By Gabriel Princewill-
Sarah Ferguson has been judged by the court of opinion as heavily flawed in her opinion that nobody has the right to judge Phil Schofield for letting down the television industry, lying to the Daily Mail, his wife and children.
Prince Andrew’s former wife on Thursday decided to lecture the press for pillorying Schofield, making her case on patently erroneous grounds.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Schofield has faced an unenviable level of social opprobrium ever since his infidelity with a young runner at ITV, who now works in the hospitality industry.
Professionals and members of the public spoken to in a 24 hour period since the royal’s ill judged view, have ruled that the royal who recently started her own podcast is not the most brilliant in giving opinions on serious matters of this nature that call for good judgement.
There is broad consensus mong the public that television presenters have a duty to conduct themselves with dignity and integrity, given the conscious and subconscious impact they have on the public. Reproachable conduct that brings their name and organisation to disrepute is worthy of prompt and uncompromised criticism , for the highly valued benefit of the public.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The glamour and adulation that invariably accompany celebrities and presenters raises the need to ensure accountability in their conduct.
Very few unbiased and competent professionals concur with Ferguson’s poorly considered views that the criticism levied against Schofield was unwarranted.
Presenters are generally seen as celebrities, and by virtue of their fame, occupy a position of influence and serve as role models for millions of people. Their actions are constantly under scrutiny, and their behaviour can have a significant impact on their fans, particularly younger audiences.
Over 95 % of responsible professionals who are married believe Schofield’s infidelity with a much younger man who was 15 when they met, not only undermines family values which includes commitment and trust, but was also atrocious. It has all the hallmarks of grooming, albeit there is no evidence to suggest this in fact was the case.
As news of Schofield’s deplorable transgression spread across the Uk and social media sites, the criticisms intensified , as did those who opted to come out in his defence.
Jeremy Clarkson, notorious for many improprieties of his own, though incomparable to Schofield’s reprehensible conduct, stepped up to the plate in an article for The Sunday Times. Many would be forgiven for thinking Clarkson’s multiple misjudgements in the past debar him from engaging in discussion or debate relating to appropriate conduct.
”I’ve never seen a witch-hunt like it, and what baffles me most of all is that, as things stand, no crime has been committed. I don’t know him at all well and have no skin in the game, but it seems to me he is only guilty of being what he said he was: gay,” he said.
Clarkson’s exposes his myopic standard’s of morality by concluding criminal conduct to be the benchmark for gauging condonable behaviour.
IT consultant, Stephen Oke, 42, said: ”Individuals in the pubic eye should be held accountable for their actions to protect the values they represent.
”Celebrities rely heavily on public support for their success, whether it be through album sales, movie tickets, or television ratings. When a celebrity engages in an affair with a colleague, it can damage their public image and reputation.
”Society has a vested interest in scrutinizing such behaviour to ensure that the individuals involved are held responsible for their actions. Just as consumers have the right to make informed choices about the products they buy, fans should be aware of the personal conduct of celebrities they admire.
”Schofield knew he was gay before he got married, but did not tell his wife before marrying her. He did not have to marry her, he had the option of being with another man, but he chose his wife and had children with her. He then went on to cheat with a young man he met when the man was in his mid teens, took him under his wings, and regularly slept with him.
”He should have saved his wife and children the heart ache of picking up the pieces of his selfish and thoughtless behaviour. He only has himself to blame for the criticial attacks he has faced.
”Ferguson is wrong in her conclusion that nobody should judge Schofield. If her logic is to be applied across the board, then we wouldn’t judge robbers, rapists or paedophiles, though Schofield’s wrongdoing is not on that level. The point is that unacceptable conduct when seen among those looked up to and held in high regard, has to be confronted and rebuked, unless we are condoning it”.
”Jeremy Clarkson is the last person to talk about whether it is right to criticise Schofield, given his own well documented pile of wrong conduct.
”The judgement against Schofield is inevitable, not so much for the age gap, for the fact he cheated on his wife
”The age gap raises separate issues of responsibility and perception. There are valid questions as to why he maintained a relationship with a boy from the age of 15 until he was 20, then slept with him.
Joshua Hopwood, a researcher and analyst said: ” There are some wrongs in society that have to be judged because it would be irresponsible not to do so. Failing to speak up against improper conduct can normalise that conduct and weaken its seriousness.
”Cheating on your wife is plain wrong, and every woman would agree with that. Cheating on her with a much younger man, and revealing you were of a different sexual orientation to what you lead your wife to believe from the start is almost unforgivable.
”Jeremy Clarkson is hardly a standard bearer of good standards, and should not even be commenting when it comes to improper behaviour”
”Criticising shameful conduct in society is important in order to set appropriate standards in society.
Most ordinary members of the public spoken to are united that Schofield’s conduct deserved the attention and criticism it got, and those defending him are either doing it for ulterior motives potentially aimed at showing the former presenter support, or have a vendetta against the media in general, and want to make noise.
Marriage is a sacred bond built on trust, love, and commitment. When celebrities cheat on their spouses with colleagues, they betray the trust of their partners and violate the vows they took. Such behaviour not only causes emotional pain and suffering to the spouse and family but also sets a negative example for others.
Judging celebrities, including television celebrities who engage in such actions, is a way of society reaffirming the importance of fidelity, commitment, and respect in relationships.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar