All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 4, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:02
20230104_piers-morgan-uncensored-return-of-face-masks
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Masks and the NHS 00:14:47
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Isabel Oakeshott and Richard Tice.
Virtue signalling madness or a sensible way to stop the NHS from reaching meltdown?
We'll debate whether bringing back masks is really justified.
A new year and yes, a new boat crossing already.
Rishi Sunak promises new laws to stop the small boats but with crossings soaring by some 60% on the previous year, is this really actually a promise that he will keep?
And surgery obsessed, we're going to meet the hairdresser who's already spent £30,000 and says he won't stop until he achieves what he sees as the perfect body.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored with Richard Tice and Isabel Oakeshott.
And a very good evening.
Well, there's a dark new threat to our way of life tonight.
It's disguised as an innocent looking piece of cloth.
Not so long ago, we all had to carry these face masks.
Do you remember the fear of forgetting to carry one, finding yourself barred from going into the shops or wherever?
Remember how hot and dirty and sweaty they were?
They got loose, they became, after you'd used them a few times, to the point that it was perfectly obvious, frankly, they weren't stopping anything.
They weren't stopping the spread of germs.
But what about those nasty, disapproving looks from people?
The bossy signs, the announcements, the pictures absurdly painted on the ground.
How often did you actually wish that you'd invested in a business making those face masks?
Any colour, pretty patterns, funny logos?
But amazingly, turns out size didn't matter at all.
Whether it was fitted or unfitted, it was one of those rare items where actually one size truly does fit all.
Good God, well they really were awful, weren't they?
And what a relief when we were no longer forced to wear them.
Do you remember how horrible it was, in particular, seeing children being forced to wear them at school?
So what did you do with your masks?
Have you thrown them all away or have you neatly kept them in a distinct pile, still dirty?
Or perhaps you've washed them, ironed them and kept them as relics for your grandchildren as a sort of historic symbol of the mad, mad time that we went through.
Well, just when you thought that dreadful era couldn't go any worse, you put it all down to a horrible mistake.
I'm afraid so.
The masks are back.
Yep, they're back.
The ultimate virtue signal, plastering your face with a little bit of cloth that says you're a careful and considerate citizen, putting others ahead of your own face.
Once again, we're seeing these boxes of them at the entrances to public buildings.
Once again, ministers are telling us that if we have a sniffle, it's sensible to put one on.
And if you look around you on trains and buses, even on the street, in the shops, they are, I'm afraid, definitely on the rise.
Now, sure, some people never actually managed to let theirs go.
They became a kind of weird little facial security blanket.
But right now, seemingly sensible people who did stop wearing them when the pandemic was over are putting them back on again.
Well, what to do?
Are you going to dig yours out again and reuse it?
Are you going to object when you go into the GP surgery and hospital and someone asks you to mask up?
Or will you quietly comply anything for an easy life?
Well, I think, and I think you think so too, that people should resist this scourge.
They need to be brave and we need to fight back until it goes away forever.
We can be quite polite about it.
All we need to do is point out that there is not a shred of actual evidence that these things make any difference whatsoever.
Now, of course, medical grade masks are a different matter.
That's the kind worn by hospital doctors and they are effective.
But there is not a single credible scientific study showing that non-medical masks, i.e. the type that you see on the streets, make any significant difference.
Now, by the way, ministers know this full well.
They just want to scare people and to be seen to be doing something.
I should know because having written his book, I know what Matt Hancock, the former health secretary, and his advisors privately said about the utility of masks at the time.
And the truth is that we know the messaging around face masks, it was mixed from the very, very beginning.
Let's just have a look now at what changed during the pandemic.
The evidence on face masks has always been quite variable, quite weak, quite difficult to know exactly, and there's no real trials on it.
And we've undertaken a review, we'll give our advice to ministers and they'll make decisions about what to do around that.
On face masks, we are guided by the science, and the government position hasn't changed.
As of Monday, the 15th of June, face coverings will become mandatory on public transport.
Oh, my, that is actually giving me the shudders just listening to that.
Me too.
Well, joining us now is oncologist Professor Carol Sikora, a voice of reason on this issue as far as I'm concerned.
And GP Doctor Natalie Raut.
Thank you very much for joining us.
I want to start with you, actually, Natalie.
And perhaps you can tell us whether you are in your GP practice asking all patients now to mask up.
Well, throughout the pandemic, I have worn a mask when I see my patients.
I have not enforced patients to wear masks in the last year or so because there hasn't been as much of a need.
And I think I've left it up to patients to choose whether they want to or not.
The concern now is that the NHS is under significant amounts of pressure.
You know that.
You can't deny the statistics.
You've got patients not making it to hospital, bed shortages, staff shortages, even oxygen shortages.
But it's important to stress that because the words are...
But it wouldn't be if masks made any difference.
But they do, and that's damaging for you to say that masks do not make any difference.
We've actually looked at all the studies.
Well, let me bring in Carol Sikora here because he is an expert on this and will tell us whether any of the studies show something different.
I think Natalie's more of an expert being a GP than an oncologist.
But I think the problem with masks is they're worn very badly by people.
Often their nose is showing.
That completely obviously the whole thing is negated.
The other thing, they get scrumpled up in people's pockets.
The paper masks are probably fairly useless.
The examples Natalie's brought here are decent masks.
They're called filtering face pieces, FFP, and two and three are the ones that we use in hospitals.
And these are valid.
But the stuff that you see on the trains and on the tubes is not really doing much good to anybody.
So what do you say to that, Natalie?
Well, I do agree that masks need to be fitted correctly.
There isn't any point wearing one if it's going to be hanging below your nose or on your chin.
And we have seen many people wearing them.
So, okay, if you're one of those people, then it's not going to work.
But a well-fitted, good-quality mask, like an FFP2, does reduce transmission of both aerosol and droplets.
So I know there's been some debate about, well, does it help with aerosols if you've got a cloth mask which has bigger gaps in it so that things can pass through?
Perhaps not.
But these ones certainly do.
And certainly with droplets, even a well-fitted cloth mask will help.
But the biggest, I think, most reputable study that was done in 2020 in Denmark called the Danmask 19 study of about 6,000 people that showed that actually there was no statistical significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not wear masks.
And the professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford, Carl Hennigan, he was very clear.
He wrote about this at the time.
And he wrote about it yesterday again.
I think the problem is that there are 28 studies.
Most of them are completely useless.
They're sort of almost anecdotal.
This was collected by Health Security, the British Health Security Agency in 2021.
And there are two that look good.
One is the study you just mentioned, and there's another study which showed the opposite, that the masks were effective.
So I think the jury's out.
What I really object to is this idea that if you wear a mask, you're somehow saving the NHS.
It's just like you've got cancer, don't bother.
Which is exactly what you're suggesting.
I mean, I'm sorry, you're not saying we're saving.
No, I'm not suggesting that we're saving it, but it was a small step.
It's an easy step.
I mean, you're just saying how inconvenient it is.
It's just another little thing.
It's just like all those things incrementally built up during the pandemic.
Is it more inconvenient than that?
Then it's not about inconvenience.
I actually think it's something, there's something very sinister about covering your face with something which we all know doesn't work.
How can you say that when several countries and cultures have done that pre-pandemic for years?
So let's look at the evidence of Germany, where actually they were required to wear the FFP3 mask for the whole of 2021.
And guess what happened at the end of 2020?
They had a huge, huge surge of the new variant.
So essentially, it made no difference whatsoever.
And I think just look at the evidence, the scientific evidence, the anecdotal evidence.
And I think it's clear, particularly when most people are wearing pretty grubby, dirty cloth masks.
But we're not asking everyone to wear an FFP3.
The advice is that if you're unwell and you have a cough or you have got a runny nose, then wear one.
Wear one if you're going into a healthcare institution where you're going to come into contact with more vulnerable people who are more susceptible to these viruses.
So we're not going to have sort of a complete closure of all these viruses, but you're going to restrict it enough so that it buys the NHS a little bit more time.
So are you actually saying then, instead of the advice being please wear a mask, actually the advice should be changed to in these settings, in these circumstances, please wear a medical grade mask.
Yes, I think that's sensible.
And that I think we could probably, you know, I'm not going to love it, but I could see the case for that.
Can I just ask you how you felt about children being forced to wear masks in schools?
I don't think anyone should be forced to do anything.
I think at the time when we weren't fully vaccinated and we wanted to keep our children in education, wearing a mask was a sensible option that, like I said, is not restrictive.
It's safe.
It's not harmful and it's easy to do.
So of course there are certain children, for example, with learning disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, that they shouldn't have had to wear a mask and they were actually exempt from wearing masks.
But for the majority of children who are happy to wear them, I don't think any kids are happy to wear them.
There are some children to wear them.
I see them.
Carol, you come in here because I can see you burning, burning to jump in.
I was amazed.
The leader editorial in The Times today talks about masks and it's very much as you say, Natalie.
But at the end, it says, if you feel iffy, you should wear a mask.
Now, wait a minute.
If you feel iffy, if you've got a temperature, if you're ill, surely you shouldn't be going into a crowded room with other people.
The trouble is, you know, I came on a very early bus because of the train strike this morning.
And, you know, the people sitting there on a 6.30 bus where I live can't afford not to go to work, whether they've got fevers or not.
They won't be paid.
And maybe the Times readers aren't in that category, but there weren't too many copies on.
We need to come back to this point about children because I fundamentally disagree.
I think all of the evidence shows that actually children's education was dramatically hindered in terms of their development, particularly for younger children.
But not just that.
No, by the wearing of masks, which held them back.
Teachers couldn't properly communicate and they felt terrified.
They felt afraid.
Particularly young children who literally, for the first couple of years of their lives, they weren't seeing other faces.
And I think the evidence shows that actually it held back children's natural development, in particular speech development for younger children.
Especially if those from deprived backgrounds as well.
There was a greater deprivation difference between the wealthy people.
When you saw babies being made to wear masks.
I haven't seen a baby being made to wear masks.
Oh, I have.
Well, I see babies day in and day out in my practice and no baby was asked to be in the middle of the day.
Okay, so at what point do you think it's acceptable for children to be asked to wear masks?
Well if they're schoolgoing and happy to wear one then it's fine but let's just come back to this happy to wear one.
It's not a normal or natural or in any way kind of acceptable thing to do to wear them at the moment.
You're only thinking about it.
This is the thin end of the wedge isn't it?
At the moment it's just in certain places certain times.
And then a month down the track another minister will say just a little bit more.
Nicola Sturgeon will get involved.
Oh yes.
And everyone's terrified of her.
Do you think anyone thought that children would have to live through a pandemic?
Did you think you'd have to live through a pandemic?
These are unprecedented times.
No one expected this to happen.
So how can you?
But you don't impose things on children without evidence that it's not going to harm children's development and it's not going to actually harm their health.
And the clear evidence that we've learnt since masks were worn by children for way, way too long is that actually it has been harmful.
No one is asking all children to wear masks.
They wouldn't ask any children to wear a mask.
If they're happy to do so, and they are unwell and going out somewhere, then...
Do you have children?
I don't, but I am a GP, so I see children.
I mean, I have three children.
Not one of them was happy to wear a mask.
No normal child is happy to wear a mask.
Children just want to be children in a free environment.
They don't want bits of cloth stuck to their face and be made to fear a virus that wasn't even a significant risk to all but the tiniest minority.
Do they like wearing fancy dress costumes with masks saying that they're capped in America?
They do.
Yeah, they do.
That's very sonic.
You sell that to a child.
This is how I do my work.
How do you think I examine a child?
No one likes to wear it.
A fancy dress for one evening is one thing.
You know, making them wear it every day.
I'm pretty sure my kids would be objecting.
No one is asking a child to wear a mask every day.
Kids Hating Face Coverings 00:03:27
I don't know why we're talking about this.
We're talking about it because it harmed children's development and education through this period.
Carol, just throwing it up.
It doesn't happen yet in all fairness.
You're ganging up a bit, Natalie, I'm afraid.
I have to say it's not happening.
I don't think it will happen because of what we're doing tonight and other people doing the same thing.
If we make masks mandatory...
I just think our guard is up.
Our guard is up.
That's why we're talking about...
But maybe it's a test to see what would happen if you suggest people all wear masks or if you suggest mandatory mask weight.
Not much compliance is there.
Carol, Natalie, thank you so much.
Fascinating debate.
We will come back to it.
We will try and stop it next tonight.
So the first migrant crossings of 2023 has already been brought to shore yesterday by UK's border force with 44 migrants being brought to Dover.
But the Prime Minister, yes, he's pledged it.
He's promised it.
New laws again.
But will they work?
Debating that up next.
Coming up, well, he's spent more than £30,000 so far.
When will he stop?
We're going to meet the man who is obsessed with plastic surgery.
But before anything else, we just need to reflect on that discussion about masks.
I mean, Natalie, what was she talking about?
Sort of fancy dress and linking that to masks.
So I thought she was doing quite well, because obviously we're both quite hostile to her point of view.
I was sort of buying into the idea of medical grade masks being effective in certain settings, but she totally lost it to me when she started talking about children being happy to wear masks.
And she just kept using that expression, didn't she?
And I just kept thinking of my own children and thinking, of course, they're not happy to wear masks, and nor is any child normally happy.
But then she started talking about this fancy dress analogy.
Oh, are they happy to wear a fancy dress?
Well, yes, and it's only for one evening.
And I think she actually admitted that it didn't help children's education and essentially harmed it.
I think that was a key point.
Yes, I mean, Carol Sikora provided quite a good bit of balance there, didn't he?
But I mean, I wasn't left feeling any less militant on this issue.
But this is the thin end of the wedge, and I am seriously worried.
Yeah, no, no, no, definitely.
And it's just the creeping nature of it, isn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
But first, well, the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, he's promised once again to pass new laws, more laws, to stop the illegal migrants crossing the Channel.
This is one of the government's five key priorities.
Yet again, more priorities.
Yes, the scale of the small boats crisis has soared over recent years.
So in 2020, just over 8,000 migrants made the crossing, which is actually a huge number.
But that shot up to more than 25,000 the next year.
Turned out that was just the tip of the iceberg and a record 45,756 made the journey last year.
And with 44 migrants being brought ashore on the first small boat crossing of the year, the question is how many more are going to succeed in reaching the UK this year?
Well, joining us is the former security and border management expert.
The Boat Crossing Crisis 00:14:49
Well, you're not a former expert, are you?
You're a very current expert, Henry Bolton, and immigration lawyer Harjap Singh Bangle.
Thank you very much for coming on to talk about this issue.
So Rishi Sunak today pledged to introduce, bring in new legislation to stop the small boats.
Slight feeling of deja vu, I have to say.
Harjak, what do you think is going to change this year?
I don't think much is going to change unless we're going to address fundamentally the root of the problem and that is the gangs who are profiting and putting people on the dinghies and on the boats.
There's been no sort of announcement as to how to get them.
So we know that people trafficking makes more money than drug trafficking.
So it's a big business.
You now, you don't stop drug dealing by locking up or punishing drug users in the same way that if you start detaining or putting asylum seekers into detention or pushing them back hoping that this will stop the people smugglers to whom one boat is worth £250,000.
It is a lot of money.
So do you actually work then as a lawyer?
Do you work helping the cases of some of the people that are coming over on these boats?
I used to a lot.
Now what happens is they're dealt with at the point where they're actually coming.
They don't have a lawyer there.
They only need a lawyer once their claims being processed or if their claim is refused.
And so they don't really get legal aid for that anymore in relation to that.
So if someone's claim gets refused, then they have a right of appeal.
We can ask for a review on that.
Or if we feel a decision is unfair, it can be challenged.
Or if it comes to we think that human rights have been obstructed or anything like that.
Do you not have an ethical problem with making money?
You know, it's what you do for a living, off the back of giving advice to people who've quite clearly come here illegally and illegitimately.
Yeah, but it's not actually illegal to come here, and it's not illegal to claim asylum.
And there is no obligation on anyone to claim asylum in the first place they land.
However, it's their claim.
It is an obligation for this country to listen to their claim and deal with it fairly, whether they accept it or refuse it.
But actually, they have come here illegally.
They've come here without papers.
And that is quite clear under the UN 51 Convention.
They've come here illegally.
Because there's no legal route for them to come together.
We don't have to come in.
Okay, we don't have a legal obligation to provide routes to the rest of the billions of people around the world to come and live in the United Kingdom.
Henry, let's ask you.
So Harjap doesn't think that much is going to change.
At the beginning of last year, the Tory government said that the nationality and borders bill would change everything.
That's now been enacted.
And it's changed nothing.
Correct.
And I don't see this as changing anything.
I think what we saw, I mean, in general, in terms of Rishi Sunak's five points, his five promises, was a firefighting response to what he sees as a threat to the Conservative Party in their election in a couple of years or the next general election.
And he's right to see that as a threat.
But he's got no answers.
There is nothing new in anything he said, and particularly on the immigration side.
Another piece of legislation, all he's saying to us is that the legislation that we put before Parliament before simply wasn't up to the job.
But picking up that Harjap's point, the reality is there's so much money in the gangs.
And by the way, the vested interests here in the UK, frankly, are making a lot more money, a lot more profits than the gangs.
But the truth is, until we actually pick up and safely take people back to France, nothing will change.
Well, there's a couple of elements to this, Richard, if we're going to be successful.
The government talks about breaking the business model.
To do that, we have to sort of think of this.
We take the analogy of travel agents and they're marketing their holiday destinations.
This is what the people smugglers are doing.
And Albania is a classic case, and the cost of our Albanians and people like that.
Classic case, and it's a very good example because it demonstrates very clearly that we've got people coming here claiming asylum to effectively bypass the rules who are economic migrants.
That's a very clear case, and that's why the Albanian thing is so important, not just because of the numbers.
But if you want to disrupt that, you have to break that business model.
And the only way to do it is to go after, as Harjap says, the organised crime networks.
You've got to disrupt them and you've got to hunt them down ruthlessly.
Not just work with a bit of training and capacity.
That's one element, though.
The other element, as you would do if you want to reduce the number of tourists going to a country, is reduce the attractiveness of that country, the acceptability of it.
And we are an English.
We're very attractive.
We're very attractive.
And all you have to do is look at the amount of asylum claims that we accept and that we process and we grant for nationalities compared to the European Union.
For example, the French or the Germans and so on, who absolutely take a great deal, particularly again in the case of economic migrants, they understand the difference between an economic migrant and a refugee.
And France, for example, only grants 2% asylum claims to Albanians.
So we've got a massive discrepancy.
Harjap, do you understand the difference between an economic migrant and a genuine asylum seeker?
Of course.
Right.
And do you accept that the overwhelming evidence from the government itself is that a very significant proportion of those coming over on these boats are actually opportunists?
Once again, that's because there's no way for low-skilled migrants to come to this country.
We used to have.
There is an extraordinary number of ways to come together.
The work permit scheme is called a tier two skilled worker.
We know a lot of worker.
Right, so it's called a skilled worker.
There's nothing called an unskilled worker.
Now, if I'm a waitress, if I'm a lorry driver, I can't come into this country.
But that's it.
You can't come into this country.
Well, you can't.
We don't want them.
If the government wanted them, we would create that facility.
The thing is, where it doesn't exist, where we say, actually, we don't want the low-skilled workers.
That's government policy.
It's our sovereign right to enact that policy and not provide a route in for that.
So Albanians, again, I use that because they're a great example of economic migrants.
They can apply, like anybody else, for a work permit or to come on.
A work permit can only get rejected.
Henry, a work permit can only be sponsored.
Yeah, they're right.
They will be rejected because certain categories.
So like a waiter, a security guard.
All right, it's not you.
You're a skilled worker scheme.
There are 800 different job titles down to a salary of just over $16,000.
Not a waitress, not a hairdresser, Leicester, not a hairdresser, not a butcher.
Why should we take the workers?
We don't need that.
I'll give you an example.
Right.
An example is, as soon as you enter this building, you see two security guards who are migrants.
What's that?
Who come here lawfully?
To migrate on their own.
They could not.
They came under, probably under free movement or when the visa system was available.
If they want to come over now, they can't do it.
But your makeup artists who did my makeup, she's a migrant.
We've got five million people on how to work benefits.
We want to get our own people.
But that hasn't worked.
We've been saying this since 2016.
It hasn't worked.
Well, the answer is to get to the point.
The answer is back.
It hasn't done without anything.
But the answer then is, if that's what you believe, the answer then is to argue in terms of politics that we need to create that.
But it is not.
Absolutely it is not to turn around and say, well, because the government policy is such that we are not accepting such applications from abroad, we should accept the fact that they come across on small boats.
That's unacceptable.
There's no defence of breaking the law.
No one's saying that we should accept asylum seekers under or economic migrants under the guise of asylum seekers.
What we're saying is we should understand there is a need for migration across the whole board.
And we should have specific...
No, of course we don't.
So what limit would you put on it?
It sounds to me like you just want them to import.
I don't know what the people...
Why don't you ask the businesses?
Why don't you ask the caring industry?
Why don't you ask the care sector what they need?
Why don't you ask the tracking industries what they need?
Why are we hurting our own businesses and having shortages?
I'll tell you why, because I want to get our own five million people.
Here we go.
Before we finish this, you both agreed nothing's going to change.
What Harjap is your forecast for the number of elite people who will come here illegally over the channel this year?
It won't change.
So you're saying at least another it won't change because the gap is going to stop the gangs.
Henry, your forecast?
Richard, if you'll forgive me, I'm going to look a bit further.
No, we haven't got time.
What's your number?
But further than a year, I think in five years we're going to be facing the situation that the Americans have got on the south border, their southern border.
Give me a number, Henry.
By then?
No, now, this year, 2023.
Come on, go on, take 40,000.
Someone's going to 100,000.
60 to 100,000.
That is a pretty wide range, Henry Bobson.
Thank you so much indeed.
Nothing is going to change.
Rishi Sunak, you better listen in.
Coming up next.
Well, back to the Prime Minister again.
He wants all pupils at a time of crisis to study maths until the age of 18.
Does the country really need this?
We'll put a maths test designed for a 13-year-old to our panel to see how they get on.
Still to come tonight, we'll meet the man who has spent a year's salary trying to make himself look perfect, or at least what he thinks is perfect.
But first, let's just recap on that debate over the migrant crossings and Sunak's pledge to bring in new laws to stop it happening.
I mean, what was interesting is that neither of them actually thought they were going to make any difference.
It's utterly ridiculous.
Here we are, another year, another bunch of laws from another Tory government with another Tory Prime Minister that talks the talk and never delivers on anything.
And they both agree.
Nothing's going to change.
Henry's prediction, 60 to 100,000, even hard job.
Find you, he's got a vested interest.
He does have a vested interest.
And the other thing is it always seems to get kind of conflated with the debate as to how much migration we need at all.
Whereas actually, how people are coming across is a sort of a separate issue, isn't it?
Well, we could go on about that.
We could go on about that for yourself.
Well, one of my favourite topics.
But some of my favourite panel, of course, delighted to be joined by TV contributor Esther Kraku and the Daily Mirror Associate Editor Kevin Maguire.
Very warm welcome to you.
We are going to put you straight on your toes, team, because...
Yes, the Prime Minister wants us all to learn maths.
So just a quick question for you, team.
Here we go.
Oh, dear God.
So, Esther, listen up.
What could go wrong?
What could possibly be?
An example.
So, Maya bought 18 apples.
She used 50% of the apples to make apple pie and mixed a third of the apples with other fruits to make the salad.
How many apples did she have left?
A third of the remaining apples.
You're so right.
You absolutely nailed it, you see.
You've identified the flaw, the greyness in the wording.
So it's a third of the total apples.
Okay, a third of the total apples.
I mean, we always have to read the question again.
Six of us, it's a third of these.
There you are.
Look at this.
Absolutely on top of it.
Well done.
Well done.
So I am impressed.
I hate these questions.
So I've got kids that age and they sometimes do show me their maths homo and ask for help and I'm so embarrassed to say that I can't.
I think you have to be a bit of a linguist as well.
Exactly.
And the wording is often so badly done that it could be...
Can I suggest that Rishi Sukka do this for 16, 17, 18 year olds who doesn't do apple pies but moves paints and shots.
More or later.
Let's come on to the Prime Minister because the reality is that he's given a speech today that he rushed forward because I gave a speech in the morning.
Oh well, Scott, it's all about you.
It's all about me.
Come on, it's all about me.
Nothing changes here, does it?
It's all about you.
It always is.
Steady.
But look, he's given five key priorities and we keep hearing about priorities.
But Kevin, what are your thoughts about this?
I mean, the big headline that briefed out, maths to 18, really?
Which isn't one of his five priorities.
But he can't believe that.
Because three are on the economy, one's on NHS waiting lists, and the fifth is on boat crossing.
Which proved it was rushed.
So of course it was.
Richard, with all due respect to you, I think it's because Kier Starmer's making a speech.
Surely not.
Given your party's nibbling away part of the tweet.
You may be a factor, but I think it was really Stalma.
If you haven't got anything really big to say, don't say anything.
That was the problem because he came with five rather vague how, what is the likelihood you think of him achieving them?
So if we just quickly run through them, there was reducing inflation like half, which is which was the only specific thing that'll hit.
That will hit this year, because all of the Officers FOR Budget Responsibility is saying it'll be 3.8 at the end of the year anyway.
Growing the economy.
Well, from a pretty low standard, BANK OF England says there's going to be a recession this year.
So that'll be 2024, not this year.
He's banking on the, the Americans, not titering technically into a recession.
Remember the other words, reducing NHS waiting lists?
Well, they can fiddle that.
That was the biggest of them all, because he just said reduce, he didn't actually say by how much.
Probably 2024 too.
Uh um, more jobs, wasn't?
It wasn't more and better paid jobs, or unemployment's forecast to go up half a million.
And then the boat crossings.
In a way you can't cross him because even if you have a safe and legal route in which I think we should have, you may disagree, but I think we should.
We've already got one.
It's called a skill work.
They would still be those who wouldn't be allowed in who are gonna take a chance, which is a backhanded compliment.
I think.
I think he's doing that on the, on the chance that there's better negotiation, um sort of cooperation, with the, the border force in France.
I think that's why he's saying that, because he's sure that will pan out.
Um, on the Matt's point though, I do.
I do think it was.
I understood what he was saying.
I think I might be the only person that kind of understood his trajectory, but he did it, elaborate it very well.
But where's, where's the sense that actually the country is in crisis?
The country is literally broken.
Nothing works in this place anymore.
There's no sense of urgency about any of these priorities.
A Broken Country in Crisis 00:03:08
No, because it's on it.
It's on their watch, isn't it?
And they've been in power 13 years.
So do you really want to say, we did have the biggest fall, we did have the biggest fall in in living standards last year on record?
We have got a wave of strikes and it just isn't crisis.
All have happened on their watch.
So he can't say the country's broken.
He just can't do it.
He's got to pretend things are a bit better than they are and he will make them even better.
One person that's not pretending things are better than they, than they should be, is Nadine Doris.
You know the Boris Johnson's outrider.
She issued a furious tweet after that announcement by Rishi Sunak, basically talking about the unraveling of the last three years of progressive, what she called progressive.
To what did you make Kevin, of that intervention by Nadine Doris?
And it will, of course, fuel speculation about a possible Boris comeback.
Well, it will, because she, she's his outrider, she's that, she's the number one fangirl.
He put her in.
You could probably get a woman that loves you like yeah, everybody.
But most people will have to get a Labrador to get that amount of uh, divorce.
But of course, she's all sort of cheesed off, to put it lightly, because they're not going to privatize channel FOUR by the looks of it, which she said they should, and he sees it not as a priority and there's no real case to do it anyway.
No one's all public service red herring eggs, given everything else that was going on, and I think it's a bit insulting actually to the British public.
With all the things going on, you really want to sort of play political tetras with this pointless privatization scheme.
I, I don't think.
I mean, I just think it would show the priorities off and it would really not be Isabelle, but you know, you know there's going to be push Johnson forward all the time and Sunak isn't, isn't secure as Prime Minister.
So I think the over, I'd be really interested in your take on, you know, Sunak's been there for a few months now.
The overwhelming sense seems to be, both within the party and among voters, that he's just incredibly underwhelming.
Yeah, well, I agree, but I think he's probably the best they've got.
And when you're on your third prime minister in a single parliament, I don't think you can change a dismal reflection on 350 Tory MPs that he's the best they got.
I describe him as a bureaucratic, boring bean counter.
But the thing is, he has to be only slightly better than Kierstama, who's also a bureaucratic, boring bean counter.
That's the thing.
It's about your opposition, not about you being a standout character.
And this is the point.
I think if you look at Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak right now, their politics aren't actually very different.
I think they are pretty big.
They're both variants of socialism.
Yeah, it's democratic socialism.
And I think, but you can see that because the more left-wing part of the Labour Party are very unhappy with Kiersthamer at the moment as well.
So you can see that they're really not that different in terms of the actual policies.
I think if Keir Tharma was to win the general election tomorrow, his political outlook would be just slightly more woke versions of Rishi Sunak.
But the actual substance of it wouldn't be very different because ideological politics is dead.
I think, you know, look, Sunak is a Thatcherite.
That's what he is.
Sounds like that.
But he hasn't been able to deliver, has he?
He has the air of a provincial building society manager.
Cosmetic Surgery for Men 00:03:11
You can imagine him in a very small branch in a little town, giving you tea and biscuits and saying you can't have your mortgage.
That's what he's about.
He doesn't inspire that surgery.
I think we're going to disagree with you on that.
Well, look, before we let you go, the next segment on the program is an extraordinary story about a young man who has spent over 30 grand on surgery trying to create the perfect body.
We have to succeed.
Would either of you go down that route potentially at any point?
It makes you think I haven't and it went wrong.
Come on, Kevin.
There's no, no, no.
Look, people will spend their money as their wish, but no way.
No, I'm not against it, to be honest.
I wouldn't spend that much.
And I just, you know, I don't think anyone needs that much.
But I'm not against cosmetic surgery.
And I'm just, I'm not going to lie, I don't like cosmetic surgery on men.
I'm just, I'm not here for it.
So I don't find it attractive.
Oh, okay.
So you're drawing a distinction between men and women.
Oh, yeah.
Because a lot of men can't tell the difference when a woman gets cosmetic surgery.
This is the thing.
So they say, I hate it.
But when you see it, they really can't tell the difference.
And most of these people.
These two are laughing.
They say, it's true.
Unless it's really overdone.
No, you can't tell.
But with a man, especially a straight man getting cosmetic surgery, I just think, hmm, you're not for me.
Oh, okay.
All right, that's a bit judgmental.
Well, I don't look.
I think it's interesting that this industry, which started out being very much a female thing, is moving massively towards that equality.
And I just think, in some cases, I think it's quite sad because you're seeing younger and younger people doing it who are already beautiful.
They're fit, they're healthy, they don't need it.
You know, and you see it on the Love Island and all that.
The beautiful young women with lovely faces, and they're adding all sorts of stuff that they don't need.
It's also all sorts of things.
I think it's a symptom of the problem rather than the actual problem.
I think it's generally something a lot deeper on a societal level than just trying to look perfect.
Social media pressure.
Kevin, you're still not careful.
There is.
No.
You can tell.
But if you had to do something, what would you do?
I don't need to do it.
I mean, if you had to.
If you had to scroll down.
What you'd like to think?
What do I have that doesn't work?
Basically.
Is he the perfect specimen of a social media?
Obviously, do you even need to ask?
As an alpha male.
Exactly.
What about hair transplants?
Do you know what?
If it goes, it goes.
I mean, that's it.
I mean, I'm a little bit down.
I might be different on that.
Yeah, well, you know, if you've got the money and you're not going to be able to do it.
You've got an amazing head of hair.
Long may it stay.
Yeah.
I'm not looking for bold men.
Shave it all off.
Right.
Just go the Bruce Willis look at school and stuff.
Great.
Well, as we've been discussing, we are going to meet Stephen, the young man who's addicted to enhancing his appearance through surgery.
Is it one slice too far?
That's coming up next.
Well, the quest for the perfect body is on the rise across the UK.
The Quest for Perfect Bodies 00:07:37
I'm pretty happy with mine, but one leading cosmetic doctor claimed that young people have lost the plot by overdoing affordable cosmetic surgery.
Well, Stephen Jarvis has spent more than £30,000 in the search for physical perfection.
Stephen's first cosmetic procedure was his teeth, which cost a whopping £11,000.
They are very beautiful teeth, I have to say.
He has had a number of other cosmetic procedures on his face, including Botox and fillers, costing around £4,000.
Now, we're not talking an old person here, he's very youthful.
And years ago, he used to weigh 19 and a half stones, that's about 125 kilos.
He took drastic action and had a gastric band costing £6,000.
Now that worked pretty well, and he lost nearly eight stone and went right down to 50 kg, but he still wasn't satisfied.
He then had all the excess skin removed and no fewer than seven very serious procedures in one go, including a tummy tuck, liposuction on his chest costing £10,000, and numerous other things that are really too scary to mention.
So this here is what Stephen looked like before all his renovation works.
And Stephen joins us now alongside Jane Devil Armin from the National Obesity Forum.
Well, Stephen, thank you very much for coming in.
Thank you for having me.
You have an amazing physique now.
Thank you.
But we looked at the pictures of you before and I can't say there was anything that much wrong with them.
I dressed very well.
Why did you go down this such a drastic route?
So I was diagnosed with diabetes and then I was put on an array of medication from trial drugs to normal everyday drugs that diabetes can get.
With that, my weight was jumping from one side to the other on the scale.
Right.
So I couldn't get to grips with it.
Right.
So from that, my weight literally was going up, up, up, and up.
Then I would just stay at what you've got.
And that obviously made you very unhappy.
Yeah, like I didn't like what I saw because I was never that big before.
So I was like, why should I stay like this?
Okay, so you've got the gastric band on and that tackled the weight but left you with a load of extra skin.
And is that where it all started in terms of right, I need to get rid of that?
Yes, it's like, what can I take away and what can I do to look the way I want to look?
And couldn't you just exercise and you know find other ways of doing this?
I'd had a lot of consultations.
I've been to see like personal trainers and I've been to see like surgeons and I was like, let's see what is best.
I've taken both opinions and even the personal training.
So you did your research.
Two years worth of research.
So that's your body.
Yeah.
But why have you done all this stuff to your face?
You've got a lovely face.
You're really young.
So when you do lose weight, you do lose weight within your face.
And obviously, I'm too young now to do a facelift.
So by doing fillers, Botox and other things aesthetically to my face, that replenishes and rejuvenates my skin.
So let's bring in Jane here.
Jane, a very good evening.
Thanks for being with us.
So you've heard what Stephen has said.
What are your thoughts?
I mean, it's Stephen's body.
It's his choice.
He's got the money to do it.
Surely that's fine, isn't it?
Well, first of all, can I just say I'm from the British Obesity Society, not the National Obesity Forum.
I'm so sorry.
Thank you very much for clarifying that.
And yeah, I don't want them phoning me up saying you don't belong to us.
But I think in Stephen's case, I think because he's had gastric bands and obviously lots of people who need to lose excessive amounts of weight when they have a band or a bypass, they very often do feel very unhappy with the skin that's left on their body.
And I can absolutely understand why anyone who's had massive weight loss will then decide to have their body, their skin removed.
Because it is unsightly, isn't it, Stephen?
It's, you know, when you lose a lot of weight.
It's very, very unsightly.
People are very unhappy.
However, I have to say, you look fantastic.
Thank you.
But I think, you know, there are clinical reasons why people need to have cosmetic surgery, such as gastric bands and gastric bypasses.
People who've got, you know, growths on their face, maybe, or somebody who's got something that needs removing and they need to rebuild phases.
But I find it really sad that young people like you, Stephen, and like lots of young people today feel unhappy with how they look because actually it's not always just unhappiness because I'm happy.
Like I say like, well, I said, God carved my face with one set of chisels and threw them away.
I'm just amending what he's made.
Like, I'm not saying that I wasn't happy how I looked.
My body I was unhappy with.
My face, I'm just, I'm altering it to my judgment of perfection.
Where will you stop?
So you've already done all these things.
You actually went to Turkey for the most radical surgery, didn't you?
And you paid for it all up front?
Yep, so I saved like over that two years period.
I was saving, just kept putting money aside.
Like I would do extra work.
I work seven days a week.
And how long were you in hospital for all those procedures?
I was there with thigh narrowing and something like that.
Yes, I had inner thigh tightening.
I had chest lipo, chest sculpting, chest tightening of the skin, full-time retired abdomen repair, outer thigh.
And this is dangerous, right?
Were you not frightened?
No, because I'd done my research.
I was totally happy with...
You've done your research, but how?
Jane, to what extent is this increase the product of pressure on social media, the various different platforms for the perfect body?
Well, I mean, you know, I look at social media now and I'm not being rude or cruel, but, you know, everyone looks the same to me.
Everyone's got the same teeth and the same face.
Yeah, everyone looks, I can't tell the difference between people anymore.
Stephen says no one looks like him.
Come on, Stephen, respond to that.
There isn't anyone else that looks like me.
I'm a mixed race person of so many different ethnicities.
Like in my family, yeah, we look alike, but I've never seen another person that you could say I look like.
Very quickly, tell us what else you want to do.
You would think this is the fixed product, but no, I have heard you say you are thinking of leg lengthening.
Yeah, I did look at that.
I'd love to be taller.
Like, I'd love to be six foot.
And that does involve breaking your legs, right?
Yeah.
But then I won't go to work for quite a while, so that's off the cards.
Okay, never?
Yeah, never for that.
Hands, I think you've mentioned that before.
Well, yeah, you can, you can replenish your hands.
Apparently, you can have a handle.
If I can replenish it off, so many more things to work on.
Yeah, hands are fantastic.
But you can have, but like when you lose weight, like that's what age is.
Jane, you're shaking your head.
What are your thoughts?
You know, honestly, I think you've already alluded to it.
You know, every single time we go under a medical procedure, you might have done all your research.
I've been nursing for 49 years and trust me, things go wrong.
They don't mean to go wrong, but, you know, and might be the most amazing surgeon.
But things do go wrong every time you go under an anaesthetic.
You're putting your life at risk.
Well, yeah, obviously that is true.
But that's why I will do my research.
And if I was told by the surgeon, this is really not for you.
I'm not just going to go and do it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Stephen.
Well done.
You're very brave, I have to say.
That's it from.
And thank you, Jane.
And whatever you're up to, make sure you keep it uncensored.
Export Selection