tell high court that client could harm himself if serious allegations against him are made public
he’s threatening to kill himself if people reveal the truth?
hmmm… welp put him in a straight jacket first, then dump the details.
Not all allegations are true.
of course not.
also, threatening to kill yourself if people make allegations is an odd reaction.
why end your life if you’re innocent? how does that stop the person who maligned you, and how does that punish anyone except for the ones who love and care for you?
why would you put those loved ones through your suicide, if the allegations aren’t true?
on the other hand, many allegations are true. I could certainly understand people being caught out as rapists or pedos wanting to end their lives before their secrets were revealed.
The guy that swam for comic relief?
And that is why asking for comment on articles in this day and age might no longer be possible.
But in the UK or Australia they could sue you for not doing it to, or anything else. I guess they can in the US too they just can’t win like the formers.
Like, if you are asking for comment, give a short window, and do it at a time when a court order can’t be served on you to stop you.
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.
If that’s true (and looking at his Wikipedia list of misbehaviors “true” is likely a vast understatement) Walliams is right to be concerned. The Guardian gives no fucks. Before he gets deeper into the weeds with a libel suit based on demonstrable truth, Walliams should ask Noel Clarke how that same strategy of punching back at that same group of professional reporters worked out for him.
He’s always given off creepy vibes IMO. The more surprising part to me is the young ‘women’ part
The 54-year-old’s television career has already stalled following allegations about sexist remarks he made as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent.
But it can now be revealed that he was also at the centre of a major Harper Collins investigation last year, after a junior employee complained about his conduct.
In 2023, a junior employee raised concerns and an investigation by the publisher followed. Employees who had worked with Walliams were interviewed as part of the inquiry, which also involved at least one in-house lawyer.
Well-placed sources told The Telegraph that following the investigation, some junior staff were kept away from the author and one employee agreed a settlement and received a payoff. Former staff also told this publication that they were told to work in “pairs” when meeting Walliams and were advised not to visit his home.
A junior woman who had raised concerns about the author’s behaviour left the organisation after concluding a settlement with Harper Collins that included a five-figure payout.
It could be good ole misogyny and harassment towards women and not necessarily sexual, but whose to say?
Good point. Didn’t know about the other stuff that you posted about. Tbh it’s because I couldn’t care less about him. Hope he disappears off our screens forever
Neither would surprise me. Two good authors I enjoyed now relegated to the dirt heap. Used to love reading Gaiman too.
Was never a Harry Potter fan but she can eat a bag of dicks too.
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.
He’s performing a hostage negotiation with the High Court while being the hostage. Brilliant legal maneuvering!
Isn’t that a super dumb argument to bring?
YES. But this is a civil case and not a criminal one, which is something to keep in mind: the rules are different. I’m not in the UK and am not all that familiar with their courts, but in general a judge hearing a civil (non-criminal) matter has much wider latitude than a yes or no decision, even when a simple yes or no decision is being requested. Judge have options and know how to use them.
If this suicidality is a lie, that’s not new. It is the way of dishonest individuals to frame an issue as a false dichotomy, presenting a situation as having only two options in a way that the preferred option must be the road taken, and these are usually wreathed in misinformation and important omissions of fact. A judge has to approach it as true and hear it anyway, but generally speaking a judge is also allowed to then decide a claimant is lying, and to proceed on that basis.
Judges have already heard it all: this is not the first time this particular judge has been in the position of hearing an emotionally manipulative, possibly dishonest pleading. It’s not going to go unnoticed. Because there’s money involved and a legal team making the claim, the claimant himself will probably not suffer too much, but his legal team may be forced to provide further evidence, and if local law allows, the claimant’s own past behavior brought into play.
Someone else in the thread posted the identity of this guy, and if it’s the same one, there is a LOT of past behavior. Again, I’m not familiar with UK courts, but at some point (if local law allows) a judge is going to question why, if suicidality upon discovery of wrongdoing is such an issue for the claimant, the claimant has not restricted his own behavior or sought help for it, given that he is insisting his life is now on the line.
Unfortunately, there is another case going on in the UK right now, that of a Cambridge professor who killed himself this year after being accused of professional dishonesty. It is getting a lot of press, with a number of highly-placed people being held accountable for the various ways in which their actions may or may not have caused this young professor to take his own life. It is possible that today’s unnamed guy’s legal team is looking at those same headlines and seeing if they can turn the legal wind of current events to their own advantage by giving the judge reason to err on the side of excess caution.
This is like an abuser/immature teenager being like “you can’t leave me, I’ll kill myself if you do!”
Yeah, if this was one of us plebs that sort of 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.
It probably is Farage. If we bet on this on Predictit.org, the nonprofit betting site ran by academics, Farage and Andrew would be like 40 each I bet.
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 ought to be above the petty laws and morality that the little people have to concern themselves with.
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.
Nah I think minor celeb. Low level presenter.
Or maybe a sportsperson.
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 they would be sued if they did. I stongly presume. It’s the days of slapp suits, and in the commonwealth countries they can win those suits as often as not. Here in the US it’s just to fuck with the reporters and news more often than not.
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.
