David Walliams' unprecedented legal battle not to be named in relation to allegations against him went downhill as he tried to secure a permanent injunction.
He was named by the Guardian and ITN because he had no sound legal reason to prevent the news organisations' investigation from being published. In response to the allegations included, Walliams said he was "not a sexual predator" and had not "broken the law".
The 55-year-old's bid for an injunction had been an open secret from the start after what would have normally been an anonymised application briefly appeared under his own name on a court cases register.
His exceptionally unusual attempt to gag the media - forever - became clear at the full trial last month - but that's when his bid to remain anonymous got worse.
In court, his lawyers did not claim that the investigation would be disclosing legally confidential or private information the journalists were not entitled to - two avenues often trod to silence reporters.
Instead lawyers for Walliams argued that such was the threat to his life from publication that the court itself would be breaching his human rights, were it to allow the story to go ahead.
This was, the court ultimately concluded, unheard of.
Under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the British state has a duty to take reasonable steps to try to protect life where they can do so and, importantly, where a particular body has an actual responsibility to do so.
There's no expectation that a state agency can save all lives in all circumstances - but it must show it has done its best if it is clear it had a responsibility to act.
The most obvious example of this law in practice is that the police must try to act on credible intelligence of a threat to life, even if the intended victim is a gangster.
But that duty, and how it should be applied in the real world, is also why Walliams lost: he was expecting the wrong public body to be doing the protecting.
The High Court's Mr Justice Nicklin said that the responsibility to try to protect the comedian and author's life was on clinicians and the hospital he had already been taken to. He had been detained for his own protection, meaning the state was already trying to meet its obligation to protect him from harm.
The court could not do that protecting because it had not taken responsibility for Walliams' psychiatric treatment or safety. Its role was to decide the legal dispute between Walliams and the news organisations.
Walliams' lawyers had suggested that there might be a right to private family life issue in the case but the judge said there had been no evidence to detail that, and he had to take into account the media's right to freedom of speech to publish what was described in court as a detailed investigation in the public interest.
If the media were wrong about their claims, Walliams could later sue for defamation - the way that any wrong party seeks redress against journalists.
After Walliams lost last week, and the court's judgment underlines how seriously it considered the risks to him to be, Mr Justice Nicklin asked whether there were plans for an appeal.
But Walliams had not been able to give his lawyers instructions on how to proceed.
"There is a degree of urgency - the court has moved exceptionally quickly to accommodate this trial and produce this judgment," said Mr Justice Nicklin. "It is slightly concerning that there is not an ability to proceed today. I don't understand really. If I was satisfied that there were compelling reasons why permission to appeal should be granted I could say so now. "
Sara Mansoori KC, Walliams' counsel, said the case raised "novel issues of law based on unusual facts" but because of the vulnerable nature of her client - in hospital - she needed more time.
The judge gave Walliams until 16:30 GMT on Monday to come up with some proper grounds to challenge his decision. Those papers were never filed.
The failure to launch an appeal bid meant that ITN and the Guardian were free to publish.
While all this had been going on in court - there was a social media-sized elephant in the room. No end of people were posting 'It's David Walliams' and wondering why we bona fide journalists were not saying the same.
When the courts in the UK order that someone should remain anonymous, that order applies to all forms of publishing and broadcasting. It matters not whether the publication is in a newspaper or online - it is still publication. That is why bona fide journalists who understand the law did not wade in.
But there is a massive practical issue: how far does the writ of English law run in cyber space?
One judge I recently addressed over a reporting restriction issue described social media as a "wild west". That comment underlines the concern among legal professionals.
But the question is how to enforce injunctions in an age of rapid fire digital gossip?
If a newsroom were to breach an order, the nature of a large media organisation's audience means that publication would be seen by judges to be rather grave and the editor would likely be up in court.
One random user of X publishing the suspected identity of an anonymised person by passing on gossip is obviously less impactful. If Chad from Utah reposts Dorothy from Liverpool's gossip, the chances of being hauled before a judge are even more remote.
But what happens when thousands of people are all saying the same - and then their claims, perhaps based on a kernel of unreportable truth, are magnified by AI summaries and algorithms dripping content into phones?
At that point, mathematically speaking the impact is greater than one single newsroom breaching an injunction.
The public's perception of the Walliams case was complicated because his name became known from the start - but the furious gossip over who "PPT" really was shows there is an existential threat to how courts try to control information to prevent harm. And it's not clear whether they have any answer to it.
