Phillip Schofield #11

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.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It may look like a 'baggy' at a glance (I thought the same), but it's actually an ID card of some description. The person who shared it mentioned this too and you can clearly see it in the enlarged photo. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
 
Reactions: 2
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.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 22
p01
That's more or less what I worked out the day it came out after reading through enough Twitter #'s, just in slightly less detail. I think MM probably just left social media of his own accord because of attention/trolling when it came out/the shit hit the fan, so to speak. I've never believed there's been any injunctions, just, like you said, rules that the media have to abide by and deciding to run the story through the narrative of the most powerful side.
 
Reactions: 10
It's a bit awkward on TM today, Vanessa Feltz talking about Weinstein and men in power and their behaviour towards employees
 
Reactions: 18
A good summary of the likely choreography and rationale. Without being defeatist, I do think that we now have to wait until someone credible with detailed knowledge shines more light on this. The crisis management strategy has very effectively closed down accounts and commentary, and Phil retains, broadly, the reputation he had with his fanbase prior to this starting. Of course for most of the contributors on this forum, and no doubt a large number of people elsewhere, he will forever have a rather dirty cloud over his head. This will matter little to him, but the hurt and shame he has caused his family will endure, and he will certainly have lost a lot of the respect his daughters had for him as a father, and a husband to their Mum. So he has already paid a heavy price, one that may still increase if there is more to come in relation to his online and real life activities. We can wait, Phil.
 
Reactions: 13
That still doesn’t explain why all these websites/forums have been closed down, does it?

What about Matthew Lopez the man abused by Cyril Smith? He said he was going to parliament to get the gagging order removed?

i am very confused


can we have This Morning permanently closed please along with Loose Women, Lorraine, Ant and Dec Saturday Night Takeaway, ie all the quality ITV programmes.


go on to You Tube and there are 4 videos re the Phillip Schofield story with Sonia Poulton and Shaun Attwood
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 13
If you (or someone else reading this) watch the full 2+ hours, could you kindly post what is the relevant time to watch from for PS commentary.
 
Sorry to disappoint I’ve watched quite a bit of the Sonia Poulton and Shaun Attwood interview and no mention of PS. Sonia did allude to the subject of Freemasons of which PS is a member of.

There is Part 4 to come so I’m hoping that PS is discussed in this

NB I did see a comment made under the You Tube video, somebody said that PS was connected to a dead sex worker and a person who was HIV positive and that PS had been interviewed by the police but how can you prove this is true?

View attachment 94555
Just seen this on TikTok
isnt Phillip kind to all his young fans?
 
Reactions: 4
That Shaun Attwood and Sonia Poulton youtube video is excellent. Firstly, she talks about the same subject that Philliploveslactia of this forum talks about i.e. the reasoning behind the recent trend of drag queens being used as children's entertainment - but without Philliploveslactatia's disturbing imagery (which I thoroughly enjoyed). She also talks about the Madeleine McCann case, Caroline Flack, some other things and of course about PS.

The discussion about PS starts around 17.10 minutes.
 
Reactions: 7
Just watched the part about Schofield. I like the last comment she made that, if she found the rumours to be true, she would not hesitate to go public. I do hope she finds proof!
 
Reactions: 4
Have been following all the discussions on this site. Tried to view the Tik Tok thread. It’s no longer available to view. It’s seems this site has restrictions. Who are these powerful people dictating what we are exposed to.
 
Reactions: 2
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.