Brand, Walliams and the Culture of Silence: Why the Jeremy Chambers Sexual Harassment Allegations Still Matter

One senior council officer reportedly walked away with £43,000. Women who accused him of exposing himself to them at work were left with nothing.

And the council? It refused to confirm or deny holding information about the allegations.

Nearly a decade later, the questions have not gone away. Nor has the wider problem of powerful people using confidentiality agreements to keep wrongdoing out of public view.

The Jeremy Chambers affair

In September 2017, Shepway Vox reported that Jeremy Chambers (pictured), Corporate Director for Strategic Operations at the then Shepway District Council, had left following allegations of sexual harassment.

The council initially described his departure as redundancy. We subsequently reported that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct.

Our investigation alleged that several women had complained about Chambers exposing himself at work, with complaints stretching back several years. These allegations have not been established by a criminal court.

In June 2018, we reported that Chambers had received £43,000 and a settlement agreement containing a gagging clause.

The women received no comparable payment. The women were restricted by confidentiality agreements, although their individual agreements have not been published.

When we asked the council about allegations and settlement agreements under the Freedom of Information Act, it replied:

“the council neither confirms nor denies whether it holds the information you have requested.”

A legally permitted FOI response, perhaps. But hardly a satisfactory public explanation of what happened.

We weren’t prepared to leave it there. In the same article, we went further, stating:

“It is not right that the Council should be allowed to hide behind s17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 when Jeremy has committed indecent acts against women.”

That was a serious allegation, published openly for all to read.

No solicitor’s letter arrived. No defamation proceedings followed. No demand for a retraction. Nothing.

It remains a matter of record that we published those words in 2018, and no legal challenge followed.

What did the people at the top do?

At the time Alistair Stewart was Chief Executive. Dr Susan Priest was a Corporate Director. Cllr David Monk led the council – all pictured below.

     

Priest subsequently became Chief Executive in April 2018.

In March 2023, a council officer writing for Shepway Vox alleged that senior managers, including Priest, knew about Chambers’ behaviour and accepted a financial settlement rather than involving the police.

Those were serious allegations. The published evidence does not establish precisely what each senior officer knew, what action they took, if any, or whether the police were contacted. We have our doubts about the latter.

Once again, our reporting went unchallenged. No legal action, no demand for a retraction. Just silence.

But silence does not answer some very uncomfortable questions.

Did anyone properly investigate the women’s complaints? Who authorised Chambers’ reported £43,000 settlement? Were the police ever contacted? What support, if any, did the women receive? And why were confidentiality agreements allegedly used to stop them speaking publicly?

Nearly a decade later, the women are still owed answers, and the public deserves to know what happened behind closed doors. Who knew what, who made the decisions, and who was held accountable? The passage of time does not erase the council’s responsibilities, nor should silence be mistaken for accountability.

And where is Jeremy Chambers now?

Chambers subsequently worked at Enfield Council before joining Lewisham Council.

He became Lewisham’s Director of Law, Governance and Elections (Monitoring Officer) in 2021, a senior position involving legal advice, standards and the lawful conduct of council business.

The 2017 allegations do not, in themselves, establish criminal wrongdoing by Chambers. But the serious questions surrounding his departure from Shepway remain unanswered. Our reporting attracted no legal challenge, no demand for a retraction and no request for a correction.

Nearly a decade later, the public still deserves to know what happened, who knew about it and whether those responsible for protecting the women fulfilled their duties, including the current Chief Executive, Dr Susan Priest.

From Russell Brand to David Walliams

On 9 November 2026, Russell Brand was sentenced to ten years and six months in prison after being convicted of rape and three sexual assaults.

Meanwhile, a Guardian and ITV investigation published allegations of sexual misconduct against David Walliams. He denies the allegations and has not been convicted. His attempt to prevent their publication through the courts failed.

These are different cases, with very different legal outcomes. But both have revived questions about power, intimidation and attempts to stop people speaking.

And those questions extend far beyond television studios.

When silence comes with a signature

An NDA, or non-disclosure agreement, is supposed to protect genuinely confidential information.

It should not become a convenient way to hide harassment, bullying, discrimination, financial misconduct or failures by senior managers.

In June 2022, a whistleblower writing for Shepway Vox claimed Folkestone & Hythe District Council had spent nearly £1 million on staff settlements between April 2015 and March 2021. Many reportedly contained clauses restricting what former employees could say.

That raises a much bigger and more troubling question: how much taxpayers’ money has been spent settling allegations of sexual harassment or assault, while confidentiality agreements have kept the details out of public view?

The law is changing. Slowly.

An NDA cannot lawfully stop someone reporting a crime to the police, even if the agreement was signed years ago.

Since April 2026, disclosures about sexual harassment have gained explicit protection under whistleblowing law, provided the legal conditions are met.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 also provides for wider restrictions on NDAs covering workplace harassment and discrimination. But those restrictions are not scheduled to take effect until September 2027.

Until then, confidentiality clauses can still cause confusion and fear, even where they cannot legally prevent someone speaking out.

Who is silence really protecting?

Confidentiality can protect victims who genuinely want privacy. That choice belongs to them.

But confidentiality must never become a means of shielding an organisation from proper scrutiny.

Whether the complaint concerns sexual harassment, bullying, corruption or misuse of public money, the principle is the same.

Public bodies should investigate wrongdoing, protect complainants and explain how taxpayers’ money has been used.

Folkestone & Hythe District Council still has questions to answer about the Chambers affair.

Because when someone makes a serious complaint, the first question should be how to protect them. Not how to protect the council’s reputation.

And nobody should have to sign away their voice simply to keep their dignity.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices Of Voxatiousness Since 2015