See, words like “must” have to be used sparingly in a thread like this. Otherwise I those who seek to denounce the whole thing as baseless speculation, have evidence for it. It’s 1+1 making 3.
That MM was still looking for somewhere to live af that time doesn’t in anyway imply PS was putting him up. That surely would be reckless and arrogant even for him? Maybe he was funding a hotel? But there’s not a scrap of evidence for any of it so no point undermining what you have so carefully collated.
Every now and then a poster seems to appear thinking they have the perfect defence to counter 9 threads of discussion, that no one else has mentioned, and that is that MM was 18 and over when he moved to London and worked on TM.... we know that. The majority of posters here agree there isn’t evidence for child abuse - there also isnt strong evidence of harassment or anything like that. That’s just where people’s minds go when they hear about a relationship like this, particularly a gay one unfortunately, and a super injunction.
What most people have been saying repeatedly, and what there is convicting evidenxe to support, is that an inappropriate relationship took place. Inappropriate because of the skewed balance of power between a famous presenter and the runner who owes him his job. Inappropriate because they should have had a working relationship, again existing on a clear hierarchy, where a veteran presenter shouldn’t be taking a professionally inexperienced runner out for dinner or to the NTA’s. There are so many reasons that’s inappropriate that are surely obvious.
The evidence of this sort of behaviour means I don’t think it even matters that much if they also were having sex. It’s quite possible, but also believable PS liked the attention and flattery from a much younger man (as someone said earlier, a product of his fame rather than charm or look). MM was doing well out of it too. So it seems slightly irrelevant whether the means where sexual when the ends (how they both benefitted) were the same. Especially since it wasn’t illegal. Of course it makes juicier gossip but I think it’s just as bad if they were ‘close friends’ - and clearly intimate on an emotional level.
About the injunction possibly being lifted, I think a judge can and will do it if they decide the story has leaked widely enough to be public knowledge meaning that the injunction is or will soon be pointless. Isn’t that what happened with the infamous Ryan giggs one ? Or was he named in parliament ? I seem to remember both somehow ...?
.
I think you misunderstood my post Horatio.
I added 2 question marks at the end of my sentence to show I wasn't sure: 'Matt definitely replied so he couldn't have found a place by then, he must have been staying at phil's flat??'
I don't know if Matthew had been staying at Phil's flat at all, someone has mentioned that he has a sister living near so he could have been staying with his sister.
I don't understand why you have said: 'Every now and then a poster seems to appear thinking they have the perfect defence to counter 9 threads of discussion, that no one else has mentioned, and that is that MM was 18 and over when he moved to London and worked on TM.... we know that.'
When did I ever make out that I had just worked that out? That's been common knowledge, I have only wanted to get the timeline of events correct that's all.
My opinion about the relationship between Phillip Schofield and Matthew Mcgreevy is that we have no concrete evidence of what type of relationship it actually was.
Phillip might have visited the 2Faced theatre company previously and Matthew may have stood out to him as talented (someone who could make it). He may have genuinely wanted to help him.
When Jack Jones took a video of them in the bar 19 March 2015, Matt was doing an apprentice runner course at ITV This Morning for 2 months (March and April 2015), they may have innocently gone out together at breaktime with Phil mentoring him about the interview that he was filming with Phil.
Unless Matt or someone else decides to speak up and say for sure what happened, all we have is opinions.
I don't feel that I know for sure of anything & I've never stated I am certain of things.
In my conclusion to my last timeline post I said ' this does not look good.' also ' just doesn't look good really,' & 'It does seem that Phil had his eye on Matthew and got into a relationship with him when he turned 18. It may have been an open relationship'
I will say that we have absolutely no evidence at all to show Phil was taking part in anything illegal & underage.
.
.
And yes - we all think something is being hidden and what we imagine is being hidden is probably way more outrageous than the actual secret.
.
I agree, it's the wall of silence, the closing of websites & the deleting of so many things that has raised people's suspicions concerning Phil.
.