Phillip schofield

Legally he has done nothing wrong. He has lost his job, won’t be able to work on tv again I don’t suppose. He and the system is being investigated. His family must be mortified. Cannot people just leave it at that. I read how he and Holly, made guests feel insignificant and were unkind, both of them. Not pleasant people, but time to look at other news.

Well said Doodledog
NanaDana - your contributions seem aimed at criticising GSM rather than adding anything constrictive to what is at times an unnecessarily heated debate

Doodledog

I think that it is very unlikely that there will be charges brought about Schofield's relationship with the runner. It remains to be seen whether charges based on other matters will be filed, and if there are any, I doubt we will hear much about it until they happen.

As for my speculating about the boy's feelings - how is that different from the speculation about how terrible Schofield is feeling? All we know is that he has had meetings with his mum - once where they walked in a field with his mum using her Zimmer, and the other when they sat in a car (both times just as paparazzi happened to be walking by with cameras), and that he was allowed the opportunity to put his case in interviews with the BBC and the Sun newspaper, in which he says that he is on the brink of suicide. Weren't those photos and interviews likely to prejudice any trial?

If we can speculate about how true Schofield's story is, why is speculating that the boy must also be feeling bad somehow worse?

Because by your account he is the victim, is vulnerable and doesn’t deserve to have his life exposed all over the media and social media.

I think that it is very unlikely that there will be charges brought about Schofield's relationship with the runner. It remains to be seen whether charges based on other matters will be filed, and if there are any, I doubt we will hear much about it until they happen.

As for my speculating about the boy's feelings - how is that different from the speculation about how terrible Schofield is feeling? All we know is that he has had meetings with his mum - once where they walked in a field with his mum using her Zimmer, and the other when they sat in a car (both times just as paparazzi happened to be walking by with cameras), and that he was allowed the opportunity to put his case in interviews with the BBC and the Sun newspaper, in which he says that he is on the brink of suicide. Weren't those photos and interviews likely to prejudice any trial?

If we can speculate about how true Schofield's story is, why is speculating that the boy must also be feeling bad somehow worse?

Germanshepherdsmum

You seem to have a problem with me and my career NanaDana. I have said nothing about ‘who did or said what’ other than to comment here on what others have said. I assure you that his lordship would not be revolving at what I have said, though I have no doubt he would not approve of social media - and I wouldn’t be posting here were I still practising. Perhaps you should examine my posts more carefully. ‘Accusatory stuff’? Really?

No, I don't have a problem either with you or your career. Why would I? I don't even know you. I'm merely surprised that you, particularly so as a lawyer, admit that all your comment on the case is based entirely on what you've read here on social media, a medium of which your "Lord Denning" would not approve. You then don't appear to believe that this limits both the credibility and the credentials of some of the judgmental, and yes, accusatory statements you have made about the case. Whether or not you originated the statement or merely "commented on what others have said" is totally irrelevant, and it is disingenuous to even suggest that this somehow makes a difference. To associate yourself with, and in some cases reinforce such statements, many of which are pure, unsubstantiated speculation, is your own choice, and those are your own words. So don't be surprised to find that a number of contributors here, myself included, have chosen to challenge you on occasion, and may no doubt continue to do so if any further examples of unsubstantiated "trial by social media" emerge. As for examining your posts more carefully for examples of "accusatory stuff", I've already commented on those, as have others, so why would that need to be revisited?

Thanks Casdon for acknowledging my point of view.

Iam64

Once again, the police are not investigating. There’s been no complaint of illegal activity. That does not and should not stop the discussion about whether someone in the position of teacher, social worker, tv mentor, sports coach who first meets someone aged 15 is wise to develop a sexual relationship when it becomes ‘legal’
Anyone who has supported adults who much later feel brave enough to name what happened to them as abuse will recognise this.

I agree Iam64, that’s important. It just shouldn’t be hung around PS neck that he is personally guilty until we know that he is from the young man involved, or from others if there are some, and some people on this thread are doing that without any evidence (not you).

Once again, the police are not investigating. There’s been no complaint of illegal activity. That does not and should not stop the discussion about whether someone in the position of teacher, social worker, tv mentor, sports coach who first meets someone aged 15 is wise to develop a sexual relationship when it becomes ‘legal’
Anyone who has supported adults who much later feel brave enough to name what happened to them as abuse will recognise this.

You seem to have a problem with me and my career NanaDana. I have said nothing about ‘who did or said what’ other than to comment here on what others have said. I assure you that his lordship would not be revolving at what I have said, though I have no doubt he would not approve of social media - and I wouldn’t be posting here were I still practising. Perhaps you should examine my posts more carefully. ‘Accusatory stuff’? Really?

German Shepherd's Mum: You say : "I have read nothing about this matter other than on this thread and have avoided so far as possible mentions on the news." Really? I find that amazing, bearing in mind some of the statements you have made regarding what you think about who did what/said what/and who was "used and cast aside" etc. I thought it was at least based on something from some of the more responsible media. So you're basing all your accusatory stuff on what you've read here. Wow. And you're a lawyer? I suspect that the rightly revered late Lord Denning would be revolving at some rate based on the total absence of any evidence in your findings... Excuse my slightly disrespectful tone, but I am truly astounded.

This man is a disgrace he had led a life based on lies and deseat.
He was a man who lead a very privileged lifestyle and had it all at his feet only to want more more more.
Now he has lost everything let that be a lesson to others be happy with what you have,
The grass is never greener ......

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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. 🤷‍♀️

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

Casdon as always facts , thank you

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?

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.

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.

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

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!