Eamonn Holmes has claimed there was a “total cover-up” over Phillip Schofield’s affair with a younger male colleague on This Morning while he was married.
Holmes, 63, who also presented on the show, has accused Schofield of “toxicity” amid the furore over the culture on the ITV daytime programme.
Host Schofield, 61, admitted last Friday to an “unwise, but not illegal” affair with a younger male colleague on the show and has now quit the commercial broadcaster and been dropped by his talent agency YMU.
Schofield on Monday hit back at critics, saying on Instagram there was “no toxicity” on the programme, adding: “I hope you have noticed that it’s the same handful of people with a grudge against me or the show who seem to have the loudest voice.”
ITV said there had been an investigation in early 2020 when “rumours of a relationship between Phillip Schofield and an employee of ITV first began to circulate” but said it did not find “any evidence of a relationship beyond hearsay and rumour”.
A statement from the commercial broadcaster on 27 May said: “Both parties were questioned and both categorically and repeatedly denied the rumours as did Phillip’s then agency YMU.
“In addition, ITV spoke to a number of people who worked on This Morning and were not provided with, and did not find, any evidence of a relationship beyond hearsay and rumour… He lied to people at ITV, from senior management to fellow presenters, to YMU, to the media and to others over this relationship.”
More on Phillip Schofield
Related Topics:
But Holmes told GB News presenter Dan Wootton: “It’s a total cover-up.
“Those in authority had to know what was going on and they thought they would dodge a bullet with this.
“Which they do and they do constantly because with Schofield talking about those who speak out against him, namely me, Amanda Holden and you [Dan Wootton], you’ll be included in the toxicity that goes on… Dr Ranj [Singh] of course as well.
“And you simply sit there and think ‘no mate, you’ve had it all your way for too long’.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Referring to Schofield’s comments on Instagram, Holmes said: “I think that Phillip is absolutely right about toxicity.
“But my friend, the toxicity is not with me, Dan Wootton, or anyone else, the toxicity is with you.”
Phillip Schofield and Eamonn Holmes social media statements in full
Just before 10am on Monday, Phillip Schofield posts a statement on his Instagram stories.
“Now I no longer work on @thismorning I am free to say this. I hope you have noticed that it’s the same handful of people with a grudge against me or the show who seem to have the loudest voice.
“This morning IS the best show to work on, with the best people. In all the years I worked there there was no toxicity. You can listen to those persistently loud voices if you like.
“But the thousands of guests over the years, thousands of staff and crew, hundreds of presenters and contributors all know, it IS a family of wonderful, talented, kind, hard working people.”
At 11.10am Eamonn Holmes tweets a response.
“Schofield has just put out a delusional statement. Like Holly he puts it on Insta Stories so if it goes wrong there is no record after 24 hrs.
“I’m reluctant to give the liar any more publicity but believe me Pip if u r looking for a fight , u have picked on the wrong person !”
ITV has been approached for comment by Sky News about Holmes’s claims.
GB News asked ITV’s managing director of media and entertainment, Kevin Lygo, if there was a “cover-up” and if he “protected” Schofield.
Mr Lygo told a GB News producer: “We really have no more to say.”
Holmes previously presented This Morning on Fridays with his wife Ruth Langsford.
The programme’s former resident doctor Dr Ranj Singh has hit out at the show’s “toxic” culture, saying he raised concerns about “bullying and discrimination” two years ago when he worked there and afterwards felt like he was “managed out” for whistleblowing.
Schofield originally said he was stepping down from the show because it had “become the story”, following reports of a feud between him and co-host Holly Willoughby.
The government has announced its plan for an Independent Football Regulator (IFR) for the professional men’s game.
The IFR came about following a review by Tory MP Tracey Crouch, which itself was launched after the attempt by clubs to form the European Super League.
But the Premier League has responded by saying they “remain concerned” about the legislation, which they claim could unintentionally “weaken the competitiveness and appeal of English football“.
Among the measures contained in the IFR – which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny – are:
• New “stronger tests” for new owners and directors to “stop clubs falling into the wrong hands”. They face being blocked and even struck off from future attempts;
• “Backstop powers” to sort out the financial distribution between the Premier League and English Football League, if they cannot come to an agreement themselves;
• All clubs from National League One to the Premier League will be need to be licensed to compete in competitions, following “a number of issues in recent years including financial mismanagement, breakaway plans for the European Super League, and changes to club names, badges and colours against the wishes of fans”;
More on European Super League
Related Topics:
• New requirements to protect from “breakaway competitions” and “stadium relocations”;
• An obligation to consult fans on “key off-field decisions” will also be a requirement of the licence. This could include decisions on cub heritage and strategic direction.
As well as statutory regulation of football clubs, the government has also announced that the IFR will produce a periodical report, called “State of the Game”, which will analyse the financial state of football.
The government says the IFR will not be “overly-interventionist”, and will instead take an “advocacy first” approach – although these will be backed by a “broad suite of powers to investigate suspected non-compliance, compel information, and enforce if necessary”.
It is also pledged that the bill will have “no input in on-field decisions and will act in a way that minimises any impact on sporting competitions”.
A “shadow regulator” will be set up to run while the IFR is created, with a location, chair and board make-up all still up in the air.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “Football has long been one of our greatest sources of national pride. Up and down the country, it brings people together in celebration or commiseration.
“But for too long some clubs have been abused by unscrupulous owners who get away with financial mismanagement, which at worst can lead to complete collapse – as we saw in the upsetting cases of Bury and Macclesfield Town.
“This bill is a historic moment for football fans – it will make sure their voices are front and centre, prevent a breakaway league, protect the financial sustainability of clubs, and protect the heritage of our clubs big and small.”
Ms Crouch said that “football fans can begin to breathe a sigh of relief in the knowledge that the next steps towards protecting the long term sustainability of the pyramid have now been taken”.
In response to the announcement, a spokesperson for the Premier League said it would study the bill once it is published.
“We agree it is vital that football clubs are sustainable, remain at the heart of their communities and that fans are fundamental to the game,” it added.
“The government has consistently stated that it wishes to support the Premier League’s continued global success which generates funding to help sustain the entire football pyramid.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“With our clubs, we have advocated for a proportionate regime that enables us to build on our position as the most widely watched league in the world.
“Mindful that the future growth of the Premier League is not guaranteed, we remain concerned about any unintended consequences of legislation that could weaken the competitiveness and appeal of English football.”
The House of Commons has rejected the House of Lords’ first attempt to amend the Safety of Rwanda Bill – with the legislation sent back to the upper chamber.
A total of 10 amendments were put before MPs, but Conservatives voted each of them down.
Among the changes proposed by peers was scrapping the government’s plan to force judges to consider Rwanda as a safe country.
They also want to allow politicians and judges to consider evidence of whether Rwanda is safe – something which is prevented by the proposed law.
Another change suggested would prevent those who had served with or for the British armed forces from being sent to Rwanda if they arrived illegally in the UK.
The Commons debated the amendments for around four hours before voting began, with both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer both in attendance when divisions began.
More on Rishi Sunak
Related Topics:
How MPs voted on the amendments
Amendment one: Seeks to ensure bill is fully compliant with rule of law – Rejected 328 to 250;
Amendment two: Removes claim that Rwanda is
Amendment three: Provides mechanism for parliament to be informed about treaty – Rejected 324 to 253;
Amendment four: Allows presumption Rwanda is safe to be rebutted with credible evidence – Rejected 321 to 252;
Amendment five: Allows courts to consider appeals based on the safety of Rwanda – Rejected 322 to 249;
Amendment six: Restores ability of courts and tribunals to consider if Rwanda is safe – Rejected 324 to 251;
Amendment seven: Courts can consider review claims regarding removals of children – Rejected 320 to 250;
Amendment eight: Parliament must be given a timeline for removals – Rejected 318 to 255;
Amendment nine: Seeks to protect victims of modern slavery from being deported – Rejected 320 to 251;
Amendment ten: Exempts armed forces personnel, their dependants and families from removal – Rejected 312 to 255.
MPs on opposition benches spoke in support of the amendments proposed by the upper chamber.
Labour’s shadow Home Office minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “They each serve to make this shambolic mess of a Bill marginally less absurd, and as I will come to in a second, they would serve only to put in statute what ministers have actually promised from that despatch box.”
Advertisement
There was also opposition from the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, who said: “Based on the evidence I have read, and the evidence the Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard so far, based on what I heard and saw on the ground in Kigali, I remain of the view that Rwanda is still not a safe country for asylum seekers.”
The Green Party’s Caroline Lucas called the bill an “extraordinary and profound attack” on constitutional democracy.
And the Conservative former minister Sir Jeremy Wright said he was “troubled” by the “absolutist, if not eternalist, nature of the wording of the bill”.
Tory former minister Sir Robert Buckland said he was minded to support some of the amendments, and indeed voted in favour of the second and fourth.
But there was support for the government from its backbenches during the debate.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
Which countries send asylum seekers abroad?
Sir Bill Cash said one of the amendments threatened parliamentary sovereignty and was “one of the most serious and dangerous clauses that I have seen in recent statutory history”.
And Richard Graham said the amendments were “not relevant” to what the government was trying to do.
The Lords are set to consider the bill with its removed amendments on Wednesday.
Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson emphasised the government’s belief that Rwanda is safe, following the agreement of a new treaty.
This sought to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court when they ruled previous legislation incompatible with human rights laws.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Mr Tomlinson said: “It is the treaty, the bill and the published evidence pack which together demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the government’s approach is tough but fair and lawful.
“The government is clear that we’ve assessed Rwanda to be safe and we’ve published evidence to substantiate that point.”
The Princess of Wales has been filmed smiling and looking happy while out shopping with Prince William.
The couple were seen strolling through a car park on Saturday, in video published by The Sun, which said they were at Windsor Farm shop, close to their home.
Kate, 42, was wearing a hoodie and leggings and carried her own shopping, while the Prince of Wales was dressed in a blue coat, jeans, trainers and a baseball cap.
None of their three children, 10-year-old Prince George, Princess Charlotte, eight, and five-year-old Prince Louis were with them.
The paper quoted shopper Nelson Silva, who took the video, and said they appeared “super relaxed”, while Kate looked “happy and relaxed”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:41
Royal family attend Commonwealth Day service
Another eyewitness who watched the footage said it was “just a woman shopping with her husband on a Saturday afternoon just like thousands of other couples across the country”.
Earlier this month, the princess apologised “for any confusion” after it emerged a Mother’s Day photograph of her with her children had been edited before being sent to picture agencies.
Kate said: “Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing.
“I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared caused.”
A week ago, the prince and princess were seen in public for the first time since the controversy, when the prince went on to attend the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey, but Kate did not.
Meanwhile, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s individual profiles on the official Buckingham Palace website have been replaced with a combined one which is further down the page.
The joint profile includes their biographies, including some of the work they have done, including Prince Harry’s Invictus Games and Sentebale charity in Lesotho, and Meghan being patron of several organisations.