Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Philip Schofield: As far as I am concerned, I no longer have a brother."

522 replies

DancingWithMashedPotato · 03/04/2023 17:38

Philip Schofield's brother had now been convicted of sexual abuse with a young boy over a 3 yr period. Horrendous crime. Philip Schofield has now stated "As far as I am concerned, I no longer have a brother.""

Now, it's completely up to Philip how he responds to his brother in what must be a v v stressful time. I cast no judgement whatsoever, and his life in the public eye adds so many new dimensions for him that must be hard to handle.

However, his comments about no longer having a brother really cut deep and made me wonder how I'd react

I adore my siblings and I think (though obviously things might be different if it actually happened) that I couldn't bring myself to disown or abandon my brother's no matter what they did. I can imagine some very limited events which might lead to me not speaking to them for a bit, perhaps a v long time. But I think by and large, no matter what they did, however bad, while there are some things I couldn't forgive and maybe could never understand, I don't think I could disown them. AIBU?

What are your views? Are there some things you absolutely would disown your family for? Are there some generally agreed limits for what a person can tolerate from a family member before they are disowned. Is child abuse the line? Murder?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
PurpleAirGuitar · 14/04/2023 20:26

Murder or sex offences, definitely, but also racism (even if only verbally expressed) would be a very big one for me. I think I'd at least go low contact for that, and let them know why. I certainly wouldn't defend them, or automatically disbelieve the accusation, if they were suspected of any crime, unless I had proof they were innocent. I don't have much time for people who automatically assume their DC, especially adult DC, are innocent whenever there's an accusation of anything.

PotterofGryfindor · 15/04/2023 06:48

@PurpleAirGuitar i don’t think anyone is saying they would assume their child was innocent. I think people are saying they would support them knowing they may well be the only person in the world to do so.

allmyliesaretrue · 15/04/2023 14:15

ILoveMontyDon · 04/04/2023 20:39

@DancingWithMashedPotato You should be on a register for a start. Empathising? Understanding?

You're enabling is what you're doing, and it's sick.

I think some of you are somewhat harsh here - the OP works with offenders!! I'm sure that would affect your perspective, don't you think?

Anyway I don't think you would ever know exactly how you might react in such circumstances. Life isn't as black and white as some of you seem to think.

sellotape12 · 15/04/2023 15:04

Yes because of defamation laws. They can’t print anything without evidence first; tabloid or broadsheet.

PotterofGryfindor · 17/04/2023 14:14

Well blow me down with a feather, scoff sat on this morning today and thanked everybody for their support…

daisy1765 · 17/04/2023 14:15

cant believe he was back on the show today. They must be trying to figure out a way to manoeuvre him out the door,
surely?

Godwhatswrongwithme · 17/04/2023 14:33

So weird he’s back!

Enfys1982 · 17/04/2023 15:58

He has to be a narcissist doesn’t he? The lack of shame and making it all about himself. I’ve seen some brass necked behaviour in my time but that takes the biscuit. His arrogance knows no bounds and ITV are enabling it.

Greenfairydust · 17/04/2023 17:46

I am really appalled that he is back.

I still don't get why there are no consequences whatsoever to the fact that he did not report his brother to the police after he confessed his actions to him.

I think it is very silly of ITV to do this also because I have no doubt sooner than later someone will speak to the press if the rumours about him turn out to be true....

dalecooper · 17/04/2023 18:42

I don't want anything to do with anyone who has molested/abused a child/children. It makes no difference whether I am related by blood or not, I don't want to share the same air as them. Same for rapists, human traffickers, murderers and other violent criminals. I might be alright with manslaughter depending on the circumstances.

As for Philip Schofield, he is a self-serving slimy piece of work. He only says these things for the sake of his career. He doesn't speak up unless the pressure is on and his job is on the line. I can't stand the man.

Cinderellaspumpkin · 17/04/2023 21:08

Greenfairydust · 17/04/2023 17:46

I am really appalled that he is back.

I still don't get why there are no consequences whatsoever to the fact that he did not report his brother to the police after he confessed his actions to him.

I think it is very silly of ITV to do this also because I have no doubt sooner than later someone will speak to the press if the rumours about him turn out to be true....

His brother told him that he'd had sexual contact with a 16 year old boy, ( obviously disgusting for a 54 year old man to do this, but completely legal unless he was the 16 year old's teacher/ GP / headteacher etc). Phillip Schofield couldn't have reported him to the police, because what he confessed to PS was totally legal. All PS could do was tell him it was disgusting and to stop, as legally at that point his brother hadn't confessed anything illeagal to him.

Obviously at trial he was found guilty of sex offences when the victim was between the age of 13-15; but he didn't tell PS that.

I don't particularly like Phillip Schofield , but don't see why he should be punished for not reporting something that was , ( although disgusting), completely legal.

What people on this thread seem to be failing to understand, was that even if PS had reported his brother's confession, the police do not have the power to investigate legal and consensual sexual activity of over 16's. So the police wouldn't of been able to do anything even if PS had reported the confession .

PotterofGryfindor · 17/04/2023 22:26

@Cinderellaspumpkin i don’t know the truth of the matter but it appears there may be some unsavoury things still to come out about PS. Whether he has broken any laws or not remains to be seen.

allmyliesaretrue · 17/04/2023 22:33

Cinderellaspumpkin · 17/04/2023 21:08

His brother told him that he'd had sexual contact with a 16 year old boy, ( obviously disgusting for a 54 year old man to do this, but completely legal unless he was the 16 year old's teacher/ GP / headteacher etc). Phillip Schofield couldn't have reported him to the police, because what he confessed to PS was totally legal. All PS could do was tell him it was disgusting and to stop, as legally at that point his brother hadn't confessed anything illeagal to him.

Obviously at trial he was found guilty of sex offences when the victim was between the age of 13-15; but he didn't tell PS that.

I don't particularly like Phillip Schofield , but don't see why he should be punished for not reporting something that was , ( although disgusting), completely legal.

What people on this thread seem to be failing to understand, was that even if PS had reported his brother's confession, the police do not have the power to investigate legal and consensual sexual activity of over 16's. So the police wouldn't of been able to do anything even if PS had reported the confession .

Show quote history

I would also imagine that ITV may just be in possession of more information than a gaggle of posters clutching pearls and pitchforks on MN...

Greenfairydust · 17/04/2023 23:03

@Cinderellaspumpkin

''His brother told him that he'd had sexual contact with a 16 year old boy, ( obviously disgusting for a 54 year old man to do this, but completely legal unless he was the 16 year old's teacher/ GP / headteacher etc). Phillip Schofield couldn't have reported him to the police, because what he confessed to PS was totally legal. All PS could do was tell him it was disgusting and to stop, as legally at that point his brother hadn't confessed anything illegal to him.Obviously at trial he was found guilty of sex offences when the victim was between the age of 13-15; but he didn't tell PS that. I don't particularly like Phillip Schofield , but don't see why he should be punished for not reporting something that was , ( although disgusting), completely legal.
What people on this thread seem to be failing to understand, was that even if PS had reported his brother's confession, the police do not have the power to investigate legal and consensual sexual activity of over 16's. So the police wouldn't of been able to do anything even if PS had reported the confession .''

If a 54 year old family member suddenly felt the need to tell me if he was having sexual contact with the 16 year old boy, it would instantly make me suspicious (as well as disgusted) because I would wonder what else he could be doing potentially with other kids and whether that boy was really 16.

I would also wonder whether the family member was trying to silence his guilt by pretending the teenager was over the age of consent (very convenient to claim the kid was 16...) so he could also confess his crimes but still have a get out clause. Therefore I would report my suspicions to the police and say that I was concerned the relative could potentially be grooming minors and let them investigate.

What I would not do is pat the relative on the head and tell them ''just don't do it again dear''...

Basically I call PS line on this absolute bullshit.

Greenfairydust · 17/04/2023 23:06

And I should add that now that his smug face is back on tv, I give it about a month until someone gets tempted by enough Sunday papers cash...

SandLResources · 18/04/2023 06:46

allmyliesaretrue · 17/04/2023 22:33

I would also imagine that ITV may just be in possession of more information than a gaggle of posters clutching pearls and pitchforks on MN...

Show quote history

Well the BBC certainly always had more information that they let on...

Notmyfirstusername · 19/04/2023 07:15

@Greenfairydust , “All PS could do was tell him it was disgusting and to stop, as legally at that point his brother hadn't confessed anything illegal to him”
Or, he could have done what he’s personally advised others to do hundreds of times over the years, not to mention the hundreds of times he’s been sat across from children’s safeguarding experts, counsellors, psychiatrists and child safety campaigners , which is contact the NSPCC for advice. If he didn’t want to do that he could have spoke to one of the doctors, counsellors etc who regularly appeared on the show and asked them what to do. I can almost guarantee that none of them would have said “oh well he’s told you he’s 16, so nothing you can do then, it’s all completely legal for a police staff member ( civilian or not) to groom a 16 year old child, even though they are covered by the same legislation as police officers and it’s classed as an abuse of a position of trust.”
schofield didn’t even need to reach out himself, one of the many researchers on the show could have done some digging, or a private investigator hired by his PR firm to protect Schofield from any potential scandal, legal or not in the light of the perceived issue with his very young ex runner. The fact he did nothing despite his almost unique position to know exactly what to do is disgraceful.

Greenfairydust · 19/04/2023 10:06

@Notmyfirstusername

I think you quoted the wrong person...

I was making the same point that you just made.

Notmyfirstusername · 19/04/2023 10:23

Sorry @Greenfairydust , it serves me right for thinking I had basic comprehension on 2 hours sleep! I also agree with the second point you made. I think at some point soon his PR place will decide that another one of their presenters would make them more money being the next Schofield and everything will start to fall pretty quickly.

PenelopeTitsDrop3121 · 19/04/2023 10:34

I hear the injunction expires in July.

SimplyAverage · 19/04/2023 11:02

I am not a regular viewer.

He was just shifting on his chair, I noted he added the Foucault Q he referenced LGBTQ rights rather than homosexual rights. I always note those who make that distinction.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page