Oldjohnw wrote:If Schofield is gay, he's gay and should just get on with it like he claims you are meant to.
I suspect this was a well orchestrated coming out for maximum publicity and future wealth. It's every where now with acres of press coverage.
I consider the show he is on is a channel for the self indulgent; Schofield, Holmes, Morgan.
+1 one on all counts. I have a very close friend who's GAY but doesn't go around shouting it from the roof tops.
+2 on both counts.
+3
LGBTQ+ is so common place these days, even on teen tv, you have your transgenders, lesbians and even now non binarys that is is only news today in certain traditional sectors ( usually religeous? ).
mercalia wrote:LGBTQ+ is so common place these days, even on teen tv, you have your transgenders, lesbians and even now non binarys that is is only news today in certain traditional sectors ( usually religeous? ).
You'd be wrong. Homophobia is present throughout a lot of society. Easy to say that "as a white, heterosexual male I never experience homophobia, racsim or sexism" but extrapolating our experiences to other groups is a mistake.
Of course its not just homophobia, the reality is we're entering a phase where misinformation is used online to stoke up all sorts of fears and hate and of course the younger generation spend more time online and lack the experience that would allow them to realise they're being played.
mercalia wrote:I wonder whether he is "gay" given the whole spectrum available, LGBTQ+ ? He managed to have some kids?
Or maybe he conformed to societal expectations? I have a family member who is gay & had kids. When he was growing up, people didn't talk about such things. He didn't even understand what was 'wrong' with him until he'd married and had kids. When he did realise, he chose not to disrupt his family life until after after the kids were grown.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
carpetcleaner wrote:I was unaware of who he is until yesterday. I learned he was on children's TV in the 80s, and I did not watch it at the time.
The BBC led some radio news bulletins with the story. That is the calibre of service the compulsory licence fee provides.
As did all the advert paid for channels and all the press. Please don't mix up your arguments.
What arguments? I stated two facts about the BBC, leaving people to draw their own conclusions.
Thank you for pointing out that BBC's news is now of the same calibre as that of its commercial rivals, organisations which can be excused for adopting a down market, tabloid form of news report because they need to attract viewers and listeners to please advertisers.
carpetcleaner wrote:There is no such commercial pressure on the BBC.
Commercial pressure derives from populism - nobody would advertise on an unpopular channel showing stuff nobody wants to watch.
The beeb suffers from trying to be popular too but for different reasons. If it wasn't popular getting rid of it would be so much easier...
Fans of the BBC and the BBC itself often tell us it is the unique way it is funded that allow it to offer quality, distinctive product which set it apart from other broadcasters.
If it chooses to chase audiences in the same way as those commercial broadcasters in order to justify its existence, for example by leading its news bulletins with Philip Schofield's sexuality while we have a serious virus outbreak and other more momentous issues to consider, it is certainly not justifying that unique method of funding. It is making the case to end it by demonstrating that is failing.
carpetcleaner wrote:Fans of the BBC and the BBC itself often tell us it is the unique way it is funded that allow it to offer quality, distinctive product which set it apart from other broadcasters.
That can very obviously only be true to a point. Personally having experienced other countries TV I'd argue that the main use of the beeb is to lift the quality of all our TV.
That's not to say the beeb is faultless, obviously it isn't. Far more worrisome is we seem to be following the yanks in political censorship of the media, however it's done I'd like to see the beeb removed from political pressure.
kwackers wrote:I've seen him on and off, tbh whilst I never thought about it I think I simply assumed he was gay.
Overall though I have mixed feelings. On the one hand folk shouldn't need to shout about being gay, straight or somewhere in the middle. I'd like to think that in this enlightened age it matters not a jot.
But, on the other hand having a brother that is gay I'm also aware that society does care. There is flack for being gay and consequently lots of gay people keep quiet and are miserable for years - some try to live "normal" lives. Out of them some will go to their graves and never be able to admit even to themselves that they're gay. For some gay folk "coming out" is a huge deal and for others that can't come out seeing others coming out is also a huge deal.
That Schofield felt the need to "come out" says more about society than about him IMO. Lets face it, ask yourself why is there even a thread about this?
Well put. As perhaps some of the responses on the thread may perhaps illustrate.
carpetcleaner wrote:There is no such commercial pressure on the BBC.
Commercial pressure derives from populism - nobody would advertise on an unpopular channel showing stuff nobody wants to watch.
The beeb suffers from trying to be popular too but for different reasons. If it wasn't popular getting rid of it would be so much easier...
Fans of the BBC and the BBC itself often tell us it is the unique way it is funded that allow it to offer quality, distinctive product which set it apart from other broadcasters.
If it chooses to chase audiences in the same way as those commercial broadcasters in order to justify its existence, for example by leading its news bulletins with Philip Schofield's sexuality while we have a serious virus outbreak and other more momentous issues to consider, it is certainly not justifying that unique method of funding. It is making the case to end it by demonstrating that is failing.
How on earth are items on a news bulletin "chasing an audience"? New bulletins are essentially reactive, reporting what has happened. In common with most of your fellow travelers on the far right you seem to have a grudge against the BBC and this appears to drive your lack of clear thought and logic when trying to use this story to criticise the corporation.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
mercalia wrote:I wonder whether he is "gay" given the whole spectrum available, LGBTQ+ ? He managed to have some kids?
Or maybe he conformed to societal expectations? I have a family member who is gay & had kids. When he was growing up, people didn't talk about such things. He didn't even understand what was 'wrong' with him until he'd married and had kids. When he did realise, he chose not to disrupt his family life until after after the kids were grown.
I bet he didnt put out a full page ad in the local paper or the Express to tell every one then?
Seems there are those who would criticise him either way, what if he'd kept it a secret? Do you not think the pages of the press would have been full of it at some time or other? He's decided to tell the story in his way on his terms, good for him. I've no idea what that story is, other than the headline, I have no interest in what consenting adults do sexually or emotionally, though there's no doubt it sells newspapers and fills forums.
