All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 1, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:05
20221201_piers-morgan-uncensored-day-2-of-the-royal-race-ro
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Lady Hussey's Uncomfortable Racism 00:15:29
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Richard Tice.
And me, Isabelle Oakeshott.
It's day two of the Royal Race Row.
Can Wills and Kate's US trip rescue the Royals?
Not if Harry and Meghan have anything to do with it.
When the stakes were this high, does it make more sense to hear our story from us?
And Labour on the attack over the PM's posh education.
Are they scrapping private schools by stealth?
Plus, plus, unbelievably, is lab-made artificial meat the answer to the global food crisis?
Personally, I can't stand the stuff.
It's a no.
I don't reckon that he can actually tell the difference.
We'll put that to the test.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored with Richard Tice and Isabel Oakeshott.
Well, hello and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
And as you can see, we're not Piers.
For starters, we're much better looking.
Piers is having a well-earned rest off the back of a series of incredible exclusive interviews.
So while he sits at home in his slippers sipping his Horlicks, Richard and I are temporarily taking his place.
And we're going to try and be just as uncensored.
Well, of course, first up, the row over racism at the palace intensifies today after Ngozi Filani, the woman at the centre of the storm, told of her pain and the hurt over the way that she was grilled and interrogated about her heritage by none other than the godmother to Prince William Lady Susan Hussey herself.
The domestic abuse campaigner, who was at a reception hosted by the Queen consort Camilla, says she felt trapped and violated as Lady Hussey repeatedly, repeatedly asked, where's she really from?
Including the words, where are your people from?
And what part of Africa are you from?
Well the answer, as Ngozi Filani is generally happy to explain, is that her parents came to London from the Caribbean.
Most of their children, including Ngozi herself, were born here in the UK.
She's brilliantly British, British through and through.
Writing about her life and background on a website, Ngozi talks all about this and describes how her father taught her about her, quote, connection to Africa.
She is, however, British, an answer that Lady Hussey seems strangely reluctant to accept.
In their super awkward conversation on Tuesday night, the Queen's former lady-in-waiting repeatedly pressed her on her heritage, long after it was pretty clear that the line of questioning was causing offence.
Now, for her ignorance, she has rightly resigned.
The palace, which has spent so much of the last year countering Meghan Markle's allegations of racism and trying to work out just how the royals should respond to criticism of the UK's colonial past, must be horrified.
They had absolutely no choice but to let her step down immediately.
So the challenging question now, as we look forward, is whether Angosia Filana has done us all a tough but necessary favour by smoking out the possible latent institutional racism at the palace, or has she caused a great deal of damage to the monarchy and has she ruined an elderly lady's life after half a century of service?
And could there have been a different, better way to deal with all this?
Was she right to call it out in the very public way that she has done, or would it have been better to mention it privately, ensuring that real, genuine lessons were learnt without causing so much damage to one of our greatest, most precious institutions, so admired and respected around the world?
How much slack really should be given to those of the elder generation, if any at all?
Well, she now says that she didn't want lady Hussey to resign, but she is, after all, the one who put her name out there, knowing it would cause an absolute firestorm.
My question is, would it have been better for the monarchy and kinder to an elderly lady of a different generation, for her to have dealt with this controversy in a quieter, more private way?
Well, first up, let's just remind ourselves of that now infamous exchange, which we've had voiced by our producers.
Where are you from?
Sister Space?
No, where do you come from?
We're based in Hackney.
No, what part of Africa are you from?
I don't know.
They didn't leave any records.
Well, you must know where you're from.
I spent time in France.
Where are you from here Uk?
No, but what nationality are you?
I'm born here and i'm British.
No, but where do you really come from?
Where do your people come from?
My people, lady?
What is this?
Oh, I can see i'm going to have a challenge getting you to say where you're from.
When did you first come here, lady?
I am a British national.
My parents came here in the 50s when oh, I knew we'd get there in the end.
You're Caribbean?
No lady, i'm of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.
Oh wow, that is so hard to listen to, isn't it?
Today a former employee of the Crown Prosecution Service weighed in and said, lady Susan Hussey asked me my heritage once, although not repeatedly and quote, seemed to accept my answer.
So I wonder, does the whole thing boil down to an elderly lady from a different generation getting it wrong and not really meaning any offence, or is it something more serious?
Well, joining us now our former royal butler to king Charles, who knows lady Hussey well, Grant Harold and talk tv contributor Paula Rone Adrian, thank you for joining us and plus the former head of royal protection, Di Davies.
So the race row couldn't have come.
Couldn't have come at a worse time, could Grant, you know, I mean, you know, Lady Hussey.
Is this not just a case of an elderly lady just slightly out of touch, nothing to see here?
It's really difficult because I knew Lady Susan very well while I was obviously working for the royal household and even as a youngster when I wrote to the Queen, she was the lady that wrote back and she, as you've said, she's been a lady-in-waiting or a friend, confident of the late Queen for many, many decades.
So it was shocking and saddened to hear this.
And, you know, you can put it down to many things.
Is it age?
Is it not thinking what she's saying?
It is confusing because in the palace, things are done in such a strict way.
And, you know, they always have to think about how they say things, what they're doing.
How this has happened, I have no idea.
And I can imagine, I think she'll be devastated that the way this has obviously come across, what's been said, because you can't take that back.
But the positives of St Paula, we were talking there about it, is that at least it has got a discussion going about it, which hopefully will stop any of this happening again.
I mean, where does she go from here?
She's 83 years old.
Her name has been absolutely dragged through the mud.
I get the impression you don't think she meant any offence whatsoever.
How does somebody rebuild after this?
I don't think you can.
I mean, the reality is most people at 83 have obviously retired.
You know, the fact that she had, when the Queen passed, her duties obviously ceased.
But recently she was announced to be a lady of the household.
So she did have a new role.
And this was probably the first engagement in that role.
Let's bring Diademus into this conversation.
Di, thanks for being with us.
So look, you know, Lady Hussey.
How surprised were you by these comments?
Were you surprised at all?
And do you think that it's been handled in the right way so far?
Well, a very good evening.
May I first say I think it's all been blown entirely out of proportion.
I think the media have gone berserk articulating this.
And one has to say this is one version of the events.
We haven't heard what Lady Hussey has to say.
It's amazing how much of this conversation was recalled so expertly.
So I really do think we have to take a balanced view on this.
Some aspects of it clearly would cause somebody concern.
But I also have some concern as to whether this was in one shape pre-planned.
This lady, as I understand it, and I may be wrong, has had a number of occasions.
Sorry, let me finish, please.
She has on a number of occasions made some allegations against the royal family, particularly in respect of Megan and other institutions.
So I just wonder what on earth is going on.
Well, Di, you said that we haven't heard from Lady Hussey.
What we can say is that the palace has not disputed the account of Ngozi.
That has not been questioned.
So we have to say that there is a broad acceptance that that exchange took place.
I think for you to say that it's been blown out of all proportion, many people will find quite objectionable because clearly that exchange was very offensive to the lady concerned.
How do you respond to that?
It was to the lady concerned.
Well, it may well have been to the lady concerned, and I am sorry if she felt so offended by an 83-year-old who has given exemplary service, travelled the world, spoken to literally hundreds, if not thousands of people in receptions.
I have to say, as a Welshman, when I first met her, she said, where do you come from, Mr. Davis?
And I said, from North Wales, ma'am.
So it's a question quite often members of the royal family and those in her position ask of people, particularly if they come to a reception dressed like somebody very beautifully from the Caribbean.
And I think she was just trying to probe.
I don't see that she was being racist.
She isn't racist as far as I know.
And I frankly take exception to the fact that everybody is alleging she's racist on those comments.
It may have been a confused conversation.
Thanks for a lot of other people she didn't hear.
Paula, is this a case of essentially one wrongan, an elderly lady who just hasn't caught up with the times?
Or do you think this proves that actually there is a degree of institutional racism within the institution of the royal family or the royal household itself?
So I just want to be able to say three things.
The first is to die.
I heard what he said, but what was interesting was that he acknowledged that there were parts of that conversation that were uncomfortable.
And I'd be really intrigued to understand what part he considered to be uncomfortable.
To answer your two questions, this isn't about a Rongan.
This isn't about an 83-year-old woman.
This is about institutional racism.
This is about something that I have spoken about previously and was told quite clearly that I was wrong.
This is something that Harry and Megan have spoken about and were vindictively chased, harangued, oppressed being told that this is all wrong, that they've got this wrong.
We know now that that's probably not true.
Well, we don't know that.
We know that there has been one instance here of an elderly lady being at least we can say clumsy and ignorant in her phrasing.
Isabel, you keep focusing on her age as if for some reason.
I just think that's a material consideration actually.
Would you not say that with age comes wisdom?
Would you not say with age comes wisdom?
And would you not say that this is a woman who has had opportunities far beyond those of many people that I know who wouldn't dare espouse such ignorant and such an approach to somebody who was a guest, an invited guest?
So let's put racism to one side and just look at the lack of manners here.
Do you think she was just being curious though?
A lack of curiosity, I have to say, that you have displayed in Paula's amazing outfit here.
Are we allowed to ask you?
Are we allowed to ask you where you're from?
You're allowed to ask me.
Where are we going from?
And when I answer you, you will accept my response.
Come on, then.
And when I tell you where my outfit is from, you will accept my response.
You will not challenge me until I give you an answer that you find acceptable.
And that's the difference.
It's not about asking me where I'm from.
It's not about asking me where my accent is.
I'm not asking you where your people are or asking even about my people.
It might make me wince, but I would understand that you were perhaps referencing my heritage.
So Paula, how would you have dealt with it then if you had been at that reception and you had been on the receiving end of the exchange, the questioning?
Let's call it a bit of an interrogation by Lady Hussey, which is not how, perhaps how she meant it, but that might have been how you took it to be.
How would you have responded and would you have kicked off this level of fuss?
So that's a really interesting point because it has taken me over 22 years before I was prepared to report the racism that I suffered at the bar as a barrister.
Right.
And I am really, really grateful to Miss Filani for being brave enough to challenge what is the largest institution in our society, and that's royalty.
And so I would like to think that I would have been brave enough to have done that, but I'm not sure I would.
Because why what's happening in the world?
It's victim blaming now.
is what's happening here.
We are victim blaming.
That's what Di's done.
I think it is critical questioning of her account and what it actually means.
Does it mean anything broader?
And that's a really important question.
We don't need to critically analyse her account because we need to know whether it means something broader or whether this is a one-off, unfortunate and really disappointing and frankly for the Royal Family disastrous episode.
Unfortunately, I doubt it's a one-off.
What I'm grateful about is that it's happened, is that it's gone public and that we're now having these uncomfortable conversations.
We need to have these uncomfortable conversations.
We need to look internally.
I'm just going to bring in Di.
Di, why hadn't Lady Hussey, frankly, learnt some lessons after the Harry and Megan accusations?
You'd have thought with that wisdom that Paula referred to, she should have known better.
Well, let me just say again, she's got no previous convictions as far as I know.
She's entitled to the presumption of innocence as to her motive, as your barrister should know.
So what I say is we only heard one alleged account.
Now, it may be true, and to answer the question, was it uncomfortable?
Yes, it was in part, and I wouldn't have asked those questions.
Colourful People and Gas Rights 00:10:12
I am curious where people come from.
It's an interesting dialogue.
We as people who've been born here, when we see colourful people from other parts of the world, it is interesting how and why and where they came from, where their parents came from.
You just used the word colourful people there.
And, you know, I watched Paula wincing richly.
Oh, well, let me define colourful then.
Hang on, as I use the word colourful, I mean attractive, vibrant, beautiful.
That's not that you keep it.
Cover so many different people.
Exotic.
So we just throw the word out there, exotic.
I tell you what, Diet, because I brought up Harry and Megan, let's just go to the clip of the extraordinarily timed promo from Harry and Megan on Netflix.
Here it comes.
Why did you want to make this documentary?
No one sees what's happening behind closed doors.
I had to do everything I could to protect my family.
When the stakes were this high, doesn't it make more sense to hear our story from us?
Wow, heart-stirring stuff, Paula.
What do you make of that trial?
It makes me tearful to be quite like, yeah, it really does.
It's beautifully done.
It is beautifully done.
And I, look, I appreciate that Megan isn't everyone's cup of tea.
You don't have to like me, but what I want to say to you is don't dislike me just because of the colour of my skin.
You're feeling a sense of vindication because you've always stood up for Harry and Megan and that's fine.
But would you have dealt with it in the same way?
Would you have exposed the disinfectant of sunlight on this issue in the way that they have?
And then let's bring in Grant after that.
I would have done.
And as I said, I did this after many years with the Bar Council, who have been amazing.
Can I just say, the Bar Council have been amazing.
However, to this day, I have grown-ups, adults, whose job it is to fight for people.
That's my job.
I speak up for people all the time.
I couldn't speak up for myself.
I was conditioned to be fearful.
I don't want Grant to be conditioned to be fearful.
I don't want you to be conditioned to be fearful.
We need to have these conversations.
We need to do it in a safe place.
And people need to be able to say what's really on their minds.
And I assume that saying what's really on their minds is not calling colourful people colourful people.
I mean, this is...
Look, you know what?
Di said what he did, and I can still have a conversation with Di about that.
And I can have a conversation with Di about why I found it insulting.
I don't speak for every single black person.
There may be another black person here who says, Paula, come on.
I think we should let Di have a response to this.
Di, do you just want to come back in here and just, you know, perhaps defend the choice of language that you used?
Well, yes, I'll use it again.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable Welsh saying.
We call people colourful, not because of the colour of their skin, because of the way they are, the way they dress.
That's not racist.
That's no way.
I mean, come on, let's get real about this.
I joined the police 50 or five years ago to protect and serve.
I hate bullies.
I've been a patron of Kidscape protecting children for 17 years until I retired.
So I don't need lessons from anyone about service and being decent.
I respect everybody has a point of view.
I just happen to think we're overdoing some of this.
Yes, I'm not black, but I have many black friends.
My daughter-in-law has relatives that came from Africa and other parts.
So no way will I accept any kind of inference from that language I've just used.
What I am saying is we are overdoing and overplaying all of this in my humble opinion.
Thank you very much for that.
Well, still to come.
Critics moan, they wail and they virtue signal about Qatar hosting the World Cup, but they neglect to mention that we actually rely on them for natural gas.
So should those who want to shun them from football also hunker down with their jumpers for a chilly, chilly winter and stop buying Qatari gas?
Gas?
We'll debate all of that next.
Welcome back, my friends.
Well yes, of course we've seen the predictable rush to the rainbow flag as the usual hand-wringing wokies over Qatar calling for one love almbands to be worn, World Cup games to be boycotted and national anthems to be silenced.
But are those so quick to criticise also aware that at least 10% of the UK's gas comes from Qatar?
And are the critics prepared to walk the walk all the way to the thermostat and turn down the heating as I have in my house.
Not even had it on actually.
Understandable at that price.
Well delighted that joining us in the studio is human rights campaigner one Peter Chatchell.
Peter, very warm welcome to you.
Great to have you with us.
So you know we know what's going on here.
Qatar is a very, very important business partner for the UK.
They've invested a lot of money here and bluntly we need their gas.
So what's the problem with that?
Why is there so much concern?
Well it's quite right that we call out the human rights abusers in Qatar or indeed in any country that is persecuting its own people.
But there is an element of hypocrisy because as you say, Britain is financially embedded with Qatar.
So on the one hand we criticise the regime but there are 40 billion pounds worth of investments by Qatar in this country.
Our trade with Qatar amounts to almost £9 billion.
The Al Thani family, the ruling family in Qatar, has 4,000 plus properties across the UK.
And aren't we lucky to have that investment?
Isn't that fantastic?
Where does this start and stop?
So you complain about the human rights issues in Qatar, and there are some things that, frankly, to us is borderline horrific.
But we've got Russia, where we had the World Cup before.
We've obviously got the Olympics that were in Beijing.
Where was all the sort of the moral highlights there?
Did you protest on the Russia shortage?
I did.
I staged a protest in Moscow on the opening day of the World Cup by Red Square and was arrested, like I was in Qatar just a month or so ago.
But you've always been so consistent on this, but actually most people in the UK and the media haven't been.
We haven't had that sort of hangering that we've had this time.
Yeah.
I think that the principle is that human rights are universal for every person on this planet.
So I would not seek to dictate Western values.
Oh, we just need to bring our values on others.
How can we expect everybody to behave as we do?
And which country would you say is totally pure on this front?
I don't think any country is totally pure, but every member of the United Nations, including Britain and Qatar, are committed as a member of that body to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We don't do it perfectly, but Qatar is far, far worse with regard to women, LGBT plus people and migrant workers.
So we should call them out, but we also need to be careful because there is a lot of hypocrisy.
We need to wean ourselves off dictatorships, not just Qatar, but others as well.
Realistically, it's not going to happen, though, is it?
I mean, we're not going to be able to wean ourselves off.
You know, we just described just how interlinked Qatar is with some of our huge, you know, iconic buildings.
I mean, we don't, for example, you know, we don't not go to America.
I mean, the next World Cup is, of course, in the States.
What about them and abortion rights?
I mean, which many people would think are utterly horrific.
Look, the reality is, and Piers did an interview with a member of the royal family earlier this week.
Look, Qatar are making progress.
Should we welcome that progress?
Why should we, as Isabel said, impose a demand on them to go ever faster?
Well, Qatar has made some progress, but only tiny.
Since it got the World Cup 12 years ago, there's been no progress on women's rights, no progress on LGBT plus rights, and patchy, marginal advances in terms of migrant workers' rights.
The law may have changed, but the practice hasn't.
So look, we need their gas.
All those who say, well, we've got to sort of force our values on them.
Well, if you don't want their gas, then we should use our own gas.
But then the same people are saying, we don't want to use our own gas.
We don't want fossil fuels.
So you can't do right.
And what's worse?
Are you saying Qatar is worse than China, who we're also incredibly dependent on?
Well, you know, as I said, we need to start winning ourselves off dictatorships.
And right now, gas is nine times more costly than renewables.
We should be putting the money and investment into renewable energy, including the new tidal power, which is constant year-round.
That's much less.
That's fine when the wind blows, but earlier this week we heard the wind wasn't blowing and we nearly ran out of electricity.
That's why tidal power is the key, because the tides go night and day, 365 days a year, and Britain is the world leader in that technology.
We need massive government investment to roll it out, to cut energy bills for the consumer.
We're not having a climate change.
No, we're not, but that's great.
Because actually, I completely agree with you about tidal power.
State School Tax Breaks Explained 00:08:40
Peter Tatchell, thank you so much for being with us and raising that.
It is such an important issue.
Well, next night, folks, Labour is on the attack over the PM's private education.
Rishi, now a billionaire by marriage, went to Winchester College at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions.
Kier Starmer went on the attack and called for VAT to be slapped on school fees.
Here's one he talks about driving up standards.
Just down the road in Southampton, and he'll know this, four in every ten pupils fail their English or maths GCSE this year.
Four in ten.
Is that six million pounds of taxpayers' money better spent on rifle ranges in Winchester or driving up standards in Southampton?
Mr Speaker, he talks about school standards.
It's under a Conservative government and thanks to the reforms of the former Education Secretary that now almost 90% of schools are good or outstanding.
But Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, whenever he attacks me about where I went to school, he is attacking the hard-working aspiration of millions of people in this country.
He's attacking people like my parents, Mr. Speaker.
This is a country that believes in opportunity, not resentment.
He doesn't understand that and that's why he's not fit to lead.
So is Sakir Starmer trying to scrap private schools by stealth?
Well, with us is head teacher Serge Safari and author and journalist Harry Mount.
Thanks for being with us.
Look, it's quite clear that to me that Starmer just wants to scrap private education even though he enjoyed it himself.
What a hypocrite.
Serge.
Well I don't I wouldn't deny their right to exist.
I don't know how I could possibly justify the tax break they get and if he is going to introduce the 20% I'd want it targeted towards the state sector in a very specific way as opposed to just throw it in a bucket and be wasted like they like to do.
So I think a bigger question is how do we get so many of our public servants, i.e. politicians who are supposed to represent the whole country, such a huge percentage go to private schools.
There's something wrong about that and I don't like it.
I can't really explain what we can do about it but maybe it explains why they're so completely out of touch.
Well you describe it as a tax break but obviously parents who pay for private education for their children, many of whom are not just sitting back quaffing champagne and you know enjoying the prospect of their children having that privilege.
They work very, very hard to do it.
They take second jobs.
I myself am putting children through private schools.
I cannot tell you how hard I work to do that.
The reality is I also pay a huge amount of tax and my tax pays for state education for my children too, but I don't take up those places.
So I'm not getting a tax break.
I'm actually subsidizing.
Well hold on, you are, 20% when we go for private education.
I'm already paying for places.
But nothing to say that I would never deny you a right to do what's right for your kids.
And the fact you're right, there's fewer kids going into the state sector as plus for everybody.
But it is a tax break.
If you're not paying 20%, we pay 20% VAT on everything.
So why aren't you?
But look, the truth is, Harry, let's bring you in here.
So, Serge says it's a tax break, but in reality, there is nothing more charitable than the education of one's children at whatever level.
For centuries, education has been a charitable enterprise, all the way, including universities.
Exactly.
And actually, originally, a lot of those famous public schools were, in fact, specifically charities set up by rich people, by kings and queens, for poor scholars.
What's gone wrong in the last 40 years is that the fees to private schools, as you will know with children at them, have completely soared.
So when I was at private school 30 years ago, you had the children of academics, the children of teachers there.
Not in a million years could they afford to go now?
Absolutely.
I mean, my parents, my dad was a civil servant.
He did not earn a huge amount.
He somehow managed to put us through private schools.
No way could you do it now on that salary.
So you're right in a sense that it's got more and more elite, but does that mean that we should take it away?
How does it benefit?
How does that benefit those further down?
What it does, what it does, first of all, I've already said at the very beginning, I do not deny the right that people can spend their money as they wish.
Right, because my problem is more and more expensive.
Well, I'd say no tax break.
20%, no VAT, is a tax break.
The fact that we've got fewer teachers, fewer kids in the state sector to deal with, and you're paying twice, okay, that I suppose is basically a good thing.
So presumably you'd agree with putting 20% on university fees because it's exactly the same thing.
Well, university fees are, for me, someone needs to tell me where that nine and a half grand is going.
So to answer the question, so if you think that there should be VAT on private school fees, do you also think there should be VAT on tuition fees?
Well tuition fees, well it's not the same thing.
It's two different systems.
Well they're both education.
So they're both education, but one is privately paid for.
The other one is everyone goes to pays nine and a half grand.
And they're responsible for that nine and a grand.
So they're paying fees, so they're very lucky because obviously 55% of people in their late teens and 20s don't go to university.
So surely it's elitist for those who do go, so they should pay 20%.
They've earned the right to go.
And they're paying for it.
Well, unfortunately, they do have to pay for it.
Let me tell you the complete flaw in this argument by Labour.
They think you're going to get 1.7 billion.
Right.
Fine.
That's the cost on the outputs.
But then the schools are going to save about 400 million on the inputs because you offset the inputs against the outputs.
500 million of bursaries.
You're going a bit too fast, I think.
What you mean about the inputs is you mean that because schools don't currently pay VAT, that means that they can't reclaim it.
They can't reclaim the costs.
So you're talking about 1.7 billion.
The 20% would...
On the fees, that raises £1.7 billion.
But the reality is that drops down to literally zero.
Schools can then be available.
When you drop off the reclaim of input costs, when you drop off the 500 million of bursary costs that these schools will not be able to afford, and the reason I know that is I'm actually declaring interest, I'm chair of the finance body of a large independent school.
So there's that.
So all of a sudden, it whittles down to not a lot.
And then you've got the cost of probably 100,000 pupils will have to go back into the state system.
Yeah, but you're talking as though I'm saying that we should ban the private sector.
I'm just saying, Labour think you're going to make it, you want to make it cheaper for the very rich to be able to go.
I'm saying Labour think you're going to raise 1.7 billion.
You're not.
You're going to raise literally nothing, which is a complete flaw in the whole argument.
You might even actually lose money because I think it's roughly £6,000 or £7,000 a year to be educated in the state system.
Where would you get all the teachers from?
So you're going to, let's say this policy goes through, what will, in reality, a lot of parents will no longer be able to afford the fees.
So lots of children will then move from the independent sector into state schools.
Some of these schools, the private schools will then fail.
How are you going to get the extra teachers to...
Well, the teachers are already there.
They're teaching in this private sector.
They just switch to the state school.
Come on, they're not going to do that.
Why aren't they going to do that?
Because they've chosen not to worry about that.
Well, they've chosen because they were going to get more money.
They're going to have better pupil-teacher ratios.
Not necessarily.
Well, yes, pupil-teacher sector.
I think you're being a bit naive to imagine that.
I'm not at all about this job for 43 years.
Yeah, the naivety lies in the fact that this is an unfair system that we have to live with because we're a free country, but it's unfair.
And if we can split a little bit more towards the people that really could never even dream of private, it's not going to raise a bin.
Harry Mount, Search the Fire, thank you so much for being with us.
Coming up next, folks.
Making most of footballing history, Stephanie Frapper will lead the first all-women team to referee a men's World Cup game at tonight's game between Germany and Costa Rica.
Ambulance Strikes and Excess Deaths 00:05:36
We'll be talking about all that, plus lots more with tonight's pack next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored with Richard and Isabel.
Now let's talk to tonight's pack.
Talk TV contributor Paula Roan Adrianan, deputy editor of Conservative Home Henry Hill.
Fantastic.
So welcome both of you.
Thanks for being part of our pack tonight.
So between now and Christmas, literally, every single day, there's going to be a strike.
And in particular, the ambulance drivers.
I mean, Paula, surely this is wrong.
They shouldn't be striking.
What's wrong is that they have felt so pushed, so pressured, so stranded, so completely abandoned by our government that they have been forced into doing this.
I suspect that paramedics, ambulance crew, nurses are the professions who are under the most amount of strain at the moment.
We may be out of COVID, but they're not.
And now they're having to deal with COVID and the flu all over again.
And they are watching people die because there is insufficient staff, there is the infrastructure just doesn't exist.
And they're then going home cold and hungry.
But they're going to cause, unfortunately, more people to die by these strikes.
I mean, that is the reality.
At the moment, we already have desperate problems with ambulance services.
Those are leading to terrible response times.
People are literally dying waiting for ambulances.
So, you know, my bleeding heart doesn't really go there on this one because those ambulance workers may well have a case that they should have higher pay, better conditions, but by taking strike action, people will die.
Isabel, your bleeding heart would be cured by this strike.
And that isn't that only way they can get this message across to the government who has left them high and dry, who thought it was appropriate to stand and clap.
And now they are asking for help.
They're being told that there's nothing left in the cupboard.
The cupboard is empty.
Well, the truth is.
The truth is, Henry, because the Tories, they had extended lockdowns, 400 million quids worth, there's no money left in the tin.
I mean, genuinely, so many of the problems we've had with the NHS is basically that over decades, we have just not made long-term investments in precisely the kind of infrastructure.
But that does mean that now the health service is running right up against the maximum that the government can find in taxation.
And the harsh reality is that what strikes like this mean is one, obviously, a direct loss of life, which is a moral problem, but also higher wage costs.
That's money that's not going to be invested in new hires, not going to be invested in new equipment.
So you're saying don't pay any extra salaries.
Hold it back.
I would say match inflation because ultimately you need people to do these jobs and you need to be able to recruit.
But going far beyond inflation at the moment, the NHS just really can't do it.
But the reality is we've already got an excess death crisis.
This is just going to make it worse.
I understand that the ambulance crew and that the paramedics will be running something called a life and limb service.
Oh great, it's a happy day.
Absolutely not their purpose to see more people lose their lives.
How can you even suggest that somebody who has dedicated their life to training to save people is making a decision that will ultimately lead to another person's death?
Because that is.
No, no, no, I didn't say it's their aim.
I didn't say it was their aim.
I said that that was an almost certain byproduct of what they are going to do.
Now, look, I think you've got a point that the government seems to be able to find billions for all sorts of other nonsense.
I know we can have a debate about whether we should be spending billions on HS2, one of your favourite topics.
But in reality, they may well have a case for higher pay.
The question is, is striking the right way to go about that?
They have tried every other way, haven't they?
They have tried.
We've had research done.
We've had reports filed.
We've had inquiries.
We've been here before, haven't we?
In the NHS have told us that we get to winter time and we're at crisis level.
I think we need to move on to something too.
We need to move on to something cheering.
For example, isn't it fantastic?
Here we are at the World Cup, and literally as we speak, the first all-female team referee and lines judges are refing this match between Germany and Costa Rica.
Why is it taking so long?
It's the first time.
Literally the first time in the World Cup.
Why is it taking so long?
Because men rule the world.
Henry, do you rule the world?
Not personally, but I'm told that I'm part of a group that do, which is all missed the checks and the meetings, but nonetheless.
Oh, he might rule the household.
I'm not sure about the world.
I'm not sure about that either, that's for sure.
I mean, it just boils down to that, doesn't it?
FIFA is a male-dominated organisation, and suddenly it has decided in 2022 that we can read and that we can run at the same time and blow a whistle.
That's got a massive PR project.
But extraordinarily the thing in Qatar.
FIFA's doing better than the FA and the Premier League.
I think I'm right in saying there hasn't been a female ref of a Premier League game.
Just quickly, Ofcom telling the BBC, wasteful organisation, poor people need something special dedicated to watch.
Farmers Questioning Precision Fermentation 00:07:04
I feel sure you've got a view on that one, Paula.
I mean, how do you identify a poor person?
Oh, it's like doing a cost of living crisis.
And we'll be talking about the social strata.
We're talking about that.
And so because you don't earn as much money as myself or you or Henry makeup shows, I'm kind of into the makeup show thing.
I'm not averse to that.
I mean, it's a bit patronising.
Completely patronising.
I think it is patronising, but also it strikes against the purpose of the BBC because the whole point of having something that we fund through taxation is that it makes stuff that's educational that maybe can't be funded commercially.
We have got loads of commercial channels.
People can watch them.
Exactly.
Well, BBC, what can you say next tonight?
Is lab-made meat the answer to global food shortages?
Over my dead body, no chance.
Oh, yeah.
Well, welcome back.
Could artificial meat be the future?
Made by precision fermentation, a refined form of brewing all multiple microbes to create products.
Meat made from microbes.
Microbes?
Sounds revolting.
I'm not buying it at all.
Well, delighted we're joined by the founder of The Black Farmer, Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, and animal rebellion activist Nathan McGovern.
Great to have you with us both of you.
Look, Nathan, if you want to eat meat, then why don't you just eat the real thing?
Why do you need to eat fake meat?
I mean, exactly.
Call it something else besides pretending.
Precision fermentation biologically creates the exact same product.
You know, put it under a microscope, you would see the exact same thing.
Using less land, producing less carbon.
It can't be the same.
Exploding animals.
That's just biologically.
Biologically, it is identical, Richard.
Precision fermentation seems the same product.
The thing about meat.
What's really important about meat is the marbling, the fat.
It's not marbling, though.
To have, let's say, steak.
Everybody knows to have a fantastic tasting steak, you have to have marbling.
And people spend ages maturing the meat for days on end to get that fantastical marbling.
So Wilfred, you're a traditional farmer.
You're a livestock farmer, are you, by background?
Nobody's going to look at me and say, I'm a proper farmer.
I have a farm and other people do all this sort of hard work.
A gentleman farmer is a much better way of putting it.
Right.
So understandably, you're probably rather hostile to the concept of artificial meat because that threatens your business and everything that you built.
But I mean, what they but the thing is, this, everybody's eating less meat.
Okay.
So that isn't a bad thing.
So, I mean, the challenge that I have is to say we're going to get rid of meat altogether and then go to artificial meat.
As far as I'm concerned, that is madness.
Because for those of you, and I don't know, are you a vegetarian?
I'm not.
I eat very little meat and I'm pretty choosy about it.
And that is for animal welfare and some environmental reasons.
But let me tell you something.
And somebody was telling me this story a couple of days, and you might want to hear this, is that somebody was chewing gum, a lady who's been a vegetarian all of her life was chewing gum.
And I said...
Not something I'd ever do.
No, but I'll tell you, this is what's interesting.
And I said, why are you chewing gum?
And she said that actually she realized because she doesn't eat meat, she's not doing any chewing and she's losing the power of the muscles.
For goodness sake.
So that in itself tells you if you don't want to start looking like, you know, what you don't want to look like.
I was about to say a hag then.
You've got to make sure you chew something.
But when you're in the middle of the Blue Just in Nathan Worlds, you want to get rid of all animals.
So then he doesn't want to get rid of all that.
Animal rebellion.
He wants to look after it.
Let's just address this straight.
What's going to happen?
Our farmers are going to make it.
The American Dietary Association has said.
The American Dietary Association has said.
The World Health Organization has said.
A well-planned plant-based diet is healthy for every single stage of life.
Exactly.
Exactly.
No, let's talk about this technology, precision fermentation, alternative ways of creating protein.
This technology is here.
It's not going away.
What we need to be doing is embracing this revolution in our food system.
This revolution that is going to be producing cheaper food.
The exact same products that you produce, Wilfred.
It's going to be producing that product.
So how do the farmers make a living?
And who looks at the farmer's farm?
Oh, that is a fantastic question, Richard.
What we need is a government that's actually going to support farmers.
You know, farmers who have been mistreated by a Tory government for the last 12 years, the subsidy system is a shambles, right?
You know, our food security is...
Because we're in the EU.
Thank God we've left it.
So now we're just sort of...
Food security isn't shambles.
I'm sure you can agree.
Aren't they?
I mean, that's what farmers have been brilliant at doing in recent years.
So I don't buy artificial foods.
I just think going down the cheaper food route is not...
Something's coming.
But we want to get rid of subsidies.
Oh, you've got to deliver.
What's going on here?
Hello, there's PS4.
We've been watching here.
What's going on?
Right.
Do you have peers on the phone?
What have you got there?
Right, right, right.
One of these is, oh my gosh, these are lovely.
One of these is vegan or vegetarian.
It's certainly not got real meat in it.
And the other one is a real thing.
I'd be really fascinated to know whether you can do it.
Right, the deliveroo have delivered a couple of burgers.
Well, just looking at that one there, that one looks to me that it's artificial.
This looks the real McCoy.
It does, yeah.
You keep talking amongst yourselves.
I'll just have a bit of a munch.
Now, could you say, looking at that, that looks appetizing?
They've done as much as they can to disguise it, but that looks as though I want to eat it.
Hang on.
Here we go.
This is sticky and mucky.
I'm glad you're doing this one.
It's not elegant, is it?
Really interesting.
Which one?
Could you tell the difference?
That is a hospital past that.
That is a vegan burger.
Oh, yes.
That is the real McCoy.
And you could just tell that just by looking at it.
You can actually tell it by the smell, to be honest.
Can you?
No, you can't.
That's absolutely nonsense.
Well, let's take a look at this technology, right?
It's like when the first cars were made, they were pretty awful, right?
You know, in the whole scheme of where cars are right now.
This technology is an emerging technology.
It is definitely going to get better and we are going to do this.
It's accelerating at an astronomical rate right now.
And it's not just, you know, the burgers you have in front of you.
Let's, you know, look, take in medicine.
That's pleasure.
Let's look at things like milk powder, right?
I would love to see that.
We can produce that already cheaper.
You haven't answered my question.
Who's going to look after the countryside if there are no farmers?
Exactly.
But the farmers will be doing something different.
The farmers will still be working on farms.
What I think is that it will become probably a lot more expensive because the thing about animals, actually, it's probably a cheaper way of land management.
Oh, dear.
That is it from us.
Thank goodness.
Piers is back on Monday.
As the big man himself would say, whatever you're up to, whatever you're doing, make sure it's uncensored.
Stay there.
Good night.
Export Selection