Sorry to break it to you, but the original Tinky Winky was "released from his contact" for exposing himself to female costume department members.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Anyone know/ remember what happened with that guy on tiktok and Matt Lucas? He was apparently reporting everything to the police and reaching out for other victims then disappeared from the internet? Maybe it's that 
Edit: it's discussed on the Matt Lucas thread a while ago.
Edit: it's discussed on the Matt Lucas thread a while ago.
Still in bad taste even for adultsMust’ve thought it was an adult audience he was performing forsurprised none of the parents complained?
These silhouette pics aren't exactly subtle, are they? Middle of a huge storm here so I don't have the battery power to compare a few silhouettes from these injunctions, but they truly aren't trying to hide anything, whatever the court injunction permits.
Best I can do. There are many more silhouettes for these injunctions but these are the 2 most recent that I could find that the media are using.
One on right is PPT aka David Walliams.
Clever legal advice: protection of a person's right to privacy/personal life v revelation of that private information in the public interest, coupled with duty of care with regard to the preservation of the life of a private citizen. It's an argument - like any legal submission. The facts are assessed and a balance is found.
Justice Nicklin ruled, sagely, that Walliams was in hospital, so welfare was covered as far as possible, and thus, duty of care was met. Nicklin also stated, in essence, if someone is going to harm themselves they will and not every eventuality can be considered. Like any legal benchmark, the law can respond oniy when something has happened not when it might happen. (Credible threat not withstanding, like acting on information someone is planning a terror attack, or a big drug deal). He also ruled in the public interest. Until that decision was made, Walliam's privacy was protected.
Well, sort of
But yes, putting together such a submission is very, very expensive.
Persuade them to be an actuary. Or an accountant. Anything you can do to give them a stable, sensible life with an honest income. Any parent who pushes their child towards showbiz and stardom... Well I won't say what I'd like to about what should happen to them. It isn't a honourable trade and it is unlikely to end well. MOO.
NDA’s - if someone has broken the law, surely it no longer stands? What’s the worse that can happen or am I being naive here
duck all. The fear, usually backed up by a letter from a lawyer (see all the Jemima Goldsmith commentary and that comedienne who spoke out earlier), is to shut you up. If you believe any type of crime has been committed, you can break the NDA, which isn't worth the paper it is written on anyway.
How I wish we were taught in school about how any of this works - politics, economics, budgeting, banking, law, contracts, morals.... We haven't a clue most of us how the country we are born in or live in operates.
It's a fkn shane. If half of us knew even a tiny fraction of it, society would function far better.
Last edited:
His explanation is obvious to me. He didn't write that joke.
What is likely to happen to Walliams now? Is he actually being fully investigated or likely to face jail time for what he's done (grooming for one)?
Hopefully victims report it to the police and he faces charges. Dirty old man
I feel like there’s no way he didn’t go further with a few under 16 girls, so hopefully this helps them feel like they can come forward safely.
Just using IMDB to check, and it looks like Lucy and David have never been on a panel show together. HOWEVER, David has been on 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown (twice) with Lucy’s then-husband Jon Richardson. Interestingly, both times were when Sean Lock was absent- David was the stand-in. Imagine the disappointment if you had tickets, expecting to see Sean Lock and then David Walliams walks out.
Somebody wrote it. So somebody knew. And so did Jonathan Ross or he wouldn't have said it aloud for a laugh.
Time to hold some feet to the fire. I hope it doesn't go too far the other way, where nothing can ever be said, but in a moral society where encouraging underage sex, grape etc is made light of, it should be called out.
Just to counter this though, different cultures have different morals. In Spain, if you call something, including a female, "de quince" ([pronounced kin-say] =15, that was the age when you could marry during Franco years and until recently), there is a huge cultural nuance to those 2 words, it means this is great, she is lovely, and more. Just mentioning this.
Someone I know personally who has worked on a ton of TV shows (as a wardrobe mistress) told me that a particular male celeb she once worked with is known to have grape a woman, and that he was not allowed to be alone with the wardrobe or makeup girls on set. She explicitly used the word grape.
I don't what Tattle's guidelines are in terms of making a direct (albeit second hand) allegation, but it's a widely hated stage/TV actor who became a famous US chat show host, who once got into a big public spat with Patrick Stewart.
I don't what Tattle's guidelines are in terms of making a direct (albeit second hand) allegation, but it's a widely hated stage/TV actor who became a famous US chat show host, who once got into a big public spat with Patrick Stewart.
Wowzas. He’s a wick but don’t think I’d ever expect that.
Sir Patrick was a well known campaigner against violence against women and girls so maybe he also heard something?
NDAs and injunctions are different things.
Let's assume we're an old rich purve and we've done something terrible to a junior employee.
We might start by asking her to sign an NDA for which we'll pay her, say, £50k. By signing it and taking the money, she agrees not to go to the police or take any other action. But the NDA only affects her, and she has to agree to it. She's free to ignore the money and not sign, although we've probably reminded her that a court trial is awful, it's her word against ours etc etc.
Unfortunately, we're becoming known for junior employees departing suddenly, and people are gossiping, and journalists think there is a story somewhere. They are starting to print stories which encourage this speculation, and the public are starting to stop spending money on our books and tickets for our shows as they think something is afoot.
So we go to the court and get an injunction. Our lawyer argues that the speculation is damaging, there is no evidence of wrongdoing (of course not, we've paid them all off with NDAs), and the injunction stops people talking. If they can't talk about it, then the victims remain isolated, happy (we assume) with their payoff and our assurances it was a one off. It allows us to maintain our public image, and everything continues as usual.
No one is stopped from going to the police, but using both makes it very unlikely, so we can continue our purve behaviour.
