Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Kathleen Stock, Phillip Schofield Saga Continues, TV is Toxic

Episode Date: May 30, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers, and looks into Kathleen Stock's speech at the Oxford Union. Also Rosanna delves into how much Holly Willoughby knew in the Phillip Schofield saga and ITV's toxicity. Rosanna assesses whether TV is institutionally toxic as BBC and Channel 4 lose major stars. 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

Hi there, happy Tuesday, I'm Rosanna Lockwood coming up on Uncensored Tonight. The last bastion of free speech, the feminist academic Kathleen Stock finally speaking at the Oxford Union, despite protests over her appearance there, over her alleged transphobic views. Now, how much did Holly Willoughby know? New pictures emerging of Holly, kissing the cheek of Philip Schofield's young lover at the award ceremony three years ago as ITV faces further cover up and now payoff claims as well. We're talking all about that with Talk TV host, former Culture Secretary Nadine Doris, joining us live.

And it is not just ITV facing rumors of toxicity on set. Channel 4, also reportedly parting ways with escape to the chateau pair, you may know them, Dick and Angel. And the BBC's Greg Wallace has quit inside the factory for allegedly offending women on set. Now, we're going to be asking his TV institutionally toxic. for that. Live from the news building in London,

this is Pierce Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Well, good evening. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Does it need saying with me, Rosanna Lockwood, not Pierce Morgan in a lovely red dress this evening. Now, speaking of which, wanted to start the show tonight with a topic familiar to this show

to Pierce Morgan as well, something he asks fairly regularly as we try to find the answer to this question which stumps politicians as well at the moment. a woman and who is allowed to say what a woman is. Now tonight I'm going to have this presented to you by a woman and why are we going back here? Well a talk is happening this evening at the Oxford Union. It's been going off the last few hours or so. It's a feminist professor involved who said quote it's not hate speech to say that males cannot be women. Hundreds protesting outside the

Oxford Union are causing her, accusing her rather, of being transphobic. Now a protester even managed to glue themselves to the floor of the union, delaying the start of the event, but that hasn't deterred Professor Stock, who believes all views should be heard. You know, a small number of people find that very, very controversial, and then most people, I agree with you, actually don't. You don't hear from them so often, but I do think that most people haven't gone crazy and they don't think that just by declaring you're a woman, a man can become a woman, whereas there are a small number of people who really think that's heresy. Well, even the Prime Minister found himself wading into the fray last night,

saying this talk did need to go ahead. Universities are places, he said, where debate should be supportive. Rishi Sunak also adding, quote, we mustn't allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion. Now, that's really at the core of all this, isn't it? The hallmark of a civil society, respectful debate. Most sensible people would probably agree with that. When we shut down debate, we are no better than dictatorship.

But the problem is respect has disappeared from a lot of conversation about gender in recent years. Now, I've lived all over the world and I can say quite comfortably Britain as a Brit. It's a fairly mild country, pretty moderate when it comes to most things. And that's why extremism in any form, whether it be political, religious, environmental or gender bases we're talking about today, it's just so noticeable when it bubbles up, isn't it? And this trans conversation seems to have gotten so far out of hand from extreme. on both sides that I find myself worried for those that are caught in the crossfire. And I think those people are, of course, the members of the trans community who are trying

to get on with their lives, some of whom might not feel represented by what they hear, some might, and also for the women who feel their biological sex is suddenly up for debate on top of decades of hard-fought-for rights. Now, as a woman, I've got to be honest, I don't actually feel infringed upon by much of this on a daily basis, but I don't speak for all women. What I do find fascinating is that it is some men who seem to feel most aggrieved by this debate. They're the ones that are up in arms. They're the one shouting the loudest for what they see as an attack on us on women.

After a lifetime of being a woman, let me say that's something I did not see coming. Now, let me say, cool the debate a bit. It's a bit simplistic, isn't it? Just me saying that, you know, especially as a biological woman. woman, straight, et cetera. But where do we go from here? I do feel, as with most fights, both sides are not really listening to each other fully. And as with all flights, we'll never arrive at a pure solution to this issue. So we do have to learn to find this middle ground, to coexist on this same patch of earth and to do so as peacefully as possible. Let's see if it's

possible for us to do that now here on this show. Joining me to debate this issue, Dr. Marika one of more than 40 Oxford academics who signed a letter supporting this professor, Kathleen Stock, this evening. And we're also joined by Dr Max Morris, a lecturer at Oxford Brooks University, who's been protesting against tonight's speech at the Oxford Union. It's just great to have you both on, because you're right at the centre of this issue. Academics, you're associated to this. You both either support or against Kathleen Stock this evening. Let's come to you first, Dr. Marie, because you wrote a letter in support.

of Kathleen Stock. Talk to us about why you felt it is important for her to be heard. Well, the purpose of the letter was to show that people from very different political or intellectual backgrounds can stand together in defense of Kathleen Stock's right to express her thoughts about what we mean by gender, what we mean by sex. I have, well, I come from a background of gender studies and having read her book, I would, was impressed by how mild and measured her approach is, contrary to what is often said, Kathleen Stock has no such thing as a transphobic attitude

towards trans people. She does think that there is such a, I think, well, not feeling that you belong in the right body. She does believe in people's rights to live their life as, well, belonging to the other gender. He also happens to believe that the material reality, the biological reality of women's bodies do put them at some certain risks

and that so much as policy making has to aim for a middle ground for something that is accommodating for everyone, there is such a problem as what we do of safeguarding policies where there is a need to provide very clear boundaries that are men to defend the most vulnerable, the most at risk. And her view is, in fact, much more, well, much milder than the view of many other gender-critical feminists.

There are, I mean, when you talk about vulnerable groups at risk, women do fall into that category, but trans people do as well. Let's come over to Dr. Max on that, because Dr. Marie was just saying, Dr. Max, that when we talk about Kathleen, this woman who was given the speech this evening, the Oxford Union, her views are moderate and mild. And yet, if you were to see some of the activism or what's being said about her, it seems that she's been described as a transphobe and a turf. Talk to us about your impression of the speech. So I think that one of the issues

in this discussion is that we're all talking about Professor Stock, who actually isn't an expert in gender or sexuality studies. She's a professor of philosophy. But my perspective on this is that there are far more qualified voices that we should be hearing in this discussion. There are professors who have been exploring questions around gender and trans identity and inclusion for decades. And they haven't just waded into this discussion to sell their latest book. So yes, I joined protesters today outside the Oxford Union. My protest sign said, as you can see, let's platform trans professors because we're hearing too much about trans people, but not from trans people themselves.

really need to have more trans and non-binary voices as a part of this discussion, rather than just any old professor who wants to flog a book wading into the debate. I mean, Dr. Marie, that sounds like a fair argument. When speaking about trans rights and trans people, you should have trans voices. This wasn't a debate this evening. But I want to give you an opportunity to come back to Dr. Max, saying that Kathleen Stock shouldn't be at the center of this debate and isn't an expert in gender. Well, I think Kathleen Stock would entirely agree with the fact that she should not be at the

centre of this debate. This is a very long discussion. And Dr. Morrison, I would entirely agree that some 10 or 15 years ago, it was absolutely possible to discuss the matter of gender studies in a very broad way, not just in terms of biological implications, but also in literature, in sociology, in history. This was a conversation that we could have. Now the trouble is that there is a side of the question that cannot be expressed anymore, while by, let's say, 10 years, standards, Kathleen Stocks' views, were the average ones. But when it comes to the question of platforming trans academics,

yes, absolutely, we need to hear all the voices. Now, the thing is that if you walk in any store, well, in two days from now, it will be Pride Month. There will be trans flags everywhere. there's no such thing as a problem regarding transvisibility. On the contrary, all the corporations are quite eager to make all the money they can having all these flags around. So I'm all in for having an intellectual debate

that is not something that is going to turn to the advantage of either corporations or of activists of either sides. No, I think you've picked up some really key points. The corporation point, in particular, what happened to Bud Light the Beer under Dillamolvaney, I'm with you in that I feel like trans people are being used as pawns for corporate profit and gain at some point. Max, I'll come to you to speak on that. But I also just want to speak on the free speech side of things because we've got to have these platforms for debate.

And Dr. Marie was just pointing out there 10, 15 years ago at universities, you could do this. I did an English literature degree that had gender studies as part of it. And we would have talked about these kinds of issues. And we would have had controversial voices speaking. where have we got to the 15 years later we can't even have controversial voices speaking at university? So I tell you what,

I'm a lecturer at Oxford Brooks University up the hill and in response to this event I've invited a very prominent trans professor to come and speak give a public lecture at Brooks which will be happening in a few months' time so I'm putting my actions where my words are

in terms of being a protester here today and saying yes let's have controversial speakers, but let's not make them all, you know, cis women on one particular side of the issue without hearing from trans and non-binary people themselves. So I've invited Professor Stephen Whittle to come and give a public lecture. He has been instrumental in the drafting of the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, the Equality Act of 2010. He is one of the most preeminent experts in this area. Why isn't he being invited to debate at Oxford University? Why in this private debating club, in a very elite institution, are we only hearing one perspective

without really any challenge, apart from those of us out here on the street, or those of us who were brave enough to glue ourselves to the floor, and actually challenge some of these very dodgy ideas and ideas that I think most people wouldn't go along with? Let's hear from one of the activists today, Riz. I'm just one of you all trying to protest this speech. As much as we have a right rights to protest. And my exercise is rights.

I'm sure you all agree with me that her speech is dangerous, is hateful, and it hurts trans people, particularly trying to use. Now, I've seen Riz's sort of manifesto that they shared on Twitter this evening talking about why they did what they did. But the gluing the hands of the floor trick, we see it a lot from eco-activists as well. Do you think, Max, that that's the right way to get people on sight of this debate, the viewers that are watching this show?

So I have to say, I couldn't hear. very well over the microphone what was said by that particular protester. But what I would say is that I was a part of the protest today and there were, you know, lots of people came with different messages and most of us were just trying to express our point of view that we're either trans or non-binary people or we're allies of trans and non-binary people. And yes, people are angry and sometimes people will speak in ways

that don't come across in the best way. But there are lots of different ways There are lots of different ways to make your point heard. And actually, if you'd been here today, the protest was very peaceful. People were having fun, listening to music, expressing themselves. And this idea that trans people represent

any kind of threat to anybody could be totally dismissed if you just came and saw what the majority of protesters were doing today. It was a lovely, lovely atmosphere. And so I suppose the one thing we should thank Professor Stock for is giving us an opportunity as a community, a queer community, to come together and celebrate the diversity of our lives and our experiences.

Well, it looks like we have found some sort of peace or resolution in this debate. So I want to give the final word to Dr. Marie on this. And just ask the question on free speech. Do we have the right to offend people? Well, I believe that all speech should be free, but that the speech that matters can also have consequences. I think that would be. I mean, that is an important point.

speech words, they do have real world impacts and effects. Do you think there would be real word impacts from what Kathleen Stock was saying this evening? Well, I think had the protesters give, had they listened to what has been said inside this room where I was instead of, well, shouting and playing very loud music, they would have heard Kathleen Stock explaining what happens in the fourth chapter, the fifth chapter of her book, where she explains that we need more non-binary spaces in terms of policymaking, which does not contradict her views about the necessity of clear borders when it comes to safeguarding, but perhaps the non-binary would be where we should aim to discuss. And there is something extremely binary in thinking that because I would

put on a pair of trousers and behave in a muscular, manly way, I would all of a sudden change. sex and become a man or because someone puts on address that person would become a woman. I think the binary thinking is not where we think it is. Look, both of you, thank you very much for making time to speak to us this evening for this. What turned out to be a very controversial speech, but actually you've both debated your sides very well indeed. Thanks for making time. Thank you and thank you Max for coming. Well, uncensored next tonight. She has got a lot more to say.

Talk TV host and former Culture Minister, Nadine Dorris takes on this morning and the Schofield saga. Look forward to that after the break. Welcome back now. As a former cultural secretary herself, Nadine Doris, has a thing or two to say about our biggest broadcasters. So you can imagine she really has not been holding back about this whole Phillips Schofield scandal.

We've been watching unfur out of this morning in the last week or so. Now, she's been calling this matter an abuse of authority, power and trust. She's calling for a probe into complaints. to ITV about Schofield. And having appeared herself as a guest on this morning last year, she says she's seen firsthand how quite rude and unprofessional

the former presenter behaves. So who better to ask than the lady herself, the MP and Talk TV host, Nadine Doris, from Talk TV's very own Friday night with Nadine. Indeed, let's start very simply then. Should this morning survive? We've got some connection issues there, Dendine. If you just want to unmute yourself

because we've got a lot of questions to ask you about broadcasting about this one. You got us there. Should this morning survive? I didn't actually mute myself, but there you go. So, yeah, I don't think it can survive. It's a story which isn't going anywhere. And it's one which is unfathing and moving on a daily basis. I think there have been illegal hurdles when it first broke.

And I think those hurdles have been overcome now. So I think it's not going away. I think it's one that's going to continue to grow. And I just don't think it can survive in its present format. And I think it was Diane Nelms who said it, who's the original editor of the show. But it really just needs to go now. It's also a stale format, actually.

It's been in for a very long time with the same presenters. But there is so much which is questionable about the entire culture within this morning as a program. And we see this happen a lot in organizations, not just in television companies or broadcasting organizations. It happens in organizations like the NHS and major companies. A culture grows. It becomes toxic and it is protected by those who are aware of the culture until something gives. And it's usually a whistleblower or something happens to kind of buoy the lid off.

And that's what's happened on this morning. I've spoken to people have worked on the program and people have worked on the program over a number of years and they all tell the same story and so can it survive your substantive question possibly I don't know

I don't have a crystal ball but I don't think it should survive I think it needs to be taken over by a safe pair of hands a pair of hands at the public know that they can trust because they've been lied to there's been duplicity and almost a cover up. And I think they need a safe pair of hands

while they spend time thinking about what should we do with our midday spot, our magazine spot, should we continue as it is. So I think it should survive. Nidie, I mean, I get your point about this happens in other types of industries. You cited there, the NHS. It happens at corporations, toxicity, investigations,

that sort of thing. But those are fundamentally more. substantial and important things, you know, hospitals and healthcare and companies. This is just a TV show, isn't it? I mean, I'm not detracting from what Schofield's done. I think it's abhorrent. I'm not detracting for the experience of the boy at the centre of the law, which we must always keep in mind as well and keep him anonymous and the rest of it. But it's just a TV show, is it not? Why do we care about this? Why am we talking about this? Why does it matter to the public?

Honestly, there's how that question almost makes my blood boil. because we have in society men who use their positions of authority and power and trust and use those positions to behave in a way which is inappropriate and unacceptable. I'm not going to quote others within the same industry, within entertainment. We know within the entertainment industry there are serious problems with individuals. But I think now we're at a point when, you know, following on from Me Too and other things that have happened, I think now we're at a point when behaviour, which has been identified and which has been covered up within a culture which has protected that behaviour and in a culture which is toxic and hugely inappropriate, it has to be called out. It's not just a television program. It's a situation where not good things have happened.

And I'm afraid that ITV, both the executives, the editor and other people on that program must have known. And therefore, because of that, because of that cover up, then I'm afraid they have to be held accountable. ITV is a public, free-to-air public service broadcaster. It has responsibilities, both ethical and moral and standards that it has to uphold. Just because it's a television program doesn't mean it can absolve itself of those responsibilities. We all have responsibilities when we know the inappropriate behavior has taken place to call it out and to make sure that it's dealt with in a way that sets an example that others can see so that they don't follow and they don't allow that behaviour to fester within their organisation.

I think that's a strong argument. I think setting the right tone, the example, I want to come back to you on the public service broadcasting side of it and the regulation point as well. But I want to pick you up on your first point there about, you know, my question maker, your blood boil, because your answer, in a sense, makes my blood boil because you said it was about me too, or it could be construed as having something to do with that. And this is a man that is bullying. And yes, Philip Schofield is a man that is bullying in this situation. But I am always first to point out when there is gender-based issues going on toxicity and misogyny. But in this sense, I think it is irrespective of gender.

It is just an ego. It's just bullying. It's toxicity. And we see this across many industries. And it's not always men's fault. There are women bullies in this industry. And I have encountered them. And I'm sure you have too.

I'm new to television. So I don't work in the industry as you do, Roseanne, at all. or for as long as you have. So I haven't come across that many people. All I can say is that the women I've come across on Talk have been absolutely fabulous, empowering women that I've loved working with. So I haven't encountered it myself yet.

But, you know, if I did, I would call it out in the same way I would if I encountered it in a man. In the same way, I called it out in Phillips Schofield. Now, I'm afraid I haven't heard women mentioned in the capacity of any form. form of abuse or behaviour that we've seen amongst other men in the entertainment industry going back over a number of years now. We do have to be very carefully legally, so I'm not going to cite

other individuals and other high-profile stories that we all know about. But the point here is there is a man, Phillips Schofield, who has himself resigned from the stepped away from his role and was further going to work with ITV in another role until ITV removed him, who has behaved in a way which has been highly inappropriate and that behaviour has been covered up by executives at ITV who absolutely must have known about it because everybody else did and so I find it impossible that they didn't. The editor of the programme knew about it and complaints were made and those complaints were not acted upon and if they were acted upon they weren't acted upon in a way which got to the truth of the situation and and exposed what was happening.

I'm afraid of that, you know, every now and then something will happen which needs to reset people's thoughts and behaviours and their approach to their work and how we conduct ourselves, whether it's in television or it's in offices or wherever. it is. And I'm afraid this is one of those instances. It is one of those instances. I'm in agreement with you there. We must obviously state the executives have denied a lot of the allegations levied against them. A lot of these details are still ongoing and emerging. And we have, of course, had statement upon statement from ITV denying this as we've had a statement from Schofield as well. But some astonishing revelations just in the last two hours, Nadine. This one about

the payoff, the executives allegedly knew. This is an article in the mail online this evening. knew about a payoff that was given to the young man as he was moved over to loose women. And the other bit of detail that we've got here are more pictures of the anonymized young man. That I want to come to you specifically on, given you a former culture secretary, is that the executives are going to be hauled up before a committee, a government committee next week, to talk about this as part of the sort of media bill review that's ongoing. So talk to us a little bit about why you think the government should be intervening here, because a lot of Americans look at British TV and say government intervenes too much.

Well, because ITV is a public service broadcaster and therefore it will play a huge part in the media bill which is a bill I launched and introduced when I was Secretary of State the media bill impacts ITV in a way which is favourable to public service broadcasters so I'm afraid it's absolutely right and proper that they should go before the DCMS select committee absolutely right that they should Do you not think that there's some of the public

will see a bit of an irony in seeing members of Westminster debating sleaze and corruption in the TV industry? Oh yeah, I get that. I totally get that. Yeah, yeah. I'd be a reason why I'm standing down the next election. Yes, you have stood down, and it is worth restating.

And, of course, you're part of the Talk TV family. Now, just before we let you get on with the evening and what a family is the producers are the same. Yes, it is a family. Let's just none of the allegations levied, I will say that we've talked about relates to this network at all. But let me just ask you a little bit about your experience when you're on this morning. What was it like? What kind of impression did you get of Holly as well?

So I found Holly absolutely lovely. And she was a delight. And I can't remember how many times I've been on the program. But it was the last time I was on when Holly wasn't there. And someone was standing, it was Joe standing in for Holly. and what I saw actually made me so you can see the picture on the screen at the moment gosh I can't remember the other piece that presented it

my name's Josie Gibson Josie Gibson she was on I think it was Love Island and while she was holding that very script in her hand and the camera was on me he lent over and started jabbing at that script like this in her hand would possibly have seen what he was pointing to His face was like thunder.

It was incredibly aggressive. And she just sat there holding the script as he was bashing it with his hands while the camera was on me. And it actually made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. And yeah, I mean, that was, it was, he was unpleasant. You know, and I know I've heard from so many people that he, you know, didn't know if the names

of anybody on the production teams, even people who'd worked there for years, many years with him, that he was, that he was, that he was rude. I mean, I think Amon Holmes has given his own account of what working with Phillips Schofield is like. And obviously, he's far more authoritative than I am. I only saw him, you know, for the occasions

and I was sat in front of him. But I always found Holly an absolute delight. What I'm disappointed about is, as the story has moved on, it is actually unbelievable that Holly did not know what was taking place. and although I find her a delight personally on a personal level, I think there must have been some degree of that cover-up encompassing Holly as well. And I think that's incredibly disappointing

because I think she's an amazing role model for women, particularly women who want to work into the television industry. Her career has been just impeccable. And to this point, I'm afraid a bit like, you know, in the morning show when the host, took down other people with him. I think Phillips Schofield might be doing people he's been working with on this morning,

which I think is sad because I think Holly's a professional and, you know, I've always found a lovely. But it can't be the case that she didn't know what was going on because everybody else did who wasn't as close to Philip Schofield. We will be talking a lot more about this. Toxiness and what people knew. But Nadine, it's up to you, me, everyone else in industry, obviously to continue to be nice, to not be bullies

and to engender a better work environment. Nadine Doris, it's been great having your insights on this evening. And you too. Take care. Cheers, Nadine. Thank you. Unsensitive next tonight. It isn't just ITV that has seen accusations of a toxic environment. Channel 4 and the BBC have also experienced bumps in the road recently. So is the TV industry institutionally toxic? Or have we all become snowflakes? We'll be debating that next.

Welcome back to Unsensive. With me, Rosanna Lockwooditian for peers. evening talking all things telly on your telly. Hi TV's Philip Schofield, of course, not the only TV presenter to face accusations of abusing his position of power this week. It has also been reported that Channel 4 have parted ways with escape to the chateaus, Dick and Angel, insiders claiming the pair were rude and bullying towards production staff. The leaked audio of one encounter they had, pretty damning.

Take a listen. Just tell me that. And no, and this is me, and this is me to be a bit of me. actually. Now this is me, angry. I just wanted to know where you both were. Okay. Now, do not work in this chateau and then post dark, weird pictures that I find quite insulting and do not smirk. Yikes. My goodness, that was my first time hearing that something, isn't it? That abusive rant happened in 2021, supposedly concerning a delay of all things in Angel's schedule, rather, and a producer's Instagram post, shock, horror. Can you believe it? And that was worthy of that type of rant.

Now, of course, even the BBC have had to deal with fallouts of their own. Most recently, Greg Wallace, quitting his show inside the factory for allegedly offending women on set. So is TV institutionally toxic? Debating this, we've got the show biz on Sunday editor at the sun on Sunday. Hannah Hope in the studio with us. Lovely to see Hannah. And TV exec and ex-commissioning editor of Channel 4, Stephen D. Wright, also joining us down the line. And Stephen, as you're just there,

I hope you heard that clip just now of Angel from Escape to Shateau, but does that give you the sense that TV is institutionally toxic, given your experience? Yes, absolutely. And that kind of conversation, that kind of swearing and everything

is completely normal. I mean, you know, presenters shout at staff, bossy shout at staff, everybody shouts at each other. TV is a toxic industry, absolutely. It is a toxic industry, but should it be fixed? Is it necessary to have toxic

people to make good television? There's a million-pound question. It really is. I mean, these people don't start off as monsters. They become the way TV enables them. This is the problem with TV. You start to put people, presenters mainly, on a pedestal, and then you have hundreds of acolytes running around saying yes to their every whim.

It doesn't take long for somebody to go a bit mad with power and all that sort of narcissism and glory and add fame into the mix and suddenly you've got a very sort of explosive sort of thing. And of course, people in TV behind the scenes are constantly trying to keep that toxicity from going on to screen. You know, this is why the whole this morning scandal is so shocking to the viewers because it all seems to be lovely and friendly and warm and sunny. But in actual fact, it's, you know, riven, you know, is a viper's nest, basically.

I should catch myself there. I laughed when you said turning into monroe. because I was suddenly very self-aware that I'm sat here as a presenter on Piers Morgan's show, and I'd like to clarify, I'm not a monster, and I do her feelings, and I do understand the severity of the issue that we're talking about here before I'm attacked on Twitter for this. I'd like to think I'm not a monster. I'm going to come to Holly in the studio, sorry, rather, to Hannah in the studio, because you were nodding along vigorously there when you were hearing about sort of the toxicity of presenters

and their acolytes. Stephen made some very good points. Presenters are celebration in such a way with inflated egos and paychecks. They almost do become monsters. I mean, I've seen many a divestruck behind the scenes on several different channels. But in the age of social media and camera phones, there is no real behind the scenes anymore. And council culture is rife, as we are very well aware, on this channel. So I do wonder if that behaviour is becoming less and less acceptable.

Could you have seen that type of behaviour emerging from the past, from what you knew of Schofield? Obviously, we've heard allegations that they were whispering. of what was going on the industry for a very long time before, it suddenly exploded. But could you assess monsters when you're doing your job as a showbiz editor and reporter? Can you look at people and think, yeah, that person's a narcissistic bully? You do see people turn it on for the camera, don't you? You do see people who are very charming on camera, and then behind the scenes or on a red carpet, they may storm down and not make any eye contact, and you think,

oh, they're not as friendly as they are on telly. I mean, certainly with Phil and Holly, what's very disappointing is the viewers were sold this dream, as it were, this friendly TV mum and dad coming into their living rooms day and day out. And I think the viewer had put their trust in this couple and thought they were their friends, their family. And actually it doesn't seem that that's the case at all. And they're actually quite fake. So it is the sort of crushing reality of what is happening here, the lies we were sold. Coming back to Stephen, and we've got this title on the screen saying it's British Tele turning toxic.

But I think there might be some of our audience over the age of, say, 40. 40, 50, 60, he'll say it's been toxic for some time. There's been scandals rolling out from the 80s and 90s for a very long time. I mean, dare we talk about Saville, of course, but also plenty of breakfast TV shows that have been shown to be toxic, and nothing's changed. Well, I mean, exactly, I mean, if anything, it's cleaned up a little bit, but the problem is the same sort of cocktail of beauty, narcissism, fame, money, glory, whatever,

added to that a lot of pressure. I mean, this is the problem for the TV industry. TV is made under extreme pressure. People are working very long hours. Sometimes, you know, it's just anger and stress. It's not nastiness. But it's all there all the time. And there's so much stress, there's so much kind of riding on it

that people can lose it very quickly. So it's always been a horrendant. I mean, I tell everybody, don't come into TV. It's a horrible industry to work. You have to really love it because you will be sort of chewed up and spat out. But, you know, it's not necessarily. getting more toxic. It's just we're getting more sort of reactive to presenters having strops. We never used to be like this 20, 30 years ago. People didn't bother about people being

a bit nasty behind the camera. You know, sex scandals, yes, but sort of angry, bullying, that sort of thing, that wasn't really important. But now, you know, TV's under the microscope, particularly by the press. And, you know, Hannah's completely right. You know, there is no behind the scenes now because of camera phones, because of Twitter and things like that, people can can expose us. scandal in the old days it all have been sort of there would have been no way to expose a scandal you know unless you were a journalist but now everyone can be a journalist in a minute and so therefore if somebody does have a massive strot it can be on online in seconds and so you know we're more hypervigilant but it's you know tv is still the same toxic industry it's it's not more

toxic it just is toxic I'm inclined to agree with you there I too stephen tell young people who approach me and ask how they can do my time to think about something else maybe Hannah Coming to you, because you were nodding on there, let's just talk about the way next for ITV, obviously a ton of revelations this evening, the latest of which Schofield being dropped from his role at the Prince's Trust. In terms of where ITV goes, where the show goes, where Holly goes, what's your prediction?

So we do know that there have been huge crisis talks behind the scenes. ITV is standing firm. They're saying that Holly is going to be back on the sofas on Monday, and Holly has said behind the scenes to people around her that she doesn't feel that she wants to step down anything the problem is is the public opinion is really swaying now I think they've lost a lot of trust in this morning they've lost their biggest advertiser Arnold Clark and I think that people are kind of wanting to see a

head roll I'm wondering if if one of the main directors of ITV Kevin Ligo may step away even Martin Frizzell the editor of this morning and the problem with Holly even though she says that she didn't know anything is that she is very reminiscent of Philip she was part of a TV duo for over a decade. So how this morning goes forward remains to be seen. Yeah, Stephen, coming back to you, will that mollify people?

Do you think if some executives leave the show or leave the organisation? I think that possibly, I mean, the show should take a break, really. That's the easiest way to do it. You know, it should just come off air for a month or something and then rebrand itself and come back on air and boom, we're off again. Holly is a difficult one. She's the queen of TV.

She doesn't necessarily have to be on this morning. But ITV needs to do something because every day this drip, drip, drip, drip is getting worse. You know, I personally think the show can survive it because the content of the show is still good and it works with whatever presenters are on it. You know, I still miss Aymann and Ruth, for example. But it's, so I don't think it's, you know, let's sort of, you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's doable and Holly can easily sort of just vanish for a little bit and come back on another show. and everyone will forgive her, I think.

So, yeah, I'm still a fan. I'm with you, though. It seems to be this drip, drip, who knows what tomorrow will bring. Stephen, Hannah, it's been so good to get your insights this evening. Thanks so much. Well, Uncensored next tonight. The pack will be with me to discuss the Schofield drama and whether the honours list here in this country

should give more knighthoods to Northerners. We're going to be debating all of those stories next. Welcome back to Uncensored. I'm sitting in for Piers this evening. I want to remind you that this show, has been shortlisted for an NTA award. We love these awards in the TV industry. This is Piers Morgan's interview he did with Ronaldo.

Take a photo of his screen with the camera now. That QR code will take you through to the shortlist so you can land your vote to get Piers another gong for his dressing room. He would really appreciate it. It's like a charity appeal. Joined in the studio right now by our PAC, political journalist Ava Santina, Talk TV contributor, Paula, Ron, Adrian, and Talk TV presenter, Richard Tice.

Great to have you all. with us and it's a lot of focused on telly and I have a bit of an issue with this because I think do the viewers care that much but I think they sort of do find this morning that interesting don't they Ava I know you do you've been following it closely well I just think it's sort of bizarre because it's kind of like we've grown up with these two people you know they've just been an omnipresent force in your life and the whole thing is just kind of falling apart before I so it's shocking but you know the revelations this evening that they're going to be hauled up in front of the DCMS committee next week which means that MPs will be able to question

the ITV bosses about what went on. I mean, that's really going to be essential viewing. I'll be glued into that. Yeah, Nadine Doris was talking to us about, you know, severity of that and what it means with regard to the media bill. Paula, there is a legal aspect to this, a regulatory element too. But are you just generally shocked by the revelations? I'm not shocked by the revelations.

What I'm shocked at, actually, is the focus and attention that this is getting. And I have to say, I'm going to throw the catman on the pigeons here and ask the question, If this wasn't about a homosexual relationship, would we be hearing about this? Because, you know, we're allowed to be gay on TV, but what we're not allowed is to be gay and have sex. Oh, that's a very big statement. Of course, we have lots of powerful men in TV, on films, in the music industry, etc., etc. Having affairs, we have lots of women having an affairs, but that doesn't make the news.

And actually, even in politics. And what actually we're told is it's none of our business, it's their personal life, as long as they're doing their job properly, let them get on with it. Now, I don't happen to agree with that. I think there should be an investigation. I think things should be looked into.

We've got a vulnerable person here. We've got somebody in power, potentially somebody taking advantage of it. Yeah, and I think that's why we're talking about it. It's an obvious abuse of power. I mean, you're entitled to that view on things. I'm going to disagree with you. But, you know, from what informed opinion I don't really have one?

Richard, I mean, abuse of power are fairly obvious. To be honest, until 10 days ago, I didn't have an opinion because I didn't grow up with Phil and Holly. Who's got time to watch daytime TV for heaven's sake? But actually, I'm not sure it's about the gay element to it. I think it's the abuse of power from what I've learned. I think it's just the age difference, the deceit, the perpetual line. I come from the corporate world. How on earth is the chief executive of ITV, frankly, still in that job?

I've done non-exexexex. the non-exexex must be tearing their hair out. I think, I'll be surprised if she's still in the job by the time they get to the committee next week. Yeah, I think that will be the interesting one. Whose head is going to roll on this further than we have? Look, let's lighten things up. We've got a video to show our viewers back home.

This is rock band Royal Blood. Talking to the crowd at Radio One's big weekend, calling them pathetic. Take a look. Well, I guess I should introduce ourselves, seeing as no one actually knows who we are. We're called Royal Blood. This is rock music. Who likes rock music?

Nine people. Brilliant. We're having to clap ourselves because that was so pathetic. Well done, Ben. It's not great, is it? I'm clapping you. I'm clapping you. Let's clap royal blood. They wanted.

They need to, of course. Ava, you shared this this morning on Twitter and I saw it off your Twitter. I mean, it is pretty pathetic. It's a bit of a posh tantrum. Yeah, and it's just cringe. What I don't understand is Radio One made this band. Like, they made them popular. They put them in the top 40.

There's a quarter of a billion players on most of it, their songs on Spotify. And now they're getting on stage and sort of like playing this kind of weird victim game, as if they're not appealing to like the masses. They're kind of eclectic and too, you know, too cool to be like, do you know what, they're probably going to watch this back and they're going to go, who's she in a pink dress to like rock music?

That's the kind of impression they're giving. Oh, I do you know. The day, look at that. Very good. Let's see if they make plank of the week on this network as well. The two of you, do you know Royal Bloods, Richard, not a fact. Richard not a fan, Paula? I've got to be honest, never heard of them.

And frankly, after that, hopeless sort of concert and lack of motivation, come on. Listen, they're rockers. They're all about the shock factor. I'm saying good luck to them. I'm surely, I'm really interested in them now. I want to see them. They want to be in front of an audience

who wants to see them to say. They don't want to do media. The audience were cheering, though. Well, I think is as well. I'm not being funny, but it's not exactly like we've gone back to punk or something interesting. This is a couple of posh boys.

you're up on stage of, you know, in like... Their social background is not relevant to this story, ever. It's about music, it's about art, they're being creative. Do I detect a chip on the shoulder, over? No, do you know what they're doing? They're cosplaying. That's what they're doing. They're pretending to be, like, from the punk era, from, like, proper, like, they're into rock or something.

They're not. They're privileged white men who've grown up and are now expecting to be applauded. So they're being fake, a bit like, Phil, perhaps. Look at that, bringing it back full circle. And it's all about not kind of being loyal to your fans or not being very gracious on stage, is it? Now, social background, just want to bring up being loyal to the music. Yes.

And if the fans come with you, they come with you. And you can't force audiences to like you the way that you want them to like you. They're either going to like what you're bringing to the table or not. Let's finish on this statistic because it got us all laughing in the newsroom earlier. Nearly one in eight men, 35 and under, admit to bring in protection to a funeral. We're talking condoms here. This was a survey of 18 to 35-year-olds in the US. I mean, what did you think when you heard this over?

It's just like, I mean, look, what are men? Like, what is that? Good question. What are men? What is that? Not guilty, as charged. No way, absolutely absurd. So what I really wanted to know when I saw this research was,

number one, did we find out how many of them used the condoms? Oh, yeah. And number two, did we find out if they thought that the person in the coffin was dead or not? Oh, goodness. Sorry, guys. Goodness. I don't know. I think it's way too much information.

I think it's more getting lucky in the congregation. It's been a while, right. That is it from all of us here in the studio. Whatever you're up to tonight, make sure it is uncensored. Good night.