Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

da1sycha1n

VIP Member
I do think ymu should be looked at, I wonder if holly‘s husband knew what was going to be coming out and that’s why she moved management ?
it also explains why ant and dec are leaving the prime time slot, ymu will be worried that the press will start looking them covering up for the drunk driver
Yes! Yes! Yes! the company formally know as James Grant Management, starting with Peter Powell (former radio 1 DJ ) Russ Lindsay (Gloria Hunniford's Son InLaw ) and a Darren and Paul Worsley who I believe are still involved with YMU,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

HollyGolightly

VIP Member
I think he is, yes. Isn’t that Phil’s dog he’s with in the garden too? Not a care in the world it seems. He’s only in it for the money so goodness knows how long he’ll stay there for. Seems like someone who’d sell his story to the highest bidder.
No that dog is Ben's, but Phil has been photographed with it. A few months ago the dog had puppies and Phil featured them on his IG stories, he was planning to adopt one. He even discussed it on an episode of TM with Holly.


 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Warriorqueen

VIP Member
As we all know, the news about Phil and the Runner came out three years ago. But only now are the media reporting it.

So ITV can say they took Phil at his word that nothing happened, but honestly it doesn't look good for them.

My feeling is that a lot of effort was put in to protect Phil until it got to the point wherw that was no longer viable (because of the arrest of his brother. Phil tried to take all accountability in his statement, took the blame for lying to ITV and his agents. Its suddenly as if things have switched.

So why was he so keen to protect them? I cant help but feel that there is a lot more to this. That Phil isnt the only who up to his neck and that hes protecting others like himself.
I agree with everything here, there’s far more. I think the disowned brother has squealed. I bet he doesn’t last the year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

TheMan

Active member
He only made a statement as the story was going to break with or without him. His recent humiliation has left him rather vulnerable, a time in which the media love to prey on people, therefore he has no protection to prevent the story we already knew about from breaking. I do think the press need to stop picking at this scab and leave the man alone. He's lost his career, and is now known for what he really is, so it should be left there before the man ends up topping himself. If there is a legal matter to answer to, the chap he was involved with all those years ago should speak to a solicitor, then the police.
Thanks for your opinion.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4

da1sycha1n

VIP Member
Simon Schofield had this cover photo on Facebook...

View attachment 2198868


But on Wednesday he changed it to this...

View attachment 2198869

Might be reading too much into it but maybe he's distancing himself from Phil because he knew this was all coming out?
I seen both these pics this morning when I checked, what I will say a lot of his previous posts have been either deleted or hidden from view!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Ireckon

VIP Member
Wonder if MM has decided to rip the plaster off, atop the speculation, sold his story to the Mail to get it over and done with, so he can get on with his life.
MM could make a fortune in a ‘Tell all ‘ Docu/soap
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Stickladylove

Chatty Member
I know celebs use superinjunctions all the time to cover up cheating and shady behaviour but surely they can’t be used to cover criminal activity?




I’m not sure why he “waited”until MM was “legal” but it doesn’t change the fact that his interest and attraction to MM began when MM was a child. He didn’t suddenly decide to start a sexual relationship with him the day he blew out the candles on his 18th birthday cake.
I completely agree, my point was that I didn’t understand the reference to the age 18 in terms of legality and consent which someone has clarified by referring to the higher age threshold relating to some situations. Just wanted to clarify I am not seeking to excuse anything, it’s horrendous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Hedylamar

Active member
I'm absolutely not defending what PS may or may not have done but I suspect he's being hung out to dry because there's too much that's been covered up! Many years ago being gay was a criminal offence let's not forget. A relative of my childhood pal took their life in the 1960s due to their sexuality. They lived in a tiny village and people were quick to judge and gossip.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 4

VC10

VIP Member
So ITV has said theyre 'dissapointed' in their statement .What are they referring too? the fact PS groomed a minor who happened to become an employee which then lead to a sexual relationship or the fact that his and everyone at ITV's wrongdoings in the situation have come to light and PS has released a statement admitting this relationship.I think its the latter !
And on ITV premises, too..........
Did the security people know who was on-site? Are books signed at the entry gate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

Warriorqueen

VIP Member
Having re-read this and a later comment I realise I've totally misunderstood. I thought SS was older that PS! That's not correct is it?!
The weekend papers are going to be full of people's experiences.

Good! I hope anyone who has felt silenced over the last few years now feels comfortable to talk openly.
It might be how I phrased it. Indeed, it’s all looking very dodgy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4

da1sycha1n

VIP Member
True. Strange that she agreed to go back and present a week of TM with Rylan though after leaving knowing that all the other people working on the show had chosen to stay silent . Fair enough if she couldn’t break her loose women contract but surely you’d fake a case of the shingles or whatever to avoid going back , even if it was when PS was on holiday .
she is still contracted to This Morning,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4