joke, like if Eamonn Holmes had met a minor and then went on to have sex in HIS ITV DRESSING ROOM when they became legal the reaction would be any different..

disgusting

Agree. Cant say any more :clap1:

I have to agree with you here..

I've watched the interview again.
That's exactly how it comes across as you describe it.

The abuse is in the grooming….’soon’ can be anytime in the near future so let’s wait and see…

Stupid Waste of a Front Page

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...or-nc.png.webp

Look, if the public Spit on him
he can survive

Hopefully you're right.

We don't want another Caroline Flack situation after all.

I'd ignore the Media as they always love to look for prejudice in their headlines nowadays.

I have no doubt that some people will be Homophobic towards Phillip Schofield, but I think (and like to believe) that most people want to get to the bottom of just wtf was going on between the two guys in exact detail.

That's got to be the Lostprophets singer surely.:laugh:

Tbf to Elvis, he was apart of a totally different generation to most of us that are alive today, where age of consent laws were a bit more murky.

I'd like to think that if Elvis was apart of today's generation that he wouldn't be with someone so young.

Something I find annoying on this.

He states, it was a grave error, unwise that it happened.
What's the meaning behind the statement it was his fault.

Despite his apologies to the young man of near 4 decades younger than him.

To now be described as unwise and a grave error, really is disrespect to that young man's feelings and own emotions

Then to state it lasted ONLY a few months, never boyfriends and he says only happened 4 or 5 times
While he says at the time he was struggling with his sexuality.

So the young man, probably used and then discarded after he'd got his way.
How callous that sounds.
To me anyhow.

He has chosen to use the media to have said what HE wants to say and how only HE wants it portrayed too.
People are going to make up their own minds on that interview.
As to was he convincing or is there many more follow on questions not asked OR was it a mix of truth and also deceit still.
From a man who has decades of experience of knowing the media inside out and how it works 'AND' how to try to work it too.

my take away from all of this is that Phil is just not a nice guy. He has lied, cheated, used his position for personal gain ( the queue jumping makes a lot more sense now) and it looks very likely that he groomed someone too.

What goes around comes around and I can't summon any sympathy at all for the position he now finds himself in

The complication is that the ones labelling Schofield has unpleasant/ odious have all been unpleasant/odious people themselves… Eamon Holmes , Piers Morgan, Katie Hopkins and Dan Wootton etc


The other offshoot ( is that the word) is that people like Wootton has had his profile raised beyond recognition !!

I had barely heard of his name until this week … presumably that is what he was hoping for ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

But don't forget Goldheart,this sounds a tad hypocritical when you were defending Michael Jackson back in the day ,as I did, I never believed he abused boys and still dont,but we have to be consistant in what is right and what is wrong,Jackson was found not guilty and Phillip Scholfield has not even been charged.When someone is charged that's fair enough.

It’s like a criminal going to court , he knows he is guilty so is pleading guilty to get a shorter sentence and while he is there adding mitigating circumstances to justify his actions in some way

He talks about mm as being totally innocent and his family being totally innocent that screams at me!, predator

They are only odious and unpleasant because you dont agree with their harsh criticisms of things. What Schofield has done is criminal, nasty and vindictive.No way does it compare to those peoples opinions they have on subject matters.

and the fact that very few other celebs have lept to his defense (including his best celeb friend) speaks volumes

I've tried to avoid thinking this way.
However I am thinking he has more worrying concerns possibly, just my thinking, of what else may possibly be coming out too.
Hence the performance in that interview.

Hence these statements if true, on injunctions/NDA on the younger man believed to likely be a possibility.
If all was really above board why the need for ensuring the silence of the other or others nvolved.

Sadly for him and on the show 'This Morning' he has gone in strong with others in difficulties and personal issues..
Once you put yourself in that platform.
You can only sadly expect a backlash if you are found in personal issue difficulties yourself.

Yes I agree sheriff.
That's really strong points.

Just exactly what do you understand grooming to be?

If you think a middle-aged man befriending a teenager aftermeeting him at age ten, getting him a job through which he has de facto and actual power over him, and then bedding him at the earliest (legal) opportunity ... if you think that isn't grooming, I'd be interested to hear what you think is?

There's an interview with the perceived young man from This Morning where he's talking to Schofield.
Obviously very friendly at that time.
No doubt on that.

The line that concerns me at the end.
Is when the young man asks him about say 3 years on what will he be doing.
Schofield answers with no hesitation.
If he's still getting away with it he'll be happy.

Getting away with what exactly ?

It meant likely little or nothing at that time but now at least has lights lighting up if not have them flashing, ..... yet.

He’s probably saying the guy did nothing wrong because he’s not the one that had the affair or betrayed anybodies trust

One of savilles favourite lines.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I have to agree here.

I'm not a parent but if this had been a boy or girl of any of my family.
Then things had come to this.
Where online at least, someone nearly 4 decades older NOT connected to the family were in contact with the child as even a teen.

Then got him to work in the same place he was working.
Working closely with him.
Then revelations of a sexual relationship came about.

Which was lied about to employers, friends and closest family, tried to be kept a total secret.

I'd be absolutely livid and furious with the near 60 year old, using that so called professional setting to engage in sex with said young person.
I really cannot believe any parent would not be equally livid and not see it as anything other than unsavoury and wrong.

It's easy to say now he never thought of this person sexually before in all his contact with him.
Then again he'd have to say that.