This Morning

This seems like a huge storm about someone lying about having an affair with an undercurrent of homophobia.

Is there evidence that there is more to it than that?

If it was a man and a young woman, would he have lost his career or even fallen out with his colleague?
It’s a weird one as there are so many layers to it, I know that there is an undercurrent of homophobia to a lot of this but I don’t think we can say ‘if it was a woman this wouldn’t be a problem’ because I think we’re then just ignoring everything that the Me Too movement has highlighted.

If a major TV presenter had messaged a teenage girl, ultimately helped get her a job and then engaged in a sexual relationship with her then we should be calling that out and condemning it. It’s not appropriate to create a relationship like that in the workplace where there are power dynamics at play which put one person in a position that they may feel their job is at stake if they don’t engage in a certain way (and this is just one example of the dangers of this type of relationship).

The problem is, and what does give me some sympathy for Schofield is that labelling him a ‘groomer’ - I think that strips away a lot of the nuance that there is to the conversation. I think to the majority of the public to ‘groom’ someone is to manipulate someone underage to do horrific things… What we know happened here was that he helped someone get a job and after a period of time engaged in a sexual relationship. We don’t know the details of the early stages of that relationship, the reasons for helping him get the job, at exactly what point it turned sexual…

The only facts that we can really judge him on right now are that he had an inappropriate relationship in the workplace and potentially abused his position of power which I am all for holding him accountable for!

An investigation/inquest into that may reveal more but unfortunately the court of public opinion has already made its judgement and it is on the extreme side of the scale.


Staff member
The Caroline Flack comparison made me stop watching straight away......he's icky. He must have been aware this wasn't going to stay a secret forever, yet he had power to keep it hidden for as long as it has been. It's ego at the end of the day, and ITV allowed it. It's 2023 and TV channels are still allowing their presenters to become bigger than them.
Putting Phillip’s very questionable actions aside (and my personal opinion that he has come across as an unpleasant, holier than thou, officious presenter/interviewer for years), the extent to which the right wing media (and all of the usual suspects associated with it) have jumped onto this story with such glee and venom is disturbing to say the least. They don’t give a shit about the impact of all of this on Matthew McGreevy and it smacks of furthering the wider right wing agenda of painting anything remotely associated with LGBTQI as grooming/harmful to children (those fucking Target protests state-side), which is only gaining traction and which Phillip’s actions certainly haven’t helped with.
Yeah the homophobia is definitely felt with the response but gay/heterosexual whatever it's wrong.

Couldn't watch the interview, he is such a phony.
Him stating that people wouldn't care if it was a male/female pairing yet also naming Caroline, who was condemned and bullied (to the point of suicide) for (granted other things too but still) having a relationship with a younger person...umm?
Of course there is a level of homophobia to some of the criticism, but he seems so oblivious to the fact that if it was an older man in a position of power having an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl there would be a huge outcry and he would still rightfully be condemned and sacked from his job. This sort of behaviour doesn't get pushed aside anymore.
What's funny about the interview is the defence against the grooming timeline is actually convincing, but he can't defend himself against the allegations that he was a cunt to work with and made people miserable. Maybe he operated in such a bubble that he really didn't know. I think this answers why there are so many individuals gleeful at his demise, regardless of where the truth lies. Either way, Schofield has caused so much damage to that young man's career and reputation so it's only fair he lost his too. I don't disagree with him that the witch hunt should end here pending any sort of official investigation.

As bad as Schofield may be, Dan Wooton needs a slice of humble pie. Frankly I've seen enough of him reporting this story sat on his moral high ground when he's just a completely despicable human being himself.
Comparing his situation to the years of vile abuse and press intrusion that Caroline Flack had to endure simply for being a woman in the spotlight? Vile.
This really turned my stomach. Eamon said he's a massive narcissist and saying something so visceral and making a false equivalency really made me see why he says that. A lot of both interviews felt like a checklist of talking points to try and rewrite the narrative.

I feel like they're trying to downgrade it to a fling (the "only happened 5 or 6 times" things) when lots of other people have suggested otherwise, as an attempt to make it more palatable. Plus him paying for his legal fees feels like a very obvious "hey, I'm a good guy, honest!". I dunno, I felt like a lot of what he said and how he said it made me really uncomfortable, and I say this as somebody who always liked him before all this. It all just felt a bit too calculated and insincere.
Dan Wooton can fuck off. He's caused an immeasurable amount of harm in the British media.
PopBitch have said he's bitter because the big Talent Agency who rep all the big talent, including Phil and Holly (until they both left) turned him down, so he's enjoying seeing the wheels fall off. Makes sense. Even on the very, occasional time he makes something resembling a good point, you know he's only doing it from a self-serving, smug, holier-than-thou viewpoint and never has any form of good intentions.
I’m surprised there’s been no reporting mentioning Schofield’s alleged activity on Snapchat with regards to historic communication with teenagers.

A cursory search on Twitter (yes, I know) suggests he appears to have regularly engaged with children aged as young as 13, often initiating unsolicited contact with them, which if true is yet another huge red flag and yet another example of him pursuing inappropriate relationships with younger people. No matter the content, it would go against all safeguarding protocol.