Piers Morgan examines Prince Andrew's potential public return, weighing Ghillaine Maxwell's unproven claims of a fake photo and Epstein's murder against Gloria Allred's legal analysis of arbitration clauses and Giuffre's collapsed lawsuit. The discussion shifts to Stephen A. Smith defending his Beyoncé-over-Rihanna preference as honest opinion amidst cancel culture backlash, before concluding with Esther Kraker and Paula Rone debating Sam Smith's gender identity changes and the implications of removing women's categories from awards. Ultimately, the episode highlights the tension between personal expression, legal finality, and evolving social norms in modern public discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Reopening the Prince Andrew Case00:15:07
Tonight, Piers Morgan uncensored, disgraced Prince Andrew, plots a legal fight to reopen his sex abuse case as his friend Ghillaine Maxwell from behind bars launches an extraordinary defence.
Is there any way back to public life though for Andrew?
Is he simply fanning the flames of a scandal the royals just want to forget?
Ghillaine Maxwell's bombshell interview airing exclusively here on Talk TV has made global headlines.
But why should anyone believe a word she says?
I'll talk to one of Epstein's victims and the superstar lawyer who represented 20 others.
Plus he's one of the most exposed sportscasters on American television and he's now in deep trouble for daring to say that he prefers Beyoncé to Rihanna.
Stephen A. Smith has had to issue grovelling apologies to battle cancel culture.
Tonight, we'll be speaking to him live.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Prince Andrew is of course the royal headache that just won't go away.
He's never apologised for the shame he heaped on the reputation of the British monarchy.
He's never apologised for remaining friends with paedophiled Geoffrey Epstein even after Epstein admitted child abuse.
He's also never apologised to Virginia Duffray, the woman who sued him for sexual abuse and claimed she had sex with him aged 17 after being trafficked by Epstein.
In fact Prince Andrew explicitly vowed to clear his name in that case.
He was going to have his day in court.
But he didn't.
First he claimed he'd never met her.
Then he handed her millions of pounds to settle the case out of court and avoid having his day.
Well now he's planning to overturn the settlement according to reports after Guffray dropped a completely separate claim against the American lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
He'll likely claim again that he's never met his accuser and that the infamous photograph of the two of them is a fake.
Well one person cheering him on from behind bars is his friend Ghillaine Maxwell is serving 20 years for trafficking young girls to Epstein for him to abuse.
She spoke about that photograph in an extraordinary interview airing exclusively tonight on talk TV.
It's a fake.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it's real for a second.
In fact, I'm sure it's not.
There's never been an original.
And further, there's no photograph and I've only ever seen a photocopy of it.
Well she's got no evidence to say that.
She's locked up for a very long time for committing wicked crimes.
The judge sentencing her said Maxwell directly and repeatedly over the course of many years participated in a horrific scheme to entice, transport and traffic underage girls, some as young as 14, for sexual abuse by and with Geoffrey Epstein.
The damage done to these girls was incalculable.
If I was Prince Andrew, Ghillaine Maxwell would not be somebody I want in my corner.
Her defence failed in the court of public opinion and in a court of law and through the course of this extraordinary interview she somehow managed to make it worse.
I say that Epstein died and they should take their and take their disappointment and upset out on the authorities that allowed that to happen.
And as I said, I hope that they have some closure by the judicial process that took place.
Well her complete failure to accept responsibility is shocking but sadly very familiar.
Prince Andrew dragged his own reputation into the gutter with his own choices.
He spent millions of pounds, most of it coughed up by his mother, the late Queen and King Charles' brother, by settling out of court.
Now he's preparing to spend hundreds of thousands more to find it all over again.
Lawyers for Epstein's victims will be licking their lips at the idea of Prince Andrew on the witness stand dragging the entire scandal back onto the front pages around the world again.
Andrew threw in the towel by settling his case.
That was an admission by him that it was over.
He wasn't actually going to fight this.
He wasn't actually going to clear his name.
He wasn't going to have his day in court.
He just paid this woman who he claims he's never met an enormous sum of money to go away.
But he also closed the door on a sorry chapter of royal history by doing so and on his own involvement in any more royal duties.
And that's how it should stay.
The time for protesting innocence in this scandal is long gone.
Well, joining me now, as socialite in Prince Andrew's former girlfriend, Lady Victoria Harvey, author and historian Dr. Tessa Dunlop, and Massan's former royal editor, Duncan Larcombe.
And from America, the lawyer to 20 of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, Gloria Ulrid.
Well, welcome to all of you, Estella Panel.
Gloria Alright, let me...
Well, first of all, lovely to talk to you and a belated Happy New Year to you, Gloria.
Your reaction when you heard that Ghillaine Maxwell had given this extraordinary interview from behind bars, and I suppose more pertinently to the content of that interview.
Well, I think that she obviously was trying to be helpful to her former friend or acquaintance, Prince Andrew, and that that was part of her intent.
I can't read her mind.
I don't know what her motive was in saying it.
Maybe it's because that's what she believes to be true.
But it has stirred up quite a storm.
But at some point, we should talk about whether there really is going to be a trial, because I have done many, many settlements with his attorney, not about this case, although you're correct.
I did represent 20 victims of Jeffrey Epstein, some of whom had accusations against Ms. Maxwell.
But there was a settlement, and his attorney, Andrew Brettler, is very, very good.
And for him to say that Prince Andrew, or to have it suggested as a rumor that he is going to file a lawsuit that somehow he was pressured by his mother into the settlement, that, you know, as they say in the South, in some parts of the United States, that dog won't hunt because that's not a reason to overturn a settlement.
And further, likely, although I haven't seen the settlement, most settlements, or in fact, all of them that I've ever done with Andrew Brettler, his attorney, have always included an arbitration clause, which means that he can't just go right to trial, even if he would want to.
If in fact he did file the lawsuit, Virginia could make a motion to compel arbitration because always, there's always been arbitration clauses.
And that would mean it's likely that the court, if it's a court in New York, would compel arbitration, and so there would not be a public trial.
At best, there would be an arbitration.
Okay, but Gloria, on the central point of the credibility of his accuser, there's no doubt that the settlement of the case with Alan Dershowitz, in which she admitted that she'd had memory mistakes and so on, that was a serious dent to her credibility.
If you were representing Prince Andrew, wouldn't you think that actually, if the main accuser here who received this huge amount of money, if this other case has basically collapsed on an issue of her credibility, would it not be worth at least trying to go again?
Well, that case ended up in a settlement, not in a verdict.
And the argument also could be, and of course I wouldn't represent Prince Andrew, but the argument for a plaintiff would be that maybe she had a memory lapse about one person and one set of events.
That doesn't mean she had a memory lapse about other events.
Right, but it would be...
Robbie, listen, but Gloria, you're a very smart lawyer.
Razor smart, I would say, one of the finest legal minds I know.
If you had a situation like this and you were up against it on the other side, wouldn't you think that if her credibility was now seriously in question, if her memory was proven to be completely wrong in another allegation of a similar kind, would you not think that that might open the door again?
You know, perhaps, but I think it's unlikely.
You know, in order for Prince Andrew to have an actual trial, or, you know, even in an arbitration, he would have to prove some kind of fraud at the time.
And not only that there was a fraud, that it was, that Virginia was part of this fraud.
That's a very high bar of evidence.
That's very difficult for him to prove.
And I don't know that he's ever going to prove it.
Okay.
Interesting stuff.
Let me come to Tessa on this.
I have a view that the moment Andrew paid that check, it was game over in this case.
He can't revisit this.
He said, I'm going to take it all the way.
I'm going to clear my name.
Then he just caved and paid a massive amount of money, millions.
We're not exactly sure how many.
You read between three and ten million.
It's, you know, take your choice.
But it was millions and millions of dollars to a woman he claims he never met, which never had any credibility, as far as I'm concerned.
Why would you pay someone he never met millions of dollars in a sex abuse case?
So you put it all together and you think that.
But, and it's an important but, if his main accuser, the woman he's paid all this money to, has got now serious credibility issues, why shouldn't Andrew re-enter the legal frame?
It's an entirely separate case.
This is absolutely classic.
People going out of their way to discredit the victim of sex abuse.
Which is crime.
Hang on, hang on.
These girls are generally going to...
Hang on, just look, to play devil's advocate, people aren't going out of their way to do it.
She was discredited in her allegations against Alan Dershowitz.
In one case, in one case.
Right, but if an accuser admits that she actually lied about that man and told very serious allegations about, which turned out not to be true, that's different, isn't it?
I think it's really important to remember that these girls come from chaotic backgrounds, which is one of the reasons why it's so hard to make a case stick, which is why we all have to remember when we've been listening to what Gelaine Maxwell's been saying, this is a woman who was called out by the judge.
She was called out.
She got notes because you don't know anything about her.
But actually, I do know quite a lot about talking truth to power.
I'm sitting here on an NDA.
So I understand what it's like.
I don't know about that.
And Virginia Guffrey.
I can tell you quite a lot.
She was called out by the judge.
Have you read her?
Judge Nathan.
Have you read her?
Judge Nathan.
Have you read her book, which is a made-up book?
There you go.
Have nothing to do with her.
She talks in that red book about taking so many sleeping pills and so many drugs the weekend at Kineton Street.
Her memory was very hazy.
She writes that with her own hand.
Let's recall that Virginia Goof.
Gelaine Maxwell, heinous and predatory is what the judge called her.
And she went out of her.
One second.
She went out of her way to give Gelaine a 20-year sentence.
That was beyond the maximum guideline.
That is how important it was.
It's extraordinary to get all those women talking truth to power in that way.
So don't let's just finally miss talking about that.
No, Miss Credit is coming.
I'm going to be honest.
Let's remember.
We can't use language like this.
I just want to find you what Andrew signed his name to you.
Okay.
Stop.
I just want to sorry for the bad language that was used.
It's only for that.
Victoria, here's the bottom line with this.
I don't believe Ghillaine Maxwell. at all.
I think she was up to her neck in it with Epstein.
I think she was guilty as she was found guilty.
And I find this revisionist bleating she's now doing is all self-centered to try and get herself off the wrap.
The more interesting question for me is Andrew, because he remains...
He was made to settle.
He didn't want to settle.
But he's a grown man.
He makes him settle.
The Queen, because he's an honorable person.
He didn't have to settle.
He did.
Were you there in the room?
I mean, I wasn't there, but I was told that the Queen and Buckingham Palace, basically, he was forced to settle.
He had no choice.
I mean, look, let's bring in Duncan here because obviously...
And they literally just fed him to the walls.
Okay.
Oh, I don't know.
Hang on, hang on, Tessa.
I want to bring in Duncan.
From a journalistic point of view, if we were pursuing this as an investigation, and he had a woman who made allegations against two high-profile people, and one was a top lawyer, right?
Alan Dershowitz is not any old lawyer.
This is a guy who represented John Lennon and got him from being deported, right?
This is a famous guy in America.
It's a totally different.
No, no, here's my point.
And she makes allegations of a similar nature against him as she did against Prince Andrew.
And she's now had to drop them, drop that lawsuit, admitting she may have made a mistake in identifying him as one of her past abusers.
We know, as journalists, our natural instinct would be to then be very skeptical about anything else that she was saying, right?
Well, yes, but I mean, apart from the fact that this is a case of the same thing.
But just pretend it's not her.
Just pretend it's like a person has just done this and has openly lied.
And then, so what would you think about the case with another person?
Do you think she's being truthful?
Well, either lied or she opened or she made a terrible mistake based on a piece of imagination.
Whatever the reason.
Tessa, wait a minute.
Whatever the reason, she got it wrong, badly wrong, and seriously defamed Alan Dershowitz in the process.
And he fought it all the way and that lawsuit's now been dropped.
And that is the same woman who's accused Prince Andrew.
But there are all kinds of things that had it gone to court that would have probably needed light shed on them and might not have stood up to any kind of testament at the time.
The picture and the authenticity of it obviously being one of those points.
But also about the involvement in newspapers more than a decade ago when the story was being effectively sold to the tabloid papers, which I was part of at the time.
So that would be in Britain, certainly, that would put a big question mark over any potential victim.
But I don't think any of it matters if you take a step back.
It doesn't actually matter what on earth Andrew's thinking if he is seriously contemplating reopening this.
He's already been found guilty in the court of public opinion.
And his appearance on the BBC with Emily Maitlitz has just demonstrated.
Yeah, well, that was a complete setup.
But he said that.
I can't even tell you what is really behind this because you wouldn't even understand.
It wasn't a setup.
I mean, News My went to him.
He agreed to do an interview with me.
And he basically exposed himself hideously over an hour-long toe-curling encounter with a very smart journalist.
The Irony of Public Opinion00:08:19
Here's my problem with Andrew about all this, right?
I remember when the pictures appeared on the front page of the News of the World of him walking with Epstein through a park, Central Park in World War II.
It wasn't like he just met him in the park.
He spent four days with the guy at his Manhattan townhouse.
We don't know.
Here are the pictures.
Four days, and they were all partying, right?
Lots of women seen coming and going in that time.
This is after Epstein had admitted abusing a 14-year-old.
After he was a convicted pedophile.
So here's my question.
Is that you can get round, I mean, everything else can be murky.
What I can't get my head around is Andrew, son of the queen, flies to New York for a four-day jolly.
Do we know for sure it was four days?
We do.
It was four days.
Four-day jolly with a guy who was a convicted paedophile.
Now, that alone.
to me should disqualify him from public life, right?
You can't be a senior member of the royal family and consort with convicted paedophiles willingly for four days.
Yeah, but you know, we have to remember it wasn't such a big story back then.
But it doesn't change the facts of what he did.
It doesn't change the facts of what he did.
When it happened the first time, I almost didn't even believe it when I first read it because it was kind of like...
That's classic.
It wasn't on the front pages back then.
But Victoria, what you said there is absolutely a classic case.
People don't believe it when establishment figures do the unbelievable.
But what I'm saying is, you don't know about Virginia.
Like, I followed.
Can I just tell you what Andrew signed up to?
Can I know?
What I've got here are notes from the post that he put his name to.
Let me tell you.
Andrew accepted when he signed last year.
He accepted that Virginia had suffered as an established victim.
He's never bitten to anything as a result of public attacks.
He accepted that publicly.
So you're now saying Andrew's a liar.
Now to descend on that, he's never admitted anything.
Anyway, she was the victim of abuse, obsessed abuse.
Oh, so now you're saying he's a liar.
So the irony, Victoria, is if Andrew had not settled, if he had taken it to court, then actually, given the timeline of this other case collapsing, it could have been a situation where the credibility of his main accuser had been brought into serious question before they even got into the court.
In which case, the whole case may have been dropped anyway.
What happened with Alan Dershowitz?
I've been in communication with him, I don't know, maybe a year or so, and Virginia kept delaying.
Her lawyers kept delaying and delaying and delaying.
And his health wasn't good.
You know, he was really suffering.
And so she, if you're innocent, why would you keep delaying a deposition?
Right?
All right, we're going to take a short break.
When we come back, we're going to talk to one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims live from America.
Also, I'm going to play some more of these extraordinary tapes with Ghillane Maxwell from behind bars.
A Talk TV exclusive.
That's after the break.
We're talking tonight.
Who do you prefer, Beyoncé or Rihanna?
When an American TV sports superstar, Stephen A. Smith, one of my favourite sporting pundits in the world, when he dared to say which one he preferred, all hell broke loose and they tried to cancel him.
He survived.
He's live on Piers Morgan Uncensored in a few minutes.
He looks pretty chilled about it now, but it's been a hot week.
But first, I'm going to speak to one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims in a moment.
But before I do that, I want to play Ghillane Maxwell from this extraordinary interview behind bars in the American prison where she's being held, where she says a number of, well, to me, deluded and self-serving things.
Take a listen.
I believe that he was murdered.
Well, shocked.
And I wondered how it had happened.
Because South Askman turned he was going to...
I was sure he was going to appeal.
I obviously wish I'd never met him.
You know, looking back now, I probably wish I had stayed in England.
I say that Epstein died and they should take there and take their disappointment and upset out on the authorities that allowed that to happen.
And as I said, I hope that they have some closure by the judicial process that took place.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it's real for a second.
In fact, I'm sure it's not.
There's never been an original.
And further, there's no photograph and I've only ever seen a photocopy of it.
Well, joining me now is one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, Juliette Bryant.
I've still got my pack with me and Gloria already also be listening to this.
Juliette Bryant, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Can you hear me, Juliet?
Juliette, can you hear me?
Hello.
Hello, Pierce.
Yes, I can hear you.
Well, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
I know this is not an easy thing for you to do.
But what is your reaction to Ghillane Maxwell's interview from behind bars?
Well, I think people want to know more about what was really going on.
I think people need to deserve to know the truth.
And in your case, what was the truth?
Sum up for me what happened to you.
What else taken there?
You know, I was promised to modeling career.
Sorry, we're having a lot of trouble here in the hotel room.
Everything's falling out of my ears.
I think we've got a few technical issues there with Juliet's recording issues there.
So we'll come back and see if we can sort that out.
We've got Gloria Alread.
Gloria, I just played those clips again.
We're going to try and speak to Juliet again later.
But you've represented many of the victims of Epstein.
I would imagine this does bring back horrific memories for all of them.
But I'd imagine many of them will see Ghillane Maxwell doing interviews at all as a massive slap in the teeth.
Well, I would say that many of them would like to put all of this behind them and not have to keep hearing about Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
And, you know, I think in reference to this photograph that is so much at issue, I wonder if the FBI, first of all, if it has ever been admitted into evidence in the case against Ms. Maxwell, because that would be important.
She says that she's never seen an original.
Does that mean that a copy was put in evidence and not authenticated as an original?
I have never heard anything about that.
And I have heard that the FBI received it, but does that mean it actually was admitted into evidence, the original, as opposed to a copy?
It's just a question that I have, and I think it's a really important question, because I think if it had been admitted into evidence, then there would have to have been some testimony about who took the photo,
when it was taken, and is this an original, and more questions that would help to answer the question about is this an authentic photo, which would be crucial to what Ms. Maxwell says and the position of Andrew.
Gloria, have you ever had a case in all your career where somebody has paid millions and millions of dollars to a woman he says he's never met to make a sex abuse case go away?
Millions Paid to Unmet Women00:03:27
Yes, I have.
And because in a settlement, you know, both sides, they do rely on evidence, but it's not necessarily evidence that has been vetted in a court of law because often there's a settlement before a lawsuit was filed.
Not in this case, because Virginia had to file it in order to stop the stat, in order to be within the statute of limitations, the time period set by law in New York for adult survivors of child sexual abuse, of which she asserted that she was one, to file a lawsuit.
But in any event, yes, to answer your question, yes, we've obtained millions of dollars from accused sexual predators, even though in the settlement discussions, they deny that they abused our client.
In some cases, they ever met her.
We don't really care what they say, but we do care about what the ultimate number is that they're going to pay.
And of course, we do have to evaluate the evidence in terms of what our recommendation is to our client about the number that is being offered.
Now, in some way, of course, some predators or the accused, even if they're not predators, will settle because they don't want this continuing discussion in the press.
And, you know, for whatever their reason is, it doesn't matter as long as both sides agree to the number that is being offered.
This settlement.
Gloria, thank you, as always.
Brilliant perspective.
Duncan, come back to the future for Prince Andrew, regardless.
The last thing the new king, Charles, wants, especially with the coronation coming, is all this back all over the papers again around the world.
It's such a horribly damaging story from start to finish.
There'll be no will, will there, in the royal family and the hierarchy there of Charles and William to want Andrew back on the balcony as a lead role again?
Absolutely none.
And we're already seeing in King Charles someone who's actually possibly even surprising us with his savvy nature, with the public, how things look.
So far, that king, he has played a pretty flawless game.
But now with the re-emergence of this, the suggestions that this is with Prince Charles' support, I question that.
I can't see the palace one thing.
The thing about this, it's just never going away.
Like we've seen that in the last year, that the fact is they did the settlement agreement, but it's still in the press all the time.
It's still super negative about Andrew.
And it's like, it's not going to go away.
So he has to prove that it's not a problem.
I think you're wrong.
I think this is just him having a final little flutter of his clip draw wings.
He's saber rattling.
He did that loads before the settlement.
And I'm afraid this is about his inheritance.
Well, he is desperate.
He is desperate to get back to the market.
He harried a bit of money from mummy.
He can't lie.
Like, he's a military guy.
Like, even what he was wearing.
He can't lie because he's a military guy.
Well, no, no, just lie.
Actually, people can't lie.
No, but him as a person, right?
So even the outfit that he was wearing in that picture, apparently that outfit, he wouldn't have even been wearing that because he's very specific with what clothes he wears for his training.
So again, it comes back to this.
Why not then?
If he's absolutely confident, he's never met the woman, the picture was a fake, you just go and you want to clear your name, you go to court.
Madonna's Apology and Woke Culture00:10:18
Yeah, well, right now, I think there's a lot that has been coming out.
And what basically is like what I found out or other people that will really help prove his case this time.
I mean, like I said, I'm actually in touch with the person.
I know you are Victoria.
And the problem is why we haven't been able to bring him into the limelight is he does have a criminal record.
You are well-meaning, but you are also part of that establishment.
And much as I love you, when I first went to follow you on Instagram, there was a warning that you spread misinformation.
So I have to put something out that was about COVID.
But a true sticker on some of what you said.
I think more broadly, we're going to leave it there.
It's a good debate.
We'll see what happens.
It's going to keep raging for sure.
I know it's the last thing they're all going to be.
Thank you for joining me.
We're coming up next, U.S. sports cards, Stephen A. Smith, and almost been cancelled.
Criticizing or daring to suggest Beyoncé is better than Rihanna.
Well, my views about cancelled culture are pretty clear.
First, I think it's dangerous to society in its own way in terms of its attack on free speech.
Secondly, I'd like to take those ultra-woke lunatics who cause cancelled culture head-on.
Well, last week, one of America's top sports broadcasters, Stephen A. Smith, faced a social media furore if you dare to give an opinion on pop superstar Rihanna, who's doing this year's halftime NFL Super Bowl show next month.
Let's take a look.
Ladies and gentlemen, she's a lot of things.
She's spectacular, actually.
Yes.
And congratulations on New Mama Hood.
Yes.
There's one thing she's not.
Uh-huh.
She a Beyoncé.
Now, Stephen A. Smith, he's a very opinionated guy, and he's perfectly entitled to his opinions.
And his personal opinion is that Beyoncé is there, and Rihanna is great, but not quite as good as Beyonce, which is an honestly held opinion.
And many people would agree with him.
But there was a most extraordinary social media pylon.
So much so that he was forced to issue an apology.
Rihanna, go do your thing.
I apologize for creating whatever brouhaha comes of this.
I gotta be more careful where people twist it and turn it into something it ain't.
My bad on that.
Well, Stephen's new book is called Straight Shooter.
It does exactly what it says on the tin.
And he joins me live.
Stephen, it's great to have you on the program.
First of all, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Good to talk to you, man.
How you doing?
Well, great.
My pleasure.
How are you doing?
I'm a little bit disappointed in you because I love you and I don't think you should have bowed to the mob and apologized.
You should have dug in, stuck to your guns and said, you know what, I prefer Beyoncé.
No disrespect to Rihanna.
I just prefer Beyoncé.
Well, first of all, if you listen to what I had to say, I didn't apologize to any mob.
I apologized to Rihanna.
And what I apologized for was making a mess of this whole deal, not realizing that people were going to react this way all of a sudden, recognizing it as a crime to express my opinion.
You know, my thing is she's home.
She's a new mom.
She's doing very well for herself.
Obviously, she's a sensational artist.
And my point to her was that I wasn't saying that you're not great.
Just like I bought Beyonce's album, I bought yours.
I am a fan.
It's just that I am of the opinion that Beyonce may be the greatest I've ever seen.
I certainly didn't apologize for expressing that opinion.
What I was apologizing, who I was apologizing to was Rihanna personally.
And what I was apologizing for was how people were able to twist it and try to interpret it as me denigrating her in any way, which I was not doing.
You see, I got into a little fury of my own last week with another pop star, Madonna, who I think has become a train wreck of epic proportions.
And I said it quite vehemently.
Hello.
And all hell broke loose.
Can you hear me?
I don't hear you.
Oh, I think you're...
We're having a few technical issues tonight, so we're going to fix that IFB.
Just a little earpiece which goes into Stephen's ear.
We'll put it back in.
We've got him back.
I'm back.
Stephen, I think your IFB popped out.
No problem.
You're back.
I had a little issue with Madonna.
I said on air last week, Madonna, I thought when she announced her tour, I thought she'd become the biggest train wreck in World Entertainment.
All hell, here's a little clip of what I said.
Here we go.
See, I don't even care.
I don't need to like singers to enjoy them at all.
In fact, quite the opposite.
I don't need to like any artist to enjoy them.
But in her case, I find her behavior for a woman in her 60s just utterly embarrassing.
I mean, if that was my mother or grandmother, you'd be like cringing.
Now, that was my honestly held opinion, Stephen, about Madonna.
People can disagree.
You might disagree.
But certainly, I had a huge blowback from people, Madonna fans and so on, calling me all sorts of stuff, wanting me canceled, wanting me shamed for being a misogynist, sex, and so on.
It was none of those things.
I just think she does things deliberately to provoke, and I find them pretty revolting, actually.
Now, here's the point.
Here's my point.
Here's the deal.
It would never have crossed my mind to apologize.
And I just thought that knowing you, and I'm such a fan of yours, I was surprised you felt you needed to.
I felt I needed to because I think that if you're Rihanna sitting home minding your business, you interpreted it maybe without seeing it yourself as people expressing sentiments that I was disrespectful to her, which I did not do.
And my point is a lot of times you have people that are subjected to the headlines without really knowing the details of the content that's been disseminated.
So I wanted to make sure that she understands exactly where I was coming from, that I was a fan of hers.
I'm just a bigger fan of Beyoncé, and I'm not apologizing for that to anybody.
Having said all of that, your point about Madonna, here's where I would compare the two.
You were talking about Madonna as a person and how she conducts herself, and you are entitled to your opinion, and people are entitled to disagree and even be offended by that.
My point is, what did I say about Rihanna that was offensive?
I said she's great and sensational and that she's done great.
I said nothing offensive about her.
And so for people to interpret that, if she didn't see it herself, she might have just went with these fools out there with this woke culture that goes to the extreme.
And I wanted to make sure that I addressed it directly and apologized to her for creating this stir.
But in the same breath, please understand, I am not someone who is fearful of the right or the left to the extreme.
Woke culture doesn't fear me.
They can all kiss off.
I'm not here to make friends and subject what I feel, suppress what I feel because I'm fearful about how somebody is going to react.
It's just that I wanted Rihanna to make sure she knew.
I wanted to make sure she knew in no way that I intend any disrespect towards her.
Everybody else could kick rocks.
I'm not worried about.
Well, I'm very glad to hear it because that's more like the Stephen Smith than I know.
But let me ask you this.
What does it say about wider society?
That you can go on a show, as you did, to promote your excellent book and just make a genuine, honest observation that you think Beyonce is the biggest star of her kind in the world and that Rihanna may not be quite at that level, but is still great.
And that creates a gigantic firestorm driven by social media.
What does this say about where we've gone to as a society?
It says several things.
A, people don't have a lot of things going on in their life.
They have nothing better to do.
Or number two, they're entirely too petty.
Or number three, they're feigning passion and vitriol and what have you because it's clickbait material and everybody's looking to find a way to monetize whatever they're doing as opposed to going out there and really putting in the work and making something of themselves.
That's not to say that everybody that feels that way are that way because I'm certainly not trying to imply that.
But I would like to believe that most, most people in this world have better things to do with their time than creating a controversy out of something this minuscule and innocuous.
Comedians, that's different.
I mean, you're making jokes, you see, you react to it, you're making people laugh and stuff like that.
But I'm talking about the natural, organic, authentic uproar over something that there was nothing to have an uproar about.
But that's the society that we're living in because those are people on the fringes, whether it's the extreme right or the extreme left.
They make up about 8% of the population, no matter which side you lean to.
And unfortunately, the ones who screech the loudest are the ones who get the most attention as opposed to the vast majority of us who have some damn sense.
That's really what the situation is, and that's what you have to deal with.
What is the answer?
It's unfortunate.
It's sad at that time, but you deal with it.
Stephen, what is the answer to this canceled culture, which has enveloped society, not just in the States, but over here in the UK, around the world, actually?
Elon Musk has called it the woke virus, where people feel this immediate inclination, if they hear an opinion they don't like or don't agree with, to want to shame and vilify that person, get them hounded out of their job, ruin their lives if they can.
They take great glee in that.
What do we do about it?
How do we stop it happening?
You have to shame the petty into the petty holes they belong in.
And those of us who have some sense, have some decorum, and are relatively reasonable, we need to make sure that our voices are just as loud, if not louder, than theirs.
If somebody is loud and obnoxious and you never hear anybody else, sure they're going to come across as profound in some people's eyes because they're getting that shine, that level of attention.
But when you give attention to those who are worthy of it, who make more sense, who exercise more common sense and decency and decorum, et cetera, then obviously those people will weed itself out.
Stop allowing these people to monetize such certain situations, make money off of the pettiness and the vitriol, make sure that they got to go out there and earn their money the old-fashioned way, and then you'll see people preoccupying themselves with other things instead of this kind of nonsense that I was subjected to last week.
Making Our Voices Louder00:03:19
Out of interest, did you hear from either Beyoncé or Rihanna personally?
No.
No.
No, I didn't.
Because I had my own little run-in with Rihanna.
It was quite a feisty.
This was a few years ago.
She performed.
I didn't know that.
She performed at a Paralympics event and was fantastic, but she cut her hair very short.
And I, rather cheekily, I admit, I went on Twitter and said, I think Rihanna should grow her hair back fast.
And she replied by, she came on stage actually and immediately replied to me, you should grow your bleep fast.
Referring to a lower part of my abdominal region.
Well, let me say this to you.
I don't agree with that comeback by her.
I don't think that was necessary.
But I would tell you this.
I would tell you this.
I also don't agree with your assertion of Rihanna.
Rihanna on her worst day looks better than most women.
She is a very, very beautiful person.
You know what?
I actually don't disagree.
I'm not going to be wrong here.
And I definitely think that you, I actually think that you are a bit off-kilted there.
It's pretty hard to find a woman more beautiful than Rihanna.
I think you crossed the line there.
I think you raise a very good point, Mr. Smith.
Tell me quickly about your book, because you wrote a book and it's called Straight Shooter.
I wrote a book called Shooting Straight.
So I think we are kindred spirits in many ways and agree probably about a lot more than we disagree about.
But if you were selling your book, you know, giving a sort of a sales pitch, what would you say to people as to why they should go and buy it?
I think that it's a motivational book.
It's an inspirational book.
If you're young or old and the odds are stacked against you and you're down and people are telling you you're out, that there's no way to climb from the bottom, from the abyss, or to ascend to new heights, they're wrong.
The fact of the matter is you put your head down, you're focused, you've got a plan.
There's always somebody out there to help you, give you a helping hand, and to give you that motivation to move forward.
And that's what I want people to get out of this, to understand that there's a lot of us in this world that go through a lot of trials and tribulations.
But you don't stand still.
You don't lay down and just accept the dormant consequences of your life or your actions at that particular moment in time.
As long as you're living and breathing, you got an opportunity to get up and make tomorrow and the next day and the day after that a hell of a lot better than past days were.
That's the kind of message that I want people to peel from this book.
I love it.
Stephen A. Smith, what a pleasure to have you on the show.
Please come back.
I loved that segment.
Thank you very much.
My pleasure.
My pleasure.
Take care.
Interesting guy.
Inspiring guy, too.
Well, next tonight, I'm joined by tonight's pack.
Lot of politics sleaze again.
Yawn, but we'll get into it.
We'll work out who should have to resign.
They're always resigning, aren't they?
And they're always sleazy.
Is it the end of this Tory government ready?
We all just had enough of it.
We all just sleeved out.
Are they just a bunch of sleeve balls?
We'll debate that after the break.
Welcome back.
Back with my pack tonight here with Talk TV contributors Esther Kraker and Paula Rone Adrian.
Welcome to you, ladies.
Stephen A. Smith, he's a smart guy.
Yeah, really funny.
Interesting, funny.
Sam Smith Identity Confusion00:06:32
But even he, who does a book called Straight Shooter, even he gets basically bullied into apologising for basically just saying he prefers Beyoncé.
He apologize.
He didn't apologise and he told you he didn't apologise.
Apologize to Rihanna.
It's a three-minute apology.
Rihanna.
Because he was concerned that she may have missed it.
Yeah, exactly.
He didn't bow to them all.
And he was right to be concerned.
Well, I don't know if it's just...
There's two is better, Beyoncé or Rihanna.
I thought they're two different generations.
Getting off the fence.
I think vocally, Beyoncé is obviously better, but I think stylistically, Rihanna is more likely to be.
Don't ask me who I would dance to.
Exactly.
But who would you dance to?
I dance to Rihanna.
Really?
What does it work, work, work?
Yeah, of course.
You dance to Rihanna.
I would twerk to both of them.
I'd twerk to Crazy in Love.
I'm going to show you my twerking line on it.
Sorry, private thing.
I feel like we could have.
I'm going to bump and grind.
I don't want to censor you.
I would not have liked to censor you.
Please get you to do it.
Up on the stage.
Exactly.
Really?
I don't think the nation's quite ready for me twerking on the table.
I think you underestimate it.
Speaking of singing, Sam Smith, he, they, them, she, whatever he currently calls himself, she does.
Whatever they...
You see, I can't call one person vain.
I have a problem with that.
It's only one person.
Because you can't get your head around it.
No, because he can't either.
She can't take time.
They can't either because they keep their minds what they are.
No, it's not their problem.
It's your problem.
They was a gay man, came out as gay.
Then he said, actually, I'm now non-binary.
Yes.
Then something else.
And now they have got the gall to come out and say that the Brit Awards fiasco, where all the nominees of bad artists, of course, are men, because they made it gender-neutral so the men dominate it.
So you're accepting about the sex discrimination that still exists?
Oh, you see, how classic that a woman, because the five best artists are...
You're getting bored about it.
Because the five...
Oh, so you make it gender-neutral to avoid discrimination.
And when the five best artist nominations actually turn out to be men that year, that's discrimination against women.
But no one was surprised to see that.
What about going back to having best women and best men?
Which was what old Sam Smith wanted to stop.
Right?
They wanted it to stop.
They wanted non-binary to get the same part of the pie as men and women.
And guess what?
Now he wants more women to be nominated.
Really, Sam Smith?
They?
How do I even speak to they?
The reality is, and the reason why you're getting so tired, the reason why you're exhausted.
It's exhausting.
And it's true.
It's exhausting.
It's true.
Somebody's gay one minute, but non-binary the next.
They want women removed from awards ceremonies.
They want gender-neutral awards.
And then when it turns out that no women get nominated, that becomes sexism.
Then they want to have more women in.
The whole thing is that it's not a problem.
And this is the problem.
There is no such thing as a woke war.
This is you.
Oh, no, there is.
Oh, no, no.
No, there is.
It's about a myth.
No, there is.
And we need to dispel that.
No, no.
Okay, this is about Sam Smith.
This is about them discovering, going on a journey about calling they are.
It is ridiculous.
And you need to keep up with that.
And you're struggling to.
No, I don't need to.
No, I don't need to.
You want us to stop.
I actually can't.
We don't need to stop.
Paula, I can't actually keep up with Sam Smith.
They change their identity so often from he to she, to they to whatever.
I can't keep up with it.
And why does that?
How many women do you think were asked for their permission to whether they think the women's category should be removed?
Exactly how many women do you think were sent to the moment who said the whole thing was ridiculous?
Because that was that, that that decision was made effectively by people backing this man it is.
It is literally the patriarchy, the fact that one confused man, which is what Samsmith is, said, oh, but we don't want to identify as male or female, and so they removed the female.
Not sure.
Now, if you define I, i'm not sure he would agree with you as defining himself.
Hang on, you just misgendered Samsmith.
I did, and I apologize to they.
Look into the camera.
I apologize to they, please.
I apologise, I apologise, I didn't mean to do that.
You see how easy it is.
It is easy, but what we need to do is have this conversation actually confused.
If I said my pronoun was hottest man alive, if they were, that was my genuine pronoun would you feel obliged to call me that every day?
Hey, hottest man alive?
No, you wouldn't no.
In other words, it all depends who decides what they want to be.
Isn't that what we're discussing?
The fact that I don't have to do that.
Why do we have to care about?
Why do we have to call Sam Smith they?
Because we're respecting them.
Why aren't you respecting me?
That's my choice.
When?
When do I have to call it?
When do I have to?
I want to be called hottest man alive, hottest man alive all the time.
That is my choice and I demand you respect it.
I i'm struggling because we're now I think I think we're now our hottest man in the topic, aren't we?
What are you?
What are you now going to say that you, just today, you're going to define yourself to care or as a dolphin?
Well, I once identified as a two-spirit penguin because I was told there are a hundred genders, including astragender, which is an affinity with the stars, and I was told peers, stop being ridiculous.
I was like, if there are a hundred genders, I can be a two-spirit penguin.
I think the service I can now demand, you call me, as my pronouns, hottest man alive, but you don't want to because you think that's ridiculous.
Serious part of this conversation.
Well, you're called a single person, they and them.
The serious part of this conversation is about people who do not fit into your box, and you struggle with that.
Here's where I struggle.
You struggle with that.
Yeah, but Paula, let me answer.
Here's my problem with Sam Smith.
They said, when they weren't actually they, when they were a gay man, they said we need to even up these award ceremonies by making them more gender neutral.
I demand it.
It's now happened and they, as the former gay man now wants us to call him, now says it's terribly unfair and we've got to have more women.
They are responsible for where we've got to.
Because changing a name doesn't change the displacement.
We never got around the Tory sleeves, but you know what?
The good thing about the Tories, there's always time tomorrow because there'll be more of it by tomorrow.