In a separate legal matter, well-known children’s book author David Walliams 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.
He was inappropriate with young women.
Ooooh I been waitin’ for this one to drop…
At a high court hearing on Friday, the claimant’s legal team said there was a serious risk that he could harm himself should the allegations be made public.
Isn’t that a super dumb argument to bring? If these allegations are also dealt with in court this should be an indicator for putting someone on suicide watch. And AFAIK that is almost like torture.
Yeah, if this was one of us plebs that sort argument sounds like a good way to get involuntarily sectioned.
Let the speculation begin.
Prince Andrew?
It’s Nigel Farage. Don’t ask me how I know because I made it up.
No need to lower yourself to using his tactics.
I was kind of thinking that too, Andrew has already had all his shit come out.
There’s always more details, which are always more horrifying.
Doubt it, he doesn’t strike me as having the self awareness to consider self harming. I’m pretty sure he still thinks his position as a royal means he’s above the petty laws and morality that the little people have to concern themselves with.
Nah I think minor celeb. Low level presenter.
Or maybe a sportsperson.
An obvious option, but I reckon the royal family would shut down even reporting that they are trying to report something.
I’m struggling to think of someone who’s been fairly prominent the last few years but fallen off the grid a bit. Politicians are just far too egotistical/morally devoid now to have mental breakdowns so I’d have to guess a TV celeb… Philip Scofield!
Oh, Russell Brand! Could be something new he’s trying to fend off mid-trial. Sounds like the kind of crap he’d pull too.
Why can’t they just say the client’s name and say that he is seeking a permanent injunction about serious allegations being made against him? Without saying what they are.
Because that would create a wildfire of speculation, straight up falsities, half-truths & intential lies which could be far worse than the truth. Although the reasoning sounds BS (the article cites options to protect the accused during reporting) and a permanent ban on reporting whatever this is would be wrong in principal, reporting does need to be responsibly handled.
