Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: ITV Review, LGB....T, Harry's Drug Use, Psychedelics Cure Depression?

Episode Date: May 31, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers as discusses how ITV are reviewing, Phillip Schofield's departure. Rosanna looks into whether LGB should drop the T as radicalised voices takeover as Pride month arrives. Rosanna takes another look into Prince Harry as whether he declared the drugs he took when moving to the US. Also Rosanna delves into whether psychedelic drugs could treat depression. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am Rosanna Lockwood, Infer Piers on Uncensored Tonight. ITV announces an external review into Phillips Schofield's departure from this morning as the broadcaster prepares to be quizzed by MPs over the way that daytime TV show was run. Tomorrow, Martha's start of Pride Month. But is the Rainbow Alliance at risk from radical and extreme voices within the trans community? And is it time for LGBT to drop the tea? We're going to be debating that. The Duke of Sussex, back in the spotlight again.

Is he ever out of it, facing more questions about how his US visa got approved? The loose-lipped prince admitting to taking a variety of drugs, of course, and his memoir spare, but did he declare that when he moved across the pond? And could psychedelic drugs like magic mushrooms be the key to treating depression? Former chief medical advice to the UK government, Sir Patrick Ballard, seems to think so. Is it safe or even sensible to make such suggestions? We'll get to the bottom of that later in the show. Live from the news building in London,

this is Pearz Morgan Unsensored with Rosanna Lockwood. It's so bright in the studio this evening, isn't it? Wait to see Esther as well. Good evening, welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored with Mirazette Lockwood. She's looking resplendent in orange. We are going to start with the Schofield saga, deepening tonight with ITV announcing an external review into the disgraced styles departure from this morning.

Now, the network's chief executive, Dame Carolyn McCool, says a barrister has been instructed to carry out a review of the facts, adding that ITV is taking this matter very seriously. So, are the broadcasters top bosses finally taking control of what has seemed over the last few days or so to be an unmanageable situation? Or does this make matters much worse for ITV? To discuss all of this, I'm joined by Alexander Dos Santos,

who's a barrister specialising in inquest and inquiries, really, public law and professional discipline. Also, media commentator Nigel Pawley joining us and in the studio of me, talk to the contributor, Esther Cracker, you've got a little preview of the orange there looking gorgeous. Esther, as always. Kevin, you're looking gorgeous too.

Be remiss of me not to say it. Yeah, the standard male issue of pale blue shirt and dark suits. It works for peers. It works for beers. It can work for you too. Like, let's head over to Alexander first to get a little bit of a kind of background on this.

essentially is happening here is ITV held internal investigations. Nigel, I'll come to you then, seeing as you've been given to me first. ITV said they were going to give us internal investigations, well, they had them, but that they were cleared, they couldn't find evidence of wrongdoing, and now they've appointed a barrister to give us this external review. Let's see whether that makes a difference. Alexander, talk to us a little bit about this, about the process of that. Well, they've instructed an independent means council to, as I understand it, establish the facts. Now, there's been quite a lot of media commentary about the background and what may or not have happened. And what the ITB are very keen to do clearly is have an independent party, examine all the evidence that's available,

and try and form a view as to what actually has taken place. And what we don't know at this stage is the scope of that inquiry. and that will be quite important, because that will determine how far and wide the King's Council will be looking at the evidence and wider issues. So we know, for example, there was a previous review into the allegations made by Dr. Range. But in the circumstances here, clearly what we're going to have

is someone look at what was known when, by whom, and establish essentially a timeline of facts up to the point when Mrs. Schofield left ITV. So it's there, first of all, to give some independence to the review. And secondly, to bring to bear the skills that the King's Council in question will bring in terms of getting to the bottom of the evidence

and looking at what more might be needed. So it's there to help hopefully draw a line under things for ITV, also to provide answers to not just the public, but also those who have a stake in ITV and its reputation. But it's there, essentially, to try and get the... version of those facts. Will it make a difference?

Probably not, only to the extent that you're going to get all kinds of speculation generally. What it will bring is a great deal of integrity to the review. So what I will expect is that the King's Council will see where there's deficiency or a lack of evidence and you'll have someone who's very skilled at getting to the bottom of accounts and whether or not they're misleading or not. And also why this is said to be wrong, because there doesn't seem to be a consistent message as to what Mrs. Schofald's done wrong. Different people have different views as to what it is and when it occurred. And so it'd be very useful from that perspective.

Nigel, coming to you now, is it just that ITV didn't have any other way to go at this point? We know that certain members of the management are going to be hauled before a government committee next Tuesday, so they just had to do this. They did. It's calming things down, I think. that's the basic situation. They're trying to protect the brand as the share price tumbled yet further. It's gone not 11 pence in a week. And advertisers are getting twitchy.

And really, this is throwing Felix Schoford, I think, under a bus. It's protecting the executives and protecting ITV's brand. Jane Malkai, KC, she was involved in the Yorkshire cricket. She represented the ECB in the racism. Investigation,

we saw Michael Vaughn eventually being, cleared of racism. She's represented Manchester City and looked into sex abuse claims there. She's very skilled. And I'd imagine the people being questioned would be very worried about the depth of where she's going. And they've made it very clear it's surrounding Philip Schofield's statement and his exit. So the spotlight is very much back on him rather than ITV. Yeah, let's talk about the people being worried in this. Kevin, coming to you as another media voice on this, associate editor of the mirror because if you know these people are going to be hauled up in front of a committee i can imagine that d'am caroline uh mccall db chief executive of i tv which probably

doesn't want to be sat there in front of that committee we've got her letter this evening that she sent to the barrister where she said the point of this external review is to get to the facts of the investigation how worried do you think she is right now well she's been forced to do this really the internal inquiry failed to get to the truth they say because both parties lied, but it was an open secret about the relationship. And it's all about the power. It's about the power relationship between a very senior boss, Philip Scorfield, and somebody who's young and potentially vulnerable in a workplace.

The company has a wider responsibility to people it employs. Not to be a bishop and get on a moral high horse or anything like that. It is, you know, you just do have a responsibility. So clearly it should be worried now. You take back control at some extent by having this external review. And you can say to MPs, we've got a review, wait for that, but you can also lose control because you cannot dictate the outcome. I'm sure she studied all the documents and she thinks she's got a good argument herself.

She'll be in the clear, but somebody's going to carry the can at the end of the day. So I'm just going to be Philip Schofiel. Look, he's thrown himself under the bus by saying I lied and I shouldn't have. But I recall Dominic Robb, who was a deputy prime minister. I said, yeah, let's have a barrister. Investigate allegations about me bullying because I think I'll be cleared. Then he lost his job because the report didn't come out the way. he thought it.

I'm glad you brought up that analogy because Esther, you know, you've heard my argument on this already this week, which is this isn't a crisis in the NHS. It's not a crisis in Westminster. This is a crisis on a television show. Other publicly listed but private broadcaster isn't the BBC.

So is it still too much mountain out of a molehill or do you think there really is a cause here for this type of investigation and inquiry? I think it's, you're right, it's not the BBC. And I do think that we are risking throwing Phillips Schofield under the bus. Now, I do think what he did, was wrong. He knows what he did was wrong. He was clearly in a position of power.

He, and I think the biggest issue is his connections in getting this young one at his job at ITV, because it was clearly that's what got him to that position. So we know this was a young person who was enamored by Phillips Schofield and that power dynamic was very toxic. However, we have to remember that, you know, at some point there's going to be a situation of, you know, vultures circling the prey here. He has come out. He has said he was wrong and he lied and all of that. I think we have to remember that he's still a human being. And it's this kind of bullying that took out Caroline Flack. Now, his mental health must be under enormous amount of strain because while he was wrong, you know, he's lost so much. He's lost, you know, the credibility that he's

built over a 30-year career. He's no longer hosting that award show, which named Escape Me. He's been dropped by the Princess Trust. Exactly. The Princess Trust he's been dropped by, you know, and the runner has also, you know, born the brunt of this. He's had his privacy invaded in so many different ways. I think enough is enough. This public inquiry is not necessary. This is not the BBC. And I think It's highlighted what happens when you have inappropriate relationships that work. It's not a public inquiry. It's an external inquiry. I think if you're running ITV because this has been weeks now,

Alastair Campbell, Labor Spin Doctor always said if a story goes on for 10 days, you're in big trouble. So what he's going to go? I think they're trying to court arise the wound, but they're not quite sure how it's going to, how it's going to end. And the thing is, what can you actually do? Everyone knew about this. There's not really much this inquiry will reveal. Every single person knew about it.

Let's go back to Alex DeSantos on this and talk a little bit about how the investigation inquiry process works then. If, as we are led to believe by a lot of gossip, obviously, and hearsay, and that's what it is, but that a lot of people knew about this. But when you get down to the fact of the matter, investigating something like this, hearsay doesn't fly, does it? And they can't question freelancers, for example, you know, kind of temporary contract workers. Well, I think here say, unlike a kind of trial, hearsay maybe. relevant, miscible, but it's all the circumstances are relevant as to what weight that should be attached to that. So I think what you'll find the case he's very good at is separating out gossip and rumour from what is actually ascertainable fact. I think it's important to note though also

that barrister-led inquiries are not actually uncommon in the corporate world. And so before people start to jump, assume because a barrister's being hired, that means there's a real problem. It's quite common for companies to hire barristers to investigate any kind of error or wrongdoing internally. So what I think you'll find this council is very good at doing is just separating the reliable from the unreliable evidence and ascertaining what really can help decide what occurred. So there'll be a lot of skill brought to there and I think it'll be useful and of course the case we'll have no skin in the game. We'll just have to obviously await the findings as well. come back to you on the important points Esther raised there, I think, about mental health in all of this, talking about Philips Covey. But of course, the young man at the centre of it all as well, who on this network, we've kept very much anonymous as far as we can when talking about this. Because that is a key point in all of this, isn't it? We're talking about gossip. We're talking about people's affairs, relationships, real-life things. I mean, you must have seen this a lot in your career. What are you making of the way that it's being spoken about and the possible real-world effects it could have?

I found it a little bit incredulous that Esther said that it's not the BBC, so therefore it's so important. The CBI was a publicly listed company and wrongdoings were happening there, and quite rightly, heads rolled. The mental health is very much at the centre of the core values of ITV. Carolyn McCall, Dame Carolyn McCallin McCall, is very, very hot on mental health issues. This young person has been through a lot. Schofield's 30 or 40-year career, went in 16 days, and he's still suffering, he's still losing

for his trust, his wine, various other things, he has lost a lot. But if you lie to your boss, your partner, your work partner, your bosses and your agents,

then I think you lose the sympathy of the room when things come around. This will, you know, this inquiry will look at Barrister the inquiry is based on the balance

of probabilities, by the way. It's not based as, the barrister they will no, it's not like a court of law, whenever it's based on fact. Two people saying something could be seen as the balance of probability, something happened. Coming to... Rather than one person's word. Nigel, thank. Sorry, we've got a bit of a connection issue with your sound there,

but your points were made very clearly, even so. Coming to Kevin on that as well and your media career, in terms of the way this is being talked about, the way that Schofield has been characterised, do you think it's fair? I mean, we have had firsthand accounts, many that he wasn't a very pleasant person to work with, but there are lots of investment banking bosses. No, no, I think that's right. He shouldn't be public enemy number one. He's not Vladimir

Putin. He hasn't invaded a country or anything. You've got to have some sense of proportion. But at the same time, he was an incredibly successful TV figure who people felt they had a relationship of trust with, as he was presented on this morning sitting next to Holly Willoughby, who will also have questions to answer about actually what she knew or didn't know. I'm sure her career is probably a little question mark next to it in truth. And a lot of other people. Some people attacking from the outside are very bitter. They used to work on the programme.

They were moved on, so they're settling scores. You can hear, you know, Axis being sharpened. But now, I feel some sympathy for Schofield now because his entire world has collapsed. He's lost his job, his status, he's standing, his money. I mean, sympathy for this is it not just for doing something as an absolutely? adult in a marriage, he shouldn't know that he shouldn't. But it's the proportionality.

Here's the thing, he did absolutely something wrong. I said from the beginning when this happened, I felt so sorry for his wife. And I think she's been very reasonable. You talked about axes being sharpened. If my husband did that to me, axes will be sharpened. But the reality is to lose basically your entire livelihood.

I don't know if that's fair. He did lie. He did do something very wrong. There was a huge imbalance in the nature of the relationship that he was in in terms of power, but I don't think it's fair for him to lose all of this. And then, you know, for the vultures to keep circling the prey in this manner. Carolyn McCall in her letter to Offcom,

the Culture Committee Chair and the Culture Secretary said they were also continued to offer, offering support to the young man. Now, what about his state of mind and how he is, we know he doesn't want the publicity, we know it's a big burden on him. He can never work in the industry again, really. It's very difficult to, you know,

because you don't want, identifying because there are real privacy issues there. But at the moment, Schofield is carrying the cow. He said, look, I lied. I lied. And so he deserves some credit for that. The admission was something. You don't see that level of honesty much the years days. It was that, so we're given that. But on the sympathy side of things, I'm not sure I'm totally with you. All four of you gave us some really good insights on this. It continues to evolve. We keep thinking we're done with the story and more drops every day. But thanks ever so much. Nigel, Alex as well, down the line with us.

Stay with us here on Uncensored. After reports of strains within the LGBT community, we're asking should LGBT drop the tea? We're going to be debating that next. Welcome back to the show. Rosanna Lockwood in for Piers Morgan on Uncensored tonight. Now, tomorrow marks the start of Pride Month. When I found out we'd be debating the argument

that there might be strains in the LGBT community on the show tonight, I've got to be honest, my heart sank a little bit. And that's not because of any issues. I've got with this, it's just that as a straight woman, I feel it's not my debate. I also have many friends, many family members and loved ones in my life that are gay or might identify with this community as I'm sure you do too. And I always carry them with me in my mind when I approach these topics.

You know how it goes at the moment, quote, when we were growing up, it was just LGBT, you hear. Now it's LGBTQ plus, plus, plus, etc. Or even questions about why is there a whole Pride month? Now, no matter your personal views, social media algorithms will no doubt be certain. having you this type of commentary at the moment. And when you read that or listen to that,

does it leave you feeling wiser and more tolerant or suspicious and confused? Did the actions of the trans activists protesting outside the Oxford Union speech yesterday move you in any direction, or is your mind on other things at the moment? An argument is now being made in some quarters that extreme members of the trans community

are alienating support for the wider collective that has done so much to improve the position of minorities in this country and around the world. So tonight, we're going to be asking members of the LGBTQ community or the Rainbow Alliance, as is sometimes called, if they feel at risk from radical and extreme voices within, or is this simply a further attack on trans people? I think it is best that we hear from people in the community and understand what it all means to them.

And before we go on, let's remember that Pride Month honors the Stonewall uprising in New York in that happened when violent tensions between police and patrons of a gay bar in Manhattan led to days of protests and unrest. It was actually a watershed moment in a movement that led to the gay pride marches that we see around the world today, mostly intolerant Western countries. A lot of us are familiar with that. It's also an annual moment to remember people who fought and fight for the right to live as they are. Now, I say all this because it is a sensitive subject. You can tell I know that it is. And I'm pleased to say joining me to debate all this this evening. is social media influencer, Olli, London,

a man who is in the process of detransitioning from a trans woman back to a man, and also by veteran LGBTQ activist Peter Tatchell and comedian and radio presenter James Baugh, familiar face on this show as well. Also joining us down the line, Bev Jackson co-founder of LGBT Alliance, which promotes the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men.

Bev, thank you over so much. We're gonna start in the studio. I wanna come to all of you, join me here. You heard what I just said there. Peter, coming to you first, am I over-egging it by saying I'm not allowed to talk about this because I'm a straight woman? I think you're entitled to your point of view, but obviously please listen to what LGBT-plus people are saying. On this particular issue, it is very clear there are more than a thousand LGBT-plus organisations in the UK, mostly LGBT, lesbian, gay and bisexual, and almost without exception, they support including trans.

people within our coalition. And trans people have been here right from the beginning. They were outside the Stonewall Inn protesting in 1969, which saw the birth of the modern lesbian gay liberation movement. They were also in the London Gay Liberation Front in 1970 and 71 when we began all that half century and more ago. So trans people have always been part of our community and we think we should all stick together. United, we stand, divided, we fall.

James, coming here to you because you're nodding, along there. So then is it spurious to even suggest that there are these arguments happening, that there are divisions or strains? Yeah, absolutely. I completely disagree with what you were saying. I don't think there are divisions or strains within our community. I think there's a small faction of people outside of the community who want to create a moral panic about trans people for no reason other than the fact that they are hiding behind that to push forward their right-wing agenda. And actually, it disgust me because, you know, we have a lot of rights in this country as people, it's outrageous to suggest that we close the door behind us and stop trans people getting through as well.

Now, one of my sort of thoughts when I was approaching this show this evening was that we didn't have a trans person who is remaining trans coming to be part of this debate. So I've heard from you both on this, but obviously, Oli, you have, are in the process detransitioning from trans. So I don't know whether the trans community will feel they have the recommendations go on. I think I just want to interrupt there. And Oli, you can disagree. But is it not right to say that you're detransitioning? transitioning from being transracial, not transgender. Did you ever come out as transgender? I was transgender.

How long were you transgender for? For a year. Because I'd argue that if you were a transgender woman, you're therefore a woman. And if you're saying you're not transgender now, therefore you were never transgender. No, I struggled with my identity, my whole life. And you know, it's the trans community.

They're always saying, oh, you shouldn't question someone if they feel trans. If that's how they identify, you're not allowed to question them. So why, because I did transition. Why would you question my identity? I'm sorry that you went through that. But that doesn't mean that. Everyone has the same experience as you.

Correct. Everybody has a different experience and they're entitled to that. But my issue is the trans activists that have hijacked the LGBT community and are causing real harm to the LGBT community by pushing gender ideology on children, by forcing women out of women's faces. That is my issue. I don't have an issue of trans people. I have many trans friends. My issue is with the radical gender ideology.

So do you think there is case for the argument then that this show is premised around this evening that there is a bit of strain in the community? There's definitely strange. I mean, look, there are people that say that sexuality and gender identity should not be conflated. And I think the real issue is the more extreme elements of the trans activists that are pushing this agenda, that are pushing for all these things on children, pushing for hormones on kids and puberty blockers. That's the real issue. But again, didn't you spend like 75,000 pounds on surgery to look like a member of BTS?

So should we not be talking about BTS, indoctrinating children to look at that way? But then you could say the same about someone that's non-binary, you know, you could say, are they not allowed to identify as how they feel? That's all I was doing. I was using the same logic. I'm using the same logic as woke people. You can identify as anywhere, LGBTQI plus 2S, two-s spirit. If somebody can identify as two-spirit, I can choose whatever I want. I was struggling in my identity.

I've dealt with those issues. And now I'm trying to help children. The LGBT community should be coming together to help children to find a solution to support trans people as well. People that have struggled their whole life. But in your journey... I support that. But we also need to respect women. Men shouldn't be in women's spaces.

Men shouldn't be in women's sports. We need to respect all people. I'm going to come to Bev now because Bev has also been kind enough to join us this evening. You've been listening to that. I hope you heard all of it, Bev. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. This is great interest, yeah.

Happy to join in this discussion. I'd like to respond to a few of the things. But first, I think I should clear up that the title is perhaps a little bit misleading. I think this is not a question about the LGBT dropping the T, but why the T was added to LGBT in the first place. And people perhaps think that it's all the T's all the T's all the T's. I think that it's always been there, but in fact, in the UK, it was only added in 2015. And no lesbians were consulted at the time. The consultation was all with transgroups.

And I think you would have found that lesbians would have been very unhappy. In fact, many lesbians were unhappy when they discovered that the T was added. LGBT is about relationships. It's about love. It's about sex. It's about who you're attracted to. Are you attracted to men? Are you attracted to women?

Or are you attracted to both? It's very clear sexual orientation. T and Q and all the other letters that have been added since then are about identity issues. They're completely separate and it's caused a lot of confusion. We've seen how much confusion it's caused with Labour politicians trying to desperately to avoid saying what a woman is, and that's quite comic. But it's also caused a lot of tragedy, particularly for lesbians. It's no coincidence that LGBT alliance was founded by Kate Harris and me, two lesbians,

and our CEO is a lesbian, and also the chair of the board is a lesbian. It's lesbians who have suffered from the addition of the T to LGBT. And I think your subtitle perhaps should be reading. Campaigners argue that the gay community has been hijacked. But anyway, so what has happened with lesbians? Let me explain why I'm saying that it's a tragedy for lesbians. What we're seeing at the moment, and you can look, that thousands, hundreds of thousands of lesbians are having their breasts removed.

You can see tens of thousands fundraising on GoFundMe to have their breasts removed. And this is because it's no longer cool to be lesbian. In fact, I spoke to a 19-year-old recently who said that throughout her secondary school, she'd been told she must be a boy. She must be a boy because she fell for girls. This is the kind of homophobia that is being taught at schools, taught online and spread online and spread by peers so that lesbians don't feel comfortable about being lesbian anymore.

This kind of homophobia is a real tragedy. And in fact, the fact that it is being propagated, I think it calls for a public inquiry. How is it possible? Ten years ago, you would have been thought a bit weird if you'd said that men can change into women and women can change it to men. And these days, you're called weird if you deny it.

The fact is, you can't change sex. Children shouldn't be taught that they can change sex. It's like teaching them, yeah, they can fly. They might jump out of the window and find they can't fly, and they can't change sex. That argument is you so many times. You've brought up a lot of points there, I'm going to say, and that is the kind of,

but the issue with this conversation as a whole because we're talking about so many different types of people. I mean, in and of itself, I find it fascinating that you... But I'm talking about... You're talking about... The examples that Bev and Ollie give are totally unrepresentative. Yes, they happen, and I condemn them, but they're not representative. Britain's biggest lesbian celebration, Lesbian Visibility Week, which took place in April,

was inclusive of trans and non-binary woman. It was celebrated by lesbians. Lesbians themselves wanted trans and non-binary people to be part of this celebration. I'm not going to let you get away with this. Bev, I listen to you without interruption. Can you please show courtesy, be polite and courteous? You know, those lesbian women who are behind Lesbian Visibility Week, they included trans and non-binary people

with the support of the wider lesbian community. There are a small number of lesbians who disagree with this trend. I accept that. They're entitled to their point of view, but they're not representative of the wider lesbian community. I want to come to James now. You wanted to jump in. Bev, we will come back to you.

We will come back to you, Bed. We'll just go to the studio, James. You wanted to jump in or something. And I just broadly have a question. Do you find this conversation is going to... Obviously, we're not going to find a solution or resolution, but is it useful to talk about? No, it's not.

I actually find it incredibly boring, and I think the stuff that Bev is spouting is transphobia, and I genuinely believe that it's kind of amusing that you're talking about homophobia, because really, you're just being transphobic. And those two things don't cancel each other out. they are not helpful at all. And you're talking about children being indoctrinated.

It's insanity. It's literally not happening. There's no proof of that happening. What about Taverstock Clinic? You've just converted to the Catholic Church. You're not concerning yourself with actual evidence. What about children having double mastectomies at the U.S.? Why are you bringing up conversations like that when you have not had that yourself?

I mean, can Ollie not speak to his personal experience? Well, his personal experience is literally wanting to look like an Asian pop star. And this is a great example. But we're not talking about banning BTS, are we? I'm not allowed to speak. This is a great example of woke people. You shout people down. Thank you for calling me a work person.

You know, talking of inclusivity. What about including women in this conversation? What about including women in wrestling? Women are included in this conversation. They're not because trans activists. Let me speak. Let me speak. Trans activists are constantly pushing at women.

Just yesterday at the Oxford Union, a trans activist glued themselves to the floor because they didn't want a woman to speak about women's rights. Is that fair? Do you think it's fair that women aren't allowed to have a conversation that their movement is just suddenly hijacked. They can't do sports. They're scared to speak up.

Athletes are scared to speak up in case they're deemed transphobic for saying the simple fact that biological men have a competitive advantage. We know that. So let's let women speak. Let's stop going on about what trans activists are talking about. Talking of letting women speak, let's get out to Bev. Go on then, Bev. Yeah, I want to say that first of all,

we tried very hard to two contacts and more when they changed And when Stonewall changed, all the other organizations that had been gay rights groups around the country, all changed to focus on gender identity. And we tried to get them to discuss the problems, but they wouldn't. We eventually had to form LGBT alliance, which goes back to the roots of standing up for sexual orientation. The second we formed LGBT alliance, Peter, and you can listen, please listen to this, we were deluged by messages from, lesbians all over the world. Thank God you're here. I have felt so isolated. Thank God, when are you setting up in Canada? When are you setting up in Australia? Thank God, what can I do to help? And the reason that we were able to grow so quickly, we were just two women, two old dikes.

Yes, we had no money. We had no external funding. And all these nonsense about right-wing funding is complete nonsense. We were two women who worked our asses off seven days a week, 16 hours a day, and for all these lesbians who contacted us, and they joined us, and we built a wonderful organization of some of the cleverest and funniest people in the world. Bev, you and I were both in the Gay Liberation Front in the early 1970s, and as you well know, prominent among the Gay Liberation Front activists were trans women like Carla and Rachel.

They were prominent in our movement. They were featured in the gay, the come-together newspaper. It was part of our wider movement. And just as we challenged premises that refused to serve lesbian, gay and bisexual people, we also had a very famous sit-in at a cafe in Pivotal circus which refused to serve trans people.

We saw these two different struggles as being different, but also having commonity, the common experience of prejudice, discrimination and hate crime. And we should stay together now. We should stand up for each other and not divide. Yeah, we're not strange together, Peter.

I'm very sorry. I need to ask Peter, I need to ask Peter if his red Stuart Feather's book, blowing the lid, which gives the history and has a chapter about those people. Unfortunately, we are fresh. We are fresh out of time. Look, we really appreciate you joining the conversation this evening. And to our panellists in the studio as well, I've been fascinated by this, especially on the Eid of Pride, my talking about division, but hopefully a bit more unity.

It's been great to have all your insights. Thanks so much for your time. Well, on our answer and said next tonight is Prince Havis. Harry in Hot Water over his history of drug taking and his US visa. We'll be hearing for the man leading an appeal to unseal his immigration records coming up next. Flip Prince Harry may have found himself in hot water yet again, but this time for being too honest, the Duke of Sussex facing yet more questions over how he got his US visa approved after admitting to taking a variety of drugs in his autobiography spare.

Piers Morgan's favourite bedtime read, the Duke of Sussex revealing, of course, in this book that he tried cocaine, smoked marijuana, and experimented with magic mushrooms. Here's a snippet from that audiobook. Psychedelics did me some good as well. I'd experimented with them over the years for fun, but now I'd begun to use them therapeutically. Of course, I had been doing cocaine around this time. At someone's country house during a shooting weekend,

I'd been offered a line and I'd done a few more since. There you go, literally in black and white, talking about his drug use. Now, conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, is appealing a US court to unseal Prince Harry's immigration records in the hope that he may get kicked out of the country as a result. I'm now joined to discuss this by author and cultural commentator, Bonnie Greer, always so good on US issues and Prince Harry, former head of Royal Protection, Dai Davis.

Also joining us, Di will be out to you shortly, but first let's head over to Niall Gardner, whose organisation is the one, the Heritage Foundation, appealing to unseal Prince Harry's immigration records. Now, let's just start simply. What's your motivation for doing this? Well, thanks having me on the show today. And basically, we are calling for accountability and transparency

on the part of the Biden administration. We believe there is a clear public interest in the release of Prince Harry's immigration records, especially in light of the extensive revelations of illegal drug use in spare. And we want to ensure, of course, that Prince Harry was honest and fully transparent in his immigration application to the United States.

States. We also want to ensure that there was no preferential treatment given towards Prince Harry. Everyone should be treated equally by the law. And the Heritage Foundation believes strongly in the robust application of immigration law. We have been the leading voice, I'd say, in the United States in many decades in support of strong application of US immigration laws. And we are of the view that Prince Harry should not be in any way treated differently to anybody else applying to the United States, regardless of the example of the royal family. You seem to think that he got preferential treatment

by the Biden administration, and there might be some evidence in these unselled documents that proved that. But I'm interested in your motivations as a British person over in the US doing this to another Brit. Well, British person, but I have US citizenship as well. And my motivation here is to ensure

that immigration laws applied by US authorities. That's the motivation here. Prince Harry, of course, has become a huge public figure in the United States. He is a big figure on both sides to the Atlantic. He's a household name in America. There is intense public interest, actually, in this upcoming court hearing. And opinion polls have shown produced by Newsweek, for example, that a majority of Americans want to see the release of Prince Harry's immigration record.

So this has been very closely followed by millions of Americans. And it's our view that no one should be. should be treated in a preferential way here. The law should be applied equally to everybody, regardless of celebrity status or membership of the royal family. And Prince Harry should be treated no different, especially in light of the extensive drug use revelations that he made himself in spare.

No doubt there are extensive drug use revelations. Let's speak to another American citizen here in the studio in London. And a British citizen as well. And everything else in between. And of course you don't speak on. half of all Americans. Do you have your own views? But what's your reaction to Nile? Well, it's very fascinating to hear Nile actually describe a proxy war between the Heritage Foundation and the Biden administration with poor old Harry as the hostage. It's going to be really,

really interesting to watch this rollout. The Heritage Foundation has become, if I can use a term, more MAGA since the Trump administration. They are the number one conservative thing tank. They built the Reagan administration. And now they become all MAGA. and now they've got poor O'Herry in their sights as a way to fight actually the Homeland Security Department because parts of the Republican Party want to impeach the head of Homeland Security. So Harry's in the middle of all of this. And I think, you know, as far as now saying

that all of America wants to know is drug records, really? So I hopefully, for Harry's sake, that everything is sort of lined up as it should be, but I support the Department of Homeland Security's refusal to unseal the records because they don't do that. This is always at the discretion of the immigration department, the immigration officer, and so it's going to be an interesting battle. Well, come back to Nile to get his response to your suggestions there

of how this is all being used, but let's come out to die because you're a former head of royal protection. And let's just talk about if Harry, you know, the drug use is there and if he does lose his U.S. residency right, should he come back to the U.K.? Well, it's an interesting dilemma. Whether he wants to come back, I don't know, I suspect. He doesn't, given all the furor that's going on. And, of course, he's in court himself next week, which will be a very interesting scenario,

to see him actually in the witness box, one of the first royals, other than his great-great-grandfather, actually going into a witness box. So it'll be very interesting. My perspective is that he's a household name, both here and America, And if he admits to taking cocaine and other drugs, he's at the end of a criminal organization who thrive, unfortunately, on those who want to take drugs in this country and indeed in America.

It's an epidemic. So for him to come out, in my view, foolishly, to actually articulate the fact that he's been taking it, not once, but not twice, but on a regular basis, I think is extremely foolish. And again, I wondered who counseled him. That was a sensible thing to do. Does seem to, does seem, I, that there is a bit of a lack of counsel there.

I'm really sorry we are just so, so close out of time. I want to give Niall just opportunity to say, is what Bonnie's saying true about your motivations? Well, it was great, great to listen to Bonnie and die, but I have to disagree with Bonnie's comments there. You know, Prince Harry is not some sort of hostage here. You know, Prince Harry is a huge public figure in his own right. I think there's a clear public interest here.

And I do think that as well, the Biden administration needs to operate in a transparent and constructive manner. If Prince Harry has nothing to hide here, he should fully support the release of his own records. Many immigration records have been released. In fact, Kamala Harris' mother's immigration records were released. So many individuals have their record. We will see if the Biden administration do play ball. I'm really sorry to cut you off. We are fresh out of time.

Thanks so much for all three of you. for giving your views this evening, uncensored. Next tonight, so much more drugs to discuss magic mushrooms. The answer to tackling depression? Former UK Chief Medical Officer Patrick Ballant seems to think so, but would we be opening up a huge can of psychedelic worms? We'll be debating that next. Well, we've got something fascinating for you now.

So Patrick Valence, the former chief medical advisor to the government during COVID, is back in the news, saying when it comes to Britain's mental health epidemic, there's a lot of scientific enthusiasm for using psychedelic drugs in the treatment of depression. depression, PTSD and anxiety, and he's encouraging more research into that. In America, the trend is already well underway. So is this something we really should be tuning into here in the UK?

We're a little bit far out, man. Joining me here in the studio to discuss all of this, Dr. David Erizzo, clinical director of the Centre for Psychedelic Research in Imperial College, London, and talk TV contributor Esther Crack who joining us once again. But let's head out first to Denver, Colorado and speak to Tracy T, who's a founder of the group Mums on Mushrooms. Tracy, thanks so much for making time for us. Just tell us what Mums on Mushrooms is all about. Moms on Mushrooms was created to form a online digital community and educational platform

for the safe and intentional use of microdosing, specifically psilocybin. And I did this because I feel like this medicine really hits different when you're a mother. And we need to have education, access to resources, and learn in communities to work safely with this medicine. So psilocybin is an active ingredient in magic mushrooms, to my knowledge. And how do you think it improves your life as a mother? Gosh, as a mother, as a woman, as a human, what we've found is, and certainly what I've experienced with microdosing psilocybin is just an overall better sense of well-being. I feel less anxious, more creative, more present, more present with my family, less reactive.

And it's just sort of smooth out the rough edges. Have you microdose psilocybin today recently? Would you say you're on it now? I did not microdose today. You don't ever want to microdose every day. Or before going on television. You always want to take days off. Yeah.

Right. Well, you're not high. So I never, when you microdose, I'm never high. So you wouldn't know even if I did. And that is what I typically take. Yeah, that is definitely worth mentioning. Microdose is a subperceptual dose. So usually around one gram of magic mushrooms is where you see, you start to feel it in your body, maybe see some hallucinogenics.

A microdose is anywhere from 50 milligrams to around 150 milligrams. So a very small dose. And again, that's very important for moms on mushrooms to reiterate because obviously we don't need mothers feeling the effects of a psychedelic drug while we're taking care of our kids. Yeah, of course. Tracy, it's really good to get your insights. We've got a doctor in the studio. I want to come to just to respond to some of the comments made there. Talk to us a little bit about the research that's going into these psychedelic compounds.

Yeah, so what Tracy is talking about is microdosing, which is psychedelic microdosing. So same compounds, but using a tiny dose. as Tracy was talking about, and it's repeated, so frequent ingestions over a longer period. So the main bulk of the research that is most progressed is actually a different version of it, which is a full dose, so where people actually have changed perception, so alter state of consciousness,

a sort of awake dream-like state, and that is very few sessions, and then it is after people have been sort of prepared well for the session, psychologically supported, and will psychological interpret it, integration after us. That's quite different use of the same drugs, complete different dose and much fewer sessions. And that is what is really showing a lot of promise at the moment. We have done trials the first in decades of any psychedelic intervention for depression. We have done at Imperial. We have worked on these compounds for more than a decade, doing a lot of brain imaging, trying to understand how these drugs work, try to understand the brain better, try to understand the conditions better.

And overall, with these full dose, which is different for microdosing, but with the same compound such as psilocybin, the results are very, very promising for depression in particular, but also even upcoming data, data that is evolving for other conditions, addictions, OCD, anxiety, PTSD. MDMA is very progressed in the development for PTSD as well. Well, I think sort of one of the obvious hurdles to this becoming mainstream is obviously social stigma will come to you, Esther, on that.

lined up for that. But there are any other hurdles? Why is, is there lack of research? I mean, it sounds like there are benefits here. Yeah, I mean, obviously there is stigma around in these compounds and that has probably made it a bit difficult early on to actually restart and reopen this research. But I would say at the moment, I think regulators, even politicians are starting to waking up a bit and say this should be prioritised. Maybe the scheduling should be revisited. And regulators are also because of a big, big gap in mental health treatments that I feel. A lot of people suffering, millions of people suffering, severe mental illness around the world.

And 40% or more are not responding well, are not actually responding to the treatments that are available. Therefore, there's a big gap. Therefore, it's being supported with a new paradigm, and it's an interesting paradigm where pharmacology, medicine, meets psychology, because it's a mixed model, which is very appealing and very interesting, and really does at this point look promising,

not just in our trials at Imperial, other centers are doing the same thing, doing the same thing and showing the same results. Pharma companies, smaller ones so far, are doing important work and showing the same thing. We could talk about it all day, I think, because it is fascinating. Let Esther, you know how this goes.

We're very short on time, but are you convinced by the arguments here? I know you have these on... I am. Because I don't think it's a bunch of high people walking around. I don't think that's... We're going to have a bunch of high zombies, you know, crashing our streets.

But I do think it is good to have an option in a wide range of treatments for various mental health issues, particularly depression, because what you tend to have is people are over-medicalized. They stay on the same antidepressant for years, and they just became numb zombies. But I do think there should be a stress on physical health as well. Yeah, of course. Which is, you know, linked to mental health.

It's one of those debates you don't want to have at the end of the show. That is it from us. Thanks so much to our contributors on this. Whatever you're up to tonight, make sure it's uncensored. Good night.