Given no big story yesterday I amend my opinion from Saturday and suggest that the Mail and or the runner’s demands were that PS leave, grovel - possibly paying the runner off of course - the Mail get to run his statement exclusively, in return for which they stay quiet. Now today PS is shaking his handbag at Eamonn Holmes, off topic from the main story and possibly not included in the deal he’s done with the Mail and his ex.
So how are itv supposed to keep up the pretense they never KNEW?. Clebs are saying they knew within 5 mins of him being on set he was gay and in a relationship with the runner.
i’ve worked in offices where people were having an affair and people “knew” but of course the parties involved would brush it off/deny it so i’m not certain what they could have done with that info (i assumed it was none of my business tbh and didn’t get involved in gossip about it - in fact i’m pretty sure i shut it down if someone else tried to draw me on what i thought was happening)
this goes double if it was an open secret that schofield was gay as you can’t out someone who’s in the closet, but of course drops away if there was any indication of abuse (though the runner started working there at 18 I understand so i’m not sure what those on the show were supposed to “know” about it)
there’s a lot of “holly knew and covered it up” and I’m like - what could she have done? told his wife, outed him to the press, gone to the police, what?
i don’t know the details of the “feud” of course, but when she found out his brother was convicted of sexual offences against a minor i imagine that’s exactly what she did
Right so if you as a partner discover that another partner is having an affair with an 18 yr old summer intern, then all you have to do is have HR ask them both if they are having an affair, if both of them say no that's it done and dusted, you can now turn a blind eye and noone can say anything against you when it all goes to shit later on?
It's always useful learning stuff at the chill school of ethics.
Apparently according to the chill school of ethics, though, if you later discover that the partner in question's brother commits a sex crime, at that point you should *checks notes* make your displeasure know.
I can't understand what the fook the brother's criminal activity has to do with anything (in ethical terms - in media terms it is pretty obvious of course) but chill seems very clear on this so it must be right.
It's always useful learning stuff at the chill school of ethics.
Apparently according to the chill school of ethics, though, if you later discover that the partner in question's brother commits a sex crime, at that point you should *checks notes* make your displeasure know.
ok - what would you do spurius?
(btw of course i agree his brothers conduct has nothing to do with phil, i’m just saying it’s the most obvious cause of the “feud” given the timings, though of course i have no earthly idea what actually happened)
Right so if you as a partner discover that another partner is having an affair with an 18 yr old summer intern, then all you have to do is have HR ask them both if they are having an affair, if both of them say no that's it done and dusted, you can now turn a blind eye and noone can say anything against you when it all goes to shit later on?
and you’re using a very specific term there in “discovered” - if i found them bonking in the post room i’d have to do something, or if the 18 year old came to me with a complaint
if it was just office rumor and supposition i’m not sure what i’m supposed to do - get the partner fired? tell his wife?
‘Bit surprised at this OB given your (understandable) extreme sensitivity over lurid libels being repeated against a certain other group of people.
He's gay! There is a story about him! It can't just be the story, he must be in an incestuous paedophile ring!‘
As I said on another thread, these homophobic tropes belong in the 1980s. The Schofield stuff (which icky as it is, there is absolutely no evidence for linking it with his brother’s awful crimes) will move the dial a bit further.
I am not saying it's an easy situation. I have sympathy for her. There were no easy options. But it's not right to say there is nothing she could have done.
In a law firm you would speak to the partner, to HR, refuse to accept that it can just be ignored. If they seem to be ignoring it there are formal HR processes you can invoke. There is plenty you can do.
Of course if the partner in question is the firm's highest earning partner you will probably be ignored, given how people's ethical principles tend to go out the window when money is involved. You'd probably find you were for the chop yourself. So then it's a question of whether you're prepared to just ignore it to keep your job. I am not saying I'd be a hero.
But if you are the second-highest earning partner and decide to ignore it, and are closely associated with the partner in question, you can hardly be surprised if there is blowback when it all comes out later on.
I am not saying it's an easy situation. I have sympathy for her. There were no easy options. But it's not right to say there is nothing she could have done.
In a law firm you would speak to the partner, to HR, refuse to accept that it can just be ignored. If they seem to be ignoring it there are formal HR processes you can invoke. There is plenty you can do.
no sorry spurius you’re going to have to be a bit more specific here for me
you are a partner in a firm; you believe a partner is having an affair with someone over 18
for the sake of argument let’s assume this is one of those firms where relationships between coworkers is against some sort of internal rule, so there would be a breach of your hr code
neither the partner or the associate have said anything to you (or have denied it if asked)
what are you supposed to escalate to hr? what does it mean to say you “refuse to accept that it can just be ignored”?
well i dunno spurius the allegations from others is “i knew in 5 minutes he was gay and oddly close with the runner”
that’s not proof
itv said they both denied it when asked
dan wonton never heard an unverified rumour he didn’t want to splash all over the tabloids as a blind item, i wouldn’t trust him as far as i could spit
i dunno what it means to say “of course she knew” - knew what?
No sorry I'm not going to have to be more specific. I have 0 interest in posting about the intricacies of HR processes. If you aren't aware that HR exists in part to respond to (and if appropriate investigate) complaints then I can't help you.
I also find interesting your implied suggestion that if there is no rule in the code of conduct against relationships between co-workers, there is nothing HR can do or say about a relationship between a senior partner and a summer intern, utterly bizarre in this day and age.
And if she didn't know then I agree with you she's not at fault.
As for what the actual factual matrix was (and we are never going to know, let alone have "proof", as the people who really know will either never tell the whole truth or will never speak at all) - it could be anything in a wide range.
Of the alleged secret relationships I can think of, they range from idle rumour about people you hardly know, to blatant open secrets (even if they would deny it) about people you know fairly well. There are all sorts of ways you can know despite denials. I find it hard to believe that you've never experienced that scenario - I would have thought most people have on a number of occasions.
If any of the latter type was a relationship which involved an obvious abuse of power you would have an ethical duty to do something.
Which this was, I haven't the faintest idea. The only thing I was disagreeing with was the idea that if it was the latter type (ie in reality she knew something was going on) there is nothing she could have done.
"sails - what comes to mind when you think about wills seeing kate in that see through dress at the fashion show when she was 19?"
Glang! Glangalangalangalangalangalang! Glangalang, langalangala, nobody does it better - and I'm a naked woman in silhouette with a gun, spinning round - Makes me feel sad for the rest. Nobody does it - ooh, bit of nipple - quite as good as you. Baby, you're the best. Da, da, da - and now a really big bounce right over and I land on my feet. Da, da, da, da, daa. I wasn't looking and somehow you found me - ooh, bit of bush, er - I tried to hide from your love light - and a woman swinging on a Luger, a giant Luger, ooh, look at that - Like heaven above me - and now another naked woman walking along the top of a gun, completely Billy Bollocks - The spy who loved me is keeping all my secrets safe tonight - and then one more big swing from the woman, legs go right apart - ooh, what was that? Too late - Nobody does it half as good as you, baby you're the best!
And if she didn't know then I agree with you she's not at fault.
brill all right then we’re agreeing
i’m still not sure what your “do something” would be (i dunno what itv’s hr would do if she said there were “obvious vibes” between her co-presenter and a runner, but given they investigated and found nothing but rumors maybe she should have just done that to protect herself, it clearly wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference)
obvs if it comes out that she was booking hotel rooms for them or going out with them on dates that would be different
If you aren't aware that HR exists in part to respond to (and if appropriate investigate) complaints then I can't help you.
I also find interesting your implied suggestion that if there is no rule in the code of conduct against relationships between co-workers, there is nothing HR can do or say about a relationship between a senior partner and a summer intern, utterly bizarre in this day and age
this is not what i’m saying
if the runner made a complaint to hr (or if the runner made a complaint to holly) of course there are steps that could be taken
you’re eliding this into “oh nothing can be done about relationships about abuse of power then?” when I’m commenting on what holly (or whoever), a non-involved third party could or should do
you seem to imagine there’s “something” she could do to “not ignore” it, which seems bizarre to me
and fwiw i would seriously hope people aren’t running to hr about “vibes” they sense between a married man and his potential gay relationship unless they’re absolutely fvcking certain something is actually going on, otherwise it’s absolutely none of their fvcking business and certainly none of their employer’s
people still get fired for being gay, it’s not been consigned to the 1970s
I can't tell whether you are really this naïve or just pretending to be.
I suspect from your 16.35 that you are pretending, in your usual one-eyed way, because you have an agenda about gay relationships and your perception of biases here by others.
As usual, your stance just damages the interests you are trying to advance. You come across as saying that noone can do anything to safeguard someone in an abusive relationship if it is two men, unless they have actually seen them in sexual congress.
In my example, the senior partner is male and the summer intern is female. So you can get off your high horse about that.
There is miles of open water between suspecting vibes between people, and booking hotels for someone or walking in on them or some bollocks.
I have a few times been quite sure a secret relationship was taking place despite the fact that noone had proof, and noone had booked them a hotel room or walked in on them or any other of your idiotic examples. I was sure because various people had seen various things which made it completely bloody obvious what was going on, and then gossiped about it.
You can bang on about "shutting down" when people discuss it with you and not having booked a hotel room or seen actual sex, but in the real world where normal people live, they notice a lot and it's very hard to do this without people finding out.
I've made it very clear what the something is which a third party can and should do if the relationship which is obviously taking place is clearly inappropriate, but you either can't read properly or (again) don't want to.
As usual, your stance just damages the interests you are trying to advance. You come across as saying that noone can do anything to safeguard someone in an abusive relationship if it is two men, unless they have actually seen them in sexual congress.
erm no spurius but look maybe it’s better until we wait for more info or if the runner chooses to talk about what happened
fwiw you come across like saying “there’s lots that could be done!” and when i ask “like what?” you say “well i don’t need to explain that - they could have refused to ignore it!” and when i ask “but in what way?” you say “well you’re just saying nobody can do anything to safeguard someone in an abusive relationship”
In a law firm you would speak to the partner, to HR, refuse to accept that it can just be ignored. If they seem to be ignoring it there are formal HR processes you can invoke. There is plenty you can do.
"No sorry I'm not going to have to be more specific. I have 0 interest in posting about the intricacies of HR processes. If you aren't aware that HR exists in part to respond to (and if appropriate investigate) complaints then I can't help you."
I think that's clear enough.
If you are this ignorant about what HR do that you think a third party can't make a complaint and demand an investigation into misconduct in the workplace, I can't help you. It's perfectly bloody obvious.
If you are this ignorant about what HR do that you think a third party can't make a complaint and demand an investigation into misconduct in the workplace, I can't help you. It's perfectly bloody obvious.
oh ok we’ve got there after going round in circles a few times
you think she should have “demanded an investigation into misconduct in the workplace”
despite the investigation itv did saying they only found rumours and the parties involved lied about it
I think the difference is that ITV aren't setting themselves up as a legal defence, they are trying to win the court of public opinion. What they are saying is that they didn't know, and a lot of inference that if they DID know, they'd have done something about it.
Having set up this narrative, if it transpired, they did know, they are fecked.
"oh ok we’ve got there after going round in circles a few times"
Eh? I said the same thing in my post at 15.41, more than four hours earlier.
Call me cynical but the ITV investigation was most probably a bit of a put up job to protect their prize asset. But even if not, they weren't likely to find anything out if everybody closed ranks and protected him.
I think it's quite possible we will never find much more out. The chap in question isn't speaking and there's no crime so apart from an ITV internal whitewash it's hard to see the trigger for more to come out, if indeed there is anything more.
Oh yes. I forgot the only way you can know people are seeing each other is if they are using their office email to arrange dates. In fact that's always been how I've found out in the past.
As always with rof, though, you end up seeming to say something you aren't. I'm not saying she did know, or should have found out.
I'm just saying IF she knew (and it's much easier to know than you and chill seem to think, people often know what's going on with other people) you can't say there was nothing she could have done.
That's literally all I'm saying, and I don't think it should be particularly controversial.
I'm just saying IF she knew (and it's much easier to know than you and chill seem to think, people often know what's going on with other people) you can't say there was nothing she could have done.
i’m happy to drop this now spurius cause i kind of agree we’re both saying stuff we don’t necessarily mean and i don’t disagree with the above
but - and this is not just to you, i think it applies to doggers’ post i quoted - there’s a lot of “she knew” going on when we don’t even know what was going on
you started off talking about a partner having an affair with an 18 year old and five posts later we were talking about safeguarding in an abusive relationship, which are two very very different things
my point isn’t to have a go, it’s to say a lot of the rhetoric around this is about what people “know” schofield did (ie the allegations are he groomed or abused a minor) and things are getting mixed up with what holly / itv “knew” or should have done
"you started off talking about a partner having an affair with an 18 year old and five posts later we were talking about safeguarding in an abusive relationship, which are two very very different things "
Might be different. Might not be different. Might be a little bit, or a lot, similar.
A person who has established their career on the back of regularly advertising an idyllic, honest, faithful family life, on the back of promoting themself as a family-man, loyal, faithful, trustworthy, etc, whilst conducting an affair is unethical, and they may lose said career, if the public becomes aware of them leading a double-life, and lying to the camera. A person cannot have it both ways - either they say nothing about their private life, or they use it to advance themself, but risk being exposed for living a lie, should it not be genuine.
A man of 30+ seeking intimate relationships with 18 year olds is unethical. The power imbalance is a problem. The cognitive development of the 18 year old not yet being finished is a problem. An 18 year old does not have the same decision making capacity as the 30+ year old. That is a safeguarding concern, as the 18 year old can be easily exploited.
An elderly man seeking intimate relationships with young adults circa 40 years younger than him is unethical. The power imbalance is a problem. The cognitive development of the young adult not yet being finished is a problem. Young adults do not have the same decision making capacity as old men. That is a safeguarding concern, as the young adult can be easily exploited.
rumpole your stretch to extend “safeguarding concerns” to people of 18+ is as obviously agenda-driven as it is batshit (ie very)
a 30 year old having an affair with an 18 year old may be ill-advised but it has nothing to do with safeguarding (not least a “young adult” whom i assume you mean anyone under 25)
Without using degrading insults, explain why you disagree, Chill. Back up your claims with evidence from decent, peer-reviewed sources please.
Once again, your ignorance about what safeguarding is rears its head. Safeguarding is applicable across the lifespan.As you don't understand what it is, you've jumped to a wrong conclusion in your head that it's about children solely. That's all in your head.
“rumpole your stretch to extend “safeguarding concerns” to people of 18+ is as obviously agenda-driven as it is batshit”
Umm Chill, think you might want to rephrase the above.
Every council area has a local safeguarding adults board. They focus primarily on those adults with care and support needs but safeguarding for adults also encompasses domestic abuse and (within that) coercive and control behaviour. I’m sure you didn’t mean that Safeguarding concerns do not apply to adults but just in case you did…
The cognitive development of the 18 year old not yet being finished is a problem. An 18 year old does not have the same decision making capacity as the 30+ year old. That is a safeguarding concern, as the 18 year old can be easily exploited.
there’s no indication of abuse or neglect in rumpole’s post
happy to rephrase however you think best but i’m speaking to rumpole’s stretching of safeguarding concerns, not making a general point
That's simply because you don't understand safeguarding, Chill, not that you'll acknowledge it, but it's painfully obvious every time you try to use it and make ignorant claims like above, where safeguarding could, indeed, apply.
Show me where anyone suggested solely being 18 is a safeguarding concern.
You're making bold claims about safeguarding, instead of acknowledging you don't know what it is, despite that being clear by your answers, every time this comes up. I am asking you, since you're so inclined to making wrong claims about it. Over to you.
Show me where anyone suggested solely being 18 is a safeguarding concern.
Proving that in court and giving evidence in your own defence, persuading the court that you are in fact hilarious and lovely and if not mandatory sentence of imprisonment fixed by the tabloid editors
0
0
Rare agree with spurious
0
0
Given no big story yesterday I amend my opinion from Saturday and suggest that the Mail and or the runner’s demands were that PS leave, grovel - possibly paying the runner off of course - the Mail get to run his statement exclusively, in return for which they stay quiet. Now today PS is shaking his handbag at Eamonn Holmes, off topic from the main story and possibly not included in the deal he’s done with the Mail and his ex.
Rife with speculation.
0
0
i’ve worked in offices where people were having an affair and people “knew” but of course the parties involved would brush it off/deny it so i’m not certain what they could have done with that info (i assumed it was none of my business tbh and didn’t get involved in gossip about it - in fact i’m pretty sure i shut it down if someone else tried to draw me on what i thought was happening)
this goes double if it was an open secret that schofield was gay as you can’t out someone who’s in the closet, but of course drops away if there was any indication of abuse (though the runner started working there at 18 I understand so i’m not sure what those on the show were supposed to “know” about it)
0
0
tbc - this isn’t a defence of schofield, i’m just not sure what anyone else on the show was supposed to do
0
0
there’s a lot of “holly knew and covered it up” and I’m like - what could she have done? told his wife, outed him to the press, gone to the police, what?
0
0
itv said when they investigated both of them denied it (as i’d expect) so what do you do then?
0
0
Made her displeasure known
0
0
i don’t know the details of the “feud” of course, but when she found out his brother was convicted of sexual offences against a minor i imagine that’s exactly what she did
0
0
Right so if you as a partner discover that another partner is having an affair with an 18 yr old summer intern, then all you have to do is have HR ask them both if they are having an affair, if both of them say no that's it done and dusted, you can now turn a blind eye and noone can say anything against you when it all goes to shit later on?
It's always useful learning stuff at the chill school of ethics.
Apparently according to the chill school of ethics, though, if you later discover that the partner in question's brother commits a sex crime, at that point you should *checks notes* make your displeasure know.
I can't understand what the fook the brother's criminal activity has to do with anything (in ethical terms - in media terms it is pretty obvious of course) but chill seems very clear on this so it must be right.
0
0
ok - what would you do spurius?
(btw of course i agree his brothers conduct has nothing to do with phil, i’m just saying it’s the most obvious cause of the “feud” given the timings, though of course i have no earthly idea what actually happened)
0
0
and you’re using a very specific term there in “discovered” - if i found them bonking in the post room i’d have to do something, or if the 18 year old came to me with a complaint
if it was just office rumor and supposition i’m not sure what i’m supposed to do - get the partner fired? tell his wife?
0
0
‘Bit surprised at this OB given your (understandable) extreme sensitivity over lurid libels being repeated against a certain other group of people.
He's gay! There is a story about him! It can't just be the story, he must be in an incestuous paedophile ring!‘
As I said on another thread, these homophobic tropes belong in the 1980s. The Schofield stuff (which icky as it is, there is absolutely no evidence for linking it with his brother’s awful crimes) will move the dial a bit further.
0
0
I am not saying it's an easy situation. I have sympathy for her. There were no easy options. But it's not right to say there is nothing she could have done.
In a law firm you would speak to the partner, to HR, refuse to accept that it can just be ignored. If they seem to be ignoring it there are formal HR processes you can invoke. There is plenty you can do.
Of course if the partner in question is the firm's highest earning partner you will probably be ignored, given how people's ethical principles tend to go out the window when money is involved. You'd probably find you were for the chop yourself. So then it's a question of whether you're prepared to just ignore it to keep your job. I am not saying I'd be a hero.
But if you are the second-highest earning partner and decide to ignore it, and are closely associated with the partner in question, you can hardly be surprised if there is blowback when it all comes out later on.
0
0
Oh I see. You're projecting your experience re an office rumour onto her.
The allegation is that she knew something was going on.
I don't really see the relevance of your experience as it doesn't seem very similar in a number of ways.
0
0
no sorry spurius you’re going to have to be a bit more specific here for me
you are a partner in a firm; you believe a partner is having an affair with someone over 18
for the sake of argument let’s assume this is one of those firms where relationships between coworkers is against some sort of internal rule, so there would be a breach of your hr code
neither the partner or the associate have said anything to you (or have denied it if asked)
what are you supposed to escalate to hr? what does it mean to say you “refuse to accept that it can just be ignored”?
0
0
well i dunno spurius the allegations from others is “i knew in 5 minutes he was gay and oddly close with the runner”
that’s not proof
itv said they both denied it when asked
dan wonton never heard an unverified rumour he didn’t want to splash all over the tabloids as a blind item, i wouldn’t trust him as far as i could spit
i dunno what it means to say “of course she knew” - knew what?
0
0
No sorry I'm not going to have to be more specific. I have 0 interest in posting about the intricacies of HR processes. If you aren't aware that HR exists in part to respond to (and if appropriate investigate) complaints then I can't help you.
I also find interesting your implied suggestion that if there is no rule in the code of conduct against relationships between co-workers, there is nothing HR can do or say about a relationship between a senior partner and a summer intern, utterly bizarre in this day and age.
0
0
As for proof - of course there's no proof.
And if she didn't know then I agree with you she's not at fault.
As for what the actual factual matrix was (and we are never going to know, let alone have "proof", as the people who really know will either never tell the whole truth or will never speak at all) - it could be anything in a wide range.
Of the alleged secret relationships I can think of, they range from idle rumour about people you hardly know, to blatant open secrets (even if they would deny it) about people you know fairly well. There are all sorts of ways you can know despite denials. I find it hard to believe that you've never experienced that scenario - I would have thought most people have on a number of occasions.
If any of the latter type was a relationship which involved an obvious abuse of power you would have an ethical duty to do something.
Which this was, I haven't the faintest idea. The only thing I was disagreeing with was the idea that if it was the latter type (ie in reality she knew something was going on) there is nothing she could have done.
0
0
ITV could've just searched Twitter for the video that clown posted when he got to 100k followers and asked them both to explain that
0
0
Sorry 1 million followers
0
0
One might face disciplinary proceedings for reporting rumours about sexuality and an affair to HR. Could they consider this discriminatory?
0
0
Glang! Glangalangalangalangalangalang! Glangalang, langalangala, nobody does it better - and I'm a naked woman in silhouette with a gun, spinning round - Makes me feel sad for the rest. Nobody does it - ooh, bit of nipple - quite as good as you. Baby, you're the best. Da, da, da - and now a really big bounce right over and I land on my feet. Da, da, da, da, daa. I wasn't looking and somehow you found me - ooh, bit of bush, er - I tried to hide from your love light - and a woman swinging on a Luger, a giant Luger, ooh, look at that - Like heaven above me - and now another naked woman walking along the top of a gun, completely Billy Bollocks - The spy who loved me is keeping all my secrets safe tonight - and then one more big swing from the woman, legs go right apart - ooh, what was that? Too late - Nobody does it half as good as you, baby you're the best!
0
0
Porklife
0
0
brill all right then we’re agreeing
i’m still not sure what your “do something” would be (i dunno what itv’s hr would do if she said there were “obvious vibes” between her co-presenter and a runner, but given they investigated and found nothing but rumors maybe she should have just done that to protect herself, it clearly wouldn’t have made the slightest bit of difference)
obvs if it comes out that she was booking hotel rooms for them or going out with them on dates that would be different
0
0
Gaby Hinsliff in the Grauniad showing quite how ignorant the average journo is of the law.
0
0
this is not what i’m saying
if the runner made a complaint to hr (or if the runner made a complaint to holly) of course there are steps that could be taken
you’re eliding this into “oh nothing can be done about relationships about abuse of power then?” when I’m commenting on what holly (or whoever), a non-involved third party could or should do
you seem to imagine there’s “something” she could do to “not ignore” it, which seems bizarre to me
0
0
and fwiw i would seriously hope people aren’t running to hr about “vibes” they sense between a married man and his potential gay relationship unless they’re absolutely fvcking certain something is actually going on, otherwise it’s absolutely none of their fvcking business and certainly none of their employer’s
people still get fired for being gay, it’s not been consigned to the 1970s
0
0
(though probably not at itv tbf)
0
0
I can't tell whether you are really this naïve or just pretending to be.
I suspect from your 16.35 that you are pretending, in your usual one-eyed way, because you have an agenda about gay relationships and your perception of biases here by others.
As usual, your stance just damages the interests you are trying to advance. You come across as saying that noone can do anything to safeguard someone in an abusive relationship if it is two men, unless they have actually seen them in sexual congress.
0
0
In my example, the senior partner is male and the summer intern is female. So you can get off your high horse about that.
There is miles of open water between suspecting vibes between people, and booking hotels for someone or walking in on them or some bollocks.
I have a few times been quite sure a secret relationship was taking place despite the fact that noone had proof, and noone had booked them a hotel room or walked in on them or any other of your idiotic examples. I was sure because various people had seen various things which made it completely bloody obvious what was going on, and then gossiped about it.
You can bang on about "shutting down" when people discuss it with you and not having booked a hotel room or seen actual sex, but in the real world where normal people live, they notice a lot and it's very hard to do this without people finding out.
0
0
I've made it very clear what the something is which a third party can and should do if the relationship which is obviously taking place is clearly inappropriate, but you either can't read properly or (again) don't want to.
0
0
erm no spurius but look maybe it’s better until we wait for more info or if the runner chooses to talk about what happened
fwiw you come across like saying “there’s lots that could be done!” and when i ask “like what?” you say “well i don’t need to explain that - they could have refused to ignore it!” and when i ask “but in what way?” you say “well you’re just saying nobody can do anything to safeguard someone in an abusive relationship”
but c’est la vie
0
0
what this?
0
0
"No sorry I'm not going to have to be more specific. I have 0 interest in posting about the intricacies of HR processes. If you aren't aware that HR exists in part to respond to (and if appropriate investigate) complaints then I can't help you."
I think that's clear enough.
If you are this ignorant about what HR do that you think a third party can't make a complaint and demand an investigation into misconduct in the workplace, I can't help you. It's perfectly bloody obvious.
0
0
oh ok we’ve got there after going round in circles a few times
you think she should have “demanded an investigation into misconduct in the workplace”
despite the investigation itv did saying they only found rumours and the parties involved lied about it
i mean maybe you’re right and she should have
probably we’ll find out more later
0
0
I think the difference is that ITV aren't setting themselves up as a legal defence, they are trying to win the court of public opinion. What they are saying is that they didn't know, and a lot of inference that if they DID know, they'd have done something about it.
Having set up this narrative, if it transpired, they did know, they are fecked.
0
0
"oh ok we’ve got there after going round in circles a few times"
Eh? I said the same thing in my post at 15.41, more than four hours earlier.
Call me cynical but the ITV investigation was most probably a bit of a put up job to protect their prize asset. But even if not, they weren't likely to find anything out if everybody closed ranks and protected him.
I think it's quite possible we will never find much more out. The chap in question isn't speaking and there's no crime so apart from an ITV internal whitewash it's hard to see the trigger for more to come out, if indeed there is anything more.
0
0
The reason this is front page news is not anything to do with sexuality Davos you plonker. It is because (with clearly a lot more to follow):
0
0
Rebecca Ferguson knew in 2021. Difficult to believe ITV didn't. She also referred to what went on as grooming
0
0
Heh did PS hire HW? Huge if true.
0
0
oh ok then. And Holly was meant to scream the house down and demand a gay witch-hunt against her co-host and mate?
”but HR can do things”
maybe they weren’t so dumb as to use their office email to arrange dates
0
0
Oh yes. I forgot the only way you can know people are seeing each other is if they are using their office email to arrange dates. In fact that's always been how I've found out in the past.
0
0
As always with rof, though, you end up seeming to say something you aren't. I'm not saying she did know, or should have found out.
I'm just saying IF she knew (and it's much easier to know than you and chill seem to think, people often know what's going on with other people) you can't say there was nothing she could have done.
That's literally all I'm saying, and I don't think it should be particularly controversial.
0
0
i’m happy to drop this now spurius cause i kind of agree we’re both saying stuff we don’t necessarily mean and i don’t disagree with the above
but - and this is not just to you, i think it applies to doggers’ post i quoted - there’s a lot of “she knew” going on when we don’t even know what was going on
you started off talking about a partner having an affair with an 18 year old and five posts later we were talking about safeguarding in an abusive relationship, which are two very very different things
my point isn’t to have a go, it’s to say a lot of the rhetoric around this is about what people “know” schofield did (ie the allegations are he groomed or abused a minor) and things are getting mixed up with what holly / itv “knew” or should have done
0
0
Tbf it’s been a relatively civilised discussion, given quite recently with different posters he’d have immediately been referred to as a nonce.
0
0
"you started off talking about a partner having an affair with an 18 year old and five posts later we were talking about safeguarding in an abusive relationship, which are two very very different things "
Might be different. Might not be different. Might be a little bit, or a lot, similar.
A person who has established their career on the back of regularly advertising an idyllic, honest, faithful family life, on the back of promoting themself as a family-man, loyal, faithful, trustworthy, etc, whilst conducting an affair is unethical, and they may lose said career, if the public becomes aware of them leading a double-life, and lying to the camera. A person cannot have it both ways - either they say nothing about their private life, or they use it to advance themself, but risk being exposed for living a lie, should it not be genuine.
A man of 30+ seeking intimate relationships with 18 year olds is unethical. The power imbalance is a problem. The cognitive development of the 18 year old not yet being finished is a problem. An 18 year old does not have the same decision making capacity as the 30+ year old. That is a safeguarding concern, as the 18 year old can be easily exploited.
An elderly man seeking intimate relationships with young adults circa 40 years younger than him is unethical. The power imbalance is a problem. The cognitive development of the young adult not yet being finished is a problem. Young adults do not have the same decision making capacity as old men. That is a safeguarding concern, as the young adult can be easily exploited.
Additionally there may be abuse to consider.
0
0
“Unethical”. Hello 1879.
2
0
rumpole your stretch to extend “safeguarding concerns” to people of 18+ is as obviously agenda-driven as it is batshit (ie very)
a 30 year old having an affair with an 18 year old may be ill-advised but it has nothing to do with safeguarding (not least a “young adult” whom i assume you mean anyone under 25)
stay out of adults’ bedrooms
0
0
Rumpole is just trolling
0
0
Without using degrading insults, explain why you disagree, Chill. Back up your claims with evidence from decent, peer-reviewed sources please.
Once again, your ignorance about what safeguarding is rears its head. Safeguarding is applicable across the lifespan.As you don't understand what it is, you've jumped to a wrong conclusion in your head that it's about children solely. That's all in your head.
1
0
"Young adults do not have the same decision making capacity as old men"
Indeed. Old men are forever making fools of themselves over much younger women. Ah wait, that's not what you meant.
0
0
“rumpole your stretch to extend “safeguarding concerns” to people of 18+ is as obviously agenda-driven as it is batshit”
Umm Chill, think you might want to rephrase the above.
Every council area has a local safeguarding adults board. They focus primarily on those adults with care and support needs but safeguarding for adults also encompasses domestic abuse and (within that) coercive and control behaviour. I’m sure you didn’t mean that Safeguarding concerns do not apply to adults but just in case you did…
0
0
i’m responding to this jim
there’s no indication of abuse or neglect in rumpole’s post
happy to rephrase however you think best but i’m speaking to rumpole’s stretching of safeguarding concerns, not making a general point
0
0
That's simply because you don't understand safeguarding, Chill, not that you'll acknowledge it, but it's painfully obvious every time you try to use it and make ignorant claims like above, where safeguarding could, indeed, apply.
0
0
Rumpole doesn't understand their own privilege, bias and discrimination
0
0
well jim can speak to his experience in safeguarding rumpole
”being 18” isn’t a safeguarding concern imo
0
0
Show me where anyone suggested solely being 18 is a safeguarding concern.
You're making bold claims about safeguarding, instead of acknowledging you don't know what it is, despite that being clear by your answers, every time this comes up. I am asking you, since you're so inclined to making wrong claims about it. Over to you.
Show me where anyone suggested solely being 18 is a safeguarding concern.
0
0
Affairs should be made illegal. It can be a defence if both parties are hot, rich, clever with great senses of humour and charm.
0
0
Quark, strangeness and charm?
0
0
"Affairs should be made illegal. It can be a defence if both parties are hot, rich, clever with great senses of humour and charm"
But I don't want to have an affair
0
0
Proving that in court and giving evidence in your own defence, persuading the court that you are in fact hilarious and lovely and if not mandatory sentence of imprisonment fixed by the tabloid editors
3
0
too easy rumpole - try harder next time (at least make me find another thread for the receipts!)
3
0
also - stay out of adults’ bedrooms
0
0
Again:
"Show me where anyone suggested solely being 18 is a safeguarding concern."
4
0
"An 18 year old does not have the same decision making capacity as the 30+ year old. That is a safeguarding concern"
2
0
Heh. Receipts eh.
0
0
On a bender?
0
0
well what davos said
0
0
(can’t believe you got 2x as many upvotes as me for the same receipts - u popular boi)
0
0
What is it about performers that makes normies so jealous anyway?
0
0
https://twitter.com/lost_in_films_/status/1661956387893657600?s=61&t=3l…
0
0
Obvs not going to post stuff about this but it doesn’t take you very long on Twitter to find out a whole lot of info and I encourage you to do so.
Join the discussion