is for several false accusers who fancy making several thousand quid each to go to police (and media) claiming they were under 16 when they met Phil and that something happened. True or false; end of career; possible prosecution ("just like his brother"); possible conviction; possible suicide; great stories for the media; large cheques for exclusive interviews (with "victims" who "will be believed")... it is all so predictable.

I wonder whether his brother will then say "I no longer have a brother"?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212965...ngulf-ITV-brass.html

STUPID! What on earth was wrong with having a relationship or lying about it??? Phil has really handled this SOOOOO badly.

If Max Clifford was around now advising the many "victims" he'd tell them - DON'T go to media yet; go to police and we'll cash in on media after he's convicted".

And it will be a 'win win' situation for the complainant.

If someone goes to the police and the accused stands trial based on their testimony, even if it is a pack of lies, they stand to gain thousands in compensation and from subsequent media interviews if the accused is found guilty.

If the accused is not found guilty, they can go to the press anyway and tell 'their truth', even if it is the aforementioned pack of lies, and be paid for their interviews.

False allegations pay. It shouldn't be like this.

What is awful is that all MSM Editors turn a blind eye to the crime of False Allegations so they can run the "he raped me too when I was 12"stories (knowing they are lies). Kelvin may not have been the Scouse Man of the Decade (through believing police when they lied about fan behaviour) but Scousers (I love them all; who could not in the music industry of the 60s?) got it wrong. Bent cops not bent editors. Kelvin would have been onto False Accusers within seconds. Now only Wright and Dacre at the Mail dare do so.

But Sheba, it's a great story. That's all that matters to the media and to justice and Government (both run by media).

I just hope, when Phil is sharing a cell with his brother for a few decades, he doesn't regret his comments about "I have no brother".

Well said, Sheba.

JK2006 wrote:
STUPID! What on earth was wrong with having a relationship or lying about it??? Phil has really handled this SOOOOO badly.
I think it was wrong to cheat on his wife and lie to his employer, if lying hurt their business.

Jo wrote:


I think it was wrong to cheat on his wife and lie to his employer, if lying hurt their business.

But what does "wrong" mean Jo?

How do we know his wife wasn't cold and cruel and he sought love elsewhere? Is that "wrong"? Perhaps, but why? Perhaps his wife always knew anyway? Perhaps Philip endured decades of domestic abuse? Is it wrong to lie to an employer if it is likely because of media pressure that they will drop him for legal activity?

I have no idea about any of this, just using a creative nose. But neither do you; or any of us. This is the only reasonable position to take.

Because if one is willing to make judgments based on media reports, then one loses authority in other cases where one is believing them "wrong" (like you do with Rolf).

The "truth" is the media is amoral and entirely self-intetested. As such, they are as likely to hit a vein of truth as lies.

We can't have it all ways on this site.

Thank you WYOT for putting forward just a few of the possible alternative possibilities. The fact is that Schofield has made some serious mistakes - having been created by the media and not spotting how they work - and will sadly pay the price.

That's just my personal opinion on infidelity, Wyot, an opinion I'm entitled to, as you are to yours. I think Rolf Harris was also wrong in that regard. (And it was from the media - including a TV interview with an accuser with a story which had multiple echoes of a story told in an earlier TV interview with a Savile accuser, including MWT's tweet - that I formed doubts and drew conclusions about the accusations he was facing and how the investigation was being conducted; I wasn't in court.) It's not just the media reports which are claiming second-hand that Phillip Schofield lied to ITV, he has admitted to that in his statement, and if it's correct that their business and possibly colleagues' careers suffer because of it, then I don't think he should have done that, though he was entitled to and I can understand why. But I hope that he does not face false allegations and that all this settles down and he, his family and the man he was involved with are allowed to reclaim their lives in peace.

Wyot wrote:
Jo wrote:


I think it was wrong to cheat on his wife and lie to his employer, if lying hurt their business.

But what does "wrong" mean Jo?

How do we know his wife wasn't cold and cruel and he sought love elsewhere? Is that "wrong"? Perhaps, but why? Perhaps his wife always knew anyway? Perhaps Philip endured decades of domestic abuse? Is it wrong to lie to an employer if it is likely because of media pressure that they will drop him for legal activity?

I have no idea about any of this, just using a creative nose. But neither do you; or any of us. This is the only reasonable position to take.

Because if one is willing to make judgments based on media reports, then one loses authority in other cases where one is believing them "wrong" (like you do with Rolf).

The "truth" is the media is amoral and entirely self-intetested. As such, they are as likely to hit a vein of truth as lies.

We can't have it all ways on this site.


You're great Wyot.

Also a lot couples stay together for convenience or habbit.

I still don't get how he groomed the lad? Despite saying it was all consensual and over the legal age?

Is the media trying to make him Joe Orton 2.0?

Jo wrote:
That's just my personal opinion on infidelity, Wyot, an opinion I'm entitled to, as you are to yours. I think Rolf Harris was also wrong in that regard. (And it was from the media - including a TV interview with an accuser with a story which had multiple echoes of a story told in an earlier TV interview with a Savile accuser, including MWT's tweet - that I formed doubts and drew conclusions about the accusations he was facing and how the investigation was being conducted; I wasn't in court.) It's not just the media reports which are claiming second-hand that Phillip Schofield lied to ITV, he has admitted to that in his statement, and if it's correct that their business and possibly colleagues' careers suffer because of it, then I don't think he should have done that, though he was entitled to and I can understand why. But I hope that he does not face false allegations and that all this settles down and he, his family and the man he was involved with are allowed to reclaim their lives in peace.

Absolutely Jo the bile against him is unpleasant to watch. Let's hope there are no false allegations as you say; and certainly not ones that result in conviction.

Apologies if my previous post sounded a bit like a lecture (well actually it sounded a lot like a lecture - I have just read it back!); it was clumsily put together, and this was not my intention.

My intention was to highlight how complicated life is in comparison to the ease with which all of us decide what is "right" or "wrong" when judging the end result of people's decisions.

And highlight that we never ANY of us hold ourselves to the black and white simplicity we easily readily apply to everyone else.

If you ever meet someone in prison -whatever they have done - it was always "just not as simple as that". And they are correct because life isn't.

I think there can be situations where an adulterer is not "wrong" to have "cheated". If the sense of "wrong" is causing someone harm? Because we can't know for sure (although I take your point that in most cases it certainly will do) that it did cause someone harm. While it may actually have brought love and joy to two other individuals.

For example, am I owed unfaltering and unquestioning loyalty by Mrs Wyot were I to not cuddle or speak to her for a decade, while simultaneously demanding that she continue to cut my toe nails and undertake ironing duties with the mute tenacity of a pack horse ferrying a portly tourist across the Andes?

Would she be "wrong" under these insufferable exigencies to run off to a summer survival camp with GM wearing little but snake skin boots?

I know some will say she would still be wrong. Perhaps in the eyes of a God or neighbours. But this view to me would be to concede to a dictatorship of divine or popular will.

I think it is incumbent on us all as individuals to develop our own moral codes, with the intention of doing the least harm we can to others and bringing what joy we can to as many as we can. We will never attain this. It is impossible.

But in the trying happiness can be found.

It seems most of Mr Schofield's former colleagues are rather wretched souls in this regard; as is he by callously disowning his brother.

One can only pity them all.

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
[quote]Jo wrote:


I still don't get how he groomed the lad? Despite saying it was all consensual and over the legal age?



I don't understand it either GM.

A lot of criticism seems to be of him "abusing" a "position of power" which leads me to consider sexual relationships without power differentials.

Usually one partner has more beauty, friends, money, years on the clock or property than another. Sadly one is more in love than the other. One is taller than the other or has poorer oral hygiene.

In short, relationships without power differentials do not exist. And if such a couple does exist, I don't advise inviting them around for dinner. I suspect they may prove dull...

So it comes down to detecting when the existence of power differentials becomes "abuse"? Well it was hiding in plain sight for many years with Phillip was it not?

Let us then turn to the troubling psycho-drama that was a handsome young children's tv presenter who inhabited a
broom cupboard with "Gordon The Gopher"...

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Jo wrote:


I still don't get how he groomed the lad? Despite saying it was all consensual and over the legal age?



I don't understand it either GM.

A lot of criticism seems to be of him "abusing" a "position of power" which leads me to consider sexual relationships without power differentials.

Usually one partner has more beauty, friends, money, years on the clock or property than another. Sadly one is more in love than the other. One is taller than the other or has poorer oral hygiene.

In short, relationships without power differentials do not exist. And if such a couple does exist, I don't advise inviting them around for dinner. I suspect they may prove dull...

So it comes down to detecting when the existence of power differentials becomes "abuse"? Well it was hiding in plain sight for many years with Phillip was it not?

Let us then turn to the troubling psycho-drama that was a handsome young children's tv presenter who inhabited a
broom cupboard with "Gordon The Gopher"...


Wasn't that how a lot of celebrities became famous due to connections?

One example is Michael McIntyre had a father who was a script writer and knew Kenneth Everett.

Maybe Schofield, saw potential in the show runner, and got him work experience or an apprenticeship for TV. It's not what you know but who you know. Also people need a hand up in life not a hand out.

It's amazing how celebrities never stick together but always through each other under the bus when there's controversy.
For example, am I owed unfaltering and unquestioning loyalty by Mrs Wyot were I to not cuddle or speak to her for a decade, while simultaneously demanding that she continue to cut my toe nails and undertake ironing duties with the mute tenacity of a pack horse ferrying a portly tourist across the Andes?

Would she be "wrong" under these insufferable exigencies to run off to a summer survival camp with GM wearing little but snake skin boots?



It sounds like she knows what she doing already, I hope she uses dandelions in salads.

You on the hand hand Wyot, sounds like you only qualify for packing a packed lunch when Mrs Wyot is trotting off for a hike in Surrey.

Buy her a copy of James Hawker's Journal.

www.amazon.co.uk/Journal-Victorian-Poach...rbacks/dp/0192812556

Thank you for your clarification, Wyot. I appreciate it.

*sings*

"If you want to do something, to make the viewers stare,
Just LEAP UP AND DOWN WAVE YOUR PITCHFORK IN THE AIR!