There’s been this odd story percolating through the British media in the past few weeks. The story: a still-unnamed celebrity man was on the verge of being outed as a serial predator of women and girls, and his identity is common knowledge in many British circles. As of yet, his identity has not been published. That’s because this guy ran to court and he’s currently blocking publications from identifying him or publishing anything about his alleged crimes. His lawyers are in court this week seeking an injunction because he claims that if his identity is outed or published, he’ll harm himself. (Sidenote: the man in question is not Russell Brand, who is also in court this week in London because he’s openly facing charges for his crimes.)
A celebrity has asked the High Court to prevent two news organisations from publishing his identity and allegations that he abused his status for many years to engage, or attempt to engage, in “inappropriate sexual activities with a large number of girls and young women”.
The unnamed celebrity is seeking an injunction, and his legal team told the first day of a trial on Tuesday that any publication would be “highly likely” to lead him to kill himself. They told the court that his drastic reaction was not because of any wrongdoing, but because of the fear of “trial by media”.
The man denies abusing “his power and position as a celebrity to contact and forge relationships with young women and teenagers to try to have sex with them”, the court heard. The legal team for ITN and Guardian News and Media (GNM) told the court that the celebrity’s “suicide risk” could be mitigated and there was no proper basis “to restrain the publication of public interest journalism”.
A medical report carried out for the court said inpatient treatment could provide “significant, but not complete mitigation of the risk”, but that treatment, perhaps for months, had “a realistic potential to reduce the risk”.
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, said there was “significant public interest” in the proceedings and that “this is a difficult and important case”. He added: “The court must determine it fairly, on the evidence and legal submissions.”
Nicklin will not determine the truth or accuracy of the allegations, only whether they can be published. He also urged the press and public not to speculate about the identity of the man, who is referred to in court as PPT.
“The existence of online speculation, however confidently expressed or widely repeated, does not authorise anyone to identify, or purport authoritatively to identify, PPT in connection with these proceedings,” he said. “Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.”
Sara Mansoori KC, representing the man, told the court that any publication “would have a potentially fatal impact”. The barrister told the court: “The only reason they would not be fatal is because the claimant would be locked up and prevented from his desire to end his life.”
My question: if certain British media outlets have their own interviews with PPT’s (alleged) victims, isn’t this issue actually one of legal liability with the outlet’s in-house lawyers? Let me spin it out as a hypothetical: if the Daily Mail did an interview with one of PPT’s victims, where she’s speaking on the record about how PPT did this or that, that’s a matter for the Mail’s editors and their in-house legal team as they gauge a victim’s right to tell her story and public interest versus whether or not they will be sued for any of it. Plus, it sounds like we’re talking about a situation where PPT is on the verge of being investigated criminally or sued in civil courts. I don’t know, I really don’t. I just think it’s a terrible precedent for an alleged serial predator to dictate what can and cannot be said about his crimes in the media.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.
It’s most likely children’s author David Williams – his publisher cut his contract and yanked all his books last month without explaining why. They were clearly trying to get ahead of something
He definitely fits the profile, and certainly seems the type to try this nonsense to save his own skin.
From The Guardian last December: David Walliams has been dropped by his publisher after an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards young women, the Telegraph has reported.
Walliams, one of Britain’s most successful children’s authors, was reportedly the subject of complaints that he had “harassed” junior female staff at HarperCollins UK, prompting the publisher to decide it would no longer release new titles by the author.
One woman who raised concerns is understood to have left the company after reaching a settlement that included a five-figure payout.
HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, reportedly carried out an internal inquiry after a junior employee made a complaint in 2023. Sources cited by the Telegraph said that, after the inquiry, steps were taken to limit contact between Walliams and some employees. Measures reportedly included ensuring some staff did not work directly with him, advising them to attend meetings in pairs and discouraging visits to his home.
A law journal reported on DW seeking an injunction against the Guardian and ITN in August.
“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.”
https://legalnewsfeed.com/2026/08/07/cleary-gottlieb-lawsuit-david-walliams-injunction-and-merck-trademark-dispute-lead-londons-legal-headlines/
Oops.
@Nanea — oooh, that’s brilliant detective work! Mystery solved!
It’s likely these are two separate cases. If his name is already out there as launching an injunction, then there really isn’t any defense for this particular case since his name is known anyway if this is in reference to the same situation.
This disgusts me: ‘…after the inquiry, steps were taken to limit contact between Walliams and some employees. Measures reportedly included ensuring some staff did not work directly with him, advising them to attend meetings in pairs and discouraging visits to his home.’
They should not have had to take any specific precautions but rather they should have dumped him immediately & reported him to the police.
Everyone is saying David Walliams.
but the fact there are allegations against him are out in the public so an injunction on to prevent the general public being made aware of allegations against him holds no water
I read that the legal news feed that named Walliams was pubished in the US, and the details of the allegations against him have not been made public in the UK. That’s what the Guardian and ITV are fighting to reveal. I assume they approached him for comment and his lawyers ran to the Court.
Photo looks like Russell Brand to me.
It is. It was for reference only, as he is currently in court facing multiple charges.
So, allegedly, theoretically, this person used their fame to lure young women and girls (?!?!), but now wants to remain anonymous and NOT use his fame because he got caught. Got it.
Yeah. My eyes also widened at “girls.”
Agreed. If it had only said a predator of young women the answer could definitely be my ex-husband, but he’s not famous.
Is this Andrew, again?
What about the risks to the girls and young women he allegedly harmed? Why does his suffering matter more than all of theirs? By all means, commit him to a ward where his risks will be mitigated so he can stand trial and answer the charges, but he should not get to hold justice hostage. This is absolute bull.
Hopefully the court does not allow him to continue his reign of abuse, because that is exactly what this is, another way to abuse the women and GIRLS. These abusive men are incredibly fragile and massively manipulative. And too often other men feel sorry for them and help them cover their tracks. Let’s hope that someone on the court has actual integrity – we see too little of that in the US now.
My first thought: please don’t be Hugh Grant. But even despite that hope, I don’t give a wet fart what this man might do to himself if forced to publicly face the reality of who he is. How devastating for his victims
Funny, I thought of him, too.
Me too!
I got the impression that the celebrity would be well known internationally. I never heard of this children’s author. Hugh Grant is well known everywhere. But I certainly hope it’s not him.
Just curious why Hugh Grant was your first thought. As far as I know there has never been any rumors of non consensual behaviour about him, despite being famous for 30 odd years.
It isn’t because he is in any way suss! There just aren’t many other male Brit celebrities whose work I have enjoyed for years and want to keep enjoying. (Keep your Cumberbatches and Hiddlestons.)
Kateeee PHEW! Just wanted to make sure I hadn’t missed something as I do love me some Hugh!
Celebrities (and royals *cough*Scooter*cough*) have been abusing super injunctions for years, however these only cover England so journo’s in Scotland, Wales and NI could out him 🙂 Same goes for MPs they can use parliamentary privilege to out and they have done this a few times in the past.
Won’t someone consider the mental health of the perpetrator is not the argument they think it is. I hope they fail and he is held to account for his actions. His victims deserve that at least.
A man using self harm as a threat to prevent people from speaking out about crimes committed against them, and that it might be allowed by courts, is horrifying.
As the theme to Baretta (1970’s US detective show starring Robert Blake) told us- ‘Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time’.
If you didn’t do anything wrong, stand up and clear your name. Does he think that people won’t know who he is if no one prints his name? According to this – his name is out there anyway.
Foreign countries do not have to abide by English law so they are free to publish his name. He can still be sued. And he should be put under psychiatric observation for threatening suicide.
Lisa, Robert Blake was found civilly liable for the shooting death of his wife after being acquitted of the criminal charge of her murder.
I’ve already used the word ‘disgusting’ in a comment, but that’s what this line of thinking is.
I don’t know if I’m going to have faith in the due process, as the judge is Matthew Nicklin, the one of Prince Harry’s infamous loss against the Fail — the judge who clearly harboured a grudge against Harry as a former in-house counsel for the Daily Terror.
Sometimes (ok, often) I think men shouldn’t preside over anything related to sex that is not consensual aka rape.
Walliams was already named in one of the legal journals discussing this injunction a few months ago, there are countless videos online from the Little Britain tour of him assaulting young men from the audience as part of a “bit” and one of him assaulting Mark Ronson, all on stage in front of audiences, all just for laughs right out in the open. Also a long known story of Walliams and a family member being intimate that he wanted to include in his book but the publisher had to sit him down and explain why that was a very, very bad idea and it wasn’t going in be in the final edit. Who knows if that was true or if Walliams just enjoys making people very uncomfortable but he claims he wanted to challenge the taboo of inc#st.
Just saw your post, after I had shared the link to that particular legal journal further up.
🤮
So he kills himself – that saves a lot of court time and other women and girls being hurt. Its a win-win situation. Go ahead and make my day.
Well, that would also mean that the survivors of his crimes wouldn’t get to see him face consequences or see him condemned for the harm he’s caused. Given that some were brave enough to tell their stories to media publications, they should be afforded the opportunity to speak out, confront this abuser, and hopefully be able to move on and heal. He shouldn’t get to
escape accountability! Plus, given the state of the world, I fear that there would always be those inclined to pity and defend him unless the case is publicly tried.
Threatening self-harm is a well-known abuser tactic – it is meant to coerce.
And yes, everyone (in the UK) knows who they’re talking about here. There have been stories doing the rounds for years.
My first thought was (former prince) Andrew. I am not in the UK so I don’t know who this David person is.
Wailliams wouldn’t surprise me. When he was on The Big Fat Quiz before the London Olympics some of his comments were predatory enough that they broke the rhythm of the banter.
There was one episode when Jamie Oliver stated it was weird how overtly sexual Wailliams was being because he was a children’s book author.
Wow, David Walliams. He’s sold lots of books but he is most famous for being on TV: Little Britian, Britain’s Got Talent, loads of shows. He was married to the model Lara Stone years ago and lots of people, myself included, thought he was in the closet.
I’m in the U.K. It’s David Walliams long history of very shady stuff and man who always gave me the creeps just like Savile and some others
“Nor does repetition transform speculation into established fact.” Hypocrites! This is exactly what they did to Prof. Dr. Ardry! They have no problem whatsoever driving someone to suicide.
And seriously, this guy’s line is ‘don’t report on me or I’ll kill myself!’? Unflippinbelievable.