The media reaction to this case was very unexpected. A lot of the newspapers who absolutely hate SO, were extremely critical of Philip Schofield, for disowning his brother.

We know that the view of the press, is that SO are inhuman monsters, being pure evil and incapable of rehabilitation, so you would have thought their advice to Philip Schofield, would be to have nothing to do with his brother anymore. But it wasn't.

A lot of the commentators, who regularly call for SO to receive the most brutal punishments possible, came out and said that they would never disown a family member, 'no matter what they had done', because blood is thicker than water etc.

I think it shows how, when an SO is somebody that you know, rather than a stranger, then people do see them differently. In other words, they see the person, rather than just the offence.

If you dehumanise somebody, then it is easier to treat them as a monster, but when they are humanised, it is much more difficult. There is a lesson in there for the media, but will they now learn from this and cover these stories differently in future?