Two tracks, one denial: why Walliams' statement doesn't answer the police inquiry

The Metropolitan Police has launched an investigation into David Walliams over reports of alleged serious sexual offences. That is the fact that matters, and it is not the same fact as the one Walliams has spent the past week denying. The Met said it had received a number of allegations of non-recent serious sexual offences involving a man now in his 50s, and that those who came forward are being supported by specialist officers. The force also said the allegations being investigated are separate from those published by ITV News and The Guardian — but that, as part of the investigation, detectives are proactively reviewing that reporting to establish whether there is any evidence of offences.

That is a dual-track inquiry. One track is the independent complaints the Met has received. The other is the journalism itself, now being sifted for evidence. Walliams' response — I am not a sexual predator, I have not broken the law — speaks to the first track only in the broadest possible terms, and to the second not at all. It is a denial of a characterisation, not a rebuttal of an allegation. It does not say what he is accused of doing, to whom, or when. It does not address the specific claims now under police scrutiny. It does not engage with the Met's decision to review the ITV and Guardian reporting as potential evidence. As a public statement, it is a shield, not an answer.

The gap matters because the two tracks are not the same case, and the public is being invited to treat them as one. The ITV and Guardian joint investigation, released after Walliams failed to meet an appeal deadline on an injunction bid, detailed accusations of sexual assault and grooming by several women, some of whom allege they were as young as 15 when the interactions took place. The Met's own investigation is separate from that reporting. But the force is reviewing the reporting. So the journalism is not merely background noise; it is a live source of potential leads. A denial that does not distinguish between the two tracks cannot tell the public which allegations he is denying, or whether he is denying the reporting, the complaints, or both.

There is a fair case against this position, and it deserves to be stated plainly. A denial of the core accusation is a legitimate and sufficient response at this stage. Walliams has not been charged. He has not been convicted. Demanding a point-by-point rebuttal of uncharged allegations risks normalising a presumption of guilt, and it risks turning every police inquiry into a public trial by statement. The law gives suspects the right to say little or nothing, and the court of public opinion should not demand more than the criminal justice system does. On that view, I am not a sexual predator, I have not broken the law is not evasive; it is the only sensible thing to say when the alternative is to litigate evidence in the press before any charge is brought.

That argument has force, but it does not close the gap. The objection is not that Walliams has failed to rebut every claim. It is that his statement does not engage with the specific fact now in the public domain: that the Met has launched an investigation, that it has received a number of allegations, and that it is reviewing the ITV and Guardian reporting for evidence. A denial that does not mention the investigation, the complaints, or the review cannot be treated as a complete answer to them. It can be a legitimate response and still be an incomplete one. Those two things are not in tension.

The injunction context sharpens the point. Walliams sought an injunction to prevent publication of his identity, citing a risk he would be highly likely to kill himself, which his lawyers attributed to trial by media rather than any wrongdoing. He failed to meet the appeal deadline, and the joint investigation was released. The courts declined to suppress his identity. That is a decision about publication, not about guilt. But it means the public now knows both that the reporting exists and that the Met is investigating. A denial that does not acknowledge either is not a full account of the position he now occupies.

None of this makes him guilty. The Met has not charged anyone. The investigation is at an early stage. Detective Superintendent Mike Cagney has urged anyone who has been a victim of a sexual offence to come forward and speak to police, no matter when it happened. That appeal is open. The Met has not said what specific allegations form the basis of its independent investigation, as opposed to the media reports. It has not said whether its review of the ITV and Guardian reporting will lead to additional complaints or charges. Walliams has not responded specifically to the Met's investigation beyond his earlier denial. The injunction proceedings and any appeal remain unresolved.

Those are the open questions. They are not answered by a blanket denial, and the public should not pretend otherwise. The next concrete step is the Met's investigation itself: what it finds, what it refers to prosecutors, and what, if anything, is charged. Until then, the denial stands as one part of the story. It is not the whole of it.