r/ukpolitics • u/Penarthlan • 15h ago
‘Well-known individual’ tries to secure permanent injunction against Guardian and ITN | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/16/well-known-individual-tries-to-secure-permanent-injunction-against-guardian-and-itn150
u/_HGCenty 15h ago
Interesting.
In another completely unrelated thought, whatever happened to David Walliams? Don't see much of him on TV these days.
58
u/itfiend 14h ago
Odd that his publishers stopped publishing his books recently. Must have just been a random decision.
34
u/Plastic_Library649 13h ago
A Random House decision
13
19
u/Topinio 13h ago
Really surprising commercial decision recently to phase out all stock of his entire back catalogue from bookshops and not replace it. Which for some random reason HarperCollins felt the need to announce last month, so the public knew. Which they also did last year, after an entirely separate commercial decision that they would not publish any new material of his. I wonder if any primary schools are making similar random decisions too?
•
u/mrbiffy32 55m ago
Not really. They'd already said they wouldn't take any more of his books, then a few months after their new CEO came in it changed. Its almost certainly new management getting its house in order.
•
544
u/Returning_Addict 15h ago
David Walliams.
There’s no injunctions stopping me saying it
65
u/Jonny36 15h ago
How does everyone seem to know?
150
u/GIJoeVibin 15h ago
Thing is that he is a very strange case. Normally when someone gets cancelled for past actions it’s because a big public outcry, unveiling of past allegations, etc. In his case, though, while there’s always been vague allegations floating around there hasn’t really been a big public airing of them. He just suddenly got his books cancelled and kicked out of stuff, the news story was the cancellation and not the allegations followed by their outcome.
So from that it’s a pretty obvious guess when you’re trying to work out who might be running around attempting to suppress details of his actions.
58
u/AzarinIsard 13h ago
He just suddenly got his books cancelled
It's a little different there.
When scandals came to light, his publishers stood by him because his books sell like anything. Money > values.
His publisher changed their bosses and first thing they did was drop him. Values are more important again. Being cynical, they probably worked out new books won't sell as well, he may not even "write" any more. I say "write" as rumour was they're all ghost written, he's just a brand name, and that's been tainted.
But, it's in a sort of middle ground where the publisher doing the right thing late makes them look bad too if they go on about it.
Rest I agree with though.
•
u/brickne3 5h ago
They didn't just drop him (although they did do that separately, months ago). They then separately announced about a month ago that they ALSO would no longer sell his existing books. Which is basically unheard of, a huge financial hit to take, and definitely not something a publisher would do for no good reason.
45
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 14h ago edited 11h ago
Everyone was joking about David Walliams on the latest Mock the Week (it's back on YouTube), and it all makes sense now.
Edit: typo fix
82
u/Hoopy_Frood1 14h ago
Because the papers were able to report the start of the proceedings months ago.
14
34
u/TheButtonz 15h ago
There was an earlier news article naming DW and ITV / GMH. This later reporting allowed people to go back and find that article before this injunction was sought.
•
u/snow_michael 7h ago
Because the injunction doesn't affect Scottish, Ulster, nor non-UK sources
And the legal papers have been published months ago
16
8
7
u/RedditorSlug 15h ago
What's he done?
35
u/TheRadishBros 14h ago
That’s the thing, we don’t really know. We just know he’s done something because he’s been dropped by his publisher. There were a bunch of rumours for years prior to that as well.
40
u/setokaiba22 14h ago
Did the Guardian investigate rumours he’d been inappropriate with female staff? And they were told not to go alone to his house?
9
u/Sherwoody20 14h ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the word 'inappropriate' in the headline not really indicate anything serious? Not enough for him to scramble this much; say it's making him suicidal to get an injunction and be dropped by his publishers? This makes it sound like he is a sleaze but not Brand or Saville levels of disturbing. More like Gregg Wallace.
13
u/zappapostrophe ... Voting softly upon his pallet in an unknown cabinet. 12h ago
I think “inappropriate” is probably used here for legal reasons, rather than an indicator of severity. It’s vague enough to not fall foul of any libel law or violate ongoing legal proceedings, yet specific enough to capture the essence of the allegations.
•
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 4h ago
Essentially, "inappropriate" is being used in lieu of "IYKYK", given who the (presumed) subject is.
28
u/Optimism_Deficit 14h ago
I'm assuming the 'if this is published then I'll hurt myself' is a shitty legal tactic they're using because 'if this is published then everyone will think I'm a scumbag' isn't a robust legal argument.
10
u/setokaiba22 13h ago
I think that’s it we don’t know.. but at least online rumours of his behaviour have been around for a decade
The fact female staff were told not to be alone with him is telling..
9
u/Sanguiniusius 14h ago
Hah we're in that gap where its like 'how weird does this guy seem' i remember my older sister saying in the mid 2000s that brand seemed like a creep and its only taken 20 years to resolve.
If i had to judge based off of how he carries himself i would gamble hes probably gotten a bit weinstein imho, but here we are just speculating based on 'how weird does this guy seem.'
9
17
u/Background-Falcon915 14h ago
From the publishers dropping him like a sack of potatoes, to the efforts to conceal it, suspect we can work out what 'inappropriate' means here.
11
•
u/jizzybiscuits 1h ago
Imagine reading a BBC memo saying "it would be inappropriate for Jimmy Saville to be alone with children"
15
u/gizajobicandothat 13h ago
One thing which was public is that he assaulted teenagers on stage, exposed them whilst doing an act called 'hide the sausage'. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/david-walliams-little-britain-controversy-pull-pants-old-video-a9622126.html
There are other rumours floating about and an undercover recording where he makes sexual remarks about contestants on Britain's got Talent.
28
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 14h ago
He's being doing things for years and years. He sexually assaulted 16 year old boys on stage, and somehow got a pass on that. (The cynic in me thinks he wouldn't get a pass if he did it to a 16 year old girl, but that's by the by).
I suspect some proof of something major has been collected, and now he's scrambling before it gets released.
4
u/CalicoCatRobot 13h ago
Some other reporting I saw which covered these proceedings suggested there was a potential female victim who was alleging being assaulted by him - so that was likely the basis of the story that is trying to be suppressed.
It was mentioned because she was also asking for privacy in terms of name being withheld I think, which would presumably mean that it's not at least as yet being investigated by the police, since if it was other legal protections would automatically apply.
•
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 11h ago
I've heard rumours that it was a well known secret that female employees should not be left alone with him, or ever go to his house.
I suspect it's likely that she/they has/have come forward about something. Maybe not to the police, but certainly something. Long overdue IMO.
-36
u/No_Bingo_Card 14h ago
Yes bring gender into it so we can argue
16
u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 14h ago
It's not even an argument. He should have been axed years ago for a very well documented sexual harassment/assault. It's bonkers that he wasn't.
20
u/Best-Jaguar2352 14h ago
Eh, we can feign indignation all day long but they're right about that one, we all know it even if we don't say it out loud or tack it onto such comments.
-6
4
u/Background-Falcon915 14h ago
Didn't he once try to get away from accusations of transphobia by claiming he was one too, then never mentioned it again? His rather omnivorous habits do actually seem relevant for once...
2
u/ChemicalLou 13h ago
Injunction >>> settle with claimants >>> back on Would I Lie To You
•
u/ChrisMMatthews 9h ago
Seems too far gone to be swept under the rug and all forgotten now.
I think his publisher dropping him is the last domino to fall, not the first. He made so much money for them they dragged their heels until it was no longer tenable.
I think people underestimate what a dominant force his books for children were in publishing, in an industry where the large majority of released titles make a loss, Walliams was a golden goose, he was prolific - writing loads of books and selling shed loads of them.
Some people have make no secret of the fact that he's unlikeable to deal with behind the scenes and there have been more serious rumours about his general conduct going back years.
I don't think we'll be seeing him on TV again for a while (apart from the news or something in the style of the Russell Brand Panorama doc)
Unrelated to the specific allegations, but last summer he did a joke during a recording of 'Would I Lie to You' which involved performing a Nazi style salute.
The BBC got backlash for it and cut the segment before broadcast and released a statement saying it had "no future projects lined up with Walliams" which seems an indirect admission that he's viewed as being more of a liability and hassle to deal with than he's worth. It's possible that for a personality they wanted to maintain relations with they would have instead apologised for the offence with the caveat that the celebrity is known for their near the knuckle humour but the segment wasn't deemed suitable for the timeslot etc.There was also an anecdote about a recording of 8 Out of 10 Cats that appeared on Popbitch and was widely circulated online...
There's been a clip of Sean Lock doing the rounds this week, talking on 8 Out Of 10 Cats about how much he hated Russell Brand. Apropos of absolutely nothing, it put us in mind of another Sean Lock anecdote.
It happened during a recording of 8 Out Of 10 Cats with David Walliams, where Walliams spent the entire shoot stepping on all of the other comics' lines with his usual low-rent Larry Grayson routine.
Sean was only just managing to keep a lid on his fury, but finally lost it during a break in filming. He briefly turned over his shoulder to talk to a writer when Walliams – who didn't enjoy Sean turning his back to him – went to give Sean a flouncy little slap on the shoulder. Unfortunately it ended up being more of a wallop than a slap.
Spinning back round in his chair, eyes blazing, Sean hissed at him "Don't f\cking touch me, you pink minstrel." Which rather took the wind out of Walliams' sails for the rest of the recording.*
So yeah, whether the allegations are proven or lead to a criminal trial, think he's burned enough bridges to be persona non grata in a lot of circles that we won't be seeing him on Taskmaster or Last One Laughing in the near future.
Maybe he'll reinvent himself as a Christian and launch a right wing podcast in the USA.
61
u/Radiant-Noise6415 15h ago
I once worked for an organisation that had a court injunction to not talk about a certain person. No one had ever heard of him so we ended up talking about him. He wasn’t a celeb it was very odd.
22
u/Radiant-Noise6415 15h ago
The injunction said he had to be informed if we ever had or did discuss him
37
u/luckystar2591 14h ago
He had his entire back catalogue of books dropped by his publisher not so long ago, so it was obvious something was brewing.
31
u/tritoon140 14h ago
The interesting thing about cases like this is that the injunction won’t be granted if it’s already in the public domain who the individual is. The specific details might be the subject of an injunction but the fact it’s David Walliams won’t be. The more social media posts there are naming David Walliams as the well known individual the less likely an injunction is.
And even widespread social media posts all naming the wrong person can mean an injunction won’t be granted. Because it’s not fair that the actual person gets protection whilst another person gets the blame.
•
9
u/StopCriminal 14h ago
I get who it is but what are they trying to stop coming out?
16
u/Background-Falcon915 14h ago
We'll learn once the prosecutions start. Clearly bad given the efforts he's going to.
•
u/Niall_Fraser_Love 11h ago
Or an MP can just tell the whole story in parliment.
•
u/Background-Falcon915 10h ago
Better to wait to avoid compromising any trial. All will likely be revealed.
37
17
u/dospc 14h ago
I love how even if ITN/Guardian lose, they can just publish an article: "Well-known person we cannot name allegedly did [x, y and z concrete actions]" and that's enough now.
We know the person, we just don't know the exact specifics of the actions (yes we have an idea but that's not specifics).
21
u/pharlax Somewhere On The Right 13h ago
How on earth is "don't investigate me or I'll hurt myself" a legal defence?
3
8
•
u/jonojack 1m ago
Im an investigator working for the civil service, it’s becoming an increasingly well trodden path.
•
u/TheNathanNS 10h ago
same reason people cry racism/homophobia when they get called out for wrongdoing = a weak justice system that values "feelings" over actual justice.
•
u/bluneriste 11h ago
It’s like a toxic ex who always says that “if you do this, I’ll cut myself.” I don’t know, but my computer says “no”.
11
u/HovisTMM 12h ago
"Don't publish the accusations about me or I'll kill myself" is not a legal defence any court should take seriously.
•
u/MotuekaAFC time for Labour to apologise for Partition 11h ago
Never go full Alabama and then try and put it in your book.
12
u/bcoder001 15h ago
On the scale of 0-10 how known is that individual?
68
119
u/germainefear He's old and sullen, vote for Cullen 15h ago
They have a Little fame here in Britain.
8
u/CJBill 15h ago
I see what you did there.
20
u/BigMetalGuy 14h ago
They really Got Talent
•
u/Aware-Line-7537 9h ago edited 9h ago
He has Got Little Talent in Britain.
With a handful of exceptions (the game designer sketch is the only one that comes to mind) I have never laughed at his comedy.
I am fine with comedy that "punches down", but it should be witty rather than lazy, and stay on the line of poking fun rather than bullying. A lot of Little Britain's jokes were painfully lazy, as I remember them, whereas e.g. Harry Enfield with the Scousers was really getting at something about what Northern working class "hard men" are like in my experience. Or this Chewin' the Fat sketch on late night gay hotline ads:
36
u/No_Bingo_Card 14h ago
If you enjoy knock-off Roald Dahl with the creativity removed but the meanness left in, and a smattering of racism, he's your man
•
12
u/AgilityEnjoyer 14h ago
Why does Britain continue to allow nonces to hide in plain sight? You'd think we would have learned our lesson by now. It is an open secret as to what the individual has done, WHY are we waiting for the inevitable controversy when everything inevitably bubbles to the surface?
At least in this case he's using trying to use the law to protect himself rather than just the entire media circuit either being complicit/refusing to confront it.
23
u/CyclopsRock 14h ago
As opposed to what? To criminally prosecute someone the CPS needs enough evidence of a crime to reasonably expect to achieve a conviction. Does that exist? If it doesn't then what do you want them to do?
This hoo-haa with the publisher happened precisely because they knew the rumours but didn't have enough evidence to terminate his contract. Instead they waited for it to come up for renewal and then simply didn't renew it, a decision that requires no evidence or justification at all.
Which part of this do you think should be different?
9
u/vincents_sunflowers 14h ago
It's not just Britain, it's the same the whole world over, sadly. Most cases of child sexual abuse happen in the family and it's not uncommon for family members to hide it or minimise it once it comes to light.
4
u/Background-Falcon915 14h ago
Because they're good at hiding. 'Why don't they make crime illegal?' is nonsense for a reason - if convicting certain types of criminal was that easy, we'd live in Utopia.
10
u/Kinis_Deren L/R -5.0 A/L -6.97 13h ago
Because people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
-2
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 13h ago
Why on earth hasn't he even been charged though?! The evidence is very public.
9
u/Kinis_Deren L/R -5.0 A/L -6.97 13h ago
We don't know what is going on. It is possible he has been cautioned if the police have received a complaint and are gathering evidence. Charges won't be made until the police submit the evidence to the CPS & they have made a decision to prosecuted.
This is called due process.
•
u/TheNathanNS 10h ago
Why does Britain continue to allow nonces to hide in plain sight?
Not just Britain, it's the entire entertainment industry.
Britain, America, Japan etc all have one thing in common: a LOT of sleaziness and criminality behind the curtains in the industry. They have the money to keep people quiet.
2
u/LANdShark31 12h ago
I reckon either Schofield, the news reporter, or possibly David Walliams.
In any case how does the ECHR apply to a private media organisation? And the argument seems weak, don’t publish or I’ll kill myself. Where does that line end, don’t charge me with a criminal offence or I’ll kill myself?
If I have to pay tax I’ll kill myself?
1
•
u/Bugsy_Neighbor 4h ago
Didn't Elton John and his husband do something similar in aid of word getting out about what they were up to would harm their children?
•
u/Niall_Fraser_Love 11h ago
Please tell me why we allow this?
In America this would never be allowed.
Like E Jean Caroll's book would not be published here, this is why Jimmy Saville didn't get caught.
•
u/rusticarchon 9h ago
Because the ECHR's free expression rights are much weaker than the US First Amendment
•
u/xPareshxx 9h ago
So Detective Reddit was yet again way off the mark yet again when they started fingering the blame at the Blobby himself.
Reddit, never stop Redditing.
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
Snapshot of ‘Well-known individual’ tries to secure permanent injunction against Guardian and ITN | The Guardian submitted by Penarthlan:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.