If the Philip Schofield saga interests you, why is that?

It didn't interest me until he admitted that he met the bloke when he was a kid, stayed in touch with him, got him a job when he was 19 and then fvcked him within months.

What's more interesting is how quickly a lot of people are prepared to write this off as homophobia, when even what he has admitted himself is really really really fvcking off.

What's more interesting is how quickly a lot of people are prepared to write this off as homophobia, when even what he has admitted himself is really really really fvcking off.

it can be two things orwell 

‘What's more interesting is how quickly a lot of people are prepared to write this off as homophobia, when even what he has admitted himself is really really really fvcking off.‘

literally no one is ‘writing this off’ at all, whether as homophobia or otherwise, Orwell. What people are saying is that some of the prurient interest in the story has at its heart a basis well beyond the undoubted ick of the verifiable facts. HTH.

No one is "writing it off" as homophobia. We might be questioning the potential for double standards, or a sense that the gay angle is getting more focus from "good people" than it had been a phil fooks a 20 year old woman story. Soz bout it.

Theres a mildly prurient interest in all this. And some posters here are guilty of fanning the flame.

I have no interest in the incident (or HW except for  Carpetgate).  My interest in it is in the extreme disproportionate interest, investigation and reporting by the media which I consider contrary to the principles of natural justice. 

Assuming that there was no grooming (which there, as far as I know, is no evidence of yet) I can't see anything "really fooking off" in what he did.

Are we to ban people having sex with people who were underage at some point in their life?

Are we to apply maximum age gaps?

Not even seen any credible reporting that Schofield particularly advanced this guy's career. If he had, it would be in news by now.

Have to say I’m tuglite I imagine the young man was boasting to all his mates about giving the telly star a bj etc

he should give the Mail a saucy exclusive kiss and tell and make his dosh

We don’t know ANY of the material dynamics of this beyond the obvious.

Nobody in the Press is yet likely to try and tease them out. 

The 19/20 year old ‘other’ is being portrayed as a victim. Maybe it was the best night of his life. Maybe that’s why he has not yet spoken a word and may never do so. 

Is it patronising of a 19 year old man to dictate with whom he can have sex?

I was friends at Uni with a first year student who had a fling with a lecturer twenty years her senior. She was very pleased with herself. 

I can think of a few mothers of school friends who I would very gladly have been seduced by in my late teens: women Id known since my early teens.

Is Mrs Macron the teacher of a teenage President Macron,15/20 years his senior?

I have zero interest in Schofield.

I do have an interest in knowing all the facts before hanging someone out to dry and judging him according to the same standards as the not entirely dissimilar scenarios above.  








Yes, well ‘all the facts’ seem elusive, and it’s not at all clear why. I would love to see the tabloid media taken down, but deals appear to have been done.

The media frenzy has been unacceptable. I really wouldn’t be surprised if he ends his life because of it. There is no concrete evidence he groomed this man - yes there may be later down the line but for now and for a message board full of lawyers I’m surprised more people aren’t saying “let’s wait and see” instead of piling on to the daily mail reader consensus of he’s a grooming paedophile. Trial by media is hideous. If there was no grooming and he shagged him consensually age 20 that is absolutely fine and legal even if it makes others feel a bit queasy. 

I notice the tabloids have died down on their coverage since his interview: perhaps someone has eventually realised he is about to go under and there is some duty of care to stop that. 

I think the general interest is that no one likes someone too big for their boots particularly not the public and people get sick and tired of seeing the same people. 

I think Ant and Dec have the right idea of only appearing seasonally for a couple of shows so people don’t get sick of them. 

Find it odd, that some of you think a guy in his late fifties shagging a twenty year with the work power dynamics there, is not ‘off’. Maybe not illegal but its very ‘off’. 

Its not homophobia in coming to that assessment, it would have very ‘off’ if he done it with 20 year old woman. 

Amber man - I think we all agree it is off (‘icky’ has been frequently used) but my position, and I think the vast majority of those who think like me, is that the press reaction has been hideously over-egged and relentless to the point where it could be dangerous for Schofield’s wellbeing.

If he had broken the law, groomed, had sex whilst the other party was underage or whatever then I would understand it but if, as is being presented, it was an affair between consenting adults, even if one of them had known the other before he was a consenting adult, then the press should wind their necks in. 
It is for ITV and Schofield’s family (not to mention the family of the younger man) to sort out. The coverage has become prurient, judgemental and full of speculation and innuendo in a way that seems frighteningly over the top.

I take it even further. I don’t think anyone suspected charged or convicted of any offences or their relatives should be hounded mercilessly by the press. There are courts of law in this country where people have spent years training and studying boring rules of evidence to ensure fairness. What is the public interest in this type of media coverage? 

Amberman - I don't think anyone has said that it's not a bit "off". But the fact that his behaviour makes some of us feel a bit ick cannot justify the insane level of attention this has attracted, and the hysterical nature of the coverage and responses (at least, based on what we actually know).

And that is even if you believe - as I do - that it goes beyond a bit off, even the most benign perspective on this reveals someone with extraordinarily bad judgement at best, and a callous disregard for the feelings of other people in his life, at worst.  He was the grown up in this situation, the one with all of the power, and it was up to him to figure out that taking the opportunity - yes, even if it was offered on a plate - to fvck around with someone 40 years younger than you in a situation where you can make or break his career was a really stupid move that was  virtually guaranteed to hurt the young man, and come back to bite you on the arse.

And if it resulted in his being suspended or even fired from the show - it's not too much of a reach to argue that a programme as allegedly wholesome as This Morning, with its target audience, might be seriously adversely affected by having him as the host once it got out - well, that's what you get when you can't control your dick.

But, apparently, losing his job is not enough, he must be absolutely eviscerated and every trace of him wiped off the face of the earth.  So we have really gross innuendo : as well as the suggestions that he "groomed" this bloke, we should probably assume that his patronage of an organisation that put him in contact with young people was all part of a master plan to create a stable of young people to fook the minute they became legal (after all, his brother was a wrong 'un, it's fair to assume that he must be as well).

And, as for the show itself, it must be pulled, Willoughby must be canned too, the head of ITV is summoned to answer questions from the culture committee next week, a "leading barrister" has been retained to carry out an investigation into ITV's working practices (actually, that one isn't such a bad idea if she has a suitably broad remit :  TV is appallingly exploitative of free labour from young people, and if helps to stop that, then it will have been a good thing).

That aside, the overreaction has been insane (again, based on what we actually know) and yes, I think there probably is a tinge of homophobia fuelling the supremely "extra" nature of the reactions, and I'm sure that there are lots of people who secretly felt he got off way too lightly when he came out, and are glad that he's finally getting a really good and bloody kicking.

Also, it doesn't seem as if he was very well liked at all by the people he worked with - what's that old cliche about being nice to people on your way up, cos you're likely to meet them on your way down - definitely seems like there is a veritable army of people who have been waiting for the opportunity to stick the boot in, led by that pudding faced fool, Eammon Holmes, and they are loving every minute of this.

So, losing his job - meh, that's what they call consequences of your own stupid and selfish actions.  Hounding him to the point where he is absolutely destroyed, both personally and career-wise (I think he is probably right when he says he will never work again, in the UK at least) is above and beyond what his "crime" deserves.

The 19/20 year old ‘other’ is being portrayed as a victim. Maybe it was the best night of his life.

I don't think anyone has ever described a fumble in a work dressing room as the best night of their life.

I can't get over the stupidity followed by the refusal to acknowledge his stupidity.  We've all known for a while that having a sexual relationship with a much younger colleague isn't appropriate especially if you're a public figure who's expected to set an example.  If he thinks he's lost everything he should have a chat with Mr. Weinstein.

cookie’s a guaranteed reactor whichever way the reactionary press want a reaction, isn’t he

Schofield is, to be precise, accused of having an affair with a younger colleague whom he met when the younger man was 15, and Schofield helped him get a job in the entertainment industry.

Not exactly the crimes of Vladimir Putin, is it.

He breached workplace policy and lost his job, a harsher punishment than would have been visited on someone less famous doing the same thing. I don’t think there should be any outcry over his loss of the spot on the sofa in what is, in any event, a high point of TV FOR DICKHEADS. But I don’t find him odious, I do feel a bit sorry for him, I think he is undoubtedly the victim of everyday homophobis and I think Willoughby has probably betrayed their friendship and stabbed him in the back. Free the Broom Cupboard One.

Free the Broom Cupboard One to sit at home enjoying time with his kids and his piles of cash from the awful We Buy Any Car ads.  Should have done the time honoured politician "I'm standing down to spend more time with my family".

She's accused of being upset that her colleague lied to her about being a sleazy old man and then telling their bosses to fire him.  Seems fairly reasonable to me.

I'm interested in it as it seems to have a bizarrely high number of experienced broadcasters, including Phil himself, blubbing on screen like babies as soon as the camera is turned on them.


 Willoughby has probably betrayed their friendship and stabbed him in the back.

Are they actual friends? 

and wouldn't most of us, in the stone cold light of reality, do exactly the same to save our careers, let alone the kind of dolla HW is making?   

If one of my colleagues was caught out lying over an inappropriate affair with a junior colleague I certainly wouldn't bother lobbying for them to not be fired.

Willoughby's career was never in any sense on the line here so there was absolutely no need for her to intervene to save herself.

Speaking of which - the truth is Cooko that no, er actually the dynamic here is that whichever TV tartlette you've decided to w**k over this month underpins everything YOU do and say and think.

Maybe not.  But all it takes is for an element of the infamously capricious British media to turn on you for your brand to sustain possibly permanent damage.  If HW did indeed call for PS to be sacked it may not reflect well on her (depends what their relationship was like in actuality, I suppose) but it's only human nature to act to eliminate even a remote threat to your wealth and status.  Of course there's the risk that in so doing you'll be seen as an even bigger biatch - but such are the dilemmas those who live their lives in the glare of the media face, I suppose.  

I watched a short clip of La Willoughby's performance this morning, addressing the nation as if war has been declared, and she is trying to calm our fears...  She is absolutely terrifying, a fembot created by M&S.  Compare and contrast to Alison Hammond speaking about it, her genuine emotion and honesty.  Someone needs to take Willoughby back to the factory and upgrade her humanoid chip.

It was awful. The way she said “are you all okay?” as though we had all been in some sort of zombie apocalypse. Yes we are fine thanks holly just watching this media shitshow from our seats.


The pr and lawyers really did a bad job of that. Wouldn’t it have been better to just say I am cross and hurt but I hope all parties are okay. 

She should get off the sofa, take all her leave and say nothing imo. It’s far too sensitive a matter for the level of communication she is used to. 

"Compare and contrast to Alison Hammond speaking about it, her genuine emotion and honesty"

Massive hehs at anyone thinking a presenter on live TV weeping about such tittle-tattle is actually upset.

I don't know what the truth is but I'd suspect they got together a lot more quickly than when he was 20. That's not the heart of the story though - it's much more to do with who knew what when and why

the story interests me because I have been in an analogous position before as a teenager in an educational setting - I may have legally consented but it was a clear abuse of power and only several years later did I realise how manipulative the other person was 

There is a whole load of stuff that has not come out here. I don't know what it is, but the PS and HW public presentation of all this doesn't add up with the publicly acknowledged facts about the runner. I am inferring that PS has done worse that let on and HW has a bunch of secrets that she doesn't want to come out.

Mind you, what PS did was a disgrace and he deserved to go for that alone. I wish Amol Rajan had asked PS exactly how "romantic" his "romantic encounter" with the runner in the TM dressing room was...

The key HW and itv point surely is they all stood by him when he came out but the wiki suggests they knew or should have known for years what was going on, quite apart from it being ick in terms of age difference. She just looks stupid and mendacious which obvs ruins her brand, being all she’s got. 

Allowing for the fact that it's (generally) nobody's business their own, 60 year old man getting on a 20 year old man is ick.  Just as 83 year old man getting on 28 year old woman is ick, and 79 year old man getting on a 45 year old woman is ick, and 56 year old woman getting on a 32 year old man is ick (even more so when she was 42 and he was 18, but the "ick" has been reduced on account of them having built a family together).  Them's the facts.

I'm interested in the story as I'd heard the stories years ago when he was in the West End from friends in production. He was dancing round in a rainbow coat ffs and was fairly open about it. I think there may have been some injunctions from those days... 

I was amused by the bad acting and hysteria around him 'coming out' a few years ago. I think the current situation is more about him having been a twunt to work with an him getting caught up in a massive lie about it. I can think of at least one other 'national treasure' who has always been quite open about his sexuality and admiration for men a lot younger than himself (all above legal age). There is no condemnation of that because he's never had a giant coming out party in the national press.

All in all, leave the guy alone now.