Schofield Shifted

looking forward ?

...over a cliff?

This Morning was all about This Evening for Pip Scoff.
Had a cab picking up his gay toyboy from ITV studios to his place.
Called it 'Playtime Thursday'

sick control freak ****

I feel calling out people who can't conform to their own lofty standards they expect of others is needed. Since the Guardian woman took over, the channel has a history of using any opportunity to cleanse itself of the people who don't follow the woke mantra, and covering up for the people that do.

A certain schadenfreude from the outlet is hardly surprising either, after how it has been treated by the rest of the mainstream.

But GB News is wrong here to have it endlessly leading their news and themes. Dan was at the coalface, so it makes sense he would cover it, there was no need for it to be leading Farage's segment as well.

Cider.........GB news have totally lost the plot with this. i have no problem with them saying schofield should go but they should be all out against arnold clark cars or whatever the company is called from not advertising on this morning anymore. there a bleedin car company not UNICEF....schofield is gone after all isnt he.....and GB news should be saying its a joke that the show itself could be scrapped........thats called cancel culture on steroids. dan wootton is way too agressive. he makes some good points but he goes over the top with the anti bbc and anti harry/megan stuff.
TV news shows will die a death soon. all the young people will have no interest in watching this kind of programme.

If folk stop watching this morning
They might watch KGB news, who nose.

Then KGB news get more adverts.


Webuyanycar.com getting worried about
the wegroomanykid memes...

News shows will die a death soon,IMO , its hard to know WTF is true or is Fake  ,Seen a video of Ron De santis ,Very funny and decribed by the guy who made it as deep fake
Looks as Genuine as anything ... Voice is spot on  ,I think De santis himself was laughing at it and said HTF did you make that ? Scary stuff tbh

Good old eamon holmes
Stuck his oar in
Kept it front page
Toxic itv

....not to mention
Toxic bbc

Yep.  Yet his missus and him were in the studio the day Schofield did his coming out job and walked on to commiserate/comfort, whatever we want to call it.  As I recall all four of them were in a huddle.
Ever been had Eamonn?

But will ITV be left presenting and advertising an unhealthy lifestyle to one and all?

well alison seems to

Rumours that ITV also paid off Runner 1.
More skeletons could yet fall out of the cupboard.

Aye, I'm sure Dame Carolyn McGuardian knew nowt about it though.

People losing their minds . a little sanity from
Giles Brandith - I like working on good morning , nice people and
we cover some interesting topics ( something like that )
Well said Giles .. tell the bitter whinging **** eamon to crawl
away , oh and sack him from gb news

Brandreth one of those outdated celebrities who are famous for nowt really, posh words in a plummy voice.

I know he’s not young - but he was young
and he is very wise , and sometimes funny and disparaging about himself  , never cruel but kind

He’s worth a thousand talentless hypocrites
such as holmes .. didn’t he cheat on his wife and children
and sitting on tv with his new wife .. every day
Imagine what that seems like to see his fat face on the tv

He is clearly very wise, been stealing a living for years. You can't be cruel in his game so they all appear kind and caring on camera, it's required.

Lorraine Kelly was always kind on camera but avoided a huge tax bill by claiming 'Lorraine' was a character she portrayed and not herself.

Ah , we know what holmes did
He left his wife and children - and appeared on the good morning
programme with the woman he cheated with - I full view and without
any shame .. that takes some doing

everyone of them are pukists
they would do anything for money
morally bankrupt
scum

LFC aka Geri Atric

There are 52 care homes in Eastbourne offering a range of specialisms. If you're not sure which type of care home is best for you, you can change over . ust talk to Matron ....

wouldn't let that Brandreth babysit the grandchildren either.

I thought the wokeys came up with this 'duty of care' garbage.  They certainly are not doing that with the presenters they are going with now.
Anyone watching will be asking is it ok to look like that?

embarrassing for the LGBTV mob
self confessed elderly gay previously married to a woman having a relationship with a young male
brother a pervert jailed

We have a name for that in equestrian circles - gr..ming

Phil in a desperate State on his Jacks at his Mothers , Playing his Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris collections , How the mighty fall

Ironic ommission from usual suspects photo!

Scoff all cosied up with his BOYF on a presenter reel
https://twitter.com/SophieSharpie/status/1663621513759563784

schof a wrong un

The 61-year-old first met the man he would go on to have an affair with when he was invited to appear at an event at a drama school.

He said he knew people had found some elements of the story shocking, but said: "I am not a groomer."

The affair began, Schofield said, when the man was 20 years old and working alongside him at ITV.

"He worked on the show for a bit, and we became mates,"

"And then one day something happened that just changed it. And that is the moment I look back on, and regret so deeply."

Schofield told the Sun that his first romantic encounter with the man was in his dressing room at ITV.

"It was a consensual moment, it was mutual," he said. "It was not a love affair, it was not a relationship, we were not boyfriends; we were mates."PMSFL

Put the Paint Brush down FFS Phil . you need somewhere  to stand

"Over a period of time it happened maybe five or six times. We just didn't think anyone knew, there was no lying, we thought, stupidly, that nobody knew."

Have you Ever such Bollix in Ur Life

I would Imagine the Sun Dug Deep to get this Exclusive

So why did they both lie about it to everyone if there was nothing wrong?

Be a right fuka if the lad says he’s not gay . Errrm rum

It's the smile though.  Blair and Clinton had the same.

false and pretentious

Meanwhile.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12148477/Sex-therapist-50-animals-loses-bid-stop-aristocratic-landlords-evicting-her.html?login#newcomment

She calls herself a 'SEX THERAPIST'   !!??  But let's credit it her.  It's good cover.  I think I will change my status to the same.  Although I get called all sorts of names 'slut, tart' etc.   I say it is good for business
BY THE WAY  has anyone on here been misgendered lately??  It is very trendy to raise it or make out you have been a victim. 
Latest co ck up around the gendering game  is the bloke who found out he was sort of 'misgendered' when he tried to take up trannying but didn't have the opp. So he saved himself from getting  'GENDERED' Just in time. He has now gone back to being a bloke (which he was anyway - still had his winkle!!) Blames it on the Net for 'trans' idiots with their agenda but then it IS very trendy. He was 24 around the time of changing so an adult.   Imagine what they do and the damage influencing  much younger boys to change - it is frightening !!
BUT - here's the rub - In girly guise she looked absolutely gorgeous.  I am jealous.
For me I will squeeze as much as I can out of this situation, as us trannies are very popular, and of course, remain untouchable - we only have to play the card and the authorities and management  freeze in terror   hahahahahahahah

nice pics  he even looks good as a bloke

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12150451/Man-reveals-lambasted-transitioning-siren-voices-online.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65783331

WTF ? Says he was going to top himself   

He is having an Affair , Well he banged some 20 Year old Bloke a few Times ,According to Phil

Whats the Problem ? Why all the secrecy ?

He has a 20 year old boyfriend,  who would actually give a Flying ?

He has brought all this on Himself ,if it was out in open What problem ? None of it makes Sense

He has come out because he knew the Story was going to Break , Surely he knew was Gay , or at least Bi a long time before any of this

What difference does it make ,Why keep it in the closet ? Its the year 2023 , Phil saying he was Gay , was hardly the Biggest shock in the world .

Why not Just say I found the Guy attractive but he was under age if he was 15/16  at the time .. Later  he got a Job with me , Then when he was 20 we had an Affair

seems 'celebrities' are held to a higher moral standard than our 'top' politicians.

This sort of thing is a daily occurrence in Parliament. They deny it, brush it off or under the carpet, hey ho carry on.

It's an abuse of power case. A 'gay' me 2. Even if all of the activity was legal.

The whole me 2 nonsense was way overdone in my view. But if you get powerful stars, who cross paths with starry eyed, essentially 'kids' who would do pretty much anything to get a 'celebrity' lifestyle, the 'kids' can easily be manipulated.

With this chap, and ITV it's the duplicity, cover up and fakery as well. Apparently it's when this young chap went all loose cannon at some awards and told everyone he was in love with Schofield that they did the teary eyed 'coming out' the following week. All very cynical, but to a life cynic like me the public 'coming out' was always deeply suspicious, never mind the impact on his wife and kids. Narcissism is strong in this one.

Strange case this.

There doesn't appear to be any illegality. A lot of 2+2=5 about the earlier meeting but any evidence of any grooming? Doesn't look like it and the other guy was a grown man so...

Still, the age gap is yucky and hints at the star's power over the awestruck young man.

But the other thing. I can't be the only one who was aware he was seeing a much younger man pretty much as soon as he came out. It was pretty common knowledge wasn't it? So why are they now acting all surprised and let down? If I'd heard about it then I don't buy for one second that Holly or the others or the producers didn't know much more about their relationship. Feels like a real concerted effort to end his career, and makes me wonder what else is going on.

Grooming doesn't have an age limit, does it? Whilst he doesn't want to label it grooming himself, the behaviour that he has openly admitted to is quite clearly grooming.

As usual in this day and age, the hypocrisy was abound. Part of his shtick was taking the high moral ground 5 days a week, and taking the low ground away from the camera.

He is gay, and therefore higher up on the grievance ladder than a straight white male. Unfortunately for him, he is white and male, so his free passes ran out.

The position on the ladder is still getting himself softer treatment than someone who is at the bottom of the ladder, and perceived to have done something immoral.

Needs to put on a wig, and switch to Philippa.

PorcupineorPineapple 02 Jun 23 15:55 
Strange case this.

But the other thing. I can't be the only one who was aware he was seeing a much younger man pretty much as soon as he came out. It was pretty common knowledge wasn't it? So why are they now acting all surprised and let down? If I'd heard about it then I don't buy for one second that Holly or the others or the producers didn't know much more about their relationship

................

I remember them falling out at that time and read that it was because he'd had the lad 'promoted' to another show. Hearsay but sounds very plausible, I'm sure she knew.

To be honest, I don't know what he's admitted to. My interest is limited and I'm only writing now cos my mum was wittering on about it before.

As for grooming, surely the criminal definition of it has an age limit? I mean, it must surely. Again, no idea who came on to who, and if he led him on with promises or anything else but if the other guy was 20 then he's old enough to make his own decisions isn't he? It's a bit yucky but he was a grown man. Otherwise we just infantislise everyone and don't allow them to marry, work, drive a car etc till much later on. There has to be a distinction between childhood and adulthood that includes being responsible for your own decisions and twenty seems comfortably over the line.

But as saddo says, that's the main thing I'm interested in. Rich and powerful tv star has a relationship with a younger starstruck person. A tale as old as time. Who cares? There'll be another one along in a minute. Unless the lad was underage what's the point?

But the whole ITV crocodile tears-show going on right now is palpably a load of old arse. The relationship was well known. There's no way on earth the staff on the show didn't know about it. So why are they making such a big show of it now?

What is grooming in UK law?

Grooming is when a person builds a relationship with a child, young person or an adult who's at risk so they can abuse them and manipulate them into doing things. The abuse is usually sexual or financial, but it can also include other illegal acts.

Grooming - Metropolitan Police

Was that guy technically at risk?

What's the legal def for that btw? Would guess it's around mental capacity in some way or someone who's had a very traumatic childhood etc and they're emotionally damaged.

Phillip Schofield says homophobia has fuelled This Morning affair coverage ..

I've wrote on this thread, there's a reportable story in this but it's not worthy of the flooding of the media narrative for days, one that is set to continue.

As I alluded to, it can be equated to the me 2 stuff. All the people who were aggy about alleged abuse of power of men toward 'vulnerable' women and girls should be equally outraged about this.

Personally, I felt the whole mee 2 thing was vastly exaggerated. Attractiveness is a human currency, one that attractive women use to their advantage, willingly, and sometimes regret it afterwards. As you suggest, that type of exchange of currency is as old as the hills. Social media is not.

Obviously that does not excuse rape, physical abuse, financial abuse etc.

I can recall pre election, 2019 I believe some woman spoke to the media about Boris Johnson apparently touching her knee 20 odd years ago. Certainly, many people thought that crock of shyte was a actually big story. And his neighbours allegedly calling the old bill because they overheard shouting.

Boris Johnson’s first day at Conservative party conference as prime minister was overshadowed by allegations of sexual misbehaviour, as Downing Street was forced to deny allegations that he had groped a female journalist.

After days of revelations about his relationship with American tech entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri, whose company received a public grant, Johnson was accused of grabbing the thighs of two women at a lunch while he was editor of the Spectator magazine.

The Sunday Times journalist Charlotte Edwardes claimed that at a private lunch in 1999, Johnson groped her leg under a table, grabbing “enough inner flesh beneath his fingers” to make her “sit upright”. She also alleged that he did the same to another woman at the same event.

Downing Street initially declined to comment on Sunday; but after senior ministers were peppered with questions about the alleged incident, a No 10 spokesperson said: “The allegation is untrue.”

Sources said the quote related specifically to the allegation that Johnson put his hand on Edwardes’ knee.

this whole over analysis and pile on stems from the notion that people who work on TV are a "brand", just like the notion that corporations are a brand also when we all know all they care about is making money and their share price.
corporations can not deal with any criticism whatsoever in the media and since social media has taken over the whole world, brand management has gone into overdrive. corporations and celebrities will do anything to appease the activists. all the activists need to do is send some emails to corporations saying your advertising on a TV program that is "toxic".........the latter word is now being thrown around like the word "systemic"........holly is now being hammered as well. i dont know what exactly she did. i mean if two accountants are working together and one of them is having an affair with an intern is the other accountant somehow to blame as well?..........is this "innocent" accountant supposed to know all about the "guilty" accountants personal life?
philip is a brand, ITV is a brand and so are all the companies that advertise on "this morning".
its absolutely crazy. the evidence so far is that this affair was cosensual and legal.
we are not far off corporations dropping their advertising on certain football clubs because a player is having affairs with lots of different women when he is married. all the activists have to do to make this happen is bombard the corps with emails when a scandal happens. clubs will immediately comply by launching investigations and make statements about "their" values............
some people on here see philip as a lefty and therefore are biased with their analysis. none of us are angels. the whole thing is a total joke. the guy who did wrong is gone. hes been totally humiliated.
ITV and holly should now be left to get on with their business. maybe ITV should hire private investigators and have them follow all their employees around to see what they are getting up to.
is ITV part of the United nations or is it a broadcasting company?

PorcupineorPineapple 02 Jun 23 17:21 
Was that guy technically at risk?

..................

Holmes said the lad went through an awful lot of money and they were always getting him extra jobs. Made me wonder if he's on the gear.

Very sensible post from bdj

Why should Holly willowby be put under pressure from scum
who don’t give two hoots about the possible consequences of social media

Oh and one of those scum is Eamoon Holmes

This show spent the best part of two years trying to scare the sh1t out of any old biddies watching. And push people into hating those who where sensible enough not to rush for the needles.

Yep, pretty scummy.

Agreed Cider, That gadge of a doctor that was on there for many years convinced each and every viewer that no matter the concerns every jab was safe.
World renowned and respected epidemiologist views kicked aside for a shill GP sat on a tv sofa.

People lapped it up tbf

That Schofield has a few options move to Brighton and become a gay icon a say fck you im ok or go to Thailand or Vietnam and do the Gary Glitter thing

That’s the central issue around all of this; that based on experience deeper questions are being asked as to how appropriate all this was given what we now know about his brother, the two scenarios are at present different but not by much.

I saw Tim Minchin interviewed on the BBC about cancel culture, he said that the arguments from ultra progressives that state it doesn’t exist are clearly wrong, and that the toxicity has got out of control so as no longer simply affecting old pale stale males (god forbid criticism is over spilling onto other creeds and sexes)

Well Schofield is old pale male and stale, who happens also to be gay.

There's a 24 year age gap between Johnson and Carrie thingy.


Do you include him and all the other rich, straight, white men in your "scenario" or is it only reserved for gay people?

Palpably, if Schofield was not a closet gay, and this was a female child when he had first met and groomed, it would not be such a major story as ITV would not have covered up for him. His feet would not have touched the ground on the way out.

Being gay moves his position up the grievance ladder. Not unimpeachable, as he is also white and male, unfortunately for him. A bit too late to take up the gender bending route.

Carrie used the currency I discussed earlier, it is well documented that she targeted Boris, not the other way around. Neither of them was a child when the relationship developed, unless you know differently?

I wonder how Simon Cowell feels with all this going on, and ITV under such scrutiny.

Jesus, so so many prejudices and assumptions. What a world.

Porkie

The reference to scenario was that both have very similar elements, being that they were both gay in orientation, both with an adult and both with young boys.
We don’t know the true extent of the relationship as the guy hasn’t commented (yet?) but we do know his brother’s scenario involved coercion of a child…and that for some unknown reason Phillip knew about it. He has attempted to distance himself from the details of his brother’s actions, but then I also recall Philip say he was holding out on This Morning awaiting a new big offer of a job, that’s soon changed to accepting his career is over….what else is going to change?

I mean, just automatically pin the courtship on Carrie. Were you there? Johnson the innocent victim who just happened to be Foreign Secretary and in no way used his influence to attract her. Nope.

It's achingly obvious that you are inclined to be sympathetic to Schofield, even though you are attempting to appear ambivalent. It is equally obvious that if he was straight and it was a female child when they first connected, your view would be a lot different.

dw, it's a dilemma that most people who judge others primarily on their immutable characteristics face.

Your scenario is the old 80's homophobic trope that gay people have a connection with paedophilia that straight people don't. Which is obviously horseshit.


Going back to my 2+2=5 too. His brother's done it so...


I mean I actually think it's his brother that's behind the fallout. That's where this seemed to rip it open. He's damaged Phil and Holly's brand. That feels obvious. But it's the overreaction to this consensual and legal relationship. If the focus remained on the actual paedo and what Phil did or didn't know and ew, piss off etc that'd be fair enough. But the crocodile tears over Phil's relationship which I'm 100% certain they all knew about at the time is just clearly false. He's now being painted as a paedo himself to protect Holly's and ITV's reputation and that's a dangerous path imo. Of course there are enough idiots out there who do think 2+2=5 and do think gays are paedos - that much is clear - so this was always likely to spiral out of control.

cider - I deal in data and evidence. I bring that ethos into my own life. If there's evidence someone's done wrong then I'll happily join the pile on. But I like to question popular narratives and sniff out the bull, and this one stinks a bit to me.

What we know. They met when he was a teenager. Met once was it? He then started getting a job there and maybe some patronage when he was 20(?) and they started a relationship. I was aware that PS was having a rel with a much younger man back then, so it's incredibly doubtful the people there didn't. Couple of things have happened since - his brother, brouhaha over the funeral queue-jumping etc that have tarnished their brand. Now they're all acting like this rel is news to them and they're shocked and appalled.

I mean, it doesn't take much to notice where the dissonance is and where the reputation managers have stepped in does it?

Just so we can clarify your position PP. iyo, hypothetically is it ok for a 60 year old to develop on online relationship with a 14 year old. And they have physical interaction (sex) for the first time on the 16th birthday of the younger individual.

Y/N ?

'gay' or 'straight', male or female.

Ok, I think there's a difference between illegal and yucky/ok.




I think the relationship was poorly judged and potentially abusive due to the age gap and profile. He clearly shouldn't have done it. Again though, not the first to exploit this and won't be the last. Such is the life of the rich and powerful. Rules don't apply to them etc.


But was it illegal? Your stretching to "an online relationship with a 14-year old" is rocky ground. What rel was it? A fan email? Encouraging chats of how to get into the industry? Something far more sinister? Clearly there's a huge range where one side is perfectly innocent and the other is deeply unpleasant/potentially illegal. So maybe flesh that out if you want me to give more feedback.

And did they have sex on his 16th birthday? Is that out there? If so, that's awful. In the territory of the countdown to Charlotte Church turning 16 and the creepy weirdo on here posting pictures of some under age girl the other day. Again, if that's the case then it's dreadful. Is that confirmed?

I'm sorry, I would not be interacting online with a female (or male) child outside of my family, I'm aged 48. It would be extraordinarily inappropriate and shameful, even if it was deemed legal. And I do not have a huge public profile, nor do I spend my life preaching to millions of other people about how they should behave. Someone who polishes their halo in public should have higher standards than I do, whether that relates to formal law, or not.

There's plenty of circumstantial that the young
lad was groomed.

He was at a theatre group run by schofield mate
and there's a photo and if he was 15 he must
have had a very easy paper round as he looks no
more than 12 as do the other kids.

As above it's circumstantial and there is
an element of 2+2=5, or 2+2+2+2=9.

Having lied about what everybody seemed to know
then covering it up when he had the young man
removed from an event, at which the young man
was photographed with hooly after he was chucked
out, then the who knew what becomes more
Interesting.

These folk build profile to increase their
marketability value, so they spend fortunes
maintaining reputation.

Schofield been paying a company fortunes to
get rumours deleted, as the rumour goes.

Hey ho...

Porkie

You only know up to now what Schofield has declared, while at the same time finally admitted to concealing the truth.
I’m not saying Schofield is the same as his brother, what I am saying is there’s justification to find out.
My query that I’ve made on here is if, as we now know he did know about his brother, did he report him for what a court sentenced him to 12 years for?
If he didn’t, why didn’t he?

He’s also paying for this guy’s solicitor fees who are clearly advising him.
Until he speaks we will only have conjecture, but even knowing what we now know it’s getting more and more uncomfortable.

The legality of anything relating to this case is unknown, to my knowledge. That's really separate. Perhaps there will be a formal police investigation, since the public exposure, I do not know.

The scrutiny at this very moment is about ITV's actions, rather than Schofield's personal misjudgements.

Jun 3, 2023 -- 11:45AM, Cider wrote:

I'm sorry, I would not be interacting online with a female (or male) child outside of my family, I'm aged 48. It would be extraordinarily inappropriate and shameful, even if it was deemed legal. And I do not have a huge public profile, nor do I spend my life preaching to millions of other people about how they should behave. Someone who polishes their halo in public should have higher standards than I do, whether that relates to formal law, or not.

Again, interacting is such a vague phrase. People in the public eye often do mentoring. It's overwhelmingly a very good thing. If you actually have any substance to what those interactions were, or proof of the 16th birthday thing (I mean, you do have form for believing random sh!t off the internet) then I might be encouraged to join in. But so far all I'm hearing from you is baseless rumour and prejudice and that's the kind of stuff that I just love to burst.

Jun 3, 2023 -- 11:51AM, dustybin wrote:

PorkieYou only know up to now what Schofield has declared, while at the same time finally admitted to concealing the truth.I’m not saying Schofield is the same as his brother, what I am saying is there’s justification to find out.My query that I’ve made on here is if, as we now know he did know about his brother, did he report him for what a court sentenced him to 12 years for?If he didn’t, why didn’t he?He’s also paying for this guy’s solicitor fees who are clearly advising him.Until he speaks we will only have conjecture, but even knowing what we now know it’s getting more and more uncomfortable.

See, I'd agree with the first bit of that. (second bit seems to just be wandering into rumour mill territory though). If the focus is on what he knew about his brother then I think that's a legitimate question.


I just find these "revelations" to be a distraction from that. ITV acting all shocked and forcing him out for that instead. Smells like bull to me. Do him for him covering up for his brother if he did, but doing him for a consensual relationship with another adult? Eh? Either get evidence that he groomed him and sack him after that or you sack everyone who has an adult relationship.

If you do mentoring you have extra responsibility
and should not take advantage of them.

Your mentoring is free of charge and you should
be aware that youngsters may form an attraction
to you.

Billy Graham - the evangelist - had a rule
from his early days that he would not meet alone
or travel alone , or dine alone with a woman other than his wife …

He was years ahead of his time it seems

Made these promises in 1948

An early grifter, didn't want to be blackmailed.

Now Schofield is playing the suicide card, makes me think there's someone who has something else on him.

I'd agree donny, it's very dodgy. I (we?) don't know the details of the timescales involved but clearly he shouldn't have done it. Think that's not a controversial thought and shared by most. My interst is in ITV's fake reaction. That's the more interesting bit to me.

I wouldn't mind someone 'mentoring' me!!

It was to guard against any false allegations , or temptations

Again, interacting is such a vague phrase. People in the public eye often do mentoring. It's overwhelmingly a very good thing. If you actually have any substance to what those interactions were, or proof of the 16th birthday thing (I mean, you do have form for believing random sh!t off the internet) then I might be encouraged to join in. But so far all I'm hearing from you is baseless rumour and prejudice and that's the kind of stuff that I just love to burst.

Do you understand what the word hypothetical means?

Ok, in this specific case, if that's the type of thing he does, there must be several kids who Schofield 'mentored' who went to go on and work on his show, appear on the stage at award shows with him, and had ITV paid for taxis to and from from his property. Only they need to come forward, or Schofield needs to explain that there was multiple children he gave this type of attention to, for 'free'. And that it developed into a physical relationship was a mere coincidence.

If you believe this scenario, I also have some Florida swamp land to sell you.

As it goes, the boy turned man got free use of the This Morning set to add to his show reel. So we just need to see the other 'mentored' individuals that benefited from this level of phil anthropy.

Well hypothetical seems to mean irrelevant in this case. It either happened in the way you're alluding or it didn't happen at all. I don't believe every rumour I read on the internet though. I mean I could start a cider thread and make an identical post. Some people might think I was accusing you of doing it but I could just point them to the H word and so it'd all be ok.


Again though, I'm not massively interested in the case. Rich star abuses his power. Wow. How novel. Never seen it before. Really hope it's on the front page of the Sundays again. Can't wait to read even more about it.
But I just find the narrative around the sacking and reasons around it really interesting and worth exploring. Just as it's very valid to question how much Schofield knew about his brother's actions then we should be asking how much the Itv staff knew about Phil's relationship if they now think it was so horrendous. They seem desperate to just pin it on him and all escape scot free and carry on without a blemish on their reputations. It'll be interesting to see if it holds up.

Well said Cider.

Is it too late to post this? It's very funny if you haven't see it.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5l_a4cIdHnw

Who is ''the runner'' in that video?