Phillip Schofield leaves This Morning

[AnnO'Neemus]

I feel really sad for him, yeah, he's broken some work rule about not having relationships with colleagues. That's the only thing he has done wrong in terms of rules/laws... As far as anyone is aware at this point.

So the remaining factor is the age gap, and that's just a question of values and moral standard isnt it and they are all different for everyone so context is so crucial isn't it?

I can't help but imagine a situation with a very confused closeted gay man in the public eye having a lot of very flattering attention from a younger man being a very hard path to navigate and always make the right choices. He's talking about having depression. I've never met a depressed person that didn't make bad choices at some point.

This looks like bullying to me, I feel for Phil at this point, no matter how bad his mistakes

Hmmm... that's one interpretation. But it comes across as a bit victim-blamey.

I mean, for starters, your framing is that the young man was basically throwing himself at Schofield, who was totally and utterly powerless to resist. Poor lamb.

That's not usually how how power imbalance between younger and older people works. That's not usually how power imbalance between senior and junior colleagues work. That's not usually how power imbalance between talent and crew works.

And in any event, it's not yet known/clear if it was that way round. Schofield has apparently said 'something happened' to change the nature of the relationship (presumably when it crossed the line into sexual).

Given the nature of the power imbalances, and given the circumstances under which they originally met and their age difference, and the nature of the age difference when they met (underage schoolboy + TV personality four decades his senior), trying to frame the young man as some kind of male Lolita who Schofield was helplessly seduced by is a bit icky.

Any which way you look at this, there was a power imbalance that Schofield took advantage of, although he simply describes it as 'unwise' rather than dodgy as fuck/potentially exploitative relationship between someone in a position of power in multiple respects.

And the fact that the young man was underage when they first met and then Schofield got him a job that resulted in them working closely together raises questions - including questions about the possibility that grooming might or might not have occurred - and it's not homophobic to wonder or ask the questions, because those concerns would be the same and just as valid if the young person had been a girl/woman.

Just like #MeToo uncovered lots of dodgy behaviour and even criminal activity between film and television executives/personalities and women actors, especially younger ones.

 

[Wilf]

Hmmm... that's one interpretation. But it comes across as a bit victim-blamey.

I mean, for starters, your framing is that the young man was basically throwing himself at Schofield, who was totally and utterly powerless to resist. Poor lamb.

That's not usually how how power imbalance between younger and older people works. That's not usually how power imbalance between senior and junior colleagues work. That's not usually how power imbalance between talent and crew works.

And in any event, it's not yet known/clear if it was that way round. Schofield has apparently said 'something happened' to change the nature of the relationship (presumably when it crossed the line into sexual).

Given the nature of the power imbalances, and given the circumstances under which they originally met and their age difference, and the nature of the age difference when they met (underage schoolboy + TV personality four decades his senior), trying to frame the young man as some kind of male Lolita who Schofield was helplessly seduced by is a bit icky.

Any which way you look at this, there was a power imbalance that Schofield took advantage of, although he simply describes it as 'unwise' rather than dodgy as fuck/potentially exploitative relationship between someone in a position of power in multiple respects.

And the fact that the young man was underage when they first met and then Schofield got him a job that resulted in them working closely together raises questions - including questions about the possibility that grooming might or might not have occurred - and it's not homophobic to wonder or ask the questions, because those concerns would be the same and just as valid if the young person had been a girl/woman.

Just like #MeToo uncovered lots of dodgy behaviour and even criminal activity between film and television executives/personalities and women actors, especially younger ones.

I'd not use the 'G' word, though Schofield did admit there were something like 'very few' messages between first meeting at 15 and getting him the job. I suspect the content of those messages will determine where the needle flickers on the dial. Anyway, as you say, without such evidence, the whole thing is 'just' an exploitative power imbalance.

 

[sealion]

TBH I hadn’t even read your posts. Mine was more in response to Sealion’s…

Wondering why a public figure hadn't come proir to being caught out having an ex matital affair is akin to the behaviour of the iranian morality police now? It was simple question that;s since been labelled homophobic and had DCI Kttrek all over it. It was a genuine question and i fail to see how it's homophobic or why i have to be gay yo ask the question. My stance would be the same if Schofield was havig an afffair with a female.

 

[sealion]

i think that's a bit harsh. many, certainly, most - perhaps - but all?

If you're shitting on your partner with a nother one then yes i think the person is a bit of a shitrag,

 

[belboid]

Wondering why a public figure hadn't come proir to being caught out having an ex matital affair is akin to the behaviour of the iranian morality police now? It was simple question that;s since been labelled homophobic and had DCI Kttrek all over it. It was a genuine question and i fail to see how it's homophobic or why i have to be gay yo ask the question. My stance would be the same if Schofield was havig an afffair with a female.

Which just goes to show you don't understand why said public figure didn't come. You might not be homophobic but you clearly don't realise just how homophobia works.

 

[lazythursday]

If you're shitting on your partner with a nother one then yes i think the person is a bit of a shitrag,

People 'commit adultery' whether that's a one off meaningless shag or a full blown affair for all sorts of reasons. Human relationships are complex. Your world seems very black and white and unrealistic.

 

[sealion]

Which just goes to show you don't understand why said public figure didn't come.

Because it measn married at the time might have something to do with it.

 

[sealion]

Your world seems very black and white and unrealistic.

Thanks for the judgement. My world is fine thanks very much.

Next,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Pickman's model]

If you're shitting on your partner with a nother one then yes i think the person is a bit of a shitrag,

there will be many cases where this isn't so - people for example in open relationships and the like. people whose partner actively encourages them to have sex with other people. as t j hooker observed, there is no black or white just a million shades of grey

 

[sealion]

people for example in open relationships and the like. people whose partner actively encourages them to have sex with other people.

I'm aware of that, thanks.

 

[belboid]

Because it measn married at the time might have something to do with it.

It doesn't mean that at all. And you refusal to recognise that fact is starting to sound more than a little homophobic.

 

[sealion]

And you refusal to recognise that fact is starting to sound more than a little homophobic.

Okay, We got there in the end, well done.

Think someone that has an affair regardless of being straight or gay is a bit of a shitbag= homophobe. Sloow hand clap to you.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm aware of that, thanks.

You may feel a bit language-policed here, but you used the phrase 'committed adultery'. There are reasons why this is a problematic phrase, just as 'committed suicide' is problematic. It contains within it a moral judgement, the legacy of a history in which there were laws against these things - there still are in some parts of the world. If you think this is PC gone mad territory, I would ask you to ask yourself this question: 'What do we lose by deciding not to use these terms and to use more neutral terms in their place, and what might we gain from doing so?'

 

[belboid]

Okay, We got there in the end, well done.

Think someone that has an affair regardless of being straight or gay is a bit of a shitbag= homophobe. Sloow hand clap to you.

No, you got us there with your attitude. Your refusal to see why a gay man in his 50's doesn't come out to his wife before having having a fling with another man. It is just pure ignorance on your point and a refusal to look beyond your own shallow morality.

 

[sealion]

You may feel a bit language-policed here, but you used the phrase 'committed adultery'. There are reasons why this is a problematic phrase, just as 'committed suicide' is problematic. It contains within it a moral judgement,

I do feel that. Fair enough and it wasn't a judgement because it's clearly obvious because he was married at the time.

 

[sealion]

No, you got us there with your attitude. Your refusal to see why a gay man in his 50's doesn't come out to his wife before having having a ring with another man. It is just pure ignorance on your point and a refusal to look beyond your own shallow morality.

Okay. You win.

 

[kebabking]

Okay, We got there in the end, well done.

Think someone that has an affair regardless of being straight or gay is a bit of a shitbag= homophobe. Sloow hand clap to you.

This is wilful ignorance.

There is no difference between the 'wrongness' - to whatever degree you consider appropriate - of misleading a partner who thinks you love them, and love no other. Man, woman, monster or unicorn.

However, to believe that there is no difference in how an individual will probably be treated by wider society when news of that affair/marriage breakdown/one night stand goes public between a heterosexual 'event' and a homosexual some is the most vacuous rubbish I'll read in the internet today...

If Schofield had had an affair with a 30yo woman the chat would be about 'shagger' Schofe - exactly the same hurt would be inflicted on his wife and children, but it would (broadly) be laughed off in wider society. If it was a 30yo bloke, there'd be a little t less 'shagger', and a lot mor poof.

Anyone who claims not to know why gay folk tend to be a bit cagier about their sexuality is, to be frank, lying.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I do feel that. Fair enough and it wasn't a judgement because it's clearly obvious because he was married at the time.

No, that's the whole point. We can change how we talk about things if we want to. You don't have to say 'committed adultery'. There are other ways of saying the same thing. As I said, best to avoid saying 'committed suicide' as well - in fact, most welfare services will say that it is important not to say 'committed suicide'. Can you see why that is?

 

[sealion]

You don't have to say 'committed adultery'.

Okay, he was shagging a teen whilst married to someone else. That okay?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Okay, he was shagging a teen whilst married to someone else. That okay?

This is making you defensive. I get that. I'll leave it.

 

[sealion]

This is making you defensive.

Well yes it is because i'm been accused of being homophobic.

I'll leave it.

I think i will too. Don't need a pile a pile on or what i've said been misinterpreted.

 

[belboid]

Okay, he was shagging a teen whilst married to someone else. That okay?

except the young man was - according to all the actual reports - twenty.

No one is misinterpreting you.

 

[sealion]

No one is misinterpreting you.

It seems that way. I said anyone who's having an affair but i'm being accused of being homophobic when i clearly stated anyone- straight or gay.

 

[sealion]

Anyone who claims not to know why gay folk tend to be a bit cagier about their sexuality is, to be frank, lying.

Just as well no one has said that.

 

[Mumbles274]

Just as a reply to my post eariler in the thread. I totally agree about it looking like a power imbalance between them. It was a point I had overlooked in my origanal post, and I can see the very strong if not refutable argument that he abused his position.

Even so, I can still see that this is still a bit black and white. We really don't know the dynamics of the relationship and is it always the case the the older more successful person has the power? I can't help but come back to what PS has been going though all his life as a person in the Media. It seems like everyone wants him to be the next Saville and I can't see anything like that level of abuse. He fucked up, maybe he used his postition to do that, maybe he's a cunt, but maybe he's just a really confused closeted gay man in a public position having to maintain the lie he's had to create and it's all gone very clearly wrong for him. As far as I can see nonne is saying the guy he had a relationahip with is identifying as a victim... So why are we making him out to be one? I've not heard there was any indicatuon PS was inappropriate to an underage man.

I don't say this to ignore the power thing, I jsut don't know if anyone can truly say it was an abuse of power?

 

[friedaweed]

20 pages and indefinite bunfights.

 

[krtek a houby]

Wondering why a public figure hadn't come proir to being caught out having an ex matital affair is akin to the behaviour of the iranian morality police now? It was simple question that;s since been labelled homophobic and had DCI Kttrek all over it.

Oh grow up. Asked about your judgemental stance on people who have sex - specifically the use of the word adulterer.

You got extremely defensive about it.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

It all comes down to trust. If someone has been lying to himself, his family, the general public or whoever for a very long time, for whatever reason, they will have difficulty being believed and finding sympathy. If they also are in a role where their entire working life they pretend things in front of the whole country, or those unfortunate enough to watch them, then that difficulty increases exponentially. And they earn an awful lot of money. That's what does it.

 

[Epona]

It all comes down to trust. If someone has been lying to himself, his family, the general public or whoever for a very long time, for whatever reason, they will have difficulty being believed and finding sympathy. If they also are in a role where their entire working life they pretend things in front of the whole country, or those unfortunate enough to watch them, then that difficulty increases exponentially. And they earn an awful lot of money. That's what does it.

I don't actually agree with this, if someone in politics is being a hypocrite and advocating anti-gay legislation when they are gay themselves then yes that applies, but for a light entertainer/daytime tv presenter it hardly seems relevant tbh.

Whether someone is lying to their spouse/family is between them and their family, it's not for the rest of us to rock up with a chair and a bowl of popcorn.

 

[sealion]

Oh grow up.

You should take heed of some of you own advice.

specifically the use of the word adulterer.

Whats is wrong with it when someone married ? Genuine question! If it's offensive then i stand corrected and am sorry but what word am i supposed to use in this situation? I'm defensive because i've been accused of being homophobic because of the way i've wordred something. It certainly was'nt intended to offend or seen as moral judgements. I will have a good think about what i've posted, i'm fine with being pulled up, it's how we learn. It's the assumptions being made and being labelled and catergorized that i'm not fine with.