Samsung 21 Plus. Camera Failed
Technology31 mins ago
Should Pip Schofield be sacked?
If it was the other way round and a political figure, especially a PM, had done something as outrageous as Philip Schofield yesterday, live on ITV with a huge audience, there would be a Media witch-hunt against that politician until he finally resigned. Should squeaky Pip now do the decent thing and fall on his sword? I for one would not be sad to see him leave our screens.
Answers
The way in which he behaved was totally infantile - a failed attempt at self-
11:22 Fri 09th Nov 2012
This stunt that This Morning pulled is a classic example of the hysteria and poisonous atmosphere generated by a witch-hunt. Schofield was plainly trying to embarass the PM, and it was a thoroughly stupid stunt, passing off internet circulated gossip and rumour as some sort of research. It clouds and confuses proper investigations and inquiry, it further fuels the hysteria, it can permanently ruin individuals lives to no end whatsoever.
He should not be sacked, but he should be reprimanded. And for those supporting this media led sensationalist revelatory hype as useful - just remember what happened to Mr. Chris Jeffries.
If the Schofields of this world have any serious evidence, they should present it to the police, not spring it on a politician, on air, in an effort to grab airtime, headlines and ratings.
He should not be sacked, but he should be reprimanded. And for those supporting this media led sensationalist revelatory hype as useful - just remember what happened to Mr. Chris Jeffries.
If the Schofields of this world have any serious evidence, they should present it to the police, not spring it on a politician, on air, in an effort to grab airtime, headlines and ratings.
FWIW I'm not saying he should be sacked - I'm saying there's a choice:
> It was a heavyweight subject for a lightweight presenter. Either they shouldn't be covering such topics on this show, or he shouldn't be presenting it.
He should get Dave and SamCam on Celebrity Mr and Mrs. "And for your next question, David, we turn to paedophilia. I've been researching for only 3 minutes on the internet. Will Samantha recognise any of the names of alleged paedos I have written on this piece of paper?"
> It was a heavyweight subject for a lightweight presenter. Either they shouldn't be covering such topics on this show, or he shouldn't be presenting it.
He should get Dave and SamCam on Celebrity Mr and Mrs. "And for your next question, David, we turn to paedophilia. I've been researching for only 3 minutes on the internet. Will Samantha recognise any of the names of alleged paedos I have written on this piece of paper?"
sure, but the only conclusion it reaches is: "for God's sake, don't go around accusing people of being a paedophile, or a homophobe, or anything else, unless you've got some bloody good evidence for doing so". Which gets us nowhere much that we weren't before.
And I repeat: Schofield wasn't accusing anyone of anything.
And I repeat: Schofield wasn't accusing anyone of anything.
Whether he was accusing anyone of anything or not , the point is he didn't have to. Nobody accused the paediatrician of being a paedophile. It didn't stop people spraying paedo on her door and forcing her out of town.
FWIW I think he was accusing. What else was he doing when he said this:
> "It takes a momentary cursory glance at the Internet. It took me about three minutes last night to continually find a list of the same names. I have those names there. Those are the names on a piece of paper. You know the names on that piece of paper. Will you be speaking to those people?"
He now says he wasn't accusing anyone of anything. He says:
> “If any viewer was able to identify anyone listed, I would like to apologise and stress that was never my intention. I was not accusing anyone of anything and it is essential that it is understood that I would never be part of any kind of witch-hunt. Unfortunately there may have been a misjudged camera angle for a split second as I showed the Prime Minister some information I had obtained from the internet. I asked for his reaction to give him the opportunity to make a point, which he very clearly made on the dangers of a witch-hunt.”
What spin! The dangers of a witch-hunt was not the point he wanted the PM to make at the time. In between the interview and the above statement, he (and/or his advisers) have realised that's exactly the point that should have been made, and with that statement he's saying so. But please don't tell me that he went to the trouble of thrusting a piece of paper under the PM's nose in order to give him the opportunity to point out the dangers of a witch-hunt. He became part of the witch-hunt at that point in time, and he's back-pedalled since.
FWIW I think he was accusing. What else was he doing when he said this:
> "It takes a momentary cursory glance at the Internet. It took me about three minutes last night to continually find a list of the same names. I have those names there. Those are the names on a piece of paper. You know the names on that piece of paper. Will you be speaking to those people?"
He now says he wasn't accusing anyone of anything. He says:
> “If any viewer was able to identify anyone listed, I would like to apologise and stress that was never my intention. I was not accusing anyone of anything and it is essential that it is understood that I would never be part of any kind of witch-hunt. Unfortunately there may have been a misjudged camera angle for a split second as I showed the Prime Minister some information I had obtained from the internet. I asked for his reaction to give him the opportunity to make a point, which he very clearly made on the dangers of a witch-hunt.”
What spin! The dangers of a witch-hunt was not the point he wanted the PM to make at the time. In between the interview and the above statement, he (and/or his advisers) have realised that's exactly the point that should have been made, and with that statement he's saying so. But please don't tell me that he went to the trouble of thrusting a piece of paper under the PM's nose in order to give him the opportunity to point out the dangers of a witch-hunt. He became part of the witch-hunt at that point in time, and he's back-pedalled since.
I should have been more precise. He was not naming names to anyone except the prime minister. It does not seem to me that this action constitutes a witch-hunt (presumably he didn't think Cameron was going to go out and put graffiti on anyone's house), or that it endangers anyone, or that it involves claiming anyone on the list is a child-abuser.
What it did do was collate names already being bandied around publicly as possible suspects. I have no idea what he wanted to achieve by this; but I've already argued that this is a problem inherent in the internet/social media, not a problem with Philip Schofield. Aside from giving the PM a list, he made nothing public that wasn't public already.
What it did do was collate names already being bandied around publicly as possible suspects. I have no idea what he wanted to achieve by this; but I've already argued that this is a problem inherent in the internet/social media, not a problem with Philip Schofield. Aside from giving the PM a list, he made nothing public that wasn't public already.
Ummm, if there was no piece of paper and instead he had said ...
"Last night I spent a few minutes researching this topic on the Internet, and the same six names came up over and over again. Do you not think there's a danger this could turn into some kind of witch-hunt, and what is being done to prevent that happening?"
... that would be fine (apart from the interruption of the dementia questioning). But he didn't do that. Instead, IMO, he became part of the witch-hunt at the point and Cameron, fortunately for Schofield as well as himself, handled it very well.
"Last night I spent a few minutes researching this topic on the Internet, and the same six names came up over and over again. Do you not think there's a danger this could turn into some kind of witch-hunt, and what is being done to prevent that happening?"
... that would be fine (apart from the interruption of the dementia questioning). But he didn't do that. Instead, IMO, he became part of the witch-hunt at the point and Cameron, fortunately for Schofield as well as himself, handled it very well.
I think that Philip Schofield can be a little self-serving sometimes but I think that with some guests he does ask the questions that we would like to ask. Maybe he went about it the wrong way yesterday, but he probably feels, as I do, that things will be swept under the carpet....again. Why has the PM and Theresa May not mentioned that any names brought to attention will be questioned by the police instead of just going on about an inquiry into a previous inquiry
I think he's a self important cretin, behaving like that in front of millions of people. There are ways of doing things and it is not shoving a peice of paper with a few names written on it under someones' nose, unscripted on air. Defamatory to say the least, had he investigated those people or did he rely on the internet to do that for him? Did he know for sure they were all paedos? He should be sacked.
-- answer removed --
The clumsy attempt at ambushing the PM could only contribute to the Witch Hunt. And, rather ironically, the man at the heart of the most recent allegations, especially those against a former high ranking conservative politician has made a public statement that the person he named, the name circulated on the internet, was not the man who abused him and that he was in error. That same one time tory politician has also been forced into making a public statement categorising all the reasons why he was not the abuser. His reputation has suffered greatly, because mud sticks and the nature of the alleged crime, and he has suffered press intrusions and media speculation for no reason whatsoever.
This is why witch-hunts and trial by media is such a bad and confusing thing.
This is why witch-hunts and trial by media is such a bad and confusing thing.
In defence of Philip Schofield , last week we saw senior BBC figures taking a bit of a hammering because it was thought that they may have been covering up for Jimmy Saville when allegations first started to surface .
Schofield has ensured that he will not be accused of trying to cover up for this individual . Serious allegations have been made against this individual and although the search comes up in 3mins the allegations have been around very much longer - something like 10 yrs.
Schofield has ensured that he will not be accused of trying to cover up for this individual . Serious allegations have been made against this individual and although the search comes up in 3mins the allegations have been around very much longer - something like 10 yrs.
Bluestone, in the Matthew Wright case, not only was he not sacked but John Leslie ended up losing his job - which ironically, was presenting This Morning. He was replaced by one P.Schofield.
In this case, I watched the footage over and over on youtube, pausing the bit where the paper is handed over and if anyone can actually read that they must have superhuman vision. Schofeild isn't a journalist - he's a presenter and he made a gaffe. It's really not that big a deal. This seems to be being used to deflect from the fact that a high ranking Tory has been up to no good. A far worse offense, but one that seems to be getting forgotten about on all of this. And why no furore about Cameron's linking of paedophiles and gays? Where did that come from? Is that his personal opinion, that anything other than hetero is perverse and can all be lumped together? Why no calls for him to lose his job - that was far more crass than anything else done imo.
In this case, I watched the footage over and over on youtube, pausing the bit where the paper is handed over and if anyone can actually read that they must have superhuman vision. Schofeild isn't a journalist - he's a presenter and he made a gaffe. It's really not that big a deal. This seems to be being used to deflect from the fact that a high ranking Tory has been up to no good. A far worse offense, but one that seems to be getting forgotten about on all of this. And why no furore about Cameron's linking of paedophiles and gays? Where did that come from? Is that his personal opinion, that anything other than hetero is perverse and can all be lumped together? Why no calls for him to lose his job - that was far more crass than anything else done imo.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles90 mins ago
ChatterBank95 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.