All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 1, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:31
20230301_piers-morgan-uncensored-harry-and-meghan-eviction-
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Leaked Messages Expose Scandal 00:15:25
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored, King Charles sensationally slaps down Harry and Megan with an eviction notice and pause salt in the wound by offering the keys to their cottage to Prince Andrew.
Will he now banish the solstices from his coronation?
And a stunning tranche of 100,000 leaked messages lays bare the deadly fiasco that saw COVID tear through England's nursing homes.
Isabel Oakeshott, she broke the story and she's giving me her first interview live tonight.
We'll debate whether Matt Hancock could now face criminal justice charges.
Plus a convicted male paedophile switches genders after being accused of murder.
But the prosecutor is suspended for refusing to call them she.
He, I'll talk to him, think he's a him, live.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
No matter what your views on lockdowns, the COVID pandemic was the defining health crisis of our time.
The virus has killed almost 7 million people worldwide and 219,000 in Britain alone.
Debate will rage for years about how many of those deaths could have been prevented by intelligent governance and better decisions.
A public inquiry in the UK is creaking into action.
It took more than a year just to agree its terms of reference.
It's already cost up to 85 million pounds and hasn't even started formal hearings.
Sweden have already had theirs.
It's done and dusted.
What's happening here is scandalous.
It smacks of an attempt to wrap deadly incompetence in red tape, suffocate public anger by attrition and delay.
We don't need hindsight or inquiry to know that expensive and fatally negligent mistakes were made in Britain.
We don't need hindsight and inquiry to know that Matt Hancock, our health secretary at the time, was utterly unsuited to the gravity of the job he faced.
Nothing more than that more was made more devastating and clear than the tragedy in our care homes.
A reminder, this is what Matt Hancock said about care homes in May 2020.
Right from the start, it's been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most.
So right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.
Well, three days later, he said this.
We absolutely did throw a protective ring around social care, not least with the £3.2 billion worth of funding we put in right at the start.
And the next day, he told MPs this.
And I'm glad we've been able to protect the majority of homes and we'll keep working to strengthen the protective ring that we've cast around all our care homes.
Protective ring, protective ring, protective ring around care homes.
But there was no protective ring at all.
In fact, Hancock sent thousands of elderly patients from hospitals back to their nursing homes without even testing most of them.
COVID spread like wildfire inside those homes.
It was a deadly fiasco of a policy from a travesty of a health secretary with tragic consequences for thousands of families.
This is what I said to him at the time.
I'm really struck by the fact that you feel incensed that we're not thanking you enough for your handling of this pandemic.
This is my teammate.
You didn't save lives, did you?
We've got 130,000 deaths, the worst death toll in Europe.
We have one of the worst death rates in the world.
So I just don't know why I should be thanking you.
I still don't, to be honest.
Not sure the words thank you, Mr. Hancock, are appropriate.
Well, now a stunning tranche of private messages given by Hancock to journalist Isabel Oakeshott to write his memoir were published in the Daily Telegraph today and they've laid bare the shocking extent of Hancock's failure.
Right from the very beginning, on November the 14th, 2020, Mr Hancock told his advisors Chris Woody has done an evidence review and now recommended testing going to all care homes and segregation whilst awaiting result.
That would make obvious sense.
This is obviously a good positive step, adds Hancock, and we must put it into the dock.
But later that same day, Hancock said this.
Tell me I'm wrong, but I would rather leave it out and just commit to test and isolate all going into care from hospital.
I don't think the community commitment adds anything and it muddies the waters.
Wow.
Muddies the waters to not bother about people coming from communities into care homes, not testing them or even trying to.
Extraordinary turn of phrase.
The chief medical officer's advice finally became government policy on August 14th, five months later.
Between the date of his advice and the date of Hancock finally taking that advice, 17,678 people died of COVID in care homes in England.
Well, later on, Hancock reluctantly agreed to include care homes in his testing program, but only if it didn't, quote, get in the way, close quotes, of his own self-aggrandising target of 100,000 tests a day.
The texts show that he used loopholes to inflate the figures and begged for favours to save his own reputation.
I want to hit my target, he's told George Osborne, then the Evening Standard's editor, when he was asking for a front page.
I gathered was Osborne's withering reply.
There are many more revelations to today's leaks.
We learn that Jacob Rhys-Mogg had a test couriered to his home for one of his children at a time when there was a national shortage, and that Boris Johnson was going crackers at Britain's testing incompetence.
There's a lot more to come.
But we already have a very grim picture of a negligent health secretary whose vanity and arrogance by far exceeded his abilities.
It now looks beyond doubt that that vanity and arrogance may have also cost many, many lives.
Well, joining me now for her first interview about all this is the journalist at the centre of the COVID WhatsApp leak sensation, Talk TV's international editor Isabel Oakshot, along with Talk TV's political editor Kate McCann, Daily Mirror Associate Editor, Kevin Maguire.
Isabel, wow.
When it dropped last night, 10.45, it was quite something to read all this, particularly for people like me who obviously were on air throughout this pandemic and involved in pretty heated discussions with people like Matt Hancock, in which frankly they lied through their back teeth about what was really going on.
To see in their WhatsApp messages the cold, hard reality was shocking.
You've had this for a while.
What made you...
I mean, let's be brutally honest about what you did.
You did a book with Matt Hancock.
As part of the preparation for the book, he gives you 100,000 WhatsApp messages between him and members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister.
You don't put them in the book.
He says you signed an NDA to stop you using these and you've now presumably broken the NDA, given these to the Daily Telegraph for publication.
He says you've stolen them.
Blah, blah, blah.
What is your reaction to all this?
Well, first of all, Piers, I'm very aware of how robustly you fought for public accountability from our politicians during this period.
I can tell you that your name does crop up in some of these messages.
I would hope so.
I'm sure we'll come to that later in the week.
Look, you mentioned in your introduction the absolute farce that is the public inquiry arrangement so far.
This public inquiry, if you look at the terms of reference, I could spend a year on each one of about the 30 things that they have been asked to consider.
The judge, who is somebody of the highest integrity and has a great reputation, no doubt will want to do justice to every one of those things.
She's not been given a deadline.
So the reality is that this inquiry, which I think is absolutely critical, will likely not come up with any conclusions left to the government's own devices, perhaps for at least a decade or more.
Now, we could have another pandemic next month, next year.
Who knows when the next one is coming?
We cannot afford to wait for a decade or more for answers as to what was really going on.
So this resource that I had is an extraordinary way to quickly get to the truth of what really happened, why crucial decisions were made that affected millions of lives, that millions of people are still paying the price for today, without us having to be fobbed off with an inquiry which I'm afraid is most likely going to end up for the best intentions of everyone involved being a whitewash.
So Lord Bethel, who was a health minister at the time, has told Tom Newton Dunn for his show tonight on Talk TV, Isabel Oakeshott has no idea what went on in those rooms.
She hasn't seen the papers.
She's seen a few WhatsApps from around the edges.
She's fooling herself if she thinks that's really given her an insight.
What she's taken is a bunch of fluff that was in transient, transient, trans, I think that means WhatsApp messages and pretended that it's substantive insight into the evidence-based decision that's been made.
It's simply not true, it's a confection, and quite frankly, the Telegraph should be ashamed of themselves.
What an embarrassing and pathetic and lame defence from Lord Bethel there.
I imagine Lord Bethel's rather nervous because he is one of the most indiscreet people in these WhatsApp messages.
Highly revelatory for him to dismiss them as a few WhatsApp messages, which I heard him say this morning, the entire volume of this is almost three times the size of the Bible.
It's not a few messages.
And the reality is that the WhatsApp groups were used routinely, minute by minute, to communicate critical decisions.
By the way, there is an argument.
They should be public record, right?
I mean, in America, every communication like this with the Prime Minister, with the President, would be public record.
So you can't do private records.
Let me add that if he's saying that this is a partial account, I am all ears for the rest of it.
And I'm sure that the nation would be very grateful if all the WhatsApps from every minister involved were released now.
Your position is that this is in the public interest.
100%.
Let me just ask you to the specifics which Hancock has said by way of response.
Did you sign an NDA which pledged not to use these messages?
Yes.
So you've deliberately broken that.
I have.
In the public interest.
And there could be legal consequences for it.
I think the public interest is overwhelming.
Whenever you break a big story which is in the national interest, and I've done a few of them, it can be a rocky road, it can be a bumpy ride.
Look, I know that I'm going to get a few knocks over this.
I'm prepared to do this because I think that the national interest is so utterly compelling.
Another difficult question.
The cynic would say, well, hang on, you've just done this memoir with this guy, which has enriched him, right?
And in the memoir, you say that he's very persuasive and you thought he had good arguments and so on.
Not a sign now of what you're now saying about it.
And a cynic would say, well, come on, Isabel, you did this memoir with him.
Why weren't you more honest?
If you really felt this way, why not just pull away from writing the book with him and expose all this at the time rather than allow this sham of a book to come out?
No, it wasn't a sham.
Well, he glossed over everything and made him out to be some kind of hero.
I think that's quite unfair.
I don't know whether you've read every word.
I couldn't get through all of it.
Well, even though it was so beautifully written by me.
Actually, judging by the cells, nor did most people.
But my point being that...
I'm really happy to address that question.
Yeah, go on that.
Because I think it is an important one.
And the reality is I would, of course, not have put my name to anything that I thought was an untruth.
The other reality is that there are nearly three million words in these WhatsApp messages.
I was working on this book against the clock.
It was a phenomenal effort.
It was twice the length of any normal political book.
It was simply impossible to go through every line of those WhatsApp messages.
And of course, equally, the book is Matt Hancock's diary.
It's his truth.
When did he know that you'd done this?
Late last night.
Wow, when everybody else did.
Yeah.
Did you have any compulsion at all about frying a contact like someone you've written a book with?
I'm not going to sit here and disparage Matt Hancock personally because this is not about as a journalist.
You've written a book with this guy and within months of the book coming out, you've tortured him, right?
I mean, you've fried the contact, you've ripped up the NDA, you've published all the messages.
I'm not taking a judgement.
I'm just saying you have done that.
There are many things I could sit here and say about Matt Hancock, which I'm not going to do.
Now it seems a good time to do that.
I'm not going to do because this for me is not a personal thing.
Is it true that he went back on his word with you in relation to your business arrangement with the book?
Again, I don't want to get into that.
He certainly undertook to do an interview with Talk TV, which was very important to me as international editor of Talk TV.
He reneged on that.
It's of course not the reason why I did this.
I cannot emphasise enough, this is not personal against Matt Hancock.
I can see many good qualities in him.
We had a good working relationship, by and large.
Various aspects towards the end, we're not quite sure.
Have you heard from him since the publication of this?
Yes, I have.
What did he say?
I received a somewhat menacing message at 1.20 in the morning.
I'm not going to repeat what was in the message, but yeah.
You say menacing.
What was...
Well, I think you can easily surmise whether Matt Hancock is my friend at this point.
I'm sure he's not, but I mean, what does menacing mean?
He threatens you?
I think that he is extremely troubled in terms of how to respond to this.
And I don't blame him, but this is not about him, as far as I'm concerned.
It is much bigger than that.
It is about stating the truth of what we're doing.
I understand that.
Specifically, he says it's been edited that there were other WhatsApp exchanges about a subsequent meeting.
I think he's withdrawn that.
No, it isn't.
It's emphatically inaccurate.
We specifically refer to that meeting.
I think it's on page four of the coverage.
He simply hasn't read the inside story.
So is there any doubt from everything you've read, is there any doubt at all that the veracity of that main charge in the Telegraph revelations today about the care homes and about him overriding the advice from the chief medical officer, that that is entirely true?
There's no doubt in my mind that what the Telegraph have printed today is an accurate reflection.
The Telegraph has been exceptionally careful not to selectively quote from these messages.
Look, they're not daft.
They know that that would be a very easy stick to beat them with.
So they have been very careful.
Also, the Telegraph doesn't overclaim for any of this.
Of course, we know there are other people whose conversations we don't have access to.
That is entirely obvious.
Okay.
You two have been sitting here listening to all this.
I mean, look, from a journalistic point of view, I picked up the Telegraph tomorrow.
It was a sensation.
I mean, this was extraordinary reading to go through all this.
I think I've put the tough questions to Isabel, and she's been robust in responding.
From a political point of view first, Kate, what has been the reaction to this and what are the likely consequences, if anything?
So there's been a couple of different reactions.
Clearly, Matt Hancock and his team very, very frustrated and unhappy.
Helen Whaitley, you know, a minister who was sort of talking about this today, suggests that there was a meeting in between all of this advice being given to Matt Hancock where the political reality came up against the scientific advice.
Government Lied About Care Homes 00:03:36
And I think this has been the problem all the way through this story.
In fact, all the way through COVID.
There is a difference between scientific advice and the reality of what can happen on the ground.
And Matt Hancock's point would be, yes, Chris Whitty advised we do this.
The capacity wasn't there to do it.
Therefore, we were forced to scale it back and we did it as soon as we could.
What I actually think is that some of the messages in here do reveal something quite problematic for the government, which is about the way that care homes were not prioritised.
Helen Whaitley's message is inside the Telegraph showing her saying, we have a problem with PPE, we don't have enough, and I can't get anyone to tell me when I will have enough.
And she's asking, you know, quite nicely of the Health Security.
I mean, I interviewed Helen Whaitley several times in that period, and I thought she was completely out of her depth, which I thought summarised my view of that government.
A young rookie government just come in, a lot of them completely out of their depth, didn't know what they were doing.
But then did you change your mind when you read this?
Because I actually thought that.
Well, I had a slightly more sympathy with her that she had clearly been asking for this stuff, but clearly wasn't getting it back.
I mean, Kevin, from, well, first of all, from a journalistic point of view, what do you think about what Isabel did here?
Oh, Isabel's accused of stabbing Hancock in the back, and she'll have to deal with the journalistic ethics.
But is there a public interest defense for that?
But yes, clearly.
And are we in a better position tonight than we were last night on COVID?
Yes, we are.
That's what I think.
Because she's made them public.
She'll have to take the knocks as well as the praise for that.
But we get an incredible insight into what was really happening.
What do you feel you know now you didn't yesterday?
That he didn't, that Hancock didn't follow always the scientific advice.
Yes, he was guided by it at times.
And he can accept, right?
COVID appears almost from a clear blue sky.
It's a huge catastrophe, a real challenge.
You're making decisions in real time with resource limitations.
You haven't got the organisation right.
So mistakes will be made.
But because of some of those mistakes, people die.
People died.
They died.
We can't get away from them.
And by the way, in care homes, thousands and thousands of people died.
I know people who lost their relatives, who lost their mother, their father, clean the care homes.
And Piers, I can see this is very inconvenient for Matt Hancock because he wants to reinvent himself as a lad larking around on reality TV, no doubt doing a lot of gigs, you know, at dinners and so on and getting paid.
Well, people aren't going to be laughing next time.
Well, they're not.
And they realise.
One person who definitely won't be laughing is the owner of Crabtree Care Homes, David Crabtree.
David, we've spoken many times throughout the pandemic and again in the last few months.
What is your reaction to these revelations about Matt Hancock in particular in the Telegraph?
If you go back, thank you, Pierre.
If you go back and thank you for being a stalwart for the care sector, thank you.
If you go back to your opening section where he was speaking, he said from the very start, from the very start, well, from the very start, he lied.
And he lied and he lied and he continues to lie.
It's not that we got things wrong.
Pandemic was new to everyone.
It's that he lied after the event and continues to lie.
And what happens with his lies and all of this publicity is he re-invoked all the anger and upset, the loss of life, the relatives.
He risked, it wasn't just the elder.
He was risking the mother of two that was coming to work at seven o'clock with no PPE.
Everything this man does is characterized by an inadequate sociopath.
WhatsApp Policy Making Chaos 00:03:28
Everything he does, if you look it up, there's his characteristic.
I wish to goodness he would just disappear because he's managed to destroy his own career, his relationships.
I cannot tell you how incensed the care sector is every time this man's name is mentioned.
Yeah, no, I know.
I've heard it from them myself.
Okay, lots of people's names are in these WhatsApp messages.
You know, Boris Johnson's there liberally.
Rishi Sunak, we're told, is in a lot of them too.
Isabel, you can confirm that.
Yeah, absolutely.
So the current Prime Minister is, I mean, they must all be on tenderhooks, right?
For the next installment tonight with all the revelations this afternoon that apparently we only follow, for example, what Scotland did in relation to kids wearing masks and stuff because they didn't want to, you know, make a problem with Nicholas Sturgeon in Scotland, which seems to me an extraordinary revelation.
Never mind anything else.
Yeah, I think it is.
And actually, it's a point.
You raise a point that's going to be a much bigger issue for Westminster now, and it's going to have huge repercussions.
Today, at the lobby briefing for journalists after Prime Minister's questions, the questions were repeatedly about how do ministers use their phones?
Are they using deletion on WhatsApp as a regular thing?
You said that they should be held to account that those messages should be public record.
They are, Piers.
They are public record, except from who is checking that that happens right now.
And the Prime Minister spokesman was asked that today, and he said, well, there is a policy on this.
You are actually, as a minister, if you are discussing policy, you're allowed to do that on WhatsApp.
But you have to then ensure that it is recorded so that any official decision, which is not allowed to be made on WhatsApp but can be discussed, is then there as public record.
At the moment, I'm not sure that the government can guarantee comfortably that that's...
I'm sure they can't.
Isabel, are there revelations to come which could cause the current Prime Minister problems?
I think that the current Prime Minister, in his capacity as Chancellor, was doing what Chancellors should do and protecting the public purse.
There's nothing damaging about it.
I don't want to comment on what's to come up.
I'm sure you'll understand that.
But I think that this issue that you raise about the use of WhatsApps goes to the heart of why it's so important for people to see the way decisions were made.
The casualness, the informality of a few mates in incredibly powerful positions with a thumbs up or thumbs down, deciding the fate of millions of people.
Look, you can, under certain circumstances, get them under a freedom of information request.
But it's worth saying Lord Bethel, the health minister at the time, who's had a go at Isabel, Isabel and Stiggle for herself.
He lost a lot of his WhatsApp messages on COVID contracts when he was transferring phones.
It wasn't quite Waggatha Christie, the phone going over the side of a boat, but nevertheless, those messages have been lost forever.
So when he has a go at other people, I think, hang on, Bethel.
Some of your messages have gone already.
No, it's government by WhatsApp now.
Tony Blair used to be by sofa.
It's shifted.
Is everyone, Kate, in Westminster, basically waiting for the telegraph to drop tonight?
Yeah, I think people are, and they will be probably for some time.
But I do think that this goes beyond, as we're saying here, it's beyond Matt Hancock.
It's about how policy is made in this country.
And I think it's about the fact that a lot of these decisions, when you read them, you may not look at them and think, wow, so there's the smoking gun, but actually it's more subtle than that.
It's about the way that these decisions were made.
I just remember the certainty that Hancock was saying we put a protective ring around care homes.
Evicting Harry And Megan 00:12:09
He did not put a protective ring around care homes.
He let a lot of people back from hospital without testing them.
Hospitals were rife with COVID.
He let anyone from the community come and go, including the carers, including family members to start with.
The whole thing was total.
And that was the point your guest was making, which was seemingly, and I don't know whether he believes this, I don't want to speak for him, but if actually the government had been honest and said, we can't do this yet, we would love to, we're going to try as soon as we can.
Well, let's ask David Crabchew that finally that very question.
David, had you known these issues that the government were now reading about, you would have presumably acted differently.
You don't need to be a scientist to know that you don't admit potentially infected people into a care home when Professor Valance in January said these would be breeding grounds and we watched it across Italy and France before it arrived at our doorstep.
We already knew to shut the door to try and minimise.
We accepted that this was, you know, there was a pandemic on and nobody had any PPE or whatever.
We did the best we could and we accept that errors were made.
What is the anger is invoked because they now lie to cover it up.
We would have coped as we would cope with diarrhea and sickness, with flu epidemic, with all the others that we normally associate through winter.
We're not stupid.
We've been doing it a long time.
We don't need a scientist.
What we do need is truth.
Factual.
We don't have enough.
This is what we're going to do.
We're going to try and help you.
Don't lie to us and say that you put a ring of protection around us.
David, how many people did you lose in the pandemic from COVID?
We lost 18 over two homes.
That's just us.
But across Bradford, we lost thousands.
Absolutely shocking.
It was shocking.
David, thank you for your passion.
You're always.
And the relatives couldn't go in.
Nobody could see anybody.
So people were losing their loved ones without seeing them.
It was awful.
I know a good friend of mine who had to say goodbye to her beloved mother on FaceTime in a career when it ripped through the career.
I mean, imagine that.
I still haunts me to this day thinking about it.
David, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Thank you, Isabel.
If we could just get an apology off Mr. Hancock, that would do us.
You know what?
I think you've got more chance, honestly, of him handing back the money from eating kangaroo testicles in the jungle.
But a good idea, David.
Isabel, I think it's a fantastic scoop.
There's an argument to be had about whether it's all in the public interest.
I think it's overwhelming in the public interest.
And so I'm looking forward to reading more revelations.
Thank you.
So I think congratulations are in order to you for exposing this, frankly.
Okay, thank you very much for joining me.
That's going to be interesting to see a reaction tomorrow.
There's more revelations come out tonight.
Kevin, you're staying with me.
Thank you.
We've got the short straw.
The you two in mourning, by the way, in the Blackfoot Hancock's career.
Yeah, accidental.
Good to see you.
Well, next tonight, they're out.
King Charles has evicted Harry and Megan from their UK home, Frogmore Cottage.
The couple has confirmed that tonight.
Will they now also be banned from the coronation?
We'll debate that next.
Big breaking news, Arsenal are 1-0 up in the game against Everton.
And if you're watching, I'll catch up.
That may have been overtaken by events.
Hopefully, we're now winning 3-0.
Well, King Charles has sensationally evicted Harry and Megan from Frogmore Cottage in Windsor and reportedly offered it now to Prince Andrew, who has to vacate his own larger home.
Well, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were given the college as a wedding gift by the Queen in 2018 and will now be left without a home in the UK after Buckingham Palace served eviction papers.
Tonight, a spokesman for the couple confirmed the son's bombshell scoop by saying they had been requested to vacate the property.
Well, Kevin McGuire still would.
I've been joined now by talk-to-view contributor Hester Kraku and Historian author Tessa Dunlop.
Well, so Kevin, this is one of those scooped great scoop by the son this morning.
And completely true, it turned out they have indeed been kicked out.
They've been evicted.
Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town.
He's going to be the Iron King because he was.
Is this the act of a king, not a father?
In other words, has he basically put his new status as the monarch and the interests of the monarchy and his role as king above actually what maybe his instinct is as a dad?
Well, it could be as a dad, he believes in tough love.
He's also said to be very emotionally cold and probably not best suited to try and bringing them back in a warm way.
But it is pretty sensational, as you say, because I thought he would try and find common ground, try and build bridges, get some peace.
But this is right.
If you're going to go to war with me, I'm going to fight back.
Right, and it does beg the question, Esther.
Coronation coming up in early May, only a few weeks away now.
Invitations apparently going out next week, 2,000 of them.
I mean, I would put good money now that there'll be no invitation heading its way to Montecito in California.
I think so too.
Look, I was very skeptical when I saw this because I thought the palace just asked them to take the rest of their belongings and strip it back to Montecito.
But the fact that they've actually been given a formal eviction notice is very clear.
You're not coming back.
There are no warm sort of olive branches being extended to you, if that's a thing.
And it's really quite scathing, actually.
Can you imagine just being evicted by your own father?
It is, but I've just written a column for the son about this.
And you and I, Trash, we've argued about this, but putting aside our different opinions about them as people, there does come a tipping point in any feud of this nature, where if one side just continues to publicly attack the other on the global stage that Megan and Harry have, not just with Opril Winfrey, but then a six-part Netflix documentary series, then a 400-page book trashing everyone, including Kate and Camilla and so on.
There is a tipping point for anybody.
However much Charles may want to be a good dad, William, I'm told, was utterly incandescent after that book.
And I think this is the logic.
Apparently, this decision was taken the next day after the book came out.
Is anyone surprised, Rudy?
I never think it's a good idea to make a decision like that in haste.
You then repent at leisure.
I think, given the coronation is, as you've mentioned, but weeks away, and that we want our monarchy to look broad-shouldered, to look global, to look like it's an institution that understands what redemption means, I think the timing's unfortunate.
I think the optics around asking Uncle Andrew, the disgraced duke, to move in also is deeply unfortunate.
And I would question whether this is on numerous levels the right decision at the right time.
I certainly think, Kevin, the Andrew bit to me was ill thought through because that gives all the people who support Megan and Harry and don't want to believe a bad word about them.
I said, really?
You're going to put the guy that paid this woman he says he never met millions of dollars to avoid having his day in court.
You're going to give him their cottage because somehow he's better.
All I would say to counter that, I was in America last week and a new poll came out while I was there saying that they are now less popular in America than Andrew.
I mean, that is how far their standing has fallen.
It could be because in America they've forgotten to some extent Andrew, although he is the real scandal in the royal family.
I think Harry and Megan haven't behaved well.
Others, I don't think, have behaved well on the other side.
But to give him that five-bedroom house is adding insult to injury for them.
I do think it's a bad move.
I mean, if he needs a house, let him get on a council waiting list like everybody else.
Why should he be gifted a multi-million pound?
Two orangeries and Megan Markle's yoga room.
The thing is, he doesn't, this old man doesn't need a five-bedroom house.
I think he needs a one-bedroom flat in Stevenage.
Well, apparently, Andrew doesn't even want Frogmore College.
He wants to stay where he is, which is a much larger problem.
He would be seeing it as a demotion because Andrew is pretty deluded about most things.
Let me ask you, on the coronation specifically, it is coming up.
I mean, should he be invited?
Never mind Willie.
Should Harry and Megan actually get an invitation?
Absolutely not.
That's what I think.
They shouldn't get an invitation.
Go to the father bit.
Look, families fall out of the way.
Let me go to the father bit for you, because I put this in my column.
If one of my three sons, all in their 20s now, and I have a great relationship with all of them, if one of my three sons spent years publicly trashing our family, all the members in it, right?
And the very institution of our family, they would not get, as I put in my column, the remaining ash from my Christmas Day cigar, let alone a Grayson Favour home.
Who are you talking to in your column?
You're talking to a little bit, dare I say it, of Middle England.
We want our monarchy to be bigger and better than that peers.
Who's we?
We!
Great Britain.
No, we want to stay.
We want renegade wants our royal cake and eat it royals who've been treacherous to stay in California and actually sink or swim by being Meghan and Harry not the Duke and Duchess of Susan.
But it looks like you're getting what you want because actually this wasn't, as somebody said this morning, Frogmore Cottage is just a place where they lay their heads.
It actually came with the umbrella of security that you get as being part of the channel.
Oh, please.
All right, let me ask you.
Yeah, and they're obsessed with that and they've got their police protection rescinded by the people.
They're so obsessed about privacy and security.
So they won't come now anymore.
Hang on.
You've got what you want.
Let me respond to you.
These two apparently are, by your yardstick, obsessed with privacy and security.
They've just done a six-part Netflix documentary into their private lives at home.
One, they don't care about privacy.
They want to sell it.
Secondly, on security, Harry was unbelievably reckless in the book to boast about his Taliban kill numbers and to describe the Taliban victims that he killed as chess pieces.
He, by doing that, immeasurably worsened the security for his family, immeasurably, as any military expert will tell you.
So don't let me hear them talk any more about privacy and safety when he has so deliberately invaded his own privacy and worsened their safety.
I'm merely pointing out that whether he's exacerbated his own situation or not, they are always very concerned.
We saw them last summer.
They hardly left Frogmore Cottage except nor was there any security incident around them.
They have highly paid bodyguards.
Do you know what, Pierce?
You've got what you want.
And in the end, it's a nail in your own.
It's not what I want.
Yes, of course not.
Yes, you've been shouting them down.
Sorry, Harry.
Let's be quite clear.
I think they are a malevolent duo intent on fleecing their royal titles for hundreds of millions of dollars and causing untold damage to their family and the institution in the process.
I do believe that.
But I haven't evicted them from this home.
Harry's father has evicted them from the home.
Harry's brother wanted them evicted from his home.
I'm damn sure of it.
Because they are sick and tired of not just them being trashed, but their wives being trashed by these people.
Kevin makes it this as you've got your finger on the tabloid puzzle.
If they don't come to the coronation in terms of attraction, in terms of attention, this is a depletion.
I'm sorry.
Absolute rum.
Nobody cares.
Look, there's gratesque inequality out here and unfairness when these houses are standing empty in a country with a homelessness crisis.
But if they're not there at the coronation, they won't be missed.
No.
In truth, the event will just...
It's the other way around.
If they are there, they become a massive distraction.
And by the way, if I were William and Charles and Kate and Camilla, I wouldn't trust the pair of them as far as I could throw them.
You've got to remember, Harry went to Prince Philip's funeral and he then went and had a private conversation with Charles and William immediately afterwards at the scene of the funeral.
And then he put all of that in his book.
This is a guy who has ranted about the media, about tabloid editors like me for invading his family's privacy and all this kind of garbage.
And yet there he is invading his family's privacy at the most excruciatingly private time.
He's going to have a revealing private conversation.
Uncle Andrew in a front row at the coronation.
I don't think you should be there either.
Hold on.
And you're not going to have to.
Double Standards On Molestation 00:11:50
Well, hang on.
You're presuming we want that as well.
Exactly.
And can I ask you, why would you even want them there?
Why would you want to see a pair that have trashed their family for years?
And the monarchy.
Why do you want monarchy bashers there?
Because actually.
Let's cancel the hall event.
That's an easy way out.
Let's strap it sick.
And I know it's hard.
You know, the pain of it.
Tessa, you know what?
I think Harry is something of a victim.
Do you know when I am angry and impatient?
And yes, he's made mistakes.
I think they've slightly lost you.
Yeah.
Who've lost you?
You've lost your venom about this.
You've lost your spark.
You've lost the ability to rise up and defend them because in your heart, you know, Tessa Dunlop.
I've been writing about them the whole time.
Do you know what?
Yeah, I'm feeling by you.
I've just seen that slowly.
It's like watching a helium balloon when it sucks out, you know?
There's a slow, like, but actually, you've lost that thing, that crackle where you genuinely felt they were right.
Now you think, you know what, they're just, they've lost me.
No, what saddens me, Piers, is that, and I write to my mom, is that there you are, smacking your lips, thinking that you've won something.
But the bigger picture is our monarchy by all of this has been depleted.
And actually, as a monarchist light, I'm saddened.
No, actually, what Charles has done, in my view, very smartly, he's now moving to save the monarchy and its reputation from these two flamethrowers from these two flamethrowers who keep wanting to trash it and burn it to the ground.
Lovely to see you, Tess.
Lovely to see you, Esther and Kevin.
I think you're all staying at the state.
I think we are.
All right, well, in that case, lovely to see you after the break as well.
Well, next to mine, an extraordinary story.
A convicted male paedophile decides they're a woman.
We had a similar story like this, of course, up in Scotland with the rapists.
But the prosecutor is suspended for refusing to use the right pronouns and acknowledge them as she.
That prosecutor joins me live next.
Prosecutor Shay Sanna has been suspended in Los Angeles for dead naming and misgendering a convicted trans child molester, warning that she is trying to game the system.
The case involves James Tubbs, now Hannah Tubbs, who began identifying as a woman after her, I might be calling her her, after his 2014 arrest for sexually assaulting a child.
Tubbs is also accused of murder.
Well, the lead prosecutor, Shay Sanna, fears that Tubbs may be pretending to be a trans woman to have an easier time in jail.
And of course, we've just had a very similar story up in Scotland.
Well, Shay Sana joins me now.
Mr. Santa, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
This is such a, it's made me speechless.
We've just had a story in Scotland over here in the UK of a transgender rapist who was a man when he committed these two rapes, pretending, according to his ex-wife, to be a female so that he could then be put into a women's prison, which is exactly what happened.
And then there was such an outcry that he got returned to a men's prison where he is now.
And the head of the Scottish Parliament, the first minister, Nicholas Gurgeon, had to resign in disgrace over this whole scandal.
This reminds me of that.
How has this happened?
How can it be that you are suspended for misgendering a paedophile who's killed someone?
I'm just as surprised as you are.
Who would have ever thought that a prosecutor, by bringing hard evidence to their administration, so I took evidence to the Upburgh administration telling them that we have a child molester pretending to be transgender so they could orchestrate a fraud on the system and put themselves into a juvenile facility.
So this was a 26-year-old adult man who was sentenced as a juvenile and was placed into a juvenile facility and then was pretending to be trans so that they'd be classified as a girl, essentially.
And by bringing this to their attention, I was punished for not using the correct pronoun.
I mean, it's absolutely, even as you're saying this, I'm just shaking my head in total disbelief that you get suspended for pointing out what seems to me to be an absolutely clear-cut case of somebody deliberately gaming the system and playing off what has become, certainly in California, this incredibly woke onslaught of gender activism.
That you've essentially become a victim of this.
Correct.
So I work for a man named George Gascon, and he cares more about virtue signaling and his progressive policy than he does about protecting children, than he does about the victims in the case.
So he wants to punish his prosecutors for not using the correct pronoun instead of punishing the child molesters.
But does he care about the truth is though the truth is you did use the correct pronoun as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to call this person she.
In the same way, I'm not going to call this rapist up in Scotland she.
They're not.
They're men.
They're men abusing the system so they can be put into female facilities so that they can potentially prey on women again.
That's, it seems to me, completely obvious.
That's what they're doing.
And they get a softer time, of course, in a women's prison if they can be successful.
Exactly.
And when I say correct, I mean their preferred pronoun.
So because I hurt or may have heard a child molester's feelings, Gascon wants to punish me.
It's incredible that we are even in a world.
Look, Shay, it's incredible to me.
We're even in a world where a convicted killer, robber, paedophile has the brass neck to demand the use of any preferred pronoun.
And that then a legal system led by a DA in LA County goes along with this nonsense.
Right, it's crazy.
And the most ironic part is, is that the murder child molester isn't the offended party here.
It's the members of Gascon's executive team.
They were offended for this child molester, and they're the ones that filed the complaint and had me suspended.
So I didn't even offend the child molester.
I offended Gascon.
So his feelings are hurt.
So these are, I call the man a man.
It's honestly, it is absolutely mind-boggling what has happened to you.
What's the latest?
Are you going to get allowed back or what's happening?
It's a five-day suspension, so I will return at the end of my suspension.
But there'll probably be another one waiting for me.
This is just retaliation.
Gascon's on a crusade to punish and terminate anybody who speaks out against him.
Well, you know what?
I admire your honesty and I admire your guts because James Tubbs is a man and he's not going to be called she or they or them by me ever.
Thank you very much indeed, Shay Senna.
I appreciate you joining me.
Hey, thank you for having me.
Just, I mean, I keep saying the world's gone mad.
This is completely nuts.
Yeah, there's usually a bit more to it, though, isn't there?
Yeah.
And I think there is in this case and other accusations.
If it was just as explained, yes.
Well, I noticed the Daily Mail, the mail website, referred to JM Straw Cana as she.
Why?
Well, because if that's how somebody wants to be called, that's it.
No, you brought them in.
Where you put them in.
Although, is it?
Because when I've said I want to be called hot, hotter, hottest, or hottest man in the world, nobody goes along with it.
That's my preferred pronoun.
No one agrees.
No, no, no.
Now you're being ridiculous.
Now you've been ridiculous.
All right, take a break.
Come back and talk about this.
And also about Jeremy Clarkson, who has now been let go by ITV.
I know that feeling.
Involving a conflict with Meghan Markle.
I know that feeling too.
So we'll talk about that after the break.
Welcome back, Esther Tessery.
We're missing one of our regular PAC members, Ava Santine.
And she's actually at the Emirate Stadium tonight as an Everton fan with her dad and just sent me this message on WhatsApp.
Poor, poor Ava, having a terrible night as my beloved arsenal crush Everton to pieces.
Anyway, enjoy your evening, Ava.
We left on a cliffhanger about Jeremy Clarkson, so apparently there's an updated statement from ITV saying, well, we've recorded the next series, and as with all series, we won't make any more decisions until after that.
So they're slightly hedging their bets.
They're not actually saying Clarkson is cancelled.
I guess the question is, should he be?
It's so inflammatory, that word cancelled.
Can I just extract it from your man?
No.
It's so unhelpful.
You're literally looking at somebody who was cancelled.
No, you're not cancelled because you're still right there.
No, no, somebody, Rupert Murdoch, who owns Talk TV and the company, actually came and gave me a job.
He had a rebirth, like the Phoenix Salesforce.
And thankfully, he believes in free speech.
But the truth is, I was cancelled from Good Morning Britain at a time when it became the number one morning show in the country.
And I was cancelled because I refused to believe Megan Markle.
Now I'd have to be cancelled for believing it.
Let's return to the question of Jeremy Clarkson, who I think hasn't been cancelled, but I think ITV are sensing the direction of travel.
He's past his prime.
I think his farm thing's been really platformed all over the shop and on the farm subject.
He can go and grow tomatoes.
But actually in terms of hosting a mainstream farm, if people are watching him growing tomatoes.
Well, hasn't it been put out to grass and he's doing a gentle farming show?
How much more appropriate?
Should Clarkson carry on at ITV?
No, well, he should.
Obviously, they're going to go on ratings, but there were reports that it was very clear that they didn't want to support what he said about Megan, even though he released an apology.
So apparently such a half-hearted apology.
Oh, whatever.
It was still an apology.
But this is the thing.
There's such a double-standard, even though he's apologised because of who it's coming from, they get to play this.
Oh, but it's not enough.
Should he prostrate himself on the ground?
He just shouldn't have done it.
As Regina Marigo said before Christmas, they said he's a constant.
He's characteristic.
My issue with the whole woke brigade is that even when you do issue a grovelling apology, it's never enough.
They never accept it.
Throw it back in your face.
This went much wider than your little walk brigade.
And that's why I think ITV will plow him up and let him spend more time on his farm shop.
Because it was so right for a clumsy, stupid, bad joke.
Which was intended as a joke.
No one supports it.
No one's supporting it.
But should he actually lose his ITV college?
It was really vile and he stuck by it for some time until he saw public opinion was sore wide against him.
Even his daughter came out and criticised himself.
And this is his second shot.
What happened to Richard?
What do you cancel?
Two seconds list.
He was already knocked off our state broadcaster for lamping someone.
So offset he's behaved badly.
Then onset.
Yeah, to be fair, he lamped me a lot earlier than that.
I'm going to start the campaign to get you the job.
I can't believe that I'm the one who's got the scar on my head from his fist and I'm the one defending it.
I've just seen a second coming for you.
There's a gap on a big quiz show on ITV.
Actually, now you're talking.
You can make my ITV comeback.
Who wants to be a millionaire?
I already am.
Thanks for watching.
It's great.
Trust me.
Let's move on, shall we?
Got leave there.
Thanks, Pac.
That's it from me.
Whatever you're up to.
Like Jeremy Clarkson.
Keep it uncensored.
Export Selection