The corporate media has so far stayed silent over allegations that a famous journalist at the Daily Mail sexually assaulted two young men, and sexually harassed another. Thankfully, Good Law Project is on the case – and trying to support one of the young men in question.
Daily Mail: a sexual predator in its midst?
As Good Law Project wrote on its website:
For many months, Good Law Project has been working to help a young man who has been denied justice after he was sexually assaulted by a star journalist at the Daily Mail.
The young man, who works for the publisher of the Mail, and who we shall call X, was groped by the journalist, whom we are naming only as J.
It noted that the Daily Mail Group reportedly investigated X’s claims – and promptly dismissed them, without even interviewing him. As Good Law Project noted, the company can get away with this because X does not have the financial ability to take a huge corporate giant on. Moreover, it noted that, to the Daily Mail, “it feels more important to protect “the talent” than to protect the junior colleagues they prey upon”.
However, X is seemingly not the first survivor of J’s alleged sexual abuse. As Good Law Project wrote:
The Daily Mail Group has previously received a complaint of sexual assault by J from at least one other young man. It knows he has sent unwanted sexual messages to at least one other young man. These are not the only victims of J to whom Good Law Project has spoken. And reports of J’s sexual misconduct have been circulating for well over a decade: it is an open secret.
So far, not one corporate media outlet has reported the story. This is probably not unsurprising, given the privately-owned press in the UK stick together to protect their own interests. Unless, of course, it concerns an outlet like the BBC or ITV – and then the tabloids are all over the story. As Good Law Project noted:
You might also remember the BBC being hammered in a front page of 2 December 2024 that said: “BBC was warned 4 times about [Gregg] Wallace” in, yes, the Daily Mail.
Good Law Project and X need your support
So, what of X’s case?
Well, Good Law Project has gathered him together a legal team. It noted that it has “helped X start proceedings against both the Daily Mail and J himself in the Employment Tribunal for disability discrimination, whistleblowing and victimisation”.
However, Good Law Project cannot do this without your support.
It said:
We plan to publish his ‘Grounds of Claim’ and the names of X and J just as soon as we can. But meanwhile we need your help – taking on the might of the Mail is going to be very expensive.
Please, if you’d like to see them held to account, we need your help.
You can donate to Good Law Project’s crowdfunder here.
Feature image via the Canary













yhikyhiouhio
If the facts are true, then the alphabetical identification should be thrown away and the name of the journalist should be published.
For me, this is a non story…
If the evidence is clear , then PUBLISH AND BE DAMNED.
Publication is no longer a matter of using mainstream press. There’s X, there’s BlueSky, there’s Reddit, there’s Instagram, YouTube, etc.etc.etc … ever so many sites, all free
The defence against libel is very simple. If it’s true it’s not libel and if the evidence is clear then it doesn’t need the big guns to defend such a case. A KC, on being provided with evidence, could demolish the Daily Fail in an afternoon and still have time for a sherry or two before dinner.
This sounds eerily familiar. Wasn’t there a case that WAS publicised? Maybe I’m getting mixed up. But to those saying ‘publish and be damned’ I want to remind them that this COULD be used to claim that the investigation and potential trial are tainted. Hopefully X gets justice..