Cable Forum - UK Timeline Schofield

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Television (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=110)

- - UK Timeline : Schofield (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711938)

I am confused.

Why is this a scandal? Is he a peodophile (Phil, I know about his brother)?

Was his partner underage?

Why are the partner's photos blurred?

Why is the partner's name secret?

Is there a double injunction?

Most of the time, I use NordVPN and of course, I can see photos and the name of the parner, his new job etc

BTW I do not watch TV, and this occupies acres of news

I don’t know. He and Holly Wobbly were supposedly best buds and fronted a powerhouse TV show well known and loved by many (not me as it happens). Them falling out is a tabloid story in itself. Mostly it seems said tabloids have been wanting to hang him out to dry over this for years but the agency he was with is very influential and rather good at keeping scandal off the front pages where it involves any of its high-profile clients. They have parted ways and it is now open season on Phil.

He was obviously very chummy with this young protege long before the boy became a man, and has been forced to make clear that nothing sexual occurred before said boy became a man. But the tabloids love any insinuation of sexual impropriety and have gone at it with enthusiasm.

It’s not at all hard to see the name and photos of the young man. He’s all over Twitter, regardless of whatever self-censorship the British press may have adopted. But I still don’t know who he is, nor do I really care.

It's tabloid crap, which makes it strange some of the more serious newspapers have also led with it. Probably just to distract from the real issues atm and the dire state the country is in. Plus a bit of homophobia always goes down well with the masses.

I’m more inclined to believe the media apparatus have been turning a blind eye, as it often does, when one of the establishment behaves in a way that’s beneath normal standards. That’s not to say he did anything illegal, but ITV’s pretence they didn’t know or have suspicions isn’t fooling anyone.

Does this really matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36153089)

Does this really matter?

It could matter, for Schofield, if it turns out to be true that he has known this young man from a very early age. 12 yrs old allegedly. The accusation is that Schofield essentially groomed the young man. Now there is no accusation of any underage sexual activity, but there is certainly a power dynamic. Schofield being the person in position of power and wielding influence, enough to get this young man a job and screen tests on This Morning.

The implications being, if this was a man in his late 50’s doing this with a 16yr old girl, well ……say no more.

It’s also alleged that it is the affair with this teenager, as he would have been a few years ago, that forced Schofield to come out, of which he was lauded for being so “brave” by everyone. Even though he was a razors edge away from noncing it.

So those that claim “nope” and nothing to see here, are collegiate in the study of wilful blindness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36153099)

It could matter, for Schofield, if it turns out to be true that he has known this young man from a very early age. 12 yrs old allegedly. The accusation is that Schofield essentially groomed the young man. Now there is now accusation of any underage sexual activity, but there is certainly a power dynamic. Schofield being the person in position of power and wielding influence, enough to get this young man a job and screen tests on This Morning.

The implications being, if this was a man in his late 50’s doing this with a 16yr old girl, well ……say no more.

It’s also alleged that it is the affair with this teenager, as he would have been a few years ago, that forced Schofield to come out, of which he was lauded for being so “brave” by everyone. Even though he was a razors edge away from noncing it.

So those that claim “nope” and nothing to see here, are collegiate in the study of wilful blindness.

Indeed, grooming is a crime

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/adv...llegal%20acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36153099)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65769939

Quote:

Dame Carolyn said there had been "a lot of inaccuracy" in reporting, adding the former employee Schofield admitted to an affair with had been offered support by the broadcaster.

She said: "The ITV employee was aged 19 when he first did work experience at This Morning... and 20 years old when he applied and succeeded in securing a job as a runner on the show."

Everything else is prurient speculation - Schofield’s behaviour was completely inappropriate, and should be roundly condemned, but the stories in the tabloids are all "claimed", "sources say", "the Mail has been told", and "ITV insiders" to whip up a frenzy to sell papers and raise outrage.People using emotive terms like "the affair with this teenager, as he would have been a few years ago" and "a razors edge away from noncing it." just show what they do works with some…

As posted earlier in this thread

Quote:

the tabloids love any insinuation of sexual impropriety and have gone at it with enthusiasm.

Remember, these are the same tabloids who did this…

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/ente...y-is-so-gross/

Quote:

Emma (Watson) said: "I remember on my 18th birthday I came out of my birthday party and photographers laid down on the pavement and took photographs up my skirt, which were then published on the front of the English tabloid [newspapers] the next morning. If they had published the photographs 24 hours earlier they would have been illegal, but because I had just turned 18 they were legal."

To clarify any potential doubts on my views on this, if Schofield did groom the young man, he should be prosecuted - but the current tabloid witch-hunt is what the "Nope" was referring to..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36153099)

if this was a man in his late 50’s doing this with a 16yr old girl, well ……say no more.

This 100%.

I had seen things suggesting that Matt was associated with him from the age of 10 via the theatre group.

But then that might well be a "nothing to see here" moment because it's common for celebrities to associate themselves with grass roots activities in the performing arts sector. They might well have been aware of each other but not necessarily any overly concerning direct contact.

What is known is that they were in contact on social media when the lad had just turned 15, but again, was this on a mentoring basis? From what I've seen the lad was a talented actor who wanted to be a TV presenter - in a lot of this it's being in the right place at the right time and having contacts who can facilitate a break. Knowing a national TV presenter who can get you a way into opportunities when you're old enough ...

If they then started a relationship when the lad was 18 this is perfectly legal though concerning on grounds of the age gap. But if there's no evidence there was any grooming nothing to see here at all, if they had a close working relationship as colleagues which got a bit closer - again between consenting adults this isn't unusual either.

It still strikes me there's the possibility he's groomed a (good-looking) young lad into a relationship as soon as they could but in reality such allegations are utterly unproven. But such is showbusiness that he's lost his job and probably won't get another similar because of it... the media seem to be intent on going on about it without saying a lot really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36153099)

Yes, it matters if it is true and there is evidence to support but while it is just click bait tabloid dirt, it does not.

BTW, not sure "collegiate in the study of wilful blindness" really works here

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36153108)

It’s more than tabloid tittle tattle if he’s fundamentally lost his job for whatever went on. If it’s tabloid tittle tattle then ITV as his employer had a duty of care to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36153112)

It’s more than tabloid tittle tattle if he’s fundamentally lost his job for whatever went on. If it’s tabloid tittle tattle then ITV as his employer had a duty of care to him.

There are far more important things happening that should have our attention than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36153113)

There are far more important things happening that should have our attention than this.

Is there?

Media corruption. Political corruption. Police corruption.

Who is looking after who?