Have to say, Eamonn Holmes (who is an idiot) is turning the whole issue, which is a quite serious one, into a silly circus centred on himself.

The Alf in me wonders if it's deliberate. Takes the sting out of the whole thing if it descends into this farcical "feud".

Eamonn is the delusional one if he seriously thinks that his attitude is gonna get him and Ruth the Phil and Holly roles. I can't stand the odious little creep.

His wife has just been offered a presenter gig on the show which makes it all incredibly strange

Me neither ,he is a creep,awful man, bet hes loving getting in the spotlight again.

‘Gays protect other gays’

This site is horrific, completely irrational people that can’t stand people not falling over themselves to agree with them.

Me and Glenn, time and time again, have justified why we have the opinions we do, which we didn’t have to do at all, but we did, yet this forum, as usual, descends into homophobia as a tactic to belittle and demean people that don’t follow the status quo, it’s sickening, funny thing is, Smudgie agreed with what I said, has she been attacked, ridiculed and interrogated? No and it’s clear to see why.

Adult gay men continue to defend the right to be able to shag teenagers.

The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

When do the lies stop so the truth can start?

I don't think it's about protecting anyone but I do think there's an impulse -- a very understandable impulse, given the history of false accusations -- to bunker down when it seems like someone who has recently come out as a gay man is being accused of something like this. A worry that it's more fuel to the fire of how homophobic people stereotype gay men (which unfortunately I have to concede, it is).

With that in mind I can appreciate that throwing around words like "nonce" and "paedo" is short-sighted, damaging and flippant and also inaccurate -- the correct term would be ephebophilia (sexual attraction of older adults to adolescents and late teens) and I have in the past been quite hard-line on not misusing the term "paedophile" is it means something very specific (and very grim) so my apologies for that.

HOWEVER all of that said, I stand by my opinion that Philip's actions are not only wrong and predatory but that they do still constitute grooming. Full adults can be groomed, it's not specific to children, and teenagers can 100% be groomed by an adult in a position of perceived influence. There is no question in my mind that this applies here. And I personally believe his pursuit of this boy began when he was an adolescent. There's no excuse (at all) for Philip in his 50's to be exchanging DM's with a 15 year old. It's completely inappropriate and the fact that it later became a sexual relationship is massively concerning.

The stretching and reaching to defend it is not a good look and honestly does more harm than good in terms of the stereotyping, because to most people, seeing men (any man, gay or otherwise) looking at this situation and saying "Meh that's totally fine, the kid was legal so there's no problem" is a massive red flag on that individual.

I'm really sorry to say but yes I do think that being gay men (and worried about people making those links that have always been historically made) is part of why you and Glenn are so defensive of this situation and I actually do understand why you're doing it on those terms.

That's actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking, why would people who I think are generally fair-minded people despite my disagreements with them be defending this.

If I thought it WASN'T because of this... if I thought you genuinely hand-on-heart believed that there was "nothing wrong" with how Schofield pursued a young person he'd known since adolescence for a sexual relationship "because it's technically legal" ... then I'd actually be being uncharitable. If I believed you actually believed that I'd have you on a watchlist. Maybe it's slightly more understandable as (I think) you're still quite young yourself but if you still believe it when you're 50 I'd have some major questions.

:clap1:

There is no truth. Just moronic speculation

The truth is an old man shagged a teenager that he knew from a child

I think The fact that Gordon the Gopher has stayed silent in all of this is very telling...

He tried and we all ignored him. The audience just laughed.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2...5536822719.jpg

He had a consensual sexual relationship.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsivV5IX...jpg&name=small

Why are they all obsessed by MM though? does he have a donkey dick?

No, It's because they first met
when, he was just UNDERAGE

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fv8I2JWW...jpg&name=small

Yeah you've said. And people are not allowed to disagree? How do you know this "fact" any more than you claim we don't know. You say it was consensual and even it was it still stinks to high heaven of grooming. Literally the minute he turned 16 which in my eyes is still a child they were at it. An in depth investigation is needed.

Glenn you've basically outright confirmed that you either don't know what grooming is, or that you don't believe it exists.

The idea appears to be that unless MM himself says he was groomed, he was not groomed and it was all above board and consensual/totally fine.

A complete misunderstanding of what grooming is, and the well understood fact that most victims of grooming don't recognise that they were groomed, at least until MUCH later, and in fact often defend the perpetrator.

Philip Schofield leveraged a position of influence to contact, befriend, sleep with and then ultimately discard a young person, starting when that person was an adolescent. This is grooming. Grooming is not rape or sexual assault. Grooming is grooming. Glenn keeps hammering on about consent, outlining that he has no idea what he's defending... gaining consent is the whole point and aim of grooming. Pointing out that there was consent is only saying "it was successful grooming, congrats Philip."

Great Post.

Glenn people agree with that. But do you not see it as all very seedy and quite vile, morally anyway?

Historically, look at men in their 50s/60s who go for teen girls, even then they're usually 18 or over, and as a society we tend to think that's creepy, and strange, and damn right pathetic on the guy's part.

It's nothing to do with Schofield's sexuality, any popular celeb, A lister (i know he's not known elsewhere in the world really, but here he's right up there) would receive the same kind of backlash, gay, straight, bi, whatever.

Also, i would be probably be more sympathetic had say Scholfied met this kid in a club or whatever, when he was of legal age, and had a fling with him. But it's the fact met this boy when he was 10, and befriended him as a young teen that's rubbing people the wrong way, do you not see that? He even got the kid a job.

The problem isn't so much that he had sex with a 16 year old, as creepy as that is given his age, it's all the stuff leading up to it that people find disgusting.

and dont forget he was married

meanwhile presenting on national tv about a raft of serious subjects including child abuse, infidelity, rape etc

People are just assuming he groomed him lmao. Until the bloke comes out and says, yes he groomed me I’m going to call it what it is. Do I agree with the affair? No. I’m not going to call him a peadophile based on what might have happened. There’s been no mention of abuse of any kind.