“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.

If you don’t want stories printed about your predatory behaviour… don’t commit predatory behaviour.

Bullshit.

I know a man who was guilty of raping his children more than 10 years before he ever set foot in a court. He was guilty of child rape from the minute he first raped his eldest son.

He did not become magically guilty of child rape when jury said so.

Letters titled in the Telegraph. Coincidence surely

What a total waste of time it is engaging with you.

There is "no need for courts and laws" because this isn't a criminal matter at this point. Nothing whatsoever to do with "what I've decided".

Why are you seemingly unable to grasp what is a really simple and straightforward notion?

He does deny the allegations. But is not currently on trial for them.

"8. The Claimant has given a broad denial of the Allegations which the Defendants propose to publish. In these proceedings, the Court will not resolve whether the Allegations that the Defendants wish to publish are true. The issue for the Court is narrower: whether the Court should impose an injunction to restrain publication of the Allegations given the risks that publication would represent to the Claimant."

And Huw Edwards I believe 🤮

I think this case is interesting, not from a prurient perspective but it takes me back to Caroline Flack.

In that case, the sheer vitriol, the glee and nastiness of the reporting was heavily commented upon and criticised by many. That, in many msm outlets, went beyond reporting on facts, it was the how the reporting happened in those quarters. Wasn’t that a ‘punishment’ levied by our free press? Many would - and did- see it as that. And our tabloids definitely see themselves as judge and jury, they love to build up then tear down, create hero’s then turn them into monsters. And that’s not even getting to social media.

Have a search and see some of the discussions on here.

Should another feeding frenzy occur? Do we think our press are able to restrain themselves and report ‘factually’ and fairly? Do we care if the accused person, mentally ill, kills themselves? What if they are innocent, but die before any case goes to trial?

This is semantics, but ordinarily an application for an Injunction would immediately be dismissed if the applicant suggested the material in question was unfounded.

PPT can only get away with this precisely because of what that following paragraph refers to, i.e. the Injunction is about risk to the claimant's wellbeing. Ordinarily they are about reputational damage, not actual physical harm, and since truth is an absolute defence against defamation, you will not get anywhere applying for an Injunction while simultaneously claiming the material you want to suppress is without foundation.

This is why, again ordinarily, you can be certain that if someone applies for an Injunction then what they are attempting to suppress is truthful, otherwise they are protected by Defamation law.

This is beautiful work.

This is The Times I belive.

I have no idea!

Can someone explain this to me?