Schofield finished

The rumours that he'd effectively groomed an intern were doing the rounds when he first came out, so I'm surprised it's taken 3 years to get to this stage.
 
atypical_boro said:
This is where the media thinks this is going I think. Schofield was helping his nonce brother go under the radar, but also grooming a production runner, or at least that’s what they’re hoping for.

Obviously I’ve no idea if it’s true, but it certainly doesn’t mean gay men are any more likely to be paedophiles than anyone else even if it is, it’s an isolated example (if true).
Click to expand...

Don’t think anyone has suggested that, have they?
 
InglebyUTB said:
Can’t believe how many people are missing the story. It’s got nothing to do with him being gay.

If a straight male TV presenter met a 12 year old girl, then over the years went on to develop a friendship with them on social media and having lunch together, then when she turned 18 he got her a job at the show he worked at then proceeded to bang her behind his wife’s back, you don’t think that would be a story?

Now imagine it’s not a TV presenter, it’s someone at your place of work. You don’t think your employer would take a very dim view of this?

It’s grooming and abuse of position of power.
Click to expand...
However know one knows what his intentions were, if he was helping and supporting and using his influence with the intention of developing a sexual relationship then it is grooming, although i'm not sure were this sits with someone over 18 who has capacity, when the act takes place. If he was genuinely taking an interest and wanting to help the person and their relationship developed over time then that is different and could well have happened. Also the age of consent is 16, (18 in certain circumstances) apparently the physical relationship started after the age of 18, so why did he wait if he was so predatory as people are saying, he has done nothing legally wrong, he may have denied it or lied but that is not a crime.

A teacher who has a relationship with a pupil after they are 18 has done nothing wrong although they might have known the person for years before.

You might not like PS, or you might not agree with his sexual preferences or like the fact he has lied but that doesn't mean he has done anything wrong and should be hounded by the press and ametature detectives. If he has done other illegal activities then they should be investigated and dealt with in the normal manner.
 
There's a stark difference between what's legally 'wrong' and what many consider 'wrong'.
The act of grooming from a young age (if that's what's truly happened). Is rightly considered wrong in a lot of people's books.
I actually can't believe the amount of people suggesting it may not be wrong.
It's worse than a teacher pupil relationship when the senior person in the relationship is in a position of power within a place you gain employment.

The phrasing 'unwise but not illegal' speaks volumes as a defence.
 
Corco65 said:
However know one knows what his intentions were, if he was helping and supporting and using his influence with the intention of developing a sexual relationship then it is grooming, although i'm not sure were this sits with someone over 18 who has capacity, when the act takes place. If he was genuinely taking an interest and wanting to help the person and their relationship developed over time then that is different and could well have happened. Also the age of consent is 16, (18 in certain circumstances) apparently the physical relationship started after the age of 18, so why did he wait if he was so predatory as people are saying, he has done nothing legally wrong, he may have denied it or lied but that is not a crime.

A teacher who has a relationship with a pupil after they are 18 has done nothing wrong although they might have known the person for years before.

You might not like PS, or you might not agree with his sexual preferences or like the fact he has lied but that doesn't mean he has done anything wrong and should be hounded by the press and ametature detectives. If he has done other illegal activities then they should be investigated and dealt with in the normal manner.
Click to expand...
Don’t agree. Not arsed about his sexual preferences but he’s used his position to get a young boy a job to be his runner after social media contact and then took him out for lunch and once he became of age started a relationship with him. The definition of grooming.
 
Bernieslavenschin said:
There's a stark difference between what's legally 'wrong' and what many consider 'wrong'.
The act of grooming from a young age (if that's what's truly happened). Is rightly considered wrong in a lot of people's books.
I actually can't believe the amount of people suggesting it may not be wrong.
It's worse than a teacher pupil relationship when the senior person in the relationship is in a position of power within a place you gain employment.

The phrasing 'unwise but not illegal' speaks volumes as a defence.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
if he had given him a football shirt instead of an internship.. he’d have got 6 years wouldn’t he?

I’m not comparing him to Adam Johnson as he was twice the age of Adam Johnson and also Adam Johnson didn’t have a peadophile brother which he knew about.

Adam Johnson didn’t jump the queue to see the Queen's coffin lying in state.
 
Corco65 said:
However know one knows what his intentions were, if he was helping and supporting and using his influence with the intention of developing a sexual relationship then it is grooming, although i'm not sure were this sits with someone over 18 who has capacity, when the act takes place. If he was genuinely taking an interest and wanting to help the person and their relationship developed over time then that is different and could well have happened. Also the age of consent is 16, (18 in certain circumstances) apparently the physical relationship started after the age of 18, so why did he wait if he was so predatory as people are saying, he has done nothing legally wrong, he may have denied it or lied but that is not a crime.

A teacher who has a relationship with a pupil after they are 18 has done nothing wrong although they might have known the person for years before.

You might not like PS, or you might not agree with his sexual preferences or like the fact he has lied but that doesn't mean he has done anything wrong and should be hounded by the press and ametature detectives. If he has done other illegal activities then they should be investigated and dealt with in the normal manner.
Click to expand...
It’s gross you’re defending the guy and trying to imply I only have an issue with this because of his sexual preferences.

He’s lied about everything up to this point, so why would you think he’s telling the truth about when the started the relationship?

Looks like you think he’s done nothing wrong.

Even if we forget when they met and the interactions before they started working together (which is a big part of the story). If I got my mate’s 18 year old daughter an admin job at my place place of work and it later came out I was having an affair with her, my employers would be dragging me in front of HR to explain myself and I’d be lucky to keep my job. Not because it’s illegal but because I’ve been in a position of power over a young person and they may have felt pressured into sexual relations or continued the sexual relationship longer than they wished to for fear of losing their job.

ITV execs knew what was going on and chose to cover it up.
 
InglebyUTB said:
It’s gross you’re defending the guy and trying to imply I only have an issue with this because of his sexual preferences.

He’s lied about everything up to this point, so why would you think he’s telling the truth about when the started the relationship?

Looks like you think he’s done nothing wrong.

Even if we forget when they met and the interactions before they started working together (which is a big part of the story). If I got my mate’s 18 year old daughter an admin job at my place place of work and it later came out I was having an affair with her, my employers would be dragging me in front of HR to explain myself and I’d be lucky to keep my job. Not because it’s illegal but because I’ve been in a position of power over a young person and they may have felt pressured into sexual relations or continued the sexual relationship longer than they wished to for fear of losing their job.

ITV execs knew what was going on and chose to cover it up.
Click to expand...
I am not defending him, I am saying people are assuming for whatever reasons he has done something illegal, I am saying that is not known as yet and due process should take place.

And apologies when I said you, I didn't mean you personally it was meant as for everyone reading it, people in general.

i don't agree with your example, you would not been seen as having position of power over a young person, in law they are an adult. You could be seen as abusing your power or authority in the work place but that is nothing to with age unless the person is under 18.
 
Corco65 said:
I am not defending him, I am saying people are assuming for whatever reasons he has done something illegal, I am saying that is not known as yet and due process should take place.

And apologies when I said you, I didn't mean you personally it was meant as for everyone reading it, people in general.

i don't agree with your example, you would not been seen as having position of power over a young person, in law they are an adult. You could be seen as abusing your power or authority in the work place but that is nothing to with age unless the person is under 18.
Click to expand...
Why go out of your way to defend a bloke who has abused his position to groom a child?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top