And he's a bloody hypocrite. Remember when he was cross-examining a woman who had given Wayne Rooney a lift and he said to her 'but you got in a car with a married man'. I wonder what she thinks about him now.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Imagine all the tit he’s given people over the years that will now back fire in his face.
Some may say his questions are given to him, which is correct. But questions come naturally too from him so no doubt he’s repeatedly proven he’s a hypocrite when it comes to extra marital affairs etc
I'll bullet point this.
* Phillip Schofield's life. There was no mention of you being the villain. It doesn't surprise me that you have created a fantasy about PS's life as you answer any other posts who mildly disagree with you so tangentially. You insinuated posting things about PS being a "nonce" was merely means to an end to keep you occupied during the lockdown. I personally don't feel that is reason enough to call someone a paedophile and I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find a rational person that did.
* your facts listed aren't all facts - I'm sure/I'd hope you realise that. Was it confirmed Ruth Langsford reported him for bullying? Never seen that detail confirmed. Likewise, nothing on your list about him being a "nonce" which is what you like to call him, which makes you and your boy laugh such a lot.
So if it was just those few things listed that were discussed I think it would be fair game-ish. But you yourself (amongst others) have created a massive narrative for PS's life. It's strange that you're side stepping it in your responses to me now. Label him obnoxious, label him rude, label him as someone who got a kid a break on This Morning, label him as someone who has mislead a lot of people for a long time - I think you'd have reasonable grounds there. But to label him as the worst type of human with NO evidence is despicable and to say you do it because you're in lockdown is beyond comprehension.
Totally agree. Everyone in this industry are aware of the details and are continuing to collaborate, employ, work with PS. They may not really want to touch him with a barge pole but at present thet have no legal reason not to.
Just shows how full of crap these people on telly are. The way they cross examine this woman for being in a car 'with a married man'. Shock bloody horror.
Holly talks about 'the sisterhood' - kindly do one Holly.
Forward to 3.37mins folks for a real laugh after this woman bruises Phil's ego. "My wife would be all over you if you got in a car with me..."
Give. Me. Strength.
Think what you like about me, my language, my conduct and my diction.
But who are you to judge what’s said on a website called Tattle Life which is a gossip site? It’s called Gossiping.
If I was a member of the tabloid press and had an audience of millions I would take what I say more seriously and tread softly.
but I’m not and I don’t. What are we averaging on at the min? A few likes a piece? Hardly ruining someone’s life is it.
Where are the "leaked WhatsApp" convo screenshots confirming PS is a prolific paedophile?
Of course the media don't flout injunctions, I didn't say they did and indeed for a very narrow and definite demographic they do work. But thanks to social media they're largely worthless. That's all irrelevant though because that wasn't the point I was making. My point was about advertising agencies using him, injunctions or not, they wouldn't use him if their was a whole load of injunctions about him being a paedophile.
Regardless of the truth no PR person in the land would get their client to publicly deny or even acknowledge the stuff that's being said about him online.
I think a lot of people on this thread have totally lost sight of what they're doing. "Straw men/plainly untrue arguments" - are you trying to be ironic? All I've said is that it's wrong to casually call someone a paedophile when there isn't any evidence to support that. I can't even hold my hands up and say innocent until proven guilty and all that kind of thing because if you've read my other posts you'll have seen I was there before it became public knowledge about Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris and it was obvious they were guilty and I was quite comfortable in calling them paedophiles. There was too much stuff out there to ignore. Having read all of these threads and a lot of other stuff, I can honestly say I feel there is only enough evidence to say that PS is a bit of a nob. I just wish people would think twice before writing some of the things I have read here, it just makes them look stupid.
OK brilliant.
Everyone in this industry are aware of what details?
Let me get this straight too for my own piece of mind... So because he's not been arrested (?) or imprisoned (?) for being a paedophile, people are forced to work with him and if they refused to work with him it wouldn't be legal?
I can't reason with logic like this unfortunately.
Last edited:
I've never called him one - at best though, there may be a powerful and much older man who has treated a much younger man with zero power in a toxic manner. Or are you saying there is NOTHING at all being covered up here?
Your point about injunctions is neither here nor there, I'm not sure how that relates to anything I've said. My point in bringing it up is that he is alleged to have one out - and therefore is hiding something. That's what I mean about your straw man argument.
Advertising agencies can't suddenly drop their star man when they have no idea what is going on or what the details are. That's kind of the point of the injunction.
The papers wouldn't out a gay man - not these days. There's something else about PS that caused a panic and made him out himself. I wonder if we will ever know.
Surely MM was going to sell his story.
Yes it must have been that. There are quite a few photos of the two of them together so it would have made an interesting story. Of course the shocking part of it would have been MM's age.
Theres not a chance the way Phil chose to come out would ever have been his preferred way to do it and then to do an interview with the sun the next day. Not a bloody chance ever unless he had to.
Even a super injunction isn’t above the law is it? If a person is a ”nonce” and there is a case to answer the police would investigate injunction or not? Obviously no complaints made about the individual so no investigation? Also why are people trying to “out” Stephen Mulhern, people’s sexuality is nobody else’s business and nobody should be made to come out through blackmail or whatever else. It’s 2020 let people be.
Can anyone who hasn't already, please go back and read the original threads! There are 11 others of them. I've been active with it since #6 - all the evidence is there for all to see.
I for one never said there was an injunction about him being a paedophile. But there is definitely an injunction in place or the press would have been all over the back story. if you want pure facts over opinion im afraid tattle life is the wrong forum to use for that.
I’m still here too, till the bitter end. Which will undoubtedly happen, and probably when he least expects it.I’m still here with you I will be the last woman standing with you, I think it’s just about to heat up even more tbh
You've contradicted your earlier point though. You said that people were being forced to work with him as there was no legal reason to refuse.
If you don't believe there is an injunction about him being a paedophile (quite rightly too) then why else would people not want to work with him based on an injunction? I don't get it.
The injunction covers anyone reporting on his alleged affair with young Matthew.
I've read all of the threads. Plus lots of other stuff. If there was a screenshot saying PS is a prolific paedophile I must have missed it and am just asking that they been shown again.
- Status