I don't think that describing a sexual relationship between a teenager and a man aged 55+ as an 'affair' is helping really. He met Mm when he was a child, which matters, whether or not he was 'legal' when they first have sex.
How would people feel about a grandchild having sex with a man 40 years older, particularly if he had known your grandchild since he or she was 12?
This is not about homophobia - it'a about grooming. And it doesn't stop with PS. People knew about it - there are plenty of videos and articles out there if you want to look. I am not in the 'blame Holly' camp on this. Ruth Langsford lost her job when she complained about the way the runner was treated, and Holly could have done likewise. She is not responsible for PS's behaviour, and the 'coming out' nonsense was orchestrated by ITV to get sympathy for the 'bravery' of acknowledging Schofield's homosexuality (or whatever his sexuality is - I'm no expert, but believe that an interest in children of either sex is entirely separate from being gay). I'm not a great fan of Holly, but blaming her for what PS did is starting to look like sexism.
As for the 'super injunction' - I doubt that GSM is reading this thread, but I'd like to hear from someone with legal knowledge whether it is possible to pay to silence people legally. That goes against all notions of justice, and I don't know how it can be enforced. A Non-Disclosure Agreement is far more likely, as that is signed by both parties and is between them (in this case probably MM and PS). My guess is that PS paid MM to be quiet, and that the period of the NDA has ended, or is about to end.
I do know that PS paid £30k a month to his PR team for crisis management, so maybe that's where the confusion (if there is any) has arisen.
There will be serious questions to answer if ITV bosses were aware of what was going on and did nothing. Not necessarily because of PS having a 'relationship' with MM if it was, indeed, legal, but because of the way MM was treated, and the way those who spoke out about that treatment were sidelined. There may, of course, be more to come out (I wouldn't be surprised) but there is enough in the public domain already to show that PS was not 'thrown under a bus'. Not by a long way.
As for his statements about lying - for heaven's sake! If this was an 'affair', why would he admit it? Why would he be under any obligation to tell his employer about it? Or anyone else for that matter? Sadly, the wife is often the last to know too - the very nature of affairs is that they are secret. It has to have been more than that. Affairs happen all the time, particularly in workplaces, and people are not sacked unless there is another story. Didn't Rylan's marriage end because of adultery? He (rightly) wasn't sacked for that, as it was between him, his husband and the other man/men (I don't know the detail).
This Morning may be a popular show with its viewers, but the audience is relatively limited because of the time it goes out, and the fact that the story of PS's 'resignation' is all over the papers and all the TV news programmes shows that this is not as simple as it seems.
.