Phillip Schofield steps down from ITV after affair with "much younger male"

And how do the photos in that article translate to "There is photos circulating of Holly with Phil and Matthew, I believe one is from outside NTAs where Phil and Matthew were fighting and he is asking Holly to intervene"

The article itself states:

"Phillip Schofield appeared in high spirits as he and Holly Willoughby were snapped alongside a young male employee.

It has emerged that the younger man in question is believed to be the person at the centre of Phillip's affair drama – despite the TV host previously insisting rumours were false"

There are bound to be numerous photos with the three of them. He worked on the show. But where's the photo or proof showing Phil and Matthew fighting and him asking Holly to intervene?

Look, there are many scummy things about the entire situation, but some of the claims and insinuations you keep making just obfuscate things.

What do you think he knew about the brother?

He was forced to resign over the work thing. Surely that satisfies you on that one? What more can be done?

Wayne Rooney was cheating with granny prostitutes, did his agency or Manchester United drop him

Did George Michael's agency drop him from his toilet exploits (I was going to use encounters but it is a frowned upon word here)

Not to mention neither Rooney nor George Michael's actions affected their job or were in their workplace.

As I said earlier, Schofield had an affair with someone at their job, lied to Holly (as both he and Holly have said) which effectively ended their working relationship, lied to his management agency, and then the issue with his brother and what he knew. All of which effectively ended his career. That's more than enough reason for his agency to drop him.

That's neither evidence nor an admission of anything. That's just acknowledgement that there's a photo of him with a group of children, <snip> being one of them, from years ago, taken at a local drama school he was a patron of.

Your points are all based on insinuations and implying things for which there is no evidence. You keep linking back to that Limegoss site, which a quick Google shows used to be called 'The Tattle Blog'. Also has a spin-off forum site, which gets great reviews....

Again, there is plenty of scummy behaviour to criticise Schofield for in all of this. But throwing out the accusations you repeatedly have with no real evidence just confuses and obfuscates the discussion.

Shocking because people are accusing him of having groomed the lad since he was 12, and there's a photo of Schofield with the lad when he was 12 (again, as part of a group photo with many others).

Or are you implying that Schofield saying that photo is shocking is him actually admitting to having groomed him since he was 12, something which I should point out, nobody else is reasonably claiming. Not even the tabloids are trying to claim "Schofield admits to grooming child by saying photo of them together is shocking"

Again, you're reading into these things what you want to read into them. Actual or very reasonable evidence comes out that Schofield groomed him and his agency, Holly etc all knew.... fire them all and open a police investigation and prosecute them all to the fullest extent of the law. "He said photo of them is shocking and his management agency dropped him even though Wayne Rooney's agency didn't drop him", that's less than nothing.

So removed from this job isn’t enough punishment. He must never work in a similar role again? So punished forever basically for consensual sex with a subordinate.

I would tell a brother the same thing if he masturbated watch porn with a 16 year old. It’s legal but morally wrong to me.

Are you able to see that as a possibility at all?

It didn't look good regardless, but you're implying and inferring rather than proving (or at least reasonably demonstrating).

Also the MP's aren't "investigating", they'll question higher-ups from ITV about practices, rules for employees, hiring etc, because ITV receives public funding. They're not investigating Schofield himself, and as far as I'm aware there are no actual legal investigations currently against Philip Schofield regarding his relationship with the young guy. ITV have hired a barrister to review the situation and their previous investigation with regards to employment law.

Yes. He also said the boy was 16. which is the age of consent in the UK.

What more could Philip do?

It was professional sexual misconduct and abuse of his position. So yes, he should never be in such a position again. Punishment forever? Yes, if you make a major employment related error the consequences can be with you - and there are valid reasons why they should be with you - for the rest of your professional career. What Schofield did was morally wrong but more than that - professional misconduct.

If he wants to go off travelling and video blog it and do YouTube channel for ad clicks that's his business. Or I dunno, host commercials where he is just a presenter but has zero input into production hiring etc etc.

You don't see the contradiction? What the brother did was "legal and consensual" - at least how he described it. So he must NEVER do it again? This coming from PS who is sexually involved with similar age gap, where the other party was just a few year older than the age the brother described?

Oh and the child the brother abused was in fact 13, not 16. It doesn't seem a stretch to consider that in how Schofield's brother described the boy the possibility that he was actually underage was considered by Schofield.

"ITV BOSSES HAVE said both Phillip Schofield and his younger lover “repeatedly denied” allegations of a relationship until the former This Morning presenter departed ITV and formally apologised.

ITV chief executive Carolyn McCall faced questions from MPs alongside ITV managing director Kevin Lygo and general counsel and company secretary Kyla Mullins about Schofield’s exit during today’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee session in Parliament.

McCall told MPs the “imbalance of power, the imbalance of dynamics” made the relationship “deeply inappropriate”, and ITV would have taken action, but no evidence of the relationship appeared during on-going reviews.

She said “we were repeatedly told nothing was happening”, and both men denied it “both formally and informally”.

“There was only hearsay and rumour and speculation … Nobody on the board would have turned a blind eye to something as serious as this,” she said."

Did Schofield's brother tell PS that he was in an intimate relationship with a 13 year old or a 16 year old?

Does it make a difference? Do you have different scales of nonce? Is one more acceptable than the other?

In court, the brother said 16.

In Philip Schofield's retelling of the conversation with the brother, no age is mentioned, just 'teenager' - at least in the media reporting of his statement in court.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/itvs-philip-schofield-shouted-brother-29583656