Phil Schofield

[KiwiScot 1,478]

34 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Really don't think that's relevant. 21 is 3 years after the age of consent. It hardly paints a picture of chomping at the bit to get an under aged person into bed, and that's not even considering the fact there's not one shred of evidence that he did attempt to groom the lad.

There's more than a hint of homophobia to the enthusiasm for the story.

I replied to your comment about the press attention being worse because it was boy and saying it would be the same regardless because he knew the person when he was younger. I'm not getting into the rights/wrongs or proof of the matter with you for this reply, but the press reaction and social media reaction is very much because they can paint him as a child groomer. It is 100% relevant because otherwise all they've got is Schofield had an affair with a younger person and lied about it.

[ricardo 7,402]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

It is 100% relevant because otherwise all they've got is Schofield had an affair with a younger person and lied about it.

Which in any event is a sackable offence in most organisations.

Judging  from the number of knives going in it seems he made a lot of enemies on his way up the ladder.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

4 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

I replied to your comment about the press attention being worse because it was boy and saying it would be the same regardless because he knew the person when he was younger. I'm not getting into the rights/wrongs or proof of the matter with you for this reply, but the press reaction and social media reaction is very much because they can paint him as a child groomer. It is 100% relevant because otherwise all they've got is Schofield had an affair with a younger person and lied about it.

They can. Exactly. **** all evidence; just innuendo and playing on the neurotic minds of the public.

Be interesting to see what happened if he topped himself on the back of this.

[KiwiScot 1,478]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

They can. Exactly.

Yes homophobia has nothing to do with it.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

8 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Yes homophobia has nothing to do with it.

There's a major distinction to make between 'can' and 'do'. The innuendo is not backed by allegations of evidence, merely they happened to have met many years before the affair, which happened several years after the chap he had an affair with passed the age of consent and the supposition that because he might have concealed a gay affair from his wife (don't know if you're aware, but some people do still have prejudice against gay people; because he was a gay in the closet for many years, he 'must' also be a closet paedo). 'No smoke without fire' and all those other great clichés that go with trial by media...

Funnily enough, after my allusion over Carol Flack yesterday, look what turned up today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65793818

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[KiwiScot 1,478]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

There's a major distinction to make between 'can' and 'do'. The innuendo is not backed by allegations of evidence, merely they happened to have met many years before the affair, which happened several years after the chap he had an affair with passed the age of consent and the supposition that because he might have concealed a gay affair from his wife (don't know if you're aware, but some people do still have prejudice against gay people; because he was a gay in the closet for many years, he 'must' also be a closet paedo). 'No smoke without fire' and all those other great clichés that go with trial by media...

Funnily enough, after my allusion over Carol Flack yesterday, look what turned up today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65793818

But homophobia has nothing to do with the press attention because can they paint him as a child groomer and throw in social media and it will be said louder there. It trumps everything. Of course there will be homophobic abuse, but the press would still be all over it regardless of him being hetrosexual/homosexual/other. The size of the story would be less if he had slept with a much younger(male)work colleague he met there at the time

Edited June 3, 2023 by KiwiScot

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 minute ago, KiwiScot said:

But homophobia has nothing to do with the press attention because can they paint him as a child groomer. It trumps everything. Of course there will be homophobic abuse, but the press would still be all over it regardless of him being hetrosexual/homosexual/other. The size of the story would be less if he had slept with a much younger(male)work colleague he met there at the time

You can paint anyone as a child groomer: Just idly suggest to someone that someone might be and let it roll. You don't need evidence to do it and there's none in this case.

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[KiwiScot 1,478]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You can paint anyone as a child groomer: Just idly suggest to someone that someone might be and let it roll. You don't need evidence to do it and there's none in this case.

Yes homophobia has nothing to do with the huge media coverage.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

4 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Yes homophobia has nothing to do with the huge media coverage.

 

You can't prove it isn't everything to do with homophobia though, and there's no smoke without fire...

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Should hear some of the stuff journalists haven't printed about Gary Lineker, but maintaining one lie persistently is not 'serial lying'. Serial lying normally means lying frequently on a wide range of subjects, which has not been established here.

But you know, all the faux outrage about lying and you call me pompous? Incredible.

But even if he was a serial liar, that does not make him guilty of being a child groomer. Like I said, more than a sniff of homophobia about this.

I haven't called him a groomer. I am merely replying to you that it is very difficult to believe someone who has (constantly if you don't like serial) lied to family and friends for a number of years.

When someone turns Kings Evidence just to get off with a lighter sentence is yet another questionable area. 

Can you trust or believe a liar?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You can't prove it isn't everything to do with homophobia though, and there's no smoke without fire...

And you can't prove he isn't a groomer because as you say, there is no smoke without fire.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

And you can't prove he isn't a groomer because as you say, there is no smoke without fire.

Can you say 'irony'? That's exactly what I was alluding to.

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Can you say 'irony'?

Why? This whole episode is pathetic. Its the whole celebrity fever that ffrankly makes me seethe.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why? This whole episode is pathetic. Its the whole celebrity fever that ffrankly makes me seethe.

In itself it's of little interest. If you start asking yourself why there's so much interest and why trial by media is still being embraced post-Carol Flack then it all becomes very interesting in how it reflects on the culture of journalism and society in general. It's a form of mob justice.

If he's a child groomer then that's something for the courts to decide based on a formal charge on properly considered evidence, not ignorant plebs encouraged by so-called journalists looking to sell Newspapers on innuendo.

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

In itself it's of little interest. If you start asking yourself why there's so much interest and why trial by media is still being embraced post-Carol Flack then it all becomes very interesting in how it reflects on the culture of journalism and society in general. It's a form of mob justice.

If he's a child groomer then that's something for the courts to decide based on a formal charge on properly considered evidence, not ignorant plebs encouraged by so-called journalists looking to sell Newspapers on innuendo.

On that we can agree on.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

57 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Yes homophobia has nothing to do with the huge media coverage.

 

 

[KiwiScot 1,478]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You can't prove it isn't everything to do with homophobia though, and there's no smoke without fire...

Sorry I'm on the point that it is huge media coverage due to pedophilla concerns and not homosexual concerns as you implied and now your fallback on your implication is none of it is provable. So just to ask do you feel the biggest reason for the reaction as been mostly about...

a) Potential Child Grooming

b) Him being gay

c) Something else like not being liked or lying to employer, cheating on his wife

If you think as you implied earlier it's because he's gay can you answer if you believe why the media are really that bad as to use child abuse as a stick to beat a homosexual with.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

53 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Sorry I'm on the point that it is huge media coverage due to pedophilla concerns and not homosexual concerns as you implied and now your fallback on your implication is none of it is provable. So just to ask do you feel the biggest reason for the reaction as been mostly about...

a) Potential Child Grooming

b) Him being gay

c) Something else like not being liked or lying to employer, cheating on his wife

If you think as you implied earlier it's because he's gay can you answer if you believe why the media are really that bad as to use child abuse as a stick to beat a homosexual with.

I think it's mostly driven by homophobia. Even the huge media circus about Harvey Weinstein, accompanied by many actual complaints from alleged victims and victims proven in a court of law (young actresses and young production crew) claiming he abused his power never included suggestions he might be a child groomer as is prevailing with Schofield. But Weinstein wasn't gay.

Edited June 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[KiwiScot 1,478]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think it's mostly driven by homophobia. Even the huge media circus about Harvey Weinstein, accompanied by many actual complaints from alleged victims and victims proven in a court of law (young actresses and young production crew) claiming he abused his power never included suggestions he might be a child groomer as is prevailing with Schofield. But Weinstein wasn't gay.

Maybe because there was no allegations of him associating with minors. Kevin Spacey got a pretty big reaction to his actions and he's gay, but then again to the point his case does involve a minor. But again if he wasn't gay it would still have got a big reaction

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

5 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Maybe because there was no allegations of him associating with minors. Kevin Spacey got a pretty big reaction to his actions and he's gay, but then again to the point his case does involve a minor. But again if he wasn't gay it would still have got a big reaction

Schofield's case doesn't involve a minor. There's one photo of them at a public event standing apart in a group photo. There's a follow on Facebook. Then there's a consenting affair many years after the age of consent. That's it. It's a disgrace that the question is getting this much attention without any actual evidence.

[Canary73 161]

This isn't a newsworthy story and deserves no airtime or column inches when there are far more important stories than celeb gossip nonsense.  

[KiwiScot 1,478]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Schofield's case doesn't involve a minor. There's one photo of them at a public event standing apart in a group photo. There's a follow on Facebook. Then there's a consenting affair many years after the age of consent. That's it. It's a disgrace that the question is getting this much attention without any actual evidence.

Presented in a way to suggest involvement with a minor hence the hysteria.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

17 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Presented in a way to suggest involvement with a minor hence the hysteria.

Exactly. Cheap gutter journalism for headlines encouraging a witch hunt. Unacceptable. I think the comparison to Carol Flack is on point. This sort of behaviour can easily drive people to suicide. In cases like this where the media go after people like this, if they do finish up committing suicide, newspaper editors should be up for manslaughter.

[KiwiScot 1,478]

8 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Exactly. Cheap gutter journalism for headlines encouraging a witch hunt.

Yes the media going for a scalp like they'd do with anyone regardless of who they are.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

Yes the media going for a scalp like they'd do with anyone regardless of who they are.

I don't agree. If you could show examples of straight people having consenting affairs with much younger people and having questions raised suggesting they're paeodophiles on grounds this poor you'd have a point, but you can't.

Edited June 4, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

On 27/05/2023 at 12:27, littleyellowbirdie said:

Laughable that it's considered more shocking than someone wanting to chop their todger off because they've got it into their head they should have been a woman.

By who?

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Schofield's case doesn't involve a minor. There's one photo of them at a public event standing apart in a group photo. There's a follow on Facebook. Then there's a consenting affair many years after the age of consent. That's it. It's a disgrace that the question is getting this much attention without any actual evidence.

Interesting  shot in this vid of PS with his ex lover when he was a minor , 13 in fact.  Hmmmm. 

Not sure what this tells us , other than it  HAS TO BE CHECKED out by the Authorities. Couldn't give a toss  that he's  Gay , he admits 'helping this lad get into television, that was kind , wasn't it ? . 

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[Midlands Yellow 4,083]

Phil was in a position of trust, took advantage and kept telling fibs. It’s not a good look for someone of his television experience when helping a child get a leg up. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,599]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

By who?

By whom.

 

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

Interesting  shot in this vid of PS with his ex lover when he was a minor , 13 in fact.  Hmmmm. 

Not sure what this tells us , other than it  HAS TO BE CHECKED out by the Authorities. Couldn't give a toss  that he's  Gay , he admits 'helping this lad get into television, that was kind , wasn't it ? . 

 

Great illustration. So that confetti cannon video was 2014, nearly a decade ago, with Schofield sitting opposite the 13 year old who later became his lover some years after as an adult. It was in a public place. Why no raised eyebrows back then (two years after Jimmy Savile) when the understanding was still that Schofield was a married straight man?

Regarding the alleged super-injunction claimed in this, Schofield claims he has never taken out any injunctions, and a bit of further reading claims the supposed injunction hadn't even finished when this started coming out. So how come all the press sttention came out supposedly when an injunction was supposed to be in place?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[KiwiScot 1,478]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I don't agree. If you could show examples of straight people having consenting affairs with much younger people and having questions raised suggesting they're paeodophiles on grounds this poor you'd have a point, but you can't.

Having random examples of people don't make it a logical argument and if you think there isn't a straight person whos been accussed when they've potentially groomed a child that justs plain illlogical.