'Me Too' And Phillip Schofield

[altus]

23 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

>>"Me Too" is about preventing sexual harassment and assault<<

 

I don't think many people would argue in favour of sexual assault, though even there things have gone mad. Remember that lass having a drunken snog with a lad at a party, he tried to grope her boob and she screamed "sexual assault" ?

But even sexual harassment is much more nebulous still. What definition of "sexual harassment" are you using ?

 

As far as I was aware "Me Too" morphed into a campaign against "the casting couch" with the reproving attitude firmly focussed on the older "more powerful" party in the 'relationship'. 

What's gone on here then ?

 

Is the casting couch abusive or coercive ?

 

You seem to be desperately trying to imply this is something more that it appears to be. The Beeb article you linked to has Schofield's statement on the matter which contains:

Quote

"The first thing I want to say is: I am deeply sorry for having lied to them, and to many others about a relationship that I had with someone working on This Morning. I did have a consensual on-off relationship with a younger male colleague at This Morning.

 

"Contrary to speculation, whilst I met the man when he was a teenager and was asked to help him to get into television, it was only after he started to work on the show that it became more than just a friendship. That relationship was unwise, but not illegal. It is now over.

In addition to that, ITV ‘investigated rumours’ of Phillip Schofield relationship in 2020

Quote

ITV said it had investigated rumours in early 2020 when they first arose. “Both parties were questioned and both categorically and repeatedly denied the rumours as did Phillip’s then agency YMU,” ITV said.

If it happened after they'd started working together it can't have been a casting couch situation and there isn't any suggestion that there was any coercion. It seems more like gays feeling the need to cover up being gay to protect their reputations and or careers.

[Padders]

2 hours ago, pattricia said:

Am I reading this correctly ?

Yes you are Patty,

Ignore em, there uncouth!

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, altus said:

You seem to be desperately trying to imply this is something more that it appears to be. The Beeb article you linked to has Schofield's statement on the matter which contains:

In addition to that, ITV ‘investigated rumours’ of Phillip Schofield relationship in 2020

If it happened after they'd started working together it can't have been a casting couch situation and there isn't any suggestion that there was any coercion. It seems more like gays feeling the need to cover up being gay to protect their reputations and or careers.

>>You seem to be desperately trying to imply this is something more that it appears to be<<

 

Another one who doesn't actually read posts :

 

>> Jack Grey said :

This is a non story fuelled by people who have got bored of gossiping about Harry & Meghan this week<<

 

Chekhov replied :

In a way that's my point, just like most of those "Me Too" stories.

 

>>If it happened after they'd started working together it can't have been a casting couch situation and there isn't any suggestion that there was any coercion.<<

 

The casting couch is a someone (usually much younger) being "friendly" with someone (usually much older) who has power in the industry they wish to become involved or advance in.

Why is Schofield's relationship with this "young man" any different from what countless hopeful actors (usually women) over the years have done ? Even worse he was married with kids (though let's not get side tracked on that one).

It's no different.

As I said at the start, if that had been a 61 year old man bedding a young woman "who wanted to get into television" Me Too would be exploding with Faux outrage.

I have always thought Me Too was largely virtue signalling cobblers. If a woman, or man come to that, wants to use their charms to get on in a particular industry (corruption excepted) it is most unsavoury, it is not a crime. 

BUT, any demonisation that's going should be directed at both parties.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Chekhov

[melthebell]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Why is Schofield's relationship with this "young man" any different from what countless hopeful actors (usually women) over the years have done ? Even worse he was married with kids (though let's not get side tracked on that one).

 

 

 

Because youre not understanding the situation or what is written on the subject.........or you dont want to, desperately trying to turn it into something else

[MJ01]

10 hours ago, Chekhov said:

SNIPPED

Though I will come clean, I think "Me Too" is blown out of all proportion.

 

 

Hands up if you're surprised.......

[altus]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>You seem to be desperately trying to imply this is something more that it appears to be<<

 

Another one who doesn't actually read posts :

 

>> Jack Grey said :

This is a non story fuelled by people who have got bored of gossiping about Harry & Meghan this week<<

 

Chekhov replied :

In a way that's my point, just like most of those "Me Too" stories.

 

>>If it happened after they'd started working together it can't have been a casting couch situation and there isn't any suggestion that there was any coercion.<<

 

The casting couch is a someone (usually much younger) being "friendly" with someone (usually much older) who has power in the industry they wish to become involved or advance in.

Why is Schofield's relationship with this "young man" any different from what countless hopeful actors (usually women) over the years have done ? Even worse he was married with kids (though let's not get side tracked on that one).

It's no different.

As I said at the start, if that had been a 61 year old man bedding a young woman "who wanted to get into television" Me Too would be exploding with Faux outrage.

I have always thought Me Too was largely virtue signalling cobblers. If a woman, or man come to that, wants to use their charms to get on in a particular industry (corruption excepted) it is most unsavoury, it is not a crime. 

BUT, any demonisation that's going should be directed at both parties.

 

 

I suggest you look up the definition of casting couch, you appear to have a warped interpretation of what it is about.

 

There's no suggestion that Schofield demanded sexual favours from the young man in return for helping him get a position in the industry. That and the timing of the relationship are crucial to this and why it is not a casting couch issue and is different to the events being highlighted in the Me Too complaints.

[Chekhov]

9 hours ago, altus said:

I suggest you look up the definition of casting couch, you appear to have a warped interpretation of what it is about.

There's no suggestion that Schofield demanded sexual favours from the young man in return for helping him get a position in the industry. That and the timing of the relationship are crucial to this and why it is not a casting couch issue and is different to the events being highlighted in the Me Too complaints.

>>There's no suggestion that Schofield demanded sexual favours<<

 

I did not say he had.

What I said was if it was a 61 year old man was bedding a young hopeful so she could get on in television, I am sure "Me Too" would be outraged. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be "unsavoury" (just like Schofield's peccadillo), but it does not warrant anything more.

 

>>demanded sexual favours<<

 

What exactly does that mean ?

It's not exactly WWII in Russia where if the person doesn't consent they don't eat is it ?

 

12 hours ago, MJ01 said:

Hands up if you're surprised.......

I am pretty sure most people (off internet forums anyway) think "Me Too" is over blown.

Just like BLM, ripping down historical statues and all the rest of that virtue signalling cobblers.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Chekhov

[Al Bundy]

27 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

>>There's no suggestion that Schofield demanded sexual favours<<

 

I did not say he had.

What I said was if it was a 61 year old man was bedding a young hopeful so she could get on in television, I am sure "Me Too" would be outraged. Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be "unsavoury" (just like Schofield's peccadillo), but it does not warrant anything more.

 

>>demanded sexual favours<<

 

What exactly does that mean ?

It's not exactly WWII in Russia where if the person doesn't consent they don't eat is it ?

 

I am pretty sure most people (off internet forums anyway) think "Me Too" is over blown.

Just like BLM, ripping down historical statues and all the rest of that virtue signalling cobblers.

Count me in.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

I am pretty sure most people (off internet forums anyway) think "Me Too" is over blown.

Just like BLM, ripping down historical statues and all the rest of that virtue signalling cobblers.

Surprise surprise,  Chekhov is pretty sure what other people think AGAIN.

It seems to be standard , whatever the subject,  that Chekhov always knows what other people think,  and funnily enough,  it always turns out to be what he thinks.

Everybody is entitled to their own view but this doesn't cover deciding for others too.  Plenty may agree with you but plenty also won't.

 

[Chekhov]

31 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

>> Chekhov said : I am pretty sure most people (off internet forums anyway) think "Me Too" is over blown.

Just like BLM, ripping down historical statues and all the rest of that virtue signalling cobblers.<<

 

Surprise surprise,  Chekhov is pretty sure what other people think AGAIN.

It seems to be standard , whatever the subject,  that Chekhov always knows what other people think,  and funnily enough,  it always turns out to be what he thinks.

Everybody is entitled to their own view but this doesn't cover deciding for others too.  Plenty may agree with you but plenty also won't.

>>it always turns out to be what he thinks.<<

 

I have never said everyone agrees with me, you are misquoting me, again, and I don't even know what "deciding for others" even means. I am just reporting what people say to me, or not.

I have never talked to anyone who thinks ripping down historical statues is anything other than ludicrous.

Fewer people talk about stuff like BLM but I cannot remember anyone ever saying to me that "taking the knee" was a worthwhile thing to do, it's just pointless virtue signalling that achieves nothing at all. It certainly has no positive effect on racist people, or even mildly racist people. Quite the opposite I would have thought.

I seem to remember on another thread someone disbelieving me when I reported that hardly any parents agree with fines for term time absences of a week or so. The person arguing the point then went on to say they had no intention of asking any parents what they thought, nor did he accept the proof I put on from an opinion poll.

But, that's the problem with blinkered  keyboard warriors who don't get out often enough talking to real people. They think they actually know what the majority think.