Phillip Schofield #32 It's all groom and doom.

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
Delujenelle said:
Repeating what I said at the end of the previous thread... . One thing I WILL say, is that the DM has been super careful NOT to mention MM by name. That is unlike them. I wonder if they have proof he was a victim. An underage victim. Otherwise they'd have all the pics and stuff up already. I think the story is just waiting...

And wouldn't the Bank Holiday weekend be a good time for it all to come out.

Not for Sex Offender Schofe obviously.
Click to expand...
Good point I'd even go as far as an exclusive from MM himself,I was groomed by PS
 
Blueballs said:
I think there's likley to be more than MM.
He was very careless and left a huge trail with MM that lead to that moment with Holly. I'm sure with future ones he it to not leave such a mess,

View attachment 2199359 q
Click to expand...

Sorry to be thick but what is the significance of this pic? Who are the men with Holly and how does it link to the PS stuff? Are these the people he was alleged to be grooming?
 
This Morning should be put out to grass , it’ll now be forever associated with a creepy child groomer and his vacuous blonde giggly sidekick.

I tell you the person whose opinion I’d like to hear, Fern Britton . She worked with the child groomer and fell out with him and didn’t work at ITV again iirc.
 
Just thought I'd share if nobody has seen. Sorry its a gbeebies post 🙈
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230527_143005_Twitter.jpg
    Screenshot_20230527_143005_Twitter.jpg
    43.8 KB · Views: 47
Waterfountain said:
Am about to go out but wanted to say does anyone remember Fred’the pweirdo’ weatherman
from Richard and Judy time
now free from prison, aged 70 and drinking close by where he abused young children Near altrincham.

my question is , does anyone think all of this could link back to him
its a very long time ago, as it was the 80s

i might be way off the mark and he might have been operating as a lone wolf, but just thinking how the abuse at the Beeb in savile time went back decades

ill just park it here
https://www.12ft.io/https://www.dai...drinking-pub-one-mile-school-abused-boys.html
Click to expand...
I thought exactly this I remember him being on ITV weather a vile disgusting man who abused young boys. You can watch his interview under caution on you tube I had to as part of my job the man was a disgusting vile piece of tit. So this morning is very much tarnished with these kind of people it needs to go.
 
Delujenelle said:
How do NDAs work? If you sign one, is it jist a financial penalty for breaking it? Or can there be legal ramifications also?
Click to expand...

Aside from suing or claiming under an indemnity for damages for breach, the only realistic remedy at law is an injunction.

There are, for example, no criminal consequences of breaching one unless the breach was somehow itself a criminal act, which is unlikely.
 
On the other thread, there was a discussion on injunctions, and what makes it 'super'. I posted this in a previous thread as an explainer:

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.

There is no evidence that Phillip has a 'super' injunction, but there is no way the press know the courts aren't protecting him nor ITV management have some sort of arrangement going with their legal teams. I'm pretty certain Pip has a lot of NDAs and they might be expiring/rendered void. In my work in PR, a lot of the injunctions or out of court settlements related to celebs were for boring matters (property, planning permissions), but football clubs for instance would seek legal advice to ringfence their players against any 'kiss & tell' stories/Sunday scoops.

What really did it for Schofield imo was his brother's court case. That was the point when the press could take action and push for the truth to out. It is disgusting that ITV management have covered this all up.
 
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