All Episodes Plain Text
Oct. 31, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:22
20221031_piers-morgan-uncensored-caitlyn-jenner
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Left Panics Over Musk 00:15:17
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored, a predictable panic on the left as Elon Musk takes charge of Twitter.
Is this a brave new dawn for free speech, as I believe, or open season for hateful trolls?
I'll talk live to Caitlin Jenner.
Pressure builds on the new Home Secretary, who was the last home secretary over Britain's migrant crisis and a growing security scandal over her private emails.
Is it time to sack Liki Sue again?
Bus fears that Prince Harry has sexed up his memoir to inflict maximum damage on the royal family.
Should he now be stripped of his remaining royal titles?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
It's Halloween and something very, very scary is happening.
I'm not talking about a ghoulish or event.
It's not even the inflation rate.
It's Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter.
And according to many so-called liberals who use the site obsessively, we should all be very, very afraid.
It's like the gates of hell opened on this site, said this Washington Post columnist.
All the red lights are flashing here, says Ben Collins of NBC.
This is an emergency.
Twitter's about to be taken over by the evil Sith Lord, says this professor.
Most absurdly of all, we've got this MSNBC commentator who told his fellow crybabies, stay, hold your ground like a Ukrainian.
Sorry?
A free speech-loving maverick takes over a social media site, and it's the equivalent of a genocidal dictator trying to take over a country.
And wait, who's been helping the Ukrainians?
Oh, that would be Elon Musk by donating $100 million worth of his Starlinks, these satellites which help the Ukrainian military connect with each other when everything else has been destroyed.
Is he really the enemy to the Ukrainian people?
America's top liberal TV network also collapsed into an immediate and predictable spasm of panic.
Official.
Musk is in, top executives are out, and the far right is rejoicing.
What are we in for?
Yes.
Well, there you are.
That kind of says it all.
You know, I think it's going to be really difficult.
When did free speech become far right?
Elon Musk isn't even conservative.
He's a fan of Bernie Sanders.
That's left-wing as a politician gets in America.
What these people are really scared about is hearing opinions they don't agree with and having their own opinions challenged.
Twitter has for a long time now been managed by a very woke workforce, which is systematically shadow-banned and buried commentators who are mainly on the right.
All Elon Musk has said is he wants to restore Twitter to what it should have been.
A digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be healthily debated.
That's not opening the gates of hell.
It's not death threats, incitements to violence or hate speech.
We have a word for those things already.
It's called crime.
A free speech Twitter simply means open debate about different ideas on what's arguably the single most important incubator of elite opinion in the world.
Both sides make their case, you decide.
That's free speech.
That's democracy.
Liberal people used to be in favour of it.
Well, my first guest tonight is a passionate advocate for free speech, and she also knows more than most about what it's like to be trolled online.
I'd love to say that Caitlin Jenner joins me now, I think from Hollywood.
Caitlin, how are you?
You know what, Pierce, I'm doing just fine.
Actually, very excited to see what's going to happen to social media now that Elon Musk is in control of Twitter.
I think it's going to be very interesting in the future.
Actually, if I could, and this is going to take a little while for social media to kind of get used to this, the Elon Musk here.
It's kind of almost like when Liv Golf came in to the golf world, the PGA kind of had a monopoly going here.
Well, social media has had a monopoly on, you know, the far left.
And finally, Elon Musk came in and he wants a free speech platform for everybody.
the left, the right.
And I think it's going to be good.
And I think it's going to really shake up social media.
You look at Mark Zuckerberg.
It was reported last week he lost like $100 million or $100 billion, whatever it was, in value of Meta because he's been so far left for so long and a voice for the left that people are leaving and going someplace else.
So this is going to take some time to figure out exactly how it's going to work out.
But I think it's going to be very good in the long run for social media.
Yeah, I mean, I completely agree.
And I think Elon Musk, you know, he's proven himself to be a genius who likes to challenge orthodoxy in terms of how we think, whether it's electric cars, whether it's SpaceX, his extraordinary space company, which does all these Starlink satellites as well, and now this.
I think he's the right guy because, as I keep trying to explain to people, he's not even someone who identifies as right-wing or conservative.
You know, he's a Bernie Sanders fan.
He's spent most of his life actually positioning himself politically to the left.
And yet it's the people on the left who have gone so far left, in my opinion, that it makes people who are on the center or maybe even slightly center-right look like they're far right by comparison.
That's been the problem.
No, Elon Musk, I think, is going to be very good for Twitter.
I have met him on a couple of occasions.
Actually, I'm into aviation and I got a private tour of SpaceX down at Hawthorne where they build the rockets.
And he gave me an hour tour.
We sat in his office.
He was wonderful.
And I think he is a big thinker.
I mean, when you say you're going to start SpaceX, a Space Company, and you're going up against NASA, that takes a lot.
It takes some pretty big ones there.
And I think he's going to do the same thing here.
The first thing he's starting up with is he's going to make it a subscription where he has Twitter Blue.
I think one of the reasons why when he first got in and started looking into Twitter, he saw that there were so many accounts that you couldn't verify.
And he wants to be able to verify it.
So he's going to put up for 1995, you can get a verified account on Twitter Blue.
And I think that's going to be very good.
You're going to get rid of a lot of the junk that's out there.
He's immediately started firing all the top executives.
In fact, I think it was today he completely fired the entire board of Twitter, bringing his people in.
Actually, he's bringing in a lot of technical people from Tesla.
And he's going to shake this thing up.
I think it's going to be so interesting to watch.
And I think it's going to be nothing but good.
You know, I've been on Twitter.
I've been shadow banned.
In fact, interesting, I was shadow banned the day it was announced that I joined Fox News as a contributor.
I immediately got to...
Well, it's funny you say that, Caleb, because oddly, I'd noticed over the last few months my Twitter following number had gone down quite slowly but steadily for months and months and months.
I was losing followers.
But in the last two weeks, since it looked like Elon Musk was basically going to be taking it over, I've suddenly gained all the followers I lost in two weeks.
Now, it might be coincidence.
It might be, I don't know, they were taking away bots or something like that.
Or it might just be that from the moment it looked like Elon Musk was actually going to run Twitter, a lot of the people doing this kind of shadow banning, which for people who don't know, they put stuff in the technology, which basically reduces the visibility of people they perceive to be conservative or maybe anti-woke or whatever it may be.
Certainly in my case, it would be anti-woke, not conservative.
But I smell a rat here.
And I think you probably have experienced similar stuff, right?
I've experienced the same thing.
You know, here's a little trivia.
I broke a Guinness Book of World Records on Twitter.
When I came out and I was not on Twitter, when I came out and was on the cover of Vanity Fair, I immediately, when that came out, I immediately opened up my Twitter account and I broke the world record for, broken set of Guinness Book of World Records for the fastest to 1 million followers.
Barack Obama had it at five hours and like 20 minutes.
I did it in four hours and two minutes from zero to one million.
I would expect inside myself.
You would expect nothing else from an Olympian gold medal champion.
Yes.
And so, yeah, I've been with Twitter for a very long time.
And yes, I've been shadow banned.
I have also noticed in the last couple of weeks, things have started to change.
Your amount of engagements is going up.
I think it's, honestly, I think this is going to be good, not just for Twitter, but on social media.
Kayla, if you were Elon, and you're looking at all the problems of Twitter, and I think we all know what they are, there are way too many anonymous bots, and they can influence, I think, political issues in a manipulative way, which can potentially then manipulate votes and therefore elections.
I think that remains a big concern.
Also, this, the amount of abuse, you know, racism, harassment, death threats and so on, is still there.
I see it, you know, every now and again, rear its ugly head.
Yeah.
Where for you, where is the line?
It's a very interesting debate, this, about where the line is for free speech.
Where is free speech?
And where for you, who's been on the subject of a lot of abuse and trolling, where for you is the line that gets crossed?
Well, first of all, I think that's in Elon Musk's hands right now and the people that he brings in.
He has to bring in some really good, competent people to be able to run Twitter.
Because obviously, hate speech shouldn't be anywhere.
It shouldn't be online.
It shouldn't be anywhere.
And there is that fine line between hate speech and something that's either true or maybe not quite as true.
It's almost like for me, it's almost like I get a lot of jokes about me.
I've been roasted and this and everything.
And there is that fine line between a funny joke that is really true, okay, and a funny joke that is like hateful.
To me, that always, I don't want hateful jokes against me.
I want funny jokes against me.
And you can use me and I love as good a laugh as anybody.
But it's going to be the same thing with Twitter.
Where is that fine line?
And I think he's going to have to have very competent people in there to be able to find out where that fine line is.
Well, it's interesting you mentioned comedy because he actually tweeted, comedy is legal again.
Oh, yeah.
And I responded by tweeting back two laughing emojis and a thumbs up, which he then likes very quickly.
And being liked by Elon Musk on Twitter at the moment is a bit like getting a papal blessing from the Pope if you're a Catholic.
You know, it's like the ultimate validation.
And it shows, of course, his own incredible engagement in Twitter.
I mean, he's all over it.
He reads everything.
He sees everything.
He's firing out tweets left, right, and center.
I don't know how he does it.
The guy's got a million things going on in his life.
You know, he's sending rockets up to space.
He's, you know, developing the electric car, which nobody said they could really do and do it right.
And he did.
And still, Tesla's the best electric car on the market.
SpaceX is just killing.
The only way any astronauts can get to the space station is now SpaceX.
NASA doesn't have any way to get him there.
So he's done an amazing job.
And I think he'll do the same thing with Twitter.
It's going to take a little time to work it out.
But I think Elon Musk is really good at getting good people in the right place.
Yeah, I agree.
And if they're not working out, he's afraid to, he's not afraid to fire somebody.
No, no, I agree.
But what would you do?
He's going to put the right people in place.
But he said today, if he had a dime or a dollar for everyone who's asked him what he's going to do about Donald Trump, he'd be very rich, which, of course, he's already very rich.
He's got $235 billion.
But what would you do about Donald Trump?
Would you let him back on the platform?
Oh, of course.
Yeah, it's a free speech platform now.
Of course I would.
Of course I would.
You know what?
It's interesting how the left is already starting to come after him.
Just on, what was it, just today, of course, Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, okay, on this Monday, said that they have to review Twitter because for the Committee of Foreign Investment.
Why?
Because the Saudis, a lot of people don't know this.
The Saudis have been big investors in Twitter for many, many years.
I think they hold about $1.89 billion in investment in Twitter.
Most people don't know that.
But now all of a sudden, the left's going to come after and say, hey, we have to check out these investments.
Saudi Arabia's been around for a long time with Twitter.
They're the number two stockholder behind Elon Musk.
But the left's going to take their shots.
I think Elon Musk is a very sharp guy.
I mean, my argument about Trump has been from the start of this is if you're going to ban Donald Trump, you can't then allow, as they've allowed, Vladimir Putin to retain his Twitter account, Taliban leaders, the supreme leader of Iran.
There's no consistency there.
You know, you cannot allow people like that to have accounts and say Donald Trump should be banned, in my opinion.
It's not a question of being right or left or any of these things.
It's a question of balance and consistency.
And I do think the one thing Elon Musk is going to do, he's going to bring in a kind of a group of people from all walks of life, all political persuasions, and they're going to be the ones who form a consensus about who should be banned.
Because there are some people who I think probably should be banned.
You know, if you're going to be spewing racism or stuff which endangers people's lives, I would say Alex Jones, for example, would be one example to me where by spewing his lies about Sandy Hook and imperiling the lives of the relatives of the poor kids who died, I don't think he should have a platform to do that and endanger their lives, personally.
Government Chaos and Bans 00:14:14
So I think there is a line, and I think he's going to get there with a group of people which will be far more rounded politically, probably, than the current leadership group at Twitter.
No, I totally agree with you.
I think, again, Elon Musk is very good at picking the right people to go to the right places.
Yeah, hate speeds on Twitter should not be there.
Maybe a different point of view, that can be there, you know, for the first time.
Because the problem with Twitter is that they have been just, you know, for the left.
And they ban people who's on the right.
Like in my case, Shadow Ban, I work, I'm a Conservative, love this country.
They will do everything to limit my speech, okay?
But that doesn't happen on the left.
I mean, they just totally let it go.
I think what now, with Elon Musk taking over, it's going to be much more well-balanced as far as who's on Twitter and what's going on.
I've got to ask you, I know you don't want to talk about this in any depth.
I completely understand why, because you have obviously a personal connection here.
But Kanye, you know, Ye West, who I interviewed last week, actually, in the US, there's a big debate about whether he should be given social media platforms now.
So setting aside the fact you obviously know him through the family, what's your view about what he said and whether he should have a platform?
First of all, any anti-Semitic remarks should be totally condemned by everybody, no matter if it's on Twitter or wherever it is.
So that's where I stand as far as and that type of speech shouldn't be around.
Yeah, to me, that is a line that if that gets crossed, that should be it.
Caitlin, it's great to talk to you.
I love you coming on the show.
Please come back soon.
You always talk a lot of sense.
I really appreciate it.
It's always good to talk to you, Piers.
Take care, Caitlin.
Well, next tonight, chaos in the channel, chaos at a migrant processing centre and chaos over her use of private emails of government business.
Is Leaky Swella Braverman about to be fired again?
Welcome back to Piers Working on Sensor.
British Home Secretary Swella Braverman is facing fresh demands as she quits tonight, just days after Rishi Sunak reappointed her in what increasingly looks like his first major misstep as Prime Minister.
She's admitted sending sensitive government documents to her personal email account six times in as many weeks.
Now she's under pressure over chaos at a migrant processing center where 4,000 people are packed into a facility built for just 1,600.
This evening she told the House of Commons that the asylum system she runs is broken and that Britain is facing an invasion.
Let's take a look.
The British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast and which party is not.
Some 40,000 people have arrived on the south coast this year alone.
Many of them facilitated by criminal gangs, some of them actual members of criminal gangs.
Well, Jordan Mino's Conservative peer, Lord Marlon.
Lord Marner, thank you very much indeed for joining tonight.
Good evening, Piers.
Here's my question about Leaky Sue, as she's been unfortunately nicknamed because of all the things that she's leaked, which is when Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister and reappointed her the six days after she'd been effectively fired from government, I said at the time I thought that was a big mistake, that I thought you cannot bring somebody back that fast.
And I also suspected, as we're now seeing, there would be more to come in terms of the stuff that was being held against her.
You can't be happy, surely, as a Conservative peer, to see all this attention now back on Swela Braverman and indeed all this detail from this migrant centre, where it looks like she has been at least partly responsible for all the chaos there.
Well, I don't think she's responsible.
She's only been in the job for 12 weeks.
You know, this is a massive problem, Piers, as you know, which has been building for a considerable time.
28,000, 38,000 migrants have come to this country this year.
This is only the start with the global starvation that's happening around the world.
And I've been traveling around the world recently in Commonwealth countries and seen the real trouble that's ahead.
And we will have more of these migrants coming in.
And as another point, you know, there are 117,000 people waiting for asylum.
This is an enormous figure.
It's the size of town.
Okay, my country.
This hasn't just happened.
My response to that is...
Sorry to interrupt you.
Can I just...
Sorry, let me interrupt.
How long have we had a conservative?
Sorry.
Can I just go to the next one?
Go on, finish.
Go on, you carry on.
Carry on.
Over, over to you.
My question for you then, I know where you were going with that.
My question for you is, I thought the Conservatives have been in charge for many years of this country.
Why is the asylum system so broken?
Why are these centres so dangerously overcrowded?
Why is nothing working?
Why are we processing just 4% of people?
What is going on?
And by the way, who else can you possibly blame but the Conservatives?
Well, I'm not going to shoulder that blame, but the issue is there is a government.
There is the wheels of government that is meant to be dealing with this appalling crisis.
And our sorrow goes out to those people who are having this terrible suffering, having to lean their own countries.
But this is a crisis that's been going on for a long time.
They can't get a chief executive for the border force.
They're only paid $150,000.
They've had to promote from within.
The lack of quality of people is obviously, and management is not helping this cause.
You and I go to, we travel a lot, we return to this country.
It takes us half an hour, 45 minutes to get through the border force, and they then look as if we're something the cats brought in.
I'm not surprised in my case, but in yours, you probably get a red carpet.
But, you know, the system of government has broken down.
And that is a real issue for any minister coming in.
And I think with Home Office officials apparently only working 50% of the time in the office, there has got to be a real sea change in the attitude of the civil service to dealing with this crisis, because they are there in perpetuity.
Well, look, again, I hate to be churlish here, but you're painting a very grim picture of this whole system, as indeed Suela Braverman did earlier in the Commons.
But again, I need to remind you, as you're a Conservative peer, and as I would remind her if I had her on the show, but she won't come on, that it's actually been a Conservative government that has presided over this catastrophe over the last decade.
You can't pass the buck.
The buck's with you guys.
There's no, I'm not standing here passing the buck at all.
I'm merely saying that the levers of government have let the country down in lots of different ways over the last two to three years, and this is one of them.
And it's coming to a real crisis.
It's coming to a crisis because there is seemingly no cessation to it.
It's going to increase.
And I'd like to know what the border force are doing about it and what steps they're going to be taking.
And of course it requires a leader in the Home Office to deal with it, but they can only operate as a leader with the right tools.
That's my point.
And I think you understand that point.
Okay, I think Suella Braverman is being blamed for all this, and maybe she will be blamed for it all, but she shouldn't be blamed for this because she's only been there for a short period of time.
Well, it looks like a lot of people are blaming her, including people right at the heart of government.
And I come back to my central point.
If you've been fired for breaching ministerial rules, you shouldn't be getting the same job back six days later.
You know, as I think it was Chris Bryant said in the Commons today, you know, I'm all for second chances and redemption.
We've got to serve some sentence first, is the way I normally understood justice.
Let's bring in Jonathan Ashworth, who's the shadow work and pension secretary.
Mr. Ashworth, you're smirking away there.
Is that because you find the Conservative position on this of the brass neck variety?
I mean, it's staggering, isn't it?
I mean, they've been in power for 12 years, Piers.
And how many home secretaries have we had?
They've all been Tory Home Secretaries in those 12 years.
And I'm afraid Suella Braverman is a total liability.
And she's only in place because of this grubby deal between her and Rishi Sunak, which, and in the end, it was a monumental failure of judgment on Sunak's part to bring her back.
And all this, oh, it's not her fault.
Well, you know, there's these question marks tonight as to whether she was clear about whether she commissioned these extra hotel rooms or not.
The source is coming out saying she wasn't entirely, what she said in the House of Commons isn't entirely correct.
This is an absolute shambles, and it's a shambles taking place on the Conservative Space.
Should she resign again?
Well, I mean, I can't.
Look, her career is clearly going down the toilet.
Whether she'll survive or not, I do not know.
We understand tonight that the kind of right-wing Boris Johnson-style ERG Tory MPs are sort of trying to support her, and that number 10, the Rishi Sunak people, are hanging her out to dry.
What a shambles.
Last week, Rishi Sunak told us he was going to bring back integrity and professionalism.
I just think it shows you that when it does come to Rishi Sunak, he does have, he is weak, and this is a failure of his judgment.
Well, I mean, Lord Marland, you know, I'm actually a bit of a fan of Rishi Sunak, certainly by comparison to his two predecessors.
But I do think this is a big mistake.
I do think you can see the volume of attention now on Suella Braverman is getting so intense, he might get forced into relieving of her duties again, and that will be a big blow to his premiership very early on.
Well, you and I have observed politics for a very long time, Piers, and of course, none of that would surprise us.
You know, this immigration issue has been going on for a very long time.
It's been a big problem for the country.
We're a small island.
Tony Blair was the first who really let the floodgates open.
So to hear the cant from Labour is a little bit rich.
We're now inheriting a very significant problem.
It needs serious grasp and real meaningful attempt to sort this matter out for the good of the country.
And there's no point point scoring over this.
It needs the Home Office to get a grip.
It needs, as you have identified, real leadership to get hold of it.
And let's hope we do, because otherwise it's just going to get catastrophically worse.
We're going to have loads and loads of people appearing here.
We can't cope with them.
We haven't been able to cope with them.
And it's going to be a mess, a real mess.
Jonathan Ashworth, my issue with the Labour Party position is I'm all for point scoring, by the way.
I think that's what makes the political world go around.
But I'm not entirely sure that you lot have a clue what to do about this problem either.
I've not really seen any great idea from the Labour Party which will solve this problem.
Well, first of all, Tony Blair stopped being Prime Minister, I think, 15 years ago.
So it's pretty weak when the Tories are saying, oh, it's all Tony Blair's fault.
I mean, goodness sake, get a grip, man.
You've been in power for 12 years, or your party's been in power.
Look, what would Labour do?
Well, first of all, we know that criminal gangs are exploiting this system because it takes so long to process.
We used to be processing around 28,000 a year.
We're now processing 14,000.
There's some people waiting like, you know, the average wait is like 400 weeks.
It's well over a year to process some of these claims.
If you were processing quicker and had a firm, fair system, we're getting, you know, obviously refugees and asylum seekers who are with genuine claims, they obviously we should be humane and compassionate.
But the people who are being those who are exploiting the system, they need their applications processed.
And if they're not got the right to stay here, then we need to...
What would you do with the fact that the majority now of the people coming over on these boats appear to be Albanian men?
So they're not from a war-torn country seeking genuine asylum or refugee status.
They appear to be economic migrants.
Well, their applications need to be turned around quickly.
And, you know, where people are, asylum seekers and refugees, we are a compassionate country and we're proud of our compassionate nature.
But where people are exploiting the system, of course, we should be doing all we can to return them to other countries, which is also why you need a deal.
You need a deal with France as well in this.
And we've not got a deal.
But part of this problem is if you're not processing quickly, if you're leaving people languishing for 400 days, then criminal gangs will exploit this system.
And that in the end does come back to the Tory Home Secretaries, because as we've been hearing from our friend in the House of Lords there, he himself is conceding that it's been a shambles, that there's all kinds of problems.
Well, I think the one thing we can all agree on is it's been a complete shambles and it's getting worse, not better.
And that's a very bad reflection on the succession of people put in charge of this country.
And we can only hope that if Suella Braverman does survive, and I've got to say, I think the jury is out on that, that she does something about this which works because the Rwanda policy, which we were told was her dream, has already turned out to be a complete fiasco.
I've got to leave it there.
Nadine Doris Free Speech 00:08:25
Lord Marlon, thank you very much, as always.
I've got to say, to your great credit, you come and face the music on behalf of the Conservative Party when many run for cover or hide in fridges.
And I appreciate it.
And Jonathan Ashworth, you always come on, I appreciate it.
I live on the privilege of being on your show, Piers.
Thank you, Lord Marlon.
I live in the privilege of being on your show.
Only some of your colleagues had a similar attitude.
The world would be a finer place.
But thank you to you both.
Appreciate it.
No, thanks a lot.
Well, still to come, I'm going to talk to the royal expert who believes King Charles will strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle of their titles if his new book trashes the Queen Consort Camilla.
But next I'm joined by my pat today, going to beat the Bravo de Barpole with the Qatar World Cup.
And Nadine Doris.
I think we've had enough of her on the show, haven't we?
You won't want to miss this.
Well, welcome back.
As Elon Musk, the new boss of Twitter, himself said, I hope even my worst critics remain on Twitter because that's what free speech means.
Exactly right.
And indeed, to celebrate this statement, one of my worst critics is joining me now tonight.
Welcome to you, Matthew Said from the Sunday Times.
Good to have you.
Thank you.
Kevin McGuire, my old friend, of course, in the Daily Mirror.
And Emily Sheffield, the long-suffering co-presenter of Piers Morgan Uncensored with Nadine Doris.
That went well.
I'll tell you what, let's have a quick look at Nadine Doris in action because it was sort of monumentally, spectacularly fascinating.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Coming up on tonight's programme, Red Change, a man who is going to clear up a woman's mess.
That's Rishi's fowers that enters number 10.
As you are, Sunuk Stability extends to the cabinet with the big beast ake and all our cage has got Fradman back at home in the home office.
Sorry, I've just completely messed up.
They're in our studio and we've risked them for a clue.
Stick around for Just Up Oil Live.
You know, I told them to get somebody on who wasn't quite as good as me, but that was ridiculous.
It's not as easy as it looks, is it, Nadine?
I should stick to politics.
Actually, maybe not.
Anyway, let's move on.
Now, Matthew, you've got a great book out about free speech.
Genuinely mean that.
It's a good book of read speech, but I can't let this opportunity go without reminding you what you once said about a public figure in this country.
He takes crude stances.
He seeks scapegoats for complex problems.
He goads guests into simplistic answers and humiliates them when they think Bess have returned to the studio.
A parasite on the contours of democracy, a temporary hero to the deluded souls for whom he becomes a cheerleader.
He doesn't seem to care about what soapbox he's on, provided it's topical and divisive.
Now, for the benefit of the viewers, whose beloved public figure was that?
That was, if memory serves, I think that was you.
It was me!
It was me.
And you know what?
We live in a democracy.
I believe in free speech like you do.
We have locked horns many times.
But actually, I thought, given what's going on with Elon Musk and given the fact you've written a book about free speech, the best way for me to show that I mean it is to have one of my more voracious critics on and to say, you know what, we can disagree with each other.
And hopefully at the end of it, we might like each other a little bit more than we started.
We shouldn't be difficult.
And in fairness, I think I should point out that in response, a barbed response to that column on television the next morning, you played out a clip before becoming a journalist.
I think you know I was a table tennis player, the British number one for 10 years.
And you played a clip of me losing badly to a German player.
And he said, this guy's a choker if he can't win at table tennis.
How do we take his opinion seriously on anything else?
I think it's fair.
You gave as good as you.
I played down to every worst fear you had about my behaviour.
That'd be good to see.
Right, let's talk about Elon Musk for a moment then, Matthew, because I think it's a really interesting thing that's happening here.
Because Musk is not a right-winger by any conventional stand.
He's a Bernie Sanders fan, one of the left-wing politicians in America.
He's always historically talked about being on the left.
And yet it's the left that are going most nuts about him taking over Twitter.
I think because they're used to really having their own way on Twitter, where it's the right that get shadow banned, it's the right that get banned completely, Trump and so on.
And it's never the ones on the left who often, in my view, behave just as disgracefully.
Well, for me, the great strength of liberal democratic societies is that we have opinions.
We express them, hopefully courageously and occasionally in a slightly ad hominem fashion.
But in order to dispute someone's view, you should refute it.
You should come up with evidence as to why it's wrong.
When we censor other opinions, we're denied the opportunity to engage with them.
We can often push them underground.
They can develop a greater cachet.
I don't have a problem with listening to people who disagree with me.
And it was, I think, Voltaire's most eminent biographer.
I will defend to the death your right to say even that with which I disagree.
We lose that in liberal societies.
If we have a liberal set of institutions cohabiting with an illiberal mindset, I think it weakens us and it strengthens the truth.
We have a lot more in common than you think, because I completely agree.
Emily, this is the nub of it for me, is that the very people who call themselves liberals are behaving in not just an illiberal way, but actually with this cancelled culture mentality, almost like the fascists that they profess to hate most.
Well, I think one of the more worrying things I've seen is people at sort of Oxford and Cambridge University where you're not allowed to go and talk there.
Sort of de-platformed and, but only if you're on the right, only if you're a conservative.
Well, even some of these were like really mild it was.
It was like there certainly weren't my opinion of what was on the right and um, I don't think many people said what was on the right, and you know, we've just seen this with the trans debate there are lots of nuances to many arguments.
Right, if you don't sit and debate a nuance and complex issues, how?
How are you going to come up with solutions?
Or you can't?
Just let me start with you by saying, binary for 40 years.
Let me start with like the SUN, THE Telegraph, THE MAIL AND THE Express, trying to get people banned and lose their jobs for saying things they find unacceptable.
Right yes, there's intolerance on the left.
There's a huge number of bingers.
I was about to, I was about to tee you up by saying I think there are a lot of people on what I call the radical end of both ends of the spectrum, right and left, who unfortunately dominate a lot of the noise yeah, and airspace.
You know there's an amazing stat that 20 of people in Britain and America are on twitter but off that 20, 10 of those make 80 of the noise and they tend to skew radical.
So you're getting a sort of constant reverberation of extremity of opinion and that is, I think, diluting democracy in the process.
Well, there's much to be angry about, but of course, if you, if you're on twitter or more social media platforms, the more outrage you make, the more followers you will get.
And we saw with Swella Braverman tonight, the home secretary, because she's accused of uh, of unlawful behavior, because she's accused of ignoring the ministerial code, and she gets, she's sacked, gets a job back after six days.
She talks about an invasion of the south coast and she knows that is incredibly inflammatory, 24 hours after a petrol bomb attack on Dover.
But she does that because half of twitter and the country will say yeah, you're quite right, we've been invaded, and the other half will say that's incredibly inflammatory.
One thing, because we were just looking at this in the Green Room sorry not actually, it just feels like we were just looking.
So um, Donald Trump's son has just posted a picture of a pair of pants and a hammer.
Well, he retweeted somebody else as a halloween thing about.
I'm just a secret interested.
We've just had Nancy Pelosi's husband attacked.
How do we, how do we think about things.
Well, there's a very interesting debate to be had about that's not about any kind of well.
I'll tell you what my answer to that is.
However stomach churning that joke may be, around halloween, there's now this incredibly puritanical censorship going on where Halloween you've happened.
Trump Hammer and Law 00:03:02
I know, I know, and I find it outrageous and horrible.
Here's my point, though.
Actually, I just come back from La two days ago in lay now, almost nobody can wear any costume on halloween anymore.
You're not even allowed to dress up as beauty because somebody somewhere finds it offensive, whereas the whole point of halloween is to be gratesquely offensive.
You dress up as the worst people in the world or you mock the worst things that happen.
Could this be argued?
And I assume it can't be, otherwise Twitter would have removed it by now.
Is well, maybe not?
Is this inciting hatred?
This was an, I think.
I think there's an important distinction between who is cracking down on the expression of an opinion.
I think it's very dangerous when the state gets involved, which has the power right to imprison.
Twitter is a private company.
It is a private institution.
It's part of private property.
I think in.
I would like to see people argue against other people's posts.
I don't want to get the government involved.
No, that's exactly a small number of circumstances.
Incitement to racial hatred, but incitement to violence is one of them, isn't that?
But do we want unaccountable billionaires to own what is effectively the public?
Unaccountable Billionaire owns the Washington POST, Jeff Bezos, and of Amazon.
And that is the problem.
But all the journalists there will tell you he never interferes.
He's put loads of money into journalism.
He's been a false route.
We know that.
Just because you're rich and successful doesn't mean you're a bad person, Kevin.
I know you think you're.
But we know that Elon Musk is going to interfere in Twitter because he's made that point.
In fact, over the weekend, after that hammer attack, he actually retweeted Constantine.
He's very deleted.
The minute he was wrong.
Subsequently, but he's spread it.
He's speaking.
He's spreading that fake news.
On the left, here's the thing about Elon Musk.
He brings in electric cars like nobody else in history, right?
Big tick in the box for me.
SpaceX, particularly what he's doing with the Starlink satellites, which have been directly helping at vast expense to his company, helping Ukrainian military to connect with each other when all their internet and cell phone stuff goes down, right?
He does a lot of very good stuff, Elon Musk.
And he's actually identifies as to the left.
He just finds the kind of ultra-woke, cancelled doctor's mentality completely irrational and destroying what democracy is.
I agree with it.
We're talking about free speech and him owning a huge platform.
You could have mentioned when those kids were trapped in a cave in Thailand, he's called one of the people who saved one of the diversity.
An appalling slur.
So he's out of control when it comes to free speech.
Well, and it goes over into what you would call it.
But hang on, hang on.
Okay.
But it's very interesting, isn't it?
Because insulting people or being offensive, actually, if you believe genuinely in free speech, then you are allowed to do that.
I can offend you right now, and you might be offended and insulted, but it doesn't give you the right to stop me saying that.
That's right, but unless I break a law.
Now, if I break a law, you have the right of the Criminal Justice Act in this country to come and take action.
Harry Takes Down Camilla 00:06:23
The question then is what the law should be.
I'm with you.
I think unless it's physical harm that you are in danger of if it's just an insult.
It's quite hard to prove, though, the incitement to violence.
And you know, it's not a big Donald Trump off, which I don't think.
But it should be quite hard to prove him.
I think Elon Musk didn't agree with that.
Am I right?
He didn't think Donald Trump would have been taken off.
And I do think to Jack Dorsey's defense, I think they genuinely thought Donald was using Twitter to incite violence.
Well, I think there's a very good argument that that is the case.
But if you use that as a yardstick for banning Trump, you've got to look at what's happened with the Supreme Leader of Iran inciting hatred against Jewish people, you know, with the Taliban deciting hatred against just about everybody.
Or Vladimir Putin is currently waging legal war in Europe.
Twitter made a lot of money from Trump by keeping him on for a long time.
And they knew he was very strong as a president.
It was only when they saw he was going to be a loser and he was inciting insurrection.
They took it.
Unfortunately, we've run out of time because I loved just this debate.
I actually think it's the key debate of our time, free speech.
I really think it's under attack like it's ever been.
And people like Elon Musk, I think, are going to be the champions of saving free speech.
We will see.
And we'll debate it again.
But thank you.
You've all got very interesting views on that.
Good to see you, Matthew.
Thank you.
Wasn't so bad.
How was it?
Well, coming next, will the Wynathon memoir from Prince Harry be the final straw for his father, King Charles?
Of course the World Expert says this book can see Harry finally stripped of his remaining titles and somebody.
Well, welcome back.
First drafts of Prince Harry's forthcoming memoir were reportedly rejected by publishers, sparking concerns.
He's ramped up revelations now likely to rock the royal family.
The new book's called Spare, an unsubtle whine about his life in Prince William's shadow.
And it's due out just months before King Charles's coronation, which I'm sure his father is thrilled about.
Would you want to be now as Vanity Fair Royal and Sir Katie Nickel?
And historian Dr. Tessa Dunlop, fresh from her extraordinary performance on Good Morning Britain today, which I happen to catch, actually.
You're very fired up with old Tom Bauer.
I was extremely angry on a couple of counts.
Yes, I was.
My position is that anyone who's written about the royals has no right to have adverse comment about Harry doing his memoir.
No, that's absolutely twisting what I'm about, Piers.
I've just written a book out next week, which I'm very good at getting in there.
Elizabeth and Philip, and I therefore cannot throw stones at glass houses.
But I do take sincere objection to someone like Tom Bauer sitting there across the table from me and having a go at Harry and Megan raking in the money off the back of the royal family.
Tell me that Tom Bauer with his ridiculous book isn't anything.
Okay, here's what I'll say to that.
A is a very good journalist and he never gets sued.
And Megan is a brilliant PR person.
Well, she might be actually...
And actually, I don't mind her podcast.
She has a pleasing book.
I don't disagree that she milks that PR udder like very few people I've seen.
But I think on the central point he made by way of defense, which I agree with him about, he's look, in the end, he's not Prince Harry.
He's not given royal titles.
He's not had all the privilege and wealth that comes from being a royal, which is paid for by the British public.
It's a completely different kettle of fish.
Both of you are royal authors, but it's very, very different.
And I would say, Katie, about this book by Harry, if you're King Charles, you're mourning your mother and your father.
I do believe that he was sincerely missing his parents.
If you don't mind, I'll finish my question.
He's mourning both his parents.
He's lost them the last two years.
He's taken on being king after the longest apprenticeship in history.
And obviously very protective of his wife, Camilla.
And the word is that Harry is going to take down Camilla in this book.
If that happens, why, frankly, after they've already been spray gunning the royals now for two years and say left for freedom and privacy, why should they keep the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex?
A county, by the way, I come from, where I have spent more time in the last month than they've spent in their lives.
Well, I think, and I've said this before, I know Tom said it as well, but I said it a while ago.
I had it on very good authority from a source close to the king that if they do trash, Camilla particularly is very, very protective, as you would expect of the Queen Consort.
And if they use this as an opportunity to tarnish not just the reputation of the crown, but to attack Camilla, that really will, I think it'll be the nail in the cuffs.
The relationship we're talking about.
They had a pop at them on Oprah, right, calling them a bunch of callous racists.
Are they going to really do it all over again in a book?
Do you know, if you don't want this book to succeed, if it irks you that much, stop talking about it.
It will succeed.
It will be a massive number one bestseller.
That's not my argument.
He's got to make his money back by getting out there and fucking...
My point is, he is trashing the very institution and the people at the head of it, which have afforded them the titles, which is the only reason anybody cares about.
It is an extraordinary gilded cage which comes with a dunk load of privilege and lots of problems.
It's a goldfish bowl from day one.
Princess Elizabeth grew up in that goldfish bowl.
Harry grew up in that goldfish bowl and couldn't really find another girl to go with him who wanted to join him in the goldfish bowl, which is why Megan became his saviour in many respects.
Look at Philip, look at Philip when you're in the middle of the day.
The queen died one of the most beloved people in the world.
Indeed, she did.
Because she never complained, she never explained, she never whined, she never trashed the monarchy, never trashed her family.
She had her ups and downs.
These two in California want their royal cake and eat it.
They want to make millions trading off their royal status while saying the royal family are god-awful.
By the way, my father's awful.
The Queen Camilla's awful.
The monarchy is disgusting.
And they want to make millions.
And I believe I believe, I wish they weren't, but they are.
And I believe the British monarchy should be broad-shouldered enough to just let it wash over.
Last words you can't do.
And that's not what the Queen would want.
I think there is an inevitability that if that is what they're setting out to do, he may not necessarily, by the way, none of us have seen these extracts.
They don't actually know what's in the public.
They're not P twenty million random house for a lot of guff.
If that is the intention, then it can be very different.
Listen, you're both very good royal authors.
You look very fetching in your king's house.
Me to bully as a bully.
Come back soon.
I'm not a bully.
Bully.
I just don't like people who are put in the royal family.
Export Selection