Dan Wootton Outspoken - LBC PRESSURE TO SACK JAMES O'BRIEN AS HARVEY PROCTOR REVEALS HOW HOST RUINED HIS LIFE ON LIES

Episode Date: September 23, 2025

Harvey Proctor had his life destroyed by false allegations that were perpetuated in the mainstream media by a certain James O'Brien, who has refused to apologise. This is actually one of the most horrendous stories that you can ever hear about the Deep State and Westminster establishment conspiring with left-wing media figures to try and take away someone's reputation for no reason at all, other than their own political and personal gain. James O'Brien still hasn't apologised for what he did and we're going to get into this horrifying story today in a special Uncancelled Interview. THEN IN THE UNCANCELLED AFTERSHOW:  Sign up to watch live or on demand and totally ad free at https://www.outspoken.live Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So 321. So brilliant to have you here in our interview studio today for a very special one-on-one with someone who I have been wanting to speak to for a long time. Harvey Proctor had his life destroyed by false allegations that were perpetuated in the mainstream media. by a certain James O'Brien who has refused to apologize. This is actually one of the most horrendous stories that you can ever hear about the Deep State, the Westminster establishment conspiring with left-wing media figures to try and take away someone's reputation for no reason at all other than their own political and personal gain. James O'Brien still hasn't

apologized for what he did and we're going to get into this horrifying story today. You will be fascinated so do stick with us throughout the show. Of course, because this is a special uncanneled interview edition of Dan

Witten outspoken today, we're not revealing a Greatest Britain and Union Jackass at the end of the show and there is no uncanceled after show because I am currently in Australia. But we will be back live with you on Monday for all of that. And if you do want first access to everything that we do, including the Royal Uncanceled After Show, then do sign up to my Substack. The address on screen, www.w.outspoken.com. Join our community, which is focused on free speech. And

Substack is a brilliant platform, actually, because it protects me from big tech cancellation and lawfare. But this is a very important story today. You're going to be horrible. terrified by it, so do stay with us. Let's go. The cancellation of Harvey Proctor and the pitchfork-waving witch hunt led by LBC presenter James O'Brien is one of the biggest stains on the British MSM in recent history.

the racial media protect themselves so they are not prepared to talk about what happened to Harvey Proctor they are not prepared to talk about the fact that James O'Brien should not be on air today because of his despicable faux journalism which ruined one man's life and caused others to have their reputation taken away forever And why this is important is that it shows that James O'Brien will put politics ahead of facts, will put propaganda ahead of people's actual mental health and lives on a daily basis. And he is a nefarious force for the United Kingdom. And this story matters because he should not be on air today. so Harvey Proctor is with me in the studio today

this is obviously a very painful and difficult thing for him to talk about but he has agreed to do so in depth today and I am very grateful for that but before he does I want to set up this story so that you understand just a little bit about the cruel intentions of James O'Brien to destroy someone because he sat on the other side of politics to himself Harvey Procter's name became a byword for sexual scandal when he was found to have paid rent boys to call him sir and pretend he was their headmaster while he spanked them furiously. He also lied about it egregiously and several times. But none of that comes even close to the things he stands accused of today. Should these investigations, questions, allegations be examined publicly or does he have the right to remain innocent and secret, if you will, until proven otherwise? Well,

If you want people who have been abused to learn for the first time in British history that they'll be treated with respect and compassion and trust, then you have to do it in public, don't you? So let's think about that for one second. Harvey Proctor's only crime back in the 80s was being a gay man at a time when it was still not acceptable to be so, especially in mainstream politics. you would think James O'Brien as someone apparently on the left and very open to who people want to be should understand that.

But far more disturbing was the fact that he swallowed hook, line and sinker the lies from the biggest fantasist in British history. A man called Carl Beach, now a convicted paedophile. who concocted the most insane story about Harvey Proctor and other very senior figures from the British government in the past, including the former Prime Minister Ted Heath, who was completely unable to fight back, of course, given he was dead. But Harvey Procter was very much alive and had to face Operation Midland, a police investigation based on lies from a fantasist that were then

totally I guess exploded into the mainstream by James O'Brien for political purposes and when it was exposed that he had been suckered by a fantasist

paedophile who made the entire thing up do you think James O'Brien apologized like hell he did watch don't come forward because they feel so ashamed and embarrassed Yes, of course they do

And every abuser tells every abuse victim That they will be Disbelieved You will not be believed when you come forward It's why the continuing Controversy surrounding Operation Midland Is so acute Because an environment into which victims can come forward

Confident that they will be believed Has been completely undermined and corrupted By the fact that when Carl Beach came forward He was actually lying And it breaks my heart to think of how much damage that continues to do to the simple question of have I got the confidence to come forward? Will I be believed?

And of course the police that described his allegations as credible and true still have an awful lot to answer for, not least to those of us who took them at their word. You are a disgusting man, James O'Brien, who has completely twisted the narrative, who has taken absolutely no responsibility. for what you did and your heart breaks for yourself because your credibility is gone forever because I just want to show you the man who James O'Brien believed

and who James O'Brien used to ruin the lives of his political opponents. This is the real Carl Beach. But it was all lies today Carl Beach was put behind bars. It could be just you with one man it could be you with lots of men it could be you and other boys

in four years of police investigation costing millions of pounds the supposed victim known as Nick claimed he was abused by a Westminster paedophile ring none of it was true but the damage to the lives of people he accused was real

when I suffered being spat at jeered shouted down as a paed or a murderer. Carl Beach named the former Prime Minister Edward Heath and Home Secretary Leon Britton. He named the former head of the army Lord Bramel. He accused them all. All were innocent.

I think what was extraordinary was the gallability of a lot of people and then the malicious exploitation of the situation by others, Harvey Proctor, how does it feel watching all of that back? Hurtful. These matters that we're talking about today go back 10 years or more and still the pain and hurt is there. I've said that it will never go away and the longer we get away from it the more I feel that it will never go away

because it hasn't. So this is a very complicated story but the good thing is today we have some time to get into it and it really does in my view prove that James O'Brien is not fit to broadcast or to be considered a journalist today but can we go back to the first claims that he spoke about because he's trying to paint you

and he did try to paint you on LBC as some type of sexual deviant the reality was but I'd like you to explain the situation you were the serving Conservative MP for Billerickey I was the Conservative Member Parliament for first Basilden 79 to 83

and then Billerickey from 83 to 87 when I decided in the light of what happened in 86 and 87 not to restan. I didn't resign. I served my full two terms. Being a member of parliament was something that I'd always wanted to be. I joined the unconcerted when I was 14 and I became a member apartment at the age of 32 and served seven or eight years in the House of Commons. the most prized position for anyone, I think, and certainly for me. I was honoured to be a member of Parliament for the Conservative Party in those years. But in those years, it was also very difficult to be openly gay in Westminster.

Completely impossible. And no other member of Parliament came out, I think that's the terminology, at the time. I was never ashamed of being a member of parliament but I came to the conclusion it had nothing to do with the media or to my constituents if my sexuality did not get in the way of my duties as a member of parliament

I never asked the media or people who interviewed me or my constituents what they did in their bedroom I think I was appalled at the way I was treated by being asked by media, never by constituents, but by media what I did in my bedroom, none of their business. And in fact, in 1987, I pleaded guilty to four charges of gross indecency. The sort of thing that might happen in a public park, a public arena.

what I was doing was consensual, private in my own apartment, and I believed I was following the law at the time. The law was because of the age of consent. At the time, the age of consent was 21 homosexuals, 16 for heterosexuals. The people that I met, I always thought, were over the age of 21. In one or two cases, they were not. The media, it was the Maxwell group of papers,

pursued me. They paid a person to come into my apartment wired for sound. Yes, you were set up in a tabloid sting. I was, and as soon as I, as I, realised I had no defence, come to that in a minute, then I decided to plead guilty. So Mr. O'Brien, when he says that I lied at the time, is completely wrong. Yes. I followed what I believe to be the law until my sister, Sir David Napley, made it clear I did not have the defence I thought I had. The defence I thought I had was the same defence that was available to heterosexuals, namely.

Well, they'd been with a girl, they thought she was over the age of 16, sadly she was under the age of 16. If he went to a jury and the jury believed him that he thought she was over the age of 16, he had a defence. I believe the same defence applied in their homosexual case as soon as I met my solicitor Sir David Napley he told me there was a lacuna in the law and no such defence applied at that point I told him then I must plead guilty and because I was pleading guilty

just before the 1987 general election I then went to my association and said, I will not seek re-election. Yes. And to put this into the context, though, of today, because we've seen the way that James O'Brien is trying to use it against you, to paint you as some type of deviant figure. And a liar.

And a liar. Most people actually today, certainly myself, believe that those types of convictions should be quashed. Because fundamentally, if you had been a straight, man, you would have done nothing illegal whatsoever. Correct. So it was a homophobic law that still existed in this country in 1987. And it has been swept away in most regards.

And if I wished, I could go to the home office and have those convictions, those four convictions, swept away. I've been too busy doing other things I have a full-time job I had a lot of time consumed in my life by Operation Midland you referred to it earlier which we will come to so after your resignation from

politics over a long period of time you were able to get your life back on track well it took a long time time. It took a long time from 1987, 25 years or more. First of all, with the help of my former colleagues and former ministers, they helped me set up a company. I went into retail. I opened a little shop in Richmond upon Thames, selling shirts and ties. Other businesses, businessmen and women there asked me to join the Chamber of Commerce in Richmond and I eventually became chief executive of the Chamber and for a time present of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce,

which I was very pleased to do. Then I, um, I, um, I, uh, I, uh, uh, I, uh, uh, I, uh, uh, I, uh, uh, left the south, went up to the Midlands, and started to work as private secretary to his grace, the Duke of Rutland at Beaver Castle. So that was a full-time job. Yes. And look, it was horrible what happened to you and actually as someone who feels pretty privileged where my sexuality as a gay man has never impacted my life or my career. I mean, I worked through the mainstream media. I remember when I started in tabloid in 2007, some people did say to me, oh, you shouldn't really tell the bosses that you're gay.

Well, no, I was never going to do that. You know, I was one of those privileged people from a new generation where I never felt like my sexuality defined me. I actually don't like talking about it because it's sort of irrelevant to my day-to-day life and what I do. but it also never held me back in the same way that it destroyed your life. So I have huge sympathy and empathy and it really disgust me actually. And some people will say that I'm a poacher termed gamekeeper because obviously I worked for these tabloid newspapers.

But I was certainly never involved in any sting or trying to ruin someone's life or go to the police. I think it's utterly revolting what these tabloid newspapers did. But look, fundamentally we get to 2015. where you have taken nearly two decades in order to regain respectability, regain credibility, and actually establish yourself in a life that may have been very different because of what happened in the 1980s, but at least you were working and you were back into the community. Then on the 4th of March, 2015, police come to your house, because of something called Operation Midland,

which was an investigation to allegations of child sexual abuse and even murders. So tell me what happened on that day. Did you have any idea of this investigation and the fact that you might be in some way dragged into it? The allegations made by Carl Beach, he was only called Nick at the time. time as a pseudonym for many months, many years actually, he had gone to a news agency called

Exaro, now doesn't exist, and Exxaro had talked about him on their website and the Metropolitan Police were interested in what he had to say. Yes, and by the way, just before you go on, I just want to explain to people, this Exharo organization is actually very crucial because I believe it was a crank media organization. But remember, James O'Brien completely relied on this reporting from Xero. He didn't do his own reporting at all. He completely relied on this crank organization, which by the way, and the reason I'm mentioning this, because I feel very personal about this, Harvey, he did exactly the same thing when false allegations. were made against me by a crank organization called Byline Times.

This is something that he does. He doesn't do his own journalism. He relies on cranks to destroy people's lives. But sorry, I just wanted to make that point. You go on. Right. Well, why did the Metropolitan Police go on TV and radio and say not once but many times that Nick, Carl Beach, was credible and true. This is where we go to Keir Stama, who had been Director of Public Prosecutions,

not at the time of Beach, but a little before. He'd gone round police services in this country because he was dissatisfied with the number of successful prosecutions of ladies for rape he went to police forces and said henceforth police forces should believe the victim this turned on its head hundreds of years of British criminal law you were no longer innocent until proven guilty

correct and so why did the Met actors they did because they were told to they have been told to by Keir Stama He never answers questions on this subject. When he was standing for Parliament and to get into power, he often used the fact that he had the experience of being DPP,

but as soon as you tried to probe, he refused to answer any questions about his involvement in Operation Midland and changing the law, not by Parliament, but by dictates. by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Anyway, March 2015, early in the morning, 8 o'clock, I think it was in the morning, 20 metropolitan police officers raided my home.

20? At least 20. I didn't count them. Many of them in blue forensic uniforms, looking in my garden, almost stupidly as though because the allegations against me and others had gone back to the 70s

as though for 30 or 40 years my partner and myself had been carrying bodies around the country there was an interesting comment that morning when the most senior officer the most senior officer who would talk to me that day was a sergeant

there was an inspector he sat in his car outside and refused to speak to me but the sergeant who came in was taking a lot of trouble to talk to me not about the details of what I was supposed to have done but the generality and my partner was getting fed up and realised what he was about and he said if you're going into the garden could your men please dig here, here and here in three places. And of course the sergeant got very interested

and thought, aha, they'd now found the evidence that they were searching for. And then my partner said, because I want to have three new flower beds in those places. He soon wanted to get rid of my friend Terry

and asked whether he could go to sleep. I said, Well, he does have sleeping tablets. I went into the bedroom to try and get sleeping tablets to give Terry, who was obviously very concerned about what was happening. And then a detective who was in charge of bagging evidence up said, no, you can't have them.

I put them in the bag. I said, well, please get them out of the bag. They're his sleeping tablets. He refused. I went back to the sergeant. the sergeant went out to speak to the inspector they had to ring New Scotland Yard to get permission for Terry's sleeping tablets

to come out of the bag to be given to him and so begins a year of dehumanising help yes it did but remember the police some more things about that day the police were in my home from 8 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night

they all are you taken into custody or no no no no i was never arrested i was never arrested or charged um i i i was a subject of a search warrant come to the search warrants in a moment um but for a long time from eight o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night i was subject to the police asking me questions without me knowing what I was supposed to have done and they said that they will give me a list at the end of the day of all the things they took they had a white transit van they filled it up with my electronic equipment

mobile phones computers all my paper paper files my archives photographs some books all taken Did they give me a list at the end of the day? No. They said they were too tired and they had to go. They also said that they would not announce to the media that they had searched my home.

But? But they issued a statement to the press saying a man of a certain age, living in a certain locality. his house had been searched. It didn't take much for the media to put two and two together. And did they use your name? Did they report your name? No, they didn't use my name. They didn't have to.

But did the media report your name? Of course. Well, let me come to that in a moment. Last night, coincidentally, I was searching through my archives. At the time, nearly a year later when one of the senior police officers wrote to my solicitor saying that I will be no further actioned

in the letter I read the Metropolitan Police had not disclosed to the media whose house they had searched that was and remains a lie I now know that one of the detectives who was the family liaison officer of Car Beach and thought Carbeach, of course, was a victim. Which is what they should not call them, by the way.

He should have been called an accuser, but yes. Thanks to Stama, he was treated differently. And that person should never have been on the search of my home. He went into my bedroom and he called Carbeach from my bedroom and told Car Beach that the police were searching my home. They knew perfectly well the Car Beach had media contacts both in the BBC and at Xero. So the Metropolitan Police lied about Operation Midland throughout. Let me just say one final thing about the search warrants.

It wasn't just my house that was searched that day. it was the two homes of Lord Leon Britton, former Home Secretary, who had died just weeks before. The search wants were in his name. He was not alive, but Diana Britton, Lady Diana Britain, was. Now the search wants for my home, for Lady Britain's two homes, and for Field Marshal Lord Bramol's home were issued by a judge.

That judge, called Riddle, has now made it clear to me in writing and in person that the Metropolitan Police lied to him to get the search warrant. And had he known the full facts, he would never have granted the Metropolitan Police search warrants to raid my home, and that of Lady Britain's or Phil Marshall or Bramel. I wanted to put that on the record.

I mean, the whole thing is horrendous, because of course for a year, it becomes this media sensation. And it started as a media sensation the very next day. Why? Because despite the Met saying, I would not be identified. I knew what being identified

with these sort of matters was all about because it had happened in 1986 and 87 through the Maxwell Papers and the Met Police. So I knew what to expect. So again they lied to me and said, no, you won't be named. My partner was asleep.

It was after 11 o'clock I made some tea and had a sandwich and I went to bed so tired I forgot to turn the TV off at 7 o'clock in the morning I woke up on the 7 o'clock news

lead story my face looking back at me and linking me with Operation Midland with child abuse and with murders. I turned off the TV and put on as we normally do Radio 4 on the morning

and of course they had the same story as their lead story. My partner Terry said what are you going to do about it? And I said to him Lees said soon as mended he said to me

but that's what you said and did in 1986 and 87. Yes. It didn't do you much good then did it. I had to agree he had a point. So, not thinking that I would ever get through to the Today program, I rang the BBC, got an operator, and said, I'd like to speak to somebody in the Today program. They put up the usual shutters.

Oh, why do you want to speak to them? Because you've just virtually accused me of child abuse and murder of children. I think I might have a right of reply. She thought that was a good argument and put me through. I spoke to a researcher and within about, half an hour or so I was being interviewed by the lead on the today program and it went on from there as has ever stopped no because at that point your reputation is forever linked to the most appalling allegations and because you had been I think very untrue

fairly convicted back in the late 80s, of course, too, for the reasons that we've explained, it made it even more difficult for you. And then over this period of time, this is when we come to what James O'Brien did. Yes. And you have said that for the past 10 years, you wanted to look at the people who were higher up in the food chain, who were behind. in some ways that the more institutional attempt to destroy. Yes, Tom Watson. Tom Watson, who had spoken to Carl Beach at the House of Commons. To such an extent that Carbeach said that Tom Watson was part of his team.

Well, he was. Of course he was. There's a track record of people not wishing to apologize. and Tom Watson joins the team. Well, indeed, they are despicable men. And one person who I have huge respect for in all of this is Douglas Murray, the Spectators' Associated editor, because like me, he knows what a nefarious force James O'Brien is for this country.

And he has always tracked the despicable lies of James O'Brien in regards to this case in the spectator. I just want to read for our audience, just a couple of paragraphs of what Douglas Murray, someone who a lot of us have huge respect for, said about James O'Brien's terrible reporting in regards to you, but also in regards to the others. Because remember, many of these individuals were dead, and it was left to their relatives to try and pick up the pieces to fight for the reputation of their loved ones, who were also, let's just repeat this, completely innocent of the claims that Coal Beach made against them.

And of course, there is no defamation if you were dead, so it can be even more difficult. But this is what Douglas Murray said of James O'Brien. He promoted claims that the British establishment from former prime ministers and ministers to the director of public prosecutions, the legal profession, the police, and the entirety of the British media. were involved in a conspiracy to cover up the rape and murder of children. Along the way, he expressed more than contempt for the mainstream media who were not willing like him to believe Carl Beech's lies wholesale. He did not simply express contempt for the media.

He accused them of being part of the cover-up. As I mentioned, this would ordinary require more than a slight sorry-not-sorry. but in any case everyone else fell for it too. Apology. Most of the media was wary of promoting Carl Beach's lies because they sensed that they didn't stack up. O'Brien had no such qualms and dive straight in, pushing and promoting the conspiracy theories, lies and libels which the month before last finally saw Carl Beach sent to prison. Perhaps the soft. Perhaps the soft The sole happy outcome of this whole sorry affair is that while Beach serves out his sentence, his most prominent megaphone in the British media can be giving lectures on subjects, including

how to be right and how to expose falsehoods. So Douglas Murray has always believed that James O'Brien's role in this shameful saga is utterly critical, and you now, Harvey, are prepared to speak about this. I am. In terms of the media, and this is how I felt at the time going back to 2015, I believe the metropolitan police would drip, drip, dripping pieces of information to the media, mainstream or otherwise, to try to get other people to come forward to back up what Carl Beach was saying. so fed up that I decided that I wanted to attack back

and I held a press conference which I think has gone down in history as the changer for Operation Midland 25th of August 2015 when I outlined everything I knew about Operation Midland, the allegations that have been made against me and why they were heinous and false and wrong, and the other people who were being accused, I thought that was important too,

so the media had the full story which the police were trying to keep away from that. If that was Ted Heath? Well, the other people in the gang were former Prime Minister Ted Heath

former Home Secretary Lord Leon Britain Field Marshal Lord Bramel head of the armed forces and war hero the head of MI5 the head of MI6

and others Gravel Janna Greville Janna and Carl Beach's stepfather not that I knew him by the name but that's who he was and indeed and it's just important just for me to zoom out

I mean this when you say this now it sounds fanciful because the point is it was this was all a concocted made-up story from a total fantasist who was a paedophile himself.

There is not one shred of truth in any of the allegations Carl Beach made. Which meant there was no evidence either, ever. There was no evidence. And who do I rely on for that? At the end of Operation Midland, the Met Commissioner then Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, now Lord Hogan Howe, He was promoted. Of course.

They all were promoted enriched in this. He appointed Sir Richard Enrique's, a famous former respected High Court judge, to have an investigation into Operation Midland. And he came to the conclusion that there were 40 odd mistakes that the Met had made in Operation Midland, that we were all innocent. I'm not quoting him exactly, but he looked at the two interviews

I'd done with the Metropolitan Police, one for two and a half hours, and I think the other for about six hours, when Sir Richard Enrique said he'd never heard an interview where the obvious innocence of a man had been set forth. So, yes, their own judge appointed to investigate Operation Midland

came to the conclusion that we were all innocent of beaches allegations. And remember, people in the media, Harvey, had a choice. Because, sure, you were always going to report the very basics of the case, right? Which was, this person has been arrested or had their house search, whatever. But I was in a senior position in the media during all of that time. I was executive editor at the Sun at the time. We never believed these allegations. We never ran these front pages after front pages like the Daily Mirror and like the Sunday mirror and like the people were for political reasons.

And like James O'Brien was doing for political reasons. Journalists have a choice. And Carl Beach, and I can say this because I was in the media at the time, was never credible. Yet James O'Brien was going on the air very, very regularly saying those things that we saw him say earlier. Not just saying them himself, he was interviewing Carpitch. Yes.

He was interviewing the lead guy of Exxaro, not just once, but several times. And it was quite clear now that I look at his broadcast at the time, that he believed them. Now, why do I say this now, and not at the time, because what we didn't go into, but perhaps it's now right to say, as a result of what the police did,

as a result of what Beech had said and others including Exaro and others supporting him, I lost my home, my job my repute and I started receiving death threats and so I came to the conclusion in August 2015 that I couldn't safely continue to live in the country and I went abroad to live you lost everything everything and James O'Brien was a huge part of that that megaphone, which meant that you were, because remember, you were, as you say, never arrested, never charged, but I believe, Harvey, you were never given due process in a large

part because of the allegations that were being broadcast by James O'Brien, who remember was painting you as a liar and as a sexual deviant. O'Brien was doing exactly what the Metropolitan Police wanted him to do, trying to get... But he didn't have to do that. He didn't have to do that. because he was a journalist. He was a journalist. But what they were trying to do was to get other people to come forward

to back up what Carl Beach had said, his allegations. Well, there wasn't anybody out there who genuinely could come forward with allegations to back up Carl Beach. Exactly. In fact, let me just say this. Two other people did come forward. They weren't genuine. They weren't genuine.

Exactly, which is why Stama's whole position about, you know, believe all victims is ludicrous. But the bigger point is there was no Westminster VIP paedophile ring. It didn't exist. But the problem is you were the only living person at that time who could be the face for James O'Brien. And of course, the fact that you were a conservative, I believe, was a huge part. of his desire to make you the face of this. If I had been a former Labour member of Parliament

the heavens would have opened there is no way that he would have said what he did say had I been a former Labour member of Parliament and that goes for others too and I wonder I just wonder

would the Metropolitan Police have acted in the way they did if I was a former Labour member. Well, I don't believe they would have. Now, you say about James O'Brien, his role should not be forgotten or forgiven. He was indeed a central cheerleader for one of the most grotesque

miscarriages of justice in recent British history. He gave a powerful platform to Beach, a convicted liar fraudster and paedophile whose falsehoods wrecked lives. And what's interesting is you're backing up what I'm saying because you say, while most journalists viewed Beach

his absurd conspiracy theories with justified skepticism. O'Brien indulged them regularly on his LBC program. And you say, Harvey, not all of his LBC colleagues agreed. Indeed, Ian Dale gave you unwavering support throughout Operation. Ian Dale was very good. Before I went to Spain, he'd agreed to publish a book, which I wrote shortly after Operation Midland ended. It's called Credible and True. He interviewed me on the evening of my press conference on the 25th of August and he's interviewed me subsequently. So I have the utmost respect for Ian

Dale. But James O'Brien is quite different. James O'Brien only less week. on LBC said sometimes it's right to apologize and to apologize is not a sign of weakness James O'Brien

has not apologized to me or any of the others for the remarks that he made and I believe that he should. I doubt that he will. I think by not apologising it is a sign of weakness and I think he's a tawdry man. What does it say about him as a human being? I mean obviously

as a journalist his credibility in my view has long been shot but why this case is so important is it proves that he is actually a terrible journalist because he will allow his desire for a story to be true to come before the absolute fact of the matter. But what does it say about him as a human being? That's what really shocks me. The fact that he tries to present himself, right, as someone who's on the left, someone who's liberal, someone who's tolerant. But the moment he wanted to destroy you, he harken back to lies about your sex life from

decades ago. that's someone, that feels like someone who's very morally corrupted. You see, he said that I'd lied in 1986, 87. I have not lied. He can't, no one can prove

that I lied in 86, 87 with the knowledge that I had at the time. Hindsight is a great thing, but I did not lie in 86, 87. I did not lie about operations. Midland in 2015, 2016, or subsequently. He can't prove that I lied about anything because I haven't.

And what should happen to him? Well, he certainly should apologise. If he was half decent, he would resign. He should have resigned at the time. He should. But he also should have been sacked at the time because he's still, shame on LBC. He's still there. How LBC can still employ him, knowing all of this, and knowing there is no defence, beggars' belief.

And obviously, recently, we've seen him go down other pretty shocking rabbit holes. I mean, he read out a very highly, and he's. smith letter on air for which he did apologize the next day so I actually feel a lot of this is on the bosses of LBC. The fact is they

should have demanded an apology from I think they probably did in that case well yes but I mean in your case well history is a fine thing isn't it and they may think in terms of the media

particularly LBC where they go from one subject to the next in a matter of minutes that when it comes to putting something right that happened 10 years ago, they glaze over. Well, of course, but for you, your life has never been the same again. Never will be. And it's worth just talking about that because for a year this hangs over you. Even though you are never arrested, you're never charged, and I know what this is like, you know, because of Exaro Media, because of James O'Brien, I suffered from something very similar. Doesn't matter that there's no arrest, doesn't matter that there's no charge.

People always go with that narrative of, well, there's smoke, there must be fire. So eventually a year later, you receive a letter officially confirming that no further action will be taken against you. but presumably so much of the damage at that point is done it is the letter was sent to my solicitor not to me so my solicitor drew to my attention how did you feel relief or anger those words no further action are weasel words because in the letter it's clear and i said to earlier coincidentally i happened to look in my archives last night and found that letter and read it. And it was quite clear the weasel words were inferring. Of course, if somebody comes forward and backs up Carl Beach

again, we might reopen the books as though they still do not, did not in 2016, except that Carl Beach was lying. And I believe now that there are certain members of the Metropolitan Police and former members of the Metropolitan Police who still believe Carl Beach to be right. Oh my God. Would you believe that? That's insane.

It is insane, but I believe that that to be the truth. It just shows you, and by the way, I so agree with what you. you say about the language of how the police do these things. It was the same with me. Oh, if any evidence, well, there was never, if any more evidence comes to, well, there was never any evidence in the first place. It was from a liar. And that's astonishing what you say about Carl Beach, because there's a reminder to everyone in 2019. We obviously saw it at the top of the show. Carl Beach jailed for 18 years. And it wasn't, by the way, only a jailing for perverting the course of justice and fraud. It was also for several child.

sexual offences he is not just a fantasist he is a paedophile this is who they trusted over you well let me tell you something else part of his pedophilia was to insert in his Gloucester home at the time a camera to film his son's friends when they went to the bathroom so this is a very bad man and who were in that house for several days the detectives from the Metropolitan Police who presumably also went to the bathroom in his house. God.

But he was a victim. He was a victim, Harvey. Oh, yes. So he had to be believed according to Stama. He had to be believed according to Stama. We can't forget Stama's role in this, Harvey. I never have. I believe that other people have.

I'm surprised that the concerted party at the time, at the time being the last general election, when Stama went on about what a good chap he is, I was director of public prosecutions, DPP, didn't raise this issue. I asked them to, and they didn't. And he's never changed his. stance publicly. He has never, he, he won't comment on his role in Operation Midland

because he wasn't DPP at the time, but the damage he did was a year or two earlier when you tell the Met Police. Henceforth, you will believe the victim. Exactly. And this is why, of course, there does need to be changed. And it's an interesting one because the media always quite rightly leans on the side of full transparency. But it's only, I think, when we hear a story like yours, when you really realize why there does need to be an exception here. And I am now a supporter of Fair, which is the falsely accused individuals for reform campaign, which was actually set up by Daniel Janna, the son of one of the people who was falsely accused in Operation Midland, but also supported by Cliff Richard, by Paul Gambaccini, by my friends Christine and Neil Hamilton. Because

all of those people and you and me know that false allegations by absolutely crazy people can cause serious damage for the rest of your life. And all we are asking for, and I don't know if you agree, I presume you do, but all we are asking for is that these individuals are not named until there is a charge. So it doesn't, because people say, oh, what about all the other victims who might need to come forward. It doesn't stop that because if someone is charged of a crime, there would be an opportunity for that to happen. I also backed fair. I was very honored to have been elected president of fact facing allegations in the context of trust. And I'm president of that organization. I do what I can to speak out for those who've been falsely accused,

not myself. Nothing now for me, but to prevent it happening to other people. I should say that I have assisted and helped. I won't name them a number of concerted members of Parliament who have been placed in the last few years in similar situations. Well, I was actually going to ask you about one. I don't know if this was one you were involved in, but it's one that I have been having discussions with his friends recently, and it very much disturbed me, and it's David Warburton,

who was a Conservative MP who was falsely accused of sexual crimes, also accused of snorting cocaine, which, you know, let's be honest, I'm not a cocaine user, never have been, but probably 90% of Westminster are. And in the past month, he took his own life. And I've spoken to his friends who say that he was never able to recover from these allegations. He ended up, I think he was doing Amazon, no, HDV driving. Like, you know, his whole reputation was taken away.

He lost his wife. and after he died, Stama actually paid tribute to him in Parliament, but there's been no acknowledgement about the fact that these false accusations, according to his friends, Harvey, directly led to his death. So I think people need to wake up about just how serious this can be. I'm very sorry about his case and his death. I was near to committing suicide in 1987 and I got very near to committing suicide in 2050.

So I know the pressures and the difficulties that come. when you are faced with these sorts of false allegations. Absolutely. All I can say is that if you can, seek out somebody to talk to, do not bottle it up. Do not stay silent yourself. Because there is hope, okay,

because let's end on a positive note, because at 78 years young, you are now back in the Conservative Party for the first time since 1987 which is sort of like a full circle moment I guess for you hopefully in terms of maybe feeling like there's some sort of recovery from what you've gone through

well from 1987 it took almost 30 years and I said in 2015 I went to have another 30 years I do what I can and I do try to help other people I rejoined the concerted party earlier this year

because my old association both Bezzledon and Billericke asked me to rejoin them Richard Holden their member of parliament was keen that I should and I have rejoined the Conservative Party. I resigned from the Conservative Party in 1987. Remember, I joined the Conservative Party

in, when I was 14. You may recall, because you are too young, perhaps, a British comedian called Tony Hancock. And one particular episode, was Tony Hancock's blood donor. There he was in his East Cheam apartment cogitating how to expand his social life. And for him, it was a toss-up between joining the Unconcertives or becoming a blood donor. In that episode, in 1961, he joined the blood donors exactly the same week, I joined the unconcertives. So I think at one point I said, I will always be a

conservative and I will die as a conservative. Now you will. But hopefully we have many, many more years of you, Harvey. I think you are incredibly brave for speaking about this. I'm so grateful that you have. I know how difficult it is for you. Thank you. And thank you for your viewers and listeners for following what is a difficult story. It is a difficult story, but that's why I wanted people to really hear it from you. And we've got to be conscious. You know, we've got to be conscious because there will be another fantasist. Of course.

There always is. And let's just think when those allegations are, I don't care who you're talking about. I mean, I did the first interview with Kevin Spacey, for example, after all of the allegations against him, cleared Harvey in courts of law in the United Kingdom and the United States, yet Channel 4 in this case, it's not James O'Brien for him, it's Channel 4. Keep on coming for him. There's an assumption that Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are both guilty. Let's allow a legal process to play out. let's not rush to judge all of these men and falsely accused the police and I know the name Simon Bailey

who was a chief constable and for the College of Policing in charge of these matters argued with Sir Richard Enriquez Bailey said for the police that in his experience the falsely accused represent about 1%

of all cases Sir Richard Enrique's with his experience of being a high court judge thought it was more than 10% Which is a huge number We both know who to believe Big time, big time Well look, it's been so brilliant to have you in the studio today Harvey, thank you for sharing your story

And let's keep up the fight Against terrible people like James O'Brien Brian. Thank you so much for your company today, the special edition of the Uncancled interview. Because I'm currently away in Australia, we've got no Greatest Britain Union Jackass or Uncanceled After Show today, but it will return on Monday, and I'd love you to join the community over on Substack if you appreciate our work and what we do. It's the best way to support us, become part of a growing community, the website address, www. www.com. outspoken.life, but such an important conversation today, thank you for being with us.

Please do hit subscribe on YouTube or Rumble, and I promise to keep fighting for you.