Phillip Schofield Media Farce

Thanks for alerting us to this. I'd completely missed this story.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/27/nhs-data-breach-trusts-shared-patient-details-with-facebook-meta-without-consent

An Observer investigation has uncovered a covert tracking tool in the websites of 20 NHS trusts which has for years collected browsing information and shared it with the tech giant in a major breach of privacy.
[...]
Multiple trusts said they had originally installed the tracking pixels to monitor recruitment or charity campaigns and were not aware that they were sending patient data to Facebook. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is investigating.

It is amazing how many “articles” they can make with one new sentence that’s been uttered or tweeted in the last few hours.

Agreed. But I think this is the nub of it What else do they know and are choosing not to tell us…yet?!

The "coming out". performance was to cover up the bigger story about the young boyfriend and I don't doubt that behind this "story" is a far bigger one

I'd doubt he is he's too full of his self and narcissistic to do that.

I would expect he is currently a suicide risk.

Surely him being dropped by ITV and his agent hints that there is something more than morally wrong that happened

By your standards, morally wrong. Everyone has a different take on morals. Legally, at present, he has done nothing wrong.

You obviously don’t have even a cursory idea of media law.

they’ve been trying to publish this story since 2019 and couldn’t.

The law is heavily against the media publishing anything anymore especially anything health or sex related and especially where someone underage is involved.

Have you not seen ridiculous pictures of heavily pregnant celebrities where the the article doesn’t mention the woman is pregnant anywhere but all the comments are going “she’s pregnant duh”. It’s because until a celebrity confirms publicly she is pregnant they’re not allowed to write about it, even where it’s bleeding obvious.

the idea of some kind of conspiracy to keep the clicks coming is so laughable. It is depressing that people have so little understanding of the media and yet bash it continuously.

IANAL but I understood there was a big difference, legally, between an NDA and an injunction/super injunction?

Super injunction, it's about to expire.

I think him stepping down/being sacked was right. It all seems pretty unsavoury.
But when you look at general standards in public life, where it goes
I deny it entirely
I don't remember it
I definitely wasn't told
It wasn't me, but I've referred myself to a committee and await their view.
Of course I'll resign if I'm found to have done wrong
I never said I'd resign

And so on. I think the media frenzy is somewhat misplaced

On the basis of what is known he has done lots of things that are clearly wrong. They may not be illegal, but they are morally wrong.

I do wonder why some people are supporting PS. Is it the man himself or the principle that they are defending?

As you accurately noted it’s alleged. So on the basis of what we know he has done nothing wrong legally.

The press can't print without proof. And that's as it should be. You can't have situations where they print some explosive story, that turns out to be untrue snd then they print a tiny retraction saying 'my bad'. And that's the likely scenario if the press could run free with unproven allegations.
But I do think the country was collectively gaslit with all the 'he's so brave in coming out as gay' bs, when this appears to have been an open secret amongst those who worked in tv. The media couldn't have outed him but equally they shouldn't have run with the narrative of how brave PS was, especially if they were sitting in this story.

Right, so it would have been OK if there was a friendship from the age of 10, and an alleged photo on a bed with this person at the age of 15, and it would be ok to get them a job, and then have a relationship with them when they were apprx 42 years younger....

Obviously this is only speculation from what has been reported to date... but I'm just checking if the above is OK??

Well because there are libel laws which usually mean all stories need to be verified by at least a few different sources

social media isn’t regulated at all and doesn’t need to be verified - I could literally say something random and untrue now and it could go viral

I love reading the daily mail as I love a bit of celebrity gossip but the whole PS thing is becoming boring. It appears that the affair started when the man was of legal age so I don’t see the issue at present. Yes he cheated on his partner but so do lots of people. The man has lost his job and close friends due to this and I do think they need to just leave him be.

i can't wait for the young man he had the affair with to tell his story. I really hope he does and when he does I hope he names names, including all the ITV execs who knew about the relationship and condoned it. If Phillip goes down they all go down.

There's never been a super injunction.

Yes the media is ridiculous, but you, PPs (and me I guess) are happy to admit to lapping it up like sheep at a salt lick, so why should the media stop the farce when it’s so successful. If you really want change stop bleating about it, just don’t engage with it.

Yanbu. I’ve seen the same information said in 50 different ways and it’s getting tedious. Clearly they chose not to report on this for years and now they are. So were the media also complicit in protecting ps? Where does it end?

There's a super injunction expiring imminently, that's why it's taken until now from when the rumours first started and why they're dripping now, the full exposé will come in June, Phillip evidently is the litigious sort