Phillip schofield

Anniebach

She hanged herself in February, was to appear in court in March

Annie, with all due respect, this logic suggests that anyone threatening suicide should not be tried in court.

Blackmail is blackmail, and should not be indulged.

I don't know a lot about the CF case, but my understanding is that she was a very troubled woman who took her life because of the impending court case, brought against her for domestic violence. It's very sad, but nothing to do with the Schofield case, which is about something different entirely.

Germanshepherdsmum

People often say, based on media publicity, that someone won’t get a fair trial. If they were to sit in court and watch a trial by jury, the way evidence is presented and people are cross-examined, they would realise that things in a courtroom look very different to sensationalist news items and social media gossip.

Unfortunately the European Court of Human Rights don't agree with you, GSM. I thought you had some legal background, or am I thinking of someone else? In considering the issue of excessive media coverage of a case, the ECHR have formally ruled that such coverage can indeed breach the right to a fair trial. They also state that " an extremely negative press campaign ... may affect the fairness of the trial and the impartiality of the jury". I think that's clear enough.

NanaDana thanks, I did read that.
I didn’t think that there was anything ageist at all about it.
But it’s very easy to interpret things differently, especially when it’s solely the written word - so I’m not going to ‘disagree’ with you, as I don’t know what the poster actually meant (I can’t recall who it was)

I get that point, however its an invitation to make a huge media circus so it cant come to court in that case?

JaneJudge

Galaxy

I think we have to explore really difficult topics. When is having a relationship with a young person who you knew at 15 ok? We should as a society be able to talk about those issues.
Is what woody allan did ok? Should we not talk about that.
I am not comparing the two I just think if we dont talk about moral issues relating to power and young people we let them down.

I agree with you.

I really, really agree with this. When does an especially good relationship with a teacher or social worker or therapist- needful for the 15 year old - cross the boundary?

Its not enough to say, "touch" because although that is a no go boundary, emotional boundaries can be just as significant.

Teacher, social worker, therapist !

I agree Galaxy. Wyllow’s point about teacher, social worker, therapist applies to football coach or workplace mentor as well. Especially in the heady atmosphere of tv

I'm pursuing the line of thought that it gets difficult is whenthere are children growing up without enough support and can be very unhappy and at sea and a good relationship with the teacher/coach can make all the difference.

Its defining the boundaries.

I dont know how on earth we change society so that male predators (and I mean small scale ones, not "pure evil" ones) think its OK to cross lines. Thats why we need more discussion about what those lines are.

I am well aware of the decision of the ECHR NanaDana, but I think you missed the point of my post. I assume you have not followed the presentation of evidence and cross examination in a UK court and witnessed how a case that seems ‘open and shut’ on the evidence before the general public turns out to be anything but as the case unfolds. In any event, talk of a fair trial is somewhat premature when there is no evidence of criminality.

I think the 'poor Phil' narrative is forgetting the boy in the case. PS has a flat, which I gather is up for sale for £1.2m, a house worth far more, a place in Portugal adjoining Holly's (reputedly worth £8m) and millions in the bank. He is 61 - an age when many people are looking to retire with far less behind them. He could walk away and have a life that most of us could only dream of.

The boy is in his 20s, has no job, a 'reason to need a lot of money in his life' according to Eamonn Holmes, and may struggle to get work in TV again.

Whatever people may think about 'trial by media', which this is not - it has just been people saying that PS was difficult to work with and that he had an inappropriate relationship with a much younger man - any sympathy going should surely be for him?

Is it possible to discuss moral issues on this thread , so many accusations without a scrape of evidence

Yes I'd rather discuss it in theory as it were - I've made no comments on PS or the case as its a complex muddled media hype!

If you mean my post above there are no accusations and there is plenty of evidence, including Schofield's statement.

Doodledog

I think the 'poor Phil' narrative is forgetting the boy in the case. PS has a flat, which I gather is up for sale for £1.2m, a house worth far more, a place in Portugal adjoining Holly's (reputedly worth £8m) and millions in the bank. He is 61 - an age when many people are looking to retire with far less behind them. He could walk away and have a life that most of us could only dream of.

The boy is in his 20s, has no job, a 'reason to need a lot of money in his life' according to Eamonn Holmes, and may struggle to get work in TV again.

Whatever people may think about 'trial by media', which this is not - it has just been people saying that PS was difficult to work with and that he had an inappropriate relationship with a much younger man - any sympathy going should surely be for him?

I agree Doodledog. The young man seems to have been used and cast aside at a time when he could reasonably have expected to have been starting to make an exciting career for himself. I don’t know if he has any qualifications to enable him to make a fresh start, but probably not.

Germanshepherdsmum

I am well aware of the decision of the ECHR NanaDana, but I think you missed the point of my post. I assume you have not followed the presentation of evidence and cross examination in a UK court and witnessed how a case that seems ‘open and shut’ on the evidence before the general public turns out to be anything but as the case unfolds. In any event, talk of a fair trial is somewhat premature when there is no evidence of criminality.

I would suggest that anyone reading your words could be forgiven for thinking that you were trying to play down the potential negative impact of media reporting on a fair trial. Frankly, I can't see any other way of reading it, regardless of what you actually intended to convey. I'm not going to quote it again in its entirety, but that's certainly how I interpreted it. Also, referring to cross examination and presentation of evidence changes nothing. Bias and negative influence still remain what they are, and that's exactly why the ECHR are concerned about undue media influence. As for it being too early to talk about a trial, I didn't bring it up. I also happen to be one of those who has been careful to withhold judgement until, if and when, any criminal charges are heard. If they do arise, the press feeding frenzy to date will most certainly not help.

Germanshepherdsmum

Doodledog

I think the 'poor Phil' narrative is forgetting the boy in the case. PS has a flat, which I gather is up for sale for £1.2m, a house worth far more, a place in Portugal adjoining Holly's (reputedly worth £8m) and millions in the bank. He is 61 - an age when many people are looking to retire with far less behind them. He could walk away and have a life that most of us could only dream of.

The boy is in his 20s, has no job, a 'reason to need a lot of money in his life' according to Eamonn Holmes, and may struggle to get work in TV again.

Whatever people may think about 'trial by media', which this is not - it has just been people saying that PS was difficult to work with and that he had an inappropriate relationship with a much younger man - any sympathy going should surely be for him?

I agree Doodledog. The young man seems to have been used and cast aside at a time when he could reasonably have expected to have been starting to make an exciting career for himself. I don’t know if he has any qualifications to enable him to make a fresh start, but probably not.

But actually, you have no idea about what the young man’s perspective is. You don’t know that he isn’t working, or that he didn’t voluntarily leave TV, or that he wasn’t the instigator rather than PS, or that he was groomed, or that he feels aggrieved. Whatever he feels, I’m sure he is desperate for everybody to stop taking his name in vain. None of this is in the public domain. Until and unless he puts his point of view forward, why are you wasting your energy speculating?

Casdon as always facts , thank you

Up until recently MM was working in a pub after leaving ITV.

FannyCornforth

Up until recently MM was working in a pub after leaving ITV.

But elsewhere it says he’s working on Steph’s Packed Lunch. 🤷‍♀️

Just to get things in context as regards Philip Schofield’s situation, if I were unfortunate enough to be in his shoes, if, and it’s a big if from what I’ve seen and heard to date, he ever comes to trial for some alleged criminality, I would most certainly be expecting my defence lawyer to play every “trial by media” card in the book. Vultures on fenceposts, feeding frenzy, blood in the water, all mud sticks, Les Tricoteuses, comparisons with Savile, Harris et al.. you name it. I’d expect to hear the lot, and some. If my lawyer was reluctant to play that handful of potential trumps, I’d most certainly be looking for different representation. From what we’ve seen to date, whether he is guilty or is innocent of anything at all, the media (and social media) circus which has surrounded his case and some of the decidedly prurient reporting and comment mean that justice is unlikely to be properly served, whatever the outcome. Retrials or even case dismissals are not unknown in such circumstances, and the media have even found themselves charged with contempt of court or of interference with due legal process. So what does all this undue attention achieve? Lose/lose for everyone involved.. My bottom line remains, we’ve seen no charges yet, and until that happens and they are ruled on in court, I will reserve judgment.

Casdon
Your post makes a lot of sense. We don’t know what MM feels. Does he want to be known as the man who had an affair with PS?

So many rumours! Ive read that the young man is working for Gordon Ramsay's production company and doing just fine.

NanaDana

Just to get things in context as regards Philip Schofield’s situation, if I were unfortunate enough to be in his shoes, if, and it’s a big if from what I’ve seen and heard to date, he ever comes to trial for some alleged criminality, I would most certainly be expecting my defence lawyer to play every “trial by media” card in the book. Vultures on fenceposts, feeding frenzy, blood in the water, all mud sticks, Les Tricoteuses, comparisons with Savile, Harris et al.. you name it. I’d expect to hear the lot, and some. If my lawyer was reluctant to play that handful of potential trumps, I’d most certainly be looking for different representation. From what we’ve seen to date, whether he is guilty or is innocent of anything at all, the media (and social media) circus which has surrounded his case and some of the decidedly prurient reporting and comment mean that justice is unlikely to be properly served, whatever the outcome. Retrials or even case dismissals are not unknown in such circumstances, and the media have even found themselves charged with contempt of court or of interference with due legal process. So what does all this undue attention achieve? Lose/lose for everyone involved.. My bottom line remains, we’ve seen no charges yet, and until that happens and they are ruled on in court, I will reserve judgment.

There will be no trial without sufficient evidence of grooming and/or underage sex. There is no such evidence in the public domain as far as I know. I have read nothing about this matter other than on this thread and have avoided so far as possible mentions on the news.

I was fortunate to meet Lord Denning and other judges many years ago. I recall them saying that they simply didn’t read newspapers or watch television. A somewhat rarefied world. Naturally the same cannot be expected of jurors but I respect their ability to think for themselves and make decisions based on what they hear in the courtroom.

Precisely Casdon. Far too much speculation on here about what may or may not have happened. It’s time the media, and social media, dropped it. If and when the police press charges then we can all speculate again.
My initial post on this subject said that this story has been hyped up by the media and I stand by that. I was jumped on by others saying that grooming was an issue possibly and the young person involved may have been underage.
It’s all speculation. We have no proof of anything illegal. We don’t know.
If the police decide to act, then something illegal has happened. Otherwise, it’s speculation and we don’t know.

We can’t speculate if charges are brought, maddy - that would be contempt of court. Until then, I agree - we know of nothing illegal having happened.