Dr Zoidberg wrote:
Philip Schofield had first met the young man when he was a teenager, and then provided some sort of assistance in his career, with the implication (though no proof) that the sexual relationship was an abuse of power. It also got conflated with Philip’s brother being convicted for child sex offences.
As far as we can tell, Huw did none of the above and while paying for gay porn as a married apparently straight man may seem distasteful to some/many, he’s not committed any crimes. It also looks like the BBC did take reasonable actions based on what they knew at the time, but that didn’t stop a lot of “BBC Paedos” rants online and false claims against anyone that people didn’t like.
So it’s mostly the possible implication that by offering a career leg-up it pressured the young person in Schofield’s case to do things that he might not have if the career opportunities weren’t offered? A sort of ‘casting couch’ situation, but not through physical force? Ok, I get that.
I couldn’t understand because both of the young people seemed to be consenting (young) adults, and I’m sure that both felt some degree of pressure at the attentions of fame and money and recognised media power, though I suppose one is a bit more direct than the other.
I’m still surprised at just HOW MUCH the treatment of the two men had differed after they’ve been named.
I hope it sinks The Sun, though. I wish something would sink the Mail.