All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 19, 2022 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:09
20221219_piers-morgan-uncensored-should-ambulance-workers-g
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Union Pay and Patient Safety 00:14:29
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
More on that major breaking news from the America Congress a little later in the programme.
Of course they've just referred Donald Trump for criminal prosecution over the riots at the Capitol.
It's a recommendation, not yet a formal charge, but it's the first time in US history that Congress had recommended a former president be prosecuted.
It means that Donald Trump might potentially be one step closer to prison.
But first tonight, so the biggest story in Britain tonight, the strike's about to rock the NHS.
It's one of UK's untouchable deities, of course.
Its staff, especially the nurses, are real angels.
But massive industrial action by two sets of health workers this week will test that unconditional support to breaking point.
Falling ill before Christmas is always unfortunate.
This week it's downright dangerous.
Nurses are striking again tomorrow, demanding a pay rise of 19.2%.
More than 10,000 ambulance workers will also strike over pay on Wednesday.
Soldiers will provide the emergency cover.
Some pregnant women and elderly nursing home residents will be forced to use taxis.
This is a desperate state of affairs.
And the Health Secretary Steve Barclay, who's done next to nothing to resolve this crisis, well, he's right about one thing.
It's the trade unions that need to ensure that there is sufficient cover to meet their obligations in terms of life-threatening responses.
So those emergency calls that are absolutely key that we have sufficient cover in the arrangements that are put in place with each individual ambulance trust.
Well, if lives are threatened or even lost because of these strikes, public tolerance will disintegrate.
Health workers enjoy near-sacred levels of public support because their work is a matter of life and death.
Of course, patients are worried.
Of course, they want nurses and ambulance workers to show up.
It literally could cost lives.
But they don't buy the government's excuses either.
And this mother of a very unwell three-year-old girl spoke for many people when she confronted Mr. Barclay today.
And the number of people coming through the door is too many and it's not fair to blame it on the pandemic anymore, is it?
Because actually, we had problems in the NHS before we went into the pandemic.
We were short of doctors.
We were short of beds going into the pandemic.
So I think it's really wrong to blame it on the pandemic.
And actually, the damage that you're doing to families like myself is terrible.
It's an emotionally charged debate, and those emotions cloud the facts.
Unions say that in 12 years of government, the Conservatives have cut the NHS to shreds.
In fact, spending on the NHS has grown from $130 billion to almost $200 billion during those years.
But it's also true the health service has been battered by a global pandemic, the demands of an aging population, and in my view, massive over-middle management.
The government also says that nurses' pay demands are greedy and unrealistic.
But the Health Foundation think tank says their pay has fallen by 5% in real terms over the hardest period of living memory.
Of course, they feel aggrieved.
Ambulance workers, on the other hand, say their pay has also been cruelly cut, but in fact, the same report shows it's gone up by 23%, an 8% increase in real terms.
That makes the ambulance workers' strike, to me, feel like a dangerous and unjustified gamble, wielding our most vulnerable people as bargaining chips.
Well, this debate is too often reduced to simplistic fairy tales of good and evil, saintly workers, Scrooge government sinister unions.
It's happening on all sides.
It does nothing to resolve an increasingly dangerous dispute.
Both the unions and the government are doing an emergency disservice to British patients and the public, and they have every right to demand better.
Lives depend on it.
Well, I'm joined now by Helen O'Connor, a former NHS nurse and strike organiser for the GMB Union.
Well, welcome.
Thank you for coming in today.
Thanks so much for having me on the show.
Here's my problem with this.
I'm going to read you something.
I just read while I came in, which was really quite shocking when I read it.
This is in The Guardian, which would normally be very supportive, I think, of a lot of your workers.
Thousands of patients who've had strokes, heart attacks, or broken bones will have to get themselves to A ⁇ E on Wednesday when ambulance staff strike overpay.
NHS bosses have warned.
The disruption is bent to last up to three days.
Hospital bosses have told the government they fear Wednesday strike by ambulance personnel across England and Wales will entail a huge risk of harm, including older people left lying on a floor for days with a broken hip, getting hypothermia and dying.
Only category one patients, those at immediate risk of dying, for example because they've stopped breathing, will be sent an ambulance during the 24-hour stoppage with everyone else having to make other arrangements.
This is not a country I recognise that we're going to let old people break bones, potentially face death if they don't get treatment, they may get other infections or whatever, at the busiest time of the year when people are doing this, the weather conditions are atrocious and have been.
How do you morally justify doing it now?
Well, it's a health service that I don't recognise either, Piers, to be quite frank.
When I first started in the NHS, everybody who came through the door of A ⁇ E was treated appropriately.
And what's happened over the last few decades is years of cuts and privatisation to the point where people are dying anyway.
Elderly people are lying on floors anyway, even before these strikes.
So things are in a dire state.
We have 100,000 people.
But with respect, that wasn't my question.
I completely agree with you.
The NHS has been absolutely on the rocks now for many years.
That's right.
And I hoped that in the pandemic, when the NHS rose to this extraordinary challenge so superbly, and we went out and clapped on Thursday nights that real action would be done.
So I have every sympathy with the state of the service itself.
But my question was very specific.
How do you morally justify strike action, which may mean that elderly people who break bones in the streets of this country don't get their treatment?
Because I don't think there's any moral justification for doing that.
It's one of the reasons the police don't go on strike.
They're not allowed to.
I don't think nurses and particularly ambulance workers whose pay, let's be honest, comparative to nurses, has performed pretty well in the last 12 years or so.
So health workers and ambulance workers are striking because they want to stand up for the NHS.
Their colleagues are leaving in droves because pay has been driven down through the floor.
You've got trusts setting up food banks for their staff.
Staff are struggling to cover vacancies.
Like I said to you already, there's 100,000 people.
But again, I agree with all this, right?
I get the problem.
I get the gravity.
I get conditions are awful.
I get the lack of morale.
I get the people leaving in droves.
All of this absolutely is inarguable.
Nobody has more admiration or empathy for the people that work in our NHS than me.
But that wasn't my question.
My question was, notwithstanding all that, how do you morally justify what may now happen in the next three days?
Because I don't think there's any justification for you saying it's all terrible in the service.
So what we're going to do is put even more lives at risk.
Well, Piers, perhaps you should ask whether the government can morally justify the cuts in privatisation that have been making the NHS extremely dangerous for patients.
How can they morally justify the fact that people are leaving, health workers are going to food banks and that existing staff are just operating in gruelling conditions and those conditions are extremely unsafe for patients.
You've got patients dying prematurely in hospitals because of lack of experienced staffing because it's experienced people who are actually leaving the NHS.
And what that means is the more junior staff end up having to step up and take on tasks above their competency level.
So every premature death you hear about in the NHS, you hear about babies dying, et cetera, it's all because of this stuffing crisis, this development.
I have a lot of sympathy.
I have a lot of sympathy.
Well, I should say a lot more sympathy for nurses in this process than I do for ambulance workers.
I think nurses in real terms have seen their pay absolutely be cut.
But according to the 2021 report by the Health Foundation, the average basic pay for ambulance workers doesn't include overtime, this, increased over the decade from £7,588 by £7,508 to £33,487, a rise of 23% in nominal terms, 8% in real terms.
So can I just say to you, that's incorrect because ambulance pay scales, the personnel are aligned to the NHS agenda for change.
So their pay has fallen as well.
Their band fives, band six has fallen.
So is the Health Foundation wrong?
These figures do not sound correct to me.
Well, they are correct.
They're aligned to a gender for change, which is the national.
The Health Foundation figures were based on the prior decade and the facts were there.
They're facts.
I mean, it's the Health Foundation.
The ambulance workers are aligned to exactly the same pay scales as the nurses.
Well, the ambulance workers, their pay went up by £7,588 to £33,000 as an average pay, doesn't include overtime, which is a rise, like I said, 23%, and in real terms, because of cost of living, 8% in real terms.
That does not seem to me to be the basis or justification for going out on strike and potentially people losing their lives.
So like I say to you, some of your workers, okay, I have more empathy and more sympathy.
Some of the nurses have been treated appallingly.
But the ambulance workers, who I, let me again state that professionally, I have incredible respect for ambulance workers.
I've had calls to use them myself or my family in the last few years.
Brilliant, brilliant people doing a brilliant job.
It's the union leaders that I'm holding accountable, people like yourself, who are prepared to risk people losing their lives, old people losing their lives potentially in the next three days when I don't think that these pay numbers for ambulance workers justify it.
So if I could answer some of your points there.
Yes.
First of all, our members would not be going on strike unless they were unhappy.
I can't make anyone go on.
Everybody went on strike who's unhappy.
Nobody would go to work.
No, I'm talking about...
There's always some reason why people are fed up at work.
The deep crisis that's developed within the NHS that's making them...
But talk specifically about ambulance workers.
Well, if I could answer your question.
Don't talk about the NHS in totality because I've already agreed with you.
Yeah, but I'm talking about ambulance workers.
They're part of the NHS.
They're vital staff.
Their pay terms and conditions have dropped through the floor also.
Yeah, but the Health Foundation actually contradicts that.
It was a 2021 report.
So when you say that there's a drop through the floor, that's not true.
They're aligned to change.
In that 10-year period to 2021, they actually went up by 23% and in real terms by 8%.
It hasn't dropped through the floor.
The average hourly rate of the bulk of these workers will be £14.21 an hour.
That's what they'll be on, the bulk of these workers.
They are struggling.
It's a very important thing.
Are you still denying what the Health Foundation report says?
Do you recognise that?
You don't understand?
You haven't read it?
I don't know.
I don't recognise those figures because I know.
Have you read them?
I know that ambulance workers are aligned to a gender for change.
I understand.
You said that already.
That's exactly the same thing.
Did you read this 2021 report by the Health Foundation?
No, I haven't read it.
You haven't read it?
But I know what the ambulance pay structures are.
You're representing ambulance workers and you haven't read the Health Foundation report, which revealed that over 10 years their pay went up by 23%.
You haven't read that.
And if their pay was so high and things were so- How do you know it's not true when you haven't read the report?
Because we speak to our members every single day.
This is completely nuts.
How could you not read a report by the Health Foundation into the pay of your work?
We engage our members every single day of the week.
You haven't read that report.
That's our job.
I think that's kind of beside the point.
It's beside the point to read a report by the Health Foundation into pay?
Union leaders cannot take members out on strike unless there's serious problems in those workplaces.
How would you know there are serious problems on their pay?
Because you never read the report into their pay?
Why don't you read the report by the Health Foundation?
We can speak to our members.
We know exactly what they're doing.
Do you not think they're credible, the Health Foundation?
So we know what skills are.
We know that pay in the NHS has plummeted.
Are they credible?
The Health Foundation.
That's the reason.
Can you answer my question?
Are they credible?
The Health Foundation.
I'm going to comment on that one way or the other.
You said you haven't read it.
We know exactly what the pay terms and conditions are.
Hang on.
Hang on.
Helen O'Connor.
You said it was untrue.
Then you admitted you hadn't read it.
Then you said you got your information about pay from your workers.
And I come back to...
I come back to...
This is a substantial report into pay involving your workers by the Health Foundation.
It's a credible body, isn't it?
I'm going to repeat to you again because you don't seem to be hearing this important point.
The ambulance workers' pay is aligned to NHS Agenda for Change pay scales.
The bulk of people on Agenda for Change are on band five, which is £14.21 an hour.
It is not high pay.
Has the average members would not be able to pay for you.
Has the average basic pay for ambulance workers, excluding overtime, increased between 2011 and 2021 by £7,588?
No, it has not.
So you're saying they're lying.
It has not.
So the Health Foundation is lying.
Pay has not increased.
Why would they lie?
Today the RPI figures have come out.
RPI is now at 14%.
Sorry, I was very sorry.
How can pay rise?
Sorry, I was very sorry.
In the face of the high rates.
You're talking about the two years or the year and a half after this report.
This report was 2021, last year.
You haven't read this report.
And what's inflation?
And yet you say their numbers are wrong.
So I am telling you that I know that you read it.
I'm going to repeat the facts again.
I'm going to repeat again that you didn't read this report.
So how do you know it's untrue?
That our members' pay in the ambulance service is aligned to a gender for change.
Most of our staff...
What you haven't read about?
Which is 14,000 an hour.
Which is very difficult to live.
I understand the face of RPI being 14%.
You keep saying this.
People are going to food banks.
I understand.
You're sounding like a parrot now, if you don't mind me saying.
But the bottom line is you didn't read this major report by the Health Foundation, and yet you believe it's untrue.
Do you understand how people watching this are going, hang on?
This is a union representative who didn't read a major report into the pay of her own workers, now deciding that is all a lie, despite not reading the report.
And actually, these numbers are correct.
Accountability for January 6th 00:06:31
I think what your listeners would like to hear, though.
What they want is a bit of credibility from you, the union leaders.
I think what they'd like to know is how the situation has developed within the NHS and why our members are going to be able to do that.
How are you going to feel if you're not going to be able to do that?
How are you going to feel if actually because the ambulance workers are on strike in the next three days, people die?
I think what we'd like the government to do is come back to the table and resolve the crisis.
How are you feel if they don't and people die?
So people are dying anyway?
No, no.
More people.
I understand.
But if more people die, Helen O'Connor, if more people die in the next three days, specifically because of the strikes by ambulance workers, how are you going to feel?
So the question I put to you is how is the government going to feel?
No, no, I ask you a question.
Because they're the ones that are based on when they have the guts to come on, and to your credit, you did.
But let me ask you again, how are you going to feel if people die specifically because of the strikes in the next three days?
Nobody wants anyone to die, but people are dying because of the state of the health system.
So may as well be a few more.
It's been holiday out.
May as well be a few more.
No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying.
But that's the risk you're taking a few years.
And I tell you what, if these workers don't stand up for the NHS, many, many hundreds of thousands more will die.
Because what will happen?
Here's what I suggest you do.
Go and read the report by the Health Foundation.
It's a good report.
And there you'll find some information which might make you rethink about holding the country at a ransom over ambulance rates.
I'm not holding the country to ransom.
All right, I appreciate you coming in.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We'll still come.
Harry and Megan are back.
Of course, they are with a new trailer for yet another Netflix series.
Apparently, they're now invoking the spirit of Nelson Mandela, the other famous man who sought freedom.
And they're demanding an apology for the claims they made in their first Netflix series from the royal family, the people they accused of being a bunch of callous racists.
Should they get that apology?
Should the royals meet with them to give them that apology?
That debate afterwards.
We'll still come.
Harry and Megan are back with the new Netflix show and demand for a royal apology.
Our incendiary claims are made in the first one.
Should they get one?
We'll debate that a little later in the program.
But first, let's get more on this major breaking news coming out of America.
In the last few minutes, a U.S. Congressional Committee investigating last year's Capitol riots on January 6th has referred Donald Trump, the former president, to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
The charges recommended are obstruction of official proceedings, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a full statement, and most crucially, inciting, assisting, aiding, or comforting an insurrection.
Now, it's a recommendation, not yet a formal charge.
That will be down to the DOJ.
But it is the first time in U.S. history that Congress has recommended a former president be prosecuted.
Let me talk now to U.S. Attorney Eric Gusta.
Eric, what do you make of this extraordinary news?
I'm not necessarily shocked by it because as the committee has set this up with all of their hearings, they've taken testimony.
They have shown clips of depositions and sworn statements to really build their case in the public eye and for them to further put it into the DOJ's hands.
I do expect him to be charged by the DOJ, especially on the conspiracy charges, because conspiracies are a lot easier to prove than any of the other direct charges, because conspiracy is only part of the planning and plotting to do something with other people.
And they have sworn testimony that that is what happened.
So, Eric, I'm reading here, this is from Mike Pence, who, of course, was Trump's former vice president, who said this just ahead of the committee's referrals, just before the news was announced.
He said the following.
I hope the Justice Department understands the magnitude of the very idea of indicting a former president of the United States.
I think that would be a terribly divisive in a country at a time when the American people want to see us heal.
At this time of year, we're all thinking about the most important things in our lives, our faith and our family.
And my hope is the Justice Department will think very carefully.
I mean, there is a point there that even if Trump is guilty as hell, as many people believe, of these charges, and clearly Congress, a bipartisan committee here, believes that is the case or they wouldn't have recommended it.
Even if he is, would it be a good thing for America to prosecute Donald Trump criminally and potentially have him be put in jail?
The large, the big answer is yes, it would be good for America because we have to hold every single person accountable for the things that they did.
And Donald Trump, who is likely part of an insurrection, I believe he was part of the insurrection.
I believe that he went forth and asked people to do these things.
It doesn't matter if you're the smallest person on the totem pole or the highest person on the totem pole.
You should be held accountable.
And of course, we have the far-right extremists who many of them showed up January 6th at the Capitol and are part of this, where they were armed and have threatened violence even after this incident.
So I anticipate that side of the country to really rise up some.
However, Mike Prince, he's trying to save face because he's about to run for president.
So he wants everyone to kind of stay glued together so that he can get the Republican nomination.
I mean, when Richard Nixon was convicted and clearly shamed and disgraced and gave up office, in the end, he was pardoned because that was believed to be in America's better national interest going forward than to actually sling a president into prison.
But again, I come back to the optics of this, I guess, to the rest of the world.
Never mind just internally for America.
But if the DOJ was to charge Trump and he was to be convicted, could you really envisage a situation where he is put behind bars with all the impact that would have, not just domestically, but internationally?
I do believe it would be a great idea.
And part of that, peers, is Donald Trump was very vocal.
He was very open and very public with all the things that he did.
He had a Twitter account with millions and millions of followers, spewing the hate, spewing the different rhetoric that led people to January 6th.
And that is one thing that he needs to be held accountable for even those actions, because if you are the sitting president and you do this to your country that loves democracy, that tries to force democracy on other nations, if a person within our government is against democracy, then they have to be charged if they're doing something such as raising insurrection against our country.
Well, Eric Gusta, I appreciate you joining us with such late notice.
Royal Hypocrisy and Racism 00:14:23
Much appreciated.
I'm sure it's a huge story now breaking all over America.
And the consequences obviously are enormous.
We could end up with the first ever example of an American president actually going to prison.
And that's a remarkable thing, particularly one who is, of course, as divisive and popular and unpopular and equal doses as Donald Trump.
So thank you to Eric for joining us there.
Well, Harry and Megan have demanded a royal apology for the claims made in their Netflix documentary.
The six-hour win-a-thon launched blistering attacks on Britain and the British monarchy.
And the palace is reportedly baffled by the request.
They're not the only ones.
And as if we haven't suffered enough, tonight Netflix released a new trailer for another Harry and Megan show.
This one promises to be just as smug as the first one.
This was inspired by Nelson Mandela, who once said, what counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived.
It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.
It's about people who have made brave choices to fight for change and to become leaders and giving inspiration to the rest of us to live, to lead.
It's unbelievable, isn't it?
I mean, every time I think they can't plummet new depths, these two, they're now comparing themselves to Nelson Mandela, who spent nearly 30 years in a six by six prison cell.
Really?
He went on to become the first black president for South Africa, a unifying leader of true greatness, one of the, well, actually the, the most impressive person I've ever interviewed in my life.
They are comparing their dash for freedom to a mansion in California where they now hawk out their royal titles for hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's what Mandela did in their eyes?
Well, to me, it's unbelievable.
But maybe there are some out there that believe this stuff.
Joining me now is the author and activist Natalie Collins, the former head of law protection, Diar Davis, and talk to V contributor Esther Kraker.
Well, it's not with you, Esther.
You've been waiting patiently here.
They're the new Mandela combined.
I just find it the arrogance is incredible to demand an apology because that's how you get an apology by demanding one, a sincere and honest and open apology.
I just think, you know, they officially declared war on the royal family by coming out with this Netflix documentary.
They made it clear that they wanted no reconciliation because you wouldn't do that.
You wouldn't put your family through that if you really wanted.
Open, genuine conversation and reconciliation.
Also, they just called Prince Charles a lying bully.
They've called Prince Williams even worse, so they drove him out of the country with his, or he drove them out of the country with his bullying and lies.
They've called the whole family a bunch of racists.
How would you even want apology from someone to people like that that looks so negative in your view?
Well, I think I could understand why they're demanding apology because they're so self-righteous about everything.
They assume they're right about everything.
I can't understand what on earth makes them think Charles and William would even consider being in the room with them right now.
But I do think there's an element of the longer that they can keep this feud going, that's more money in their bank account because now everything they do, they would go, oh, but what about William?
How's your relationship with the royal family?
How's your relationship with your father?
And so that's it's basically you know a giant check that they've blank checked before.
How could you trust them not to just basically record everything that goes on if they did have a meeting like that?
Let me go to Natalie Collins.
Natalie, I'm aware there are people out there that completely disagree and think that they are true freedom fighters who were oppressed by the royal family and have taken their oppression now to this vast mansion in Montecito and Santa Barbara.
It's a beautiful place.
I've been down to that area.
Lovely.
Rolling ocean waves, beautiful lifestyle.
Not my idea of what oppression looks like, but there we are, each to their own.
But let's get to this idea of an apology.
That you can basically call a family a bunch of callous racists who refused to let you get help for suicidal thoughts that you said you had, that made racist comments apparently that were so demeaning you had to allude to them on an Oprah Winfrey interview.
You now call them a bunch of lying bullies, including the new king.
Why would you expect anybody to sit down with you and apologise after you've done all the public trashing?
I think in the context of a column that was written today by Jeremy Clarkson, which described Meghan Markle as worse than Rose West and calling on people to have her stripped naked and throw excrement on her in the street, I think it's really important that we put the context of what Meghan and Harry are talking about in the context of the wider hatred, which, to be fair, you were a real pioneer in that hatred of Meghan Markle years ago.
I don't hate Megan Markle.
I don't know, hang on.
I think it's hang on.
You have made a career out of that.
You said I hate Meghan Markle.
Let me be clear.
I've never said I hate Meghan Markle.
I don't hate Meghan Markle.
I hate what she's done to the royal family and to the monarchy and to the reputation of Britain.
Only tonight the New York Times has carried a major op-ed piece, absolutely trashing this country as a racist country with a racist institution at the head of it, a callous institution that should be dismantled.
So yeah, I see real damage in what Meghan Markle and Harry have both done now to the reputation of his country and to our monarchy.
So yeah, but I don't hate them individually as people.
And in relation to the Clarkston column, which he's now issued a mere culpa over, I didn't think he should have put that in the column for my personal view.
But he's now said he wishes he hadn't either.
So, you know, I don't see what that has to do with the wider picture of these two trashing their families and now demanding an apology.
Well, I think in the same way that you're saying you don't personally hate them, but you are opposed to what they stand for and what they're saying and how they've behaved.
I think that's entirely the same argument that Megan and Harry are making in their documentary and in the work that they've done, is saying that actually the way that they've been harmed by this institution, by this system, which, you know, we cannot deny the impact of colonialism.
We cannot deny the impact of this monarchy in terms of we have a history in this country of doing really terrible things for other places.
And to deny that reality, to deny the impact of and the reality, this monarchy, how is it that in this day and age, we have a group of people who are born into wealth and privilege just because of being born into it.
It is absolutely developing.
That is the norm.
They're also responsible for developing the Commonwealth, which has been one of the great success stories in the world.
And of course, it's...
Well, it's not really Commonwealth, though, is it?
The people who've got that wealth are mainly in the royal family have a lot more.
So you hate them because they've got money.
So presumably by that yarn stick, if you hate people who've got lots of money without actually earning or deserving it, you must also hate, therefore, the Sussexes, who've done nothing to deserve it other than trash their families.
Well, I just think, you know, I think there's a sense that, of course, people, we can't hate people because of their privilege, but what they're doing with it or how they're utilizing it is really important as well.
And I think there is a sense that we are also talking about a man who, as a boy, his mother was killed by a baying mob in the media and then was grew up to have a wife.
She was also these are easy lies to say on television, but I'm afraid I have to hold you to account on that.
It's not a lie that is motherfucking.
Princess Diana was not killed by a baying mob.
Princess Diana was killed by a drunk driver.
That was the official inquest report into her death.
It was a drunk driver speeding who killed Princess Diana.
So it wasn't a baying mob.
You might want it to be a baying mob.
And maybe Harry has grown up thinking it was a baying mob.
I could tell a hundred stories about the way his mother colluded with me as a newspaper editor with the paparazzi or colluded with me over having a private lunch at Kensington Palace, giving me loads of stories, which she knew I would then have as informed information for my newspaper.
I could tell the time that Diana rang me up and gave me an hour-long interview about a visit to a clinic she'd done, signed off on every page of the interview, which was faxed to her and returned with her initials on it.
And the next day said she was outraged by the intrusive story in the Daily Mirror, which was the story she'd given me at length over an hour on tape.
So there are lots of different ways you can skin this cat about the relationship between the royal family and the media.
My argument about Megan and Harry is they apparently were so disgusted by this callous racist family and institution that they fled the country, gave up royal duty, now live in California in extreme luxury, and yet bizarrely, they still want to retain the titles afforded them by the institution that they describe as callous racists, and they use those titles to make themselves stinking rich without doing any work.
I think that's hypocrisy.
Let's go to Di Davis.
Di Davis.
I think it sounds like the rest of the royal family, really.
Well, not really, because they do hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of duties a year.
Well, they turn up at a hundred, you know, three, four hundred events a year at the main royals.
So they actually do put back.
That's the whole point of the royal family.
They don't just get paid for nothing.
They give back.
Di Davis, you were helping to run security of the royal family for many years.
What do you make of this?
I mean, I read this New York Times piece tonight with a real sinking feeling in my heart that actually the relentless attacks by Megan and Harry are beginning to really stick in other parts of the world about our country and about our monarchy.
Well, good evening.
A very good friend of mine defined ethical.
Being ethical means knowing what is right and having the courage to do what is right.
As a former policeman, what I haven't seen one iota so far is evidence.
And unfortunately, people like Clarkson give grease to the story.
He doesn't represent you.
He doesn't represent me.
And he doesn't represent 99% of this country.
I take great umbrage as being classified quite often as a police officer or an ex-police officer as racist.
I resent it, and I resent those who have the audacity to actually come out with this palatable nonsense with little or no evidence.
The whole issue, if they gave that $100 million to charity, I'd have more respect.
But I don't think they have.
No, and you know what, Di, I get called a racist all day long on social media now as a direct result of Meghan Markle levering me out of my former job, in which she basically inferred if you didn't believe her about everything, you must be a racist.
I don't have a racist bone in my body, nor have I ever said anything racist about Meghan Markle.
No one could find anything I've said.
And yet, it got so ridiculous.
Even Sharon Osborne was fired from a job she loved in America because she said I was entitled to my opinion, and for that she was called a racist sympathiser.
This is how mad it's got.
But this is the damage it's done.
The royal family right now in America are perceived by many people to be callous racists without any, as you say, Di, any actual evidence to support any of these claims.
And, you know, I mean, Di, on a wider point, where does this leave the monarchy?
What should they do?
I mean, the historic position of the current family is you just don't respond to this kind of thing.
But are we reaching the point, and I always think the never complain, never explain is a good mantra, the Queen Mother's mantra for being popular in the public eye if you're a royal.
But are we reaching a point where they need to return some fire?
Well, sometimes the royal family need good advice.
Their protection officer quite often give good advice and they listen.
In this case, I don't think they should apologise.
I thought they were wrong in respect of Lady Hussey.
In my opinion, and a lot of people disagree, she had nothing to apologise for.
I felt, and I said it either on your program or others, they were wrong to jump to conclusion without hearing all the facts and actually interviewing Lady Hussey.
But we are where we are now.
I just hope that doesn't set a precedent because it would be wrong.
And yes, would I invite them to the coronation?
Certainly not from a security point of view.
It would all about them.
And unfortunately, they have caused, as I've said in the Telegraph fairly recently, in my opinion, there are nutters out there who could cause harm to not only the royal family, but also those in America.
The fixated threat assessment of the FBI and CIA, and I went to Los Angeles years ago to discuss this, there are literally thousands in America.
They're doing nothing to support their safety or their cause.
They are completely, their moral compass has gone ski-whiff in my opinion.
Well, I don't think, I mean, look, I don't think anyone...
So to anyone.
I don't wish any harm on any of the people involved in this.
Harry, Megan, any of the royal family, none of them.
Absolutely clear.
Yeah, but they're going to get harm if they carry on like this.
Well, I just think I think all of it is again.
Yeah, I agree.
I think all of it is incendiary and this book that's coming out will be even more incendiary and pour even more fuel on the fire.
But my question about the coronation, I've got to be honest, why would two people who despise the monarchy and everything it stands for, who think that the royal family are a bunch of racists, why on earth would they turn up at the coronation?
Why would they?
I'll tell you why, because that's where the money is.
If they're seen at the coronation, next to all the major royal players, that is gold dust for their next Netflix series.
And there, right there, is the hypocrisy that underpins everything these two do.
Got to leave it there.
A good debate.
Natalie, thank you very much indeed.
Di, thank you very much.
Esther, you're staying with us.
Emotional Grief vs Stiff Upper Lip 00:05:44
You'll be delighted to hear.
I'll talk after the break about the modern obsession with emotion, which has turned us into a country of crybabies.
British battle axe.
That's a rather unkind word of describing national treasure.
Christine Hamilton is here to tell us all to toughen up.
It was Sheila Hancock who said it first, and Christine agrees.
We'll be back after that.
What a lively old show tonight.
And well, good evening to Sir Rod Stewart, who's just informed me he's watching and enjoying what we're doing tonight.
Good evening, Sir Rod.
One of the great men in Britain.
If only we were more like Rod.
In fact, this brings me to our next segment.
Has the modern obsession with emotion turned us into a nation of crybabies?
Well, here with me are tonight's pack, talk TV contributor Esther Cracker, still with me, political journalist Avisantina, my self-declared battle axe, I'm assured, author and broadcaster Christine Hamilton.
I don't want to call you that and you burst into tears.
It would rather kill the segment, Christine.
This all comes apart because Sheila Hancock said it's become fashionable, almost a badge of honour, to blub in public.
And there's a difference, I think, qualitatively, between why people are.
If people are at a funeral, of course they're going to be upset and emotional.
I even understand great sporting athletes when they put everything into something.
Of course we get that.
That's not what she's talking about.
She's talking about the general run-of-the-mill kind of what I would call virtue signalling tears, where Hancock was a good example, wasn't he?
When he cried to me on Good Morning Britain about the first vaccine and there were no tears.
Christine.
He should have spoken to Megan because she knows how to produce the tears.
Well, she boasted she could cry in three seconds.
I mean, this emotion business, it's gone full circle and it's in cycles.
It's like climate change.
Apparently, back in the first Elizabethan age, the Italians who came here were astonished at how emotional we were.
Now, coming from Italians, that's pretty rich.
Then it all went completely back in the other direction, the Victorian age and empire, etc., etc.
And we all became very stoic and the stiff upper lip, etc., etc.
And then we had two world wars where that was a very admirable virtue and we wouldn't have got through them without it.
Then I think the rot began in the 1960s when it was let it all hang out, you know, and throw it all out there.
And if you weren't emoting to everybody, you weren't feeling it.
Well, most of it was down to drugs in the 60s, right?
That's why they're all blubbing.
But then the floodgates really opened when we came to Diana Gate.
And then everybody was exploding with this incredible grief, which they were feeling for somebody they'd never ever met.
I mean, to me, you can't feel grief for somebody you don't know.
I was very upset when the Queen died, but I wouldn't call it grief.
I actually, I did feel a tear well up when the Queen did that.
So I think you can feel it for people who don't exist.
I think you can for people who are not family members.
But Ava, there's nothing.
Can I just finish that tiny point?
It's important.
Against all that, the Queen, who was showing the traditional British stiff upper lip, was regarded as uncaring and unfeeling because she wasn't emoting all over the place.
Sorry to interrupt.
No, you didn't.
You didn't at all.
I don't know about that.
I think I would actually say I would only implore a stiff upper lip when it comes to things like the queen dying.
I think Sheila herself, Sheila Hancock, has come out with this bizarre comment about us somehow being softer than we were before, is the one who says she was crying when the queen died.
That to me is quite pathetic.
I actually think my generation is a lot stronger than those that have gone before.
Hang on, I actually like to say, Christine, I do think it was slightly disingenuous to say that we had a stiff upper lip during the wars.
I mean, in the First World War, after that, we had awful PTSD, and actually, you'd find men on the streets crying, and that is documented widely in literature.
So I'm not so sure about your accounts.
No, but all I'm saying is that this goes in secular cycles, as it were, and that the real floodgates opened after Diana, but it started in the 60s.
During the war, it's kind of socially acceptable, isn't it?
I mean, you did have men crying in the streets, but it wasn't socially acceptable to just be out there mooting constantly crying.
I don't think it's socially acceptable now.
I actually think that's the reason that we are.
Oh, yeah.
That's the reason why I'm not doing it.
It's not socially acceptable not to do it.
People never say that.
So I do think that it's particularly my generation.
And I would say it's my generation because it's a very American attitude.
It's very, you know, let it all hang out.
Explore your feelings.
Get in touch with your emotional side.
And it's so infuriating.
Because I just think that's...
That's a really good action.
But there's something remarkable about being stoic and being able to hold it together because sometimes you're a source of strength for other people.
You know what?
Here's my overview of this.
I think that there's no doubt encouraging people to be more open is a good thing.
I've got no problem with that.
I think that there's no doubt that men in particular perhaps felt a bit repressed.
They weren't able to show.
I get all that.
That's fine.
And I'm not against that at all.
But I do think that when it comes to the stiff upper lip, it's become a stick to beat people with.
That is somehow offensive to have a stiff upper lip, that it's always a malevolent thing.
I don't think it is.
I actually think if you're able to control your emotions most of the time and not just constantly cry about things, that's quite a good thing too.
Who has ever said that?
Do you not remember when you were talking about that?
No, no, every time I mention Stevo Bill, honestly, Twitter goes berserk.
That's ridiculous.
How dare you?
Who cried at Margaret Thatcher's funeral?
He was ridiculed and rightly so because it was incredibly embarrassing.
That needed a stiff upper lip.
I mean, come on.
Sorry, who cried at Margaret?
George Osborne.
Oh, wow.
I do think it's a generation.
I'll tell you, the definite classic generation.
The absolute classic movie, Stiff Upper Lip, was, of course, Brief Encounter with all that repressed emotion.
One of the most wonderful movies that's ever been made.
If that was made now, the Celia Johnson character would have her kit off in the station.
Qatar World Cup Controversy 00:04:55
Here's what I think we've got.
You're talking about this generation being stronger.
I mean, maybe they are in some ways.
I think the problem has become that if you actually go the other way and you say, right, dust yourself down, get back up, do the old rocky balboa.
It's not how often you get knocked down.
It's how many times you get back up and keep moving forward.
If you can do that without blubbing all over the place, people now, they criticise you for having that attitude.
They think, what, you're telling people to man up?
I'm like, it's also a better phrase.
I'm not telling you that.
You've no idea the abuse I get when I say stuff like that.
But maybe man up is not exactly the most appropriate.
I think stiff upper lip is fine.
Man-up, you're essentially saying to a generation where suicide rates are going through the roof that their emotions aren't valid.
Yeah, but that's not.
It's not about no emotions.
It's not about people who feel suicidal.
It's about when you play sport, for instance, at school.
I can remember all the sports teachers like, get up, man up, get on with it.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
It doesn't mean you're somehow weak, inferior individual.
It means get a grip of yourself and get back in.
And I'm going to get back into the second part of this debate after the break.
We're going to bring in this whole debate.
Rishi Sunak has told Gary Neville, the football pundit, to stick to football after he went on a rant on ITV during the World Cup final about how, yeah, there are problems in Qatar.
Well, what about the problems here with all the strikes and the government's attitude towards it?
So should footballers stick to football?
I've got three football experts waiting to get stuck in this after the break.
Okay, Matt, Marstella Pack are still with me.
Should footballers stick to football?
Friends of mine like Gary Deneka are very vocal about lots of issues.
Are they right to do that?
Should they just stick to what they do?
This has all come to a head, of course, in the Qatar World Cup.
Gary launched BBC's coverage with a bit of a rant about Qatar's record on human rights.
Gary Neville at ITV ended it with a rant, not just about Qatar, but bringing in the UK's record on strikes and so on at the moment, which made the front page of the Daily Military.
Is it just worth mentioning we've got a current government in our country who are demonising rail workers, ambulance workers, and terrifyingly nurses.
So in our country, we've got to look at workers' rights and so on and so on.
So bringing in our record here on rights as well.
And Rishi Sunak said it should stick to football.
Well, Pat, what do we think here?
Ava, what do you think?
I knew you'd go for me first.
You're one resident football expert.
Look, I don't think that politics is the preserve of the politicians.
I don't understand why a football pundit is not allowed to talk about.
I think it's fundamentally undemocratic to claim that he can't use his platform for that, you know, for what he said.
And actually, he made a really, really valid point, which is that for some reason in our country, we don't think we need to pay the nurses, but we do look at Qatar and we criticise their human rights.
Well, I do agree about Western hypocrisy.
I think one of the reasons Gary Neville and Gary Dineke both got criticised was they both worked, Gary and well, both Gary's for Bain Sports in Qatar and taken their money, but want to go there for the World Cup and criticise them.
They would argue, well, we go there, we shine a light and so on.
Other people think it's hypocritical.
I'm happy you said that, you know, he made a good point because I was just wondering, would you be against it if he didn't make the point that you wanted him to make?
This is the thing.
Right.
We're always happy to say that.
I think that's a bang-on point.
You know, we're happy to say, you know, they're allowed to have their opinions when they agree with you, but if he was saying, actually, you know, the government's negotiation with the strike workers are just perfect.
If Gary Lineker said all the things that people on the right like, they'd all love him.
No, but most of our broadcasting is what people on the right like.
I'm sorry, but our hypothesis totally.
Come on.
That's why I have lunatics on the left like you here, Christine.
Well, look, I know absolutely nothing about football, but I think there's a world of difference between the two Gary.
Gary Lineker is on BBC and he's paid for by the license pair.
Gary Neville, as I understand it, is on Sky.
ITV and Sky.
ITV and Sky.
That is not funded by the public person.
So that's, frankly, it's up to them.
If they don't mind him being involved in the public.
That's a very good point, Aster.
That's up to them.
But as for the Qatar business, I mean, it would have been, if he's making points about the evils of the Qatar regime, it would have been much stronger if he'd made it in advance and said, I am not.
I'm not taking the business.
I am not afraid of it.
I also think, by the way, I went to Qatar.
Unlike most of the people criticising it, I went to Qatar and it was a brilliant experience, that World Cup.
You can have your issues with some of their human rights issues, as I do, but as a World Cup, it was fantastic.
And I would think there should be more World Cups in the Middle East, frankly.
And we've got to take our moral halo off in this country and stop pretending that somehow we are so morally pure, only we can hold sporting tournaments.
Because here's a shock for you, England.
We're not.
We are slightly above Qatar in those stakes.
Maybe, but if I was at the Eurofinal last year, you wouldn't be saying that.
Nice to see you, three.
Thank you very much.
Whatever you're up to tonight, keep it uncensored.
That's it from me.
Export Selection