| The unnamed celebrity scandal 23:37 - Nov 3 with 7235 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 |  |
| |  |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:58 - Nov 4 with 1428 views | PhilTWTD |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 11:42 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
But it’ll bother Phil if any lawyers are made aware of it. |
In these circumstances lawyers contact us to be put in contact with the poster. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:58 - Nov 4 with 1427 views | mellowblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:18 - Nov 4 by _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]
|
I think possibly for the person concerned, having the injunction in place helps anyway.
With the injunction in place and then factor in all the undisclosed leaks etc so that half the nation already know; it lessens the full impact when the press do finally release the full story? Must be value in that. Gives the person concerned time to get his ducks in order, mental health action, sexual obsession therapy etc. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 13:19 - Nov 4 with 1347 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 12:47 - Nov 4 by 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! |
I'm afraid the days of that have long gone. The newspaper industry in particular is on too much of a financial knife-edge to risk it. |  |
| |
| Assume that’s sarcasm?? (n/t) on 13:27 - Nov 4 with 1307 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Assume that’s sarcasm?? (n/t) on 11:02 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
No, not at all - I’ve always thought that Flash was quite decent. Simply thought that his comment on this thread was awful. |
Thanks. I've edited as poorly worded initially. I had no idea I'd said anything offensive and certainly would never put onus on or blame victims. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 13:34 - Nov 4 with 1284 views | Ryorry |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:31 - Nov 4 by BloomBlue |
Difficult one.
The police will say naming an individual will often bring forward other victims / witnesses. But naming someone before being charged will be detrimental to that individual even if found not guilty.
I'm sure most people remember Christopher Jefferies who suffered character asassassination by the press, including 'his appearance & behavior even looks like a murderer/pervert' after he was arrested and named, only to find out it wasn't him. His life was virtually destroyed because he was named.
Personally I've always thought that once charged then the individual can be named, but only once charged, irrelevant if they could commit suicide. Although I know ultimately some will be found not guilty, and that verdict won't change the perception of that individual purely because they were charged. But that is something we need to accept for the greater society. |
The C. Jeffries situation was horrendous; ditto operation Midland, at least one or two of the falsely accused in the latter case died without knowing their names would be completely cleared eventually.
The onus is also on the general public to actually, truly, have the intelligence and decency to properly believe that people are innocent until found guilty, not just parrot that and then gossip & launch into trial by socials kangaroo courts anyway. Sadly, that's human nature - escapism from harsh realities of life, esp lately.
I too had no idea who was meant on the thread, until a casual phrase from someone on p.3. If it's the "celeb" who that hinted at, his name & the case have been reported on BBC & ITV news at least twice, if not more, in the last 3 weeks. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:03 - Nov 4 with 1178 views | Billywitch |
The only concern is for the mental health of the victims.
giving any care or concern to the guilty party (if he/she is proven to be) is pathetic. They have chosen to carry out these acts, therefore they have only themselves to blame for their downfall and the state of their mental health. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:12 - Nov 4 with 1124 views | MattinLondon |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:03 - Nov 4 by Billywitch |
The only concern is for the mental health of the victims.
giving any care or concern to the guilty party (if he/she is proven to be) is pathetic. They have chosen to carry out these acts, therefore they have only themselves to blame for their downfall and the state of their mental health. |
But the celebrity in question is innocent - they have not been found guilty of anything so their mental health is as important as any alleged victims. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:19 - Nov 4 with 1107 views | Billywitch |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:12 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
But the celebrity in question is innocent - they have not been found guilty of anything so their mental health is as important as any alleged victims. |
not guilty of anything, yet.
My take, fwiw, is there is no smoke without fire. The celebrity claiming they would hurt themselves if the name went public is a reflection of the narcissistic manipulative behaviour that they have imposed on the victims, when having their cakes and eating it.
Time will tell. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:54 - Nov 4 with 1029 views | eireblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:19 - Nov 4 by Billywitch |
not guilty of anything, yet.
My take, fwiw, is there is no smoke without fire. The celebrity claiming they would hurt themselves if the name went public is a reflection of the narcissistic manipulative behaviour that they have imposed on the victims, when having their cakes and eating it.
Time will tell. |
Jeez, the no smoke without fire argument…
No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.
Anyhoo
Jason Arday was hounded by the Press, in the public interest.
There is I think different responsibilities and rights being discussed.
And it is not a point in time fixed answer.
People are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
Humans do have a right to privacy.
Police are allowed, based on evidence to charge people, and use evidence to investigate, and courts are public.
Press can report on things.
That doesn’t equate to what happened with Jason, and the Magna Carta didn’t say Judgement of peers or the law of the land.
If there is sufficient evidence to charge and bring someone to court, assuming that person to be guilty and hence the press being allowed to demonise them ahead of a verdict, is also not in keeping with sentiments expressed on the 1700’s It is better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent is imprisoned.
Why does anyone not involved in any way with a case, actual care about knowing the name of a person charged or found guilty a few weeks earlier than other people.
My life is in no way affected by knowing that name.
All our lives can be effected by the erosion of principles established 100’s of years ago. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:03 - Nov 4 with 989 views | lowhouseblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:54 - Nov 4 by eireblue |
Jeez, the no smoke without fire argument…
No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.
Anyhoo
Jason Arday was hounded by the Press, in the public interest.
There is I think different responsibilities and rights being discussed.
And it is not a point in time fixed answer.
People are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
Humans do have a right to privacy.
Police are allowed, based on evidence to charge people, and use evidence to investigate, and courts are public.
Press can report on things.
That doesn’t equate to what happened with Jason, and the Magna Carta didn’t say Judgement of peers or the law of the land.
If there is sufficient evidence to charge and bring someone to court, assuming that person to be guilty and hence the press being allowed to demonise them ahead of a verdict, is also not in keeping with sentiments expressed on the 1700’s It is better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent is imprisoned.
Why does anyone not involved in any way with a case, actual care about knowing the name of a person charged or found guilty a few weeks earlier than other people.
My life is in no way affected by knowing that name.
All our lives can be effected by the erosion of principles established 100’s of years ago. |
the press are allowed to expose stuff which falls short of criminality. the public interest does not stop with breaking the law. it extends to exposing the dishonesty, hypocrisy, duplicity, incompetence, and cant of the rich, powerful, influential and publicly lauded. press freedom can't just be about what can be taken to a court. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:07 - Nov 4 with 980 views | eireblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:03 - Nov 4 by lowhouseblue |
the press are allowed to expose stuff which falls short of criminality. the public interest does not stop with breaking the law. it extends to exposing the dishonesty, hypocrisy, duplicity, incompetence, and cant of the rich, powerful, influential and publicly lauded. press freedom can't just be about what can be taken to a court. |
I didn’t say they couldn’t. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:12 - Nov 4 with 949 views | giant_stow |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:03 - Nov 4 by lowhouseblue |
the press are allowed to expose stuff which falls short of criminality. the public interest does not stop with breaking the law. it extends to exposing the dishonesty, hypocrisy, duplicity, incompetence, and cant of the rich, powerful, influential and publicly lauded. press freedom can't just be about what can be taken to a court. |
wow, the battle lines are nicely drawn... i look forward to reading the rest of this bit of the debate. Keep clean lads, no low blows etc etc... |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:29 - Nov 4 with 888 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:54 - Nov 4 by eireblue |
Jeez, the no smoke without fire argument…
No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.
Anyhoo
Jason Arday was hounded by the Press, in the public interest.
There is I think different responsibilities and rights being discussed.
And it is not a point in time fixed answer.
People are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
Humans do have a right to privacy.
Police are allowed, based on evidence to charge people, and use evidence to investigate, and courts are public.
Press can report on things.
That doesn’t equate to what happened with Jason, and the Magna Carta didn’t say Judgement of peers or the law of the land.
If there is sufficient evidence to charge and bring someone to court, assuming that person to be guilty and hence the press being allowed to demonise them ahead of a verdict, is also not in keeping with sentiments expressed on the 1700’s It is better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent is imprisoned.
Why does anyone not involved in any way with a case, actual care about knowing the name of a person charged or found guilty a few weeks earlier than other people.
My life is in no way affected by knowing that name.
All our lives can be effected by the erosion of principles established 100’s of years ago. |
Spot on. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:32 - Nov 4 with 873 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:19 - Nov 4 by Billywitch |
not guilty of anything, yet.
My take, fwiw, is there is no smoke without fire. The celebrity claiming they would hurt themselves if the name went public is a reflection of the narcissistic manipulative behaviour that they have imposed on the victims, when having their cakes and eating it.
Time will tell. |
As I've said on here many times, the "no smoke without fire" argument is utter nonsense. That means every rumour is true. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:42 - Nov 4 with 834 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:32 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
As I've said on here many times, the "no smoke without fire" argument is utter nonsense. That means every rumour is true. |
Does that mean Batistuta and Hislop in January? | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:48 - Nov 4 with 808 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:42 - Nov 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Does that mean Batistuta and Hislop in January? |
Ian Hislop??? |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:48 - Nov 4 with 807 views | homer_123 |
"What is the moral rightful outcome here?"
That he answers for any crimes he has committed. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:04 - Nov 4 with 754 views | Billywitch |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:32 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
As I've said on here many times, the "no smoke without fire" argument is utter nonsense. That means every rumour is true. |
You are free to hold that opinion if you so wish.
And I will hold mine | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:29 - Nov 4 with 706 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 15:48 - Nov 4 by Ewan_Oozami |
Ian Hislop??? |
Can he play as a left sided centre back? | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:36 - Nov 4 with 695 views | BasingstokeBlue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:12 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
But the celebrity in question is innocent - they have not been found guilty of anything so their mental health is as important as any alleged victims. |
He may or may not be innocent.
The position that must be taken by those trying him and observing that trial is that he must be presumed innocent until the trial reaches a verdict. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:47 - Nov 4 with 676 views | DJR |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 14:54 - Nov 4 by eireblue |
Jeez, the no smoke without fire argument…
No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.
Anyhoo
Jason Arday was hounded by the Press, in the public interest.
There is I think different responsibilities and rights being discussed.
And it is not a point in time fixed answer.
People are presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
Humans do have a right to privacy.
Police are allowed, based on evidence to charge people, and use evidence to investigate, and courts are public.
Press can report on things.
That doesn’t equate to what happened with Jason, and the Magna Carta didn’t say Judgement of peers or the law of the land.
If there is sufficient evidence to charge and bring someone to court, assuming that person to be guilty and hence the press being allowed to demonise them ahead of a verdict, is also not in keeping with sentiments expressed on the 1700’s It is better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent is imprisoned.
Why does anyone not involved in any way with a case, actual care about knowing the name of a person charged or found guilty a few weeks earlier than other people.
My life is in no way affected by knowing that name.
All our lives can be effected by the erosion of principles established 100’s of years ago. |
A factor to take into account in a case such as this involving possible criminality is the reluctance of victims of sexual offences to engage with the criminal justice system for reasons such as evidential issues, power imbalance, victim blaming, delays in police handling of cases and delays in bringing cases to court.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-
https://observer.co.uk/news/op
So maybe for some, going to the media and highlighting what they allege is as far as they want to go, although it might bring forward people willing to take it further.
And the current case appears to differ from the norm in the sense that it is not a run of the mill kiss and tell involving a footballer (is it in the public interest or are the public merely interested?) nor a more serious case where the "accused" is not suicidal. [Post edited 4 Nov 17:33]
|  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 17:51 - Nov 4 with 547 views | vapour_trail |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:04 - Nov 4 by Billywitch |
You are free to hold that opinion if you so wish.
And I will hold mine |
So nobody accused of anything is ever innocent? |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 18:51 - Nov 4 with 444 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:36 - Nov 4 by BasingstokeBlue |
He may or may not be innocent.
The position that must be taken by those trying him and observing that trial is that he must be presumed innocent until the trial reaches a verdict. |
Not sure that there has even been an arrest to date, let alone a charge or a trial date, this is exclusively about whether or not a newspaper can name said celebrity when publishing claims about him, claims which so far have not been investigated by plod.
In which case, even more risky to assume guilt. [Post edited 4 Nov 18:54]
| |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 19:33 - Nov 4 with 381 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
We cannot assume guilt, in the eyes of the law innocence must be presumed until otherwise proven.
That does not mean that allegations cannot or should not be published, said individual has the right to refuse those and seek legal recourse for defamation.
It is a journalistic choice as to whether to publish and once would hope a considered one, especially given the outlets in question.
Victims have a right to be heard and where (and we dont know in this instance if its the case or not) their accusations dont meet a threshold of criminality stories will of course come out in the press. From what i understand the accusations are abuse of power and status. That covers a broad range of things, could be criminal, could be pervy.
Regardless of all of the above, enforcing an injunction on the basis of a threat of suicide would provide a blanket defence against being named in such situations unless and only if, a trial resulted. That is plainly wrong and the press have a right to report on these stories provided they have investigated properly. It should be noted that its not the 1st time murmurs of this nature have been made about the person in question.
We then have to make our minds up once we hear what comes out and hopefully from both sides
The state provides free health care, though that care for mental health is woefully inadequate. The individual in question no doubt has access to far better care than most of us would be able to expect and he should seek that out. His family and friends will hopefully ensure he does.
These sort of claims are exactly the sort of thing that the BBC and others have been rightly vilified for not properly investigating with regards to Saville, Harris and others. We cant have it both ways and if its a choice between one or the other then transparency and openness has to be the way.
We also have a free Internet, which makes trying to enforce an injunction of this ilk almost impossible.
Ultimately, the press have a duty of care to those who have come forward and to the person they intend to name and must make an ethical choice to publish or not. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 19:55 - Nov 4 with 350 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 16:04 - Nov 4 by Billywitch |
You are free to hold that opinion if you so wish.
And I will hold mine |
I've heard a rumour that you poke badgers with spoons.
No smoke without fire. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
