retired doctor mentioned in reports is a "doctor to the stars" who has faced GMC criticism for his own inappropriate behaviour with a female patient.

I hope it doesn’t fail because it became unenforceable due to Twitter outing as that makes a mockery of the law.

I do hope it fails because abusers shouldn’t be able to hide behind mental health considerations to avoid facing the consequences of their own actions.

I know !

From a podcast I listened to recently, he was apparently offered a NHS assessment and follow up treatment (although I would have thought waiting lists for MH assessments are probably months for non celebs ) but he declined and wanted to stick with the private clinician.

I can see that continuity and rapport with a psychologist or psychiatrist is important but I found it interesting, as potentially theres nothing stopping someone having both NHS and private assessment.....

How do the press find out about allegations?

Probably because one or more individuals have taken it upon themselves to approach the media, or some investigative journalist is working with these media outlets to expose the truth about the individual in question, in pretty much the same way the truth about Jimmy Savile and multiple other historical abusers finally came to light.

Does this mean that victims have a file with the police?

Not necessarily. Some might have, it's not particularly relevant because there is no need to make a report of suspected criminal wrongdoing in order to talk about your own experiences.

The title article said that he used his celebrity to attempt to cause harm . But I don't get how that can be a criminal act

You can't conceive of how someone with a prominent public profile, someone viewed as powerful or influential, can abuse that station in order to commit potentially criminal acts?

How do you think Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris etc operated?

But it would be terrible to be accused publicly if you were not guilty

Well thankfully we have robust defamation laws, which by and large serve to prevent people making public allegations when there is no substance to them.

And how can we know unless the evidence is presented at a trial

There is no need for a trial to determine the veracity of an allegation. If you want to make a formal complaint of criminal wrongdoing, the police investigate, and then the Crown Office decide to prosecute, sure, there will be a trial in order to determine fact, but an allegation is a simple statement, not a formal complaint to police about suspected criminal behaviour.

The Judge was made aware of such issues in the bundles supplying the Claimant and Defendants, and alludes to them in the judgment. Without great detail because the role of the court was simply to consider the application for the injunction.

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/ppt-v-independent-television-news-limited-and-guardian-news-and-media-limited/

I can tell you from personal experience as mother of a former sectioned patient that a private facility doesn't have the legal power to do this without the permission of a legal entity or the NHS. There is reference to a secure unit which almost certainly means an NHS unit. He is in a secure NHS unit which means his mental health is very serious indeed. The NHS uses private mental health facilities if they don't have beds in the public hospitals but it is overseen by the NHS.

It's not going to be the Priory.