To think Phillip schofield scandal is homophobia?

[ivfregret]

Have I missed something in that the guy Philip had the affair with was not a minor?

He was a minor when they met, as was Cheryl Cole and Liam Payne for example and no one has anything bad to say about that relationship.

I'm not sticking up for Philip and really dislike him, and also think even if the runner was above the age of consent is most definitely questionable behaviour but I can't help think of it was a heterosexual affair it would not be treated in the same way?

Did you notice in his interview with the BBC he said "Holly knows everything about me and I know everything about Holly" - is that some kind of veiled threat?

With his brother being convicted of sexual offences the heat around these rumours online became too much and it had to be addressed.

For those comparing Boris and Carrie - for me the key differences are:

• Carrie was an adult when they met, MM was a child
• Boris and Carrie met coincidentally at work, Carrie already had a successful career. MM was given his first job because of Phil
• Phil was exchanging social media messages with a child who he coincidentally ended up in a sexual relationship with after he helped him onto a career ladder out of the goodness of his heart

Position of trust' is a legal term defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In section 22 it is explained as an adult “caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge” of a child under the age of 18.

That PS says he was giving advice to him on twitter and mentoring of him sorts, consent at the age of 16 wouldn’t have applied

My god the barrel scraping is deafening me.

Giving someone advice on Twitter is not being in a professional or legal Position of Trust. Those people are those who work directly to care for children - teachers, care home workers, foster carers, social workers etc. not someone randomly tweeting.

No you claimed it was brought in for 16yo a to have sex with people their age. It wasn’t.

In the workplace at This Morning PS would arguably be in a position of trust over runners who are the lowest paid and lowest down the food chain on a production team.

Who is investigating? Not the police, as no one had complained. Just some arsehole YTers and dodgy journalists with a track record of bullying. Because in all likelihood it was just a big age gap relationship and nothing more

In legal terms that’s absolutely not what a position of trust is.

TM does not care for children.

‘Position of trust’ is a legal term defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In section 22 it is explained as an adult “caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge” of a child under the age of 18.
This Act defines settings in which adults would have a position of trust e.g. hospital or an educational institution (section 21). It does not include a list of roles, but examples include:

• Teachers
• Care workers
• Youth justice workers
• Social workers
• Doctors

No… I claimed it was brought in to align it with laws applying to heterosexuals - it’s right there in black and white. Upthread. I’ve posted it twice.

So that, like heterosexuals, homosexuals could have consenting sex with people the same age. Not so that they would be fair game for people old enough to their parent or grandparent.

You're arguing semantics but what's been going on there is more than what's out there at the moment.

Policy paperPositions of trust: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 factsheet

1. What are we going to do?

We are extending the “position of trust” offences within ss 16 – 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include situations where certain activities take place in a sport or religion.
The “position of trust” offences are intended to target situations where the child has some dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability of the child. Existing positions of trust are directed at those who are employed to look after children under the age of 18, for example those providing care for a child in a residential care home, hospital or educational institution.
Concerns had been voiced in Parliament and society more widely that the current positions of trust were too narrow, and that an extension to them was required to protect a wider range of relationships where adults held a position of influence or power over 16 and 17 year olds.
The further positions of trust were drafted following a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review which engaged with stakeholders across the youth and criminal justice sectors, including the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), sports bodies, victims’ groups, and religious organisations.
Together with the further positions of trust that have been drafted we are intending to include provisions in the Act to allow additional positions of trust to be added via secondary legislation should that prove necessary.

Maybe legally they haven't got around to including celebrities, casting couch type things because the stories that have made the news have been historic.

4.3 Q: Why only those individuals who coach, teach, train, supervise or instruct in a sport or a religion? Did you consider expanding the further “positions of trust” to cover other specific situations?

Those who carry out certain activities in a sport or religion are particularly influential over a child’s development. For example, sports coaches have unique opportunities for physical contact, and can hold major influence over a young person’s career and future development. Similarly, those who carry out certain activities in a religion often have significant influence over a young person’s spiritual and religious development, often against a background of emotional vulnerability or immaturity. Both situations also have very high levels of trust, influence, power and authority and (particularly in the case of those involved in a religion) these figures are well established, trusted and respected in the community.

It's safe to say that a high profile celebrity could also hold major influence over a young persons career and future development, and that in a case such as this there are high levels of influence, power and authority and that the figure is well established, trusted and respected.

So just because the law hasn't got round to it criminalising it when it comes to certain roles it doesn't make it any better.

Also in regards to what you said about twitter, no giving someone advice doesn't automatically mean there was a breach of trust, but giving someone advice on twitter could have had a sinister motive.

The barrel scarping continues.

PS does not work with children in a role that requires safeguarding scrutiny. There will be a safeguarding type person at TM but it ain’t him. tab shows don’t tend to have people educationist or caring for children so I’d be amazed if TV presenters - who spend abo it 5 minutes a day opposite a dozen different people’ ever came onto the ‘Positions lf Trust’ list.

I don’t think it’s homophobia that has drawn more attention to it, I think it’s the fact it was seemingly known by so many for so long and attempted to be covered, that has drawn more attention.

It's safe to say that a high profile celebrity could also hold major influence over a young persons career and future development

So could literally anyone on any job.

Doesnt mean they go on the Position of Trust list.

I think you are really misunderstanding what that list is about and why certain professions/positions are included on it.

It's not barrel scraping.
You are just trying to find technicalities to make what he did sound less bad.

Just because it doesn't require safeguarding scrutiny does not mean that there's no risk or that no abuse of position of power can take place. It's not that difficult to understand.

It's not less bad if an adult who wasn't in a (specified) position of trust grooms or abuses a child.

Sports coach is on the list. Guitar teacher isn't. The guitar teacher could still exploit a vulnerable child.

Do you think that only people who are on the position of trust list have obligations and can be the only ones who can abuse children?

Or where are you going with this?

I'm not misunderstanding anything.

I don’t think what he did wasn’t bad.

I just don’t think he did anything illegal and this desperation to label him a pedophile is bizarre.

I also think it’s absolutely barrel scraping to suggest he held the same power as a teacher or youth worker because he followed someone on Twitter and gave them advice.

Just because it doesn't require safeguarding scrutiny does not mean that there's no risk or that no abuse of position of power can take place. It's not that difficult to understand.

Actually that’s exactly what it means - if organisations require no safeguarding scrutiny of children then that’s because they don’t hold the same kind of power over children. Safeguarding isn’t randomised, it’s implemented carefully to organisations that have a duty of care to children. TM is not one of those.

It's not less bad if an adult who wasn't in a (specified) position of trust grooms or abuses a child.

Sports coach is on the list. Guitar teacher isn't. The guitar teacher could still exploit a vulnerable child.

Er - both those professions are specific led positions of trust and are in no way comparable to being a TV presenter

In terms of patronages, charities will DBS check patrons. It’s of course not fool proof, as is the case with any DBS checks, but it’s the closest thing to ensuring safeguarding protocols are correctly observed and children are protected.

<Bangs head against brick wall>

Did I say that?

I’ll try and say this in simple terms - do you understand why specific people are in a Position of Trust like a teacher and not for example an accountant?

‘Where are you going with this’

😂

YOU are the one suggesting PS was legally in a Position of Trust. I’m arguing that he was categorically not.

I’m not ‘going’ anywhere with it, I’m explaining why your argument that he’s in the same position as a teacher is a load of old shite.

All of the charities PS was associated with have dropped him as a patron.

The Position of Trust is not related to their job, (eg accountant) it's more about the relationship and contact an influential adult could have over a young person. So an employer or influential boss/ mentor like PS would be arguably a position of trust over a young employee.

They’d be fools to keep him on. He had an inappropriate relationship, he has a nonce brother whose crimes he knew about and he’s an adulterer. They don’t just cut criminals loose, they cut people loose who will damage their image.

Though I thought it was rich for the Prince’s Trust to drop him when the RF roll out Uncle Andrew again and again.

You don't think he did anything illegal because you're believing his version of events. Many of the rest of us do not believe his version of events.

Actually that’s exactly what it means - if organisations require no safeguarding scrutiny of children then that’s because they don’t hold the same kind of power over children. Safeguarding isn’t randomised, it’s implemented carefully to organisations that have a duty of care to children. TM is not one of those.

That's just ridiculous. Any adult could potentially have that kind of power over children for various reasons, fame, charisma etc. but you think 'oh they're not on the list therefore it's not possible for any abuse of power'.

Er - both those professions are specific led positions of trust and are in no way comparable to being a TV presenter

The wrong example but you should understand what I mean regardless.

ALL adults are in a position of trust (small ‘p’, small ‘t’), even if they’re not in a Position of Trust, when it come to minors. That’s not up for debate.

Or, at least, I didn’t think it was….

Of course it’s related to their job/volunteering position. What did you think it was related to?! Unless an accountant was volunteering with children in their spare time why on Earth would they be in a Position of Trust.