to think it matters whether Phillip Schofield met the runner when he was 12 or 15.

[couldanyoneexplain]

I've seen and heard both.
Obviously getting someone a job at 18 or 19 with exploitative intentions is sleazy in the extreme. 15 is underage and deeply concerning, but 12 is deep into paedo territory.

The happiest couple o know left their spouses for one another. I’d find it weird if anyone was still raging about it years later.

Infidelity is quite a sensitive topic on MN from what I’ve seen. People say they’d go fully NC with their siblings if they had an affair - I find it utterly bizarre

Wait as long as you want. You are just twisting things now. Do come off your high horse! Nobody knows what actually happened and that is what I have said - wise up!

I just choose not to take PS's word for it. It's hardly been reliable now has it? Why would you believe what someone says when they have just admitted lying comprehensively?

Or was it just a teensy weensy accidental little lie and all should be forgiven because he's upset now?

Personally I will wait. I will do what everyone one of us with a modicum of intelligence is doing and await the outcome of what we can only hope will be a thorough, unbiased investigation.

Seeing people suddenly defending PS who don’t seem to know or care what grooming is and why it’s a problem.

The issue is the abuse of power by an influential high profile man held up as a national treasure, given prime time access to prime ministers etc all the while espousing a particular image. He met the runner as a child. Obviously a huge moment in that child’s life. He stayed in some kind of contact with the child on social media. A few years later when the child only just legally becomes an adult he organises him a sought after role working for him in London, away from the teen’s family.

Runner roles are fairly entry level in tv but are still not easy to come by and certainly not usually offered to out of town teenagers for their first job. Then there’s the boozy lunches and dinners as caught on video/pics with the - let’s face it - childish or unworldly seeming runner when he was 18/19. Again, just doesn’t happen with runners and show hosts.

Then there’s the runner’s appearances on the show, studio access for filming his show reels, selfies with PS and Holly, being invited to go on stage at NTAs! The crew involved on a show like that is huge, these things are not usual for runners. Then of course during all this came kissing/ shagging or whatever the runner in the dressing room at work as PS declared in his story about it to the sun newspaper (and wasn’t that decent of him).

If PS had come out because he really wanted to (not 10 days after The young drunk runner made a public scene at NTAs) like if he’d wanted to go public with a long term boyfriend or simply not to live a lie and THEN had naturally met a 20-year-old brickie/banker/first year uni student outside of work that would be different. Eyebrows would be raised at any 60 year old setting out his stall as being “that kind of bloke” who goes for much younger people but it would ultimately be like, oh well.

Bollocks to all this ‘he was a grown 20, people are being homophobic’. The teen years contact and workplace power imbalance is the issue.

Imagine Holly (who’s 20 years younger than PS) visiting youth groups, repeatedly messaging a baby faced boy from one then getting him a job, taking him out on the town drinking and sorting him perks, then having her hand forced to admit she was living a lie as a married mother and had actually been getting off with young one in the work dressing rooms because they were friends who 'got excited’.

The awful thing with the brother and PS not alerting the authorities or helping save the boy from his brother’s child abuse fits with PS previous actions of looking after his own situation above all else.

The thing you know as well if this was Rishi Sunak, PS would be putting these points across to him in an interview but while he himself is ever so sorry for something - not quite clear what - he’s maintaining this wasn’t grooming and trying to give the impression to whichever public are willing to still give him time that it was an equal relationship. Just with pay offs and lawyers. And 60 year olds nurturing intense friendships with 18-20 year olds is just normal, “mates”. Righto. The runner might not even feel groomed but doesn’t mean he wasn’t!

There is no
Evidence of grooming. That's the problem I have . I work in safeguarding and policing and understand grooming- but this is speculation and titillation. Nothing more .

And that's why I'm uncomfortable with it . If there is evidence of criminal
Wrong doing why aren't police investigating?

There is none is why . Armchair detectives over reacting and causing an issue . It's such an over reaction. Man has affair at work - that's the story . Big deal .

Des - what do you make of the fact Caroline flak met her future relationship (s) as children?

She's dead so tragically can't answer

But I do believe you can cross paths with a person you at later go in to have an association or relationship with without it being grooming - that appears to be something people here can't understand? Why ?

If I'd crossed paths at some point with my husband (who was older than me ) would that automatically mean grooming?

I was actually 15 when I met my husband and he was 21 and was by far the most stable , kind and supportive influence in my life back then as it happens . He didn't groom me . He saved me actually. From homelessness and drug abuse and whatever comes with that life - he was a kind , loving influence and we were married 27 years, had two
Amazing kids and a good life . If anyone suggested he groomed me I'd suggest I actually groomed him . I needed a place to live and money - I saw a kind and gentle man and I clung to that because the alternative was a shared house with drug addicts .

I would suggest most people here screaming abuse don't actually have any experience of abuse .

Anya, as PS has been at pains to point out, it was consensual. No one has mentioned ‘criminal’ wrongdoing - working in policing, you know that no criminal case is active therefore “evidence” isn’t official.

The only official evidence in relation to PS and CSA is that he turned a blind eye to his brother’s abuse of a vulnerable boy.

You are ok with all the points already mentioned that led to PS and runner’s consensual relationship, you do you but don’t be surprised other people aren’t keen.

Bill Wyman ‘consensually’ had sex with a 14 year old and Peter Thatchell in campaigning to lower the age of consent cited knowing nine year olds who were unharmed by their 'consensual’ sex with adults. No evidence of grooming or criminal wrongdoing for either man. Doesn’t make it right to most.

In terms of evidence that takes PS beyond “speculation and titillation”, those would be the pictures, videos, screenshots, payoffs and resignations that led to PS’s own admissions and ITV being brought up before MPs. A fairly big deal.

The media outrage over this is overblown unless they really they have Saville levels of dirt on him and ITV. Or maybe they just hate him like his colleagues do and are savouring his downfall.

It's very disingenuous to squeal homophobia when threads like this have been cooking for 3 years
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4059338-Phillip-Schofield?page=1
without any biters even though this site is regularly swept for daily mail content.

Anya again - didn’t see it was same poster - I don’t know much about Caroline Flack - remember Sun mocking DV and her when she was facing a DV trial before she killed herself but unsure what that has to do with PS specifics?

Don’t think people don’t understand that you can’t “cross paths” later in life and it not be grooming - that just absolutely isn’t the case with PS and runner though!

If PS had bumped into the runner in a bar at 25 and runner was like oh I met you 10 years ago when I was a kid ha ha and they went on to have a relationship that would be very different.

Don’t know about you and your husband three decades ago, sounds completely different to timeline of a powerful 60 year old meeting a theatre kid then using his influence on him and his career as he turned into a man before dumping him, shifting him round and paying him off when the runner was unsurprisingly indiscreet.

The outrage would be even worse if he has been grooming a young girl so he got off lighter. He'd still lose his job, but it would be a bigger story.

I think most people on this thread, or other threads about this really dont know what grooming means or what it entails. There is no evidence of grooming based on what is in the media at present.

Ive asked on a number of threads, including this one in response to posters making statements - what vulnerabilities did the boyfriend have, what 'concerns around safeguarding of a young person' were there, what is the evidence of grooming - and no one ever answers.

It's the exact same reason why female teachers having sex with boys aren't seen as bad as male teachers girls.

Because boys are seen as more mature and that they must have enjoyed it, while girls are seen as how they're supposed to, as people who couldn't consent.

In this case there is still outrage. But no doubt it would be perceived as worse with a girl.

You don't seem to understand what grooming is. A young person doesn't need 'particular vulnerabilities'. Their age and lack of power are their vulnerabilities.

Here's a basic definition of grooming (from the NSPCC) in case anyone else is confused. Grooming can be a mentor who uses a DC's special interest to create a personal bond and build a relationship. They often use social media messaging to grow the relationship. They give advice, take the person on trips/buy treats/give experiences. The groomer will put themself in a position of power, influence or control over the younger person. A child or young person may not understand they've been groomed.

I do know what grooming is, I work in safeguarding! And there hasnt been any evidence thus far that this person was groomed. If you have it, then provide it.

I asked about vulnerabilities, because on this or another thread (I cant remember where) someone said he was vulnerable. I asked in what way.

Exactly Alexandria. I said similar at 2:46. Can't imagine why bella is claiming that she knows this isn't grooming and no one is explaining how it is

Well said in all your posts @dessyh

@AnyaMarx you work in policing & safeguarding - yet you entirely fail to see the glaring safeguarding issues at play here - this certainly helps explain the regular safeguarding failures in the police

I didnt say I 'knew' it wasnt grooming. I simply said there isnt evidence it is. And no, there hasnt been any explanation in this specific case of the elements that make it so.

The boyfriend may well come to say later and give details and it be established but that hasnt happened as yet.

This is the problem with these types of threads, posters making things up,, putting words into peoples mouths, not working with the evidence as its known.

The willingness of some posters to ignore the age difference, age of the runner when contact was established, and the power/status difference in this relationship is concerning.

That’s a couple of mentions of “evidence” bella. PS has admitted he knew the runner as a child, got him a job working closely with him, began an intimate relationship with him in the workplace, arranged lawyers for him - had to leave itv, Itv facing investigation, up before MPs. The pics and videos of him with the runner... It’s not a criminal case so unsure what you can mean by other “evidence”.

You basically seem to be saying there’s nothing to see here unless the runner goes on record. A big step beyond refusing to lie for PS lawyers, a move that would see him forever officially publicly linked to PS by telling his story, however he sees it, to the world. That is v problematic territory.

Not dissimilar to the view PS took when his brother told him he was abusing the vulnerable child. If the brother had told PS it wasn’t ‘consensual’ would PS have actually acted to save the child from it. Indeed if the brother had, for example, admitted to the same offences but on boys unknown to him, targeted in the street or outside a school say, and PS had simply told him ‘don’t do it again’ a letter to court and return to This Morning would be unthinkable. PS took the view it was behind closed doors and could be ‘contained’ and therefore certainly didn’t put the abused youngster first.

I can't see the grooming evidence either if I'm totally honest. I don't think he was underage in those pictures of them going for dinner was he? I don't want to let someone off the hook if they are abusive but just knowing someone when they are underage and then sleeping with them as an adult isn't enough to say grooming occurred.
If he had been 16 when they hooked up then yes of course that would look very much like grooming had happened but at 20 he was several years away from being underage.

And workplace relationships aren't always considered abuse either even if there's an age gap.

Will absolutely reassess if the young man comes forward with details of grooming but I just haven't seen anything like that.

Different parameters when it comes to views of grooming then Misschief.

A powerful 60 year old got an 18/19 year old first jobber a showbiz role that involved them working closely together after meeting him as a child and maintaining an online relationship with the boy from childhood until the job. Then had sex with this workplace subordinate just out of his teens. Payoffs to keep it all quiet. What DO you view as grooming. PS was never going to need to pursue young men via online video games was he. These opportunities present themselves to influential people - who are willing to exploit them as such.

And again this idea of only official “evidence” (when there isn’t a criminal case) or PS runner speaking out being the measure of what it takes to call grooming is interesting.

To suggest PS ‘just’ knew the runner as a child then kind of happened to sleep with him as an adult glosses over the whole sequence of events that led to that relationship and the reason PS is in the shit.

No one has claimed the runner was underage on the boozy dates with PS. No one said all workplace relationships are considered abuse.

Pay offs? How do you know that?

This is what I have issue with

There is no
Evidence of pay offs or gagging orders , o an ongoing online relationship

There is a lot being made up to for the narrative and for me - that's wrong

Let the investigation happen and let's review when that's happened but on the face of what they both said - there is No Grooming, no abuse, and I don't actually even think this was a full blown affair

You talk of shagging

Again - he said "something happened " - that could be a kiss , a bj , a fumble , a wank , not necessarily full sex

The problem I have with this now is people making their own shit up . There is simply no reason to believe there is more to it .
I'd like PS to turn around now tell people to
Fuck off instead of constantly apologising because he's making it sound like there is more to apologise for than the facts dictate .

Where is there grooming? pS did not take the boy under his wing as 15 and have a close connection to him - and tv is insular and it's who you know not what you know - he had minimal contact via Twitter until they worked together. This is going to do a lot of damage because people who are in a position to help are going to stop having any contact at all with anyone who wants to work in that industry for fear of this type of accusation.

My sister worked in theatre /tv and trust me if PS has acted in appropriately then there's gonna be some other big names squirming in their seats - and for much worse .

I do not believe PS groomed anyone .
He gave advice , helped then went on to have a legal, consensual fumble in a dressing room - he needs to answer this for his wife and no one else

There is a lot of hysteria around this

I have been involved in grooming cases - grooming to me is something different here and I have experience working in the area and also as I said - I think people commenting have no experience of actual abuse - the outrage does t match the facts .
The man hadn't been in constant communication with PS . There is no suggestion he did him a favour for sexual gratification, or blackmail,.
They got to know each other in later life and a fling a consensual fling - as adults - occurred - why does the public need to know anything that's a private matter between these two ?
We don't .
This is ridiculous and disproportionate. Peoples lives are being destroyed. Leave them all alone . Let the review be undertaken . Let the findings be known .

I would suggest they don't.

Theyre salacious gossips with nothing better to do .

You see, my difficulty with this is that we only have PS's word for this. A 'word' that has been totally discredited by his own admission that he lied in 2020. Bared his soul on national TV, saying that he hadn't acted on his gay inclination and that his wife knew everything when he did. How can anyone trust this man? You have no idea what happened and what didn't happen, but PS does not come out of this looking good.

We now know this isn't true. He has used photos of him 'confessing' to his elderly mother, and he has given interviews that are all 'poor me'.

I have no idea what is going to come out of any inquiry and I'm not convinced that it will be impartial.

I'm concerned that you are involved in cases of grooming and you are so easily convinced by a proven liar.

Do you have experience of grooming cases ?

Or abuse ?

If not - you cannot pass aspersions on my professional credibility. I'm good at my job and I get huge satisfaction from bringing abusers to account .

What I'm not prepared to do is hang a man based on gossip.