Phillip Schofield #18 Smug Philth couldn’t wait in a line, Even for The Queen he couldn’t spare the time

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
Not the brightest tool in box. Full sunlight at 5am even in September would be pushing the boundaries even on mid summer day 21st June.
 

Attachments

  • F5DE8469-2FF2-4529-B38D-DBC73917883D.png
    F5DE8469-2FF2-4529-B38D-DBC73917883D.png
    124.3 KB · Views: 860
Libbylulu said:
Can someone please explain how a super injunction works. Years ago when Giggs had a super injunction an MP outed him in the commons during his speech. So why are the papers so scared of being sued for outing someone who grooms boys?
Click to expand...
So say for instance I'm a big male celeb, living the life in London, adored by millions for doing x, y, z. One parents evening, I get really close to my child's headteacher, we hit it off and start a six-month affair.

My wife is encouraged yet suspicious I'm taking 'too' much interest in my kid's school. I decide to call off seeing the headteacher, (in this scenario we mutually agree that it was a bit of fun, but she has a pregnancy scare and bills need paying. Down the line she threatens to sell a 'kiss and tell' story that would destroy my reputation).

Now in this situation I could call her bluff, or tell my version of events to my family to soften the blow. But I decide to take the legal route as an extra layer of protection. An injunction is granted after the act is committed and is there to gag the press. I'd need to argue that publication amounts to defamation and it's untrue. Celebs often cite they have a right to a private life (article 8), which works in their favour.

What makes it super is the press cannot write about a particular issue nor can they mention the order preventing you from writing about the issue. So what the tabloids tend to do quite cleverly is post cryptic stories, to keep said person in the public domain, and insinuate something is going on. We're seeing this here with Pip. A story about being associated with his male friend.

The reason why Giggs was named was because of parliamentary privilege, MPs can debate without fear of legal action. Yet the courts in England and Wales are different to Scotland and I believe one paper basically outed Giggs on the front page, all but masking his eyes.
 
Last edited:
VC10 said:
Well, it's mentioned on here, and has been daily for the last few years 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Can't close Tattle down, or order off " hearsay" & " conversational social intercourse"......( ooooh err!) 😅😅
Click to expand...
Probably a very unpopular opinion, but what makes Tattle so untouchable?
 
So Phil gave the character reference back in 2018?! WTF has it only just come out now?🤔 He’s being done up like a kipper by someone. Not that I’m complaining about it, it’s a long time coming. I’m starting to think that Dan Wootton is right and ITV want rid of him.
 
AllSeeingEye123 said:
Yes we need a similar front page for Schofield that makes it obvious.

View attachment 1636976 q
Click to expand...
Bloody hell, that was very bold of them. I'm amazed they got away with that legally.

I'd be amazed if Philth and Hollyfilla were still presenting This Morning this time next year. Not happening. Too many sneaky stories are being released by the papers - it's falling apart.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top