| The unnamed celebrity scandal 23:37 - Nov 3 with 2311 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 00:22 - Nov 4 with 2024 views | J2BLUE |
I'm with Ian Hislop on this. If you allow the unnamed person to stay anonymous due to the suicide claim it gives everyone a way out in the future.
The man's mental health should be taken seriously but it's not a reason not to name him.
Edit: typo [Post edited 4 Nov 0:28]
|  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 01:41 - Nov 4 with 1890 views | Illinoisblue |
There’s no perfect answer and it’s an odd situation where everyone knows who it is but he hasn’t been convicted of anything.
That said, seems to be too much worry about the suspect and not the victims. Again, that’s a simplistic response. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 05:13 - Nov 4 with 1656 views | mellowblue |
maybe the fear of being exposed is actually worse than being exposed. At least once you are exposed, you can try and cope with the aftermath and try and re-build yourself. Harder to get any support for his issues if he is trying to live under a veil of secrecy over it all. After all everyone knows he is an odd ball character and no one is particularly surprised and will come to terms with what he has been up to. Might be a laughing stock for a while or a figure of disgust etc though, depending on what the women have to say. Seems to be a thing that some male celebs/powerful men etc are put on such a high pedestal, believe the hype, lose their bearings and act out of control. |  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:13 - Nov 4 with 1423 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 00:22 - Nov 4 by J2BLUE |
I'm with Ian Hislop on this. If you allow the unnamed person to stay anonymous due to the suicide claim it gives everyone a way out in the future.
The man's mental health should be taken seriously but it's not a reason not to name him.
Edit: typo [Post edited 4 Nov 0:28]
|
Surely if he has genuinely attempted suicide twice in recent months his family should get him into a place where he can be looked after, monitored and receive the help he needs, whilst at the same time his alleged victims can get the justice they deserve? |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:32 - Nov 4 with 1324 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
A for me. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until trial by social media.
What benefit is there to naming other than shaming? Let the authorities do their job. I don't see why people should have their name dragged through the dirt before anything has been proven, just because they're well known. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:33 - Nov 4 with 1313 views | tcblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 01:41 - Nov 4 by Illinoisblue |
There’s no perfect answer and it’s an odd situation where everyone knows who it is but he hasn’t been convicted of anything.
That said, seems to be too much worry about the suspect and not the victims. Again, that’s a simplistic response. |
Actually this is the perfect answer.
At points during an investigation, victims - including those who potentially have been unprepared to come forward, especially if the suspect is famous and powerful because of this - become the priority over a suspect's anonymity.
I would also speculate that the naming ban is making things worse for everyone now, including the suspect | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:33 - Nov 4 with 1300 views | Keno |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:13 - Nov 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely if he has genuinely attempted suicide twice in recent months his family should get him into a place where he can be looked after, monitored and receive the help he needs, whilst at the same time his alleged victims can get the justice they deserve? |
^^^THIS^^^
and I dont know who it is |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:38 - Nov 4 with 1267 views | tcblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:32 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
A for me. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until trial by social media.
What benefit is there to naming other than shaming? Let the authorities do their job. I don't see why people should have their name dragged through the dirt before anything has been proven, just because they're well known. |
As I wrote, the reason for naming can be to encourage others to come forwards, who may have been thus far (understandably) reticent because of the profile of whomever it might be - if they knew the person was already under investigation, we know they're more likely to come forwards.
I also have no clue who it is, I don't do social media | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:44 - Nov 4 with 1246 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:38 - Nov 4 by tcblue |
As I wrote, the reason for naming can be to encourage others to come forwards, who may have been thus far (understandably) reticent because of the profile of whomever it might be - if they knew the person was already under investigation, we know they're more likely to come forwards.
I also have no clue who it is, I don't do social media |
That doesn't make sense. If people are reticent to come forward because of the celeb's high profile then they already know who it is and naming doesn't solve anything.
We all know the naming is so that the media, and social media, can have a field day. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:55 - Nov 4 with 1149 views | MattinLondon |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:44 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
That doesn't make sense. If people are reticent to come forward because of the celeb's high profile then they already know who it is and naming doesn't solve anything.
We all know the naming is so that the media, and social media, can have a field day. |
Makes perfect sense - predators can use their status (be it celebrity or not) as a shield or as a way to bully their victims into not going to the police etc. For example ‘who is going to believe you over me?
Strip them of that shield and they lose that power, allowing their victims to come forward.
I have absolutely no ideal who this celebrity is - perfectly reasonable to assume that other potential victims also have no idea who is being investigated/ granted an injunction etc etc. And naming that person, will give them the confidence to come forward. [Post edited 4 Nov 7:57]
|  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:56 - Nov 4 with 1147 views | DJR |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:13 - Nov 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely if he has genuinely attempted suicide twice in recent months his family should get him into a place where he can be looked after, monitored and receive the help he needs, whilst at the same time his alleged victims can get the justice they deserve? |
He failed yesterday in his attempt to prevent publication but has the right of appeal.
This from the story in the Guardian.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, concluded he was satisfied that a decision to permit publication of the claims, the anticipation of publication and publication itself “would each materially increase the claimant’s risk of suicide”.
“That increase would be very substantial,” he said.
However, he found that it was for the state’s health services to protect PPT from harm in the form of mental health treatment, rather than the court’s responsibility to protect him by stopping the allegations from being published.
The claimant was seeking to block publication of the allegations by citing article two of the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which relates to the right to life; article three, relating to “inhuman or degrading treatment”; and article eight, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.
“The court has not assumed responsibility for the claimant’s psychiatric treatment or safety in the relevant sense,” Nicklin’s ruling states. “In the present case, the state has assumed responsibility for the claimant’s immediate safety through the psychiatric hospital and mental health services.
“The claimant is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The hospital exercises direct control over his care, observation, treatment, access to means of self-harm, leave and eventual discharge. It has assumed responsibility for the very risk with which article two is concerned.
“The evidence establishes that the hospital can provide significant protection. Inpatient treatment cannot eliminate the risk, but it materially reduces the likelihood of suicide.”
Nicklin said he had to balance the claimant’s rights with the media outlets’ right of freedom of expression."
Having said this, an ordinary individual without the wherewithal would not even be able to go to court to argue their case. In that sense, the scales of justice are tipped in favour of the wealthy. [Post edited 4 Nov 8:00]
|  | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:01 - Nov 4 with 1090 views | giant_stow |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:44 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
That doesn't make sense. If people are reticent to come forward because of the celeb's high profile then they already know who it is and naming doesn't solve anything.
We all know the naming is so that the media, and social media, can have a field day. |
Slightly odd, but anyway....
I would section him - this 'dont do it or I'll hurt myself' argument is utterly unacceptable and manipulative. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:13 - Nov 4 with 1038 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:13 - Nov 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Surely if he has genuinely attempted suicide twice in recent months his family should get him into a place where he can be looked after, monitored and receive the help he needs, whilst at the same time his alleged victims can get the justice they deserve? |
I may have misunderstood the judge's summing up but in essence has he not said that it is for the country's medical providers to ensure, as far as reasonably possible, that this individual does not commit suicide? And does he also not imply that this person has already been (and remains) detained under the Mental Health Act for this very purpose? Thus forming the basis for his ruling on the injunction request (it is not the place of the court to provide the protection that falls to the medical services).
“The claimant is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The hospital exercises direct control over his care, observation, treatment, access to means of self-harm, leave and eventual discharge. It has assumed responsibility for the very risk with which article two (of the ECHR) is concerned.
“The evidence establishes that the hospital can provide significant protection. Inpatient treatment cannot eliminate the risk, but it materially reduces the likelihood of suicide.”
The dilemma over whether the individual should be named is, perforce, fraught with emotion. Would such a person be named in the normal course of events if he were NOT well known (regardless of a suicide threat?). What of the alleged victims?
On a wider moral point, it seems generally accepted (see the Mental Health Act cited earlier) that society has a responsibility to prevent a person's suicide (exceptions obviously exist - soldiers volunteering for a "certain death" mission, for example) but how does this balance against a concept of individual free will?
I have no answers of course. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:20 - Nov 4 with 974 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:55 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
Makes perfect sense - predators can use their status (be it celebrity or not) as a shield or as a way to bully their victims into not going to the police etc. For example ‘who is going to believe you over me?
Strip them of that shield and they lose that power, allowing their victims to come forward.
I have absolutely no ideal who this celebrity is - perfectly reasonable to assume that other potential victims also have no idea who is being investigated/ granted an injunction etc etc. And naming that person, will give them the confidence to come forward. [Post edited 4 Nov 7:57]
|
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 you'd think they'd 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. 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. | |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:21 - Nov 4 with 962 views | Steve_M |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:01 - Nov 4 by giant_stow |
Slightly odd, but anyway....
I would section him - this 'dont do it or I'll hurt myself' argument is utterly unacceptable and manipulative. |
"this 'dont do it or I'll hurt myself' argument is utterly unacceptable and manipulative."
Yep, it's an abuser's argument right to the core. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:34 - Nov 4 with 868 views | MattinLondon |
| 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 you'd think they'd 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. 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. |
I don’t view anyone as guilty.
Your second paragraph is really quite appalling. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:40 - Nov 4 with 830 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
If the court were to find in his favour then the threat of suicide becomes a blanket defence against being named in such circumstances. Thats completely against how a legal system should work.
As you say, eveyone knows who it is. Similar stories have ran about him previously so the injunction has become moot anyway. No injunction was applied for in Scotland so he can be named there and outside England and Wales. In a world of global news this makes it almost impossible to enforce an injunction. The idea that you can stop the press publishing when his name is already all over Twitter would be madness |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:42 - Nov 4 with 816 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
Longer than months. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 08:47 - Nov 4 with 784 views | baxterbasics |
Think I also heard it reported that the judge pointed out that emotional stress is simply one of the inevitable consequences of the accused behaviour (if guilty) and that it's not for the court to mitigate that. In other words, if you did this, and now you're suffering, that's on you, buddy.
I think I know who it is. As has been pointed out, most regular Joe's like you and I wouldn't have access to this kind of legal protection if we were accused. We'd be named publicly. Why should it be different for someone with money and power. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:31 - Nov 4 with 578 views | vapour_trail |
| 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 you'd think they'd 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. 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. |
Yeah victims of abuse really do need to step up.
What a grim take. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:31 - Nov 4 with 576 views | 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 unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:40 - Nov 4 with 529 views | MattinLondon |
| 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. |
Agreed - surprised at who posted it. | | | |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:45 - Nov 4 with 504 views | Mullet |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 09:40 - Nov 4 by MattinLondon |
Agreed - surprised at who posted it. |
Really? Fair enough. |  |
| |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 10:15 - Nov 4 with 332 views | lowhouseblue |
| The unnamed celebrity scandal on 07:32 - Nov 4 by The_Flashing_Smile |
A for me. Innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until trial by social media.
What benefit is there to naming other than shaming? Let the authorities do their job. I don't see why people should have their name dragged through the dirt before anything has been proven, just because they're well known. |
but that's not the standard we usually apply. we don't only report allegations after someone has been convicted and we don't only report criminal wrong doing. something short of criminality may well be relevant with someone who has built a career based on their personality / reputation / decency etc. the press are entitled to expose hypocrisy, dishonesty, and unpleasantness amongst the powerful, famous, and publicly lauded - they don't have to stop at criminality.
the question is should there be a mental health veto against such normal run of the mill reporting. for me there shouldn't be any such thing - but if you identify a mental health risk the standard of reporting should be correspondingly higher. they need to be very certain of their story. |  |
| 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 10:44 - Nov 4 with 178 views | Guthrum |
Really, the first port of call has to be the Police, if there is a suggestion of criminality. It is then up to them if they want to release the name to get other potential victims to come forward (Edit: If there is enough evidence to convict without, they won't actually need to)..
Tho it has to be handled with considerable care. Operation Midland was a notorious disaster.
p.s. I have not the faintest idea who it is. [Post edited 4 Nov 10:46]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
