[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I don't know why Di Caprio is getting brought into this , all his relationships have been with consenting adults....and as far as I know he never knew any of his girlfriend's when they were children as he groomed them in his life ???! . A big age gap is one thing ,yes might still be a bit strange. But it's not the same.

Exactly, so why did Schofield even bring it up unless he cant see any difference. He buried himself with the comparison

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Youtube video

[Liam-]

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to defend themselves when they’re being publicly dragged through the mud by a vicious media and social media armchair detectives, accusing him of being a criminal without any evidence for or any actual accusations.

It’s completely irrational and unfair to automatically decide he’s guilty of something, without any factual basis, slag him off, call him all the names under the same, celebrate him losing his career and then continue to slag him off when he decides to share his side of the story and defend himself.

I can’t stand the man, I think he’s a pompous, arrogant asshole, but the way he’s being treated atm is appalling and will lead one way only.

Of course he has the right to defend him self but he did totally the opposite. HE made himself look more dodgy and suspicious

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for a person to defend themselves when they’re being publicly dragged through the mud by a vicious media and social media armchair detectives, accusing him of being a criminal without any evidence for or any actual accusations.

It’s completely irrational and unfair to automatically decide he’s guilty of something, without any factual basis, slag him off, call him all the names under the same, celebrate him losing his career and then continue to slag him off when he decides to share his side of the story and defend himself.

I can’t stand the man, I think he’s a pompous, arrogant asshole, but the way he’s being treated atm is appalling and will lead one way only.

Grooming isn't illegal. I'm not sure how many times that needs to be said. Yes I know people have thrown around "nonce" and "paedo" a bit flippantly but believe it or not, whether he was or wasn't interested in MM when he was underage, neither of those things are illegal either. So who is accusing him of being a criminal? "Paedophilia" isn't a crime, child molestation is a crime. Having (or attempting) sexual contact with a minor is a crime. VERY FEW people have insinuated that he did that.

On this thread I don't think I've seen anyone outright suggest he broke the law.

Again there seems to be this confusion that it's unfair to judge someone's actions unless they're illegal which I'm pretty sure you know is not the case.

[Gusto Brunt]

He hsn't lost everything.

He has about Ł20M in the bank, plus property and investments. And I do think he will come back to TV.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

What biases. Explain please.

I see a situation where a middle aged wealthy and influential TV star dates a teenage colleague. Where's the bias.

If you want to make accusations please back them up

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

‘Reading between the lines’ of someone’s statement is just catering to your own already concluded narrative and doesn’t help anything but further your biases

I didn't say reading between the lines, I said reading between the "I'm sorry" and "it was wrong" platitudes. As in, what he was actually saying, from his own mouth. His actual words. He threw in "Yes I know I did wrong but..." and "I am so so sorry, however..." but 90% of what he said was "You're all being unfair to me and I did nowt wrong anyway".

[user104658]

He also (I will point out again) started saying effectively: "You all need to stop this criticism of me or I might go and off myself, and that'll be on YOUR conscience."

Where have we heard that before I wonder. "If you don't all start behaving the way I would like you to behave, I will harm myself and it'll be your fault you monster."

Coercive control. Not OK. Suicide is never murder.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

I wonder why he did not compare himself to a 55-year-old teacher who had known a boy since primary school then taught him since 15 then started having sex with him in 6th year?

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

What biases. Explain please.

I see a situation where a middle aged wealthy and influential TV star dates a teenage colleague. Where's the bias.

If you want to make accusations please back them up

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

[bots]

lets get back to the crux of it all. The reason he was dumped by ITV was because he lied to them. Everything else is actually noise. He lost his job because he lied. So, get over it Phil

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

He just started shagging his young mate nothing to see here

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

lets get back to the crux of it all. The reason he was dumped by ITV was because he lied to them. Everything else is actually noise. He lost his job because he lied. So, get over it Phil

The reason he was dumped by ITV was that he became instantly poisonous to their bottom line as no one wants to watch a family TV show featuring a grey-haired 60 year old who ****s teenagers.

They're trying to distance themselves as fast as possible because it's all coming out in the wash ... I highly, highly doubt ITV higher-ups haven't known about this for years.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I wonder why he did not compare himself to a 55-year-old teacher who had known a boy since primary school then taught him since 15 then started having sex with him in 6th year?

Can you imagine an episode of This Morning with Holly and Phil in 2024, featuring a 60 year old ex-school teacher and an 18 year old girl who is his ex pupil, sat on the couch saying "People judge us but we love each other, we've been persecuted and I've lost my income!" ... and Phil's there like "Good on you mate, what a catch, and totally legal so very unfair of anyone to judge. You want to get after that school for unfair dismissal!"

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Can you imagine an episode of This Morning with Holly and Phil in 2024, featuring a 60 year old ex-school teacher and an 18 year old girl who is his ex pupil, sat on the couch saying "People judge us but we love each other, we've been persecuted and I've lost my income!" ... and Phil's there like "Good on you mate, what a catch, and totally legal so very unfair of anyone to judge. You want to get after that school for unfair dismissal!"

Alison Hammond crying saying "ooh that was bostin bab, oop the villa, wont people just leave SAT (school kid attracted teachers alone) they spend all summer marking jotters and making up school plans they dont have time for adult relationships"

Dermot nodding gravely and saying "and now its over to Gino in the kitchen who is making a Pride Month Dildo rainbow flan with the infants of Brockley Primary school"

[Parmy]

Hes far to cowardly to top himself.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Liam-

The bias that you already believe he’s guilty of some sort of grooming of a child, so you’re obviously going to pick out whatever you can to back that opinion up

It’s understandable because everybody wants to be right when they believe something, but I think in situations like these where there’s no evidence or an actual accusation, it’s a bit unfair to do so

I've made it clear the age difference and the star status is my biggest issue. I would say the same if it was a heterosexual middle age woman with a teenage boy. If I am guilty of having a bias against middle age stars dating teenager then I'm guilty.

As for no evidence, both have admitted to the relationship

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Hes far to cowardly to top himself.

Bit harsh parmy.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He is guilty of grooming. You don't think he is, he probably doesn't think he is, but he is. By his own description of their relationship, he is. There's nothing to be "proven". It's not a crime.

Agreed.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He also (I will point out again) started saying effectively: "You all need to stop this criticism of me or I might go and off myself, and that'll be on YOUR conscience."

Where have we heard that before I wonder. "If you don't all start behaving the way I would like you to behave, I will harm myself and it'll be your fault you monster."

Coercive control. Not OK. Suicide is never murder.

I'd forgot about that. He then compared himself to Caroline Flack. The man has no remorse. Its clear to see. The interview showed us what he is really like

[Rustic bauble]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

lets get back to the crux of it all. The reason he was dumped by ITV was because he lied to them. Everything else is actually noise. He lost his job because he lied. So, get over it Phil

Thats it in a nutshell....he got sacked because he lied about the Affair but because of the age difference and his brother going to prison recently obviously there is much speculation going on....

[joeysteele]

Why has Schofield got the lawyer for the guy.
He must be well into his twenties now, how could he not get his own lawyer.
Does this really mean Schofield is paying this lawyer's fees then?

I'm finding it difficult to keep up.

It surely would be better for both to have their OWN choice as to lawyers.
I'm puzzled at this and just what instructions both their lawyers have.

This was an extremely yes hard interview to watch and it's impossible not to feel some sadness for Schofield.
However it's opened up as many questions as it may have answered.
From the limited questioning that was even actually done.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

why didn't he admit to this unwise but not illegal affair when he "came out" as gay?