Friday 9 November 2012

Why Phillip Schofield was Right and Brave

I am quite sad to see that intelligent people just don't "get it".

My husband is the voice of reason and counters that maybe they haven't read up on it.

To that I say "thank you, for giving me that wisdom", but equally if they are yet to read up on it, then please perhaps don't comment........ (I have had two people on my personal Facebook account vehemently defending Cameron, and chastising Schofield, in counter to a "status" I posted on Facebook.  Those commenters (and their lack of knowledge on the subject) made me sad.  For reasons I will keep to myself, I have unfriended one of them because of it.

I want people to wake up, but I can't awaken them by myself, which is why I am DELIGHTED to see the truth coming out on lots of threads on Mumsnet, as just one example.  People are talking about it and are keeping an open mind.  THAT is a good thing.  It is being disbelieving of the truth, that allowed the truth to be hidden all these years.

What I am talking about here is the hostility that Phillip Schofield has received for his stunt actions on This Morning yesterday.  << link provided is to the FULL version, so you can fully see the context in which he did it (too many people are watching the 27 seconds version).  There is a great deal of background to what he did.  I WISH people would realise that.  It would take me too long to link to all of the relevant websites, and as I have been reading them I have not been bookmarking them all, but I know that the press are gutted that they cannot say more, which is why "stunts" are necessary.  Kelvin Mackenzie eloquently here gives you the (some of the) reasons why the presses hands were/are tied.

People "in the know" "in the media" "in the right circles" KNEW that this would come out once Jimmy Savile was dead (when Libel Laws don't count) which is why they started to act uncomfortable, (even a year ago) and disassociate themselves from him.

Sadly, the knowledge was there, but disbelieved.

I am really glad to see the North Wales case being looked at again, but no doubt it will may again be in a censored way, but I keep an open mind to being proven wrong.

The Catholic Herald is very sad here, about the fact that Jimmy's charitable work was not linked to his faith.  I think now with hindsight they should be glad of that as they have enough of their own shame to deal with without having to contend with Jimmy's too (I sadly say I am a Catholic, but luckily have had no personal contact with anything untoward).

I'd love to know what the deleted comments here said.

And for anyone who thinks Phillip Schofield was foolish, if he was, he was also brave, if you'd like to read how some journalists get treated when they try to out the truth: I found this via the same Mumsnet thread.  Yes, that last link brings Jersey into it, which you have to, to complete the picture...


  1. But Philip Schofield used a load of names from the internet. It's VERY important that innocent people are not drawn in these accusations, especially by mainstream media. I presume that you have read about this

    Lord McAlpine is, in my mind, a further victim of this 'scandal'. My husband had told me that if he was similarly accused, he would feel suicidal.

    So just have think about that when you say it's OK for people to wave names about on the telly.

    1. I know his delivery was that he got the names from a "3 minute search" on the internet, but they would have thought long and hard about what Phillip would say before handing that list over, and like Jimmy Savile was known about for years, by people in the know, no doubt there are some names on that "list" of the same ilk.

      I think I will wait before I settle on a decision on what I think.

      There is more to come, and more twists and turns to this whole episode/saga.

      It is also "VERY important that innocent people" are not abused in care homes, or ignored by the institutions and establishments that are set up to protect them. Once blamed on care homes run by the Catholic Church, it clearly goes way beyond that, to places where children do not have the advocate of a "parent" to protect them.

      I wouldn't want anyone innocent feeling suicidal. Honestly I wouldn't.

      Let's see how far this rabbit hole goes....

    2. It is very important that people aren't abused (you don't have to tell me, I used to get paid to deliver safeguarding training in local authorities and schools), but it's absolutely essential that resources are targeted at people where there are actual allegations.

      If you want paedophiles to be found, you want child protection experts working on proper intelligence, not just lists of names people have found online.

      You make huge assumptions here.

    3. Equally people commenting here make huge assumptions that there were innocent people on that list and I don't know why people are assuming that.

      Case in point, if Jimmy Savile was on a "list" 2 years ago, there would be similar outrage; now we are informed, that is not the case.

      Resources were targeted at people, in a very high cost case in North Wales. Did it bring about closure for the victims? No. Did it deal with everyone who needed to be dealt with? No

  2. I concur, Jo. These things can so easily turn into a witch hunt, and with a so-called celebrity getting involved, well, it goes stratospheric, doesn't it? And ruins people's mental health/family life/relationships/careers into the bargain.

    1. All of those "mental health/family life/relationships/careers" would have been hurt for many many years, for many hundreds/thousands of victims.
      I am sure Phillip would have got some legal advice prior to delivering his list, and is simply trying to hold Cameron to account, with his recent promise of "no stone unturned"

  3. It is VERY MUCH NOT OKAY to bandy names about in public without having very good cause to do so. Perhaps the 'intelligent people' that you speak so sadly of are more intelligent than you think. Yes, awful things have happened and the perpetrators need to be caught. But not by a television presenter turned amateur detective.

    1. In his opening statement, he says he spent 'about 3 minutes' on the internet getting the names. Hardly in depth journalism is it?

    2. I think you can take his "opening statement" with a pinch of salt. There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye

  4. It could prejudice any future legal case if names are being thrown about on the internet, let alone shown on tv by some producer. Which will lead to a lack of justice for the children involved.

    1. The "lack of justice" already occurred in several court cases and tribunals, over several decades, which is why everyone is asking for cases to be looked at again. Names have been on the internet for a very long time. This is not a new thing.

  5. Given that the whole case against Lord McAlpine has turned out to be one of mistaken identity, Schofield looks even more of a prat now than he did then. Publishing defamatory accusations about people that you can't prove is libellous - and what he did on tv was to libel a number of people based on nothing more than internet gossip. He should be out of a job. There was nothing remotely brave about his actions - he was moronic, sensationalist and a disgrace to his supposed profession.

    I never thought I'd say this as I dislike him intensely, but I feel for Lord McAlpine - and anyone else accused of something they haven't done, especially something as vile as child abuse.

    1. There is more to the story yet to come out so let's see how it unfolds.

      There is no guarantee that LMA was on Schofield's list so I don't see him as looking a "prat" at all.

  6. Just to put things into context, here's a Popbitch newsletter entry from this week:

    Early 2000s - our inbox jammed with
    rumours that Philip Schofield and
    Jason Donovan were secretly a couple.
    Schofield always dismissed it all
    as just rubbish you find on
    the internet.

    8th November 2012 - Philip Schofield
    pompously hands David Cameron a card
    with names of alleged Tory paedos
    which Schofield said he just got
    off the internet.

    1. Hhhhhmmmm I don't think you will find that Phillip said the word "Tory" and I also don't think he was pompous either, at all.

      I think when the North Wales case was hashed up, you will find that Labour was in charge, so this is far from a Tory thang!

      No harm if Phillip and Jason were a couple, they are both rather handsome and charming, and also two consenting ADULTS, unlike the poor victims.

      I don't think Phillip is going to avoid the internet forever, just because it once-upon-a-time put his heterosexuality in question, just like I don't avoid my blog forever, even when I sometimes want to turn it off and run for the hills.

      Like I said in another reply, he couched it as a list he found on the internet (just so he could raise the profile of it to watchers), but of course he and his producers (and legal team) thought long and hard about how to present it.

      I think we will all find, if the truth comes out, that there is more to this story.

      People in the know have been talking about it all for decades. Police have been taken off cases, etc etc etc... The truth is quashed by victims "disappearing", perpetrators dying, or those in the know being put (or taken off) the scent.

    2. oh and LOTS of D notices and files that have been consigned to archives for 100 years, just to make sure we're all dead when the truth comes out.

      Getting some of THOSE files OUT would really show that no stone is really being left unturned...

    3. I think you might have missed the point, there just a tad ;)

    4. I deliberately "missed the point" if you can call it that, as I don't see the relevance. I hated Facebook for 4 years, then once upon a time, I changed my mind and joined it....
      So a celeb had gossip written about them on the www, once upon a time, and....?

    5. As Schofield said, he got that info in a three-minute internet trawl. So he got the same names any of us did who googled the story when it first came out. Virtually every article mentioned mcAlpine, so i think fairly safe to assume he was on the list, along with the other names being bandied about libellously elsewhere.

      A point that is being missed is that Schofield libelled those individuals by writing down their names and handing them to the PM. Npbody is saying that child abuse should not be investigated, of course it should. But you can't just throw in names based on internet gossip because that sort of thing could ruin lives, as with mcAlpine.

    6. My point was "don't believe everything you read on the internet".

      Also, I've noticed that you've mentioned "opposite view" on another of your post, referring to this one. Just because people have a different view it doesn't mean to say that anyone is wrong.

  7. What Schofield actually did was to treat gossip without evidence as a serious allegation worthy of sharing with the PM. As himself a victim of such salacious gossip - albeit not of criminal accusations - he should know better.

    1. Have you watched things like this:

    2. Seems like the lady in the video has some "evidence". There are lots of allegations worthy of being shared with the PM, which is why the stunt was done.

  8. She may have - or it may be like that Meesham guy's evidence and actually wrong when looked into. My point is that you can't just take names based purely on a three-minute search of internet gossip and hand them to the Prime Minister on TV as if they had substance. It's libellous.

  9. There is also loads of evidence about North Wales. Horrific did happen there and there was an inquiry in the 90s. It may well be that more is to come out. But that is not a reason to libel people for a bit of cheap sensationalism.

  10. It is no excuse to say "oh well the names were already out there, so it doens't matter" what PS did was libellous.
    It also trivialises the experience of the victims of abuse, it becomes about a TV presenter trying to upstage the Prime Minister.
    Nothing you say here persuades me that PS had the victims best interest at heart.
    It isn't journlism, it is gossip.

  11. i'm a bit late to the debate in this (been out of the country for the weekend) but watching the clip that you linked to I think that this is nothing more than a blatant dig from ITV to the BBC.

    Philip doesn't choose what he talks about on air. he is a PRESENTER. They have a huge team of researchers and producers behind every single daily show. They talk about what they are told to talk about, they have notes and auto cue to guide them.

    Please see this for what it is. it's not about Philip at all. it's a low tactic from ITV that totally threw Cameron because he wasn't there to talk about that at all.

    Low, shoddy journalism.

  12. You've responded to my Twitter feed so I hope you'll publish my comments here, even if I suspect they may be unwelcome.
    As I work providing first hand support to potential victims of crimes such as this I feel justified in giving some (useful?) insight here......
    The act of PS handing that card to the PM is a stunt, a distraction; this has lead to sensationalism, comment, opinion and disagreement on whether it is right that he did so (or not). Some tenuous link with other cases of abuse then promotes (to some) the idea of opinion, research is done, a blog is written, comments are collected...... some unwelcome responses cause hurt/anger/annoyance, more research is done, further opinion is offered. So unwittingly, the real issue is hidden, opinion has provided a COMPLETE DISTRACTION from the victims at the core here.
    An idea, put down the laptop, get off the sofa, find your local support group/opportunity to volunteer and channel your energies this way, meet some of these victims and you'll soon realise that stunts distract credibility, make prosecution more difficult and ultimately deny victims the opportunity of justice.
    Unless you are willing to get involved in this way, I feel your opinion, is largely worthless.

    1. Hi,

      yes, I've found the tweets: yours to @schofe and in turn mine to you.

      They are both polite so I don't see how that justifies the tone of your comment.

      I don't believe Schofield's stunt provided a "complete distraction" as you say. What is doing THAT is the media focusing on the BBC/Entwistle/Newsnight, much to the establishment's convenience. Entwistle and S.Messham appear to have been used as fall guys now.

      I am glad to see that some of the mainstream media can SEE the distractions that ARE occurring, but are not allowing it to sidetrack them from the truth, as is the case with The Independent here:

      This is also worth a read:

      In The Independent article I have linked to check out the 3rd paragraph starting with the word "Some" this shows that the victims have already been denied justice.
      I am not talking about fresh cases here where the jury is still out and comment might prejudice cases. We are talking about cases that have been corrupted for decades. Not everyone at home is fully aware that it goes nationwide and reaches far beyond Savile so I think Schofield brought it to the sofas of Britain nationwide.

      I don't know if you are familiar with blogging but it is my space to do exactly what you appear to disagree with, which is to give my opinion.

      Thank you for visiting, Liska

    2. In writing this response you've shown the point I was trying to make, time spent gettingto this level of detail doesn't help anyone.
      I am familiar with blogging, having read some of your other, more lighthearted posts I can see your research does you credit, however in the case of sexual abuse, child abuse, corruption and the media's role, I feel any comment/opinion distracts.
      I tell it as I see it, sorry if that offends

    3. I absolutely LOVE people who tell it as they see it. It is easier than trying to fight a shadow, and calling a spade a spade is one of the healthiest things that we can do. I embrace intelligent debate, and despite your opening sentence would never ever have deleted or ignored your comment. The ONLY bit I found offensive was the "largely worthless" bit.

      Don't worry I did not Google those links for point scoring, so me including them does not prove anything. I included them very easily and very quickly as they were both things I had already read, and thought added to the debate.

      A lot of people are saying that discussion about BBC/Entwistle is taking away from the true essence of what is really going on, so I applaud the Independent for writing what they did, which was a lovely antithesis to what the Daily Fair wrote in their smear campaign, written by a Journalist who is employed to do JUST THAT (he has a history of it).

      Anyway I am watching the unfolding of all of this with interest.

      Take care,
      Liska x

    4. That was meant to say Daily Fail


Drop me a line, and I will visit you right back - as soon as I get chance. Thanks for your comment.