Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Philip Fiasco and Mizzy Reprimanded Again

Episode Date: May 29, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and looks into the Philip Schofield fiasco as he says their was toxic culture on the show and how are ITV going to get out of this. Rosanna delves into how TikTok star, Mizzy is reprimanded again by the police. 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

Bank Holiday Monday, I am Rosanna Lockwood on uncensored tonight. The gloves are off as the Phillips Schofield drama rages on the disgraced former star of this morning, hitting back at social media reports with toxic culture on that show. But as an advertising boycott begins and questions continue to be leveled at high-ranking executives about who knew what, how will ITV find its way out of this crisis? And a TikTok terror, Mizzie, who are... appeared on this show with Peers. Last week's back in custody,

the pranksters called the police's response to his actions, quote, weak. So, will authorities finally crack down on his reckless behaviour? Live from the News Building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Oh, it's a bit of a sprint that. I've seen Peers do it before. This is my chance.

Peers off on holiday this week. Good to be with you. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. I am Rosanna Lockwood. We've got a great show up for you. And we will, of course, be talking about Schofield, the Schofield saga, the This Morning saga. My question about this, though, is why do we care so much about this? This story is sucked up front pages.

It's sucked up airtime, conversations for weeks now. Even at the pub over the weekend where I live, I was asked about it all the time. As somebody working on TV, do you have any gossip? Do you have any gossip about Schofield? Now, look, before I go on, let me just preface by saying this. I am not making any excuses for his behaviour. It does look from this far completely abhorrent. Nor am I denying the no doubt terrible and life-changing experience

of the young man at the centre of all of this. We mustn't forget about that person. And of course, there are systems of power and toxicity in the world of television that are abused and they do need to be fixed. But in addition to all of this, terrible things are happening every day in our lives and the world around us. huge, consequential, political and corrupt things that affect ordinary people's lives day and day out. And instead of focusing on those for a few days, we've been sucked into this morning television melodrama.

So why do we care? We're going to try and bring some answers to this. I think it's because it represents the death of a dream. The happy, smiling perfection of Holly and Phil. Look at them there. The lie we've been sold for years. Now, it also represents, of course, a darker, cedier side to showbiz. one where those in power can use their influence to hoist young employees into positions more quickly than as fair or usual.

Now, Schofield's lover was a runner on this morning. We'll be telling you a bit more about runners in the business, but they tend to start out their careers in that position, fairly junior within the production side of things. So why was he then standing next to ITV daytime's managing director and the show's editor while Holly and Phil accepted this award in 2018? That's an odd work perk for someone so junior. Now, as humans, we are of course always grimly fascinated to see the downfall of the rich and successful.

But do we feel better as a result of all this? Do we take anything away from it? Perhaps we learn to trust ourselves and our instincts a little bit better and to see a little bit more clearly when we're being sold a distraction packaged up as reality. Because as we know, the real world is complex and it's sometimes really awful, but it is where we have to exist. And one thing this show, uncensored, does, is. it gives you the unscensored view of all of that.

So let's get into it, shall we? Joining me here in the studio, and please say Dr. Maria Kampinska, who is a psychotherapist, specialising in relationships and the entertainment industry, also showbiz journalist Sarah Louise Robertson, and joining us down the line, former BBC head of ethics, Akel Ahmed.

Thanks to all three of you for joining. Arkell, I will come out to you very shortly, but first let's start with the ladies in the studio. Coming to you first, Sarah, Sarah Louise, because this is a very busy time for showbiz journalists, it has been non-stop, I'm sure, for you commenting on this. Given the timeline of events the last few days and where we're at now, have there been any surprises to you?

Because a lot of people saying we knew about a lot of this all along. The surprise is that Holly still seems to think that she's going to have a job to come back to and that this morning is still carrying on and think that they can ride this out and get through this. And that's what the surprise. I thought the show wouldn't have come back today, but it has. And we saw today, Alice in Hammond and Dermott

say that they're going to carry on fighting for the show. And there's obviously people there that I know that work there who are very lovely, and I feel very sorry for all those people whose jobs could be possibly at jeopardy right now and in peril right now. But I am surprised that the show did come back the way that it did today. but they seem determined to keep fighting on

and to try and ride out this absolutely huge scandal. But I've never known such a dark day in ITV's history, such a dark weekend, shall I say, in ITV's history, than this scandal. Do you believe it was a toxic place to work? I've been told from people that I've been speaking to over this weekend, former employees that have told me there was a toxic culture that was going on behind the scenes.

I was told that some former employees were made to sign NDAs. I have not yet put those allegations to ITV. I'm just collating at the moment evidence from former employees that were working there. But there seems to be the impression that I'm getting for people that I've been speaking to is that there was this toxic culture. And that's been verified by Dr. Ranch, who came out over the weekend and said that he had complained to ITV, executives and bosses. And that was why he left the show a year ago because he saw things. that didn't sit right with him.

Let's go out to Arkell then on that, on Dr. Ranch, because the comments that we heard from this personality that appeared on this morning for almost a decade, Arkell, he was saying that part of his purview was looking at diversity, was looking at ethics this morning, and he felt that whenever he complained to the managers, he wasn't taken seriously enough, and he was effectively managed out.

Talk to us from your position, your experience. How common that type of thing is? Well, I don't know if that's the case with regards to, Dr. Ranch, but obviously we do know that that's how he feels. ITV have said they did investigate his allegations when he brought them to them. So you have to actually take it on face value what they've said, what they've done. Actually, you know, whether it was right up, whether that actually happened in the way that it should have been, we don't know. Now, in terms of across television, yeah, it's, I'm not saying it's really, really common, but it can happen.

You can basically, you know, you can complain. you can be seen as being a bit of a troublemaker, and you can be moved on. And so that can happen. So what he's saying isn't actually necessarily far-fetched. It's not the kind of thing that I would say, oh, no, that could not have happened. So it is possible.

But I think on this instance, we have to give ITB the opportunity to actually lay out in front of everybody what the investigation did when he brought it to their attention a couple of years ago. And then, you know, people will, then we can judge for ourselves,

what really happened. And at the moment, it's what he says, and ITV say, we investigated it, but didn't find that toxic culture of bullying at the time. So the question is, how good was that investigation? We don't know about it. That is the question I would be left with Arkell from this. And I, myself, have worked in news organisations

and taken part in these types of investigations, and I've seen them time. And again, outside and internal, and sometimes you feel like they're not doing enough. They're protecting the company more than they are, of the employees. Look, I want to come to Dr. Maria in the studio about the topic of toxicity. We've mentioned it a few times, but also the psychology of some of the personalities involved because that's what you specialize. And just give me a little bit of a kind of overview of what

you've noted about the way Schofield has handled all of this. Well, he becomes a little bit of a boy, doesn't he? He has never owned up, even when he was saying that I've come out as being gay. He handed it over to Holly to read out for him. So he's never really taken ownership. and he's been forced into this situation suddenly. And he's totally out of his depths. But forced into, but he, you know, he's made the situation. No, he has. He's made it, but it doesn't mean that people know how to handle it. And this is what happens. He's worn this mask.

I mean, the theatre group that he was a patron of was called Two-Faced. And that's him. You know, he has one face for media and one face for his real life. I would say it goes far as to say a lot of people in media do. I personally, and quite different. in my real life to how I am on television. Some of this hair and makeup, it's like a suit of armour that you put on. But it's one thing to just be a slightly more casual person in real life

and another thing entirely, to be living a double life, as you say. So talk to me a little bit about the psychology of how you lie to your family for that long. How you lie to your employees. Is it true that he really did lie to his family? You know, I would have thought that his wife knew, but accepted, that he was living a different life. Women often know that there's something else going on, but don't want to mention it or don't want to acknowledge.

acknowledge it. And that's not a bad thing because they want to keep the family together. But, you know, they come to some sort of arrangement. I've known other people that leave their wives and announce they're gay and go off into a gay relationship. And the family has accommodated that during that period of time. So there's one story that he's been giving you the public. But what I'm interested in is most of the public know. And people at home know. And they need to take more accountability for that knowledge themselves. So sort of perpetuating that lie and taking the public for fools? Well, yeah, but the public aren't fools,

but they don't know within themselves whether they can actually address it. What do I do? I know this is wrong. I know he's wrong, but how do I deal with it? And they do rely on the institution, the workplace, to deal with this. And if the workplace doesn't deal with it, everybody is left to look like fools. It's a model for everyone.

Sarah, you want to add something to that, but yeah, the public won't be taken for fools. can tell, can't they? The thing is, when Philip did that big coming out, he had everybody's sympathy, everyone supported him, said how brave and how wonderful that he came on that sofa.

But what we know now is that that was with charade because he was asked at the time, is that anything that prompted this, have you ever had a relationship with a man? And he lied. He's now admitted to lying and that he lied and said, oh no, I've not done anything.

So he lied not just to his wife and family, but he lied to his, fans and to the public and to the show as well, although obviously the discrepancy which is going on now is how much did the show really know from behind the scenes. But what he put out to the public, he asked us to believe in him and to believe in what he was saying. And we trusted this person.

We trusted his voice when he was leading the show. He was seen as a safe pair of hands, someone that when he told us something during the pandemic, we were listening to him. believing in him and trusting him. And now he comes back and says, oh, it was like a politician. It was all an act. It was all a ruse. A key word you've brought up those trusts.

I want to come back to Arkell on this, because this is why ethics exists in any organisation, but particularly media and organisations, news organisations and the like. So talk to us a little bit about breach of ethics of this nature. Schofield calling his actions, quote, unwise, but not illegal. But as we all know, there's documentation when you work at most companies that have code of conducts. Do you think he overstepped?

Well, I can only speak. I'm speaking on a purely personal capacity. I think that it, you know, the fact of the matter is this, this, that actually what he said is completely correct, unwise relationship. Now, if you look at some of the kind of things that we've seen about the runner,

we may go on to talk about that later on. You know, I've been a runner. We've all been runners when we started out in our career. You know, there is an issue about whether or not somebody who's a runner who's at a very basic entry level of work should that person have a be in a relationship with somebody who is the star or the or the series editor or whatever somebody who's in charge or in charge of their destiny for that matter

and i think when you're in that situation it doesn't it's probably it is is an ethical relationship particularly when it's as it tv have said that they investigated this and he said obviously that he he wasn't in a relationship. People around them said that they didn't know anything about the relationship. The reality is it's very hard for anybody to take anything on face value if you have individuals who are lying. Because he's admitted, obviously, to lie. That's not me. I can say that clearly. He's admitted to lying. So the fact of the matter is it becomes really hard to believe many of the things that he may say about this or about anything else. And then as, as of course, as other people have mentioned, we then get into the situation about who knew what

and were things then hushed up, etc. What I would say is there is so much transparency involved in all of this now. And an investigation, there's not getting around it. Investigations will be happening. If they happen before, they'll definitely be happening again. And those investigations should be very transparent. And I think the people, I know some of the people involved

in the senior executive of ITV, they've got a track record in investigating things and making very big decisions as and when they need to be made. It is that abuse of power dynamic. Let's come to Dr. Maria on this and just talk briefly about this before we run out of time. But that power dynamic, even if it is consenting adults, as they are saying in this situation,

but obviously there's a huge age difference, there's a huge seniority difference. I mean, how do you begin to do with that as a psychoanalyst, psychologist? Yeah, I just think he is totally out of order. You have to, as a person who is in leadership, you have to take responsibility for your actions. and I think we're in a culture that's beginning to recognize that individuals have to take responsibility for their actions

and he hasn't and he's being forced to. And that's why everybody's intrigued by this. It's like mythology, Greek mythology, in our homes at the moment. And mythology was based on people of power losing their power and what happens when they caught out and he's being caught out. And we all want to know how he's going to deal with it and how the whole institution,

the media institution is going to deal with it and in turn the public and the court of public opinion will certainly have a lot to say Sarah let's just envy quickly if you're Holly well I'll move on to Holly in a second about I just want to say as well in the power dynamic the person in question was only 15 he was a teenage boy when he first met

Philip Schofield what an earth would a grown man have to talk to a 15 year old boy about and why would he want to keep in contact with the 15 year old boy Well, he's a predator, wasn't you? Well, I'm saying, there's something sits uncomfortable, I think, with people. It certainly sits uncomfortably with me.

So I just wanted to point that out. Yeah, you're entitled to point out, and I will find out it's alleged, obviously, a lot of this, and, quote, unwise, but not illegal. Those are the facts that we have at the moment. I want to thank you all very much for joining us for this conversation. Sarah, Dr. Maria and Arkel-Arma, joining us down the line as well.

Some really good insights from you all. Unsensored. Tonight is the law tough enough to stop a new generation of TikTok pranksters. We'll be debating that next. Stick around. Welcome back to Piers Morgan, uncensored. Rezanna Lockwood, you might have noticed, but change that to me and Piers. I'm standing in all week. Pleasure to be with you.

Now, we are revisiting this story that Piers did this fascinating interview on last week. I'm sure you saw it. TikTok menace Mizzie. He's the young man who performs pranks on the general public before uploading them to social media. He is very much back in trouble again. remanded in custody at the weekend for reportedly breaching a court order not to film members of the public without their consent. This is the video here of his arrest.

Now, this new arrest took place just a few days after Missy, whose real name, by the way, is Bacari-Bronzer Garrow. He took part in an exclusive and fiery interview with peers. On this very show, in this very studio, he gave us then some insight into why he continues to create havoc. You've only got a tiny fine today, no deterrent to you whatsoever, You don't show any real remorse. You don't really care, do you?

The UK laws are weak, simple as. The UK laws are weak, simple as, and that's not my fault. Which begs the question, does Missy have a point? UK laws weak, simple as, should the criminal justice system deal with young offenders harsher and earlier than it currently does, or is it fit for purpose? Joining me to debate all of this, Mizzie's friend, fellow TikTok star, Billy the Goat,

who spoke to the prankster in the days leading up to his arrest. Also joining us there from Norway of all places, criminal barrister Casey, Chris Dorr. And here in the studio, I'm joined by Talk TV contributor Esther Kraku. Thanks so much, Esther. I'll come back to you shortly. But first, let's get over to Billy, shall we? Because Billy's mate, he's the mate of Mizzy. So you were able to talk to us firsthand about your knowledge of Mizzy.

Last we knew he's remanded back in custody again. Have you checked in with Mizzy and how he's doing? No. To be honest, like, I wouldn't see. I wouldn't say mate, to be honest, you know, I wouldn't say I'm a mate, to be honest, because, like, I only kind of know for you social media, but obviously, he has someone

that I've been, that I've communicated with, that I've spoken to him. And I feel like my interview kind of brought a different side of him there, like, Peir's his one did, he can't try and see it. So that's why I might have come across to the outside world that were mates, but I wouldn't say what mates, but definitely someone that, like, definitely someone that don't wish any harm on him, to be honest.

All right, you saw that interview you did with peers then. What did you make of it? because I know it went pretty viral. A lot of people saw it. Did you get much reaction from people you knew? How did they think Mizzy performed? If I'm being honest with you, I feel like the interview went exactly how I expected it to go.

Like, I don't really know what anyone expected. Like you brought like a prankster that's like 18 on that one of the big, like a professional TV show. Like I didn't expect them to actually have any proper dialogue if I'm being honest with you. And another thing is like, I don't know. I feel like with there's a certain way you talk to people. I'm trying to say, like, you don't speak to everyone the same way. Obviously, I understand Peirze has his own interviewing style,

but I feel like sometimes according to who you're interviewing, you kind of have to change up a little bit. And me, Perth, I don't think you handled the Mizzy thing well. But then again, I don't really blame him, because Missy is a lot to handle it for being honest. I did meet Mizzy in the makeup room. He is a character. He appears isn't here to defend himself.

He has got his own interviewing style. This is his show, and he's kind enough to put me in the seat tonight to speak to you. But let's just talk about the punishment. side of it because that's what we're going to talk to our next guests about as well. Mizzy said that the UK laws were weak and I just want to go back to Billy. Do you think Mizzy's right to say they're weak because he's currently

remanded in custody? Obviously that's his opinion. And me personally I've never had any accountants with the system. I wouldn't be able to give a first-hand opinion on whether the week or not. But obviously the public opinion was that like a 350 pound finally got. The public

opinion is that that is like a bit of a get-off. But at the same time, when you really look at the situation, like, I don't know, I wouldn't say that it's weak, but then again, it depends on which angle you wanna look at it, though. It depends which angle you wanna look at it, because realistically, it's like,

I don't know what the exact laws, I don't know what the punishments are for each time, realistically, so I couldn't say whether they're weak or not to be able to, I don't know. So, coming to Esther in the studio, the idea behind this is that Mizzy feels, somehow licensed to behave the way he does, because the laws are so weak.

I mean, that is what he said to peers. You and I were watching it from the studio. saying, look, the UK laws a week, I'm just going to have my fun. I don't care if it's negative or positive. I just want engagement. So do we need to change the UK system? Yes, obviously. But I think it's a combination of two different things. This is clearly an example of extremely bad parenting. And there's only so much that the penal system can actually rectify in that situation. This is a kid who is hungry for attention. And that's what the social media era we're living in is clearly feeding him. So he has no boundaries. Obviously,

the deterrent should have been more than a 350 pound fine. I'm assuming the judge's that he didn't actually have that money to pay it or something. I don't know, but I think that's clearly very weak. He's terrorizing the public. But it is bad parenting. I often said, you know, there's a reason why he's stealing old women's puppies and jumping on conservative Jewish men's backs. He's not going to, you know, tall black men in Tottenham

because he knows he probably won't go home with all his teeth in his mouth. So clearly it's a disciplining issue. It's something that falls on his parents, quite squarely on the shoulders, but it's also a penal system issue. And I think we need to address both. He's obviously an example of what it happens when parenting goes. very, very wrong. And look, we don't have Mizzy here to talk about his parents. Billy says he's not close enough to know Mizzy's family, but on the penal system side of things, let's get over to

Chris Ador Casey, joining us from Norway. And the reason that you're in Norway, Chris, to my understanding, is to learn a little bit about how they deal with youth crime there. So why do they get it better than here? Well, because, first of all, when you're talking about young teenagers, they don't criminalise young teenagers in Norway at all. And indeed, there are other countries that don't criminalised people until they're 18 years of age. And the reason for that is because, as I think Mizzy demonstrated pretty clearly in his interview with peers, young people and particularly young men don't really mature properly until they're into their 20s. And the level of immaturity that you could see in that interview, I think was clear for all to see. And frankly,

when I watched Mizzy's interview, I thought that the whole thing was him playing around with Pierce Morgan rather than the other way around. It rather looked like he had kind of managed to get one over on peers, quite a lot of that interview, because ultimately, is his objective. It's very clear, isn't it, to get as much attention as he can. And that's not dissimilar, I would suggest, from television presenters and media stars of every different generation and every age. It is about attention-seeking. Clearly, some of the things he's done are very unpleasant to the people involved. But, you know, we've had these kind of prank TV shows on television for years and years and years.

We'll remember in the 80s, there were programs where people had their cars crushed and they had no idea what was going on. and they didn't consent to that in the first place. And, you know, so is it a genre that is only available to middle-aged white presenters? Because it does feel a little bit like we've got an 18-year-old who's capturing a lot of attention, a lot of audience. And really, I think it's all a storm in a teacup. Chris, I'm interested in you saying that because I'm with you on a lot of TV personalities, pushing the envelope as far as they can to generate engagement, not caring about negativity, let's just get attention.

But there's one thing doing that, pushing the envelope. There's another thing, illegality. We've got some videos of Mizzy's antics. We can remind viewers of breaking into people's houses, stealing people's dogs, leapfrogging over people on the street, just pretty bad anti-social behaviour stuff, but also some actual sort of pretty bad criminal acts. You've got walking into people's houses and things like that.

This is what has landed him in a lot of trouble with police. So could you really say this is on a par, Chris, you know, with, I don't know, Jeremy Beedle and people back in the day? It's exactly on a par with it. because the people who were subject of those pranks didn't get to have any consent, their friends set them up or their family set them up for it. And so I honestly don't see the difference. It's a situation where people are taking advantage of other people to create content,

which many, many young people in particular on TikTok find funny. And so I just think, you know, he's 18 years of old, he's quite immature. When you talk about criminal acts, I mean, you know, it's on the margins of criminality, some of this stuff as opposed to anything that would be particularly serious. I suspect eventually he'll grow out of it, as most young people do, provided they're not locked up in prison. Because this is really where Norway have got it right. They don't lock people up in prison and they don't lock young people up in prison unless they've done something really bad, really extreme violence and long-term criminality. And if you lock teenagers up, the one thing you guarantee is when they come out of custody, as this young man will, I'm sure, within days or a few weeks, when they come out of custody, they are more criminalised than when they went in.

So if we're going to have this idea that we need to lock people up for longer and get tough and all this stuff, you end up with more crime in society as opposed to the sort of peaceful place we have here in Oslo where there's a £3,000 barbecue. It's not even locked up.

They just leave it here on the side of the water because no one's going to steal it. And why is that? It's not because they're getting tough and cracking down on young offenders. It's because they do the opposite. Yeah, not going to see that. In the streets of London, Manchester, Birmingham,

anywhere around the UK, really, that £3,000 £3,000 £1. I want to come back to Billy. while we've got you, Billy, and some of those points that Chris made about entertainment, this is just entertainment, it's just TikTok, you know, do you think it's okay what Mizzie is doing to these people for entertainment?

No, definitely not. Obviously, if you watched the interview, I've done with him, like, I made it clear that I don't can don't anything done, but at the same time though, like, to answer your question directly, no, it's not okay. But then to add some context,

I feel like, similar to what he was saying before, like we are in it everywhere is all about shock factors, all about attention. Even though I do internet and I do make content myself, I do understand that there is repercussions with just doing anything and everything for views. I'm trying to say to you.

I'm busy being a prime example of that. So me personally, like, if I was to like, I don't know advise any up-on-coming content creators, I would definitely say that don't you feel the need to like do whatever comes to your mind that's going to get views. Like actually think of a legacy and try, build a certain that's sustainable. I'm trying to say to you like, like, running people's houses and taking dog.

That's not sustainable. what it's like. You can only do that once or two times and then there's nothing you can do after that again, I'm trying to see. Yeah, I think that's actually very smart. It isn't sustainable at all. It's one and done. Esther, we'll give you the final word on this. The solution to this, you know, we're hearing Chris say, you don't lock people up unnecessarily if it's not too criminal. I mean, could you agree with that? What's the solution for someone like missing? It depends on what you define as too criminal. I'm sure if that was his mother that he had a young group of men breaking into a house, he would feel a bit more differently about what is too criminal. the reality is there needs to be a deterrent in place because what you see happening now

is because something like this is getting busy the attention that he wants and the attention that he craves, you push the envelope and more people are incentivised to push the envelope. Today they're entering people's houses tomorrow, they're doing something even more and generally terrifying the general public. I made the point that if he was in a different country, if it was in the US, for instance,

they would actually have the right to shoot him. So, you know, how far is too far before someone seriously gets hurt? It's not just about the fact that you don't think what they've done is particularly criminal. It's also about the fact that how justified would someone be to react in a way, that is generally in, you know, in pursuit of preserving their own life as they see, you know,

is being threatened. And so I think it's something to not take it lightly. And I think people that do take it lightly don't understand the wider societal context and the issue here with just bad parenting as well. We're going to have another conversation about policing at the end of the show. So do stick around because we're going to talk a little bit more about the Met Police and some things they've been up to. Next to night, though, on Unsensored, as Phillips-Sofield's affair, where the younger

male colleague was revealed, we asked could ITV lose millions when the stock market It reopens tomorrow. We also will remind you that this show, Pierce Morgan Uncensored, is shortlisted for an NTA award. We want to remind you to go ahead and vote for that interview for this show for Peers to get another gong to out to his cabinet. So stick around. We'll be debating next.

And there, have your bank holiday Monday. This is Peers Morgan Uncensored. Me, Rosanna Lockwood sitting in Peers' seat tonight. The shocking story of Phillips Schofield's Affair with a younger male colleague. That's what we're talking about again now. because it has caused a media storm in this country. But not only that, the scandal could actually cost ITV.

The company that we all have known and loved, obviously, since we were children. Many of us decades old, we're going to be talking all about it. It's cost that company tens of millions of pounds. Now, this show's biggest sponsor, car dealer Arnold Clark, has announced it as ending its existing deal with the channel, the first one we know about to go in a statement the car dealer saying, quote, our existing sponsorship of this morning will end this autumn as planned. And according to insiders at this morning, guests are now refusing to even appear on the show,

and it doesn't stop there. ITV executives are apparently bracing themselves for a potential dramatic share price drop tomorrow. When the market reopens, it's a publicly traded company at ITV, and it's been a bank holiday weekend, so we're only going to see the effects of what has happened with Schofield from the weekend when the market's open tomorrow. Now, to discuss all of this, I'm joined by the manager to the stars. Jonathan, thanks so much for making time. to speak to us.

Look, there's a lot of angles we want to talk about this from with you. But for starters, for the viewers at home that don't work in television, because we can all get caught up in this bubble, can't we? Living in TV, working in TV, we just assume people know what a runner is and how serious this is and the type of abuse of power that went on this morning with Schofield. So from your perspective, from managing talent in television over the years, how shocked are you by these revelations?

I'm shocked, but do you remember I first heard this in 20? because at the National Television Awards, the young man in question was openly telling people about the relationship. That it's only come out now in in 2023. It's hugely surprising because it's been, I wouldn't even use the word, I would say open secret, but open secret would imply a secret. It was Comerine Owen since 2020,

since January 2020, because the young man in question openly told everybody. That's absolutely extraordinary. That's your first-hand account. Obviously, we have the facts from ITV and the statements that they've given us throughout, and the statements from Holly and the statements from Philip as well. That is, we've blurred out the main character in question because, of course, this is, you know, a case of abuse of power. But we have seen his picture's been shared around and things you must remember there is this young man at the centre of this all.

And this is a really disturbing state of affairs. And ITV saying we're deeply disappointed by the admissions of deceit that were made. by Schofield. Schofield now coming out today and saying, you know, all my ex-colleagues are slamming this morning, but this morning was actually a great show

to work on, he's saying. What I would say is, this morning is a great show to work on. People are slamming Philip Schofield. A lot of people have many, many happy memories of this morning over the years. It's been a joyous show, it's been a successful show,

it's been a show that's campaigned for very important matters. I mean, even last week, you had Alison Hammond holding the Prime Minister to account. And it's fantastic. You have that environment where an ordinary person, if you like, as opposed to a sophisticated interviewer,

can speak to the Prime Minister and hold them to account. And I think they've changed the law. Massive, terrible things have happened in the world, and this morning have brought attention to that. But mustn't forget it. It's 35 years old and one of the most important daytime shows in British television. Is it time for a reboot, a reformat?

Is that sort of two... person couple on the sofa format tired and dead? Does it need to be remade? And how much damage does all this do to ITV? It's not going to tank the network, is it? Well, you've asked a lot of questions. Let me try and deal each one individually. The two-person format works all over the world in many different countries at many different times of day. Right now, as we talk on ITV and Sondeka hosting a big TV show. In the morning, morning shows around the world have two people presenting them. double-axed presenting primetime entertainment shows. So I don't think the suggestion that a two-person fronting a team has gone past its sell-by-date stands up.

I mean, ITV is a massive successful company with incredible programs and get incredible ratings. So yes, this morning has had a negative light on it in the last few weeks, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that ITV is an incredible platform for anyone, including the man whose seat you occupied tonight, who had a massive success for many years at ITV. So, you know, ITV is a great,

globally recognised successful company. Yeah, I don't think we've got, if we do, we'll bring it up, his tweets, because he's been tweeting quite a lot about this. Well, he's actually been talked about with regard to this a lot in the last few days he's found himself

having to respond to those people saying, well, you're talking an awful lot about leaving ITV, but the circumstances of his departure from ITV were, of course, very different. Let me give you an example of that, Rosanna. We talk about ITV,

one of the most successful global franchises in recent years, downtown Abbey, ITV. So, yes, you can talk about Correlation Street, ITV. So there are many amazing things about ITV, and that's important to remember.

So in terms of managing the brand, the recovery from this, if you were acting on behalf of them, I don't believe you, I even disclosed that you are. How would you go about saying this? Does somebody need to go at the top at management? I don't think someone needs to go at the top because I think the people at the top were like to. I mean, what I talked about, this young man,

and by way, people are quite right not to reference his name. You've got to remember he was a youngster, and it was a complete view of par by someone higher up. So he might not even realize he's been a vulnerable victim yet, but this young man has been a victim of a much older person. And the people around Phillips Goffield would have known what was going on, but absolutely the people at the top were probably deceived, because when they say they didn't know, I believe them,

because they're honest people with integrity. And knowing the people at the very top of ITV, I genuinely believe if they had genuinely known, they would have acted. So I think the people lowered down did not send the message upwards when asked. And what about Holly? His co-hosts, very difficult position to be,

and I've co-hosted shows before. When you're that comfortable with someone, that close with someone, you share a lot of time you're getting up early in the morning. And you know a lot about each other's lives. How deceived does she feel? Well, I suspect she feels immensely deceived because, yes, you can't.

I mean, you've got to remember, TV friendships and not real friendships, and of course I know they enjoy personal friendships with family holidays, but I doubt Billet Schofield brought the young man on the family holiday. So when she asked him, was it true? And he said no, it wasn't true.

What was she to believe? I mean, this lady is equally a victim of deception. Now, of course, in the coming weeks, people prove differently. That's a whole other conversation. But when I read, she must go. I don't quite see why. because I also know the public still love her.

I mean, she's a hugely talented presenter, lots of experience, you know, many different kinds of programmes under her belt. So I see no reason why a successful television career won't continue. I would like to think that not guilty by association exactly, but the court of a public opinion can be very strong as we know. Jonathan Shalett, thank you so much for making time to talk to us

with me here in the studio to continue this conversation, Times radio host, Henry Barnsoo, because Henry, to my knowledge, on ITV number of times, a number of these shows. A few times, doing this morning view with Holly and Phil and Rochelle. And I've had a very pleasant experience, as Giles Brandreth, who often does it as well,

and does Vanessa Fells, in the morning. But we float in, we float out, we're treated very well, giving coffee, giving croissant, and we're treated nicely by the presenters as well. And from what I could see, it seemed to be a fairly happy ship, but we don't know whether bodies are buried, so we've got no idea what it's really like to work on a show and spend eight or ten hours in that particular studio

or in that environment over at ITV or over in West London, wherever it's based. Now, when we're talking about this, you and I, we're talking about the croissants and the cars. I'd like to say there are no croissants on this show. But, you know, to the average view back home, they must be thinking those, you know, hoity-to-tie TV people. And is that why people get so outraged? Because they're giving hours of their time

to be entertained by these people every day and they're loyal to a show. It's a two-way process. It's a two-way process. I mean, the reason why, I don't know what the figures are at the moment, but the reason why it's the best part of a million people watching each morning is because they find a reason to watch.

Television is the friend for a lot of people, and there's a deep epidemic of loneliness in this country. So their best friend is that box in the corner of their room. And so they build up a relationship, especially over years, which is one of the reasons why, if they feel they've been deceived, they react so viciously and so strongly, and they cease to see, say, Philip Schofield.

even as a human being at this point. So do you think Holly will emerge from this unscathed? Jonathan was saying she's talented, she's hardworking, she was nothing but a faithful, a loyal, co-anchor and a good friend to Schofield all these years? Well, most of the people who are attacking her seem to be from the industry. There's certain people and looked at and checked their profile,

some of them have got a little bit of a connection with the industry, or people who just love piling on. But I suspect that if she can emerge with integrity, if nothing emerges that shows that she did know and that she lied as well, then she'll be fine because, I mean, she's still in the finest flush of her career. As Jonathan said, she's very versatile,

she's very, very pleasant on camera. She can do a whole range of shows, and that she isn't the person who has sinned here, is she? No, absolutely. Henry, do stick around. Esther's going to be joining us. Back in the studio, you're going to be our pack for this evening. We've got some really fun stories for the viewers coming up next.

But we'll be starting something a little more serious footage emerging of a woman dragged by a female Met officer. That was the female Met Officer who's dragged by the thief, a male colleague struggling to deal with it, filming it instead. We've got questions. Have the Met Police gone soft on criminals? We're going to be debating that next. Well, that is the talk coming up next. First, though, we're going to get to our pack for the evening the views of our uncensored panelists.

joining me in the studio Talk TV contributor Esther Cracu and the journalist and times radio host to Henry Bonsu, both of us joining still on the show. You've given us some good insights so far. And Esther, I did say we'd come back to policing. So let's start here. We will have a bit more fun, I promise. But this one is interesting.

This is a video this week. Let's show our viewers. While we talk about what is happening here, Britain's Police Federation has blasted the London Met Police after this video is released. A suspected sweet thief dragged a fever. female cop by her hair and threw her into a wall and an attack that has sparked ridicule on social media. So what you're seeing there is a thief actually swinging a Met Police officer around by a ponytail.

Allegedly, meanwhile, you've got her male colleague, the Met Police officer's colleague, filming this and saying, Madam, Madam, please, Madam, this was happening in Willsden North, North London, just this week. So it has led us to question here on the show. Is policing too soft in this country? Now it's a thing we keep coming back to. And, you know, I tend to have a bit more sympathy for our police. I think they do a very, very tough job indeed. And they get put in some very difficult positions.

But for me, for this one, guys, I mean, just watching one of the police officers, her colleague holding a camera and filming it. How would you feel, Esther, if you were swung around by your ponytail and I was filming it. Well, certainly, anyway, I'm built differently, so she wouldn't have had an easy over time. But I think that her colleague filmed it for evidence.

So I understand that. I have a very controversial opinion on this, because I actually saw a video of two female police officers trying to arrest this man and put him in handcuffs and he literally elbowed one in the face, punched the other one and ran off. And then I questioned why anyone thought it was a good idea to put two female officers on patrol at night.

I just thought, you know, the logistics of it was completely crazy. I think front-line police officers and all police officers obviously put themselves in danger should be men and should be men of a certain stature. And the reason why I say this is because I think the standards of our policing has really fallen down. It's not just about having, you know, men. They have to be men that are physically fit.

How many metropolitan police officers do we see with pot bellies? Where do you draw the line then? Should any people in the army be men, soldiers? Well, if they're on the front line, yeah, they should. Wow. Henry, agree? I really don't agree with that. I mean, I think what we saw in that video was a guy was clearly incompetent. He probably feared for his own safety, let alone that of his colleague.

I don't think that we can scale up from that to say that most police officers are incompetent and terrified and not. and not know how to do the job. I mean, just check out YouTube. You'll see plenty of officers who, given the chance of steaming, they do, and mob-handed. And sometimes we get a problem with too many officers who look to react first instead of educate, you know, explain, and then enforce. I think, as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said previously, there's an awful

lot of officers who should not be in the job, but it doesn't have the means in the way we know to get rid of them. And that is one of the skill sets they lack to be able to do the physical science. of the job. Well, that's because fitness testing has gone through the roof. I mean, the physical fitness of a lot of our officers is just not up to par. I mean, watching them chase criminals is actually quite funny. But also, there is a deterrent element to having strong, physically fit, intimidating looking men as police. If I'm not sure about that, let me give me an example, if I, as a woman called the police, because, God forbid, I was being, you know, abused by my partner

in a domestic violence situation, and two female officers came at the door. I'm sorry, I would not feel as safe. Have you ever watched mixed martial arts and UFC? You look at the kind of female box. Men are stronger than women. No, no. Power for pound, but there's an awful lot of women who are stronger than men. I'm stronger than most women I know. I poll dance, right?

Men are stronger than women. I've been born dancing for four years. I could take on a lot of moderately sized men. A lot of the job is about education and explanation before you get to enforce this. But there's the enforcement part of it also matters just as much as the other parts. And I'm sorry, but fat, not fit men. And I'm sorry, women shouldn't be in doing this. I don't think we've got enough fit men in this country.

to staff for the police that we need. But moving on, talking of deterrence, we want to show our viewers this video. We talk a lot on this show about climate activism, and to eco-activists and how police deal with them. Check out this. This is in Sweden. This was during their version of Strictly Come Dancing, their finale. You see an eco-activist taken out by a camera there. That is a camera on what we call a jib, a crane.

And the camera absolutely socks this activist over the head. Now, we're familiar with these eco-activists now. pouring orange powder over themselves. These guys, they were talking about restoring wetlands. They said, we like to dance, but the climate's more important. Is this how we should be dealing with it? Do you think that was accidental, Henry? I think it was accidental.

I mean, I didn't dance up and down with glee like you did. The problem is that these guys, what they're doing is counterproductive. I think when we look at polls, most people agree that mind-made climate change is happening and government has to do something about it, net zero targets. I think we have to get there by 2050, and some people think it should be brought forward. Let's wait and see whether or not we elect politicians who will actually make that happen. But if you look at what's going on around the world, it's not going to be by little things that our government does that will change things.

It's going to be, you know, China, India, the USA, the cops. And people watch what's going to happen this summer. We're going to get to 40 degrees. Again, look what happens in other countries. We have flooding in parts of the world which are not supposed to flood. So I think people have been persuaded, but running up and down and throwing orange powder is not going to change the needle at all. Yeah, and look, I'm with Henry on this, Esther.

You know, climate change is very real. We do need to face it on front. But is this the way to do with these activists that people find so irritating? I think they've got a message. Certainly not. I mean, they're nuisances. But I do think that's a beautiful bit of karma there.

I do think that nature works. The balance is in order. This is fantastic. We've got to say that we do respect the right to protest. You know, we're not swell abroad. No, I don't respect the right to terrorise the public. No, no, no. No, no.

A lot of these people, gluing yourself to do this is a thing. the M-25, you're putting people's lives at risk. Now, what they did specifically didn't necessarily put people's lives at risk, but I think on the grand scheme, it's a lot of... I'm all right. Let's cool off with the idea of ice cream. Henry said, you know, we'll get to 40 degrees this summer. Unfortunately, we probably will.

And ice creams, obviously in this country, we love to eat 99s, an ice cream with a flake in the top. This story now that Cabrory's flakes are too crumbly to be used in 99 cones. We went out to speak to an ice cream cellar, and this is what he said. German chocolate, very delicious and never been broken on the 99th plate. I'll try this, yeah, it's... it's had it a bit, it's very bright, it's probably better. Now we are used to the idea of chocolate bars getting smaller as we get older, but crumblier, difficult to handle. These are German-made ones he mentioned in the video.

Deutsche Chocolat. There is a British version, but I believe they're actually manufactured in Egypt. do take one of these if you can and just test them out because this British ones sizes and everything absolutely and this flake this flake

the British version doesn't actually taste of chocolate so I'm not even going to use it. It tastes like dirt it is incredibly crumbly yeah crumbly and a bit bitter not very nice well you say the German version isn't nice

but this is the one that the ice cream vendors actually prefer Henry at the moment because they say it is more stable in a 99th and it tastes of actual chocolate this doesn't taste like chocolate it tastes like a boot

These are the important things for us to consider here on this show whether or not flakes are too crumbly and you tell you what I'm just about possible to eat this but things change life moves on we're going to have German flakes in our ice cream cones this summer when it is 40 degrees unfortunately Henry Esther it's been fantastic having you in the studio difficult to talk through a fake that is it from me

I'll be back here tomorrow on Piers Morgan Unsensea good night