[GiRTh]

And, the 'People are out to get me' that posted on Insta was completely tone deaf by Schofield. He deserves this cuz he's behaving very arrogantly given the circumstances

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by arista

Once

Matt goes to the Money Deal
it will come into Every Front Page
Phillip Schofield Arrested.


Justice then done

And if that happens and they find evidence that he abused a minor, then they should lock him up, but until then, he hasn’t been accused of a crime and there’s no evidence that he committed a crime, so unfortunately for you, you can’t get what you want

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

And, the 'People are out to get me' that posted on Insta was completely tone deaf by Schofield. He deserves this cuz he's behaving very arrogantly given the circumstances

Agree. He actually thinks he's done nothing wrong. Weirdo. Anyone who supports him is very questionable in their own morals. He doesn't deserve an ounce of pity or empathy. Liar. Cheat. Scumbag.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

The pearl clutching is appropriate when a 50 year old married TV star has an affair with someone they have known since they were child. Its ill advised at best.

True, and IMO its unlikely any criminal charges will be filed. There have been no actual crime reported but both Schofield and McGreevy have admitted to lying about the affair. There may be civil charges in the future.

I meant the pearl clutching about people not wanting to rush to label people sex offenders despite there being no actual proof of such, the affair was weird and I’ve said as such, but at the moment, that’s all it can be called.

Civil charges for what? Lying about an affair?

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Liam-

And if that happens and they find evidence that he abused a minor, then they should lock him up, but until then, he hasn’t been accused of a crime and there’s no evidence that he committed a crime, so unfortunately for you, you can’t get what you want

He's getting his just desserts already. If and when Matthew goes to the press and denounces him as a nonce he'll only feel even sorrier for himself than he does already.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Civil charges for what? Lying about an affair?

Who knows, McGreevy may claim Schofield got him fired. Doesn't seem to far fetched to me but both have admitted to lying.

EDIT: I forgot about the NDA. So, a civil case is quite likely

[Kate!]

He'll probably blame either Holly or Matthew himself for the whole thing. He'll make up another shedful of lies.

[arista]

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Kate!

He'll probably blame either Holly or Matthew himself for the whole thing. He'll make up another shedful of lies.

Paedophiles blame everyone but themselves.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by arista

Holmes is Billy Big Balls now it’s all out in the open but couldn’t muster the courage all those years ago .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Holmes is Billy Big Balls now it’s all out in the open but couldn’t muster the courage all those years ago .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't like Eamonn. He's a bully.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Kate!

I don't like Eamonn. He's a bully.

He’s a slimeball .. he’s arrogant and obnoxious and I’ve never liked how he is with other women on the show ..don’t know what he’s like in the real world but I have my suspicions…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by Zizu

He’s a slimeball .. he’s arrogant and obnoxious and I’ve never liked how he is with other women on the show ..don’t know what he’s like in the real world but I have my suspicions…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

He's another Richard Madeley. Both Eamonn and Richard are condescending twats especially to Ruth and Judy respectively. Horrible creatures.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Kate!

He's another Richard Madeley. Both Eamonn and Richard are condescending twats especially to Ruth and Judy respectively. Horrible creatures.

She’s very understanding ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Kate!]

Ruth is far too good for Eamonn. Slimy rat.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kate!

Ruth is far too good for Eamonn. Slimy rat.

yep

[Parmy]

Can anyone remember when phillip did this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Twitter.html

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can anyone remember when phillip did this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-Twitter.html

bloody hypocrisy

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I didn’t respond to her because she’s on ignore…

There’s no proof he groomed him, just everyone’s warped opinion. If it ever emerges that he did groom him then we’ll discuss it.

Not interested in make believe hyper-theoreticals.

Whether or not he groomed him is actually a matter of opinion and not fact; grooming in and of itself is not a crime.

Can a 50 year old man have a personal relationship with someone from childhood and start a sexual relationship barely into adulthood without there being an element of grooming, either planned or incidental? In my opinion, no.

Am I calling for jail assuming the kid did indeed consent and was "legal" when it went further, also no, because it's as had been repeatedly pointed out "not a crime".

Im confused about the sudden insistence that moral judgement should be aligned with and limited by the letter of the law though. You don't apply that principle on a myriad of other topics. You've cherry picked this one for whatever reason (fairly obvious reasons, realistically).

Again though, "make believe hyper theoretical" or not, I don't think anyone believes for a second that you wouldn't have the polar opposite opinion if it was Pier or any other TV gammon and a young girl. Blood would be pumping. You know that.

And again; you seem to lack the same restraint of judgement you insist on here when it comes to Prince Andrew and his New York adventures. 17 is "legal" in New York. What's the problem? That's not a hypothetical either: that's observed. Both you and Liam have commented plenty on Andrew.

But not Phil. No nono, we must wait and see.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Glen and Liam seem to know a lot about grooming as they claim time and time again there is "no evidence" of grooming

I have asked what do they understand by that term to no avail

so here is the nspcc description

ring any bells ladz?

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-chi...grooming/#what

[Kate!]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Glen and Liam seem to know a lot about grooming as they claim time and time again there is "no evidence" of grooming

I have asked what do they understand by that term to no avail

so here is the nspcc description

ring any bells ladz?

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-chi...grooming/#what

You won't get a response. They can't answer you for spouting Bull****.

[rusticgal]

GBN news with the infamous Dan Wootten been covering the story since 9pm with an interview with Eamonn Holmes on in a few minutes…

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Whether or not he groomed him is actually a matter of opinion and not fact; grooming in and of itself is not a crime.

Can a 50 year old man have a personal relationship with someone from childhood and start a sexual relationship barely into adulthood without there being an element of grooming, either planned or incidental? In my opinion, no.

Am I calling for jail assuming the kid did indeed consent and was "legal" when it went further, also no, because it's as had been repeatedly pointed out "not a crime".

Im confused about the sudden insistence that moral judgement should be aligned with and limited by the letter of the law though. You don't apply that principle on a myriad of other topics. You've cherry picked this one for whatever reason (fairly obvious reasons, realistically).

Again though, "make believe hyper theoretical" or not, I don't think anyone believes for a second that you wouldn't have the polar opposite opinion if it was Pier or any other TV gammon and a young girl. Blood would be pumping. You know that.

And again; you seem to lack the same restraint of judgement you insist on here when it comes to Prince Andrew and his New York adventures. 17 is "legal" in New York. What's the problem? That's not a hypothetical either: that's observed. Both you and Liam have commented plenty on Andrew.

But not Phil. No nono, we must wait and see.

Andrew actually sexually assaulted a woman did he not? As there has been no mention of sexual assault and contrary to everyone’s opinions, Phil had a consensual relationship. Do I agree that he cheated on his wife and lied, No. do I believe he groomed him because he had ulterior motives, also no.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Andrew actually sexually assaulted a woman did he not? As there has been no mention of sexual assault and contrary to everyone’s opinions, Phil had a consensual relationship. Do I agree that he cheated on his wife and lied, No. do I believe he groomed him because he had ulterior motives, also no.

Andrew actually sexually assaulted a woman did he not?

did he?

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

I didn’t respond to her because she’s on ignore…

There’s no proof he groomed him, just everyone’s warped opinion. If it ever emerges that he did groom him then we’ll discuss it.

Not interested in make believe hyper-theoreticals.

See that video of him in the resteraunt when the guy pops the glitter bomb...That was taken in 2014.

You are watching a groomer in action when you watch that clip.