“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.

It's a bit different, isn't it, when the accusations are exactly that he used his fame and status to abuse women?

Because your average low-level thief doesn't have a public profile and neither does their crime, especially.

My uncle committed a crime and was found guilty, but no one was interested in what he did especially.

The Sycamore Gap tree fellers deliberately vandalised a famous tree - ergo people were interested.

If you actively choose a public position and then abuse it, you can expect the same papers to publicise it as the promoted you.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Irrelevant until such time there is a criminal trial.

This thread is a perfect example of why people shouldn’t be named until found guilty.

Let's hope he keeps his promise.

Do you really think an innocent person would be so desperate to stop journalists from reporting a story, if those stories were false?

I'd love to hear any examples of celebrities who've filed injunctions where the allegations about them have been incorrect. Because I don't think there are any.

No.

Freedom of expression is an absolute and fundamental right.

You can not demand people behave as if a matter is Sub Judice when there is no trial underway.

If you truly believe the media only print impartial ‘facts’ then your opinion is worthless.

David Walliams has claimed psychiatric harm before, in the Britain’s Got Talent dispute. His argument then was that having his remarks made public caused him distress. Those remarks (caught on audio and leaked) included calling an elderly contestant a c**t 3 times and talking about a female contestant’s ‘wish’ to be fucked by him. Maybe if you’d find it ‘distressing’ to have your remarks made public, don’t make disgusting, derogatory & misogynistic remarks in the first place?

I personally fully believe in the ITN and Guardian's work. They claim they've identified 100 victims of this man. This isn't just tabloid gossip.

Fully believe? Good Lord.

Someone has some magic beans for you.

And you give the benefit of doubt to a man who's been dropped from numerous TV and film projects, dropped by his publisher, dropped by his agent, and now seen his branded attraction at Alton Towers permanently closed? Rightttt.

😅

You'd let your teenage daughter hang out alone with him then?

Are you aware of the concept of Defamation, and the fact the UK has some fairly robust laws which mean it's utterly risible to suggest both ITN and Guardian Group would go to court to protest their right to print allegations which would see them sued into oblivion unless they were essentially true?

Are you suggesting ITN and The Guardian Group are now the keepers of justice in this country? They they decide what’s ‘essentially’ true and what’s not? Is that what you’re suggesting?

They wouldn’t be sued into ‘oblivion’. Keep the exaggeration down, it weakens your point. They want to sell papers - it’s worth their risk.

Not just The Telegraph.

Are you suggesting ITN and The Guardian Group are now the keepers of justice in this country? They they decide what’s ‘essentially’ true and what’s not? Is that what you’re suggesting?

No, that's the courts and laws.

They wouldn’t be sued into ‘oblivion’. Keep the exaggeration down, it weakens your point. They want to sell papers - it’s worth their risk

Well that all but confirms that no, you have no idea about the concept of Defamation, or what it would mean for ITN and GG if they were to print this type of allegation when it was without foundation.

Perhaps you remember what became of the News of the World, and if not, it might be useful for you to familiarise yourself with what happens when newspapers knowingly print untruth and/or lie in courts. Presumably the editors of the NOTW wanted to "sell newspapers" too, unfortunately for them their disregard for Law led to their newspaper being closed down. I'm also sure ITN and GG would like to continue trading.

Just been looking into how difficult extradition is from certain countries. unrelated obviously

? 🤔

He's a very rich man.

I’m so dense, I never figured out the possible link between Alton Towers and Emily Howard 🤔

Oh, I see. As Google put it he ‘downsized his UK footprint.’ and now lives in Portugal/Barbados/NewYork. Right.

But he isn't on trial. No-one has accused him of a crime that would mean he goes to court. The police are not after him. He isn't going to be found guilty and - really importantly - he hasn't asked the judge to rule on whether he may or may not have sexually abused women. What he is asking for is for an injunction so that he will not be named in any articles about his behaviour in the news media.

The two news outlets wish to publish evidence that they have that he did in fact sexually predate women. He is not disputing this, he is stating that he does not want to be named so that he will not have to suffer people publicly knowing about it.

You have decided you’re right so really there’s no need for courts and laws. Accusations are ENOUGH.

Perhaps you should have a proper google about NOTW.