Phillip Schofield #11

[Oh Really?]

I'm not convinced there is a superinjunction or injunction specifically for the MM case, based on the Popbitch edition sent out Thu 13 Feb:

Whatever his reasons for doing so, we have to admit that Phillip Schofield's decision to drop his coming out statement like a new Beyoncé album was pretty slick. That he managed to time it ten minutes after we'd sent out last week's Popbitch was an especially neat touch too.

There's been a lot of speculation swirling in the week since – so if you're wondering why the press reporting hasn't quite matched up with whatever you may have read on social media, rest assured that it's less to do with any rumour of shadowy superinjunctions and probably more to do with the IPSO warning that was sent out to newsdesks this week reminding them of the Editors' Code of Practice and its stance on privacy and harassment.

Whether or not the papers are going to play ball in that regard, we'll no doubt find out in due course. All we'll say is that if Schofe truly meant it when he said there was nothing forcing his hand to come out, then good for him.

Because, historically, that's rarely turned out to be the case whenever ITV's other primetime stars have suddenly felt an urge to give highly personal tell-all exclusives to the Sun on Sunday...
-------------------------
If not a superinjunction/injunction, perhaps Matt McGreevy was paid off by PS/his PR/ITV and signed an NDA?
Alternatively (and I don't know how the newspapers work - someone here might, please advise if you do), would The Sun have had to pay him for the story even though they ended up not running it because they had to get right of reply from Phil, who decided to do a 'tell all' interview instead?

 

[ShelleyBell]

PS was involved in the 'Ingenious' tax avoidance scheme back in 2017. Something jogged my memory from looking at his potential fake profile on Twitter. I Googled it and someone had tweeted him to ask if he was involved (he lied and denied it). https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro....llion-tax-relief-scheme-revealed-6681782/amp/

 

[Phoenix Lazarus]

They just cover the same thing over and over..why

To keep him in the news to try and prompt those with information to come forward?

 

[ShelleyBell]

I'm not convinced there is a superinjunction or injunction specifically for the MM case, based on the Popbitch edition sent out Thu 13 Feb:

There's been a lot of speculation swirling in the week since – so if you're wondering why the press reporting hasn't quite matched up with whatever you may have read on social media, rest assured that it's less to do with any rumour of shadowy superinjunctions and probably more to do with the IPSO warning that was sent out to newsdesks this week reminding them of the Editors' Code of Practice and its stance on privacy and harassment.

Whether or not the papers are going to play ball in that regard, we'll no doubt find out in due course. All we'll say is that if Schofe truly meant it when he said there was nothing forcing his hand to come out, then good for him.

Because, historically, that's rarely turned out to be the case whenever ITV's other primetime stars have suddenly felt an urge to give highly personal tell-all exclusives to the Sun on Sunday...
-------------------------
If not a superinjunction/injunction, perhaps Matt McGreevy was paid off by PS/his PR/ITV and signed an NDA?
Alternatively (and I don't know how the newspapers work - someone here might, please advise if you do), would The Sun have had to pay him for the story even though they ended up not running it because they had to get right of reply from Phil, who decided to do a 'tell all' interview instead?

I've never believed that there's been an injunction. I've always believed it to be exactly as you suggested. I found some guy on Twitter who seemed to be in the know about certain things (though was on PS side) and basically said that the lad (MM) won't speak because he got the money he was after and he signed an NDA as part of the agreement to get the money. I don't know about newspaper payments, though.

 

[Oh Really?]

I've never believed that there's been an injunction. I've always believed it to be exactly as you suggested. I found some guy on Twitter who seemed to be in the know about certain things (though was on PS side) and basically said that the lad (MM) won't speak because he got the money he was after and he signed an NDA as part of the agreement to get the money. I don't know about newspaper payments, though.

Ah yes! I remember seeing something about that on an earlier thread - either the tweet was posted or someone repeated what they had found (might have been you!). I've always thought he must have taken money from someone to stay silent, just wasn't sure whether he would be happy with the money from The Sun despite them not running the story (if that's how they do things), or if it came from PS (or someone linked to PS).

 

[ShelleyBell]

Ah yes! I remember seeing something about that on an earlier thread - either the tweet was posted or someone repeated what they had found (might have been you!). I've always thought he must have taken money from someone to stay silent, just wasn't sure whether he would be happy with the money from The Sun despite them not running the story (if that's how they do things), or if it came from PS (or someone linked to PS).

https://mobile.twitter.com/babylee26 This is the guy who seems to be in the know (how, I'm not 100% sure). He claimed he knew people who were dealing with it behind the scenes. But he is on PS side and claimed MM had stalked him

 

[JOHN1967]

I've never believed that there's been an injunction. I've always believed it to be exactly as you suggested. I found some guy on Twitter who seemed to be in the know about certain things (though was on PS side) and basically said that the lad (MM) won't speak because he got the money he was after and he signed an NDA as part of the agreement to get the money. I don't know about newspaper payments, though.

Hmm, it all depends on how old MM was, when all this started, him being happy with the money is neither here nor there if it was an inappropriate relationship.

 

[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.

 

[Sassylass68]

I've never believed that there's been an injunction. I've always believed it to be exactly as you suggested. I found some guy on Twitter who seemed to be in the know about certain things (though was on PS side) and basically said that the lad (MM) won't speak because he got the money he was after and he signed an NDA as part of the agreement to get the money. I don't know about newspaper payments, though.

Even if MM had been paid off and signed a NDA unless an injunction was in place the newspapers would have been all over the story. They would have used all the tweets from Twitter, the messages from the This morning crew and any other piece of dirt they could find, they would have dug deeper than anyone of us could. The gutter rags thrive on stories like this. The fact that no-one has even mentioned the allegations speaks volumes. It has even been reported that everyone involved in the coming out speech had to sign NDAs, why?

 

[Cosmo69]

Cancelled due to coronavirus, yes ok sure

He would have already have filmed a fair bit of that. I wonder if he was shown in a variety of sunny locations, winking at the camera as the lovely 'ladies' walked past and generally trying to look like a good heterosexual lad on his hols? Those shows aren't cheap - I doubt they'd just write them all off rather than either slightly revamp them or (the usual lazy ITV tactic) just shove them somewhere else in the schedules.

 

[Jellyonaplate]

What did Eamonn just say and Ruth stopped him

 

[ShelleyBell]

Even if MM had been paid off and signed a NDA unless an injunction was in place the newspapers would have been all over the story. They would have used all the tweets from Twitter, the messages from the This morning crew and any other piece of dirt they could find, they would have dug deeper than anyone of us could. The gutter rags thrive on stories like this. The fact that no-one has even mentioned the allegations speaks volumes. It has even been reported that everyone involved in the coming out speech had to sign NDAs, why?

There are harassment laws that the media have to adhere to - otherwise they could literally say anything about anyone regardless of truth with no fear of libel action. If PS gave his exclusive interview to TheScum and everyone signed NDA's and wouldn't speak, then legally the papers couldn't print anything anyway. In the same way they knew about Savile for YEARS before it came out, but they couldn't say anything as he was never charged/no proof. There are myriad other celebs with dark secrets, but there's a code of conduct the press have to follow and can't report on things without official complaints/proof

 

[Saturn.]

I've never believed that there's been an injunction. I've always believed it to be exactly as you suggested. I found some guy on Twitter who seemed to be in the know about certain things (though was on PS side) and basically said that the lad (MM) won't speak because he got the money he was after and he signed an NDA as part of the agreement to get the money. I don't know about newspaper payments, though.

Ah yes! I remember seeing something about that on an earlier thread - either the tweet was posted or someone repeated what they had found (might have been you!). I've always thought he must have taken money from someone to stay silent, just wasn't sure whether he would be happy with the money from The Sun despite them not running the story (if that's how they do things), or if it came from PS (or someone linked to PS).

Hmm, it all depends on how old MM was, when all this started, him being happy with the money is neither here nor there if it was an inappropriate relationship.

Even if MM had been paid off and signed a NDA unless an injunction was in place the newspapers would have been all over the story. They would have used all the tweets from Twitter, the messages from the This morning crew and any other piece of dirt they could find, they would have dug deeper than anyone of us could. The gutter rags thrive on stories like this. The fact that no-one has even mentioned the allegations speaks volumes. It has even been reported that everyone involved in the coming out speech had to sign NDAs, why?

If all this talk of payments is true, I wonder what Phil's daughters think of him effectively paying for the attention and subsequent silence of someone so young. No-one can know the dynamics within individual families, but it must be dreadful to sense that you are seen as a sleaze by your own children.

 

[ShelleyBell]

He would have already have filmed a fair bit of that. I wonder if he was shown in a variety of sunny locations, winking at the camera as the lovely 'ladies' walked past and generally trying to look like a good heterosexual lad on his hols? Those shows aren't cheap - I doubt they'd just write them all off rather than either slightly revamp them or (the usual lazy ITV tactic) just shove them somewhere else in the schedules.

I don't think it's to do with how much has/hasn't been filmed yet (it was probably already filmed in one go months ago). I think it's more to do with not being seen to encourage travel to certain places amongst the viewing public, for health & safety reasons.

 

[Cosmo69]

I don't think it's to do with how much has/hasn't been filmed yet (it was probably already filmed in one go months ago). I think it's more to do with not being seen to encourage travel to certain places amongst the viewing public, for health & safety reasons.

ITV continued with travel shows after 9/11, for god's sake! Has this wretched broadcaster suddenly discovered public responsibility?

 

[JOHN1967]

If all this talk of payments is true, I wonder what Phil's daughters think of him effectively paying for the attention and subsequent silence of someone so young. No-one can know the dynamics within individual families, but it must be dreadful to sense that you are seen as a sleaze by your own children.

A sleaze that gives them a very good lifestyle, and a very high profile job to one daughter. I honestly don't think the girls mind, especially now, as he not a sleazebucket but a brave soldier fighting for those who have had to hide in the closet for donkeys' years.

 

[ShelleyBell]

ITV continued with travel shows after 9/11, for god's sake! Has this wretched broadcaster suddenly discovered public responsibility?

I think it's more to do with the fact that we're verging on what's predicted to be an epidemic and want to be seen as responsible broadcasting. Maybe the government advised against the broadcast

 

[Harrigan]

This is not going to be popular, but if MM has been paid off not to talk, then my sympathy for him is somewhat reduced.

thinking back to another poster who said PS had the gall to have his young lover work for him, i can imagine the outrage if it was a young woman working with a man, in the same situation. Also there have been quite a few occasions when people in politics have been caught out employing family etc and not going around the correct procedures so how come PSs behaviour is acceptable?

I don’t care who presents TM the whole lot stink re their connection with the story. Thank God i mostly watch Talking Pictures and Craft channels.

 

[Saturn.]

A sleaze that gives them a very good lifestyle, and a very high profile job to one daughter. I honestly don't think the girls mind, especially now, as he not a sleazebucket but a brave soldier fighting for those who have had to hide in the closet for donkeys' years.

I know what you are saying, but on a human level, privately, the girls must feel a deep sense of embarrassment and quite possibly shame. Yes, the lifestyle continues, and I am sure that they don't let their inner feelings show to PS, but I can imagine they feel that he has let them all down. No one wants their friendship groups to think you have a creepy Dad if the allegations of what he is doing online at 2am and in real life are true. Poor girls.

 

[Oh Really?]

Even if MM had been paid off and signed a NDA unless an injunction was in place the newspapers would have been all over the story. They would have used all the tweets from Twitter, the messages from the This morning crew and any other piece of dirt they could find, they would have dug deeper than anyone of us could. The gutter rags thrive on stories like this. The fact that no-one has even mentioned the allegations speaks volumes. It has even been reported that everyone involved in the coming out speech had to sign NDAs, why?

There are harassment laws that the media have to adhere to - otherwise they could literally say anything about anyone regardless of truth with no fear of libel action. If PS gave his exclusive interview to TheScum and everyone signed NDA's and wouldn't speak, then legally the papers couldn't print anything anyway. In the same way they knew about Savile for YEARS before it came out, but they couldn't say anything as he was never charged/no proof. There are myriad other celebs with dark secrets, but there's a code of conduct the press have to follow and can't report on things without official complaints/proof

I agree, something is definitely amiss. But I honestly think the newspapers are all over this story and have been digging for ages. It has been reported on these threads that MM left TM in May 2019. The Mirror article about a runner leaving TM because of a toxic environment came out on 10 Dec 2019. That's seven months later. So you have to ask, why is that a story worth running when so much time has past from the event, and why is a story about a runner that important (no offence to runners)? Likely because they knew there was more to the story, but couldn't say it, so talked around it.

So much has been found and posted on here, you're right Sassylass, journalists surely have found more. But despite all the amazing detective work on here, there are no photos of them kissing, holding hands, leaving a hotel room together or copies of their text conversations etc. Don't get me wrong, I believe there was an intimate relationship, but to absolutely prove that intimate relationship (potentially inappropriate because of ages at the time or because of PS being in a position of power in the workplace) would the newspapers need one of the parties from that relationship to come forward with solid evidence of that intimate relationship, and tell their story? Which MM most likely did, but they had to give Phil right of reply, and for whatever reason, went with his coming out story instead. I think ShelleyBell could be right on the money with her quote above re: harassment and libel laws.