[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kate!

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.

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."