Fair comment, but in a lot of companies you will need to sign one at the very beginning of your employment otherwise the job offer will be withdrawn. I would imagine that in the world of media they are very commonplace for all staff and not just for the more senior employees.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
My thoughts and musings -
Nobody is brave enough to stick their head above the parapet - we all know that.
A co-worker may only have suspicions anyway.
Proof is what is needed - and an honest journalist/police officer to bring the proof to an Authority who isn't corrupt.
Remember when Angus Deyton got sacked from Have I Got News For You because he had become the subject of what the show poked fun at and his position was deemed untenable?
Pictures were published of drug taking and proof was provided of him using the services of Prostitutes.
And remember when John Leslie was sacked from This Morning?
Pictures were published of him snorting cocaine.
Why is Philip any different?
Because of proof.
There is no proof of him doing anything illegal.
Or if there is, the people who have the power to do something and who are willing to do something either haven't got the proof or are ignoring it.
OR... they are gathering more proof before they do something.
Nobody is brave enough to stick their head above the parapet - we all know that.
A co-worker may only have suspicions anyway.
Proof is what is needed - and an honest journalist/police officer to bring the proof to an Authority who isn't corrupt.
Remember when Angus Deyton got sacked from Have I Got News For You because he had become the subject of what the show poked fun at and his position was deemed untenable?
Pictures were published of drug taking and proof was provided of him using the services of Prostitutes.
And remember when John Leslie was sacked from This Morning?
Pictures were published of him snorting cocaine.
Why is Philip any different?
Because of proof.
There is no proof of him doing anything illegal.
Or if there is, the people who have the power to do something and who are willing to do something either haven't got the proof or are ignoring it.
OR... they are gathering more proof before they do something.
John Leslie's on trial for sexual assault next month. It'd be weird if he got convicted and the scandal about PS broke publicly at the same time, when PS replaced JL.
Ok, I worked on a film set, with a particularly well known film actor, and some well known tv actors, we all had to sign a NDA, which basically said we could not discuss anything that happened on the film set, which ment nothing about the film could be talked about (e.g. the plot) ALSO nothing that happened personally to anyone on the film set could be talked about. In the entertainment world these two are intricately entwined.
I totally get this - I think we are all on the same page regarding standard corporate NDAs.
To take an extreme example to make my point;
A Director of a company murders an employee. The company says the death was due to an industrial accident. You know the truth, and a fellow Director presents you with a NDA regarding the incident. It does not magically supersede UK law, so you have a choice to sign it in order to keep your job and future income, or you ignore it and report your knowledge to the relevant authorities.
Now of course we have no reason to believe that anything illegal has occurred in this case. But specific NDAs beyond a standard employment one can only progress if both parties feel it is in their respective interests.
Exactly, maybe they’re gathering more proof, or maybe there is no proof of him doing anything illegal, even if he’s made some morally questionable decisions. And with regards to Ruth, we know she has lodged an official complaint, we don’t actually know what it was about, so in my view it may be that she’s done what she can for now. She can hardly go to the papers or social media and potentially get sued for libel/slander if there’s no proof, even if she does suspect something untoward. So I imagine that having undoubtedly signed an NDA as part of her contract she is following the complaints procedure to the letter. Ive not heard of any other presenter lodging an official complaint so maybe she’s already putting her head above the parapet so to speak. Just my thoughts.
You are allowed to talk to the police if you have an NDA . And you can't sign one to cover anything illegal, it would be void. . This is why I think that PS hasn't actually done anything wrong. He just lied and been deceitful, and basically very seedy, and should step down from TV., and this wholesome image hes contrived, because it just doesn't sit right now.. Maybe just stick to reviewing wine.
…………………. and cruising too!!
Puts a whole new slant on "booze cruise."
I did come across a YouTube video yesterday with someone saying they’d reported it all to the Met police as they felt at the very least it needed looking into, but said the police weren’t interested, no idea if it’s true or not
Is this it?I did come across a YouTube video yesterday with someone saying they’d reported it all to the Met police as they felt at the very least it needed looking into, but said the police weren’t interested, no idea if it’s true or not
You wouldn't go to the police about matters within the workplace though, would you? Unless breaking criminal law. So if bullying, inappropriate behaviour, etc. then the police wouldn't be interested. Even Snapchatting under 16 year olds isn't illegal unless overtly grooming.I did come across a YouTube video yesterday with someone saying they’d reported it all to the Met police as they felt at the very least it needed looking into, but said the police weren’t interested, no idea if it’s true or not
It does need looking into - but if the Met police officer on answering the phone duty gets a call from someone saying "philip schofield's background needs looking into"- are they going to leap into action and trawl the internet?
No.
If the Met are presented with screenshots of all the stuff we've read on here and a covering letter giving a summary of events, then they might at least allocate an Officer some time to go through it.
When gagging orders and super injunctions have been set up in the past, papers outside the injunction jurisdiction have printed the story and MP's have used parliamentary privilege to disclose information otherwise hidden by the injunction.
So, if a newspaper (or several) not bound under any injunction or an MP (or several) were to receive the summary of events and screenshots with a letter asking them to look into it, then maybe it will be looked into.
Fascinating and alarming piece I just saw on how being gay was 'managed' in the sixties - Steptoe's Wilfrid Brambell was just sent out to the audience and if they booed him, he was finished!
https://www.comedy.co.uk/features/comedy_chronicles/wilfrid_brambell/
https://www.comedy.co.uk/features/comedy_chronicles/wilfrid_brambell/
In one of the recent press articles, cannot remember which one, PS stated he uses his daughter who as we know is involved in This Morning, to check all his social media posts. He says he asks her if they are OK. In my personal opinion, any messages proving grooming would be using another name anyway - as he said, he has a secret Twitter account.
.
I've tried to find really good evidence but failed to find anything solid enough. Nothing Phillip Schofield has said in his snapchats have been that bad. His joke about paying someone a fiver to drink bleach and die was obviously a joke, even though it was a bit weird.
And with all of these reports saying that Phil was shagging a runner & has boys back to his flat. Has anyone actually witnessed Phil kissing them or him kissing Matthew, or being able to prove they were having sex (real evidence)?? Because although it could look obvious they were together (and especially with the bad breakup), without real evidence it would be classed a 'hearsay.'
And it looks as though even if some people do have evidence, we could compare this to a case where people have witnessed a murder, they know who did it, they saw it for themselves and told other people. But when the police arrive to interview them, they won't tell the police anything. They do not want to get involved because if they do, they could suffer for it and it could affect them.
The Myles post got leaked out, (I think it was meant to be a private post), since then he's deleted his Linkedin account. The well known Journalist has since deleted his facebook posts, he has probably decided it's best he keeps out of it. And James Nemo has made his post private again.
It is frustrating we can't find more factual information. It's been said that Matthew Mcgreevy has been paid off, so the only one who can really confirm what has happened can't speak.
Schofield not saying a word about it & having this wall of silence and getting everything on the internet removed has been very damaging to himself. He will always have his devoted fans though, and ITV don't seem to want to look into it or do anything at all to him (as if he has something on them).
A part of me asks could he be innocent, but then I think how could he be?? If he was innocent he'd be shouting from the rooftops instead of putting up a wall of silence.
It's been said that there is an investigation going on into it, so let's hope this is correct.
The truth will come out one day I think.
.
I looked at his ridiculous wine and food Twitter account. Ludicrous stuff. He shows a bottle of Ian Botham's much-publicised wine and suggests that he's only just discovered it! It's been going for years and the bloke plugs it all over the place! In fact nearly all of his tweets are just pictures of bottles with comments like 'Wow!' and 'Fab!' And apparently he gets paid for this rubbish!
New Phillip Schofield thread is here:
- Status