Direct Download:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/3ecv067zgvzi6xj/schofieldgate.mp4/file
If you don’t know all that much about #Schofieldgate, watching the video above will bring you up to speed.
Judy Finnigan recently said she was confused as to why Phillip Schofield ‘had to leave ITV’ and why the scandal involving him and a much younger man he’d known for many years beforehand (since he was ten, I believe) ended with a huge shake-up taking place at ITV, with both Schofield and Holly Willoughby leaving, which has caused Judy to say she will no longer watch the show.
As I was the first person to ‘break this story’ some years back, which is covered within the video above (SchofieldGate), I am perhaps better equipped than most to be able to clear up this confusion and explain why things are the way they are and why they will remain this way.
Two important points before we get started.
1. I am not a journalist.
2. This article exists solely due to Judy claiming to be confused.
Judy, let me explain.
Imagine for a moment that Matthew McGreevy was a girl, was female, rather than a boy and male when Phillip Schofield met him at age ten. Not Matthew but Mary.
Then cast your mind back. Do you remember that Phillip was a children’s TV presenter for quite a while?
So, imagine Matthew was a girl, a ten-year-old girl called Mary, when they first met, innocent and wide-eyed, with her whole future ahead of her.
Phillip meets Mary, age ten.
Phillip was a former children’s TV presenter, a married man, a respected man and the patron of Mary’s acting academy. He was a star, a celebrity, powerful, influential, charismatic and confident; he was Joseph in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (always surrounded by children on stage), but he is hiding a secret. He is not happy being in a committed, monogamous marriage to his wife it seems, which suggests he will be actively seeking relationships with others….
After meeting Mary when she was ten, he later follows her on Twitter when she is aged fourteen or fifteen.
Then Phillip “helps Mary” with her career, after getting close to her over a period of time. He offers her career advice when he knows she is a teen girl still at school and later he invites her to the ITV studios to do some work experience there, which she will of course be extremely grateful for. How kind and benevolent and honourable that selfless Schofield fellow is; patron of acting academies for young children and inviting to the ITV studios teens he met when they were ten. What an upstanding chap, eh?
Finally, Judy, Phillip admits his affair with Mary (only when this information seems certain to come to light), who, remember, he has known for many years.
Judy, the reason why I began SchofieldGate some years back was due to my suspicions of nepotism, abuse of power and potential grooming. Of course the infidelity and lies and deceptions are bad and suggest we cannot believe a single word Schofield ever says again (because he lied to everyone), yet I was motivated more by the appearance of nepotism and abuse of power and potential grooming.
I wonder, is your confusion a gender-related thing? Would you care more if the ‘other party’ was female, was an impressionable ten-year-old girl when they met Schofield for the first time? Would you understand then?
What Schofield may term ‘bad judgement’ many would call grooming at worst, or taking advantage at best, and not wholesome, not in keeping with the morality and world outlook of most ITV viewers, which is why Schofield’s career is dead.
Could Mary in her teens have said no to Phillip, the famous star, Joseph, the children’s presenter, the icon, the authority figure whom she was relying on to advance her career?
Think about it, Judy, think about it. Would you be happy to learn that your daughter had an affair with Schofield after she met him aged ten and after he began following her on social media when she was still at school? No. The answer is no, Judy, even if the affair occurred when she was seventeen or nineteen years of age. I’m sure you will agree.
If a man was the patron of an acting academy and met a ten-year-old girl whom he later followed on social media (when she was still at school) and he later helped her career and afterwards had sex with her, wouldn’t you connect the four events?
Patron (authority figure).
+
Following the teen on social media.
+
Employing her, in effect.
+
Sexual relationship.
The moral of the story is that powerful, incredibly selfish/self-centred, narcissistic and promiscuous men or women with skewed ethics and morals should never be around children, should never follow children on social media, be they straight, gay or whatever else.
Schofield is NOT the victim in any of this; Matthew is, and maybe he is not the only one, especially given Schofield’s grandiose drama queen moment following the revelations (talking about suicide and being finished and unable to leave his house).
The facts are alarming, Judy:
Schofield was known to have holidayed on a cruise ship at the same time as Jimmy Savile, he has admitted this.
Savile’s first tweet on Twitter is said to have referenced Schofield.
When two female guests (on Schofield’s ITV show) were warning about the dangers of paedophiles and mentioned Jimmy Savile, Schofield, who met Savile on multiple occasions and who worked at the BBC at the same time Savile was a BBC employee, seemed to become very angry. He cut off the women as they were speaking and acted in an odd way, which I would describe as disturbing.
Judy, I hope you understand now. And I hope you realise that there is surely much else Schofield is lying about, which is perhaps why in a desperate interview after the revelations, in which he seemed to paint himself as the victim down on his luck, broken and depressed (because he got caught, he was chipper and upbeat beforehand when living his double life), his parting words were, ‘I just have to say stop with him. Okay with me. But stop with him, leave him alone now.’
His parting words, Judy, in my view, were an attempt to separate the innocent victim, Matthew, from journalists.
I am not a journalist yet would welcome a conversation with Matthew as I have many questions for him.
***
Judy, maybe this thought will help with your confusion:
If Schofield had been honest about being a homosexual who was merely acting like a heterosexual and playing the role of a happy family man; if Schofield had identified as being homosexual at the time he chose to follow a young teenage boy on Twitter whom he met when the boy was only ten years of age, wouldn’t you be suspicious of his motivations in the same way you would be suspicious if your husband Richard (who I imagine has always identified as a heterosexual) began following a young teenage girl on Twitter and later sought to help her and her career?
Wouldn’t you ask Richard what his intentions were? Wouldn’t you query the openly gay Schofield’s intentions if you discovered he was following schoolboys on Twitter? It is because we all thought Schofield a family man and a heterosexual that no one queried his relationship with Matthew. Is he still able to innocently follow boys on Twitter? No.
Judy, would Schofield have followed Matthew on Twitter, benevolently and altruistically mentored and aided Matthew in his career progression, helping him to improve his CV, very generously helping him to get work experience and latterly paid employment if Matthew had been heterosexual? Think about it, Judy.
Was Matthew a relative? No.
Was Matthew a neighbour? No.
Had Matthew ever helped Schofield in any way whatsoever? No.
What reason did Schofield have for singling out Matthew, for choosing to help him in particular, out of all the many young people in the UK, the vast majority of whom identify as being heterosexual? Did he feel sorry for him for some reason? Did he see a younger version of himself? Was he impressed by Matthew’s talent or did he see a shy boy who needed a leg up and an advantage that no one else had?
If Matthew’s display photo on Twitter when he was a teen boy, still going through puberty and confused and impressionable and naïve and hopeful, had shown him standing with a girlfriend, with his arm around her, or the two young love birds kissing each other, would Schofield have invested so much of his personal time and energy in helping Matthew? The answer is obvious, at least to me, but what do you think, Judy?
You say you are confused about this situation. What I am confused about is why folk have given you and your hedonistic and attention-seeking husband so much airtime for so long given his various public statements, such as the two of you sleep naked, that you have used Viagra together, such as that he sleep walks (naked) and that he was recently mugged raising a whole host of questions. For example (in regards to his latest claim, his phone being stolen), ‘Did the pub not have CCTV?’ Of course it does. ‘Has there been a police report?’ If not, why not? ‘Are there any witnesses?’
After you made your comment in regards to Schofield I very briefly checked on the actions of you and your husband over the years and what I discovered spurned this article. Was Richard not caught leaving stores without paying for expensive items, twice? Yet he has said he desires a rather extreme punishment (the death penalty) for the alleged thief who allegedly stole his mobile phone.
I say ‘alleged’ as your apparent wardrobe malfunction seems anything but a malfunction. In my opinion you and your husband are serial tricksters, so it is no wonder you have now chosen to tie your wagon to Schofield, who is always quick to remind us that ‘Jimmy Savile never took a child out of a car’, which leads me to ask, ‘How the hell do you know, Schofield?’
In the video below, most will likely believe you and your husband are naïve, oblivious and ditsy; yet when you watch the video slowed down (there is such functionality on YouTube where I sourced the clip in question), it is apparent to me that you are aware at 0:37 seconds that your dress has “accidentally” fallen down (your facial expression changes) and then at 0:38 seconds your eyes look upwards, seemingly feigning innocence. Yet, at 1:07, when a “gallant gentleman” appears from the audience (who just so happens to be a friend of yours) who closes your overcoat for you after you only slightly attempted to close it, your mouth opens widely, as in ‘I had no idea that my underwear and breasts were exposed to the world including all the children and families who are certainly watching what was billed as “family entertainment” despite me looking down, and despite me just seconds earlier partially closing the overcoat, but not enough to cover myself.’
It seems to me that you knew the truth long before this apparent reaction, which suggests to me that you had planned that morning to ‘flash Britain’—twelve million people were watching the award show.
The man who ‘came to your rescue’ (John Leslie) interestingly was sitting next to you and your husband before you went up on stage. Your daughter, Chloe, later stated that he was a friend of your family, which leads me to think the whole episode was contrived, pre-planned and simply a publicity stunt. However, due to so many of the guests at that awards ceremony clearly high on class-A drugs, maybe drugs and excessive alcohol consumption played a role.
Why did you look up, Judy? Guilt? Claiming innocence? And what was Richard ‘on’ that night—look at his eyes and see the photos later in this article showing him constantly rubbing and touching his nose. There are numerous photos found at the end of the Richard and Judy compilation video, also.
After reviewing the footage for just a short time, it is my opinion that you intended for your dress to fall down, which would expose you; yet this happened too early, the timing was off.
You look down at 0:54 seconds into the video, notice that your dress has fallen, and move your overcoat about one inch in a futile gesture, which achieves nothing, despite latterly (after Leslie arrived on stage) closing your overcoat garment fully.
At 0:54 seconds in you could easily have covered yourself fully within a split-second, nothing prevented it. It seems clear that, accident or not, you wanted to remain exposed.
I believe that you desired to be facing the audience and TV cameras, perhaps hoisting the award above your head at the same moment you allowed both of your arms to move away from your body as they were the only things holding your dress up.
In a final crescendo moment, as you were looking at the audience with arms raised, the dress falling down would of course have been deemed to be totally innocent and a complete wardrobe malfunction, yet when this occurred thirty seconds too soon, you are forced to partially cover up, which certainly demonstrates you were aware the “malfunction” had occurred. You then nervously fiddle with the top of the award for an extended period of time whilst awaiting the hero who was sitting next to you beforehand to swoop in, and place his jacket over you.
Perhaps you, your husband and your friend Schofield should all retire from public life and be very quiet somewhere far away, perhaps on that beach you spoke about sunbathing topless on in the past?
It’s just a coincidence that you have exhibitionist and hedonistic attitudes in regards to public nudity, I guess; it couldn’t be connected to the wardrobe malfunction, could it? Totally unrelated, right? And the nude sleeping thing also? All just coincidence. When asked in 2015 on the TV show Loose Women (10 July 2015) if you sunbathe topless in public (on a beach) you replied, ‘Oh, in my youth yeah, definitely … we spend a lot of the summer in France every year, this nudity thing, French women don’t give a toss, they will take their bikini tops off and there’s something actually quite nice about it.…’
Judy, people took you at face value when you had a “wardrobe malfunction”, they naturally believed it was accidental.
I imagine most people also believed your husband when he said he was recently a victim of crime due to his angered reaction. What your many stories have in common over the years is that they generate an equal measure of sympathy and attention, guaranteeing an extension of your careers and in increase in ratings.
People also believed Savile and Schofield were good guys, honest and trustworthy—my small efforts in regards to Schofield and yourself will educate folk that you should never believe that celebrities and people in positions of power and authority are automatically innocent and honest and trustworthy as power corrupts and the narcissistic few will do or say anything to remain relevant and in the spotlight.
Now when I hear ‘Richard and Judy’ I can’t help but think ‘Smollet’ with your husband’s angered and over-the-top reaction to having his phone allegedly stolen and you claiming to have thrown away your bra in anger after the “wardrobe malfunction”. It was very reminiscent of how the now disgraced US actor Smollet reacted after similarly claiming to be a victim of crime; he kept the noose around his neck even after returning to his home, the footage of which was captured on the police body cams.
It is so often the case that those who fraudulently claim that they were victims wrongly guess that they need the crime/faux pas or their reaction to the crime/faux pas to be extreme in order to garner sympathy and thus advantages and privileges and attention and wealth.
If Richard lied about being a victim of theft and if you lied in claiming that your dress fell down accidentally, rather than it being a publicity stunt, it would make sense for you to defend the proven liar Schofield, yet it would be wise to only come to the defence of those with good character in the future, Judy; that way you won’t cause eyebrows to be raised or your past to be analysed and scrutinised. I don’t as a rule criticise TV presenters, those who work in the media or journalists; in fact I dedicated a 2019 unauthorised biography about J.K. Rowling to journalists, which evidences my true feelings about that profession—I defend journalists at length in that book.
I have just read your comments following the dress “accident”.
You claimed to be wearing a halterneck dress. My wife assures me that a halterneck cannot fall down in the way your dress fell down.
Next, you claim that the bra you were planning to wear that evening (the biggest evening of your year, the evening you had been looking forward to for the previous twelve months I am quite certain, which would cause you to have prepared for the night far in advance, surely?) ‘did not fit’. This is a bra you refer to as a ‘matching bra’, matching in colour, you claim, so a black bra.
Thankfully I have read such books as Spy the Lie written by former CIA interrogators, which enables me to spot lies easily, even very well hidden lies.
The CIA agents in the book in question explain that liars often add extraneous information when lying, to ‘dress up’ their lies. For this reason, it is interesting that you would add this extra information into the story, such as you were planning on wearing a black bra but at the last minute, literally at the eleventh hour whilst changing in the hotel room, you realised it did not fit you. You decided then and there to instead reach for your ‘favourite bra’ as you referred to it, telling your husband, you allege, that no one would ever know that you were wearing a non-black bra, which appears to have straps (not something any woman would pair with a halterneck my wife assures me).
Why mention the black bra? Would its colour have prevented the wardrobe ‘malfunction’? No, ergo—irrelevant, distracting and unnecessary padding for the story and the scandal and the drama and the “malfunction”.
You are further quoted as saying you were so angry about the episode (despite smiling and dancing and putting your tongue out at the time and seeming to be lavishing in the attention whilst your husband doesn’t seem very shocked or concerned in any way) that you threw away the bra you were wearing at the time. But wait a moment, you state in a separate interview that this is your favourite bra, and my wife assures me once again that no woman worth her salt would ever throw away her favourite bra.
Did you wait twelve months from the previous awards ceremony until one hour before you were due to arrive to try on a brand-new bra? And why didn’t it fit? Who procured this thing? I thought you were a star? Do you not already own black bras? Why did you throw away your favourite bra? Was it the bra’s fault? Why is blame being shifted on to the bra? Why would you claim to be ‘mortified’ due to your bra being exposed when you have previously enjoyed being completely topless in public?
This is a very confusing story, which seems totally fake, just like your husband’s ‘dog-eared magazine phone theft story’, lots of superfluous literary detail in both of these stories. Both seem to be a product of creativity due to the questions these stories invite and due to the contradictions and odd extreme reactions: ‘Death to phone thieves.’ ‘Death to favourite bras.’ Bizarre.
A few points:
Being mortified means running off stage, not dancing and smiling and putting your tongue out.
A halterneck top is not to be worn with a bra with straps.
It was not the fault of your favourite bra.
Someone who has been topless in the past and who likes nudity in general would never be mortified if their underwear was very temporarily exposed.
The little dance you do at 1:41 whilst putting your tongue out playfully is really suggestive of ‘being mortified’?
***
‘I was in my local when a weird-looking guy shambling around the bar slammed a dog-eared magazine down on my table and demanded I buy it.
‘When I refused, he swept it back again and wandered off. Five minutes later I realised he’d smuggled my phone away underneath the magazine.’
This is a quote from your husband. So many questions, so many … for instance, what is meant by ‘weird-looking’ and ‘shambling around’?
On the one hand, you have an expert cunning thief; on the other you have someone who couldn’t be a good or competent thief or confidence trickster due to his appearance and inability to play it cool getting far too much attention.
If he is a ‘shambler’, how is he also a light-fingered expert phone thief, which is it? Five minutes is also a long time not to notice the phone is gone, but of course it is long enough to allow the culprit to make good his escape as he shambled out to freedom.
I would love for at least one of you (Schofield, Richard or Judy) to be honest and truthful, so I would be genuinely interested to know the name of the pub and the time of the day and what occurred next, as in, did the civically minded Richard (who I guess wants to kill the alleged thief to reduce crime?) report the crime to the police in order to raise awareness and to potentially lead to the culprit being caught and punished? Did he ask the owners where their CCTV cameras were located? For an absolute certainty the venue will have CCTV cameras, likely inside and out.
In regards to his claimed anger, according to the philosophy of his wife, he shouldn’t be angry whatsoever as she once cited a rape victim’s state of inebriation as the reason why the rapist should be able to continue in the same profession. According to ‘Judy logic’, if Richard had consumed alcohol, he had no right to complain when he became the victim of a crime.
I spent a few minutes searching the term ‘Richard and Judy pub’ online and found that your local is likely the one in the image below. Please note the arrow, it points at a CCTV camera….
I wonder what other offences Richard believes warrant the death penalty. Paedophilia? Terrorism? Political Corruption? I imagine he will not call for these folk to be executed, just folk who steal in full view of security cameras after shambling about the place.
And a final thought about Richard.… I was wondering where the inspiration for someone using a magazine or such like to hide something could have possibly come from; that is until I read an article in the Sun newspaper, where it is claimed he tried to hide a bottle of wine from view some years ago inside a newspaper as he exited a pub.
Did you inspire yourself, Richard?
And why are you being so hard on someone you only suspect robbed you (you have zero proof) when he may have had a memory lapse, like you claimed to have suffered from on two separate occasions in the past when caught leaving stores with items you hadn’t paid for, remember?
Maybe the gent (if he exists) thought it was his phone; perhaps he is accustomed to carrying his trusty dog-eared magazine around with him joined by his smartphone? Would you kill someone for having a bad memory or accidentally picking up that which he believed was his?
Potentially lying about wardrobe malfunctions and stolen phones, many will conclude, is hardly the end of the world and not a big deal, yet if Richard and Judy are lying about being victims of theft and lying about wardrobe malfunctions, what else could be a lie?
For instance, Judy has claimed she was groped and sexually harassed/bullied/propositioned by someone in the media who is a household name, who sought to wield his power and influence and authority in order to get sex, alluding to a ‘casting couch’ sort of thing.
If Judy shares the name of this person who allegedly exposed himself to her despite her showing no interest in the other, older individual, I will believe her, at least a little, just as I will believe Richard’s dramatic story if he gives more pertinent details rather than just ‘the magazine was dog-eared.’ Yet, failing the additional essential information I will believe nothing either of these folk, or Schofield, ever says again and will treat all of their previous public statements as complete works of fiction.
In regards to fiction, was Richard telling the truth when he claimed to have accidentally given himself an all-over fake tan thinking the substance aftershave balm? Read his words and look at the photo to judge for yourself. Why would the balm have been applied around his eyes and on his forehead, I am left wondering, if he thought it aftershave?
‘As I was going out the door I felt my face and thought, “I should have shaved. I will get a b*****king.”’
‘I went back into the kitchen, got a dry shaver and had a quick shave.
‘It started to itch, so I thought, “I’ll put some aftershave balm on.” Now I’m running late.
‘I opened the kitchen cupboard, got what I thought was the shaving balm and put it on. I’m driving in to work and thought, “It smells a bit funny, this balm — it’s a bit woody. It must have gone off.”
‘People were laughing into my earpiece from the gallery. I asked to see myself on screen, and it was like I had just come back from a timeshare in Chernobyl. There was glowing radiation.’
Watch this video, if you have time, and focus on the section relating to ‘convince versus convey’. This will aid you in becoming a human lie detector if you have such a desire.
It seems apparent to me that both husband and wife engage in the same tactic again and again, they do not convey information and facts so much as they go out of their way in an attempt to convince you that they are telling the truth and being absolutely honest—yet, when you are being honest you tend not to add so much extra information and passion. They both seem to be attempting to prove they are being honest before anyone suggests they are being deceptive, the lady doth protest too much.
The more information, the more detail a person gives, the less likely it is that they are telling the truth.
The more you say when a simple question is asked the more likely it is that you are lying.
‘Why did you appear orange the other day, as though you used a great amount of fake tan and applied it evenly on your face, neck, around your eyes, your forehead and even on your ears?’
The answer, the truth, is either, ‘Because I wanted to look good or younger and I thought the fake tan would achieve that goal,’ or, ‘Because I knew it would get attention.’
Yet, when someone answers with a whole drawn-out fantastical One Foot in the Grave style David Renwickian story of absurdities, of dim lighting plus dry shavers and fake tan being kept in the kitchen and the fake tan, despite smelling different and having a different consistency to shaving balm, being hilariously accidentally applied to all aspects of the face rather than just the itchy post-shaved areas, I smell a rat.
The “mistake” wasn’t spotted in makeup that morning at work? And why is the tan not blotchy or patchy if the liquid was applied in the fashion an aftershave balm would be? Is the truth such a terrible thing? What single human being on this planet believes Richard replicated Victor Meldrew’s blunder by using the wrong product on his face?
‘Hole in the Sky’ (a One Foot in the Grave episode) aired 22 Jan 1995, twenty-four years before Richard replicated the action of using a substitute product rather than that which he intended. In that episode, it is mentioned that the Meldrews’ towel was stained as a result of Victor’s faux pas; guess what, in an unlikely coincidence, Richard states that his towel was similarly stained due to his fake tan faux pas.
I would like to believe this and all other fantastic stories shared by this couple and packaged as truth are genuine; yet on balance it seems that all is theatre and creativity.
***
An odd quote from Richard from 2019:
‘Very early on I made the conscious decision that when I was in my dressing room, if anybody knocked on the door, I never let them in.
‘I’d open the door and keep it open with my foot, and it became a complete habit. We’d have the conversation on the threshold and in full view of the office. It was my iron rule and it is one I still follow on GMB.’
What a strange thing to say.
This claimed ‘iron rule’ would only serve to be a defence at some future time if there were CCTV cameras outside in the hall and always staff members outside with a view of his dressing room door and if the cleaning staff and catering crew were forbidden from ever entering Richard’s dressing room.
This statement is odd in the extreme; yet, ironically, if Judy’s pal Schofield (not a close friend, she insists, but a friend nonetheless) had enacted this policy, this article would not exist. He would still have a career and wouldn’t need people like Judy to, in effect, advocate for him—because it has been reported that poor, dejected Schofield claims the affair began in his dressing room.
If you are of good character you don’t need to keep people out of your dressing room; instead you will simply exert self-control and will happily defend yourself from salacious accusations if they arise. The man who refuses to allow people into his dressing room is suspect number one every time an allegation of abuse or rape has been made.
For instance, imagine someone has been drugged and raped at a TV studio. They don’t know which dressing room the act occurred in as the rapist took them when they were unconscious from the green room to one of the many dressing rooms and then returned them to the green room thereafter. The police are called after the incident and they begin questioning the various stars and celebrities who are located within their dressing rooms, with their names appearing on their doors.
Every man or woman who opens their door fully and invites the officers in will be thought of as being open and honest and trustworthy and not necessarily suspicious; yet the one man who bars the door, who puts his foot in the way and insist the conversation only takes place at the threshold will be considered the prime suspect because his behaviour is very atypical and unusual, him being the odd one out.
‘Kevin? A rapist? A sexual predator? Nah, he can’t be the rapist because he never lets anyone in his dressing room because he doesn’t want anyone to ever accuse him of being a rapist.’
What star wants to have a dressing room located next to a noisy and busy office where many employees are milling around and talking? Don’t all stars such as Richard desire peace and quiet and privacy? And in regards to Richard being adamant that no one could ever gain access to his dressing room, him being a goalkeeper of sorts, a stalwart defender of his dressing room and unable to ever let his guard down or falter from his commitment to being the sole occupant of his dressing room at all times, I remind that twice he was caught leaving supermarkets without paying for the items in question, which he was arrested for.
He claims this was due to him forgetting to pay for the items, including expensive champagne, so could he not also forget to put his foot in the door? Could he not forget about his world-famous iron rule?
***
Judy’s thoughts on rape.
I have reproduced the following from a newspaper, a screenshot follows:
Recently she [Judy] made a foray back into daytime TV on Loose Women but, on her first day, was vilified on social media over a comment she made about footballer and convicted rapist Ched Evans.
After suggesting the former Sheffield United striker should be allowed back into football because his attack “wasn’t violent” and the victim was drunk, she ended up apologising for any offence caused.
She said: “I was cheesed off. I haven’t changed my opinion on anything I said but it was very unfortunate that it was my first day back on telly.
“Social media makes things so much more complicated. Anyone who posts on Twitter has become an auxiliary journalist now.
“It makes some of the worst of these people feel important and that they are being listened to.
“It’s sad but the only thing is when you get to my age you do just think, ‘Stuff it’.”
I have many questions about this.
Firstly, just because the rape is non-violent does not mean it is not rape. Had you not thought that perhaps the only reason it was not violent was because the victim did not resist? That they perhaps did not resist because they were petrified of what would happen if they tried to prevent the attack from taking place?
Why is it that you care about the attacker rather than only throwing your full support behind the victim? Would you say to your daughter, ‘What do you mean you are reporting what happened to you last night to the police? No, don’t you dare report that “encounter” to the police because you were drunk and there are no bruises on you. Do not ruin that man’s life.’ Judy, who made you the boss? The judge? The law? No one.
Secondly, just because the victim is drunk is irrelevant.
What you are saying is, what you are giving the green light to here is for anyone who has had a drink or two to be “legally raped”. This is akin to a sexual purge. Why do you think this way? What is wrong with you? This is absurd.
Someone has insecurities and confidence issues, they are shy, or they suffer from depression so they drink a few beers and then when they are raped you tell them not to ruin the rapist’s career because they were drunk and the attack wasn’t violent so ‘no harm done’. No physical harm perhaps, Judy, but psychological harm. Psychological harm has certainly had been caused; irreparable trauma has likely been caused. Please stop opining on the issues of the day because your words are poison, your contributions unhelpful. Keep this darkness to yourself. Rapists deserve punishment, preferably death (following a trial), not second chances because they did not use violence. Judy, please be very quiet, only rapists and morons agree with you. Your morals and philosophy are trash.
Also, ‘I was cheesed off.’ How could you possibly be the victim here? How dare you be angry? You were the only soul in Britain (I’m sure) who desired this fellow to get his job back; you are always on the wrong side on history and your contrarianism is dangerous. You defend the footballer; you seemingly defend Schofield; you complain about the public backlash to your comments downplaying the seriousness of the crime (drunk + it was non-violent); you have (I believe) staged a “wardrobe malfunction” in front of twelve million Brits. You seem to me to be a really bad egg, out of touch, lacking in empathy, a self-obsessed person who does not give a hoot about victims.
Whether you realise it or not, your career has only lasted this long due to your gender rather than talent. Let me prove this within a minute.
No man, no male celebrity could have survived the scandals you have survived, for instance:
If a male TV presenter/journalist said, ‘What’s the problem? I’m confused. He only raped a drunken woman and didn’t use violence, let’s get him back in his old job ASAP,’ and if he also said, ‘Why is everyone angry about Schofield? Let him back on ITV ASAP, he is a saint,’ how long does anyone believe he would remain on TV?
If true equality existed, you would have become persona non grata a hell of a long time ago, Judy.
Try having a sex change, legally changing your name from Judy to John and then publicly advocate for unapologetic convicted rapists to be able to continue their careers and continue receiving riches whilst the spectre of repeat offences hangs in the air. You say it was just folk on social media, trolls, who were against you, but read these quotes from 2014, are these people trolls?
‘Judy Finnigan’s comments are really unfortunate and could potentially cause some hurt and distress to the many survivors of sexual violence who will inevitably have been watching Loose Women and who will read and hear her views reported.
‘Whether intentionally or not, her words do imply that rape that involves extreme physical violence is more traumatic than rape that does not.
‘Rape is a violent act in itself, all rape causes bodily harm and all rape is a lot more than “unpleasant” regardless of the circumstances in which it takes place.
‘Rape is a terrifying experience that can and does have a wide range of long-term and even lifelong impacts for those who survive it.’
—Katie Russell, spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales
‘Rape is a serious injury that undermines some people for life. No bodily injury has little relevance.
‘What has this [being inebriated] got to do with this if he forced himself upon her?
‘If you get drunk and someone steals your wallet, does this mean it’s any less of a theft than if you were sober?’
—Vera Baird QC, Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, who campaigns against violence towards women and girls.
***
A final thought or two in regards to your super-liberal world outlook:
Would you be happy for a whole team of footballers to be unapologetic convicted rapists, Judy? What if every player committed rape and was convicted and served their time, would you want all eleven men to be once again representing Liverpool or Sheffield or Glasgow or Norwich? I am guessing that would be too much for you, an entire team of rapists; I guess you would not tolerate such a thing, such an incredible spectacle of disgusting liberal tolerance, yet one rapist you condone working in an environment where the vast majority haven’t been convicted of serious sexual offences. You really haven’t thought this through; you need to think before you speak.
Would you really be happy for the ‘rape team’ to hold up the championship cup at the end of the season if they defeated all of the non-rapist teams? Think ahead and think of the optics resulting from implementing your vision and will. The future you would create would be vile and depressing. You would be made happy as your will was done, but little girls and boys would find themselves cheering on convicted rapists and idolising convicted rapists if they won the championship. Judy, please think before you speak.
Lastly, you claimed the man convicted of rape should be able to return to his old job, his previous profession without being hindered, would you say the same thing if the rapist was a school teacher, priest, doctor or councillor for vulnerable women and children who had been traumatised due to being raped?
Surely you would have double standards here, as in you would seek to ban school teachers and priests from continuing on in their old professions, which creates an ugly picture of elitism and elite celebrity supremacy. You desire to help the rich celebrity footballer, but if a convicted rapist was not a celebrity, if they worked for a local council or if they taught children or if they were an anonymous gynaecologist you would surely INSIST that their career was destroyed and for them to be kept far away from a position of power or responsibility or trust.
Why the double standards? Your liberalism is toxic; please refrain from trying to be a thought leader as you will only lead us to the gates of Sodom and Gomorrah and societal suicide.
I very much agree with one thing you have said, however, which appears in the screenshot below. I don’t want you to be relevant either, until you have fundamentally changed.
***
Judy, I hope you are less confused now and I hope that you realise that there is no difference between you at twenty being hit on by a much older authority figure and household name (if that story was true, there are two versions of it seemingly, with one suggesting you were groped and the other suggesting you were flashed, what’s the truth?) and Matthew being hit on by a much older household name authority figure. Gender is irrelevant when it comes to abuse of power and the casting couch, surely you agree?
Schofield has apologised and accepted responsibility for everything; he has stated he made the first move, that it was his choice.
You have called folk in the media who use their power and position to get sex with women ‘beasts’ in previous interviews, yet you refrain from calling Schofield a beast; why the double standards? Is it sexism, misandry or something else?
What an odd bunch of folk the three of you are—halterneck tops that defy physics and logic, favourite bras bizarrely being thrown into the trash and fake-tan aftershave on the forehead and around the eyes and upon the ears and dog-eared magazines wielded by ‘weird-looking men’ in full view of CCTV cameras spiriting away iPhones and, of course, Schofield following teen boys on Twitter, all so odd; all so very, very, very, very odd.
(All articles, content and sample chapters on brucemasters.org can be reproduced in full, without limitation, either online or in print. It is necessary to cite the original source and to credit the author of the content—Dr Bruce Masters: Brucemasters.org.)