OK … so David Walliams is facing allegations from various women.
I’m glad to hear it.
And assuming that he’ll be facing trial, at some point.
The sooner that’s done, the better: although I realise police will want to investigate these allegations, and the evidence gathered by the Guardian, and Channel 4.
I do know this, though: that I, like every other Dr Who fan in the country, have been mildly affected by the situation.
On the one hand, I can understand Aunty taking the episode — and other work by Walliams — down.
They’d rather be seen to be keeping a distance from a controversial person, and be seen to not hand license fee money, as residuals, to a disgraced performer.
Fair enough.
But?
I’m a completist: and would rather see the episode still on the service.
That way, I have a choice over whether to watch it.
And whether to watch the iPlayer version, the bluray version, or a locally stream digital copy.
~≈📺≈~
Even given I’m a layman with little industry understanding, I know there’s other aspects to this.
Yes, I can appreciate the BBC taking the episode down: to avoiding Walliams any royalty fees.
But … ?
That seems unfair to the other artists involved in the episode: as they’d lose income.
It strikes me that future contracts will need to include clauses that cover this, that cover what happens if an episode is taken down through no legal fault of the performer.
That makes payment to an artist who’s lost income … because of someone else’s actions.
That’s relevant to Doctor Who.
Noel Clarke appeared in many early episodes of the revived Doctor Who: and, years later, was convicted of many sexual offences.
And yet … ?
His episodes still stand.
I know his stories are far more integral to the Christopher Eccleston, and David Tennent years: and I personally have enjoyed the work of Clarke’s I’ve seen.
I’m aware taking down the many episodes Noel Clarke was in, would affect many more performers …
But … ?
If the BBC is going to take down one episode because of one performer, but not take down others because of a different performer??
As someone who played the game when I was younger?
That’s made my morning!
~≈🧌≈~
Back in October, I wrote how an unnamed celebrity had been seeking a court injunction: to stop themselves being named in a joint report from ITN and The Guardian, as the alleged perpetrator behind some serious sexual offences.
The celebrity was threatening suicide, if revealed: something I felt was an effort to avoid problems.
I felt it was an attempt at blackmailing the court to not name names.
That attempt has failed: and, as the court has lifted the injunction, the celebrity has been revealed to be comedian and writer, David Walliams.
Some of his alleged victims were between fifteen, and seventeen.
I’m … not surprised by the reveal.
Especially as Walliams faced similar allegations, last year.
I note that Walliams is denying things.
I think that’s par for the course.
And can only hope a trial happens soon.
The sooner cases like this are brought to trial, and perpetrators convicted, the better.
