Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Schofield saga-to think this is all very odd?

325 replies

Howwindyisittoday · 28/05/2023 16:39

It’s very confusing.
Rumours have been circulating for three years, even I knew the rumours, how on earth did Holly and others not?
He says there was no injunction, so the boy could have spoken out at any time..so why is it all coming out now?? Why has Holly suddenly distanced herself, why have itv got rid of him now?
They've now said the boy was 15 when they met (sure was younger?) and nothing happened until he was older, nothing illegal but still massively wrong. But if there is nothing illegal and they all knew about it…why now?
Why has P.S been so willing to go along with it this week?

This feels like a cover up for something much much worse?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 06:40

...Sources told the Mail the former production assistant insists that 'he was never asked' about the romance, while another ITV insider said: 'Everybody just knew about it.'
One source said: 'It's time for some truths to be told now, this has been brushed under the carpet for so long and it has to come to an end. The younger man has got to the point now where he won't lie for anyone but actually, he says he was never asked by ITV about any relationship.
'It is time that people were held to account, or at the very least explain themselves.'
An ITV spokesman tonight stood firm, saying: 'Both parties were questioned.'
But the network refused to say when the questioning took place, or who conducted it.
Yesterday Mr Lygo told Sky News 'no mistakes' were made as his channel sought out the truth...

I have things to get on with and find the psychological PR games a bit much, good luck batting them off. the gaslighting involved in TV land is off the scale.

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 06:41

Yes I dont disagree that it looks like “grooming” (whatever that means), but our home country makes this legal. In my view legal age of consent should be 18yrs, with relationships between under 18yrs pretty much ignored (as they are now for under 16s) - for this exact reason.
Why do we all want a public example making of PS for a legal relationship? He wasn’t in a position of trust according to the law (in which case consent age would be higher).

What is everyone suggesting the actual solution should be??

OCarumba · 29/05/2023 06:50

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 06:41

Yes I dont disagree that it looks like “grooming” (whatever that means), but our home country makes this legal. In my view legal age of consent should be 18yrs, with relationships between under 18yrs pretty much ignored (as they are now for under 16s) - for this exact reason.
Why do we all want a public example making of PS for a legal relationship? He wasn’t in a position of trust according to the law (in which case consent age would be higher).

What is everyone suggesting the actual solution should be??

Well I guess that’s why people are having a conversation about it.

There is plenty of information out there about what grooming is if you’re unclear.

He did also cover up child sexual abuse, did you miss that bit?

ChintzyGunslinger · 29/05/2023 06:52

Is it because he’s gay that people are so horrified and angry?

Gay men are pretty disgusted at his behaviour.

Yes I dont disagree that it looks like “grooming” (whatever that means), but our home country makes this legal.

Grooming a child is a criminal offence.

Grooming | Metropolitan Police

guineacup · 29/05/2023 06:55

GoOnHoliday · 28/05/2023 16:56

Aren't we as parents to be aware of being groomed by adults who want to get to our children?

Why is her husband Dan, the older parent, so thick or neglectful that he enabled these men near his son?

Presumably because they didn't know they were groomers back then?🤷‍♂️

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 07:00

I do realise that grooming is a legally defined crime, however there is no evidence to suggest that PS was grooming. Why have that assumption?

It was certainly a stupid choice for a public figure, and I think a complete imbalance of power given the young age of the boy. But still completely legal.

And still no suggestions here or elsewhere for a solution. I do think it’s hypocritical to be railing against PS, but be happy with the law the rest of the time.

ChintzyGunslinger · 29/05/2023 07:13

But still completely legal.

So you keep saying.

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 07:33

So what’s your suggestion then?

OCarumba · 29/05/2023 08:07

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 07:00

I do realise that grooming is a legally defined crime, however there is no evidence to suggest that PS was grooming. Why have that assumption?

It was certainly a stupid choice for a public figure, and I think a complete imbalance of power given the young age of the boy. But still completely legal.

And still no suggestions here or elsewhere for a solution. I do think it’s hypocritical to be railing against PS, but be happy with the law the rest of the time.

Grooming: Well there is evidence to suggest it, given that he gained access to this young person via his role as patron of a youth charity, and the contact began when the young person was a child.

Why do you think people are only allowed to discuss convicted crimes? How do you think things pass into law without conversation?

You’re complaining that no one has ‘a solution’ (to what specifically?), yet at the same time saying no one should be having a conversation. How do you expect ways to tackle issues are arrived at without discussion and consensus?

What happened to your accusation that everyone who is discussing this is homophobic, have you dropped that now?

Also - so what if it transpires the relationship was not illegal? (Something PS was at pains to point out – the fact it needed saying says a lot in itself).

You also don’t seem to have a problem with the fact that PS covered for a paedophile and did not report an admission of child sexual abuse to the police. How do you not have a problem with this?

Berlioze · 29/05/2023 08:37

OCarumba · 29/05/2023 06:12

I don’t think there’s any suggestion at this point of criminal activity.

Show quote history

There isn't. That's why I said very clearly, this is a general piece of information, not related specifically to this case.

OCarumba · 29/05/2023 08:40

Berlioze · 29/05/2023 08:37

There isn't. That's why I said very clearly, this is a general piece of information, not related specifically to this case.

Show quote history

Ok 🤷🏻

RedToothBrush · 29/05/2023 08:48

BeatrixKidd · 29/05/2023 00:34

That's an oversimplification. The fact the young man also worked on This Morning is the key factor here, since there's objective proof that he was given a unheard of level of special treatment for someone who's job was to fetch people's coffee.

He was frequently given onscreen appearances, permitted to do onscreen interviews with prestige talent, even did an onscreen appearance shirtless once (no one questioned why Phil's 18yr old special friend and assistant was being asked to get half-naked on live TV?? Who came up with the idea for the shirtless segment anyway?). He attended the NTAs twice sitting next to Phil, and even got to go up on stage to accept the award and was standing right behind Phil and Holly while they gave their acceptance speech. Even most of the crew don't get invited to awards ceremonies, just the stars, producers and execs. I've never, ever heard of a runner getting to go, not ever. And he didn't just get to attend, he was sitting next to Phil and onstage! He even got to go to the afterparty, something happened that resulted in him being kicked out (allegedly he and PS got into a fight in front of everyone) and he was papped accosting Holly outside. Which again is just insane, since runners usually aren't even really allowed to speak to the onscreen talent unless it's to ask their coffee order or something.

I've seen runners fired on the spot just for making a slightly sarcastic comment in response to a celeb being demanding. The fact he wasn't instantly fired and blacklisted for fighting with the onscreen talent at a major high profile event, getting kicked out of a major event, then accosting the other onscreen talent after getting kicked out, proves there was a relationship. There's simply no other explanation. There's just no way on earth a runner would be allowed to do any that unless they're related to or sleeping with someone very important.

The overt special treatment alone should have been enough to warrant action. Even if there hadn't been any rumours, This Morning should have been asking questions as to what the hell their barely out of his teens errand boy was doing on the NTA stage and getting kicked out of the celeb afterparty.

Show quote history

And ITVs official line is they investigated properly.

Despite it now being suggested that The Runner is saying he wasn't questioned by ITV.

If he was moved to Loose Women 'in a promotion' that had to be facilitated by senior ITV staff. And the timing of him having fallen out with PS at the same time makes that one complicated for ITV.

They either responded to a request to move or they felt the deteriorating relationship on set meant they had to move him. This produces three scenarios: the request came from PS suggesting excessive power on set or a request from The Runner or seeing a deteriorating on set relationship suggests an awareness of a problem and management out.

Onefootinthegroove · 29/05/2023 09:01

RedToothBrush · 29/05/2023 08:48

And ITVs official line is they investigated properly.

Despite it now being suggested that The Runner is saying he wasn't questioned by ITV.

If he was moved to Loose Women 'in a promotion' that had to be facilitated by senior ITV staff. And the timing of him having fallen out with PS at the same time makes that one complicated for ITV.

They either responded to a request to move or they felt the deteriorating relationship on set meant they had to move him. This produces three scenarios: the request came from PS suggesting excessive power on set or a request from The Runner or seeing a deteriorating on set relationship suggests an awareness of a problem and management out.

Show quote history

Exactly this.
This is not about a man having an affair, it's about grooming, abuse of power and ITV being complicit.

RedToothBrush · 29/05/2023 09:03

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 06:41

Yes I dont disagree that it looks like “grooming” (whatever that means), but our home country makes this legal. In my view legal age of consent should be 18yrs, with relationships between under 18yrs pretty much ignored (as they are now for under 16s) - for this exact reason.
Why do we all want a public example making of PS for a legal relationship? He wasn’t in a position of trust according to the law (in which case consent age would be higher).

What is everyone suggesting the actual solution should be??

Because it's post Saville and post Weinstein in television.

Any responsible contract SHOULD have clauses about conduct on set and about relationships with junior staff. Plus it should be in line with general safeguarding principles which are now standard in the UK. This makes sleeping with someone you are mentoring even if they are over eighteen problematic. Because it's about power dynamics.

If ITV isn't training it's staff in safeguarding like this or writing it's contracts to reflect this - which are pretty typical now - there's an issue.

If they have written a contract like this and Schofield did this anyway and they didn't investigate there is an issue. If they did investigate there's still questions. And in it coming out it means Schofield was guilty of gross misconduct (and therefore shouldnt get a payout - remember he lawyered up and got one agreed despite all this before being forced to admit the relationship - that means he was potentially attempting to defraud ITV because he misled them by lying.) Lying to senior management probably would constitute gross misconduct in its own right as ITV had duty of care responsibilities anyway.

So it matters with or without the grooming of a minor allegations. Because it's effectively about public standards on a national broadcaster and abusing a position of power and trust.

RedToothBrush · 29/05/2023 09:09

HairyKitty · 29/05/2023 07:00

I do realise that grooming is a legally defined crime, however there is no evidence to suggest that PS was grooming. Why have that assumption?

It was certainly a stupid choice for a public figure, and I think a complete imbalance of power given the young age of the boy. But still completely legal.

And still no suggestions here or elsewhere for a solution. I do think it’s hypocritical to be railing against PS, but be happy with the law the rest of the time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Given we know when first contact was made I think ITV would be very unwise to assume that a man who has got in pr disaster specialists (some time ago) and has spent a fortune on lawyers and has repeatedly lied to them, is being entirely truthful now. Even if he didn't start a relationship until the Runner was eighteen that doesn't eliminate the possibility of grooming either.

I think ITV have to assume there is evidence - which may or may not come to light and treat the situation accordingly

(Wording this post very carefully).

RedToothBrush · 29/05/2023 10:07

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 09:53

This Morning like family huh? Interesting wording.

That's a direct dig at Dr Ranj.

Dr Ranj is being criticized on twitter for an article from Feb 2020 where he said that This Morning is like family given his comments last night about the show being toxic.

That doesn't make Schofield look better. Indeed it looks pretty toxic...

And tbh families can be damn toxic and dysfunctional.

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 10:08

Photos of the Runner with Holly and others now published.

Car dealer Arnold Clark, the show's biggest sponsor, has announced it will not be renewing its existing multi-million-pound deal with the channel in autumn as planned.
Once ITV's 'jewel in the crown', the Mail understands some people are now also refusing offers to appear as guests on the show.

ITV - Latest news and gossip on ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV, ITVBe and LittleBe shows | Daily Mail Online

Get the latest news on ITV from Mail Online.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/itv/index.html

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 10:11

That's a direct dig at Dr Ranj.

His thread became active again after the Instagram statement.

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 10:32

The photograph of police making arrests, shows several men being cuffed.

We were told that the mail hints this way.

OCarumba · 29/05/2023 10:38

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 10:32

The photograph of police making arrests, shows several men being cuffed.

We were told that the mail hints this way.

What are you on about? Are you ok?

GoOnHoliday · 29/05/2023 11:00

Interesting Twitter comments especially from the male who works in Theatre with an interest in children.

Swipe left for the next trending thread