All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 17, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:18
20230117_piers-morgan-uncensored-jordan-trengove
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Cancel Culture and Redemption 00:02:35
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored as the Sussexes demand apologies but then use Jeremy Clarkson's fulsome apology to throw it back in his face and vilify and humiliate him.
I ask the question, is redemption now impossible in the age of woke cancel culture?
And talking to you being cancelled, he was attacked, abused and harassed for a crime of rape he never committed.
Jordan Trengrove's life was ruined when he was falsely accused by an evil fantasist who has now herself been put behind bars.
Tonight he tells his extraordinary and disturbing story.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London, welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well Harry and Megan, sorry to keep banging on about them, but they keep banging on about everybody else don't they?
So we have no choice until they get exhausted and we all get exhausted and we can all move on.
But for now they remain in the position that they are demanding an apology from the royal family for all the filth that they've thrown at the royal family in the last two years.
But why should the royal family apologise when you consider what's happened with Jeremy Clarkson?
Now Clarkson wrote what he has admitted was a stupid and inflammatory newspaper column that overstepped the mark.
The outrage was predictable and it was frankly justified, as he now concedes.
But he apologised on Twitter, said he got it completely wrong.
Then on Christmas Day he wrote directly to Prince Harry on Christmas Day.
Think about that.
And yesterday he issued a sprawling, shame-faced self-immolation of a public apology, about as grovelling as it could be.
I really am sorry, he pleaded, all the way from the balls of my feet to the follicles of my head.
This is me putting my hands up into me a culpa with bells on.
It doesn't get more fulsome, frankly, than what he posted on Instagram.
And coming from Clarkson, who would probably rather shoot himself than be like that normally, it carried even more weight.
But it wasn't enough for Harry and Megan.
And it took me back actually to when I was asked to apologise to Meghan Markle for doubting her word on Good Morning Britain.
And one of the reasons I refused was, why would I apologise, A, for something I believe, i.e. she lies.
And secondly, if I did apologise, what do you think would happen?
Anyway, even if I pretended that I was sorry, they wouldn't accept it.
She wouldn't accept it.
She'd just use that as an excuse to go even harder.
It's what they do.
Refusing to Apologize 00:13:24
They're the victims.
Always, perennial victims.
So I refused and I left and I'm very happy about that because I wouldn't be here doing the show if I hadn't done that.
But Clarkson is now in a similar position, looking like he may possibly lose a lucrative and highly popular series of shows on Amazon Prime, perhaps even Who Wants to Be a Millionaire at ITV.
And you might have your own view either way about whether Clarkson should be cancelled in this way.
I don't think he should be.
I don't think that punishment fits the crime of a stupid joke in a column.
But let's go back again to the apology.
They were desperate for an apology from Clarkson, simply so they could reject it.
They could have accepted it, noted it, even ignored it, but instead they reveled in it, pouring fuel on the flames of his humiliation.
Within hours, they lashed him in a statement for writing articles that spread hate rhetoric, dangerous conspiracy theories and misogyny.
It's clear this is not an isolated incident shared in haste, they said, but rather a series of articles shared in hate.
God, the dripping pomposity of that statement and the disingenuousness of it.
Harry, let us remind ourselves, has just literally just published a best-selling 416-page book, which is effectively a series of articles shared in hate.
And when it comes to misogyny, he, like his wife, identifies arch feminists.
And yet here he is.
And we've gone to the audio book, to put it in his own words, describing the disabled matron that he mocked at school.
Unlike the other matrons, Pat wasn't hot.
Pat was cold.
Pat was small.
Walking was hard.
Stairs were torture.
She'd descend backwards, glacially.
Often we stand on the landing below her doing antique dances, making faces.
Do I need to say which boy did this with the most enthusiasm?
We went on mocking her as she came down the stairs.
The reward was worth the risk.
For me, the reward wasn't tormenting poor Pat, but making my mates laugh.
Where's Pat's apology?
And what about the first woman he slept with?
I suspected he was referring to my recent loss of virginity.
In glorious episode with an older woman.
She liked horses quite a lot and treated me not unlike a young stallion.
Quick ride, after which she'd smacked my rump and sent me off to graze.
Among the many things about it that were wrong, it happened in a grassy field behind a busy pub.
Lovely way to talk about this older woman, a private citizen who's now the subject of global mockery.
Who is that woman?
Does he care about the way he talked about her?
It's not exactly chivalrous, is it, to reveal stuff like that in a book that's been read by millions around the world?
Where's her apology?
And how about the female newspaper editor that Harry really didn't like?
Who the hell is this editor?
Loathsome toad, I gathered.
Everyone who knew her was in full agreement that she was an infected pustule on the arse of humanity.
Plus a f ⁇ ing excuse for a journalist.
An infected pustule on the arse of humanity.
Where does that sit with being nice to women, being supportive of women, being a feminist?
Where's the apology for that female newspaper editor?
Is there going to be one?
For that blatant misogyny?
And what about Camilla, the queen consort, his own stepmother?
She was the villain.
She was the third person in the marriage.
She needed to rehabilitate her image.
In a funny way, I even wanted Camilla to be happy.
Maybe she'd be less dangerous if she was happy.
His own stepmother, the love of his father's life, our queen to be.
She'll be coronated too.
A dangerous villain.
Where's Camilla's apology for that hateful rhetoric?
You see, my point here.
If anyone should be groveling for forgiveness and issuing apologies, isn't it Harry and Megan?
For selling all the family secrets to the highest bidders, for allowing the royals to be smeared as racist and then saying, oh, we didn't mean to do that two years later, for allowing Britain to be cast as a bigoted hellhole.
But they won't ever apologise for any of it because they're hypocrites.
They're professional victims who wallow for a living.
And there's no point apologising to professional victims.
I knew that when I was asked to apologise to Meghan Markle two years ago.
Why would you when they do what they did to Jeremy Clarkson?
It's not about forgiveness anyway, it's about scoring points to humiliate their enemies, to reinforce that victimhood.
And they'll always come back for more because that's the currency of where they now find themselves.
Well, joining me now as a debate all this is Black Lives Matter activist Iman Ayton, talk TV presenter Richard Tice and talk TV presenter Tricia Goddard who is in the States.
Well welcome to all of you.
Tricia, here's my central problem with this.
And you and I have disagreed about a lot of this whole story from start to finish.
In fact, you were on the Good Morning Britain episode that led to me departing.
On the central charge I make of rank hypocrisy, when you hear those excerpts from Harry's book, in his own words, particularly, I would argue, the way he mocks this poor matron, and we don't know what's happened to her.
That is blatant misogyny, the way he talks about her in that book.
Who is he to really be demanding apologies for misogyny from others without offering one himself to those that he's been misogynist towards?
I think, as Harry rightfully said, in Camilla's words, and Camilla, you know, the Queen consort has been very strong on this.
It was more the violence that Jeremy Clarkson involved in that, you know, Game of Thrones, clumsy Game of Thrones, quote-unquote, joke.
And I think it was more the violence that they were talking about.
Misogyny, I don't know if it is if you put something into context about all the boys mocking somebody who was disabled, which I don't agree with at all, but it's the actual violence of putting it out there and the way in which it was done without and naming the person, actually naming the person and the person already having said that they've suffered as a result of hatred in the press.
They've had death threats and so on.
So first of all, I was thinking it's that.
And I don't think we should lose the sight that it's not the Sussexes perhaps putting Jeremy Clarkson out of a job.
That's got nothing to do with whether he apologises or not.
You and I, Piers, know, and Richard Tice would know as well for our employers, we sign a contract that we won't bring our companies into disrepute.
Now, if our companies, if our employers decide that we've actually done that, then it's up to them whether they fire us or not.
Okay, but on the fact that they have simply refused to accept what is clearly a very long and fulsome apology, which is what everyone had been demanding.
Well, actually, it is.
If you read the whole thing he posts on Instagram.
Yeah, no, I did.
Absolutely.
I did.
I'm uncomfortable with it.
No, I wasn't.
It did seem a little bit, you know, from the balls of my feet and what have you.
And I don't understand, Piers, maybe you know better than I, obviously.
When it said private and confidential, how do we know the contents?
You know, I just don't get it.
It did seem the fact that it was so publicly done, surely the way to do it would have been to quietly go about it and what have you.
But I think...
Sorry, we are talking about an apology made to the two least private people in the world right now, people who revealed every private conversation of their relatives.
Well, two wrongs don't make a right, but I just found it.
Were they right to refuse to accept?
We can all choose what we want to do with everybody.
Well, were they right?
Did it sit well with you?
Yeah, but here's the thing, Tricia.
We live in this cancel culture world where everyone screams and Jeremy Clarkson must never be allowed to walk again in public or get a job wherever it is.
Who said that?
I believe if you do, if you do repent, if you do admit what you did was completely wrong, particularly if it's a dumb joke in a newspaper column, right?
Which it was, it was a stupid thing.
You shouldn't have done it.
And we all know, no one's defending what he wrote, right?
So let's just agree on that.
But if you then make a fulsome public apology, which goes against everything Clarkson stands for, by the way, for the people who then receive it to literally not just refuse to accept it, but go on the attack, seems to me utterly graceless.
I don't think that, for me personally, I don't think they were on the attack.
I thought they were stating the obvious about, you know, but we'll have to disagree about the fulsome apology.
You might see it as that, maybe you're a mate of his.
From the reading of the...
Well, look, to be honest, let me clarify that.
As I said on last night's show, I have a scar on my head from where he punched me in the head.
So we're not exactly pet buddies.
I do get on okay with him now in the sense that, you know, a bit like, you know, two, I guess, two porcupines prowling around each other when we meet at parties.
It's a bit like that.
So we're not exactly easy bed for that.
So I don't, you know, I've got no reason to defend him.
And I'm not defending, by the way, remotely what he wrote.
The moment I read it, I thought it was completely wrong.
My only question, I'll come to the other panelists now.
Iman, I mean, it seems to me if we if we don't accept somebody, literally as he puts it, from balls to head, falling on his feet, basically begging for forgiveness, admitting he should never have done it, it was a total disgrace, et cetera, et cetera.
Should we not find it somehow in our hearts to say, okay, okay, we get it.
You know, you completely screwed up, but we accept the apology.
1 million percent for two reasons.
One, yes, I do.
I don't want to make a habit of it, but I'll be honest.
Yes, I do agree with you.
So, first, forgiveness shows growth and maturity.
That's just obvious.
Second, this is also about reputation management.
It's almost as if they're not being strategic.
I have to admit, I mean, on a reputation management perspective, they would look a lot better if they did accept the apology.
First, they would keep the upper hand, look good doing it, and then again, they would be able to lead the way and they wouldn't look so hypocritical when it comes to them actually expecting an apology from the royal family.
So, from a strategic standpoint, I think they failed abysmally.
Well, I think that's a really good point, Richard, because if you're the royal family, you've seen this demand.
They can only be a rapprochement, says the guy who's just trashed them in every possible media space, if they basically apologise for what they did to me and my wife.
But then you see somebody make an abject apology and they just throw it straight back in his face.
The whole thing's unbelievable.
I mean, they had the chance to take the moral high ground, but actually, Clarkson has done the royal family a massive favor because he's been the fool guy.
He's gone out there, the first one to test the water.
They asked for an apology, he gave it, and then they threw it back in his face in a vile, hate-filled way.
Yes.
Which was extraordinary.
When they could have said, thank you very much, appreciate this.
We all make mistakes.
Move on.
But that would have given them the high moral ground, which I think they're incapable of occupying, either in reality or even to fake it.
They just don't have that bone in their body.
At the moment, they seem so narcissistic, so vengeful, so determined to create maximum wreckage that even when somebody is basically saying, look, please, I'm begging you, just, I'm so sorry, this was terrible.
It was a moment of madness.
No, no, you are disgusting.
You've been doing this for years.
We're going to finish you too.
You're on the list as well.
And what really troubles me when you listen to Harry in the audio is the misogyny in his attitude to women.
Yes.
You gave four separate examples.
And they're not the only four, by the way.
And I haven't read the whole book, and frankly, I have no intention of, particularly the more I hear about it.
And I'm just thinking, where's his decency?
Where is his equality between the genders?
It doesn't seem like there is any.
No.
No, and he thinks it's perfectly reasonable for him to talk about that female editor, for example.
He's a good friend of mine, full disclosure.
But to talk about any woman in the way that he did that whilst presenting yourself as the enemy of misogyny, it's just breathtaking.
It's incomprehensible, actually.
It really is.
And you just sort of, what's going on in his head?
What's going on in Corporation?
Well, I think there's a lot of anger, but I think a lot of the anger, I mean, we've seen again the repercussions of some of the things he said in this book today.
You see Iran now publicly using his boast about killing 25 Taliban, naming the kill count, describing them as chess pieces, not human beings.
You know, we saw, first of all, the Taliban using that as a stick to beat us with.
Now we're seeing Iran, and you don't have to be remotely supportive of either the Taliban or Iran to understand the diplomatic nightmare that Harry has now caused this country by being so brazen in the boasting of killing 25 Taliban.
Gaslighting and Racism Charges 00:13:41
You're seeing a cascade of unintended consequences reverberating around the whole world.
And potentially, he's putting other people's lives at risk around the world.
And on it goes.
And on it goes.
And you think, I mean, if he had had someone in the UK advise him, edit that book, these mistakes would not have happened.
But because he did it all from the US and he thought he knew better, the consequences, I think, for the royal family, but for us as a nation and for UK citizens elsewhere in the world who have now been put at risk by his writings, his audios, his whole behaviour, his demeanour.
Yeah, I completely agree.
We'll take a short break.
Before we go to the break, I want to play a clip.
This is Iman talking about, well, one of two people was Tricia.
I don't know whether you've heard this, Tricia, but this is what Iman said about you, along with another guest I had, last week.
She said this.
I watched you yesterday and the day before.
I watched you be gaslit by two ignorant black women.
I actually felt quite sorry for you.
So I want to say, welcome to the club, Piers Morgan.
How does it feel to be gaslit when claiming something is racism?
How's it feel?
It's annoying, right?
It's annoying.
Well, we'll find out how Tricia feels about that after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan.
I say, so still with me is Iman Ayt, Richard Tyson, Tricia Garr.
I left you on a cliffhanger, a tease of all teases.
We'll play it again now, just to remind you in case you missed it.
I watched you yesterday and the day before.
I watched you be gaslit by two ignorant black women.
I actually felt quite sorry for you.
So I want to say, welcome to the club, Piers Morgan.
How does it feel to be gaslit when claiming something is racism?
How's it feel?
It's annoying, right?
It's annoying.
Well, Tricia, here's your chance to respond.
This was, of course, about our quite fiery debate in which I got very exercised about the fact that Megan and Harry for two years led the world to believe that the palace had been racist about the skin colour of their baby.
And then they decided to turn around and say, actually, we never meant that at all, which I thought was deplorable.
You defended it.
And that was Iman's verdict on your defence.
I was basically getting gaslit.
What's your response?
Not so much the gaslit bit, but I guess Iman and I would have to agree to disagree.
I wouldn't call anybody ignorant just because they don't agree with my point of view.
And I don't think it's helpful, especially when we're discussing something like racism.
You know, one black person calling another person black ignorant because they don't agree.
That I find sad.
I'm saddened by that.
And, you know, so I'm not going to pick a fight with Iman about that because I've seen that happen on, you know, I've worked in the media for 35 years.
I know how that game's played.
So that would be my only comment.
She's entitled to her view.
You're entitled to your view.
I'm entitled to my view.
But I think it's, I actually think it's quite disgraceful to label someone ignorant purely because they don't agree with you.
So it's not acceptable to call someone ignorant, but you can call them disgraceful, Iman.
Well, no, I think doing it is disgraceful.
It's the same thing, it's the same thing.
You just call it a disgraceful thing.
Iman, you're disgraceful for calling Tricia ignorant.
I think it's...
Tricia, we just heard you.
You just said she was disgraceful.
Exactly.
Her answer the charge of being ignorant.
She was disgraceful.
Okay, Iman, you're a disgrace for calling Tricia ignorant.
I think I'm awesome personally, so I just want to throw that out there.
Secondly, I never called you ignorant because you didn't agree with my opinion.
I called you ignorant because you have a lack of knowledge.
There's a clear difference, and it was never about a view, it's about just understanding facts.
And when we talk about unconscious bias, that's based on feeling.
That is a fact, Tricia.
So it's not about me and you disagreeing as two black women.
I'm going to call you ignorant in spite of your colour if you have a lack of knowledge.
Simple as that.
Oh, thank you so much.
You're welcome.
Well, Tricia, come on, you're going to answer the charge.
It was basically your ignorance as in lack of knowledge of the subject you were talking about.
If somebody decides that I'm ignorant, I'm not going to sit here and try to dissuade them otherwise.
They've quite clearly made up their minds.
If Imam wants to call me ignorant and thinks of me an ignorant what have you, fine, go ahead.
Trisha, you did a lot of damage that day.
You did a lot of damage and I had to come along and fix it.
Just like Harry did a lot of damage.
And other people had to come along and fix it.
Me, Shola, Tiande, we had to come along and fix your dirty work.
So you know what?
I don't have time for people like you when you come on national TV spewing garbage.
And you're right.
I'll actually add to your second point.
I don't want to argue because I'm a bit more.
In fact, I don't believe black women should come onto TV arguing, so I'll just leave it at that.
I called you ignorant because of your lack of knowledge.
It kind of ends there, basically.
I mean, Tricia, what I would say as the token white man in this debate is I would say this about what happened last week.
I was surprised actually that you, with all your experience of broadcasting and journalism, you're a smart person.
Even you, when you heard Harry basically gaslighting the world by saying we never, it was the media that said that this was racism.
We didn't say that.
And then you literally watch back exactly what they said to Oprah Winfrey and they were blatantly accusing a senior member of the royal family of being racist about their unborn child skin colour.
I was surprised that you couldn't find it in yourself, notwithstanding your support for them, but as a black woman, to understand the damage that that did in playing the race card as strongly as it did to Oprah Winfrey, and then expecting two years later we would all just sit back when they go, we didn't mean it as racism, and we'd all go, oh, oh, that's all right then, after two years of incessant headlines around the world calling the royal family racist because they had called them racist.
I have to actually, with that, agree with Richard Tice, my colleague Richard Tice, in saying that when, Richard, you were right.
If it hadn't been Oprah Winfrey, if it had been a British interviewer, I think a British interviewer would have challenged them on that and got them actually to say the words.
My whole thing was that they didn't, as Susanna, your old colleague, agreed, they didn't actually say the words.
And the reason they didn't, I don't think, is because they'd actually said the sentence, they probably would have been sued or God knows what.
So my whole argument was they didn't actually say the words.
Hang on, Tricia.
Hang on.
As I said to you last week, the key line to me, the key line in that whole thing with Oprah, was when Oprah did actually follow up with one and said, are you saying that the concern was that if the baby's skin colour was too brown, too dark, that would be a problem?
And she said, yes, basically, you may well think that.
Pretty good assumption.
That was a direct charge of racism.
I would have pushed it further.
I would actually say, I would have actually asked the question, are you saying that somebody in the royal family is racist?
I don't actually.
Look, I agree, and I would have done, but actually, I don't think you needed to.
Richard Tice, putting aside all the what side you're on of this debate, and look, there are lots of people who don't agree with me, I get it.
But on that, I did feel completely incensed for the royal family.
For two years, they had to put up with this charge of racism against all of them because we never got told who it was that supposedly expressed this concern.
And when you watched back that exchange with Oprah, it was unequivocal.
When you watched it back, she specifically said that it would be a problem if the baby's skin colour was too dark.
Yes, was the basic answer.
No one had any doubt.
And there hadn't been any doubt all over the world.
for two years until Harry's interview.
And in the 60s, the Market Netflix series, they never corrected it.
And so everyone's left completely gobsmacked.
And you're sort of wondering, what's Harry's objective here?
The agenda has changed.
Sorry to cut you, but the agenda has changed.
Yeah, so that's the point.
So did he find himself...
There's not one word about this in the book.
No, no, exactly.
It's as though he thought, I've gone too far here.
I need to somehow find a way to row back.
Or let's just give a distraction and go down another route.
There's so many inconsistencies in all of this.
I agree.
I agree with Demana.
I think it was very damaging.
You know, if I represented a group like Black Lives Matter, for example, and I'd be working really hard to try and drag people with racist undertones about them into a world where they're not racist, because you explain what racism is.
To have a member of the royal family and his wife, two of them, on global television, branding the royal family racist and then basically saying that's not what we meant.
I get why that would incense you.
It would incense me.
I thought it was absolutely disgusting and that's why I apologize for cutting you early.
I just had to make this point about their agenda changing.
I just want us to look at their journey for a moment.
We watch them expose their truth.
We like their truth.
You see, I've changed.
Expose their truth, defend themselves, and now they are on stage three, which is about making amends.
And so therefore, each agenda requires a different approach.
And so from another strategic standpoint, if you take off the most damning claim of them all, which is a racism claim by far.
The reason why is because you have to remember, it connects to the royal family potentially paying reparations and you don't even want to think about what that number would potentially look like.
But I would also, Iman, I would also add the other main charge, which I felt was incredibly damaging, was this allegation, direct allegation, that Meghan Markle felt suicidal and had gone to somebody at the palace seeking help and had been told she couldn't get it because it would be basically damaging for the brand.
Again, not a word of that in the book.
That's just disappeared like that never happened.
We never got told who that palace employee was.
For all we know, they might still be working there.
Did they say that?
Did they look at a woman saying, I'm suicidal, and say, you can't get help?
I didn't believe it at the time.
I don't believe it now.
Not a word in the book.
And this is, again, I think, a form of gaslighting on that issue.
So you've got race and mental health were the two sticks to beat the royal family with.
Both of them now shattered in terms of any evidence.
I will not defend the indefensible.
I know that people like Tricia and many others try.
I'm not prepared to do it.
Once I realise you're a liar, you're a liar.
I will defend what I believe in.
But once you've crossed that line, you've crossed that line.
That's a really good example of the contradictions.
I hate to point out contradictions.
I'm a big fan or was a big fan of both of them.
But even the whole therapy thing, I mean, I could sit here and defend, you know, for very long lengths of time, sit in conversations, defending them.
But the reality is they've contradicted themselves.
They contradicted themselves when it came to the whole therapy thing.
Sorry, let's be clear.
They're liars.
They've contradicted themselves and they have lied.
And they have lied on a global stage repeatedly and caused enormous damage.
And I said this two years ago.
Nothing has changed my mind.
In fact, if anything, the disingenuousness of the race charge being removed, the mental health stuff just disappearing and not being mentioned again has all just confirmed to me I was right all along.
I mean it's been concreted in stone this lying, these inconsistencies.
And you sort of wonder where does it go from here?
The only upside is that Clarkson's done the Royal Family a favour.
Yeah, and I agree with that point.
They have to maintain the moral high ground, say nothing, do nothing, send an invitation, but make sure through the back door they understand they're not to come.
Well, we're going to move on to an extraordinary interview after the break.
This is with a young man who was 18 years old when a woman fantasist, an evil woman fantasist, invented a series of rape allegations against him and against other people and very nearly got away with having him incarcerated for a very long time.
He served 10 weeks in prison.
It was all a pack of lies and he's here to tell his story and it is shocking.
So this is what lies can do actually to somebody's life and we'll talk to him after the break.
Thank you to Iman, to Richard.
You're going to come back later on and thanks to Tricia in the States.
I appreciate it.
Well welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensive.
Well my next guest story is as horrifying as it's astounding.
In early 2019, at the age of just 18, Jordan Trengrove agreed to go on a date with a woman called Eleanor Williams.
That fateful decision was to change his life irrevocably, landing him 10 weeks on the sex offender's wing of a prison, making him the target of a violent anti-grooming movement.
This woman accused him of drugging and raping her repeatedly.
She even fabricated social media posts to prove it.
It turned out she'd actually attacked herself.
She's since been unmasked as a fantasist and a serial liar.
Her claims about being groomed by an Asian gang sparked far-right protests in her hometown.
Innocent men faced death threats for her baseless allegations.
This month she was found guilty of eight counts of perverted course of justice and three of those related to my guest Jordan.
Well Jordan and his girlfriend Kayla join me now.
So Jordan, you haven't done television, do you too?
The Kayla House Arrest Case 00:13:13
I know this is new to you and you're nervous about this.
So let's just go through this, I think, methodically.
You went out on a night out with this woman.
You knew her a little bit, but not really.
No, I knew that she worked in a nightclub, but she was wanting someone to go out with and I was already out with two friends and she asked if she could come with us because she had no one to go out with.
And what happened that night?
We met up.
All of us met up.
I was already with my two friends and then we met up with Ellie.
Basically we went to a pub called a rebar.
My friend got punched.
He was bleeding.
So I took him back to his house in a taxi with his friend and I was staying at his that night so I had to go get the keys.
So we stopped at a cash machine and took a £10 out and went back to his house.
And after that I went back to town to look for Ellie and she wasn't to be seen anywhere.
So I went to where she worked in one of the nightclubs Manhattan and that's when I was told she was throwing up on the stairs and I just thought she's had a bit too much to drink.
I'll go carry on with my night out because they told me they were taking her home.
And I carried on with my night out.
I got to a taxi rank at the end of the night and a police van came to get me because I was drunk and disorderly and they took me home with another female and that was it for about a week.
The police drop you home.
You had too much to drink and you got to take it home and then you wake up in the morning.
What happens?
It was about a week later that I got arrested and when I got arrested I was asleep at the time.
The police woke me up and I was thinking what's going on and it was just weird how it all what did they say you'd done?
I was arrested for rape in ABH the first time and then about two days later, after they arrested me for that one, I was arrested two days later again for another rape in ABH, and then I was released on bail, both of them times with like conditions, not to contact Ellie, go near her property, stuff and, just to be clear, you'd absolutely no dealing physically with it at all.
No of any kind, nothing at all.
She said in trial that I apparently kissed her, but I didn't even kiss her that night.
Like not even I don't think I'd kissed anyone that night, apart from the person who I went home with, and it just all destroyed my life.
What happened then?
So you you, then the police, are investigating these three allegations from this woman about you, and then what happens?
I was arrested another time and that's when I was kept in for like four days and they told me I was being charged with it all.
And that's when reality hit me, like what is going on like?
And she produced pictures of herself all smashed up.
Yeah, she did out, she had done to herself.
She said that I beat her up with a shower head, smashed her head off the toilet, drugged her.
The paramedics, when they found her, even thought she was dead.
It was to that extent like, and she'd done this to herself yeah, she did.
Looking at the pictures now, this is all self-inflicted.
Yeah, by a complete fantasist.
Yeah, she wasn't just accusing you of things.
She's accusing a lot of other people of other stuff as well, but for you, you're 18 years old, you've done nothing to this woman and suddenly you're faced with multiple rape and assault charges.
What are you thinking?
I was disgusted, like.
I didn't know what was going on.
I just felt horrified, I was scared, I didn't know.
And then, when I found out I was being sent to prison, I said to my mum, i'm not going to be coming out alive because I don't want to go to prison.
For if, even if I did do something, so why do I want to go if i'm not doing something wrong?
You were put on the sex offender's wing of Of Preston prison yeah, and you had to share a room with a paedophile.
Yeah, and he told me he pleaded guilty to that offence.
What was the offence?
He sent pictures to an eight-year-old kid.
What did you feel about having to share a cell with someone like that?
I felt sick like, physically sick, like.
And you were there because the police had concluded you must be guilty of similar behaviour.
Yeah, and I applied for bail numerous times.
My legal team applied from bail, like I think, like four times and I was denied it every single time.
And then I just got woke up one morning by the police, the prison staff, and they said, you're in court.
And I was confused because I didn't have any notice beforehand.
And that's when I went to court and I got out on bail.
But I wasn't allowed to go back to my hometown.
I had to sign on the police station every two days and people in your hometown thought you were a rapist.
Yeah, I was named in the paper.
What did they do?
I had rapists spray painted on my house, I had my windows smashed, my mum had to move out of her house because of it, all it, and you spent 10 weeks in prison yourself.
Yeah, so all this is going on.
You're completely innocent.
Yeah meanwhile, everybody knows you.
You're on the front page of the paper, you've been named.
Your family's name has been completely decimated by this, but your accuser who's made it all up.
She remained anonymous.
Yeah, and this is one thing what really confuses me, why did I get named like.
But when she was remanded into prison, there was never an article put she was charged with this, that and the other.
Well, there was, but there was no name given.
It was just a female, and that's one thing I question a lot.
And even when she was charged yeah, even when she was charged, it was just a female had been charged with these offences.
Put in the paper, no name.
Obviously, people knew who it was because of a Facebook post.
You think it's just completely unfair the way this is.
Yeah, I think it's completely unfair.
Because you'll always have this attached to you.
Yeah, I had solid alibi.
I was in the back of a policeman on one of the nights and it took the police nearly 12 weeks to get hold of that.
I mean the police have now accepted you had nothing to do with it, right?
With any of this.
But it doesn't change what's happened to you.
How has it affected you as a man, do you think?
It's affected me mentally, physically.
I don't like leaving the house.
I don't like going out.
I don't have friends anymore.
I didn't want a relationship with my son when he was first born just because I didn't want him being branded as a rapist's son.
It was just horrible how it all happened.
Let me bring in your girlfriend Kayla.
Kayla, you have a young boy together, he's a year and a half, and he's doing great.
He told me earlier, which is great to hear.
But you actually started, you knew each other before, but you only started dating actually after he came out of prison.
So clearly you knew this was all complete nonsense, what he was going through.
What did you feel about the way he'd been treated?
I wasn't sure at the start, but after speaking with a friend and her making it clear that he was innocent, I gave him the benefit of a doubt.
And after reading through paperwork and paperwork and paperwork, I felt awful.
And I knew from then that I had to stick by him and help.
What do you think about the law as it stands?
Where Jordan gets named and shamed, and we'll always have to live with that.
You Google your name, it'll always come up now with rape alongside it.
And that's the horrific nature of what you've had to go through, which will always be there.
But his accuser, until she actually got convicted last week of just inventing all this against a number of men and ruining so many lives, she remained anonymous for a large part of that process.
Yeah, I said to Jordan at the start that he should never have been named.
And like, I just think until you've been found guilty, you shouldn't be named.
And it's caused a big problem, and mud sticks, and he's got that forever now.
And at one stage, I mean, you even considered taking your own life.
Yeah, I took an overdose in front of my own mum.
It was that bad.
Like, my mum's best friend killed herself two days before I tried doing that.
And my emotions towards my mum were just empty.
I didn't think of what her best friend did.
And I went and did the same in front of my mum.
I didn't think of anything.
I didn't ever put other people's feelings first, if you get what I mean, because my life was just too messed up with all this stuff.
Has it got any easier for you, Jordan?
Since the verdict, I've been leaving the house a little bit more.
Do local people now all realize that you've been completely framed?
I have my next-door neighbour believes Ellie, and she has for a long time.
A next-door neighbour believes the accuser.
Yeah.
Even though she's now been convicted.
Yeah, she's always, she's had complaints into our housing association that I'm a rapist, this and that, and the other.
Absolutely appalling.
But that's the impact of this, right?
Yeah, my landlord came around the house and questioned Kayla on her own in front of the children.
Why have you not told me Jordan's been a convicted rapist?
And obviously I wasn't convicted.
I was only on remand.
It was just the fact that he couldn't ask me before we moved in when I told him I've been to prison.
He didn't ask what for and stuff like that.
And then he just judged you.
Yeah, and he's just, since them people have been putting in them complaints, he's just changed into a completely different person towards you.
How important has Kayla been to you?
She's been amazing.
She's been my absolute rock through it all.
Do you think you'd even be here without her?
No, I say it to her all the time.
If it wasn't for Kayla, I really do think I'd be dead now because them allegations just ruined my life.
I mean, that's so sad to hear, isn't it, Kayla?
I mean, an amazing thing that you've done for Jordan by being there for him in his darkest time.
But he should never have been through all this.
And I think it is a really interesting debate.
You know, the Crown Prosecutor, Wendy Lloyd, said that false accusations of his kind are very rare.
That is true.
This has been an unusual case.
It's important for victims of rape or sexual assault to understand that they should never fear coming forward to report the crime to police.
Well, we can all agree with that.
The issue is whether people should remain anonymous on one side, the accusers, but the people being accused get named and shamed, even if, as in your case, you were completely innocent.
And that is the debate that has to be had, I think.
The police would argue, well, they name people who are accused of rape because they often find that it triggers a number of other complaints about that person.
And the other argument about not naming the accuser, who's normally a woman, is that it would deter women from coming forward if they got named.
I can understand both those arguments.
But when I hear your story, I find it completely disgusting.
And I'm just so sorry for what you've been through.
It was disgusting what I've been through because I've not only gone through false accusations, I've been failed by the police and the justice system when there was solid evidence there that I was in the back of a person.
But they didn't want to pursue it because they had in their minds they believed her.
Yeah.
They basically believed and accused her.
This goes back to my thing.
You should never automatically believe anybody who makes any allegations.
You should always hear them, take them seriously, and investigate.
But the danger comes when the authorities automatically believe accusers without the evidence to support it.
Jordan, thank you for coming in.
I know you were nervous about doing this.
And Kayla, thank you for joining him.
You've been an amazing support to him.
It's an awful story.
We're going to debate it after the break with our panel.
But for now, I wish you all the very best in rebuilding your life.
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Jordan.
Take care.
Thanks, Kayla.
Thank you.
Good to see you, mate.
Well, welcome back to Piers Morgan.
I say, so this is Live TV, and we're having a relatively, it's a good show tonight.
It's a strong show, lots to debate.
We're not having quite the same show that Gary Dineke is having tonight over at the BBC because they're showing the Wolves Liverpool game.
And halfway through Gary talking, this happened.
We've an FA Cup winners-only policy in the studio tonight.
I don't know who's making that noise, but so Alan Shearer is on the commentary gantry alongside Steve Bauer.
Alan, it's toasty in this studio.
It's a bit noisy as well.
I don't know if somebody's sending something on someone's phone.
I think it would be fair to describe that as adult entertainment creeping into the early schedule over there.
Lineker tweeted later, we found this, a phone taped to the back of the set, a sabotage goes.
It was quite amusing.
Who has done this?
Somebody has completely stitched them up.
Anyway, it made me laugh.
It's making everybody else laugh on social media.
So my thoughts were with Gary at this difficult time.
Let's go back to more serious things.
We're joined by Paul Urtwer and Adrian.
Richard Tyson is still with us.
Iman's still with us from earlier.
I just want to talk really, just a few minutes we've got left.
Paul, I'll start with you about what we've just heard, this story.
Harrowing, awful, despicable.
We can all agree the woman that did this beyond despicable.
Really the question, though, is what do we do about this?
Where he is named and shamed, and we'll have to live with that forever.
And you Google him and up it comes.
Jordan rape.
Fair Trials for Rape Victims 00:04:24
She has remained anonymous right to the point of her conviction for inventing all this stuff.
Should the law be changed?
No, is the short answer to that question.
Let me explain to you why.
Number one, we've already tried it.
It's actually happened where we had a moment in time about 10 or 12 years where they considered and implemented a change where defendants were also anonymous.
And it didn't work.
And in 1988, they changed it back again.
Why didn't it work?
It didn't work because we became bogged down essentially with the system.
So if we're going to anonymize defendants in rape cases, do we anonymize defendants in other very equally serious cases?
And the answer was simply no.
We couldn't do that.
But the difference is that the accuser in rape cases remains anonymous, even if, as it turns out, in this case, they're complete fantasies.
And that, Richard, is the particular thing around sex assault cases and rapes, unlike a lot of other crimes where people can make allegations, but they would be named in many cases.
It's not necessarily true.
But in many cases, it is.
We do still have a number of cases where the accuser is not named.
So we're also talking about vulnerable victims.
We're also talking about victims who have not just making an allegation about sexual offence, but if it's a murder charge or not, I think this all takes way too long.
I mean, this can take years and years.
Well, that's the whole process.
But I hear what you're saying.
But I'm aware of another case of a young man who did remain completely anonymous for over 12 months until the trial, and it turned out that it was another pack of lies.
So I'm wondering, is there an element of judgment that the CPS or the police are applying in different cases?
I don't know, but it just seems to me that there has got to be a proper, intelligent assessment.
I get the point that you might want to give the name because that might be genuine.
So it's incredibly difficult.
And in mind, what you don't want to do, you don't want to deter women.
I mean, as it is, so few rape cases lead to conviction.
A lot of women are deterred from coming forward for that reason.
Can we not only say women?
We're talking about four in five men as well.
Okay.
Yes.
We're talking about children.
So this is not just about...
I understand.
I understand.
Fair point.
I think it's just...
Just on the general principle of in rape cases specific to this particular interview I just did should it be the case that young men 18 years old get named and shamed as accused rapists ruining their lives I mean nearly cost him his life hadn't been for his girlfriend he said he might be dead by now yeah and yet his accuser who was an evil fantasist was anonymous That whole time.
I think it's disgusting and it's backward and it makes absolutely no sense to me.
And can I say that there are laws in place?
Because remember, of course, everybody has the right to a fair trial.
Okay, that's just the basic start point.
And if, for whatever reason, the CPS or the defense are concerned that there isn't going to be a fair trial, then of course orders can be made that will protect, as in the case of the example that you've had, that will protect the defendant.
So it's not the case that it's just before gold.
Surely when you hear what happened to this young boy, I've got three sons all in their 20s there, but if one of them had been through this, the whole system failed this queue.
There was a willingness to believe that accuser.
And we've seen this before sometimes with the police, where they don't just listen to an accuser, they believe the accuser.
We saw that with that infamous case of Nick, that fantasist who smeared all sorts of high-profile people.
I don't think you should ever start from a presumption of belief.
You should start from a presumption of listening and taking seriously.
Where is that starting point?
The starting point is you've got to have the highest quality, specialized team assessing the cases day one and looking at the evidence and saying, actually, yeah, this is clearly very likely.
This looks a bit dodgy.
And frankly, on this side, I really don't think that's the same thing.
I think, look, we've got to leave.
I've run out of time, but we have to take it seriously and look at this case and think, are there things we can tweak here?
Because that was an appalling story, isn't it?
Thank you to my panel.
Really appreciate it.
That's it from me, whatever you're up to.
Keep it uncensored.
They're not as uncensored as Gary Lake.
Oh, we've run out of time for my joke.
Export Selection