Whatever the truth about the serious allegations levelled at entertainer David Walliams in ITV’s Power and Silence documentary, they raise, once again, important but familiar questions about how institutions and the law deal with such matters – and whether the present balance of power is right and fair.
An injunction has been lifted that prevented the allegations, some of which date back more than two decades, from being published. Walliams stands accused of grooming, sexual assault and a pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards women and girls, one as young as 15. Women who were sometimes children at the time of the incidents they describe have spoken frankly about how they felt, and feel today, about these encounters. Their accounts are harrowing.
In the absence of any legal judgment to the contrary, it is only fair to say that Walliams denies any allegations of wrongdoing, and rejects claims of criminal activity, adding that: “I realise I did not always take people’s feelings properly into account. That is something I regret. And whilst a power imbalance is inevitable when one party is famous, abusing that power is something else entirely and it is something that I never did.”
The Little Britain star also says he is devastated that “some of the women I met 10 to 20 years ago have now expressed hurt or anger towards me".
The imbalance of power between, usually, older famous and wealthy men and younger women or girls across all sectors of society has been a matter of deep concern for many years. Too often it has resulted in an abuse of that power for the purposes of sexual gratification. Physical harm and mental cruelty have been grievous. It has destroyed lives.
Nor is it confined to the entertainment industry – although it is here that it has been disturbingly prevalent since the era of the Hollywood “casting couch”. To say that it is nothing new or, as the culture secretary Lisa Nandy has commented, that it is most likely still happening now, is not to minimise its severity.
Nor is it an excuse to do nothing. In some high-profile cases, such as the crimes of Russell Brand, justice – or a measure of it – can be provided to victims. But it is a characteristic that these scandals can fester for so long, often as not as “open secrets”, that the prolific perpetrators such as Jimmy Savile and Mohamed al-Fayed go peacefully to their graves without ever being made accountable for the lifelong torture they have inflicted on others so selfishly and callously.
There have been enough such men, and more than enough crimes and non-criminal misdemeanours, over the decades that one thing is more than obvious: voluntary measures, HR departments, internal reviews and weighty reports from worthies with well-meaning recommendations are inadequate to the task of deterring sexual predators. The phenomenon is too widespread and pervasive to conclude otherwise.
From the City and politics to business, the legal profession itself, the charity sector, the churches and the media, this is an endemic disease that demands stronger solutions.
A few years ago, the then director-general of the BBC, following the Huw Edwards affair, declared that the corporation would no longer be beholden to “the talent”. He was right to say so. Yet no organisation can be relied upon to uphold ethical standards unless there is a clear penalty for failure to do so, and one levied on the individuals concerned.
Therefore, the government should now consider creating new offences. “Grooming”, for example, should be made a specific criminal offence, because it is so obviously a legal loophole through which predators consciously leap. Nor should it be possible to prevent anyone claiming to be a victim from going to the police.
Managers could be made liable for the problematic behaviour of their staff, freelancers, associates and performers. Those in charge or associated with someone should also be held accountable if they can be shown to have had knowledge or have been colluding with them to commit their offences or cover them up.
Indeed, there should be a duty to act on suspicions they may have. It is perfectly comprehensible that some individuals are protected by organisations because they bring in huge amounts of money and glittering awards – but that is, therefore, all the more reason to impose serious consequences, financial and reputational, if they fail in a statutory duty of care. That would apply on a corporate and personal basis, and to all concerned.
In other words, it is past time to get serious with the Russell Brands of this world, and reverse the incentives that cause the cover-ups and the indulgences they enjoy. Anyone, including cronies, who collaborates with a sexual predator should face similar ruin and, where necessary, a custodial sentence. That might stop them from just shrugging and sniggering about the cruel and humiliating behaviour of their “talent”.
