Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
That’s putting it mildly, his character was plain to see in little Britain
David Walliams denies inappropriate behaviour after publisher drops him https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev8p7d0gmgo
Always the ones you most suspect.
Sounds a little hard to swallow.
I'd imagine he would be quite 'weird' to deal with because....he's a bit weird. At it's most charitable you could imagine his weirdness being misinterpreted as more sinister/predatory by someone young and not used to dealing with him. But he's clearly made some poor choices over the years, especially recently, so who knows.
Strong move though, dropping an author who has sold you 60 million book sales. And if you believe his statement, to do so without even asking for his version of events as part of the investigation. If this was peer on peer in the workplace you'd not get away with that, but I suppose this is different as only one side is an employee and the other a customer/client you have decided not to work with anymore.
It was rumoured Little Britain was being talked about for making a comeback. Given how poorly most of the original LB material has aged and the collection of allegations he's now collected, you'd think the whole mash up would be too toxic to touch now.
My wife is convinced he's Gay. TBH his general behaviour is off, but for the publisher to drop him given the amount of money he is making for them, there must be some significant substance to the claims.
Strong move though, dropping an author who has sold you 60 million book sales.
The headline is a bit misleading. As you allude to, they're just not releasing any new books by him. The old ones are still in the publishers catalogue.
Quite an achievement to get shunned by a Murdoch business for being too creepy!
There's also something wierd going on at Harper Collins, they fired their very well regarded CEO in mysterious circumstances recently. One of the first things the new CEO does is bin Walliams.
he's clearly made some poor choices over the years
Burn him! Although...fits in pretty well with most of the human race. Burn us! Hang on what were these poor choices? Did he buy a very expensive but very poorly rated washing machine?
Fits in pretty well with most of the human race then.
Can’t say I’ve that would be classed as inappropriate behaviour.
Can’t say I’ve that would be classed as inappropriate behaviour.
Oh so poor choices was a euphemism i missed that bit.
My poor choice is I keep coming back here and posting shit and winding myself up.
Ooh! We love to join a witch hunt on here!
Hang on what were these poor choices?
To be clear, I'm not in the burn him camp. I quite like him. And when I met and swam with him when he was doing all his swimming challenges he came across very well. But given the age we live in I'd say repeatedly doing nazi salutes on a game show and not making sure the mics were off before being pretty viciously insulting about contestants of a show that you were the big bucks star of could be considered poor choices. Or a habit of saying/doing something before thinking how it might be perceived. Or at least poor choices if you want to remain a lucrative 'star' of popular mass market culture.
Sounds like it was an open secret in the industry. They're having a bit of fun over on blusky.
This bluesky linked DM article on archive.ph adds some details - looks like possibly some actual journalism from the DM here, or just having a pop at Murdoch's lot perhaps
The kids books published under his name are awful. Lowest common denominator rubbish about farts are bogeys.
Uhh
To be clear, I'm not in the burn him camp. I quite like him.
It's funny you say that, as I've not liked him for a long time 😂
But given the age we live in I'd say repeatedly doing nazi salutes on a game show and not making sure the mics were off before being pretty viciously insulting about contestants of a show that you were the big bucks star of could be considered poor choices.
Yes fair enough.
Or a habit of saying/doing something before thinking how it might be perceived.
Well yes maybe a poor choice, but very vague and non defined and open to interpretation of extent/intensity. Who is even perceiving and in what context. I'm not thinking now specifically of DW, more in general terms about language and how it it's perceived. Saw a post from a neurodivergent influencer talking about how ND people tend toward pulling in a cloud of contextual detail because that its important to us, while NT people tend to want the opposite, a single succinct answer.
Anyway...
David Walliams. The later series of LB seemed to be punching down too much, and when he was doing BGT (or the other one, what ever) seemed far to up himself to be likeable.
I probably would have been a big shit too if I'd been famous.
The kids books published under his name are awful. Lowest common denominator rubbish about farts are bogeys.
God forbid kids should be encouraged to read books by them being entertaining for their target audience
It's not that they're entertaining that's the problem. Walliams is the personification of "celebrity getting away with writing kids' books when no-one would take them seriously writing adults' books because people treat kids books like disposable shit".
Actual children's authors (and their editors) think carefully to make themes, vocabulary, dialogue relevant and inspiring to the readers. That doesn't mean they have to be dowdy and "improving". But Walliams's books are "wee wee bum bum poo poo lol". It's the print equivalent of YouTube Minecraft reaction videos. They're dogshit. They're even worse than Diary of Wimpy Kid.
FWIW, my ex wife was a HR bod at one of the companies he's been invovled with and has personally had to clean up one of his messes, as well as advising other team members on how to deal with him (never be alone with him, etc). As with lots of these characters, it's remarkable he got away with it for as long as he did.
He's not been 'cancelled', he's been fired from a job after sexually harasssing his colleagues. He was protected for a while as he brought in lots of money, but that only keeps you out of trouble for so long.
It's the print equivalent of YouTube Minecraft reaction videos. They're dogshit. They're even worse than Diary of Wimpy Kid.
As susepic provides various screenshots for it seems to have been general knowledge for those involved in the industry that
a)he is a turd who cant be trust near young person whether male or female.
b)he didnt write the books.
My wife is convinced he's Gay.
I was surprised that he wasn't also. Though what relevance that has to anything here I don't know. Are you implying that being gay would make him a wrong 'un?
Are you implying that being gay would make him a wrong 'un?
Can you actually join a conversation without looking to start problems ?.
Give it a rest ffs, its Christmas.
FWIW, my ex wife was a HR bod at one of the companies he's been invovled with and has personally had to clean up one of his messes, as well as advising other team members on how to deal with him (never be alone with him, etc). As with lots of these characters, it's remarkable he got away with it for as long as he did.
He's not been 'cancelled', he's been fired from a job after sexually harasssing his colleagues. He was protected for a while as he brought in lots of money, but that only keeps you out of trouble for so long.
still at least he’s not an HR professional who seems to have breached employer-employee confidentiality to someone who shares the story on the internet. I realise as your ex-wife you may not like her but did you consider if it was appropriate to post this?
Fits in pretty well with most of the human race then.
Can’t say I’ve that would be classed as inappropriate behaviour.
of course that is pretty much what Walliams said in his statement yesterday! I’m not saying that he’s innocent but I’ve seen loads of behaviour which at the time just seemed like banter but with the benefit of hindsight and a different mindset could be seen as totally in appropriate.
still at least he’s not an HR professional who seems to have breached employer-employee confidentiality to someone who shares the story on the internet.
I would consider it fair game. Confidentiality shouldnt apply to lawbreakers.
Its clearly a problem when we have a bunch of people turning out after the fact commenting on the fact someone is a ****ing scumbag but who were unwillingly to share it previously because the scumbag was rich and could tie them up in the courts.
Perhaps it would be best if employers werent allowed to cover up for absolute turds just cos they brought the cash in?
still at least he’s not an HR professional who seems to have breached employer-employee confidentiality to someone who shares the story on the internet. I realise as your ex-wife you may not like her but did you consider if it was appropriate to post this?
Yeah, she's pretty open about it now. Long time ago, and shes exited both HR and that industry. He wasnt the only case she had to deal with, so employer-employee confidentiality starts to seem less sacred when your job is covering up SA.
still at least he’s not an HR professional who seems to have breached employer-employee confidentiality
Yes, these two things are definitely morally and legally equivalent. 🙄
The kids books published under his name are awful. Lowest common denominator rubbish about farts are bogeys.
This. IIRC this isn’t the first time rumours have swirled about adverse behaviour?
of course that is pretty much what Walliams said in his statement yesterday! I’m not saying that he’s innocent but I’ve seen loads of behaviour which at the time just seemed like banter but with the benefit of hindsight and a different mindset could be seen as totally in appropriate.
I worked alone with female staff on long shifts, unlike Walliams there was never any warnings not to allow me to be alone with people.
Presumably he'll also be prosecuted for his other crime of thinking he's way funnier than he actually is.
but who were unwillingly to share it previously because the scumbag was rich and could tie them up in the courts.
unwilling......Hmmmmm......too sh1t scared to share as they'd received threatening letters from his lawyers......see the report from the DM above (I don't read the DM, but picked the link from Bluesky)
Can you actually join a conversation without looking to start problems ?.
I'm not starting problems if the answer is "no" now, am I. If the answer is "yes" then the problem predates my post. It seemed a weird thing to bring up in a discussion about misconduct.
How we ascertained what he's actually alleged to have done yet, or have we gone straight to the braying mob? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he's guilty, but there's a whole lot of nothing on this thread beyond a report of inappropriate behaviour (and looking a bit gay, of course).
Handbags at 10 paces
I was surprised that he wasn't also. Though what relevance that has to anything here I don't know. Are you implying that being gay would make him a wrong 'un?
I must admit I thought the last sentence was a strong one. It feels like one of those political statements that is designed to say something without actually saying it. I don't think there was any implication of "wrong 'un" just an honest statement.
As for relevance,. presumably the surprise at the gender of the victims given the presumptions.
Presumably he'll also be prosecuted for his other crime of thinking he's way funnier than he actually is.
First I knew of him was a bit part in a Dennis Pennis video (yes, actual video tape) back in the 90s. Pennis was funny, Walliams was excruciatingly unfunny - just whiney and dramatically camp, which he then went on the build a career in comedy on with Little Britain. I don't care for burning or stamping on him while down, but quite happy if he's never on a screen in front of me again.
I'm not starting problems if the answer is "no" now, am I.
By that logic, you can drop an unfounded accusation of unsavoury views into any conversation and providing the other person refutes it, it's OK? "Are you a homophobe, racist, paedophile etc? No? Sorry, my bad. Moving on then, what are you up to at the weekend"?
You have to admit it's a very provocative, loaded thing to say and seemed to me to be putting quite offensive words into @fossy's mouth.
On Walliam's. I'm not going to be getting my pitchfork out just yet. Accusations made but not yet proven. Insofar as it's of any relevance, I always found him to be distinctly unfunny.
Can you actually join a conversation without looking to start problems ?.
I'm not starting problems if the answer is "no" now, am I. If the answer is "yes" then the problem predates my post. It seemed a weird thing to bring up in a discussion about misconduct.
How we ascertained what he's actually alleged to have done yet, or have we gone straight to the braying mob? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he's guilty, but there's a whole lot of nothing on this thread beyond a report of inappropriate behaviour (and looking a bit gay, of course).
There no reports of what he's done in the current complaint but in the past he's been very inappropriate with young men whilst playing the "character" of a predatory paedophile, and has a history of trying to date very young women.
I worked alone with female staff on long shifts, unlike Walliams there was never any warnings not to allow me to be alone with people.
There was a warning among staff not to be left alone with me on long shifts. But that's because I'm so boring that if there wasn't someone interesting to chat to they'd quit
There no reports of what he's done in the current complaint but in the past he's been very inappropriate with young men whilst playing the "character" of a predatory paedophile
Yeah, I read the stuff on his 'hide the sausage' stage routine that he seemingly did tens and tens of times, despite complaints from the likes of Peter Tatchell and abuse survivor charities and being punched by the 'victim' on multiple occasions. It's hard to work out how this was a, meant to be funny or b, not stopped by other members of the cast like Matt Lucas or the production company.
Just reading the details in today’s Observer and it’s the same desperately depressing and oh-so-familiar scenario we’ve heard so many times before…
Older bloke in position of power who is (inexplicably IMHO) a profitable asset to a large corporation is allowed to get away with murder in plain sight for decades, while blind eyes are turned all around them. The victims are blamed, silenced and payed off, whatever it takes to keep the gravy train rolling right the way up to the point where it finally becomes untenable.
As already noted, it’s ironic that it’s Harper Collins, being part of the Murdoch empire, who went in two-footed and studs up on the BBC for exactly this same pattern of behavior.
Pots and kettles and all that?
They’re not deleting his titles either, just not publishing any new ones so he, and they, will continue to profit from them (if anyone actually still buys them, of course)