Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

There we go Schofield has admitted ‘affair’

1000 replies

muppetmayhem · 26/05/2023 18:34

Front page of the daily mail for my sins.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
42
CheekNerveGallAudacityandGumption · 27/05/2023 13:34

This reply has been deleted

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

I don’t know what Butterfly is? Something to do with promoting kids transitioning?

CheekNerveGallAudacityandGumption · 27/05/2023 13:36

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 13:24

At this point given a few posts it's worth saying that posters might want to be wary of what falls into the libellous zone. You CAN say certain things provided they are backed up with evidence, are heavily caveted and worded in a particular way or are making a point that's beyond contention.

There are posts starting to fall outside that.

I’d say being an ardent ally of an exposed pederast is pretty damning evidence.

powerrangers · 27/05/2023 13:36

@RhinoMoveFast Go on a safeguard course.
Or you could just use layperson language as this is a layperson site.

Shitsandwiches · 27/05/2023 13:37

RhinoMoveFast · 27/05/2023 11:37

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread - but are we saying something's potentially been going on between PS and SS's sons??

I'm going down the rabbit hole!

TiggerSnoozer · 27/05/2023 13:38

I'm expecting a newer inappropriate relationship to emerge tbh. Given that it sounds like Holly et al all knew about MM, something else has happened more recently I think to cause all this right now.

BordoisAgain · 27/05/2023 13:44

powerrangers · 27/05/2023 13:36

@RhinoMoveFast Go on a safeguard course.
Or you could just use layperson language as this is a layperson site.

It's fairly easy to grasp, it's elevating a group of people into a position where any criticism of reports of wrongdoing can be dismissed.

Fraudornot · 27/05/2023 13:46

It can’t be a coincidence that this has erupted as his brother has been convicted. I wonder if something was said at the trial but not made public or the conviction has made some people come forward with stories about PS.
This is definitely not just about the runner and PS. There is something else that will come out over the weekend and my guess it is new info as a result of the trial.

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 13:46

Tbh I don't see that Mermaids, Butterflies, Stacey Solomon is anything remotely but a straw man argument and irrelevant to Phillip Scofield.

And I say this given my views on safeguarding.

It's just detracting from the issue of failure to safeguard a young member of staff.

I DO get the point about The Sacred Caste where certain identities are not held to the same level of accountability - however comparisons need to be kept relevant.

How other gay celebrities have been treated is relevant here. And it's hard to say it's to do with homophobia - especially since it looks like Rylan has had issues with Phil's behaviour over the years.

This is very much about the power of celebrities with a certain status and how they use it over other celebrities, senior staff and junior staff without reproach. Part of that comes down to £££ and how much you are prepared to threaten with the lawyers.

We know that litigatious rich celebrities have had an untouchable air to them. That's Weinstein as much as Saville. And Weinstein's case centred on consent between adults and the element of coercion - in addition to allegations of rape. And that was the feature of the story much more than rape. It was about how he pressured women to have sex or said he would kill their career.

Weinstein is much more of a parallel than Saville for this reason (at this point. It's possible this may change).

What I find interesting is that the runner denied the affair, which Scofield has now admitted to. So where does this leave him in terms of his own reputation and there is a question about whether Scofield may have given him warning about where he would break rank first. The runner lied - and the question is why? Was it to protect himself or to protect Scofield. If he was trying to protect Scofield over and above himself that is an imbalance of power.

ITVs statement is interesting because it said no evidence was offered beyond heresy and the two parties involved denied it. Thus seemingly thinking that's enough to just move on. Is it? Did they consider the element of coercion and abuse of power over the runner sufficiently?

sweetgingercat · 27/05/2023 13:49

TiggerSnoozer · 27/05/2023 13:38

I'm expecting a newer inappropriate relationship to emerge tbh. Given that it sounds like Holly et al all knew about MM, something else has happened more recently I think to cause all this right now.

His brother's sentencing for paedophilia?

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 13:50

Fraudornot · 27/05/2023 13:46

It can’t be a coincidence that this has erupted as his brother has been convicted. I wonder if something was said at the trial but not made public or the conviction has made some people come forward with stories about PS.
This is definitely not just about the runner and PS. There is something else that will come out over the weekend and my guess it is new info as a result of the trial.

I think the lack of good judgement over how he handled his brother (and didn't report it) raises the question of why. And with rumours of his own questionable and unwise behaviour it was always going to set the rumour mill off. Even if there isn't anything further.

Schofield didn't tell ITV bosses about his brother's case until very late. And he didn't warn his colleagues.

It put Holly in a position where she had potentially given him the benefit of the doubt over his own behaviour but he'd then said under oath that he only warned his brother and didn't report his brother. That left her flapping in the wind looking like a bit of a mug.

RhinoMoveFast · 27/05/2023 13:54

We have been warned not to post too much.

I can see an obvious link, you can't and now I have been silenced, so I can not say.

ILoveMontyDon · 27/05/2023 13:56

https://www.google.com/search?q=philli+schoffield+comes+out+as+gay+this+morning+Youtube&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB937GB937&oq=philli+schoffield+comes+out+as+gay+this+morning+Youtube&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAHSAQkyNzAwOWoxajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:cf4e98b6,vid:GNIbb-52lGU

Watch that back if you can. Actors, they are not.

Not that my opinion matters, but what he's done so far is distasteful, but not illegal. It doesn't look good on the grooming front but you have to have actual, definitive evidence for assigning that label? If the person in question was of legal age, and no evidence of grooming, then no 'crime' has legally been committed - despite how revolting it is.

Aside from all the this, the pair of them should have been sacked years ago for being patronising, overly-confident, smug, self-serving, self-adoring, arrogant, condescending, vain and just generally irritating, bastards.

SamW98 · 27/05/2023 13:58

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 13:46

Tbh I don't see that Mermaids, Butterflies, Stacey Solomon is anything remotely but a straw man argument and irrelevant to Phillip Scofield.

And I say this given my views on safeguarding.

It's just detracting from the issue of failure to safeguard a young member of staff.

I DO get the point about The Sacred Caste where certain identities are not held to the same level of accountability - however comparisons need to be kept relevant.

How other gay celebrities have been treated is relevant here. And it's hard to say it's to do with homophobia - especially since it looks like Rylan has had issues with Phil's behaviour over the years.

This is very much about the power of celebrities with a certain status and how they use it over other celebrities, senior staff and junior staff without reproach. Part of that comes down to £££ and how much you are prepared to threaten with the lawyers.

We know that litigatious rich celebrities have had an untouchable air to them. That's Weinstein as much as Saville. And Weinstein's case centred on consent between adults and the element of coercion - in addition to allegations of rape. And that was the feature of the story much more than rape. It was about how he pressured women to have sex or said he would kill their career.

Weinstein is much more of a parallel than Saville for this reason (at this point. It's possible this may change).

What I find interesting is that the runner denied the affair, which Scofield has now admitted to. So where does this leave him in terms of his own reputation and there is a question about whether Scofield may have given him warning about where he would break rank first. The runner lied - and the question is why? Was it to protect himself or to protect Scofield. If he was trying to protect Scofield over and above himself that is an imbalance of power.

ITVs statement is interesting because it said no evidence was offered beyond heresy and the two parties involved denied it. Thus seemingly thinking that's enough to just move on. Is it? Did they consider the element of coercion and abuse of power over the runner sufficiently?

Absolutely spot on.

ScreamingBeans · 27/05/2023 13:59

I'm a bit confused about this. Didn't we already know this about Pipsqueak Schofield?

BeatrixKidd · 27/05/2023 14:00

RhinoMoveFast · 27/05/2023 13:54

We have been warned not to post too much.

I can see an obvious link, you can't and now I have been silenced, so I can not say.

Who has warned you not to post?

PrincessScarlett · 27/05/2023 14:02

Although I agree that many at ITV were aware of what PS was like I do think with regards to Holly, that she was duped/lied to by PS for years and then when it became apparent what he was like, she then distanced herself from him immediately which resulted in their 'rift' on TM. I can't believe for one moment that Holly would be so pally with PS given that she has children if she knew 100% what he was allegedly up to.

Everything is starting to make sense now isn't it, the fall out with E&R, Rylan and Dr Ranj. Those that tried to speak out about PS must be relieved their efforts weren't for nothing and if there is more to come out in the coming days, then I commend them all for trying to put a stop to it as too many have put their careers first.

Lampzade · 27/05/2023 14:17

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 08:06

After the Saville stuff TV executives should have been on the lookout for things like this. Then there's been Weinstein. So TV personalities and executives should be aware that they have power over young people which should not be abused.

For years it's been the understanding that in order to get into film, television or music you had to be willing to sleep with someone to get in. It is the very reason I didn't go into the industry. We had a lecture at uni where my class was asked if we would be prepared to sleep with someone to advance our careers. Out of 30, 3 said no. I knew it wasn't for me. I'd already been warned this by a friend who was very involved in the music industry at one point too.

The point is there has supposed to be a clean up of the industry since then. TV executives turning a blind eye or even taking Schofield's word at face value is a bad look for the channel. It's very much not about his personal life. It's about abusing his position to exploit vulnerable younger colleagues. The culture of intimidation and silencing of other colleagues who objected and had concerns with some losing their jobs as a result is part of the pattern of abuse of power.

Eammon Holmes is right to point this out.

The Weinstein scandal began to be under covered in 2017. The orchestrated Schofield coming out was 2019. By this point everyone knew about what was going on. It was all over MN. And that's why there were objections because of the very obvious parallels. But ITV executives still did it and effectively protected Schofield. That was grossly unwise. It demonstrates they didn't properly investigate. They just took Schofield at his word and ignored all the whistleblowers. That's a MASSIVE safeguarding fail.

All the executives involved should be looked into and questions asked.

If it was decades ago this happened or the cover up was pre Weinstein there might be different arguments. That wouldnt mean what Schofield had done was any less bad - what it means is that there are massive duty of care questions and executives have failed to uphold safeguarding younger crew members instead placing the power of the celebrity above their well being.

Schofield could help a kid he'd known since he was 10 get into the industry. That's nepotism and not great but it's not exploitation. The second he embarked on a relationship the balance of power in the relationship is massively off. Schofield knew this. It's not ok.

And there are still questions about when the relationship became sexual. A man saying it was always legal whilst simultaneously saying he's lied and covered up, isn't your best character witness. Especially when he was cheating on his wife to do it. I'm fairly sure others will eventually come out to say they had affairs with Schofield during his marriage too (which makes the whole brave and stunning routine look dreadful - even if he's gay he shouldn't have cheated on his wife). They may be adults but it still won't help Schofield's case.

The whole 'coming out' media parade now looks icky and tarnished. That's an incredibly bad look for the TV executives.

It's not a small story. It's not just about Schofield. It's about how TV executives make their own careers and get viewing figures based on sucking up to certain personalities and protecting them when they should be properly investigated and held accountable for their actions. I've no doubt that lawyers were probably involved at the start because Schofield had big pockets and threatened to ruin the careers of the executives if they did their job properly and investigated properly. And THAT is where similarities with Saville come in (not because TV executives are nonces). It's about intimidation and threats. And again that needs to be looked at in terms of Schofield's behaviour and professionalism. Was he also abusing his position by doing this with OTHER members of staff?

We DO have a number of high profile individuals talking about how he bullied others on set to get his way.

So don't think this is about two consenting adults who are victims of a gay witch-hunt. It absolutely has nothing to do with that.

And sadly it's true that a woman exploited in a similar way probably wouldn't be taken as seriously - but that doesn't diminish the actions of Schofield or the Executives either. It just shows that safeguarding is taken even less seriously when it comes to junior women staffers.

All of this

CherryRipe1 · 27/05/2023 14:20

DunkingMyDonuts · 26/05/2023 19:12

For goodness sake, him and him brother both obsessed with sex with males barely out of childhood.

What the hell is wrong with their family?? Were their parents brother and sister?? Something extremely odd with those Schofields

Agreed. I'm getting 'Deliverance' vibes off them.

Fraudornot · 27/05/2023 14:25

I’ve tried to watch the coming out video posted up thread but have to keep turning it off - it was such a pantomime. I thought it at the time but looking back at bits of it now it’s toe curling.

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 14:40

Fraudornot · 27/05/2023 14:25

I’ve tried to watch the coming out video posted up thread but have to keep turning it off - it was such a pantomime. I thought it at the time but looking back at bits of it now it’s toe curling.

It makes Holly look dreadful. Holly went into damage limitation herself and it's blown back in her face somewhat now too.

Schofield must have been charming to those he needed and utterly vile to those he had no use of.

It shows.

JenniferBooth · 27/05/2023 14:45

@Hehehejeiej I think it would be very unwise of ITV to try to use Caroline Flack as a deflection tactic now. Because it may well lead the public to think that she was already used as a deflection tactic just before her death. Which happened in February 2020 the same month and year that Schofield came out. ITV showed her absolutely no support.

BordoisAgain · 27/05/2023 14:47

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 14:40

It makes Holly look dreadful. Holly went into damage limitation herself and it's blown back in her face somewhat now too.

Schofield must have been charming to those he needed and utterly vile to those he had no use of.

It shows.

Show quote history

I know it's an overused word that's used wrongly on here, but it's almost textbook narc behaviour from Phil.

DunkingMyDonuts · 27/05/2023 14:50

RedToothBrush · 27/05/2023 14:40

It makes Holly look dreadful. Holly went into damage limitation herself and it's blown back in her face somewhat now too.

Schofield must have been charming to those he needed and utterly vile to those he had no use of.

It shows.

Show quote history

"Dreadful" is an understatement. I would chose the word "enabler" myself.

And then to go on holiday knowing he had befriended someone who was 11...

50450750q · 27/05/2023 14:50

RhinoMoveFast · 27/05/2023 13:31

Go on a safeguard course.

Show quote history

Or you could just tell us what you're referring to.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.