Crosswords1 min 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
And this is the reason we have very few male primary school teachers or school leaders. There will always be some idiot who says "hmmm- hanging around small kids - must be a paedo" - and then rumours go around, and apparently it is now acceptable for the media to speculate on these rumours.
Welcome to the selfishness society - where people don't help others in case they are tainted by gossip and falsehoods.
Welcome to the selfishness society - where people don't help others in case they are tainted by gossip and falsehoods.
NOX......I just don't see it that way.
The PM was invited to be on the show to talk about dementia and in the middle of the dissertation he was presented with a list of alleged Political gay paedophiles.
What was the purpose of this other than sensational exhibitionism?
This list could have been given to the PM either before or after the show.....or perhaps submitted to the police, but no, the media took the opportunity of embarrassing our PM in front of millions of viewers.
Schofield shouldn't be sacked, but the programme should apologise as it already has done.
The PM was invited to be on the show to talk about dementia and in the middle of the dissertation he was presented with a list of alleged Political gay paedophiles.
What was the purpose of this other than sensational exhibitionism?
This list could have been given to the PM either before or after the show.....or perhaps submitted to the police, but no, the media took the opportunity of embarrassing our PM in front of millions of viewers.
Schofield shouldn't be sacked, but the programme should apologise as it already has done.
Bluestone -
///Matthew Wright decided to name the person who's raped Ulrika Johnson.///
It would have been better if you hadn't made that comment; or the later one where you named 'the person'.
Matthew Wright omitted the word 'alleged' - and was proven to be completely wrong in his assumption and statement. The person he referred to was subsequently cleared of any charge.
Did Matthew Wright lose his job - NO.
So should Phillip Schofield be sacked? Definitely not in my view.
///Matthew Wright decided to name the person who's raped Ulrika Johnson.///
It would have been better if you hadn't made that comment; or the later one where you named 'the person'.
Matthew Wright omitted the word 'alleged' - and was proven to be completely wrong in his assumption and statement. The person he referred to was subsequently cleared of any charge.
Did Matthew Wright lose his job - NO.
So should Phillip Schofield be sacked? Definitely not in my view.
I don`t think he should get the sack but I think someone (either Schofield or the producers) should get a rollocking. I thought it was a very underhand stunt to pull. There were no formal allegations against the people named on the list (as far as we know) and to pick names of the internet and pass them across was crass. If Schofield wanted to press the point, he only had to mention that the names are available on the internet. He did David Cameron a favour though as he gave him the opportunity to handle a difficult situation very well, which he did.
> He didn't name anyone, he acted professionally enough imho, so why this crazy backlash?
It's for ambushing the PM with a piece of paper containing some names he'd spent "three minutes on the internet researching". Not professional at all.
The piece of paper was the really bad part. It could have prejudiced a court case.
Second was the "three minutes researching". Journalists really should spend longer and try harder than three minutes on the Internet, especially when researching such an important topic which they intend interviewing the PM about on live TV.
Finally was the ambush of another important topic - dementia.
It's for ambushing the PM with a piece of paper containing some names he'd spent "three minutes on the internet researching". Not professional at all.
The piece of paper was the really bad part. It could have prejudiced a court case.
Second was the "three minutes researching". Journalists really should spend longer and try harder than three minutes on the Internet, especially when researching such an important topic which they intend interviewing the PM about on live TV.
Finally was the ambush of another important topic - dementia.
Ellipsis he was in no danger of prejudicing a case, it he didn't name anyone on air, he discreetly passed a list of names, and stated that he wasn't accusing anyone of anything but that there were prevalent rumours.
Also missnemesis made a good point earlier, the PM didn't look at the list but immedietely went banging on about being scared about a witch hunt against gay people- how did he know anyone on the list was gay?
Also missnemesis made a good point earlier, the PM didn't look at the list but immedietely went banging on about being scared about a witch hunt against gay people- how did he know anyone on the list was gay?
I think he was in idiot for doing it, whether the names could be seen or not.
Let's face it, there are some incredibly dumb people who watch that show and who take every word he says as gospel. It basically just suggests it's fine to take a bunch of names off the internet and accuse them of whatever you like, regardless of whether you've got any proof or not.
I don't think he should be sacked but I hope he doesn't try and play billy big balls again.
Let's face it, there are some incredibly dumb people who watch that show and who take every word he says as gospel. It basically just suggests it's fine to take a bunch of names off the internet and accuse them of whatever you like, regardless of whether you've got any proof or not.
I don't think he should be sacked but I hope he doesn't try and play billy big balls again.
I think the three minutes' research was kind of the point, though, Ellipsis. We've now got a stream of people on one had saying "I always knew Jimmy Savile was bent" and on the other saying "I never heard of him doing anything wrong". (Curiously, the former are people who didn't know him and the latter people who did, when you'd expect it to be ther other way round.)
Schofield's point seemed to be that there's no such excuse any more, now that three minutes' research will call up a list of allegations against anyone, well founded or not. I don't think anyone expects him to produce evidence to the same standard as Panorama.
The actual ambushing of Cameron is a separate point, but hardly a sacking offence. Cameron handled it ok, but in reality saying he doesn't want a witch-hunt doesn't get us anywhere. How does he think a justice system should function in the age of the internet? Perhaps if he's given fair warning he might produce some interesting answers.
Schofield's point seemed to be that there's no such excuse any more, now that three minutes' research will call up a list of allegations against anyone, well founded or not. I don't think anyone expects him to produce evidence to the same standard as Panorama.
The actual ambushing of Cameron is a separate point, but hardly a sacking offence. Cameron handled it ok, but in reality saying he doesn't want a witch-hunt doesn't get us anywhere. How does he think a justice system should function in the age of the internet? Perhaps if he's given fair warning he might produce some interesting answers.
jno
\\\ How does he think a justice system should function in the age of the internet? Perhaps if he's given fair warning he might produce some interesting answers.\\\
Exactly....but he wasn't given any warning.
Why?
Because that would limit or dilute the impact of the "piece of paper"....the function of which was guaranteed to embarrass the PM.
\\\ How does he think a justice system should function in the age of the internet? Perhaps if he's given fair warning he might produce some interesting answers.\\\
Exactly....but he wasn't given any warning.
Why?
Because that would limit or dilute the impact of the "piece of paper"....the function of which was guaranteed to embarrass the PM.
> the PM didn't look at the list
IMO he did look at the list, but it's moot because he didn't need to. :)
> how did he know anyone on the list was gay?
He knows what he's dealing with here. He knows who the major accusations are against. He knows some/all of them are gay.
> It basically just suggests it's fine to take a bunch of names off the internet and accuse them of whatever you like, regardless of whether you've got any proof or not.
Another very good point.
IMO he did look at the list, but it's moot because he didn't need to. :)
> how did he know anyone on the list was gay?
He knows what he's dealing with here. He knows who the major accusations are against. He knows some/all of them are gay.
> It basically just suggests it's fine to take a bunch of names off the internet and accuse them of whatever you like, regardless of whether you've got any proof or not.
Another very good point.
not sacked but given a stern ticking off, it was a stupid action, and as someone pointed out some of the names on the list he proffered to the PM could be seen clearly. That opens up libel issues for a start, not least for the presenter and the station he works for. whether you can access the info or no, it was a stupid thing to do.
> Schofield's point seemed to be that there's no such excuse any more, now that three minutes' research will call up a list of allegations against anyone, well founded or not.
I refer you to EB's post.
> I don't think anyone expects him to produce evidence to the same standard as Panorama.
Why not? He's interviewing the PM on live TV. How often do you see that on Panorama?
I refer you to EB's post.
> I don't think anyone expects him to produce evidence to the same standard as Panorama.
Why not? He's interviewing the PM on live TV. How often do you see that on Panorama?
Personally I would rather wonder why there has been such speculayion and rumour rife on the internet without any decisive action/reaction from David Cameron, maybe this incident will prompt someone to announce one of those long winded expensibe enquiries government are so damn good at, if they do that, it might just be a step forward. Philip can then don his black tie outfit ready for the more formal occasion as per budget days.
Why should ANYONE be sacked for asking ANYONE a question?
If the PM is so fragile that he can't deal with a kid's TV presenter asking him if he'll look into a potential issue within his own party then he is unsuited for the job and we need to get someone better. Who the hell wants to hear what a politician has to say when they're given 3 weeks notice of the questions, and get some slimey little junior civil servant to write their answers for them, needing only to learn their lines 'off pat' like an actor? If that's what you want in your politicians then good luck to you, personally I'd prefer it if we all grew up a bit as a society, stopped whining and bitching on about everything and actually got down to making it a better place to live.
If the PM is so fragile that he can't deal with a kid's TV presenter asking him if he'll look into a potential issue within his own party then he is unsuited for the job and we need to get someone better. Who the hell wants to hear what a politician has to say when they're given 3 weeks notice of the questions, and get some slimey little junior civil servant to write their answers for them, needing only to learn their lines 'off pat' like an actor? If that's what you want in your politicians then good luck to you, personally I'd prefer it if we all grew up a bit as a society, stopped whining and bitching on about everything and actually got down to making it a better place to live.
Ellipsis, I meant that he isn't doing investigative journalism. In this case, he wasn't accusing anyone of anything at all. (Which is also my answer to EvianBaby). If he'd done four minutes' research instead of three (or four weeks for that matter), it wouldn't have nailed a guilty party, all it would have proved is that you can get more names if you put in extra time.
Whether the PM goes on Panorama instead of This Morning is up to him.
Whether the PM goes on Panorama instead of This Morning is up to him.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
The Next 40 Things To Immediately Do...
Music7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
You've Gotta Admire The Creativity Of...
News24 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.