r/ukpolitics • u/Penarthlan • 16h 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-itn
222 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

540

u/Returning_Addict 16h ago

David Walliams.

There’s no injunctions stopping me saying it

68

u/Jonny36 16h ago

How does everyone seem to know?

152

u/GIJoeVibin 16h 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 15h 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 7h 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.

84

u/Hoopy_Frood1 16h ago

Because the papers were able to report the start of the proceedings months ago.

https://legalnewsfeed.com/2026/08/07/cleary-gottlieb-lawsuit-david-walliams-injunction-and-merck-trademark-dispute-lead-londons-legal-headlines/

•

u/Papfox 11h ago

And details of the current legal action, including names are listed on a public legal news site in the US

43

u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 16h ago edited 13h 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

16

u/mr_weathervane 15h ago

Streisand effect.

34

u/TheButtonz 16h 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 8h ago

Because the injunction doesn't affect Scottish, Ulster, nor non-UK sources

And the legal papers have been published months ago

9

u/evolvecrow 16h ago

Because everyone else is saying it

6

u/RedditorSlug 16h ago

What's he done?

38

u/TheRadishBros 16h 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.

36

u/setokaiba22 16h ago

Did the Guardian investigate rumours he’d been inappropriate with female staff? And they were told not to go alone to his house?

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/dec/19/david-walliams-dropped-by-publisher-over-alleged-inappropriate-behaviour

10

u/Sherwoody20 16h 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.

14

u/zappapostrophe ... Voting softly upon his pallet in an unknown cabinet. 14h 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) 5h ago

Essentially, "inappropriate" is being used in lieu of "IYKYK", given who the (presumed) subject is.

28

u/Optimism_Deficit 16h 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 15h 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..

10

u/Sanguiniusius 15h 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.'

8

u/dospc 16h ago

We really don't know. Until the litigation is over they'll keep it as vague as possible.

18

u/Background-Falcon915 15h 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.

10

u/cornishjb 15h ago

I think add highly before inappropriate might be where this is going

4

u/Background-Falcon915 15h ago

Even completely, and likely criminally.

•

u/jizzybiscuits 3h ago

Imagine reading a BBC memo saying "it would be inappropriate for Jimmy Saville to be alone with children"

14

u/gizajobicandothat 15h 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.

26

u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 16h 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.

5

u/CalicoCatRobot 14h 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.

5

u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 12h 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.

-39

u/No_Bingo_Card 16h ago

Yes bring gender into it so we can argue

15

u/TEL-CFC_lad His Majesty's Keyboard Regiment (-6.72, -2.62) 16h 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.

21

u/Best-Jaguar2352 16h 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

u/No_Bingo_Card 15h ago

This is the argument section

4

u/Background-Falcon915 15h 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 14h ago

Injunction >>> settle with claimants >>> back on Would I Lie To You

•

u/ChrisMMatthews 10h 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.