| The unnamed celebrity scandal 23:37 - Nov 3 with 6724 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Obviously everyone knows and has known for months who it is. I’d actually heard from my man in the media about it in December 2025. It goes without saying… don’t name him as it lands Phil and the site in trouble.
What was interesting about today’s case going against him (subject to appeal) is that it’s now public knowledge he tried to kill himself twice in 2026 regarding the story being on the brink of publicity. The Telegraph first reporting their separate (yet similar story) at the end of last year wa obviously the start of it all crumbling.
Fascinating viewing. My question for TWTD and the reason for the thread is now it is established that he did actually try to kill himself twice over this and so it’s not an empty threat is the correct thing morally:
A) he stays anonymous. And the two very high level investigations from the two media teams involved take the case to the police. And only once he’s charged is he named.
B) the story of the 10+ victims is told as they wished and the media are allowed to publish what they’ve found through investigatitive journalism that first began over 2 years ago now to get to the bottom of the story. But runs the risk of him committing suicide.
What is the moral rightful outcome here?
Finally once again it’s genuinely something I’m interested in the forums opinion on and so please don’t be a t*t and get the thread pulled by naming him or subtly hinting at the person. We all know who it is - zero need to start making stupid jokes and run the risk of it being deleted before an interesting discussion can take place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art |  |
| |  |
| Assume that’s sarcasm?? (n/t) on 10:53 - Nov 4 with 967 views | Bloots |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:40 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
Agreed - surprised at who posted it. |
|  |
| Keaton, Kint, McManus, Fenster and Hockney. |
| |
| Assume that’s sarcasm?? (n/t) on 11:02 - Nov 4 with 900 views | MattinLondon |
| Assume that’s sarcasm?? (n/t) on 10:53 - Nov 4 by Bloots |
|
No, not at all - I’ve always thought that Flash was quite decent. Simply thought that his comment on this thread was awful. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:16 - Nov 4 with 869 views | Meadowlark |
I have no idea who or what you're talking about. This is the first I've heard of it.
(But I'm a little out of touch with celebrity stuff TBH) |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal (n/t) on 11:19 - Nov 4 with 867 views | ITFC_Essex |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:33 - Nov 4 by Keno |
^^^THIS^^^
and I dont know who it is |
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:21 - Nov 4 with 856 views | vapour_trail |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal (n/t) on 11:19 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
This post has been edited by an administrator |
And here, the thread does endeth. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:23 - Nov 4 with 848 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal (n/t) on 11:19 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
This post has been edited by an administrator |
As if by magic..."so please don’t be a t*t and get the thread pulled by naming him or subtly hinting at the person" |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:24 - Nov 4 with 841 views | MattinLondon |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal (n/t) on 11:19 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Well done for ruining a thread. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:25 - Nov 4 with 843 views | ITFC_Essex |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:23 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
As if by magic..."so please don’t be a t*t and get the thread pulled by naming him or subtly hinting at the person" |
It's going to be mainline news imminently anyway. It's all over the place already, Saville-type stuff and cover ups. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:25 - Nov 4 with 834 views | Blueschev |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:23 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
As if by magic..."so please don’t be a t*t and get the thread pulled by naming him or subtly hinting at the person" |
To be fair, they didn't name him. And they certainly didn't subtly hint! |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:26 - Nov 4 with 828 views | ITFC_Essex |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:24 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
Well done for ruining a thread. |
No problem, happy to help.
He's filth, he deserves everything coming his way. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:27 - Nov 4 with 822 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:25 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
It's going to be mainline news imminently anyway. It's all over the place already, Saville-type stuff and cover ups. |
Just edit your previous post, it's not that hard man |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:28 - Nov 4 with 805 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:20 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You've demonstrated the problem right here - clearly see them as guilty despite not even knowing who they are, let alone anything about the case.
If people have been abused by a celeb and know that a celeb is being investigated then they'd be able to look into it and find out if it's the celeb who abused them, before then having the confidence to come forward knowing others already have. Regardless of if the injunction's lifted or not. It's very easy to find out who it is.
The wider public, who haven't been abused, don't need to know... until this person has been proven guilty by a court of law. Everyone deserves a fair trial, not trial by media just because they're in the public eye. [Post edited 4 Nov 13:26]
|
Gonna assume this is just REALLY poorly worded, rather than deliberately such a rancid post. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:30 - Nov 4 with 783 views | MattinLondon |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:25 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
It's going to be mainline news imminently anyway. It's all over the place already, Saville-type stuff and cover ups. |
Yeah I’m sure that ‘it’s going to be news soon’ argument will satisfy any lawyers that may knock on Phil’s door. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:34 - Nov 4 with 766 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:26 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
No problem, happy to help.
He's filth, he deserves everything coming his way. |
I think you've missed the point.
Its not fair on Phil, delete it. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:34 - Nov 4 with 762 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:26 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
No problem, happy to help.
He's filth, he deserves everything coming his way. |
Not sure that having a thread on TWTD pulled will bother him TBH. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:42 - Nov 4 with 735 views | MattinLondon |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:34 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Not sure that having a thread on TWTD pulled will bother him TBH. |
But it’ll bother Phil if any lawyers are made aware of it. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:44 - Nov 4 with 715 views | nrb1985 |
I don’t know what the answer is but he’d be far better off coming out and owning it and trying to clear his name at this point.
Optically it looks awful for him, like he’s trying to cheat the system. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:48 - Nov 4 with 694 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:42 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
But it’ll bother Phil if any lawyers are made aware of it. |
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Essex saying "No problem, he deserves everything he gets'', in response to getting a thread pulled. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:55 - Nov 4 with 680 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal (n/t) on 11:19 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
This post has been edited by an administrator |
You absolute whopper.
Phil please don’t delete what has been an interesting discussion and rather just remove his post if possible. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:03 - Nov 4 with 653 views | Guthrum |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:44 - Nov 4 by nrb1985 |
I don’t know what the answer is but he’d be far better off coming out and owning it and trying to clear his name at this point.
Optically it looks awful for him, like he’s trying to cheat the system. |
If, as reported, he is currently an inpatient under mental health care, he may not be in a fit state to cope with that. Especially if it means the end of his career, family life, social network and so on.
It might not even be him driving it, but rather an agent or family member (who may believe he is innocent). |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:04 - Nov 4 with 649 views | baxterbasics |
Ha. I was going to suggest people check out a story in the news about a certain area in Alton Towers being shut down. But thought even that would be not quite subtle enough for the lawyers. Hey-ho. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:07 - Nov 4 with 632 views | mellowblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:26 - Nov 4 by ITFC_Essex |
No problem, happy to help.
He's filth, he deserves everything coming his way. |
he's known to be a sex obsessive oddball. But you can't condemn him as filth without knowing any detail. Maybe you ought to edit out your unsubtle virtual naming ? [Post edited 4 Nov 12:09]
| | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:18 - Nov 4 with 595 views | _CliveBaker_ |
Whatever the injunction is meant to be doing, its clearly not particularly effective. Maybe more discreet than his face being plastered over the front page of every paper though I guess.
It is a tough one. I'm all for people's right to privacy, and being famous doesn't surrender that. Equally I'm supportive of the media's legal right to freedom of expression. Ultimately, putting aside any desire for salacious gossip which I'm convinced some people get off on, the question is probably one of whether there is a genuine public interest in exposing that behaviour and naming him. Or more to the point whether the benefit of naming him outweighs his desire for privacy.
I think there's probably an argument it does, the Yewtree investigation is a good example of how the public scrutiny of Saville empowered 400 women to come forward. HMIC and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recognised that the increased willingness of victims to report abuse was linked to the publicity surrounding Yewtree. [Post edited 4 Nov 12:21]
| | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:19 - Nov 4 with 587 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:31 - Nov 4 by vapour_trail |
Yeah victims of abuse really do need to step up.
What a grim take. |
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, given your take and the down arrows.
I'm not remotely suggesting "victims of abuse need to step up." The point was made that victims might not come forward because of his celebrity status... at the same time as saying they don't know who it is, so the name should be released. My point was merely both those things can't be true. They can't know who it is and not know who it is at the same time.
If someone has been a victim of a celeb they'd be able to find out if this is the celeb in question quite easily (and then make steps to contact the authorities, if that's what they wanted/felt strong enough to do). And so the lifting of this injunction is neither here nor there in that regard. I wasn't remotely suggesting they "need to step up". I haven't said that and nor did I mean it. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:47 - Nov 4 with 502 views | SirBobbysBoys |
it's widely known who the celebrity in question is - they are being openly named on social media platforms, so at this point what purpose is any injunction going to serve?
The cat is out of the bag anyway. Publish and be damned! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
