Phillip Schofield's Career DEAD? 🤷‍♀️ The Castaway Years

[Sheena]

Sorry, and I’m no fan of him whatsoever, but what exactly has he done wrong? If rumours (and he) are to be believed, he had sex with someone of legal age, no?

The limit is there for a reason and if one day under 16 he’s rightfully in trouble but one day above and I can’t see that there should be an issue.

(I haven’t read the entirety of this thread in case I missed something…)

 

[Eddie]

Sorry, and I’m no fan of him whatsoever, but what exactly has he done wrong? If rumours (and he) are to be believed, he had sex with someone of legal age, no?

The limit is there for a reason and if one day under 16 he’s rightfully in trouble but one day above and I can’t see that there should be an issue.

(I haven’t read the entirety of this thread in case I missed something…)

I think it's about the potential abuse of power and uncertainty arising regarding when he first met the person in question.

 

[Cloud]

It's so depressing. This is my one beloved childhood figure I wanted to NOT turn out to be noncey

Yeah I heard the rumours. And was in denial.

I'm not sure exactly where the law lies... I know for many positions of power if this was at 16 not 18 then it's illegal. Not sure where TV lies in that. And then there's whether there was grooming involved which seems a very fuzzy thing. If they were genuine friends?

Who am I kidding... At BEST it's dodgy, and next level up is just "not illegal but awful anyway". Most things aren't "at best".

Then you have him saying as far as he's concerned he doesn't have a brother (after "there's nothing you could say to make me hate you"). The projection.

 

[Halli]

Sorry, and I’m no fan of him whatsoever, but what exactly has he done wrong? If rumours (and he) are to be believed, he had sex with someone of legal age, no?

This has been my exact thought.
the only thing I can think of is that there is something linked to his brother and that Holly distanced herself/fell out because of all the connotations, there is definitely more to this

 

[cwej]

It's definitely dodgy ground if he is a powerful position in a company (as he was) with a 16 year old. It's not entirely dissimilar to a teacher sleeping with a 16 year old in a school, which IS illegal. The legal definition is 'adults in a position of trust'... I would say that Schofield is treading a VERY fine line on that one.

 

[VV]

Sorry, and I’m no fan of him whatsoever, but what exactly has he done wrong? If rumours (and he) are to be believed, he had sex with someone of legal age, no?

The limit is there for a reason and if one day under 16 he’s rightfully in trouble but one day above and I can’t see that there should be an issue.

(I haven’t read the entirety of this thread in case I missed something…)

Never let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt!

 

[Sheena]

It's definitely dodgy ground if he is a powerful position in a company (as he was) with a 16 year old. It's not entirely dissimilar to a teacher sleeping with a 16 year old in a school, which IS illegal. The legal definition is 'adults in a position of trust'... I would say that Schofield is treading a VERY fine line on that one.

Sorry, I disagree entirely. The teacher/ pupil thing is different for numerous reasons and, ultimately, yes, remains illegal. Exactly the same relationship dynamic exists at university level but, ultimately, it isn’t considered “wrong” because it isn’t illegal.

You’re literally considered able to make conscious decisions about your sex life aged 16- that’s the ENTIRE point. It’s just our society’s judgment saying otherwise. The position of power, I concede you’re right, but equally there is no actual evidence of coercion or abuse of that power, unless I’ve missed it? It’s been said everywhere it was consensual.

Does it make me feel uneasy that a (not sure of exact dates) 55 year old man was having it away with a 16 year old? Sure- I’ll accept that. But should his career be pulled apart for it? I honestly don’t think I agree.

Of course, if other stuff comes out, then I absolutely may need to rethink. But note, not “eat my words” because right now, I just fail to see where the issue is.

 

[Sheena]

This has been my exact thought.
the only thing I can think of is that there is something linked to his brother and that Holly distanced herself/fell out because of all the connotations, there is definitely more to this

And yeah, about that part I understand and if there is more to come, then fine, but right now, in a post Caroline Flack world, this “witch hunt” (thanks @Vicky the Water(loo) Vole) treads a dangerous line for me too.

 

[Sheena]

Also the Daily M*il’s involvement in this leaves rather a SOUR TASTE in the mouth to say the least.

 

[VoR]

If it turns out that both he and his brother are sexual predators, that must mean there’s a strong liklihood of some kind of traumatic childhood of their own, surely? Not that that would absolve either of them, but has it ever come up?

 

[Sheena]

If it turns out that both he and his brother are sexual predators, that must mean there’s a strong liklihood of some kind of traumatic childhood of their own, surely? Not that that would absolve either of them, but has it ever come up?

FUCK ME!

 

[VoR]

I mean actual sexual predators, not if it just turns out he had a dodgy fling with a 16 year old! We don’t know the full extent of this yet…

 

[Rita]

What I don’t understand is if Holly was so pissed off with him and going to the head of ITV to get him fired why was she still presenting the show with him last week? If she was that against something he had done surely she would have made an excuse not to present the show until he was gone.

 

[Sheena]

I mean actual sexual predators, not if it just turns out he had a dodgy fling with a 16 year old! We don’t know the full extent of this yet…

But it’s still a stretch to say that at this stage and a really dangerous and unacceptable one.

 

[jivafox]

What I don’t understand is if Holly was so pissed off with him and going to the head of ITV to get him fired why was she still presenting the show with him last week? If she was that against something he had done surely she would have made an excuse not to present the show until he was gone.

TWO FACED!

 

[VoR]

But it’s still a stretch to say that at this stage and a really dangerous and unacceptable one.

Fair enough, I apologise. I certainly didn’t mean to feed into the ’gay people are created through child abuse’ trope.

I haven’t followed it terribly closely, but his brother is fairly indisputably a genuine peadophile, right? And I thought there WAS considered to be a fairly significant statistical link between peadophilia, and sex abuse in general, and people who have been subject to abuse themselves?

I was just interested if much of anything is known about Schofield’s childhood and whether he’s ever spoken of it, as I’m very much somebody who’s of the opinion that most monsters are made, not born.

But you’re right, it’s probably too early and not in good taste to speculate.

 

[Sheena]

It’s not even “early” right now, it’s “unfounded”.

His brother being a paedophile should be considered an entirely separate matter.

I’m AGOG at the standards we have in here about this to be honest.

 

[GNL]

Theres an article from 2014 which talks about the guy Phil had the affair with being invited to visit This Morning when he was 18, so presumably if it's true that the relationship started when they worked together, he would have been an adult at the time.

 

[lolly]

So where do the rumblings I've seen on twitter about him being groomed from the age of 12 or 13 originate? Is that something that 'everybody knew' as well?

 

[lolly]

Ugh - I just need to stay out of this. If he was over the age of consent the only issue I could have is a personal morality one, and that's irrelevant. If there is more than that then I'll just have to have faith in the process and not go looking for it on twitter or the tabloids, because it’s all so fucking grubby.

 

[Nancy]

From what I know, Phillip started a relationship with the younger man when he turned 18. Indeed, the younger man tweeted Phillip publicly on more than one occasion before he turned 18 and Phillip didn't engage. It was only after the younger man turned 18 did Phillip reply. (Obviously publicly - as far as I'm aware, no private messages between the two of them have come to light.)

 

[Sheena]

From what I know, Phillip started a relationship with the younger man when he turned 18. Indeed, the younger man tweeted Phillip publicly on more than one occasion before he turned 18 and Phillip didn't engage. It was only after the younger man turned 18 did Phillip reply. (Obviously publicly - as far as I'm aware, no private messages between the two of them have come to light.)

Which is my understanding too.

 

[ZenGiraffe]

So where do the rumblings I've seen on twitter about him being groomed from the age of 12 or 13 originate? Is that something that 'everybody knew' as well?

So the 'evidence' for this seems to be that Phil visited the guys theatre company or something when he was 10, and there is a group photo with both in it, and followed him on Twitter when he was 15. But like Nancy said, no back and forth seems to start until he turns 18.

 

[lolly]

So the 'evidence' for this seems to be that Phil visited the guys theatre company or something when he was 10, and there is a group photo with both in it, and followed him on Twitter when he was 15. But like Nancy said, no back and forth seems to start until he turns 18.

That's why it all feels so grubby then. It's a witch hunt to join the dots (and make 2 + 2 = 5 if necessary) on the part of the media and twitter wankers who are utterly clueless but 'just know'.

All backed with a Great British soundtrack of homophobia and misogyny. Lovely.

 

[Star]

All these witch hunters, including the celebrities who are getting involved, need to realise there is a person behind this who (as far as we know) hasn't done anything legally wrong.

 

[Ellie]

That's why it all feels so grubby then. It's a witch hunt to join the dots (and make 2 + 2 = 5 if necessary) on the part of the media and twitter wankers who are utterly clueless but 'just know'.

All backed with a Great British soundtrack of homophobia and misogyny. Lovely.

As grubby as it just sounds, how is this any different from say the start of Celine Dion’s relationship with her husband?

 

[lolly]

As grubby as it just sounds, how is this any different from say the start of Celine Dion’s relationship with her husband?

From what I know, absolutely no different!

 

[Raining on Me]

It's arguably a bit icky, but hardly that bad if he was indeed 18 (so not even 16 then!) and it was consensual. The morality of cheating on his wife is no one's business really. As long as it wasn't an abuse of power - which is what seems to be being implied by former colleagues etc - then yeah this veers more towards witch hunt than anything, which in fairness said former colleagues could also be taking part in for other ulterior motives for all we know. It's all rather pack mentality.

I suppose with This Morning, even though it's all lightweight TRASH, they do like to wheel out the occasional serious issue and probably feel what Phillip's done might not sit right with the squeaky clean presenter image, which I don't agree with but I suspect that's part of it. However it clearly hasn't stopped there so it's all a bit extreme.

And let's not even start on how this would surely be playing out ENTIRELY differently if it was a straight man with younger girlfriend or older woman with a young man.

If there really is no more to this it's just a grotesque pile-on, the British press at its finest

 

[lolly]

Even if it was an abuse of power, that's not illegal except within an education setting, if he's over the age of consent, is it? Is anyone suggesting the guy was a vulnerable adult in the legal sense? If not, he had capacity to and was free to make his own choices, even if there was a marked power imbalance.

 

[Pingu]

I haven’t really seen many people calling for him to go to prison for this, and that’s because it’s generally accepted that what he did wasn’t illegal.

But surely the threshold for losing any job falls below the line of legality?

Even Phillip has admitted that there was SOME level of (non-sexual, non-romantic) relationship before the guy turned 18 and when the aspect of him helping him get into television, getting him a job on the show and so on comes into it it just feels a bit icky and I don’t see why it being legal and consensual negates the feeling of “a bit icky” about the whole thing.

 

[VoR]

If it really is no more than what's already out there, then presumably the fact that he's widely disliked is playing a larger part in the industry's willingness to tear him down to this extent. Which is certainly a bit disquieting.

Anyway on reflection I want to apologise again for making the inferences earlier in this thread. I'll leave the posts up for now as I'd rather own the mistake than try to cover it. But @Sheena is absolutely right and I got it wrong. Hands up and all that.

 

[Eddie]

Never a good thing to make inferences in situations like this. That's what the Twitter keyboard warriors do.

 

[Slave]

I think there’s several things getting mixed into one as far as I can tell. And while they may all be linked to the same relationship, they’re not all the same thing.

The runner relationship, which, as far as we know, was legal. And actually, it’s not really anybody else’s business unless there’s evidence the man was groomed from a young age.

That Phillip Schofield allegedly “pulled strings” to get the runner a job and then began a relationship with him raises questions about workplace rules and safeguards because there’s a power dynamic at play with a junior member of staff. But that’s surely more about ITV’s practices for managing the situation when they became aware (which it’s alleged senior executives were).

Then there’s the “deceit” of the relationship being concealed. But again I think that’s perhaps more about the people who didn’t know and feel let down, than it is Phillip Schofield’s personal obligation to disclose his personal affairs.

At the moment it looks to me like Phillip Schofield probably had more power at ITV than other presenters and people behind-the-scenes were comfortable with. It also seems he’s not as nice as he comes across on-screen. There’s certainly an insinuation he’s been instrumental in the departure of some former presenters from This Morning. I suspect this relationship has become a scandal through which several grudges are being settled. And while he may, indeed, not be as pleasant as he seems, it runs the risk currently of him being labelled as something much worse that he isn’t.

 

[Raining on Me]

Even if it was an abuse of power, that's not illegal except within an education setting, if he's over the age of consent, is it? Is anyone suggesting the guy was a vulnerable adult in the legal sense? If not, he had capacity to and was free to make his own choices, even if there was a marked power imbalance.

I agree, hence the "if" part, which really involves seeing if there's more to it.

I see what Pingu means, it's not something that would sit right with me personally if I was in the same position and it's clearly not the wisest move to be making.

But thrown publicly under the bus in this manner seems worse than anything he supposedly did. Younger guy has relationship with older bloke is hardly news and must happen ALL the time to the hurt of no one

Actually just typing in here makes me realise how pointless this is since we know fuck all, not least about how the younger guy felt himself.

 

[Suomi]

he had capacity to and was free to make his own choices, even if there was a marked power imbalance.

that’s not how abuse of power works

 

[octophone]

So where do the rumblings I've seen on twitter about him being groomed from the age of 12 or 13 originate? Is that something that 'everybody knew' as well?

Apparently the runner was a member of a theatre company of which PS was a patron. The work experience/internship came from there - allegedly, no-one has actually demonstrated that.

 

[Sheena]

that’s not how abuse of power works

Didn’t he get his “boyfriend” a job rather than coercing a junior worker?

It’s nepotism rather than abuse of power then, no?

 

[octophone]

I do worry that this is just homophobia. If he's had an affair with a female runner and he was still with his wife, he'd be a rotten bastard but I doubt his career would be over. I do get that there would still be the issues of the power dynamic and of when they first met. It would doubtless still be considered off-colour and would have finished him on This Morning but I can't help but feel that, given the UK's current cultural profile, he wouldn't be completely toast had it all be hetrosexual.

 

[Eddie]

It is absolutely founded on homophobia. Also, there is only so much of this one person can take - surely people should know better by now?

 

[Sheena]

I do also think the “homophobia” discussion is interesting as there as a massively “brave” and positive narrative around him coming out, despite him having been a RIGHT OLD CUNT to his missus, which was conveniently ignored.