@fmf said
Disowned his brother after his deeds came to light?

No idea.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I still think adding it to the OP was a cheap shot. Philip is his own person and should be judged as such.

P. Schofield, it seems, is a poisonous, bullying, secretive liar and arguably a predator as well. If he knew nothing whatsoever about his poisonous, bullying, predatory, secretive lying brother's actions, then that's good.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No idea.

So he maybe knew about it and then suddenly disowned him after he was exposed? Why did you mention it if you have ",no idea"?

@fmf said
P. Schofield, it seems, is a poisonous, bullying, secretive liar and arguably a predator as well. If he knew nothing whatsoever about his poisonous, bullying, predatory, secretive lying brother's actions, then that's good.

On what do you base that assessment of P. Schofield? Thought you hadn't followed the story.

You seem to know much more about it than I do.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
On what do you base that assessment of P. Schofield? Thought you hadn't followed the story.

You seem to know much more about it than I do.

On what do you base that assessment of P. Schofield?

From reading about it.

@fmf said
So he maybe knew about it and then suddenly disowned him after he was exposed? Why did you mention it if you have ",no idea"?

It's more likely he disowned his brother when his acts came to light than before he knew about them, don't you think?

I already said I haven't really been following the story, but did read about him disowning his brother. Is this where you begin your selective reading?

@fmf said
On what do you base that assessment of P. Schofield?

From reading about it.

You do appear to be an authority on the subject.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You do appear to be an authority on the subject.

Nope, I make no such claim. Just expressing an opinion, as you are.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It's more likely he disowned his brother when his acts came to light than before he knew about them, don't you think?

I don't know if it's "more likely", no.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I already said I haven't really been following the story, but did read about him disowning his brother. Is this where you begin your selective reading?

What "selective reading" are you on about?

@fmf said
P. Schofield, it seems, is a poisonous, bullying, secretive liar and arguably a predator as well. If he knew nothing whatsoever about his poisonous, bullying, predatory, secretive lying brother's actions, then that's good.

It seems he had a consensual affair with a younger male colleague which he lied to conceal. Would you be labeling him predatory if the affair had been with a consenting younger woman or is his gayness a deciding factor? (as it seems to be with Dive).

And again, how are the criminal acts of his brother relevant?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It seems he had a consensual affair with a younger male colleague which he lied to conceal. Would you be labeling him predatory if the affair had been with a consenting younger woman or is his gayness a deciding factor? (as it seems to be with Dive).

Whether or not there is a predatory element relates to whether there is a power relationship. You ought to know that from working in an office. Nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
And again, how are the criminal acts of his brother relevant?

As I said, P. Schofield is reportedly a poisonous, bullying, secretive liar and arguably a predator as well. If he knew nothing whatsoever about his poisonous, bullying, predatory, secretive lying brother's actions, then there is no link.

@fmf said
P. Schofield, it seems, is a poisonous, bullying, secretive liar and arguably a predator as well. If he knew nothing whatsoever about his poisonous, bullying, predatory, secretive lying brother's actions, then that's good.

I find this post particularly unpleasant, implying as you do (with comparative language) that Philip's actions are akin to those of his brother. (Which clearly, to any reasonable person, they are not).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I find this post particularly unpleasant, implying as you do (with comparative language) that Philip's actions are akin to those of his brother. (Which clearly, to any reasonable person, they are not).

They are only "akin" in so far as the same adjectives arguably apply. Their deeds are not "akin", and I have suggested no such thing.