Phillip Schofield #11

[Saturn.]

Most Tattle members last night, thinking the site had been Schofielded .....

Read

 

[Chita]

Thankyou for the MattyLopez info.

I realise now they were a Cyril Smith victim.


This world is all topsy turvy.
Phillip Schofield gets shed loads of support, is called brave and is protected.

Child victims are the ones who need support.
They shouldn't be just pushed aside and told to shut up and go away.
The wrong people are being given support!!!

Matty Lopez seems to have found some strength though - which is good, but there's strength in numbers.
We need to help make these stories heard.
Help support both Matty's.

 

[Oldnews]

I'm guessing because the duplicitous little maggot bit the hand that was feeding him when he turned on Schofe.. Its one thing to have other jobs but when that main job involves calling into disrepute the one man that has been built on and up as Mr Family well, then you are attacking the whole network. How could itv trust him after that. ..The man after all is akin to the mucus that allows the slug to slither along.

Who is the "duplicitous little maggot"? PS, DW or both

You know what ? I can't process this . One minute I'm thinking "is it me or is Phillip Schofield fancying lactatia who is 9? Then I'm seeing drag dad's on BBC Scotland via "the social " (must watch ) and then I'm seeing drag kids joking about ketamine and rohypnol.

I come on here and I'm seeing adopted kids in dresses and gay men with coke or ketamine and David Walliams hastag boyindress .


I can't deal with it . It's too much .

So look. Im going to make a series of long films and I'll fold in as much as I can from here .

You can share them if you like and I'll just keep pumping them out.

It looks to me like they are rubbing society's face in this .

I guarantee you I can make videos that will put them on the back foot .

I never thought I would find myself here with you all, but I guess none of us do this for sport

Easiest thing is just to check my posts now and again .

I don't understand why you're saying you "can't deal with it" and seem to be suggesting surprise at pics/videos you're seeing on this threat...when it's you who is posting such stuff? You are aren't you, or am I mixing up posts? No-one else has put these images on here and Ttbh there seems to be a tenuous or little link to PS apart from one of the kids appearing on TM. Now you seem to be trying to stir things up and make people link them with this comment after you've posted a number of what I can only describe as disturbing and extremely strange videos that bear to relevance to this thread. Am I the only one who thinks this?

 

[Cosmo69]

Barrymore came out in 1995, and by all accounts, the public responded positively

It was more complicated than that. Barrymore's coming out seemed to be accompanied by a succession of deeply unpleasant and completely unnecessary misogynistic gestures and remarks that quickly alienated many who might otherwise have sympathised. There was also anger at his apparent lack of concern for his wife, not just because he'd cheated on her but also because as his manager she'd basically shaped his success.

Schofield would have been much more vulnerable if his wife hadn't been so quiet and seemingly co-operative. It's ironic: if someone like Phil was a guest on This Morning, talking about coming out, PS and Willoughby would almost certainly have torn into him with their trademark self-righteous indignation, asking why he wasn't more ashamed of how he'd treated his wife. But because it's Phil himself, that's not deemed a pertinent issue.

That's one of the reasons, journalistically, that he's no longer suited to the job.

 

[Cosmo69]

I think many people were expecting too much too soon. Once it became clear that Schofield was going to have to make his announcement, an extremely expensive damage limitation team snapped into action. So it shouldn't be a surprise that this ruthless and remorseless silencing operation is currently working.

But it won't last. In a case like this, there's a very intense burst of activity, and then it starts to fade. It starts to fade partly because the initial blitz has been so effective that critics start to despair, and partly because, quite frankly, it's way too expensive to keep the operation going.

You can, for example, employ a huge team of people, aided by sophisticated software, to scour Twitter etc for 'inappropriate' messages, and throw money at lawyers to initimidate the press, and pursue multiple other means to patrol the culture, but only for a brief time. The Schofield operation looks very much like a 'short, sharp shock' to blast the opposition away.

It's what happens after this that's intriguing. Once Schofe's team start to feel it's 'job done,' that's the time that he'll start to relax and get too cocky. That's the time when all kinds of accidents could happen - say, TM start to relax and make the mistake of choosing one of those icky 'he cheated on me'/'she lived a double life' guests and suddenly Schofield's input seems strikingly inappropriate, or Schofe gets drunk at 2 in the morning and sends a message that reveals too much, or one of his boyfriends speaks out, or a journalist decides it's safe to make an alegation, etc etc.

So there's no need for resignation. It would have been incredible if his initial burst of intimidation and silencing hadn't worked. It was always extremely likely he'd survive the first wave of controversy.

But if people are vigilant, and remain prinicipled and impersonal in the way they seek to encourage a proper and open investigation into his behaviour, then the next few months are going to be far more interesting and eventful than Phillip expects.

 

[TeaPotTattoo]

It took a year after his death for the stuff about Jimmy Savile to come out.

That's why sites like this are vital. Free speech on the internet means we can all talk to each other. Had Jimmy Savile been operating now, I reckon there would be exactly the same kind of denial from TV land, but a site like this would've turned up so many stories he'd have to be exposed.

As soon as the story about P Schofield turned to the possible grooming of a boy, I stopped tweeting about it and advised others to do the same. The libel laws in this country are too powerful.

Like other newbies here, that's when I found this incredible site! With super injunctions, the secret deals the press make behind our backs, and the libel laws favouring the rich, it's vital for people to be able to share the stuff people have on here.

If people like P Schofield want to manipulate the public, the public have a right to think hmm, this is weird, what's really going on here? A transparent nation is a healthy nation.

If nothing else, Schofield's arrogance shows just how safe he felt. To bring a boy into his work environment that he was having an affair with, that he apparently started having sex with at the age of 16, and to parade him on TV?

The bastard was taking the piss. Taking this piss out of his audience, his colleagues, his wife and daughters, and his employers. Even after Savile, even after Operation Yewtree, even after Kevin Spacey and #MeToo, a creepy host of a daytime TV show thought that where others had been caught out, he'd be the one to get away with it.

Men like Schofield will always exist, and every single one of them has got to be exposed, and that will always start with curious folks like us who just can't let something go.

You have to get away with this every day for the rest of your life, Phillip. We only need you to slip up once.

 

[Saturn.]

But really, what real evidence is there of a) wrong-doing and b) a cover up? It’s pure speculation and making the ‘evidence’ fit a theory.
I seriously doubt that there’s any fire, despite plenty of people creating smoke on here. I say that as somebody who was initially convinced by the threads.
It’s become an endless feedback loop of comments that say precious little other than repeating pure fantasy, and, frankly, it’s pretty tedious and nasty.


There’s free speech and then there’s smearing a person’s reputation without any evidence whatsoever. These threads have exercised the latter option and the only reason it’s kept going is because the servers are located abroad. This site is packed full of slanderous accusations that have zero basis in solid evidence.
I think PS is a prick but without proof you’ve all just piled on and it’s disgusting.

Hello Jill.

As a father to two teenage children, I would shudder with disgust and acute concern if I became aware that they were in contact at 2-3am on a social media platform with a man in his late 50s. Amongst these platforms, some delete all comments, photographs and videos within a short period. If the recipient screenshots the message, it lets the sender know, thus letting them change or end their subsequent communication.. These sites are well-known as attracting people who you would not want interacting with your young teenage child while you sleep at 2-3am. Please refer back to earlier threads for pictorial evidence of this activity, and an admission from PS that he uses false profiles online. Neither of us know the true extent of the breadth and depth of his genuine and fake online persona(s).

Fortunately I don't have to worry as my children have always left their phones on charge overnight in a room separate from their bedrooms, but a lot of children can be more vulnerable in homes with less guidance and supervision.

You may or may not be a Mother, but if you were born in 1962, you could well have had teenage children at some point. How would you feel about someone else born in 1962 exchanging messages, photographs and maybe short videos with your son or daughter at such hours?

 

[Saturn.]

Wikipedia standard of crapness. This thread has finally descended into total Ickedom. Good luck with the ravings. I'm out.

One of the merits of the circa 10,000 comments on this subject to date, has been the measured and courteous exchanges. If a quote from a barrister who worked in the same chambers as the person in question does not meet with your approval, maybe you could share with everyone the rationale and knowledge that gives you such certainty that any of the suggestions made by others are NOT true. Or you could just leave in a huff. Your call.

 

[MoodyBlue]

On today's TM, a group of young men were being interviewed about a west-end show they've written. Towards the end of the interview Phillip mentioned the fact that one of them performed in Dr Dolittle with him and then they showed a picture (the lad looked like was about 10 in the photo).

Not sure why I'm highlighting it other than I was a bit surprised because I assumed he'd have actively swerved this being brought up because of the rumours but he initiated the conversation.

Is he just really brazen or is it 'look see, I didn't do anything wrong cos I wouldn't DARE talk about this or show this pic if I had'?

It’s called hiding in plain sight

 

[Chita]

This appeared approx 9pm Sunday night -
Now to whom could she be referring?
And wonder what has prompted it?
She's been quiet up until now really.

 

[Team JCM]

How fabulous is it to see a good guy like Rylan getting all these shows on the beeb? Ready steady cook, you are what you wear. You must be seething Schofe you’re cancelled.

 

[Chita]

I still think he has won.
I think more people think he's brave than think he might be covering up a relationship with someone who was under age when they met.

I was chatting to 2 people the other night and both think he's wonderful.
Both looked at me like I was unhinged when I said I don't like him.

I used to like him but after the Fern situation and his visibly growing smugness I went off him.

I am trying not to let my dislike of him make me biased against him. I'm trying not to think the worst.
Being gay isn't an issue.
But possible grooming and covering it up is a huge issue.
But is there any proof of wrongdoing?

The tweeting and tik tokking and Mathew being on stage at the NTA's and all of that stuff we've been shown on here are difficult to see as innocent.

And if no wrongdoing - why work so hard to silence and cover up??

Makes no sense if nothing bad has happened.

 

[Strawberry Tart]

Are we definitely sure there's an injunction? Those things don't last forever. I think it's more feasible the runner was paid not to sell his story. If an injunction was taken out to stop the story, why would PS have had to come out so quickly? He could have bided his time whilst the injunction was still active to sort it out. I think his exclusive story to The Sun was a deal he made to silence MM from any specifics - once that story was out, the papers would have had to abide by normal privacy/harassment laws in the way they do other public figures

If just one more young guy comes out of the woodwork to tell his story about his time with PS I’m sure this would be blown wide open. The story isn’t that he’s gay, it’s the young age of the boys he’s attracted to. Nobody cares that he’s gay, but we do if he’s grooming young teens. Also the fact a man heading to age 60 is on tiktok and other forums specifically used by teenagers should be addressed by his bosses. At best it’s odd, at worst sinister.

 

[Saturn.]

this forum has been extremely friendly and accepting of peoples differing views. The main reason I've stayed with tattle is the lack of trolls and negativity. Thank you Saturn for speaking up.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

Nobody cares who's gay or straight any more. If he was a heterosexual man getting in touch with a 15 year old girl who was desperate to get a job in entertainment and he was a highly influential man in the industry around 35 years older than her I'd be worried.

 

[Bobs888]

Just seen these on mattylopezmusic twitter...

 

[gulliblenomore]

I'm a long time lurker on here but I was having a nosey through Matty Lopez's facebook and saw this. Not sure if it's already been posted/discussed?

 

[Bitofthebubbly]

I actually can’t bear to hear his voice on This Morning. Didn’t really have an opinion on him before his ‘coming out’ but the second Holly was like “no one is forcing your hand here” I knew there was definitely more to it than it simply being the ‘right’ time.

Now all I see is a smug twat who has a thing for very young men/boys. It irrationally annoys me to see him still wearing a wedding ring. Such a small thing but all I can think is “who are you kidding, really?”.

The truth will out one day I’m sure.

 

[Oh Really?]

That Byline Investigates thingy is all over Twitter and is clearly on a mission to find the Press accountable for phone hacking, so I guess its understandable that they would focus on that - but if they are going to investigate things other papers don't [as they profess to do] then they should also be looking at the grooming allegations.

There's a lot of fishy stuff happening.
Dan Wootton disappears from the Lorraine show and gets a show on Talk radio as Eamonn Holmes leaves Talk radio.
Dan had been reporting/tweeting about the toxic atmosphere at ITV and had mentioned Phil was unpopular with many.
Did he get sacked from 'Lorraine' for daring to bring the toxicity to our attention?
Probably.

WE ALL KNOW Phil coming in on his day off to make the big announcement was so he could get in there first.
Him announcing it before the weekend papers could - plus - doing it on Friday delivered the double whammy of ensuring Ruth and Eamonn had to appear supportive of him because of what his announcement was.

If they so much as made a murmur about him being a git in any way shape or form they would be pilloried and called homophobes.

So Phil played a trump card there.

Things do have a way of coming out via the back door though, so maybe this article coming out now to say what we all knew when it happened a month ago may be an indication that the back door is about to open.
This article tells us nothing we didn't already know, but there are a LOT of people 'out there' who will be hearing this for the first time, so it is getting the 'something fishy' to a wider audience.

Creak, creak, creak goes the back door.......................................

I wouldn't have thought the Sun would be happy at him coming out on live TV ahead of the "exclusive" story his team had agreed with them. Surely they'd want the story to themselves and not for him to reveal it on national tV. Sort of takes the sting out of it doesn't it?.
If that was what they'd agreed, then they'd be looking for something better...and I don't mean being fed the sort of stories we've seen them running since he came out, clearly being supplied by his PR team. It just doesn't add up for me.
If the Sun had a better story surrounding him being gay, I mean with a bit more to it, then they wouldn't be happy with the watered down version of him coming out. While this probably came as a bit of a surprise to Mrs Cannybody sitting at home, it appears most people in the entertainment and media industry already knew. So the question is, what was the real story? It must have been pretty bad to force his hand. What I can't understand is what the Sun got out of it all...an old story after PS revealed all and a few crappy stories spoon-fed by his PR team. Mmmmm?
While I don't like the tactics of certain hacks, I think it's also wrong for celebrities to think they can lead double lives, conning the public and making huge sums of money through advertising etc. If their private life is the complete opposite of the squeaky clean image they present, then they really shouldn't be allowed to continue to con the public like this, often sitting in judgement on the lives of others they interview, getting financial gain from advertising based on that holier-than-thou image, and more worring hiding behind that image to win the trust of naive young men you are mentoring in the industry or meeting on chat sites. If this is the case, then it should be exposed. I don't think PS being gay is the full story.


I totally agree. This article just doesn't make sense. The Sun would want the story to themselves, not for PS to reveal it himself on national tv.They want to sell papers after all. There's a lot more to this than meets the eye.

My theory is the toxicity stories (not limited to The Sun) were because journalists knew that PS had been seeing MM, knew that the relationship had gone sour and that MM was subsequently moved to Loose Women. They might have thought that how PS had behaved with MM and/or the relationship he had with MM was inappropriate, but they didn't have solid evidence to prove their relationship, so talked around it by saying how toxic PS was. They wanted to say he was a bad guy, without actually saying the real reason why they thought this. Note that The Mirror story about the runner leaving a toxic atmosphere was back in Dec and there have been many stories published by different media outlets since then. I've said in a previous post you have to question why it is important that a runner (in particular) leaving a programme is a story. They knew, they just couldn't say, so they just hint at a different level of relationship.

For reference:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/mystery-phillip-schofields-runner-leaving-21062922

I agree The Sun would want the full story themselves, but you can see how PS's PR/management company worked to shut this down. Maybe MM went to The Sun with pretty weak evidence of a relationship or maybe he went there with some pretty explosive stuff. Either way, The Sun is not going to turn down a good story, so went to PS for right of reply (which they have to do) and if the evidence was weak, maybe they exaggerated about what they had in their back pocket so that they could get the coming out story instead. (The Sun most likely knew that whatever the level of evidence, this was the story they would get in the end, as it's incredibly unlikely PS would come out and admit to having had a relationship with a runner from his show who is way less than half his age/barely legal.)

PS panics when he is told what they have on him, PR, ITV and The Sun meet, work out a deal that PS can come out the next day on This Morning. Bear in mind someone on here said Sunday papers finalise their stories on a Thursday - this also ties in perfectly with the report that TM editor Martin Frizell worked all day and night on Thursday to make Friday's show go smoothly. I think it was all about critical PR timing and having Ruth and Eamonn show support was not necessary, just a bonus given the day of the week they had to work with. The announcement itself was clearly a rush job - contradictions in what he said on the show and what was said two days later. They did not have time to go through the details of his story with a fine tooth comb, that is for sure.

So why would The Sun agree to PS coming out on his own show and not having an exclusive story? Well PS's management company - YMU - which decides who gets access to the massive list of talent on their books, decide to play that card. That is, this is the story we'll agree for you to tell on Sunday, but Phil is on a daytime show Mon-Thu every week and he needs to tell his audience himself. If you don't agree to that then we'll restrict your access to our talent. So The Sun agree.

Ultimately, do you take a story from a publicly unknown scorned lover and give up many other avenues for stories, or do you take the big celebrity coming out story and keep getting fed stories about other celebs?

And if MM isn't the only one, if the tweet posted here several threads back that alleged there are more ex-lovers/young men who were groomed combining their stories to put forward a legal case is correct, then The Sun will get two bites of the cherry anyway once that comes out.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

Posts like this really alarm me. If you don't like someone vote with your feet and don't watch them. Don't try and rally the troops to crucify them.

Please could you tell me the "known facts" to support your claims?

PS's double life really alarms me and there should be an investigation. He's been living a double life all his life, using his wife as cover, she is complicit, and it involves at least one very young man. We are seeing a cover-up in action and I'm fuming