Phillip schofield

Reported

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Agree GSM what more could be done

Germanshepherdsmum

Beyond questioning the employees, what further investigation do you expect an employer to undertake if both deny the allegations? Put them on the rack until they confess?

👏🏻👏🏻

This is from the BBC News transcript of the questioning tickingbird

'Person X' asked about rumours of relationship 12 times

Dame Carolyn has just been asked about an earlier mention of "person X" being asked about the affair 12 times, and whether that amounts to an interrogation.

The questions were asked over a long period of time, she says, "not in one go".

There were a couple of formal meetings had with HR, but there were multiple informal meetings.

"The motive was to help person X" as the rumours were rife with inappropriateness at the time, which is why he was asked.

He had a good relationship with someone in production he trusts, Dame Carolyn says, and this person was the one saying "if we can help, please say anything".

Beyond questioning the employees, what further investigation do you expect an employer to undertake if both deny the allegations? Put them on the rack until they confess?

She admitted there hadn’t been a proper investigation. Just as Eamonn Holmes said, it amounted to asking PS and the young man. Both replied No and that was the extent of it. Good job the police don’t take that approach.

I’ve just watched Dame Carolyn McCall’s questions at Westminster. I thought she was impressive under pressure and was able to provide answers.

Doodledog

If people read the thread they would see that it is not about a workplace ‘affair’, or the inevitable lies that surround them.

This

If people read the thread they would see that it is not about a workplace ‘affair’, or the inevitable lies that surround them.

As both our current King, and former Prime Minister had affairs, and (probably) lied about them, am I being particularly dense in being totally bewildered in what all this fuss is about.

Do people who have extra-marital affairs normally inform their work bossses of whaht they are doing? Do these people not lie to friends, family and ciolleaues (and probably themselves) as to what they are doing???

BUT...... (perhaps I am being very cynical), but, , at a time of severe hardship in our country, children going hungry, thousands being made homeless, deep, deep fianncial problems, no proper health treatment , mental illness on the increase - but the 'news'papers can concentrate on this nonstory and take ourminds of reality.

First, let me admit that I haven't read the thread, as I am not interested in all the current shenanigans.

However, the thing I remember about Philip Schofield is from the days when he and Gordon the Gopher presented BBC1 children's programmes. For some reason, one day the programmes were moved to BBC2, and Philip and Gordon both appeared in dinner jackets, which I thought was both clever and very funny. Does anyone else remember that?

(Of course, as I haven't RTFT, perhaps someone has already mentioned that!)

NanaDana, I wasn’t speculating. I’ve been involved in a discussion about safeguarding. The discussion was initiated after a very famous day time tv presenter resigned, his resignation followed publicity about a relationship he had which he described as unwise but not illegal.
Interesting way to describe any relationship imo. He’s subsequently added it was exciting, the young man he had sex with a few times was no mite than a mate. The young man had announced his love for the tv presenter, when in a tired and emotional state at tv awards

Gossamerbeynon1945

"Let he who is without sin, caste the
first stone"

a bit late, that's been said over and over again!

I don't think a sin has been committed as it happens, nor a crime.

it's an 'in the workplace' situation where the bosses of ITV are fallen short in their responsibilities to 'all' staff not just one.

"Let he who is without sin, caste the
first stone"

Doodledog

We'll just have to agree to differ then?

Yes, let's do that. Hope that the sun is shining on your side of the barricade. It certainly is here, at long last..

We'll just have to agree to differ then?

Doodledog

*You're entirely missing my point, Doodledog. .. or perhaps even choosing to.*
No, I'm not deliberately missing your point (why would I do that?), but you have ignored my questions about why you think this is in the news.

All I have ever said is that "I don't know" if PS is guilty of anything more than what he has already admitted to, and neither does anyone else on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand that?
It's perfectly easy to understand. But are you aware of the other accusations, and of the reach of YMU? Do you know how the PR industry is enmeshed with the media, and how one drives the other? The nature of this case is that on on side there is someone who has/had a lot of power when it comes to hiring and firing, who is/was represented by an agency which is incredibly powerful when it comes to progressing or killing the careers of people in the media. Even if Schofield is no longer represented by them, his daughter works for them. They don't just have power over those on their books. If they want to, they can veto any of their clients working with someone, which would kill their career dead, with no comeback whatsoever.

On the other are young people who are desperate to break into a TV career, and also people who already do, but who want to continue their careers. Can't you see the imbalance of power there, and how difficult it would be for people to speak out? Those who have done so (eg Eamonn Holmes) are pretty much outside of the mainstream now, partly because of a poor relationship with Schofield. He has little to lose. What are the odds on someone who hopes for an ongoing career in TV coming forward?

Yes, there is to be an allegedly independent inquiry by a Barrister, but short of either one of the two who are directly involved giving evidence, which seems unlikely from what we have heard so far, how likely are we ever to hear the truth?
And that is the big question. If we are unlikely to hear the truth, how can justice be done, and how do we stop the 'alleged' issues from arising again? That is why this case is important.

And unless criminal charges are appropriate.. which again seems most unlikely.. what does it matter anyway?
It seems unlikely that criminal charges will be brought by the runner, for all sorts of reasons, but it matters if you believe in safeguarding, and in preventing corruption in such a powerful industry as mainstream TV.

As for asides asking me "why post if this thread isn't to your taste?", that is such a risible standpoint, it's hardly worth an acknowledgement. So we should only comment on threads with which we are in total agreement? Some debate, then, eh? More of a mutual admiration society. Daft... IMHO
No idea about the mutual admiration society, but I'll leave the poster who made that point to answer.

An interesting read, Doodledog, but nothing that you have said, or to be more accurate, alleged, changes my basic standpoint, or indeed moves the argument any nearer to producing a factually based, truthful answer to the question of what PS has actually done. I also doubt that much of what you are claiming would be admissible as evidence in a court of law without affirmation by someone who was actually in a position to provide first hand confirmation of veracity. Primary evidence. So yes, I also believe in safeguarding, am against all forms of corruption, and am fully aware of how witnesses may be reluctant to step forward for fear of damaging their careers. However, I also believe in the basic premise of British justice that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. I am still waiting to see such proof where PS is concerned, and until I do, will remain firmly in the "don't know" camp. As to your assertion that the fact that "this is even in the news" has some significance as regards its credibility, when did the truth ever dissuade the press from capitalising on a "good story". So many examples out there. Cliff Richards, Paul Gambaccini, Christopher Jefferies, the so-called Bristol murderer. There are many others. I could ask exactly the same question as to why these were in the news, and my answer would still be the same. Trial by media is never justifiable. It can work both ways, by not only risking that an accused may not get a fair trial, but also by providing an opportunity for the truly guilty to escape trial altogether. So "lose/lose" all round.

You're entirely missing my point, Doodledog. .. or perhaps even choosing to.
No, I'm not deliberately missing your point (why would I do that?), but you have ignored my questions about why you think this is in the news.

All I have ever said is that "I don't know" if PS is guilty of anything more than what he has already admitted to, and neither does anyone else on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand that?
It's perfectly easy to understand. But are you aware of the other accusations, and of the reach of YMU? Do you know how the PR industry is enmeshed with the media, and how one drives the other? The nature of this case is that on on side there is someone who has/had a lot of power when it comes to hiring and firing, who is/was represented by an agency which is incredibly powerful when it comes to progressing or killing the careers of people in the media. Even if Schofield is no longer represented by them, his daughter works for them. They don't just have power over those on their books. If they want to, they can veto any of their clients working with someone, which would kill their career dead, with no comeback whatsoever.

On the other are young people who are desperate to break into a TV career, and also people who already do, but who want to continue their careers. Can't you see the imbalance of power there, and how difficult it would be for people to speak out? Those who have done so (eg Eamonn Holmes) are pretty much outside of the mainstream now, partly because of a poor relationship with Schofield. He has little to lose. What are the odds on someone who hopes for an ongoing career in TV coming forward?

Yes, there is to be an allegedly independent inquiry by a Barrister, but short of either one of the two who are directly involved giving evidence, which seems unlikely from what we have heard so far, how likely are we ever to hear the truth?
And that is the big question. If we are unlikely to hear the truth, how can justice be done, and how do we stop the 'alleged' issues from arising again? That is why this case is important.

And unless criminal charges are appropriate.. which again seems most unlikely.. what does it matter anyway?
It seems unlikely that criminal charges will be brought by the runner, for all sorts of reasons, but it matters if you believe in safeguarding, and in preventing corruption in such a powerful industry as mainstream TV.

As for asides asking me "why post if this thread isn't to your taste?", that is such a risible standpoint, it's hardly worth an acknowledgement. So we should only comment on threads with which we are in total agreement? Some debate, then, eh? More of a mutual admiration society. Daft... IMHO
No idea about the mutual admiration society, but I'll leave the poster who made that point to answer.

fancythat

NanaDana

Callistemon21

There are plenty of facts on here, NanaDana

Other than PS had a sexual relationship with a younger, adult male work colleague, admitted adultery and lying about it to his wife, his friends, and his work colleagues, and then resigned from ITV. Do please tell me what additional "facts" I may have missed..

Not for the first time, ITV may have been delerict in it's duty of care/safeguarding.
Which has gone before some government committee or other.

Absolutely no problem with "may have been", fancythat. A refreshing acknowledgement that we don't actually know whether they were or were not.. yet..

Doodledog

Have you had your thesaurus out, NanaDada? .

May I ask you (or anyone) who thinks this is just 'speculation, hearsay, rumour, gossip, conjecture, innuendo, supposition, insinuation, suspicion, surmise, and good old-fashioned scuttlebutt' why they think that a very high profile person lost his job, his 'best friend', and his agent, why there is a major inquiry under way, involving ITV bosses, and why so many people are making accusations against him if all he has done is have an affair?

How many celebrities have affairs? How many are gay? Who cares? Nobody is expected to discuss their sex lives with their boss, or their friends, so why is this case hanging on the fact that Schofield lied? What do you think he lied about and why does it matter? Why has this suddenly become news?

You're entirely missing my point, Doodledog. .. or perhaps even choosing to. All I have ever said is that "I don't know" if PS is guilty of anything more than what he has already admitted to, and neither does anyone else on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand that? Yes, there is to be an allegedly independent inquiry by a Barrister, but short of either one of the two who are directly involved giving evidence, which seems unlikely from what we have heard so far, how likely are we ever to hear the truth? And unless criminal charges are appropriate.. which again seems most unlikely.. what does it matter anyway?
As for asides asking me "why post if this thread isn't to your taste?", that is such a risible standpoint, it's hardly worth an acknowledgement. So we should only comment on threads with which we are in total agreement? Some debate, then, eh? More of a mutual admiration society. Daft... IMHO..

NanaDana

Callistemon21

There are plenty of facts on here, NanaDana

Other than PS had a sexual relationship with a younger, adult male work colleague, admitted adultery and lying about it to his wife, his friends, and his work colleagues, and then resigned from ITV. Do please tell me what additional "facts" I may have missed..

Not for the first time, ITV may have been delerict in it's duty of care/safeguarding.
Which has gone before some government committee or other.

Have you had your thesaurus out, NanaDada? .

May I ask you (or anyone) who thinks this is just 'speculation, hearsay, rumour, gossip, conjecture, innuendo, supposition, insinuation, suspicion, surmise, and good old-fashioned scuttlebutt' why they think that a very high profile person lost his job, his 'best friend', and his agent, why there is a major inquiry under way, involving ITV bosses, and why so many people are making accusations against him if all he has done is have an affair?

How many celebrities have affairs? How many are gay? Who cares? Nobody is expected to discuss their sex lives with their boss, or their friends, so why is this case hanging on the fact that Schofield lied? What do you think he lied about and why does it matter? Why has this suddenly become news?