 Why should we believe him today? Well, only my friends and family need to worry about that because you don't have to worry about what I say anymore, do you? I'll just be saying that to the garden. Today we're going to talk about Philip Schofield. Greg Ross tells us about the videos we're going to watch. Yeah, not a lot for you to know in this video. This is an interview with BBC after he has fallen from grace. Mark can probably fill us in on a bunch of details about his career, but let's just say he has been the morning TV guy at ITV since I believe 2002 and the name to go to. He had an affair with someone on staff, and that is what we're going to hear about. OK, when did you first meet this young man in question? What were the circumstances? I was invited by a friend of mine to go to a school for something I've done thousands of times, whether it was immediately or sometime after. He said, will you will you follow him on Twitter because he's a he's a fan. I said, yeah, sure, no problem, which I did. And he probably came back saying thanks for the follow. And he was 15 at the time? Yeah, I follow 11,300 people. And in all the time I've been on Twitter, there has never been any whiff of impropriety. So he followed your Twitter, you followed him back. Did you start having a sort of email exchange or direct message exchange of any kind? Hardly, hardly at all. It was just all the way through, just on and off. And then he asked if he could visit the studios, work experience type of thing. I said, well, you come down and have a look for sure, which he did. Mark, where do you go? Yeah, OK, so Phillips Gofield until recently was very truly a national treasure, a British icon, the go to person to be presenting just about anything that was going on, started his career, I think maybe at the age of 17 at the BBC in the broom cupboard with Gordon the gopher. And if you're my age, then you were there with him. You watched his his show either yourself or with your brothers and sisters who were younger than you. So a real icon, done this thousands of times, he says, well, that's an exaggeration. It can't be thousands of times. And he's very exact about the eleven thousand three hundred people. So there's exact numbers and then more grandiose exaggeration around this whiff of inappropriate. So this idea of a bad smell and we do get a little bit of disgust with him. That's that's the kind of body language we'd expect to go with inappropriate. There's also this shocked expression that he has as he looks around a glass, so he's making all the right expressions to go with this idea of something inappropriate or shocking happening. Probably came back with a thanks for the follow. Probably came back with that. Well, did you or did you not did like which one happened? It'd be great to know if you know what what the the the communication started to be like. Um, did you ever start having a D a DM exchange is the question hardly ever at all just on or on and off? Well, no, then that's a yes. That's yes. Yes, you did. You did have direct message exchanges. So what you're telling me is as he starts to shake his head early on that question that he that that he didn't have DM exchanges. Yes, so he did have direct message, private exchanges with a minor. So, you know, it's not looking good for him at that point, because this is the crux of the thing. Has he started to groom somebody at a minor age? Now, in terms of his usual body language, he's a little bit more locked down than he normally would be in a TV interview. And his voice is the soft voice that he uses for very delicate interviews that he does where the the the subject matter is is delicate and needs handling carefully. So he's already adopted that vocal tone that he'll use in those situations. Interesting start for me. Let's see where this goes. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, Mark, I won't cover the same things you've covered because I love a lot of that, you know, shaking his head, no. And then suddenly having to correct it. Let's talk first of all about eye movement. We always get questions around eye access again. I'm a big fan of eye accessing, but I'm not when the questions are bad. This is a different story. This is going to be a great example of asking a guy a question that is single sensory channel. When did you start? How did you meet? And we're going to see his eyes access information. And I'm not going to go into great detail here just to tell you what we're doing is looking for a baseline and for a normal for this guy. And when they're asking him hard questions, he's accessing to his right. You'll see him look upright for visuals, kind of here, right? When he's doing auditory, what somebody said and digital memory, something he's just a matter of fact that he's recorded in his head. And we also see a very good pronounced real emotional eye access. We talk a lot about looking down the right may indicate emotion. But when it's real, when it's real emotion, your head drifts as well. And because your head weighs 13 pounds and it's just this chunk of dead weight, it also alters your entire body language. So we'll see his entire body arch. And that's a great opportunity for us to get a baseline on him and to start right out of the gate, looking for consistency. Look, he's told people enough times, you met this guy when he was 15. Why would he lie about that? Would be smarter to lie and say, no, he was 18, but he doesn't. So this is a great example of us looking at how this whole thing works and looking at eye access in an emotional state. A couple of last things he's barred up and barriered. And he has that softer voice and mark every person in this, every one of you has had an emotional moment where your tone, your cadence and everything drifts down. And the more beaten down you are and the more defeated you are, the softer your voice is going to become and the less pronounced. When you're not proud of something, your voice is not going to rise and shout it from the rooftops. Last thing I see is that brow rise when he says, yeah, when he's talking about when they ask, would you friend him? He said, yeah, that's acceptance. That's not him asking you for approval because it's a fleeting thing that moves. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, you guys got a lot of what I got here. The emotional accessing is down into the right. What Greg was talking about. Most people, when they're emotional, will look that direction. His blink rate is really high here. And when he says there's a whiff of impropriety, this is not a denial. And this isn't even a statement. He says, hardly a whiff is more suggestive of somebody being not able to detect the presence of something. Staying as unbiased as possible is really important to us at the behavior panel. The media plays such a huge role in shaping public opinion on the cases we discuss. And it's important to look at the larger context, not just the narrative you're being told. Ground news is a really amazing tool to do just that. With this website and app, we can look into anyone we're covering and get a visual breakdown of the news outlets talking about them. Ground news shows us the outlets, political bias, how factual it is, who owns the source and even which countries are covering the story. It's brilliant. I'll compare the headlines from articles reporting on the same story to see differences in language and how that could be shaping my view of the news happening. And the blind spot page shows articles under or over reported by sources from a specific political affiliation. So if I'm worried, I'll have a bias. I can check for blind spots. It certainly helps me try to keep a well rounded world view by looking for every side of the story. The behavior panel is all about finding common ground and appreciating different viewpoints and experiences. Check out www.ground.news.com forward slash TBP to stay fully informed on breaking news and avoid media bias. So with means that someone can't detect the presence of it. Then there's some large hesitancy. So he's waiting before he talks and he asked if he could come down to the studio right at that moment there. And this is commonly a deception indicator. But what we're really looking for is a cluster of things. Specifically, we're looking for the five C's of deception here that I think I came up with randomly on one of our videos that we were filming a few months ago, which is in order of importance, change, context, clusters, culture, and then the checklist. What people think are the deception indicators. The least important on all these five, still very important, made the cut. But those five things in order. And that's all I got for this one, Scott. All right. A lot of people are going to think that the breaking eye contact of the looking away means he's being deceptive, not at all. He's just looking away and thinking. This is somebody who's who's like Greg was saying or I think it's Greg. He's almost beaten down. He's defeated. That's the we're seeing the body language of a person who's defeated and of someone who's being honest most of the time. We always ask if why don't you do somebody's shows, you know, honest body language, non deceptive. We're going to see a lot of non deceptive body language here. And it's a great example of we see. And we're going to see some classic examples of things we talk about all the time. And I'm sure you guys as we've been doing so far, break down each one of those. So the looking away part that's not really don't see that as as breaking eye contact because they're lying. That's not what's happened at all. And he doesn't look really tired. He just looks defeated. He looks worn out like he's been thinking about this and going through this and hearing about it all day long, every day. And it's just wearing on him. So that's what we're seeing. I'm trying to go over stuff that you guys didn't cover. So. Oh, and when he's tilt in his head, a lot of that is as we go through here, it changes back and forth. There are different reasons, in my opinion, that he's doing it. But one of the main reasons is to show these listening. And so it said we'll go sideways like that. But in this situation, I think it's more like what Greg was talking about in this situation. So and there's there are other times we're going to see his neck will be open, where it's showing that he doesn't he's not afraid. Usually if someone's being deceptive, they'll get that head down a little bit and they'll start guarding their neck with their with their chin and the sides of their face. And we're not seeing that here at all at all. He looks very relaxed. Everything's fluid. And there are there. I always talk about loping when someone's talking and they're just telling me a story and is loping right along. He's loping, but it's in a different form. He's he's telling you everything they should be telling you. And he's thought about this, but he hadn't sat down and worked out a little, a little tightened up all the screws and and little knobs and things that should be tightened up. But he's getting really close. So he's not loping, but he's but he's very comfortable with what he's saying. He's not guarded with what he's saying or anything. He's thinking about it and he's structuring it, but not in a guarded fashion, not to make sure he doesn't say anything wrong. He just wants to make sure he gets everything out. Right. We good? Yeah. Can I say, can I say something? Sure. Hey. The big dog of elicitation, John Nolan, has released a bunch of his books. And if you're interested in getting a copy or a few hundred, we'll put a note down in the description of this video and you can go find the link when the best books ever. John's one of the best in the world, Confidential by John Nolan. How many of them are you say there's like a couple hundred, five hundred or so. It's whatever. So guys, you can't go wrong with this book. It's built for business, but it applies to every part of your life. John's the best selling it, though. It's not we're not. It's not our product. Yeah. And we get questioned all the time because people ask me for my go to book for elicitation is that and he just released a bunch of them. One of those tape replays. OK, when did you first meet this young man in question? What were the circumstances? I was invited by a friend of mine to go to a school for something I've done thousands of times, whether it was immediately or sometime after he said, will you will you follow him on Twitter because he's a he's a fan? So I said, yeah, sure, no problem, which I did. And he probably came back saying thanks for the follow. And he was 15 at the time. Yeah, I follow eleven thousand three hundred people. And in all the time I've been on Twitter, there has never been any whiff of impropriety. So he followed your Twitter. You followed him back. Did you start having a sort of email exchange or direct message exchange of any kind? Hardly, hardly at all. It was just all the way through just on and off. And then he asked if he could visit the studios, work experience type of thing. I said, well, you come down and have a look for sure, which he did. How old was he when he made that first? There's two stages. How old was he when he first said to you, I'm interested in television? Was he 18 by that point? Nineteen, I would think. Nineteen by then. And then when he said, could I come and have work experience? He would have been older than 19. Well, just more or less about the same time, because I'd organised it. And what did he ask you for? Did he so you asked you for work experience and you said, sure, come and have a look? Well, I've done it all my life. I'm best friends with the people who got me into television. And I've always believed in in paying it forward. And so that was my, you know, it's just the didn't think about it. I just did that. When you look back now, if you were to look back at those messages now, is there any sense in which you were flirting with him? No. I've been 41 years in television. You know, nothing like this before, you know, no, no accusations. I mean, this is this is all, you know, accusations, which is why I want to put them to. And so if you're honest now, again, brutally honest, if you think back to that, because a lot's happened since then. It's a long time ago. But if you think back to those initial interactions, was there any element of it which was sexual? No. So there'd been a period of several years when you didn't meet him. Yeah, yeah, I hadn't seen him. And then when you met him in person, was there a little moment of sexual attraction then even? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. OK, so to be absolutely clear, how old was this young man when you first had any kind of sexual contact with him? Twenty. Twenty. I mean, this is obviously the number of it and for the record and to put speculation to rest, let me ask you, did you have any kind of sexual relationship or sex with him when he was underage? No, God, no, I think that is a good and in my statement, it says, you know, consensual relationship, fully legal. I mean, that was approved by both sides. You know, that's no, no, Chase, what do you got? So the interviewer in one segment in here is talking about this work experience, and then he says, and you said, come and have a look. And he says, I've done this all my life. And when he says this, it's not an answer to the question. And that's a big deal. You get a non-answer statement that is potentially deceptive, but we're not really seeing a lot of cluster here because there's an eyebrow flash with this, which is a request for approval from other people. I think Greg coined that term. And then he says, I'm paying it forward. And right here is the strongest point of fear with this. For some reason, there is fear here. Then there's some emotional accessing, some downright movement. You can see this in every conversation that you have outside of YouTube. And it's super easy to spot. But then there's something that I have never really seen live before, like in an interrogation or interview, where he does this gesture of removing a mask and like taking his mask off. And I know Mark's going to hit on this and have some incredible theatrical or historical reference for it. But then he says, just didn't think about it, just did that. That was his response when he started doing this mask gesture here. And I think he wants to consistently reframe the interview in contrast with his career and these 40 years that he's spent in television. And this isn't this. Well, this contrast and framing isn't strategic or planned. In my opinion, I think it's how he subtly, psychologically, has been helping himself to deal with the complexities and the stress of this situation. So we're seeing his mindset. We're not saying a plan. We're seeing his mindset in the shift in perspective is a mechanism. A lot of people use in situations like this. I'm just going to zoom out. I'm going to grab the map and just zoom way out to where the thing gets a little bit smaller. So I think this is honest behavior and anything here like spikes and blink rate are stress signals. So remember those five C's we talked about understanding the context and the culture will prevent you from making kind of an amateur mistake of thinking that you've spotted deception by seeing one thing. That's all I got, Mark. Yeah. So so I think that gesture that he makes there is certainly one of dislocation. So so this this idea of his mind not quite being where it should be at the time. He needs to convince us that this is not a pattern of behavior for him. He needs to convince us that we're not going to find a whole bunch of other cases like this for him. He's got he's got to convince us that this is a one off occasion, essentially. But he is going to tell us about a pattern. He's saying, well, you know, we were best of friends. I'm into paying it forward. So he's giving us a reason to say, I do this with everybody. I get best of friends with the people who get me into the business. I want to do the same with with other other people. And and so there is something familiar about this. These are these are family and this is altruistic or there is a debt that needs paying, you know, I was led into the business. I'm now in debt and so I need to pay that debt forward to others. Now, the story, the narrative of the debt that must be paid is a big grand narrative and we play it out all the time. Well, you know, I owe them. I owe it to the universe. I owe it to people because something happened to me. He's he's consciously or unconsciously playing on that. It could be very unconscious because because these grand narratives are within our unconscious mind, a great deal of the time. So, yeah, so for me, Chase, that that as you call it, that mask gesture is on there because there is the dislocation. At some point, he wasn't in his right mind around it. But just that point, we're not going to see a succession of this happening, is what he what he wants to convince us of. I wrote dissociative expression in my notes. Yeah, that would that would make a lot of a lot of sense. Yeah, you know, I might say discombobulated, you know, just just stuff. He's got to convince us stuff doesn't quite fit. It was it was as you'll say later on, it was a moment. It was a moment. So that's what the narrative he's going for. However, the denials here, I do see lip compression with with the denials. That's not enough to show that there's there's, you know, deception going on. But it's interesting. I think it's very interesting that the movement in a lot of his body language around this area starts to happen before his speech. So he's not quite congruent. That's quite a big thing. There's some eye blocking in there. That's quite a big thing. Use of the word absolutely. We we we see that a lot with people who are being deceptive, but because somebody is using that once doesn't mean anything. But there's a cluster starting to happen around this. And the last thing I have on this is why the search for the age of this person. When asked the age, there's a pause and he searches for the age. You would expect that he's got his story sorted out and he'd know what age he needs to to give or he'd research the age. He'd know exactly what age. So why why at that point? Can't he put his finger quite on the age? Interesting. Scott, what do you got on this one? All right. I think this is great because we're seeing an interviewer, a professional interviewer interview, a professional interviewer. So there you're getting good, clean questions or getting good, clean answers for the most part. So one thing that I noticed here is that Schofield is matching and mirroring the other guy, which I thought was really interesting because we haven't really seen many illustrators at this point. So the interviewer starts doing his left hand and then Schofield starts gesturing with his right hand as he goes through. I think it's really interesting that he's doing this and I'm sure he does that from all the interviews he's done, trying to connect with people, match them and mirror what they're doing. The guy named Milton Erickson, he's a doctor, Milton Erickson. He was a hippo therapist and he was a psychiatrist or a psychologist psychiatrist. OK, because I was to get those twisted on him. And to make it a long story short, he's one of the first ones to do the studies on matching and mirroring. It has to do with him being a child and all things he went through to do that. But he talked about how when you when you're when so what we will see a touch of later on is the matching part. And when you talk about was how when you start to connect with someone, you want to talk like they talk. So if they talk about, oh, I hear what you're saying, that sounds good to me. Then you want to use words like that to deal with hearing. You deal with vision and you say, oh, that that looks good to me. I see what you're saying. And then you want to talk like that. You know, words that deal with vision with colors, things like that. And then you've got the kinesthetic part where the person will say, oh, he's a little bit rough around the edges or that's a sticky personality, that type of thing, how things feel. So you want to use words and terms that talk about how things feel when you're talking to that person at the same time, when people mirror each other or naturally, you don't see one person walk up and do this. And the other person just all of a sudden walks up and does that as well. They kind of you got to ease your way into it so you don't look like you're mocking them or making fun of them. But I see a lot of that matching and mirroring happen in these. The matching comes along a little in a little while more. But the mirroring happens quite often here at the top. As far as stress cues go, I've not seen a whole lot of them here. And like Chase was saying, there are no I'm not seeing clusters of stress cues at all. I'm not seeing any adapters except for the deep breaths. And I unless you look at it overall, you would say, oh, you know, it doesn't look very stressed. He looks stressed because when we see him, but that's the entire picture. But you can't it's tough to pick out one specific thing. Say, oh, here's why stress. We're seeing an adapter. We're seeing this. He's doing that. So I think as a whole, he looks stressed. But it's that defeated stress. I don't know. Maybe we should come up with a word for that. But it's kind of feel sorry for him because that everybody's felt that way before, you know, for whatever reason, you come out of thinking like that guy. All right, Greg, what do you got? Yeah, I don't think everybody has felt like this guy does because the thing you're talking about, something I refer to as personal extinction, you you will rarely get the chance to see a person on the verge of personal extinction. I describe that always have as in the interrogation room, I could see it. Chase has got a box in his chest. It's got four items in it. I'm making up a number and each of those things is precious to Chase. Well, if I get them out and I start going, there's one that's got three, right? As I get to that last one, guess what happens to do to do to do that guy will do anything he'll dance for me to protect that last thing. This guy's done to his last paper. This guy's down to everything about this guy just changed overnight. As the guy goes through and we see that blink rate, there's a reason for that one great. I agree with Chase. If we took it out of context, we said, hey, he's blinking. He must be lying. Well, they're asking him the hardest questions period. They're asking anything sexual occur underage. Well, that's a threat. And they're asking him about the age of this guy at that time. Those are the threat questions. You expect a person to ramp up during threat questions. Interestingly, Mark, when he goes to look for that age, he goes back to the same memory space we were looking at earlier. So it's a good indicator. It shows us he's going back to a place that he's recalled data from before. Now, if he went over here, I might go, wait a minute, something's wrong. If you look down here, I might think, wait a minute, he's going back that same space. There's a thing that actually Marion Corinch and Jim McCormick, Jim McCormick is at take risk dot com, coined a phrase called contingency thinking. Now, contingency thinking and that kind of thing is pretty common, but they use the term specifically. And what that means is I prepare certain pieces of material for the meeting. We're going to see a few of these coming up here shortly for the risk that this might occur. Well, if I don't prepare everything, then Mark, your question about why he's rambling around his head is probably that. So we've got this personal extinction. We got this body language piece. There is a place in here that if I were to interview, I would have been a little bit tighter with words. I would define more clearly what I meant by sexual in the text. He doesn't. So maybe he dodged something there. I don't know. But the blink rate and there's no other cluster there to show us. So I don't think there's a whole lot. But there is when he does an I lock at absolutely not after a really serious blink rate increase, that's when I would have gone back. Let me define that for you just in case so we don't have any any confusion. This all the rest of this, though, he's got shock face when he's asked if he had underage sexual contact with a guy and then hard eye contact after with a request for approval, no. And I think, Scott, you can't overstate how much he has interviewed people in his past, how many thousands of people he's met and talked to. So if you're looking for clusters, I think all of us would say, we don't see a cluster in this. We see some blink rate increases. We see some things. But if you take into account personal extinction, you take into account contingency thinking and you take into account the most stressful questions you ask, we see something different. One of those tape replays. How old was he when he made that first? There's two stages. How old was he when he first said to you, I'm interested in television? Was he 18 by that point? 19, I would think 19 by then. And then when he said, could I come and have work experience? He would have been older than 19 or just more or less about the same time, because I'd organized it and what did he ask you for? He asked you for work experience and you said, sure, come and have a look. Well, I've done it all my life. I'm best friends with the people who got me into television. And I've always believed in in paying it forward. And so. That was my, you know, it's just a doesn't think about it. I just did that. When you look back now, if you were to look back at those messages now, is there any sense in which you were flirting with him? No, I've been 41 years in television. You know, nothing like this before, you know, no, no accusations. I mean, this is this is all, you know, accusations, which is why I want to put them to. And so if you're honest now, again, brutally honest, if you think back to that, because a lot's happened since then, it's a long time ago. But if you think back to those initial interactions, was there any element of it which was sexual? No. So there'd been a period of several years when you didn't meet him. Yeah, yeah, I hadn't seen him. And then when you met him in person, was there a little moment of sexual attraction then even? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. OK, so to be absolutely clear, how old was this young man when you first had any kind of sexual contact with him? Twenty. Twenty. I mean, this is obviously the number of it and for the record and to put speculation to rest, let me ask you, did you have any kind of sexual relationship or sex with him when he was underage? No, God, no, I think that is a good and in my statement, it says, you know, consensual relationship, fully legal. I mean, that was approved by both sides, you know, that's no, no. And then when he got work experience at this morning, so he's then he's 20 years old at this stage, he's someone who's come in. Well, that was, I think, by that stage at 20, he'd done that there was a work that he came in for a visit. We went out for because he was going to be picked up. I was worried that he might be on his own. So I said, well, we'll wait, let's go have a bite to eat. It wasn't a meal. It was just a waiting for someone to pick him up. So it was, you know, yeah, don't worry, you know, don't go out there on your own and be picked up. So at that point, you weren't in any kind of a relationship? No, God, no. Right. OK. How long after it after that was it that you had the beginnings of a sexual relationship with him? He'd been working at the show for a few months. And and we become mates. We were mates and, you know, we got around the studios. You hang out together, you know, chat to each other, that sort of stuff. And then in my dressing room one day, something happened, which, you know, obviously I will regret forever for him and for me, mostly him. Um, happened maybe four or five times over the next few months. And I know it's unforgivable. Um, but we weren't boyfriends. We weren't in a relationship. I was really in a mess with my own sexuality at the time. And it just happened. How old was he at this stage? Twenty twenty one. Greg, what do you got? So here, when we get in, let me yeah, here, when we get into this account, I would start to be more suspicious. Now there's a whole bunch going on that appear to me to be clusters. And it doesn't mean that he's lying out right. However, let's walk through a list of these things. Look at his eye accessing. Remember where he was going before? Now look at where he's going now. He's going to a new place. Something is up and something is different. He's navigating on how to characterize it in least damaging way. Maybe maybe he's thinking, well, how should I approach this? But if he's going here for visual memories constantly and then you ask him a question about what happened, he goes, well, it was kind of spur of the moment. Hold on, let's figure that out. Maybe we'll see an indicator later. But for some reason he has moved where he is going. Maybe for some reason associated with how he's framing the conversation in his head. But pay attention to that eye accessing. This is why I accessing matters. You look for a baseline and you look for a deviation, big deviation. His cadence gets even slower. Either earlier or now is out of whack because things are changing dramatically. Ford and backward pass a question, you would happen. OK, so tell me about what happened with you and this guy. How did that happen? Was it before or after? Did it go this way or that way? And if you just watch him, his signaling for the regret of this whole thing and his emotional eye accessing are at the right time, his breathing rate changes at the right time and he shows disdain that horrible taste look in his face for that it just happened when he says it just happened. I'm suspicious of how it just happened and was there some reason it happened and what part did he play? I would dig into those things because for some reason he is deviated from his baseline dramatically and there is a cluster. Scott, what do you got? All right, I think for the most part, his stress cues pretty much remain the same. They're they're very low. He does spike in his blink rate a little bit in certain spots. That's normal. That's fine. Because we all we're all going to as a question. You got to think ferment you may blink a little bit or you may have to run through something. So that's fine. Other than the deep breaths, I'm really not seeing a lot of adapters in there. His illustrator is really smooth and fluid, which lets us know he's really not worried about what he's going to say specifically. He's not going to let something out by accident. So he's not locked down and trying to pay attention to what he's saying word by word like we see quite often in some of the people that we talk about on here and his answers. They sort of continue to lop along. It's it's it's more of a stress loop, but it's still so I think it's because of the overall feeling he's got that defeated feeling. But but he's just letting the information just come right out without really stopping and being real jerky with it. So I think that lets us know that he's he's being honest or is not guarding what he says. But I think this is the the behavior of someone who's given up, you know, and has accepted their fate as what's going to happen. Because he's he seems really down. We're not seeing a lot of stress queues. So it's it's not that down of something bad's going to happen to me. I think he's already accepted the fact that some bad's happened to him and he knows what's coming and he understands what's happening and what's going to happen and I'm not seeing any for me. I'm not seeing deception queues in there at all. Chase, what do you got? So there's a there's a cultural underpinning that's quietly under the surface of this. If you just listen between the lines here and I'm just going to go full disclosure here. I'm going to go off the rails in some of these videos. I'm not even going to profile the video. I'm just going to be talking about this issue, but I'm going to be talking about the behavioral aspects of what's secretly going on here as the videos continue. Some videos I'm just going to skip just so I can give you these little pieces of what's probably happening under the surface. So think about what you saw in this clip here. There's a strong reminder that it wasn't a full meal together. It wasn't a date together. And when he was of legal age, there's a vehement denial of it being a relationship. There's a very strong reminder that they were mates or just friends. There's a strong statement of we weren't boyfriends, we weren't in a relationship. And he says also in a mess with my own sexuality at the time, if you think about somebody his age who grew up in the 60s, their perceptions around sexuality, especially homosexuality, would have been significantly influenced by the climate of their childhood. During this era, Western culture, from what I know, is steeped in hetero, what they call norm normativity. I think nowadays this is the belief that heterosexuality is the norm, the default. Homosexuality was misunderstood, stigmatized and sometimes legally penalized in some places. Now imagine growing up in that environment in kindergarten, elementary school, schools were like tiny societies mirroring all of these wider societal norms. And the rules of the game, so to speak, were just these rigid, conventional things that emphasize just these traditional roles and relationships, but they marginalized everything else. So children develop beliefs that carry into adulthood without their consent or their permission. And when something's made fun of so often in childhood, they form powerful aversion to that idea and their identity is shaped in these formative years, it's so deep that you see adults feeling shame, adults feeling shame for something that was formed in childhood and reinforced for decade upon decades. So the denial here is about homosexuality and I think it's a deep level unconscious shame, which is unneeded, doesn't need to be there, that conflicts with an idealized self image. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, lovely. So look, just skipping a little bit backwards into that last video, because I think it's important to say that he he had that very strong question around impropriety with a minor, which he says, look, I think that's in our and then changes it to my statement. He would know exactly what's in there or his statement. And he says it's approved by both sides, which suggests that there could be conflict there and there needs to be approval and suggest there may well be a settlement going on. I think it's important to say that because that will come up a little bit later on. Has something been arranged between these two? Some kind of settlement in order. Now, I think, you know, given given he's got past this very strong question, it's interesting that this bit there is a strong change in he does fought a bit, a little bit going out to eat because he doesn't want this person to be on their own while that while they're picked up, well, White City, there are at least three close by subway underground stations. If somebody's picking you up from White City, they can just drive into the driveway. It's very well protected. It's a very nice area, White City at that time. You're going to be absolutely fine. If he's 17, 18, 19, 20, whatever age he might be at this point, and he's working as a runner, he's going to be OK. It's going to be all right. You don't need if your Phillips go field, I would say as altruistic as you might want to project yourself off as I was just being nice and keeping this kid safe at a somebody who knows London is going to be in TV is going to be just fine being picked up at White City. They're going to be just fine. It's going to be, you know, it's the old BBC. It's going to be fine. So so there's a lot of reasoning and justification for this for this this food together. But Chase, to your point, I think I think you're right. I don't think it is about him trying to lie about something. I think it's about the culture of the time because he says something happened. That happened. It just happened. Well, that's distancing. So is he distancing because we know he's been clear about about there. There was an act there. There was there was undoubtedly a sexual act. He's just not going to say that. Why? Because I don't think he can say that. I think he personally isn't in a position where he's in really to be out with himself and and and other people. He can't say the word. So I don't think it is deception. And he says he regrets it and it's unforgivable. So he's taking already a lot of responsibility. Interesting, as we go forward, let's try and work out how much of that responsibility and regret is about the act and how much it is to deflect us away from other things that might be going on, how much of that regret is honest, how much of it might be about something else. That's all I got on this one. One of those tape replays. And then when he got work experience at this morning, so he's then he's 20 years old at this stage, he's someone who's come in. Well, that was, I think, by that stage at 20, he done that there was a work that he came in for a visit. We went out for because he was going to be picked up. I was worried that he might be on his own. So I said, well, wait, let's go have a bite to eat. It wasn't a meal. It was just a waiting for someone to pick him up. So it was, you know, yeah, don't worry. You know, don't go out there on your own and and and be picked up. So at that point, you weren't in any kind of a relationship. No, God, no. Right. OK. How long after it after that was it that you had the beginnings of a sexual relationship with him? He'd been working at the show for a few months. And and we become mates. We were mates and, you know, we got around the studios. You hang out together, you know, chat to each other, that sort of stuff. And then. In my dressing room one day, something happened, which, you know, obviously I will regret forever for him and for me, mostly him. Um, but it happened maybe four or five times over the next few months. And I know it's unforgivable, but we weren't boyfriends, we weren't in a relationship. I was really in a mess with my own sexuality at the time. And it just happened. How old was he at this stage? Twenty twenty one. Before we get into the relationship, what happened after that moment in the dressing room? If we go back because you were very specific in your wording and your statement about how the relationship was unwise, but not illegal. And the question is of legality centres around your relationship with him before he was 18, just be really clear, your relationship between when you met him when he was 15 and then when he was 18 was occasional direct messages, no pictures of each other sent to each other, occasional direct messages. And you would say that that wasn't really flirtatious at all. Just work related, just, you know, career, the career advice, career help. And those sort of sexual forwardness at all in any of that stuff. OK. How long did you then have a relationship with him, which was sexual in nature? As I said, it probably happened five times, maybe six times, nothing more than that. So when did your relationship with him end and why? I was at the time really in a beginning to get into a very poor mental state with my own sexuality. And I thought that was bad, nothing like this. And I think it just sort of drifted. I mean, we still stayed mates, we're still mates, you know, still stayed friendly. And I got him work because obviously, you know, you're living in London, you're struggling. And he I got him runner's jobs on other shows that I did because he was a a very good runner and a mate and someone that you know, someone that you know, it's always nice to have a team around you of people that you that you know. And Mark, what do you got? Yeah, so no pictures. So he's talking about the direct messaging here. We want to be sure that there has been there's been private messaging between Phillips Gofield and at that time a minor. And the question is, were any pictures exchanged? No, no, he says, but it's very, very quiet on that. Now, is that as as Scott has coined, is that a fading fact there? Or is that defeat? Don't know, could be could be either because we have got somebody as Greg, as you're saying, is is having an existential crisis at this point. And we could have some extreme levels of soft voice because of that defeat. As I said, five times, maybe six times. And he leans in on that on the six times. Well, the last time he was saying it was four or five. So we've got scope creep happening here. There are the numbers, the numbers creep around. You know, it would be it would be helpful if there was more definition around some of these important numbers, I would say. Just work related. And there is a prolonged single shrug on all of this. Single shrug can often mean some uncertainty about about that. So should that be probed into a little bit more? Are you sure it was just work related? You know, could there be something else there? He's really playing the idea here of of him being a victim of his own sexuality and having a poor mental state because of that. So he wants a narrative, you know, it could be true, absolutely could be true. I'm not saying it's not true, but but he's putting forward this story of he's not comfortable with his sexuality and so he has a poor mental state. And so there is just this one moment where he starts to make poor choices. Again, he's got to assure us that there is no pattern, that this isn't going to be savile, this isn't going to reveal a pattern of behavior because the British public in their mind are going, you know, is this another of our great British icons who's going to turn out to be the most sinister thing we've ever seen? That's what is on the British public's mind right now. That's what he's up against right now. He says he was a very good runner, a very good runner. Well, to my point earlier, a very good runner doesn't need to be accompanied around or outside White City. A very good runner can find their way around London. That's their job is to run around the studio all over the place. So if somebody says, go get me this, that they will go and find it somewhere in the studio or somewhere in outside of London. And they will they are a self starter. They can get stuff done. They're not asking how and why and what they get stuff done. And they and they get less trouble is created by them, not started by them. So good IQ, usually really good people, skills, usually and the ability just to get stuff done. So again, to the earlier point, it doesn't make any sense of him saying, look, didn't want to leave the guy alone because the one thing you want to do with a runner is leave them alone, get them running around, get them doing their job. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, a couple of things. Look, in the last video, we noticed that there was a deviation. There were clusters of behavior that were different. He changed his eye accessing. What we're going to see is anytime it's around any actual homosexual act, we see shifts and changes, I think, chase to your point. If he's his whole life lived in a straight kind of lifestyle and then suddenly has to admit this, there's that personal extinction piece coming back. And that's going to be where we see the most deviation. Interestingly here, we see a lower jaw stretch, that lower jaw stretch thing he does that usually see associated with palms up, shoulders up, and that's a submission. It's just what do I do? Usually you see their head shrink in and that kind of thing. And that happened right after I thought that was bad, but nothing like this. And when he said nothing like this, look at the emotional eye accessing as he just has head down to his right. You can see this guy is hammered. Something is really hitting him hard and we know what it is. So then is my the only part in here that I find awkward is and it's painful to watch is when he's shopping his answer for how many times it happened. Because he goes five, five, six times, maybe. Yeah, look, if you if you nodded, if you check in your head, no. Or look shocked, he probably said three because he's shopping for what's acceptable, what's normal and what's OK. We see that all the time. Anytime a person is at threat and you're on top of them and you're after them, that's going to be what they do. They're going to try to shop their answer as much as they can. He's got an upward, low and elongated syllables as he's navigating words. And then he navigates words very carefully around his sexuality. He starts to throw it out there. And then he does that down right and down left back to internal voice with a request for approval, his forehead up and his cadence shifts as he navigates. What's interesting to watch in this guy is like everybody else. He's going to have good and bad moments. But we're looking for changes that are meaningful and clusters. We're going to see him go through a lot of changes as he moves through this video. And some of them are going to be more sheltered than others, normal, especially in a situation like this. I think he's navigating the words for what to say and what not to say. He's admitting to having done it's a matter of how many times what exactly he has done and how old it was is all we're seeing protection on. Scott, what do you got? All right, we're seeing a lot of side neck and throat in this. I talked about that earlier, how quite often you're being honest, you know, it doesn't bother you to show your neck and throat and the person who's most likely being deceptive will sort of guard that and maybe with their hand. It may be with their their chin like that. It just it you can do it several different ways. Their shoulders come up a lot of different ways to do it. So for that, I think that's again, is in the whole picture. That's part of the stress as well, because he's so he's just defeated and he's got that lean on. And so I think that's why we're seeing a lot of that neck as well. Well, he's illustrating his head and doing those head nods when he says really poor mental state, he's affirming that those are affirmation nods or confirmation nods where he's he's telling how bad it was. I think it must have been fairly bad for him having having done that because he wants to make sure he gets that point across that he's having a really hard time. We see it on him physically, but he's also saying what he's talking about, what he's experienced at that point as well. It's cadence slows down, his volume stays pretty much the same. And his diction gets really clean and clear. And he's making that point where he says we stayed mates and we're still mates. He makes us this boxing, a little box there. We used to call it the Clinton box right down here. Mark has a different name from that in one of his truth planes. Mark, what plane is this? Well, that you're in between the you're up in the passion plane there, but you are squeezing the melon. You're squeezing the melon. As we call it. That sounds so dirty. Anyway, so that's what he's doing. We used to call it the Clinton box. It's kind of like that down here a little bit, I guess he's trying to make sure that he gets that point across and shows how how important it is, how important it is for him. He's got the wide eyes, that eye lock. So that's a that's a pretty big deal, too. I think there's the two most important things he wants to get across this. And I'm not seeing really any cues of deception here. I mean, he's watching what he says a little bit, but I don't see him just ball face line. I agree with you, Greg, where he's shopping for a number. He does that again in a little while when he misses a number on something else. He's already said, but it's as far as just plain old straight out of the gate line. I'm not seeing any of that. Chase, what do you got? If you watch this clip, all the problems that you that I think a lot of us are describing here is a struggle with identity and self image. So the depth of our core identity and self image is so powerful. It can cause this kind of depression and confusion you're hearing him describe here. Still wanting to refer to him as a mate and friend only. Romantic side being left out, just makes it emotionally easier to a lifetime of exposure to this literal programming, and this is why it's sometimes ridiculous for people to think they can change culture by changing words and phrases because they ignore identity as a whole. And a lot of us might pretend we determine who we are at our core. But the truth is these things are ingrained not just in our mind, but who we are as a person, our identities from a very young age. So much so as some adults even grow up to make fun of it the same way that they did in middle school or elementary school, not knowing that they're carrying for these elementary or middle school experiences. So when we witness something in those formative years is made fun of or that we see people getting ostracized for as kids, we learn that if we feel those things, we're supposed to snuff that out and feel shame if those feelings come up. And what do humans do when we feel shame? We I think pretty much everybody knows we tend to make fun of it and other people or judge other people who have the same stuff. And it helps us to maybe extinguish those thoughts of faults in our own. So essentially, if I can just point it out in somebody else, then I can eradicate it in myself, which is awful thinking, but it's just part of the human condition. And I think we're we're seeing that here. It's all good. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that was one of those tape replays. Before we get into the relationship, what happened after that moment in the dressing room? If we go back because you were very specific in your wording in your statement about how the relationship was unwise, but not illegal. And the question is of legality centres around your relationship with him before he was 18, just be really clear. Your relationship between when you met him when he was 15 and then when he was 18 was occasional direct messages, no pictures of each other, sent to each other, occasional direct messages. And you would say that that wasn't really flirtatious at all. It was just work related, just career advice, career help. And those sort of sexual forwardness at all in any of that stuff. OK. How long did you then have a relationship with him, which was sexual in nature? As I said, it probably happened five times, maybe six times. Nothing more than that. So when did your relationship with him end and why? I was at the time really in a beginning to get into a very poor mental state with my own sexuality and I thought that was bad, nothing like this. And I think it just sort of drifted. I mean, we still stayed mates, we're still mates. And I still still still stayed friendly and I got him work. Because obviously, you know, you're living in London, you're struggling. And he I got him runners jobs on other shows that I did because he was a very good runner and a mate and someone that you know is always nice to have a team around you, people that you know, both asked. And people would say the circumstances are as follows here. You met someone who was a child. You were in a position of power over them. You used your power eventually to give them something they craved, which is a shot at a job in the media. You nurtured a relationship and then that relationship became sexual. And they might ask, what's the difference between that and grooming? Well, I would say that the initial list of things was not right anyway. Tell me why? Because it was a totally innocent picture, a totally innocent Twitter follow of which I follow eleven thousand four hundred people. And and then it was a completely innocent backwards and forwards over a period of time about a job, about careers, you know, I mean, you do that. What's what's wrong with that? What's wrong with talking to someone no matter, you know, what age they are? Does that mean that if you know, if you're following anyone on Twitter, that you absolutely don't talk to anybody else or you don't give advice. So I disagree with the summation that you just gave because that does mean to very grave picture. In which case, why do you say it was unwise? Because you're clearly sensitive to the power differential and you're clearly mindful of the dangers of abuse of power. The brief communications backwards and forwards up to the point that he came to work on this morning, I think was just chat. What was unwise was the fact that it happened. And that was a very, very grave error. Now, it was consensual, but it was my fault. Why? Because I shouldn't have done it. I shouldn't have done it. It was it's his entirely. My he's an innocent party here and I appreciate, you know, how. You know, there is a moment you have a moment. There's just a moment. But he is entirely and completely innocent, although it was consensual. I was older. I should have known better. I shouldn't I shouldn't have done it. Greg, what do you got? Yeah, this is an interesting one because remember, I started off talking about Jim McCormick and that contingency thinking. This is clearly right in his wheelhouse of contingency thinking. It's OK. I'll admit guilt to sexual behavior with another man. I am not going to say I groom this person from 15 and you can see it because when he's accused, the accusation comes up, he loses fluency. His brain goes to touch, touch, touch, touch, touch, touch, and he starts trying to make a list. Now, that would be a different thing if it was Bob from down at the the Schwerma store, but it isn't. This is a guy who presents for a living and has for decades. So he's much more fluid in front of a camera, much more calm, much in his speech patterns are much better than an average person. When he starts to do that, we know that something's happened. But he does have a very good, clear plan for how to get out of it. He prepares an answer and then he starts to walk through it. You see him using his hands and his body language is congruent. He starts boxing things and walking them across until he gets to his area of guilt. And then he owns it. He starts to own and say, yep, I did this. Nope, I didn't do that. And then when he's assaulted again about the power differential in that, he loses fluency again because he's in a spot where he has to back up and regain it when he gets back, then he gets back to his fluent self. And you can see him working through those words as his eyes drift off to his his left. You pay attention. Now we're back in that creative side is he's working through the white words, right words. Now we go back to it just happened when we were talking about how this thing unfolded, we've got over here for recall, we got over here for conjecture and for explaining. That makes it pretty interesting for me to watch the rest of it. But he clearly takes ownership and he clearly puts this in his guilt film. But sexuality is the most complex thing in human beings, period, bar none. If you were anybody who tells you it isn't, all you have to do is think about people who betray their country, their family, their religion, anything for sexuality, because things happen. Humans are complex creatures. And in my opinion, you guys may have a different one. It's the single most complex part of who we are. So we can't begin to know what the guy was thinking. We're not trying to do that. We're trying to tell you what we can see here. And when he gets this opportunity to go back and say, I didn't see any power. The power differential wasn't there. I wasn't bullying. I wasn't doing this or wasn't doing that. What he's in effect doing is a little bit of first aid for that personal extinction. He's going back and giving himself a little bit of esteem regained as he admits the guilt, but takes it off of any chance that he was grooming. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, and I think that there's some avoidance and definitely some some weaving, but the behavior here is honest. For the most part, you're saying that a lot of the hallmarks here of honesty, there's fluid language, comfortable, disagreeing, admitting fault in a way that it's not a mini confession in a way or concealing something bigger, pretty much the same baseline here, same behavioral cues, hand gestures and all that stuff that we've seen in the other stuff that will be going off our traditional analysis here pretty often. So I think we're the behavior panel and. All these guys are going to cover a lot of body language stuff. I want to tell you about a word that I think everyone should deeply understand. And this word is folk way, folk way. So folk ways are tiny little subtle rules that govern everything about social life, like how we're supposed to dress, how we should feel about stuff and violating a folk way in elementary school or even in the workplace as an adult means you'll probably suffer some social consequences like being made fun of, being outcast. Kids don't realize it, but they're unknowingly acting as society's folk way enforcement agents. So some folk ways are good, like being respectful or showing empathy when somebody's hurt, but some folk ways are bad. And in the sixties, terms like gay and other less acceptable words were used like as insults by elementary school children and many of those kids become adults, not realizing that they became adults who are enforcing folk ways from childhood. So you see kids making someone for being different. That's a folk way that's enforcement or programming at work. And they're quietly teaching what's acceptable, what's cool and almost permanently shaping behavior of adults. So over time, our consistent adherence to these folk ways is just an integral part of our just personal identity and it shapes how we view ourselves in relation to social groups and the world around us and just knowing about this stuff has the power to change somebody's life. That's all I got. Mark. Yeah. Yeah. So let's talk about what the norms are and how he's trying to adapt the norms in our mind. Very grave, he says, you know, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with helping people out on social media? So and of course, everybody would go, yeah, it is very grave. If you can't just, you know, give people a hand and help people out and be altruistic, that's what an awful awful. But then we've got to think, hang on, you're not doing it publicly. You're doing it privately. You're using a private message system with minors. Now, just as a word of caution to anybody out there, you should not send private messages to minors unless they are in your family, direct family, or you have a professional relationship with them, i.e. you might well be a therapist or a counsellor to them and you will be certified at that point and you have had a whole bunch of and even then there's a risk. So you would be keeping those messages so that you could deliver those messages. Were there some kind of inquiry into what has gone on here? So he's really trying to skew this on us. And I understand, I totally understand why he's done the wrong thing. He should know this. He's been in children's entertainment since he started. A lot of access, a lot of access to minors. Again, that's the British public's problem. We have somebody here with massive access and power to minors. And the British public are going, what is going to be uncovered here? Who have we been in love with as an entertainer for so long, given them all the best jobs and what has been going on behind this? I don't think he does himself any favours by going, you know, playing the naive and going, what's wrong with that? What world do we live in if I can't have a conversation with a kid via social media? No, it was a private conversation. It was a private conversation. He says, I think it was just chat. I think it was just chat. Well, you should know, you should know whether it was chat or not. You should know if images were sent or not. You should absolutely know that. And as somebody who's in that world of entertainment, you should know that you are at huge risk and everybody's at huge risk. If you don't keep yourself to those, well, rules, essentially. But anyway, here's what he does. I think he says, look, the the the other person is innocent. It's my fault. So he takes responsibility and kind of a micro confession of that. And I think that distracts from what the real question is, which is about, have you been having private messages with miners? You know, who else has this happened with? What's really going on here? For me, he's not truly getting into that question. I don't understand. I understand why it could be. You know, it's a tough one. It's a tough one for him. Greg, what do you got on this one? No, Scott, what do you got on this one? Thank you, Scott. Yeah. Chase, there's also a record label, a Smithsonian label called Folkways, and they had some of the best old blue stuff like Lead Belly, Mississippi, John Hurt, really, really classic albums and classic recordings of some of the the best old blue stuff, some bluegrass and all kinds of traditional American music. It's one of the the go-tos for that, which a lot of people on here, they're in that kind of music go, oh, I know what Folkways is. So for most of us, it's a record. It's a Smithsonian label, but but you're right. That's you've got you've nailed the true meaning of it. Now, I think in this video, we're at the crux of the matter. And here's where we see all these changes. And that's why because everything changes. Caden speeds up a little bit. He gets a little louder. His volume is not is it's almost compressed because he's such a great speaker that quite often when I speak, mine gets quieter and gets louder. And then I get like this, but his is almost like it's almost compressed. So his his volume goes up and it stays there as he goes along, which is really good. His illustrators are much faster now. Everything is changing here. It changed a lot in the last one, but in this one, it's even more. Things are speeding up a little bit because the interviewers hitting these points that are really important that he wants to know it's sort of like the same question last time. But he's digging in a little bit deeper on some of these. A lot of these changes, some people will say, oh, it's because he's being deceptive. He's there's I'm not personally saying any deception here, but it's just because it's getting getting more to the point and it's it's stressing a little bit. What else? Let's see. He's trying to get stuff you guys haven't hit. So try to listen and watch for some of these changes. If if you're in a situation where you're asking somebody something, everything seems to be fine and they start ramping up. It doesn't mean they're being deceptive. It just means you you may have there's an issue there. Maybe you've hit on the things that are really important in that situation or in that question, that line of questioning as you go along. But again, I'm not seeing any deception and the cool thing about it is that he owns it here. And he's saying the whole time it's my fault. It's tough to do that. You know, not everybody can say, oh, man, it's all my fault. This shouldn't happen. So we don't see that very often on here at all. It's mostly people say, I didn't have anything to do with it. I know what you're talking about. But in this case, it's tough to do. It takes it takes a real man to be able to come out and say, listen, this is all my fault at that time. You know, I'm sorry, this is all my fault. So that's fairly impressive from my point of view. Anyway, I think it's kind of cool. One of those tape replays, both asked. And people would say the circumstances are as follows here. You met someone who was a child. You were in a position of power over them. You used your power eventually to give them something they craved, which is a shot at a job in the media. You nurtured a relationship and then that relationship became sexual. And they might ask, what's the difference between that and grooming? Well, I would say that the initial list of things was not not right anyway. Tell me why? Because it was a totally innocent picture, a totally innocent Twitter follow of which I follow eleven thousand four hundred people. And and then it was a completely innocent backwards and forwards over a period of time about a job, about careers, you know, I mean, you do that. What's what's wrong with that? What's wrong with talking to someone no matter, you know, what age they are? Does that mean that if you know, if you're following anyone on Twitter, that you absolutely don't talk to anybody else or you don't give advice? So I disagree with the summation that you just gave because that does paint a very grave picture. In which case, why do you say it was unwise? Because you're clearly sensitive to the power differential and you're clearly mindful of the dangers of abuse of power. The brief communications backwards and forwards up to the point that that he came to work on this morning, I think was just chat. What was unwise was the fact that it happened. And that was a very, very grave error. Now, it was consensual, but it was my fault. Why? Because I shouldn't have done it. I shouldn't have done it. It's is entirely my thought. He's an innocent party here. And I appreciate, you know, how you know, there is a moment you have a moment. There's just a moment. But he is entirely and completely innocent, although it was consensual. I was older. I should have known better. I shouldn't I shouldn't have done it. What specifically do you feel that you did that was wrong? I kissed someone in the workplace, which led on to a little bit more. And that retrospectively, of course, you know, you think my friends have said, what the hell were you thinking? You don't do that. You've never done that. And I think there's no excuse. I'm not I don't put any there are no excuses here. I mean, I have I am it's my fault, but I think the fact that perhaps I was trying to come to terms with who I was, what I was going to do about it, the effects that it would have, I think that's probably the reason. And do you feel just listening to how you talk about it, do you feel that what was morally wrong about it was that it involved an abuse of power because you were an older guy who had more power than him? That obviously that criticism has been levelled at me. But I've never done that in my whole life. I've never abused my power anywhere. I'm I'm not a bully. I don't I mean, God, you read the things that you're supposed to be. You know, we don't I don't lord it around TV studios. Everyone is a friend I've gone through all of this time. The most the messages I've got from people that I work with saying, oh, my God, I can't believe they're saying this. I mean, we love working with you. I don't I snapped once around about the time that I was coming out. I snapped at one of our producers. And after the meeting, I immediately got up, went to her and apologized. It's not me. I don't do that. I'm not rude on the studio floor. I don't bully people. I don't lord it around. We're all a very, very on one level team. And that's been the important thing for me in 41 years of television. All right, I'll go first on this one. So I think what we're seeing here is a lot of severity softening. And this is the first time we've seen him sort of squiggled in and out of what really happened or how how much happened when he first goes in, starts talking about kissing somebody that led to bigger things and that any sort of soft pedals, all that. So that that's the first time I had a little something go off and go, ding, something's up here, man. And sort of start questioning what's actually happening. I don't see any huge deception cues here, but that right there tells me that that he's the way he's wording that. And we're here in the fading facts. He's severity softening there. It takes a long time to think about it, which is fine. But that that doesn't mean it indicates deception, but he is hedging a little bit there. He's he's I think he's watching what he says by that situation. Again, we have to look for clusters, like Chase was saying earlier, you have to look for if you if you just look for one thing and you spot one thing and you just hang your hat on that. Most likely you're going to miss all the other things going on around that situation, so you have to keep in and put in context what's happening in real time and just because you see that one doesn't mean, you know, and it may be a real cue, you know, it may be a shoulder shrug or something, but you got to look for clusters, look for more than one, look for three to five of them if you can. They'll happen within five seconds of that first one. So that's what you got to look for. He's adapting with his deep breaths. And again, he owns this. He says it's his fault. And again, I think that's pretty tough. I'll lay out the resume statement stuff because I know that's one of Greg's favorites. So Greg, what do you got? That's actually Chase's, however. Yeah, because I think Chase went the term. Yeah, but I think it's a good it's a good one to call out. Look, I think what you're seeing when you're saying you're seeing these clusters of behavior and deviation is he now is being forced to use words to admit acts of homosexuality publicly. I mean, he's not just saying I did something. He has to say I kissed a person. He used words that he's likely not used. That's my guess, because look at his face as he's asked, what did you do wrong? Look at his brow about to burst into grief. You can't miss that brow right there. It's about that grief muscles just about to scream. The sides of his mouth are back in sadness. He's down in emotional eye accessing. And he says an action word for the first time that we've seen it. First time we see I kissed someone in the workplace. This goes back now, Mark. Remember in number two, I think it was where I was saying his eye accessing went somewhere else when he was asked to recall a fact and I thought he was negotiating with himself, trying to figure out how do I word this? It said this, then he probably wouldn't have used his eyes in the same way. He would have said, boom, I did this and I'm going to take a guess and say that's part of why we were seeing the anomaly in those cluster shifts there. Here he's explaining a concept where he is the aggressor. He's just admitted to being the aggressor in this case. That takes some barely bold statement for him to say. And I think it's hard for him to say. And Scott, well, he says it's my fault. He doesn't necessarily say it's my fault cleanly. He goes, it's my fault and slows down. And the but I was waiting for the but with all that silence. And the but does come. But I was confused about. Got it. You're confused about it. However, then the guy comes right back at him. Well, wait for a second. When he says I was confused, but there's real grief at the facts. It would have with his family when he's talking about one of these in emotional accessing, you could say he's beaten down and you could see it and see he's just defeated. But when he talks about people who've contacted him, he rises in the chair and it's almost like he gets a new burst of energy. But there's still a problem here for me. He doesn't address the central question. Remember, I talk about a glass wall. He's answering the questions, but he is not answering this question. Don't you think the sheer power you as your singularity of name. Wield with a young person could impact that outcome? He doesn't answer that. He avoids that. Mark, what do you think? Yeah, yeah, I got to agree. Well, I agree with both of you there because, look, kissed and led into something a little bit more. Yeah, that is that is minimizing. It is it is softening. Now, I would go with Chase on this. I think that that's really about him protecting himself from actually saying that the sexual act, because I don't think he can really come come to terms with that because of the society that he's grown up in. And and well, you know, look, there's been a value in him coming across to the majority of people in the UK as being heterosexual. There's been a massive value to that. And so, you know, it would have been a devaluation, unfortunately, to his brand. We would suspect if if he was, you know, coming out any earlier than it then he did. So I understand that. Yes, it's my fault, he says. And that is a confession there of responsibility. To your point, Greg, when he talks about, look, was there something of extreme power that you need to be aware of? He suggests there wasn't any status play at hand. Suggest it's a really flat organization there. So, you know, look, how could how could we're a great place to work? We're a really flat organization. How could there be any power play going on? Well, of course, there could, of course, there could just because you say there's a flat organization usually means there isn't. I've never met a flat organization in my life. Greg, I'm sure you're the same. Everybody comes in and go, you know, we're a really flat organization here. And very soon you go, oh, yeah, that's the person in charge over there. We all get we all know who's this flat from your point of view. It's just flat from your point. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And and also people will say it's flat because that's that's the mantra. That's the hymn everybody has to sing. So so look, just because he's sitting singing from the hymn book there doesn't mean that he didn't have extraordinary power and and, you know, it wasn't it wasn't an abuse of power. And anyway, this abuse of powerpiece is a cultural thing anyway. And he may have his own little microculture that kind of might be going, I don't I think I'm OK doing this. I think it's OK for me. And he may displace that somewhat into the idea of flat organizations. Look, you know, I think what we're experiencing here is it's very complex. What's going on here. And again, this is an issue for the British people because because it's suggesting that ITV, who he was in a contract with, did not investigate this properly, had sung this hymn of of flat organizations and and and and a very safe place to work and anybody who was abusing anything would be weeded out. And the British public are feeling like maybe they were, you know, talking the talk, but very definitely not walking the walk because of the value of Scofield and they knew that this was going on and there was an abuse of power and they didn't want to go in there and and rip that out because there was too much money involved. In fact, to my understanding, they've been in front of a parliament select committee in order to discuss that with with parliament and that idea, I think, will come up a little bit later. Chase, what you got on this one? Two things you'll see in this clip that you're about to watch again is a lot of emotional accessing, downright eye movement and a very serious contemplation and he even says so about his identity. And I want you to genuinely see this from a behavior profiler's perspective. The first thing I want you to really fully get is how profoundly deep sociology can impact us and how truly unaware of it we are. So would you say as you're watching this that folkways are powerful enough to make you ignore the fact that you're dying? So I want you to understand this so badly. I'm not even going to dissect this clip here since we're looking at a British person. I'll use a British example here in 1979 in Manchester, England, a devastating fire broke out in a Woolworth department store. Ten people died in the restaurant and it was on the top floor of this restaurant. They were just as close to the exit as everybody else. They didn't die from the fire itself. They died from toxic smoke inhalation. So even with this full knowledge, completely aware of imminent danger, they all waited to pay their bill. So this underlines the unbelievably compelling force of this ingrained social norms and even in life threatening situations. Our behavior is deeply influenced by these folkways to the point where they can just override, literally override or instinct for self-preservation. So I train psychological operations people. And one of the core things that I teach the first day of my training is that if you can change two folkways, you can modify an entire country. So changing one folkway means that you're getting people to socially punish people who disagree. I hope that sounds familiar with looking at what's going on in the world today. And folkways change over time and some of the changes are great. Some are completely manufactured to bring more suggestibility, confusion and instability to a population. And I'll just let you run with that. The next video, we'll talk about more of this, but I want you to consider what you heard with your ears in this video. The concept of bullying, all the things you're supposed to be, the reassurance from people that your behavior is acceptable and the strong denial of being of not being a consistent violator of folkways. The denial was about not violating a folkway and staying with folkways. That's all I got. One of those tape replays. What specifically do you feel that you did that was wrong? I kissed someone in the workplace, which led on to a little bit more and that retrospectively, of course, you know, you think my friends have said, what the hell were you thinking? You don't do that. You've never done that. And I think there's no excuse. I don't put any, there are no excuses here. I mean, I have, I am it's my fault, but I think the fact that perhaps I was trying to come to terms with who I was, what I was going to do about it, the effects that it would have, I think that's probably the reason. And do you feel just listening to how you talk about it? Do you feel that what was morally wrong about it was that it involved an abuse of power because you were an older guy who had more power than him? Obviously, that criticism has been leveled at me. But when I've never done that in my whole life, I've never abused my power anywhere. I'm not a bully. I don't, I mean, God, you read the things that you're supposed to be. You know, I don't lord it around TV studios. Everyone is a friend. I've gone through all of this time. The most of the messages I've got from people that I work with saying, oh, my God, I can't believe they're saying this. I mean, we love working with you. I don't, I snapped once. When I around about the time that I was coming out, I snapped at one of our producers. And after the meeting, I immediately got up to her and apologised. It's not me. I don't do that. I'm not rude on the studio floor. I don't bully people. I don't lord it around. We're all a very, very on one level team. And that's been the important thing for me in 41 years of television. Do you know if he has signed an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement, preventing him from speaking? No. You don't know if he has. No, at the time I was asked that earlier on. Did I make him sign an NDA? No, absolutely not. But there's a question whether or not he was, as it were, paid off. In effect, if he was paid off, was he paid for his silence? No, God, no. No, is he free to speak if he wants to? Yeah, yes. I mean, what he wants is for all of this to go away. He wants a quiet life. He didn't want any of this to happen in the first place. And I'm sure he completely regrets it. It was my fault, so he has nothing to regret because it was my fault. Has there ever been, or is there, an injunction or any sort of NDA preventing media coverage of your relationship with him? No, and that was one of the things when the rumour started and then it came to light. And obviously both of us said, what the hell is this? Um... I don't know, I don't know. I said, well, yeah, it'll go away. I'm sure it'll go away. And then it started to grow, legs, and it got bigger and bigger. It was said there was a super injunction. It was said I'd got him fired or moved on. All completely untrue. You work in television, you know the way the process works. No, you can't have someone moved on without it going through a whole team of people. The line of command. Why would this happen? I actually spoke to him the night before, or texted, either the night before or the morning of I came out and said, I'm going to come out tomorrow. And he said, oh, my God, amazing, God, that's brave. Well done. I hope it goes OK. So, you know, he knew about he knew about that. He was never going to he was never going to help me. We were still mates. And I think at the time it was it was written that the son were going to help me. Well, they they won't be that's illegal. So all of these things started to grow. It got bigger and it got bigger and it got bigger. OK, Chase, what do you got? I'm just going to talk about some folk ways some more. If you'll forgive me, there at home, folk ways have a really sneaky way of making us hide parts of ourselves. So they're like society's little script telling us what's cool or normal and what's not done. We don't tolerate that here. And sometimes when there's something about us that doesn't fit the script, we lock it away. And it could be as simple as like a weird hobby or something maybe bigger like a part of our identity or like sexual thoughts or feelings. So everyone already knows we don't outgrow this. So this can lead us into a kind of dark space where we feel ashamed of those little hidden parts of ourselves. And shame is the most quiet and most powerful emotion. According to me, it can drive more of our behavior than anger or pleasure. And it's a secret fear that we aren't good enough to measure up to folk ways. That's what shame is. But here's where things kind of take a twist. The shame doesn't stay hidden within us. It can affect how we see the world around us. And this just repressing this stuff also just manifests in how we perceive other people. So when we see somebody openly exhibiting a trade or behavior that we felt like we needed to hide, it makes us feel resentment or discomfort or judgment. So folk ways, while they keep some order in our society, like not running a stoplight is a folk way. And the other stuff can lead us down a path of self-concealment. So by just recognizing these hidden strings, we can do a lot. Now, I'm just going to give you a good quote here from a good doctor. His last name was Seuss. He says, just be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. So every time you hear somebody cast judgment or make fun of something, pay attention because you might be seeing further behind the curtain than you might think. Scott. Miss, I'm Chase. Do you feel like you're gaining weight now that she's pregnant? Yes. You're just eating constantly or just eating whatever she eats. She eats extremely healthy foods. I'm allowed to deviate from that. That full quit. So, but I have an empty weight. Oh, it's good. Yeah, that's that's good for you. That's I got nothing else on that. All right, I think he's still jacked up a little bit because of digging down into the details. So he's still moving around a lot as Cades is still sped up a little bit. It speeds up and slows down, but it's pretty much he's pretty much jacked here a little bit. He's he's illustrating if my power goes out, we're having the storm. Then I'll call you guys or text you and let you know what's up. Where was it? Oh, yeah. He's illustrating for the for the most part, just like he has been when the stress ramps up a little bit. And if the sound was off, you'd know what was happening here. You'd know someone, you know, all the guys explaining something or teaching this guy something that's important. Because that's how our brains work. He's saying, oh, I know what's happening there. It's that basic of what's happened there as he's going through and he's saying this and his head comes forward as he's making his point on things and and turn things around as illustrating his points with that. And he wants to make sure everything is super clear and super clean. And that's why I see those wide eyes and that hard eye contact. He wants to make sure everything he's saying, he wants to make sure it's clear and clean that it's his fault. It's nobody else's fault. And he feels bad about what's happened. And and I think as well, that's the reason for those symmetrical illustrators he's using, everything is clean, clear. He's right down the middle. That's why if you saw it, you say, oh, I see. I understand what's going on there if you saw no sound on. And then again, one more time to give him credit because he owns it. You know, he says, yeah, it's my fault, which is tough to do. Mark, what do you got? Yep. So I think within, you know, his his gestures being symmetrical, him him potentially just taking a good spin line of taking full responsibility. I mean, that would be what his PR will be telling him. It may be actually his sense of what he should do as well. But ultimately, I guarantee that is what the PR are telling him to do. Even within all of that, at this point, there's some bigger shifts for me out of his baseline. There's more lip grooming on this. There's more head shaking on it. There's more adapting going on. Not that this is a sign that somebody is lying. But if you go back and look at that, you will see an increase in all of those things. Now, why might that be? I think it's because of the questioning here. Well, it's because of what is being asked about, which is, you know, in in in some very specific ways, are there super injunctions against the person that you've had the relationship with talking, going public? Is and there's the naming of some other mechanisms by which you might be able to mediate what somebody says. For me, the questioning here, though, I really like this interviewer who's really quite forensic and and under forensic and understanding at the same time around this interview. For my money, I would like him to be a little more generalized around this question, which for me would be around, you know, to your knowledge, do you know if you or anybody else have some controls or constraints or incentives in place that might cause in some way this other person to mediate their communications in any way? Now, it's a big long question and it could be put together a lot more tightly. But what we're trying to because if I just go, look, is there a do you have a super injunction out? Of course, he's able to say no, because if he did have a super injunction out, he wouldn't be the person placing it. It would be at arm's length. You know, do you know if there's a super injunction out? Well, he may may not know because he may have people who would put that in place without his knowledge. Now, you know, I'm not saying this has been done, but I'm interested in why for me this baseline change around this area here, it could be because there's been accusations there, but the accusations are there because of how quiet this other individual is being. He says, look, it's reasonable because this other individual just wants it to go away. But it really is very quiet, really, really, very, very quiet beyond what we reasonably see in these situations. So it's quite right that people have it's a bit of a mystery what's going on here. And he's not making the mystery any clearer for me, certainly. Greg, what do you got on this one? Yeah, let's talk for a minute, Chase, about your folk ways and why these questions are coming up, because those folk ways are not just macro things. Those things are also micro things. So among the four of us, we have folk ways. Among the four of us, we have what is acceptable and what isn't. And if you have a third grader who is setting all the rules for everybody who has absolute and dominant power, that's probably going to be a pretty messed up bunch of folk ways, a pretty messed up bunch of rules for society. And what they're trying to get at is are their rules hidden rules when they're talking about toxicity, when they're talking about these non NDAs, non disclosure agreements, we're talking about all these things. They're trying to find out behind closed doors what's going on. So that's powerful because if you ever want to see what can happen to people, go watch any of the things where people are in captivity. Actually, a cult is a great example because when there are no outside inputs to the things that Chase is talking about and a guy gets to raise his hand and set all of those, you emulate the captor and you start to behave like the captor. When I worked here, we would find guys mimicking our conversation style that we intentionally spoke in a weird pattern to see that it was impacting them. So there's a powerful thing that can be going on behind the curtain. And the guy may go, hey, everything's OK here. Everything's flat. He may say the same thing because he doesn't know something is wrong. Because everybody around them is behaving the same way. So it's an important chase. You can't drive that point any better than you have. But that is more dangerous. The smaller the group becomes and the more sequestered the group becomes. So what we're seeing here, I agree with you. I'm not sure that's not just grooming his lips to use a poor word for this show, but grooming his lips for the show, but he does lick his lips. And the timing of everyone's answers, Scott, I think I'm on with you. If you turn the sound off, the timing of his answers, the way he moves his head, the way he uses his words, the way his pattern strikes, his illustrators, they're all there, even to the point when he says something like any regret and then he raises his hand and pushes his hand out. What do we call that in body language, a regulator? Stop that thought. If you're thinking he has a reason to be, let me correct it for you. All of this is working together. But there is a lot of stress around this NDA question. There's something new we haven't seen. He touches his face. He does the classic headache powder commercial where he touches the brow where there's stress. People do this and all those headache powder commercials. So outside of that, the rest is congruent messaging. You just have to ask yourself, is something going on behind the scenes? And to your point, Mark, he would not be the guy. It would be somebody in the business side who said, hey, this is something you have to sign or we're going to terminate your whatever. And that is what these guys are trying to get to. So this is all bringing the fruition of what Chase has been talking about. That's all I got. One of those tape replays. Do you know if he has signed an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement, preventing him from speaking? No. You don't know if he has? No. At the time, I was asked that earlier on. Did I make him sign an NDA? No, absolutely not. But there's a question of whether or not he was, as it were, paid off. In effect, if he was paid off, was he paid for his silence? No. God, no. No. So is he free to speak if he wants to? Yeah. Yes. I mean, what he wants is for all of this to go away. He wants a quiet life. He didn't want any of this to happen in the first place. And I'm sure he completely regrets it. It was my fault. So he has nothing to regret because it was my fault. Has there ever been or is there an injunction or any sort of NDA preventing media coverage of your relationship with him? No. And that was one of the things when the rumor started and then when it came to light. And obviously both of us said, what the hell is this? Um, I don't know. I don't know. I said, well, it'll, yeah, it'll go away, you know, I'm sure it'll go away. And then it started to grow legs and it got bigger and bigger. It was said there was a super injunction. It was said I'd got him fired or moved on. All completely untrue. You work in television, you know the way the process works. No, you can't have someone moved on without it going through a whole team of people. The line of command. Why would this happen? I actually spoke to him the night before or texted either the night before or the morning of I came out and said, I'm I'm going to come out tomorrow. And he said, oh, my God, amazing. God, that's brave. Well done. I hope it goes OK. So, you know, he knew about he knew about that. He was never going to he was never going to out me. We were still mates. And I think at the time it was he it was written that the son were going to out me. Well, they won't be that's illegal. So. All of these things started to grow. It got bigger and it got bigger and it got bigger. If you talk about cults a lot, Greg, there's a comedian named Kurt Metzger and he grew up in a religious cult. I won't get into the details of it, but if we ever do one on cults, we should have him on and have him talk about that because he he understands it in depth the way those things I want us to do a cult leader one. Just pick four cult leaders and we go through them and show their commonality because there's commonality in them. It's we should do that. Yeah, let's do that. People would say some people are saying, have said that it stretches credulity to suggest that people at the talk of ITV wouldn't have known about your relationship with this young man. It was pretty well known that the two of you were close and people had specifically raised this with the bosses of ITV. And people say it's a quite a short journey from that to saying they should have done a proper and more thorough investigation and they should have got to the truth. Isn't that a reasonable thing for people to say? Given we're talking about abuse of power potentially, given we're talking about workplace culture in an area where workplace culture is under the spotlight, it's never before. Yes, yeah. They should have. OK. Yeah, yeah. And you've been very clear about something else which you want to correct, which is let me ask you directly, did you speak to anyone? Anyone at all that ITV about moving this young man onto another program? Absolutely, categorically not. He was a really good colleague, a runner, like very good. And so and so he applied to go to Loose Women and and got the job entirely in his own merits. And I can remember him coming to me and saying, mate, I'm going to Loose Women. I said, that's fantastic. So the suggestion that ITV moved him to solve a problem that they had festering on this morning is I do not believe there is any truth in that at all. OK. All right, Greg, what do you got? So here we see this is the accusation that something's going on behind the scenes and that it's incredible that there couldn't be something going on that they wouldn't know. So his breathing rate goes up, his barriers are increased. Now, Mark, he's protected a joint. I'll let you talk about that. But he's grabbing his wrist and he's milling his fingers and adapting, releasing nervous energy. Now, we haven't seen that up to now. This is a polished guy who has done this forever and he knows how to hide all that, but he can't seem to here. And then if you see his his head is lean back. I think the reason his head is lean back is because his body's getting smaller. He's turtling in his head is lean back so he can do data and take. But he does confirming nods as he is reading the reasons and as he's read the reasons why this must be a big deal. And then he does a breathy. Yes, his brow was up. He's does a nervous short stroke head, head movement in confirmation. Yeah, it shouldn't happen. Then he goes to a great head movement as an illustrator for absolutely not, which sounds believable because cadence and tone match his movement. I think he was when you hear him dancing around. He was a really good listen to that pause. Boop, boop, boop, boop, changing words. What did he call him? He called him a colleague and then he had to find a new word, a runner. I think he was dangerously close to feeling awkward with his wording and his brain went into a squirrel in the road trying to figure out the right words, not to entrap himself in some kind of wrong language. Not I think he's lying. Just I think he made a stupid mistake in saying he was a good and people might perceive him as something other than what he was trying to say. Chase, what do you got? Yeah, totally agree. And we learn super early to suppress stuff. And in winter school, we get we hide career aspirations if we want to do something ridiculous, boys are taught crying his weakness, girls get taught. They have to always be nice and agreeable no matter what. We all get taught at light speed to hide our insecurities. And this these are typically a few things, a fear of rejection, trying to model adult behavior, wanting to please adults, feeling like nobody else feels the same as us. And finally, and I think most important is avoiding ridicule. So imagine you're kind of feeling something deep inside, like maybe an attraction towards the same sex, but your society's rulebook says that's not part of the game. When you might start hiding that, stuffing it down, but thinking that you're shutting it down, stuffing it down is different than shutting it down. But we confuse that, especially when we're younger. Here's where things get really rough. So hiding who you truly are can brew up this incredible storm inside of a person that's a little bit of shame, maybe some anxiety, but it's more like an acid. And over time, it just eats away at happiness and your self-esteem, your ability to just be present and depression is just almost a guarantee at this point. And here's the kicker without understanding where all this is coming from, because we're not cognizant of all this stuff yet. Without seeing that invisible rulebook, people are just scratching their head, feeling all this depression or pain or whatever, and they can't figure out why. It's like fighting a person that you can't see. So we need to, I wanted to shine a light on these social norms and folk ways, because I think understanding them is 100 percent the first step in just dealing with that corrosive shame and just healing from the inside out. I hope Philip gets a chance to even see this. Great. Sorry, Mark. Yeah, so I think what you in my mind, what you're hinting at there, Chase, is suppression lying? If I suppress something consciously or maybe unconsciously, is it the same as as barefaced lying? Because I think what everybody's going to be who certainly know this situation, certainly the majority of the British public who are watching this are going to go, hang on, we got somebody here who has most likely lied continually to his family. Maybe the family knew and they have suppressed that themselves. Maybe they find a new, maybe they knew entirely. And it's been a rule that nobody talks about what's really going on in his sexuality and relationships. So he's potentially lied to his family. He's lied to Holly, somebody who says this is on screen sister. Holly seems incredibly upset by this. It seems, you know, maybe quite genuine that she's going, hang on. He's lied to me once, twice, three, many, many times now. So that's that's upsetting. And so can can we ourselves actually see if this person is is lying or not? Or being deceptive or not? Because potentially he is brilliant at it. I can't answer that question to you, because what we're doing is is looking at the evidence that we have, looking at what we see and giving you our best commentary, our best analysis of that for you to add to your intelligence system so you can make better choices for you. I have my own ideas, but just like you, my intelligence is limited. I don't have all the information. I'm just always trying to get more of the information and analyze that. Well, look, here's what I say is that he says I do not when it when it comes to is is there something rotten in in ITV? Is there something up? Are they trying to protect people? He says, I do not believe there is any truth in that at all. Well, believing there's not no that that isn't the case is not the same as knowing there's no truth to that. He doesn't say he knows there's no truth that says he doesn't believe. And belief is not accurate all the time, feels very accurate all of the time. Otherwise, how would you get on with life? But it doesn't mean your beliefs are absolutely accurate. One last thing on this chase that I think you're hinting towards, which is when a code is broken, when a code is broken, who must be saved? Who is at the top of the hierarchy who must be saved at all costs? I think what the British public are going is is did ITV tried to save Philip at the top of that hierarchy and fail to do that? And now is he trying to save the top of the hierarchy of ITV? Because ultimately, they hold his career in their hands. They are the people who could say, you know what? The British people forgive you, Phil, come back, Phil, all is forgiven. Let's let's start your career again. The government have said, bring me the head of ITV. And it seems like the head of ITV is still attached to to their body. And so so it seems like it would be unwise for Philip to throw anybody under the bus who's in the hierarchy of ITV. I don't believe there's any truth to that, he says. Well, that would be important for him, I think, to say that at this point, because here is somebody who clearly has worked incredibly hard on their career and wouldn't just want to give it up for just a moment. He says all it was was a moment. He was under extreme psychological stress. We need to think about the the blameless victim over here. And it was just a moment in my in my life. The same time as I think he there's some sincerity in what he says. There's a damn good spin in that as well, some class spin going on. Scott, what you got on this one? I think that Bill is a great. Not just a great interview, but I think he knows how to do this because he knows this is a really important part and there is zero pushback on this. That part where he says, yeah, and it's whispered. Man, that's that's he's showing I'm wide open. I'm like, you can ask me anything you want to do. You want to ask me, here's the way things lay out. He's not hiding anything I don't think here. And we're seeing another example of what I call those confirmation nods. A lot of times people say when someone's doing this, but they're saying, yes, here's we went and did whatever it was or this happened. It's like, I can't believe this happened, man, but here's what happened. And you'll see the words. They'll they'll go in time and almost lockstep with the words we're talking about. Not sometimes they don't, but they're really big when they're when they're like that. But when they're really small, those are the ones you want to look out for when they're when it's the opposite of what they're saying. Like if they say, did you do that? And they go, no, you barely see that head moving up and down. And that's from Paul Ekman. Those are the ones you want to pay attention to. If they say, yes, and that head goes back and forth just a little bit. That's what you're looking for. They go, yes, I did it. When they're shaking their head, no, that's a confirmation of yes, I did it. Listen to me. I know it's unbelievable, but listen to I did it. That's the difference in those things. I think that's really important because I read a lot of the comments and quite often the comments people say, oh, he shook his head when he was saying, yes, he's shaking his head. No, so he's lying. That's true. And it's a cue to look for in some situations. But when it's really small, that's when you're that's when you can pretty much call that and go, we need to look at that and group that with a see if there are any clusters around that and start making decisions. Because we're not seeing one thing and making a decision or two or three things and go, ah, this means that we're taking the whole thing and looking at it from the beginning to the end and then look at these clusters within that big picture. A lot of people ask about that as well. So that's what's happening there when we point things out. Keep in mind, we're looking for more than just one thing. And you'll hear us say that if there's just one thing. Say, I don't know, just the one shoulder shrug with nothing else around it. So it makes me think he's not being deceptive. You just unsure if we saw several other things with that. Then we say that might possibly be deception. We go, that's for dang sure deception. We say that indicates or that that looks like it could be deception. OK. And, Mark, so Bill, he's really famous over there, right? Oh, huge. Yeah, he would be, you know, like, you know, Regis Philby kind of not the same, not the same by any stretch of the imagination. But I mean, you know, he is the daytime, the morning talk show, you know, magazine show host. And if there's an award ceremony or there's something to host, he's first in line to host that he's a national icon until recently, universally and very much loved. And they don't like him now because of this. Because because they fear that this could be another several. Oh, now I'm not saying I'm not saying that they think he's he's going to have the same, you know, crimes or even crime like Savile. OK. Is there a panel? But the British public feeling cheated and lied to. And and and we understand why he suppresses, you know, Chase has been very clear about the possibility of why he suppresses this. But that doesn't mean that the British public are not wholly disappointed in who they've given so much love to. Oh, OK, I get you. That's that's the issue. And so there's that worry of like it has there been a succession of improper relationships like this? Did you send pictures to a minor like tell us you didn't like say you didn't. Yeah. And and and we're not. It's you know, from what I've heard, we're not hearing that information. One of those tape replays. People would say some people are saying, have said that it stretches credulity to suggest that people at the top of ITV wouldn't have known about your relationship with this young man. It was pretty well known that the two of you were close and people had specifically raised this with the bosses of ITV. And people say it's a quite a short journey from that to saying they should have done a proper and more thorough investigation and they should have got to the truth. Isn't that a reasonable thing for people to say, given we're talking about abuse of power potentially, given we're talking about workplace culture in an era where workplace culture is under the spotlight, it's never before. Yes, they should have. OK. Yeah, yeah. And you've been very clear about something else, which you want to correct, which is let me ask you directly, did you speak to anyone, anyone at all, that ITV about moving this young man onto another program? Absolutely, categorically not. He was a really good colleague, a runner, like very good. And so and so he applied to go to Loose Women and and got the job entirely in his own merits. And I can remember him coming to me and saying, mate, I'm going to Loose Women. I said, that's fantastic. So the suggestion that ITV moved him to solve a problem that they had festering on this morning is. I do not believe there is any truth in that at all. OK. He's still doing a better job than Anthony Weiner. Oh, man, Weiner was the worst man. That guy was what. But I do use it now. And every deck I have around talking about someone who is just bald, face lying. That's the guy I use. I use all those things where they come out and ask him a question. He'd go, it's like if I threw a pie, you know, you ever heard him tell that story where if someone threw a pie, he would just keep talking. He's the worst, man, the worst. He's awful. Yeah. Oh, man. OK, Greg, I'll give you that when you're into it. Dame Karen McCall, I don't know if you've seen giving you a turn off with the absolute phobia, but she's told staff at ITV there's interacted a barrister to carry out an external review of the facts following your statement and departure. Will you comply with that external review fast? Yeah, yes. OK. When in February 2020, ITV investigated whether you were having a relationship, they failed to get to the truth. When Dr. Ranj Singh, who's a regular guest on the show for many, many years, made a complaint, a formal complaint to the bosses of ITV about toxicity on this morning, which I know we should discuss. They appointed an external independent advisor to do a review who found and I quote, no evidence of bullying and discrimination. What would you say to those people who say, given that record, it's quite hard to have confidence in this latest review from ITV? I, I, you just hope that it will be thorough. And I've got and I will also point out that that I don't know. I some people, perhaps maybe toxic and see toxicity everywhere because that's the lens that they're looking at the world. There is no toxicity. There is no bullying. There is no discrimination at this morning. You said and you said in your statement on Instagram that there is no toxicity at this morning and it's clear listening to you that something you really want, you're clearly very protective of the program that you worked on for 20 years and understandably so, because that program's reputation has taken a very severe hit. If there is no toxicity at this morning, why would Dr. Ranj Singh have felt compelled to make a formal complaint at the highest levels of ITV about some particular individual's behavior? And as he described it, the environment at this morning, why would former staffers be contacting Amon Holmes, who I know is not running to be president of your fan club at the moment, but why would former staffers be contacting him to say that they signed non-disclosure agreements to, and I quote, cover up the bullying and power abuse? I mean, that sounds pretty toxic. I mean, I am obviously unaware of any of that. I mean, all of that goes on elsewhere. All I see is angry people shouting about a show they're not on anymore. So why do you think you asked a moment ago what it is that people want to see? Because they've seen you lose your job. They're watching you now suffer. Why do you think lots of people do seem to have it in for you? Are you toxic to them? God, I hope not. I know I know I know what the issues are with two principal people who I wish, you know, I don't like toxicity. Mark, what do you get? Yeah, just one thing on this. Are you are you toxic? God, I hope not. I don't like toxicity. Well, that doesn't answer the question at all. That doesn't say anything. God, I hope not. Well, so they probably possibly so possibly you are there's there. You will entertain the possibility and I don't like toxicity. Well, that doesn't mean that you're not part of it and you don't you don't let it happen or you don't create it yourself. So I don't like that as as an answer. Are you toxic? No, would be a better answer to that for him. Greg, what do you got on this one? So, Mark, for me, toxicity can be defined in lots of ways by lots of people. If I'm a minion, toxicity is much different than if I'm in charge. So there's a possibility, I would agree. And he's kind of turdled up until that question comes when they say they ask him, is he toxic? You see him kind of rise out of that and he comes up and he says, some people see toxicity where there's nothing, there's no bullying at this morning. And then as he starts to go back at him about the power and abuse, you see him paying attention to him, his eyes flare. They actually raise up pretty tightly and then one brow rises. That, for me, is pre-aggression, not pre-conflict, not pre-physical aggression. But if I see a person doing that, I'm probably going to expect they're going to retaliate in some way verbally about something I just said. That might indicate that that is a lead in for how he is going to go at somebody and answer their question. And then he just avoids the question. I agree with you. I don't like toxicity. Did you run the red light? Were you exceeding the speed limit? I don't like speed limits. I don't know. I hope not. He didn't answer any questions. Mark, I'm with you. That makes me uncomfortable. And then if you add to that a layer of how do we define toxicity, toxicity is different at different levels of the organization. Scott, what do you got? Yeah, this is the first time it got iffy on me here because up to now I've been thinking, you know, everything looks really, really good. But here, I think this is the most places where he's being super careful. And at that first part where he's barely shaking his head, no, goes back to what I was saying earlier that could be that there might be something there, there might be something there. But I'm not sure I can't I can't tell because at this point I'm like, I've seen so much honesty, what I believe to be honest from this guy, it's tough to go. OK, well, he's not being honest about this as interrogators. We know that happens. We see that all the time. But in this case, I think that's a tough call there at first. That's a tough thing. But he's hedging something in there. He's he's watching what he says in there. And I think that once it comes out, it totally gets that head cocked. I think he's showing showing him that he's listening. He's trying to be open again because he got real quiet at first. Everything kind of, you know, is he's holding back and he was talking a little bit and he would hold back. So I think he's trying to look trying to seem like he's open one more time. Chase, what do you got? So a lot of this is about something psychologists call Shaden Freud, which is a German Freud. Yeah, no, it's Freud. Freud, Schaden Freud. I asked a German professor. OK, because it was in a TV show I watched. You know, it's Schaden Freud. So it tells you what I know about it. So this is just when we take pleasure in somebody else's misfortune, particularly somebody in power. So it's not something, of course, we're proud of, but it happens. And when it comes to celebrities, it's easier to dehumanize them, see them as characters instead of real people. So watching their downfall is almost like a reality show drama. But we forget it's not a show. It's like a person's real life that we're talking about. So now let's talk about a couple of celebrities. Or a couple of how a couple of criticizing celebrities can kind of spark mob mentality that just humans by nature are social creatures and we look to other people to gauge how we should react, which is called social proof. So when we see other people like people we admire or respect acting in a certain way, like just beating the crap out of somebody, it will jump right in on it. And this is the safety in numbers kind of approach here. And the more easy, I think the more vulnerable a person becomes, the more easier or the easier it is for us to pile on to those people. And it's the snowball effect. So once criticism start rolling and the more people get caught up in it, it just keeps on going. So next time you see a celebrity may be facing a downfall, unless it's, you know, who think about this? Why would we all pile on to a public figure like this? So number one, it levels the playing field. So in our culture that promotes comparison and competition, people tend to feel like they're just leveling some kind of social hierarchy. Number two, I think is resentment and envy. So wealth or fame of somebody that's a celebrity can make us resentful and maybe a little bit of. Enjoyment and seeing their downfall. I think three, relieving our own insecurities, which kind of shifts the focus away from something that's going on in our own lives to this person that's getting a crappy out of them in the news. And and justice bias is another one that comes in here where we believe they've got their wealth and they're not shouldn't be entitled to that. So we enjoy watching them come down. We participate in bringing them down because I don't get that. Why should they get that? So that's the justice bias. And finally, it's just social bonding. So it's not really the healthiest form of connection, but these kind of shared negative beliefs and like bashing somebody gives people a sense of belonging in some way. Now, I think it's partly, if not a majority of what we're seeing here. That's all I got. One of those tape replays. Dame Karen McCall, I don't know if you've seen given you've turned off for the absolute favor, but she's told staff at ITV, there's interacted a barrister to carry out an external review of the facts following your statement and departure. Will you comply with that external review fast? Yeah, yes. OK, when in February 2020, ITV investigated whether you were having a relationship, they failed to get to the truth. When Dr. Ranj Singh, who's a regular guest on the show for many, many years, made a complaint, a formal complaint to the bosses of ITV about toxicity on this morning, which I know we should discuss, they appointed an external, independent advisor to do a review who found and I quote, no evidence of bullying and discrimination. What would you say to those people who say, given that record, it's quite hard to have confidence in this latest review from ITV? I, I, you just hope that it will be thorough. And I've got and I will also point out that that I don't know. I some people, perhaps maybe toxic and see toxicity everywhere because that's the lens that they're looking at the world. There is no toxicity. There is no bullying. There is no discrimination at this morning. You said and you said in your statement on Instagram that there is no toxicity at this morning and it's clear listening to you that something you really want, you're clearly very protective of the program that you worked on for 20 years and understandably so, because that program's reputation has taken a very severe hit. If there is no toxicity at this morning, why would Dr. Ranj Singh have felt compelled to make a formal complaint at the highest levels of ITV about some particular individual's behavior? And as he described it, the environment at this morning, why would former staffers be contacting Aiman Holmes, who I know is not running to be president of your fan club at the moment, but why would former staffers be contacting him, contacting him to say that they signed non-disclosure agreements to, and I quote, cover up the bullying and power abuse? I mean, that sounds pretty toxic. I mean, I am obviously unaware of any of that. I mean, all of that goes on elsewhere. All I see is angry people shouting about a show they're not on anymore. So why do you think you asked a moment ago what it is that people want to see? They've seen you lose your job. They're watching you now suffer. Why do you think lots of people do seem to have it in for you? Are you toxic to them? God, I hope not. I know exactly, I know, I know what the issues are with two principal people who I wish, you know, I don't like toxicity. Do you characterize your relationship with her now? Is it broken? I adore Holly, I mean, I've always adored Holly. She's my TV sister. And I, from my point of view, no. I don't have a problem with Holly at all. What would you say to her, given that she's doubtless listening to you now, what would you say to her about, maybe publicly, that you said privately about how you'd like to apologize and your hopes for mending that relationship? I would say to everyone, I would say to my family, my friends, my work colleagues, the public, to ITV, to my management company, to everyone that I lied to. I am desperately, desperately sorry. But principally, I would like to apologize to him because it may have been consensual, it may have been fully legal, but I shouldn't have allowed it to happen. And that was a grave, grave error on my part. And I know that because of that, an absolutely innocent person is being persecuted. On one particular point of fact, Aiman Holmes has suggested that there were taxis from your apartment to the studio, which this young man used and that those were probably paid for by ITV. Did he frequently get taxis from your studio? He didn't frequently come to my flat, came to the flat once. To my recollection, he didn't stay over. He said he was passing and he was going to come in for a beer. So the idea that he regularly got taxis from your home to ITV studios? Utterly untrue. And also, I don't have an ITV car account. Presenters don't get that. All right, Greg, what do you got? OK, now he goes back to this thing that happened in that dressing room earlier. We see his recall change. Remember his recall for baseline for any information we asked him was going to his right audit auditory visual going to his right, his right. Now we ask him a question about Holly. Boom, boom, boom. As I go to his left, why? The same thing happened when he was saying it just kind of happened in the dressing room, he was hedging about something. So we we have a pretty good indicator that he's hedging in his response, but his response to this question, he says, I don't have a problem with her at all. That doesn't answer the question of whether she has a problem with him or not. At all. He just avoided that. He goes, my family is a pain point and he does a legitimate full blown tongue jet there. That's a great indicator of how distasteful this is for him. And you can't. We just can't imagine the kind of stress it causes. Just like he says, his choice of words has changed again before he took an action word I kissed. Now I said, should not have allowed it to happen. Well, wait a minute. Now you're taking the passive role. We're going back and forth and we're shifting levels of guilt and admission. This one makes me really uncomfortable with whether I'm getting facts or not. There's also a disclaimer at at my recollection. He didn't stay over. Now he got a disclaimer. Now we've got we're conditioning the question. I'd be suspicious about any detail, any detail about the affair. He's admitted he's guilty. I would be suspicious of when it happened, how it happened because of this waffling and these disclaimers, but he puts it squarely in the field of guilt and he's taken responsibility. Mark, what do you got? Yeah, again, doesn't really answer the question here. What would you say to her? This is this is Holly. I would say to everyone will know what would you say specifically to her because this is your TV sister. This is when we have a relationship with Philip. We're doing that through Holly. When we have a relationship with Holly, we're doing that through Philip. That that relationship is what makes some people's day. So to your point, they're chases that are the British public envious of of Scofield, I would say no, not at all disappointed. Yes, because disappointment is the difference between what you expected and what you got. Delight is the difference between what you expected and what you got. If I got more than I expected, I'm delighted. If I got less than I expected, I'm disappointed. And when we've when we've lived some of our lives and invested so much in this screen relationship and it's felt true and real to us and then he will not apologize directly. Well, we're we're disappointed because we think was it all an act? Was everything that we invested in and watch was it? Did you take us for a ride on this? And then we worry, have you taken us for a ride like other other entertainers who had cover ups around them have taken us for a ride? And then we start to get worried about our institutions as ITV taken us for a ride like the BBC took us for a ride with Savile. So it's it's a it's a troubling situation. And and what does he do? I would say to everyone and dissolves the status of that TV sister and and deflects to the victimization of this innocent person who is, you know, who's being set up as now untouchable, unspeakable to. We can't make contact with that person. They're going to be quiet and they just want this thing to go to go away. It's I don't think that is a response that the the British people are really going to buy into Chase. What do you got on that? That's just the one thing that I'm seriously doubting here. Just based off the behavior and just based off the claim when he makes a statement about this this guy staying overnight at his place. There's a single shoulder shrug. We talked about context and clusters. This is it. Single shoulder shrug extended nine o'clock eye accessing where he looks straight over to his right. There's a qualifier there where he says to I think he says to my recollection or as I recall, there's an immediate instantaneous shift of the subject or conversation to motive instead of fact, the motive instead of fact. That's a big deal because he's just redirecting very quickly. So maybe it's just a redirect with not a lot of chaff going on there. His denial of it, the taxis, in my opinion, is a hundred percent true. And I think all the behaviors about those taxis, you can see the difference in this one clip that's about to come up on your screen again in this one clip. Watch the taxis, watch the sleepover comment, and you'll see a big chasm between those two. Scott, you guys got everything. You know what this reminds me of, though? Is that apology episode we did for everybody's out apologizing? Because this is this is a big apology part right here. And it sure reminds me of some of those people that we didn't we didn't believe on there, you know, and so I agree with you guys. This this one seems iffy as well there. It just it simply because of everything everybody's talked about so far. He's hedging over this way. He's moving over this way. He's using qualifiers. He's just not doing the things that we've been seeing up to up to up to this point. And that that sets off little bells and whistles and flags for me. I'm not going to go in and start repeating or anybody else said. But this I think this is most likely rehearsed. But I think he's rearranged stuff before just before he said it. I think he's Greg calls it editing. He's got in there and edit some things to fit that question. I don't know if he knew it was going to be exactly the same question, but he knew that was going to be coming up. I would assume he thought would think it'd be coming up. So he has he had his question that he got over most likely in his head. I don't think he's had somebody sitting down with him going over everything. I think he's been going over the answers to these in his head. This one anyway, but to make it perfect for this situation. I think he sort of added it before he started letting it go, especially that first one, one of those tape replays. Do you characterize your relationship with her now? Is it broken? I adore Holly. I mean, I've always adored Holly. She's my TV sister. And I, from my point of view, no. I I I don't have a problem with Holly at all. What would you say to her, given that she's doubtless listening to you now? What would you say to her about maybe publicly that you said privately about how you'd like to apologize and your hopes for mending that relationship? I would say to everyone. I would say to my family, my friends, my work colleagues, the public, to ITV, to my management company, to everyone that I lied to. I am desperately, desperately sorry. But principally, I would like to apologize to him because it may have been consensual, it may have been fully legal. But I shouldn't have allowed it to happen. And that was a grave, grave error on my part. And I know that because of that, an absolutely innocent person is being persecuted. On one particular point of fact, Aiman Holmes has suggested that there were taxis from your apartment to the studio, which this young man used and that those were probably paid for by ITV. Did he frequently get taxis from your studio? He didn't frequently come to my flat, came to the flat once. To my recollection, he didn't stay over. He said he was passing and he was going to come in for a beer. So the idea that he regularly got taxis from your home to ITV studios? Utterly untrue. And also, I don't have an ITV car account. Presenters don't get that. Just one more thing. All right, Mark, what have you seen at this point? What do you think is going on? Well, look, I think there's some spin going on. I think there is ultimately some some honesty to him. I think there's some areas of the story which are skirted around, skirted over. There's there's a non-apology at the end. I think generally the British public would expect a little bit more. There's a possibility of redemption for him. He is such an institution. He has been so loved. People have invested so much in him. And he is a unique entertainer in the British field. So so there's every chance he could come back. It's whether he will deserve that by making the apologies that he should. Chase, what do you on this one? Yeah, so far, I think there's two large factors at play here, which kind of covertly find their way into our behavior pretty much permanently. Just about. And the first way is that we get influenced through this folk way enforcement, which is just deeply rooted in human behavior and it causes powerful fears to develop. And that's a big deal. And the result is shame. And this is just as powerful. The second one is just as powerful. It's advertising in the media. Advertising has two main goals. Number one, make you secretly compare yourself to other people, whether you're four years old or 70. And second is to give you the impression that you are not enough. And I think this cocktail that we're seeing here in this video is this. And if I'm honest, it's the cocktail you see in lots of people who feel off or depressed or all kinds of other things. Just knowing these things alone can just be the first step in literally unraveling all of this stuff. I don't know this case extremely well. I don't know this case at all. I didn't know who this person was until this morning, to be honest. But there's a ton of shame here. And I would venture to say that the shame might not all be about this one issue. Great. Yeah, so I would tell you if today you identify yourself as a family person, man or woman, however you're tied, that you have children, that you are, you know, best in your field, top of your field, loved by millions. And suddenly one of those things is found to be false, false. That becomes an underpinning. You know, the same thing I showed you with Chase, we're tearing up underpinnings or core being principles. Those things create personal extinction and personal extinction is a real thing. People take their own life because they've lost image. They've lost the ability to fit in the society. And to chase this point, regardless of whether those are good or evil things, regardless of whether those forces or whatever they are, you've created a cog like system and how you fit in there. Every time you tear one of those teeth off, it makes you do less certain about life and if you take enough of them, people take their own lives as a result of it. So let's be cautious in remembering that. And we're talking about a person who is right at the edge of that, right at the edge of his whole definition of life has just been destroyed. So is he going to be protective of certain things? Absolutely. Those things are going to be things like family, like friends, like relationships and institutions. And he needs to be protective of some of those by avoiding certain comments and then add to that the biggest taboo in his mind may be one that he really has to protect. And so those details will be the things he hides most. We saw a lot of body language and deviation around those things, around the activities. And those activities included things like sexual contact, but they also included things like the breaching of a relationship with his morning co-star, big deal. He avoided that, did deviations from baseline. Doesn't mean he's lying about the whole thing. And in fact, he embraced and took responsibility for the situation. How many details we'll find out later is another story. But I think we don't see many people, Scott, you said earlier, who come out and say, I did it. I did it. I won't give you all the details, but I did it. We don't see that very often unless they're proud of doing something. And this guy is not coming out and saying, look, I'm proud of what I did. I broke a social contract. And Scott, what do you got? I think this is a great example of some of where we're seeing truthful body language, because everybody always says, so somebody's not being deceptive. What does it look like when someone's being honest? And a lot of this we saw honesty. And then toward the end, the last couple of videos, we saw or started getting iffy. So I would call that iffy body language or iffy cues. So it makes me suspect from some of the things that Mark was talking about earlier, how much of this is going on, how much has gone on, that type of thing. But and you never know, you know, it's it's it's tough to tell. And that's why I think it's iffy on this one. They're toward the toward the end, but great examples of someone being honest and seeing someone who's just defeated and at the same time being honest. But they look, but you'll take these cues that you would see that you think are deceptive, but they're not. They're just defeated and broken down and they've accepted what what's coming. So I think that's what I've seen here. All right, fellas. Think this is another good one and we'll see you next time. So what do you got?