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.