The World of David Walliams: General Discussion

[Pharaoh]

It was clear before the project started that he was a not a squeaky clean person. That should be the criteria someone should meet when a park takes the risk of dedicating a land to them.

Maybe I'm clutching my pearls too hard but even when you ignore everything else, dedicating a kids theme park land to a creator of Little Britain and Come Fly With Me, someone who had already publicly said questionable things before 2018 seems like a bad move.

 

[Islander]

It was clear before the project started that he was a not a squeaky clean person. That should be the criteria someone should meet when a park takes the risk of dedicating a land to them.

Tbf I think in this day and age, you’d really struggle to find anyone who would meet the criteria of “squeaky clean” - more and more ‘celebrities’ are coming under the microscope.

I would argue that being weary of him because he co-created Little Britain and Come Fly With Me is somewhat null and void when he’s spent many years as a celebrated children’s writer.

 

[rob666]

Who exactly is this squeeky clean person that is being talked of?
I know none.

I remember innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...
but that is so old fashioned in this modern world of trial by social media.

 

[MaxPower]

A bit like Russell Brand, it's not exactly shocking that this sort of stuff is coming out. He's always been close to line of what's acceptable and a bit of a strange character.

It came as a bit of a surprise to me that he went into writing children's books in the first place in all honesty. All aboard the gravy train I guess.

 

[Benjsh]

By all accounts he hasnt written a single Children's book either. He has a team of ghost writers that do it for him.

Nothing about him is authentic. His comedy sketches were mostly bad imitations of previous comedy gold too with very little originality. In fact I believe several Little Britain sketches were described as pure plagiarism.

Dont find him funny in the slightest.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

A bit like Russell Brand, it's not exactly shocking that this sort of stuff is coming out. He's always been close to line of what's acceptable and a bit of a strange character.

I know you have the best of intentions with this comment, but it's worth remembering that the criminal proceedings against Russell Brand, for serious sexual offences allegations, are very much live. Comments which could be considered to infer guilt, even if unintentional, could be considered contempt of court, in addition to the usual libel concerns.

Equally, whilst the behaviour that David Walliams has been accused of is distasteful at the least, there hasn't been any suggestion that his actions are criminal, or even equate to the type of behaviour that Brand has been charged with.

As Brand has nothing to do with The World of David Walliams, or even theme parks, it's probably best that he's kept out of the conversation for now.

 

[Islander]

I know you have the best of intentions with this comment, but it's worth remembering that the criminal proceedings against Russell Brand, for serious sexual offences allegations, are very much live. Comments which could be considered to infer guilt, even if unintentional, could be considered contempt of court, in addition to the usual libel concerns.

Equally goose, although you have the best intentions, it really does become massively tiresome to constantly have you jump in as if you’re the TST legal advisory… which you’re definitely not.

Honestly, just leave people to make their own decisions when it comes to free speech. Or better yet leave it to the team.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Equally goose, although you have the best intentions, it really does become massively tiresome to constantly have you jump in as if you’re the TST legal advisory… which you’re definitely not.

Honestly, just leave people to make their own decisions when it comes to free speech. Or better yet leave it to the team.

I will take the note on the tiresomeness. I just don't want anyone to end up in a spot of bother over the holiday season. Poster, mod or owner.

However, I would gently point out that "free speech" does not offer a legal defence against the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The "Strict Liability Rule" means that intent is irrelevant; if a post creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings, it is a criminal offence. That applies to forum posts just as much as it does to newspapers.

But you are quite right. It is not my circus, and they are not my monkeys. I shall return to my pond.