All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 14, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:38
20230314_piers-morgan-uncensored-snp-to-dethrone-the-king-s
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Monarchy's Future in Scotland 00:14:48
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, the frontrunner to be Scotland's next leader, says the future of the monarchy is now on the table.
Can the royals survive the age of populism and attacks on privilege?
Is the SNP plotting to dethrone the king?
We'll debate.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledges to review sex education in schools amid a growing row about graphic lessons to kids.
How young is too young to learn about sex?
And attacked, abused and briefly jailed for a crime he never committed.
Jordan Trengrove's life was turned inside out by an evil fantasist.
Tonight his accuser is behind bars and Jordan joins me live.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
At first sight, the British monarchy should already be finished.
Let's face it, many people see privilege as a crime against equal opportunity.
The monarchy, meanwhile, is undeniably built on illogical birthrights.
Populism rages against elites.
But the royal family are the most obvious elites of them all.
Tribalism and brash opinions dominate public debate in an age of identity politics, but we're quietly ruled by an unspeaking authority that takes absolutely no position.
And that's really the whole point.
Fickle politicians tear strips off each other and survive by dividing us, but the monarchy is a constant, reassuring, above the fray.
That's why it's not only survived, but thrived against all odds.
But there is growing evidence of cracks in Britain's gilded edge.
Humza Yousaf, who's the frontrunner to be Scotland's next leader, has put the future of the monarchy firmly on the table.
I'm a Republican.
I believe that we should be citizens first, not subjects.
Or we'd keep the monarchy for a period of time.
Then I'd hope Scotland, an independent Scotland, would move to be a republic in the future.
Well, since then, Mr. Yousaf has doubled down on his statement, promising to give the Scottish people a vote on whether to have a monarch or an elected head of state within five years.
And then independent Scotland is not the only threat to the monarchy.
The late Queen was emphatically more popular than King Charles, for now anyway.
And young people are much less enthusiastic about the monarchy.
Harry and Meghan's antics are that a global crusade of smears against an unfashionable and what they tried to call a racist institution.
Prince Andrew's squalid scandal has heaped massive embarrassment on the Windsors and indeed the institution of the monarchy.
Australia has scrubbed King Charles from his banknotes.
Barbados ditched the late Queen as head of state.
Jamaica will be next to become a republic.
And the royals are barracked by protests and demands for reparations whenever they tour the Commonwealth, forcing King Charles to say this.
From the darkest days of our past and the appalling atrocity of slavery, which forever stains our history, the people of this island forge their path with extraordinary fortitude.
Well whether the monarchy can survive the era of constant ham-wringing apologies for historical sins is suddenly a rather urgent question, but it should.
The monarchy keeps our sense of nation and patriotism separate from politics.
It gives us a reason to unite and love our country, its traditions and its identity.
It's above the venom of everyday political debate.
We could fuse a head of state with a head of government like the US or Turkey or Brazil.
Would that really bring us closer together?
There's no evidence that it does.
God forbid we have a bow to President Farage.
We could have a ceremonial overlord like Germany or Ireland who cuts ribbons and shakes hands with the cameras, but is that seriously any better for Brand Britain than the pomp and pageantry of our oldest, greatest tradition?
The royals sometimes disappoint us.
They're not perfect, they're humans.
But the monarchy is worth defending.
They get political attacks like this one from a Scottish nationalist and it starts with celebrating it, not constantly apologising for its past.
Well, joining me now is the former First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmon.
Talk to your V-contributor Paul LaRone, Adrian, and chief executive of the campaign group Republic Graham Smith.
Welcome to you all.
So, Alex Salmon, this guy, Humza, you said, I don't know much about him, other than he's popped up, may replace Nicola Sturgeon from all the polls.
It's the book is favourite.
Yeah, which is probably never a place you really want to find yourself at this stage of the race.
But he is clearly not a monarchist and clearly thinks we should just get rid of the monarchy.
Do you agree with him?
I think he's probably right.
I mean, it was different.
When I was First Minister, the Queen was head of state.
You'd have to be insane to suggest replacing Her Majesty the Queen because of her long service, her popularity, her wisdom.
We're a different situation now.
And it's quite interesting.
If you ask people in Scotland, do you want to keep the monarchy or get a republic?
You'll probably get a majority for the monarchy.
If you ask the question, if you're setting up an independent Scotland, a new country, should you start with an elected head of state?
Then the answer is quite different.
You shouldn't.
You should move to an elected head of state as opposed to the hereditary principle.
But what is your intrinsic argument about the monarchy?
Because the arguments I hear against it is, well, they cost too much money.
But that's palpably not true.
They're a net positive.
That's not my argument.
Right, so let's part.
I'm sure it might be one of yours.
Well, we'll part that because there are net positives.
So is it just the idea of an unelected family which is at the head of the country?
I think if you're setting up a new democratic country, you wouldn't start from the hereditary principle.
The monarchy is...
But I would say.
Well, in recent times, I mean, if you go back 100 years, new countries started with new monarchs.
I mean, you know, Norway imported a, I don't know, a minor German line from somewhere, if I remember correctly, or maybe a minor Swedish line.
But right now, in the 21st century, you wouldn't start from the head of your principle.
Also, I tend to, I think there's a presidential test in this, Piers.
See, if Britain had become a republic during Her Majesty the Queen's reign and she had decided to stand as an elected president, she'd have wiped the floor with any candidate.
I mean, that wouldn't be the case with King Charles.
I mean, Gary Lineker would beat King Charles.
You probably would beat King Charles.
That sounds so surprising.
So therefore...
This is, I think, would have its own the other way.
21st century, democratic age, you're setting up a new society, written constitution, protecting people's rights.
The monarchy, to an extent at least, is the pinnacle of a class system.
It is, it is.
But when I look at the way that the American system has worked with this two-party system fraught with corruption, fraught with people who just have to have a big enough bank balance to run for president, you know, the division they have in that country, I look at the division in this country.
I look at the procession of useless leaders we've had.
The one constant we've had, and I genuinely believe this, has been the Queen and now Charles.
We've had two monarchs in my lifetime.
And I do think they provide the country with just a comfort blanket, which should not be underestimated.
Why are you laughing?
Because we don't need a comfort blanket.
I think we do, actually.
I mean, it's so patronising and so unpatriotic to suggest that we need a comfort blanket.
I have never heard a good argument for the monarchy, and it certainly isn't a net positive.
So you didn't see any positives about the Queen?
There's no, well, I mean, it's not about the Queen, it's about the monarchy.
Well, she was the head of the monarchy for 70 years.
But now we have...
But you saw, just to be clear, you saw no positives in the Queen.
It's not about the Queen, it's about the monarchy.
I'll ask you about the Queen.
Well, I don't really know her, and that's the problem.
We don't know.
How old are you?
48.
For 48 years of your life, she was your monarch.
Really?
Don't squirm off the old net here.
No, but the issue is the monarchy.
Did you not understand that she was one of the not, if the most respected people in the world?
Well, I think that's disputable, but I mean, the point is...
Who was more respected than her?
That's a silly answer.
Give me a name.
This is a deadline.
Give me a name.
This is a dead end.
So I'm not sure if you're familiar with the interview, but I ask questions, and your job is to answer them.
The argument is...
So if I ask you, Monarchy...
Do you not see any positives in the Queen?
You'd say no.
The argument is about the discussion is not about which monarch is there, because the Queen's no longer there.
The discussion is whatever I decided it's going to be.
That's our history.
I'm asking you.
We now have.
You made a statement about the monarchy, and I said to you, did you see no positives from the Queen?
I saw no positives having the Queen as a head of state.
You didn't see any benefit to the country in terms of the extraordinary esteem and respect she was held around the world.
The fact that she met more presidents than anybody else more than prime ministers.
Actually, it makes a huge difference.
It makes no difference.
Well, why don't you ask the presidents?
Why don't you ask all the presidents who queued up when she died to pay full tribute?
If we actually talk about the monarchy rather than the person who's not going to be able to do it.
No, I'm not talking about the queen.
Why?
Because the queen is no longer a part of the country.
Because the faulty issue is of your monarchy deriding life.
She was this extraordinary figure who actually earned enormous respect.
She would never have been queen if her uncle wasn't a Nazi sympathiser who was thrown out.
She would never have been queen.
Well, she would have had a very short wave if her father had lived long.
Well, she was queen.
But it's completely random, and she's no longer here.
Random.
She was the only monarch we've had until the new one.
The issue is what happens next.
Now, the monarchy is under.
Actually, the reason we're stopping.
At the top of the story was...
Don't you worry about what you're reading off your screen.
It's my show, and I can ask you anything I like, right?
And here's my question for you.
Stop reading that.
I'm not reading that.
Somebody else has written that, not me, right?
I don't care what that's wrong.
Look at me!
Look at me!
And here's my point.
What you're not factoring in in this general whine about the institution of the monarchy is the extraordinary influence and power, in my estimation, that Her Majesty the Queen had.
And I think Charles can continue.
Which is a fiction.
Which is not a fiction.
Which is a fiction.
There's no evidence of it.
No evidence.
Let's summarise why the monarchy is a bad thing.
It stands against our democratic principles.
The institution has been accused of all sorts of questionable behaviour.
It's highly sequential.
Unlike our politicians.
It doesn't matter.
Our politicians are...
It doesn't matter.
That's for the royal government.
Our politicians should be thrown out.
We can't throw Charles out at the next election because there is no election.
And it's also bad for our constitution.
It centralises power in the hands of government at the expense of parliament and people.
So the whole point of having a republic, and no one, no serious Republican in this country is arguing for a US system.
We're arguing for a parliamentary republic, which limits power of the politicians.
Which has been going really well in recent years.
Independence, hasn't it?
And hasn't it?
What has?
Our parliamentary system.
Well, no, because that's the whole point, Piers.
I was arguing that we reform it by becoming a republic and shifting power from government to parliament to people, having a written constitution and a president like the head of Ireland and Germany who actually plays the police.
Well, we've got these two ardent Republicans here, right?
That's fine.
They're entitled to their opinion, but the polls are also entitled to their opinion.
You gov poll in October after the Queen died, about a month later.
So keep the monarchy 60%, abolish the monarchy 24%, don't know 15%.
Overwhelming support for the monarchy.
So these two guys can rant about the monarchy, but the bottom line is...
Going with October recently, it's now 30%, 55%.
It's contracting.
There is a growth in support for abolition.
The problem is attractive because people like you are running around screaming, get rid of it.
That's the whole point.
And so thank you very much for putting that down to my efforts because the...
Can you let Paula speak anyway?
Paula, where do you sit with us?
I think it's quite astonishing, actually, to say that the monarchy isn't important to this country and isn't important to the people of this country.
I think that's why Piers is so surprised at what you're saying, because as an immigrant, as one adopted into this country, there is no doubt in my mind that the Queen has played, and the Queen and the monarchy has played an incredibly important role in society and one that is reflected, I think, from childhood right up to.
And we can see that not only from, sadly, the passing of the Queen, where I think 4.6 billion people around the world watched that ceremony.
And this is the problem, is the monarchy relies on fantasy.
It may be a fantasy, but that's where I'm understanding.
More than half the world's faded.
The figures are...
And so I think it is surprising that you can sit here and at least acknowledge that the figures you're putting out.
Leave this country.
Acknowledge that she's had.
I go around the world.
When were you last in America?
I haven't been to the United States, but I've not.
You've never been to the place.
And it doesn't matter.
Because no one is arguing for you.
You keep responding by saying it doesn't matter because you don't want to answer the question.
But no one has argued.
You haven't even heard the question yet.
No one is arguing for you.
I haven't asked you the question yet.
Here's my question.
If you've never been to the United States, I've lived and worked there for the last 20 years.
Then you will have no comprehension of the extraordinary respect they have for the Queen, for King Charles now, for the monarchy.
And it is an abiding respect that they have.
And that's why they all want to come on the state visits and get the red carpet treatment.
And I think it's actually really important to our special relationship with the United States, the world's number one superpower.
The royal family have been able to be this bridge, constant bridge, through all the political turmoil.
Alex.
Well, I'm just going to say that.
I've been the last direct experience that the Americans had of monarchy was George III, which didn't go particularly well.
It went well for them.
It didn't go well for us.
You say that the Queen was an exceptional monarch.
I agree with you.
I got on absolutely famously with the Queen.
I like Prince Charles.
I think he's a great guy.
That's not my argument.
I've got no animus.
King Charles.
I've no one animus whatsoever.
Yeah, but that's not.
That's not because I don't like it.
You're humble and obedient.
Because if you ask people the question, you're setting up, in the case of an independent Scotland, a new country, would you set up the hereditary principle or would you set it up on Democrats?
Well, I think it's a really good argument.
And I actually don't agree that the hereditary principle that has been established by this monarchy in the last hundred years or so, certainly, I can look at, you know, from my lifetime and slightly beyond, I think it's been a power of positivity for the country.
The hereditary principles are power of politics.
Well, I just think you had this family of people.
Well, they don't have any executive power.
Right, do they?
They don't have any executive power.
They interfere.
The monarch doesn't interfere.
Okay, let's go.
You think Charles will be a good king?
He might well be a good king.
I think he's already showing that.
Let's say Andrew had been the eldest son.
Yeah, he'd been a good king.
But he's not.
Yeah, well, kick deals, but I mean, you know, so it's a lot of people.
Would he have been any worse as a king than Boris Johnson was as Prime Minister?
But his trust.
Charles as a Good King 00:03:19
In other words, where's the proof?
But isn't the political elected politician can do any better?
Yes, but Boris Johnson is no longer Prime Minister.
Right.
Let's truss is no longer Prime Minister.
But the greatest star of the last hundred years, I would say, was Queen Elizabeth of any kind.
That is not a credible argument because she was protected by all the polls.
But anybody.
She was not required to do or say anything of any particular controversy.
She was never subjected to an election.
She was never suggested to subject scrutiny.
I think that's highly challenging.
He would be defeated heavily because the point is in an election, he would have to sit here, be challenged by people like you.
He would have to stand in a studio and be challenged by other candidates.
Remarkably blinkered grain to any potential positive of the monarchy.
To me, it's indisputable in the last hundred years, which is, let's say, the modern times of the monarchy, that they have been a force for good.
But they haven't.
What good?
What good have they done?
What they have done, they've propped up a rotten constitution.
They have been a secretive institution.
The single biggest events in the world, outside of massive news tragedies and disasters and terror attacks, have been the big royal events.
Look at the last year alone.
The death of the Queen and her funeral.
So that's a really positive thing for me.
No, no, no.
What's positive is the way that we then acknowledge these great moments in the royal family.
And we recognise how influential Jubilee last year was last year.
Only 14% of the country wanted to celebrate the Jubilee last year.
In 2011, 79% of the population said they were not.
This is a completely untrue statistic.
This is absolutely nothing.
Only 14% wanted to celebrate.
You gov polling, 14% wanted to celebrate it.
You gov polling in 2011, 79% were not interested.
2018, 66% were not interested in.
The bottom line...
I don't share the history.
I don't believe those stats.
I don't share the historic state.
Well, it's not true that it's interesting.
There is close to home.
It's blatantly obvious when it happened, more than 15% celebrated it.
So it's obviously not possible.
Piers, there is close to home, a rather successful example of a presidential system, and that's the Republic of Ireland.
They've had a cracking series of presidents, by any estimation.
You know, Mayor Robinson, Mary Michael Leese, President Higgins.
I mean, have been first-class press in a presidential system.
But Piers, your argument seems to rest on Her Majesty the Queen was an exceptional woman.
I agree.
And I actually think I think King Charles is an exceptional man.
Titan will tell.
But there is enough of that.
And the truth is, if you were still the SNP leader, as we've just seen with you with the Queen, you'd have been brown-nosing away with the new king for your heart's content, wouldn't you?
We've just been seeing you doing it with the King of the United States.
To me, the watershed was the death of the Queen.
I think it would have been ridiculous to argue.
You've been shouting down.
I have been.
Do I think that he's the very best that we have to offer?
We will find out.
What is it that you want?
Do you want a referendum?
Do you want a Brexit-style split?
This society doesn't need that.
The monarchy is loved in this country.
Whether you accept it.
Do you want more and more of the kind that we have with Liz Truss?
I think he's absolutely right.
He's tanked the power.
He's tanked the economy.
Prison and Rape Accusers 00:15:16
He's absurd.
He's set to go after political days.
He can't outlive a lettuce.
You've got a choice of the monarchy last 70 years as a lovely marvellous thing in the country who's a calming influence, respected around the world, or Liz Truss.
He couldn't outsurvive a lettuce.
You would rather go with more than 100%.
Charles who refuses to pay income tax, refuses to pay inheritance tax, demands secrecy, was accused by me to the police of the United States.
The British royal family is estimated to contribute around £2.5 million to the US.
You seem not true to every stat you don't like.
You think come out of a load of baloney stats which are literally just dismissed.
It's completely delusional, aren't you?
You dismissed YouGov stats.
You're quoting a report that has no sources whatsoever.
There's no evidence whatsoever that's good financially for this country.
And it is a massive drain on our resources, but that's not the reason.
They put MPs' expenses into the shade with their money.
I respect your opinion, but you're completely wrong.
Alex, good to see you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Paula, I think you're staying with us, aren't you?
Yeah, you are.
You're not, I'm afraid.
Next to the light.
We automatically believe those who make accusations of sexual assault or rape.
I'll speak to a young man whose life was turned inside out by a false accusation of rape by complete fantasists.
We've seen this on the news all day today.
His accuser has been jailed just for eight years, which to me is a scandalously short amount of time for what she did.
But that question remains, doesn't it?
When an accuser makes accusations, do you automatically believe them?
Or have there been enough cases now to show that that is a very dangerous road to go down?
Better to listen and investigate and get to the truth.
We'll debate that after break.
Welcome back.
My next guest has spent the last few years in a living nightmare after being falsely accused of rape by a woman he barely knew.
Jordan Trengrove was just 18 when he met Eleanor Williams on lights out in Cumbria in 2019.
What happened next landed him in prison for 10 weeks, left him branded a rapist, destroyed his mental health.
Eleanor Williams has since been unmasked as an evil fantasist and a serial liar.
And today she was jailed for eight and a half years.
Before we speak to Jordan, let's just hear what he had to say last time he was on the show back in January.
I took an overdose in front of my own mum.
It was that bad.
I didn't ever put other people's feelings first, if you get what I mean, because my life was just too messed up with all this stuff.
Well, that was Jordan then.
This is Jordan.
Now, Jordan, I was thinking of you today when I heard about the sentencing.
Just wonder what your reaction was.
Given the scale of the lying and the fantasy, given that so many people like you were caught up in this web, do you think it's long enough, eight and a half years?
No, I don't think it's long enough at all.
I think she should have been given a lot longer sentence in my eyes because she's got time served as well.
So in reality, she's out in 2025.
So her sentence in reality is only two years.
So I think she should have got longer.
When you saw the lengths that she went to, you know, buying a hammer, she's seen on video buying a hammer to then attack herself, simply so that she could frame people like you for raping her and grooming her in other cases and so on and attacking her.
What did you feel about that?
What did you feel watching her just so calmly going about buying these tools to create this fantasy?
It makes me feel sick.
I don't know how anyone would want to do that or want to hurt the self in any way like that.
I couldn't imagine ever hitting myself with a hammer or anything like that.
You don't want to do anything like that.
So it just makes me feel very sick in a way.
The big debate, of course, is what happens with cases like this when you have somebody come forward who's got all these apparent injuries and makes all these incendiary claims of assault and rape and so on.
Should the system, the legal system, start from a position of believing accusers or should they start from a position of listening to the allegations and then investigating the facts?
Because in your case, you were named on the front page of a local paper.
You had rapists graffited over your house and had to move.
You were the one who felt suicidal.
She, meanwhile, remained completely anonymous.
Yeah, I do think that they should be listened to and taken into account.
And regarding like newspapers and being in the newspapers, I think that should be changed because that was one of the main things as well, what went towards destroying my life.
I shouldn't have been named in that paper when I was only remanded, you know, like fair enough if I was convicted.
Yeah, I mean, you know, when I think about the scale of what she did, and I heard the sentence, and like you say, you know, if she behaves herself in prison, she'll be out in the next two years.
You know, to me, I don't understand why she didn't get a life sentence, frankly.
I think the exact same.
I think she should have been given life, preverting the course of justice can hold the maximum of life.
And she's destroyed so many lives, not only mine.
So she should have her life tuck away from her.
Jordan, how have you got on with rebuilding your life?
Now, has it helped having her now be named, identified and jailed for lying and you be associated with that?
As people now, you know, are you able to go back to your place where you grew up?
And are people treating you now as an innocent victim rather than as a supposed rapist?
I don't like going into Barrow so much anymore.
I don't like going anywhere near that town.
And I said to my partner after the sentencing, I said, this gives us two years to just move out the area because I don't want to be in the area when she's released as it is.
But I can rebuild my life now.
And I've started, like last time I seen you, I've been doing steps towards rebuilding my life.
Yes, I have.
If you had been found guilty of the allegations that she made against you, had you been told by a lawyer how long you may have to have served?
I think my solicitor told me back then that he had been looking at her like 22 years because of the severity of it.
You see, that to me is just extraordinary, isn't it?
You were told you might get 22 years in prison for a pack of lies about you.
And the person that perpetrated the lies ends up getting eight and a half, literally about a third.
Exactly.
And I think it's so unfair because if I was sent to prison, it had been so many more years.
And this is exactly what I said to quite a lot of the press when I came out of court.
If I was sent to prison on guilty on what she accused me of, it'd have been a lot longer.
But she can go out and destroy and fabricate and do so many people's life of damage and pretty much just get a slap on the wrist.
It just shows it's very, I don't know, it's messed up in the system.
Yeah, I mean, to me, it's grotesquely unfair and imbalanced.
Jordan, really appreciate you coming back on tonight.
It must have been a difficult day for you, but ultimately, I guess, a satisfying one that she at least is remaining behind bars for another two years or so.
But like you say, ridiculous that then you have to fear going back to where you want you're from because you're worried that she'll be there again, which she will be in two years.
It seems ridiculous.
I really appreciate you coming back, Jordan.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
All right.
David, this guy, I've interviewed him a couple of times now.
He's so like impressively calm, eloquent, but there's a kind of searing anger there too about what he's had to endure.
18 years old.
I've got three sons in their 20s.
This is every parent's nightmare for a son.
Now, I'm very aware that a lot of women that make allegations of sexual assault and rape get no justice.
The rates of conviction for these things are ridiculously low.
I totally agree with that.
But for the purposes of this debate, it's specifically about what's happened to him.
To me, it seems ludicrous to carry on with this notion that all accusers should be believed.
We saw it with the nasty Nick character who invented all the stories, the pedophile stories about some of the most eminent people in the country.
We've seen it now with this woman.
So we've seen it from a man and woman.
To me, there should never be a presumption of belief.
Why should there be?
I think that, gosh, I don't really know where to begin with that.
I mean, we live in a country where under 1% of rapes even go to conviction.
So I'm quite taken aback by what you've said.
Why should you automatically believe an allegation?
Because we live in a country where women aren't believed.
And it is extremely difficult for women to come forward and talk about sexual assault that has happened to them.
And look, this situation is grotesque.
You were right to call it that.
It's abhorrent.
And he's a very nice guy.
But it's quite clear that the girl in question is really unwell.
If you look at her mental health all around this case, she was reported missing one year, 32 times in just one year by her own mother.
She's clearly not well.
I actually don't even think she should be going to prison.
I think she should be living.
I think she should be sectioned.
I think she's not well.
And I actually don't think prison is a safe environment for her.
Well, I don't really care if it's a safe environment for her, frankly.
And I don't think that being unwell is a justification.
You wouldn't be saying that.
There might be an explanation.
If we had a male, if this guy had been convicted of what he'd been charged or accused of doing and arrested over, like you said, 22 years, you'd have called him a monster.
You wouldn't have made some excuse about his mental health.
Yeah, I mean...
Right.
Why are you making an excuse for her?
I'm not giving her an excuse.
You are.
You're saying she shouldn't even be in prison.
I'm explaining.
I don't think that she is well.
And I don't think she's going to be rehabilitated in a prison.
I actually think it's going to be really awful for her.
And actually, it's an indictment of our justice system.
She wasn't indictment.
He would have gone down for 22 years.
She's going to be out in the next two years, having served half of an eight and a half years.
I think she's going to be any better.
She's not going to be any better for it.
Prison is about rehabilitation.
She is not aware of that.
You wouldn't be saying that if he had been found guilty and gone to prison for rape.
But she's clearly not a kid.
You wouldn't know, would you?
But Avery, you wouldn't, would you?
No, I think that's a false equivalent.
It's not a false equivalent.
He literally just told you.
He was told, if these lives stuck and he was found guilty, 22 years in prison.
You would have been quite happy with that.
Right?
If she had gone through the justice system.
If he was convicted.
And the justice system had convicted him.
Yes, I would have been.
You would have been quite happy.
You wouldn't have made all these excuse.
I wouldn't have been quite happy.
Richard, here's the dilemma for me.
I do think it's completely wrong that so few rape allegations end up with convictions, when in many cases we know they're probably true.
So this is an absolute disgrace in this country about what happens to women who make legitimate claims and the system lets them down.
I think we can all agree on that, right?
But this is a different area.
This is the area of what the police do when somebody comes and says XYZ.
And I feel strongly now, after several very high-profile cases, you cannot make a presumption of belief.
You cannot call them victims from the start because they may not be.
They might be fantasists.
But surely Piers, there's a difference between belief and listening to someone.
Yes.
Seriously investigating it by people who are really qualified.
That's what's my position.
And I think Abra thinks that's outrageous.
Look, you've got to...
Genuinely looked at me in total disgust.
Yeah, she was, but I think that's because you didn't consider the point about seriously listening, properly investigating by real specialists who understand the likelihood.
I know a guy who he, luckily he did remain anonymous, but he had 18 months of absolute hell on earth.
Right.
And it turned out it went all the way through trial and at the end of the trial, jury, 10 minutes.
And he wasn't.
And in this case, in this case, this poor kid, he's not even 20.
No.
And his name is branded in all his local town as a rapist on the local paper front page.
She, meanwhile, remains completely anonymous.
Yes.
Now, I know the argument for the police is if you name people who are accused of sexual assault and rape, it encourages other people to come forward.
Exactly.
But actually, why should he be named and shamed in that circumstance and a woman like that remain anonymous until she's finally charged with lying?
So this is about what happens in our minds.
Because you work in family law.
Yeah, I do.
But this is about what happens in my mind.
He's not named and shamed.
But he was.
He's named.
And shamed.
And it's...
And it's the approach that's taken by people because we have to all remember that you are innocent until proven guilty.
And unfortunately, we forget that in society.
And Christopher Jeffries is a classic example.
He was the unfortunate landlord who went on to later sue the press and certain individuals.
Who behave recklessly.
Absolutely.
And I was one of them at the time.
No defense for that.
Absolutely.
And so this is about our responsibility as a society, knowing what we know.
And we saw it with that poor missing woman recently who disappeared.
Exactly.
Everyone racing two conclusions about that.
Exactly.
And TikTok detectives and all of that.
And that was down to the woeful police handling of it.
I couldn't possibly answer.
But the point is, we all have to take responsibility in a society where human beings are running a system of people who are not afraid of the people.
But should we believe accusers from the start?
Absolutely.
It's not a believing accusers from the start.
It is.
Because if you believe them, that guy Nick, who invented all the stories, right?
He was believed.
And in fact, the commander of the Met Police at the time called him a victim, right?
And the moment a policeman of that rank calls somebody a victim, there is a presumption of guilt and a presumption that everything he's saying is true.
And it turned out it was all complete fantasy.
And I think you can avoid all this if you say, look, someone comes with an allegation and you say, right, we're taking this seriously.
We absolutely will treat you with due respect.
We'll take all the details down.
We'll properly investigate.
Then it's compellingly important that the police investigate it properly.
But only at the point that you have enough to charge somebody, in my belief, should anyone even be considered to be named and shamed.
And that is technically what should happen.
That's not what happens.
But exactly.
And why not?
Because people talk.
The police will inform them.
Right, but Ava, why is what I'm saying wrong?
Because you can name two people, two men that this has happened to.
Can you name all of the thousands of women who can't get a conviction?
But why is it going to be either or?
You're making it an either or actually.
You are.
You are.
I'm not.
I'm saying there should be a presumption of an allegation's been made, not a presumption of a true allegation.
Do you know what a woman has to go through?
Do you know what a woman has to do to record a rape?
Would you want, if you had a daughter, would you want her having to give her knickers over?
Graphic Lessons in Schools 00:06:53
I have got to say that.
Okay, would you like her to give her underwear over?
I wouldn't say that.
But I think you are conflating two different things.
I'm not conflating two different things.
What's that got to do with a presumption of innocence or guilt?
No, because right now we are talking about the process and has ruined someone's life and it is grotesque.
Comparing that to women who are assaulted and should be believed so that they can go through the process of being able to do that.
Why was she believed at the start and why was he disbelieved?
Because she was a woman reporting a sexual assault.
And she also did turn up with a hammer to her face and she did look like she had been assaulted.
The police did let him down.
I will say that the police in this situation want him down.
Why is it sensible to just believe accusers?
I don't even think we can have that conversation because actually victims are never believed.
It's very rare that they are.
This is just a high-profile case where a woman unfortunately has been believed wrongly.
Richard, final word.
We've just got to have higher quality specialists who've got more experience about assessing these and quickly.
Where's the money for that, Richard?
Well, we've got to find it.
We've got to find it.
That is not a good enough answer.
We have to get it.
But it's the reality.
Well, then we'll adopt the police.
And when we defund the police, this is what happens.
I'm not talking about defunding the police.
We should do increasing police.
You've got to increase it.
You've got to increase quality.
It's not good enough.
You know what?
It's complicated.
But I do think there have been too many of these cases now.
And the problem starts if you just say, I believe you from the start.
Rather than I listen to you.
Which is what happens in every other form of crime, right?
Pretty much.
Right?
Why do we just assume people are telling the truth?
Why?
Listen and investigate properly.
Yes.
Treat with respect.
Absolutely.
Listen to them seriously, then investigate.
Otherwise, you get into this kind of situation, which I think is incredibly unfair.
The problem is when the system is so backed up against those who are...
Let's all agree the system.
The system is deeply flawed.
And it has to be, and the conviction rates are a disgrace.
It's an interesting debate, but thank you for having it.
Coming next tonight, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pledges to review sex education in schools.
I mean, a growing row about graphic lessons for kids.
How young is too young to learn about sex?
Welcome back.
Rishi Sunak's ordered urgent review into sex education classes after claims of extreme teaching as laid out by Conservative MP Miriam Cates in Parliament last week.
Graphic lessons on oral sex, how to choke your partner safely, and 72 genders.
This is what passes for relationships and sex education in British schools.
Across the country, children are being subjected to lessons that are age inappropriate, extreme, sexualising, and inaccurate.
This is not a victory for equality.
It is a catastrophe for childhood.
Well, join me now as columnist and author of Stolen Youth, Carol Markowitz.
Welcome to you, Carol.
This has been a big issue, obviously, over in the States.
It's a big issue now in the UK as well.
And it just raises this whole question of how young is too young to even get into discussions at school about sex and gender and so on.
Well, I think that that's a great question and one we should answer before the materials get to the schools.
A lot of the materials that are being featured right now, both in the US and in the UK, I think are far too graphic for elementary and middle school, which in the US is until about 14, 15.
So I think that when we look at this kind of materials and that they end up in our schools, I think we need to trace back how that happened and really get to the bottom of it because this isn't accidental.
This isn't just accidentally landing in our schools.
Somebody's pushing this and we need to find out why.
I mean, that's a big question.
I don't get it really.
I've got four kids and I'd be horrified at some of this stuff which I'm reading now had been put on them when they were young and impressionable kids at school.
I don't understand why it started.
It never used to be that this was going on in schools.
Right.
I think the sexualization of children is happening younger and younger.
And in our book, Stolen Youth, we really point out that this is part of a overarching indoctrination campaign to throw kids into kind of a disarray.
They're much easier to convince into things.
And, you know, in the U.S., we call it the word has been grooming.
But there is some element of grooming to this.
When kids are introduced to sexual concepts too early, they're literally groomed to be taken advantage of.
And again, I think that, you know, before we all dismiss this as, oh, wow, this is so weird.
How did this happen in our schools?
Like, this must be an accident.
We need to investigate how this is happening and why, and really trace it back to where these books are coming from.
I live in Florida, where this has become a giant debate.
My governor, Ron DeSantis, has demanded that these books be pulled out of school libraries.
And for this, he's been called, you know, a book burner, a book banner.
But nobody wants porn in the school library.
I haven't met a parent yet who's for it.
So I think he's really doing what parents want.
I completely agree with DeSantis.
I don't understand why he's being portrayed as the devil here.
The people who are behaving in a devilish manner to me are the ones putting all this stuff in the schools to start with.
Yeah, I agree, obviously.
And living in Florida just means that one fewer thing for me to worry about with the kids.
And knowing that my governor and the parents around me are supportive of the fact that, you know, pulling these books out is not book banning.
It's not book burning.
It's none of that.
It's really just taking into account what kids are designed for and what they're not.
And pushing these ideas on two young children, we know it's going to have a backlash.
We know that there's going to be some bad effects on them.
And I don't know why we continue to pretend that this is some, you know, not important issue.
People don't run for school board, for example, on let's get porn into the school libraries.
It's all done in secret.
But once you discover it, I think it's up to the parents and the schools to act.
And I like that my governor, Ron DeSantis, is doing that.
Yeah, I mean, one story involved a child who allegedly was made to leave the classroom when he disagreed with a drag queen that there were 72 genders.
I mean, the world's gone completely nuts.
It's the child who queried this who got told he had to leave, not the drag queen spewing some nonsense about 72 genders.
Yeah, I like to imagine that my kids would say, no, there's not 72 genders in their class and not have a problem leaving the classroom when they were challenged on that.
But that's really also the thing.
Parents need to lay the foundation at home.
Throughout the book Stolen Youth, we teach parents how to do that because your kids are going out into the world.
BBC Missteps on Abuse 00:04:56
They are being introduced to new ideas and new concepts.
And if you want to challenge those concepts before the kid gets indoctrinated, you have to teach them at home.
You have to lay your values out for them at home.
And you need to give them the strength to move through the world and be brave.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Carol, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Piers.
We'll come up next.
Question Times.
Fiona Bruce quits as ambassador for Refuge, pushed out really, after claiming she trivialized domestic abuse as part of a discussion about Stanley Johnson, Boris Johnson's father.
Wasn't she just doing her job?
Debating that next.
Is there anything on God's Earth that people want less than Meghan Markle reviving a blog, TIG?
Absolutely not.
Just want to do a shout out to Mick Jagger, who it turned out was at the Arsenal Fulham game at the weekend with a baseball cup.
And no one was quite sure what it had on it, but it turned out he had the letters Dilf, which we've got one here.
And I don't think I can actually say what that stands for, other than if you know, you know, right?
I want to talk about Fiona Bruce, because I got quite angry about this, because Fiona, I was watching Question Time the other night, and this exchange happened.
Let's watch the exchange first.
For a change, I'm not blaming Boris Johnson or Stanley Johnson, actually, Ken.
It was a wife beater, Stanley Johnson on record.
Okay, let me just, let me just interview.
I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to.
So Stanley Johnson's wife spoke to a journalist on Baird and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and she had ended up in hospital as a result.
Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that.
Friends of his have said it did happen.
It was a one-off.
Yes.
But it did happen.
Now, as a result of that, Fiona Bruce, who worked with Refuge, a domestic abuse charity, for 25 years and been one of their top ambassadors, has been forced to step down.
And Refuge just threw her to the Virtue Signaling Wolves with a ridiculous statement, in my opinion, saying this was completely unacceptable.
We know the words weren't Fiona's, they said, but the words she was legally obliged to read out, this doesn't lessen their impact and we can't lose sight of that.
These words minimise the seriousness of domestic abuse.
This has been re-traumatizing for survivors.
What a load of nonsense.
Sorry, what a load of nonsense.
Fiona Bruce is a decent person who read out a prepared BBC legal statement if somebody had raised the Stanley Johnson thing.
And for that, she's been thrown out.
All that work she did has been thrown out.
You're going to defend this over?
Well, I think actually it's the BBC who seemed to be in the wrong here because it looks like they've left her out to dry a little bit.
I mean, it seems like there might have been no.
It's unlike the BBC to do that to one of their presenters.
You know, was telling her to correct it.
But actually, what Jasmine was saying didn't need correcting.
Right, Yasmin responded.
And Richard, my point is this idea that Refuge felt the need to say it's been re-traumatising for survivors.
It's just nonsense.
And it's so ungrateful of them.
A, it's nonsense.
But, you know, if you've worked so hard for them, and what it will do, it will disincentivise other celebrities to help really important charities like that.
If you know at the first sign of the slightest slip of the tongue, you're going to be ditched.
The BBC, though, I mean, you know, they have completely not supported.
Terrible.
I think it's a short.
She left her out to dry.
Shameful.
A bit like the Lineke fiasco.
That's a different story.
Am I wrong?
You are completely wrong.
Go on.
You are wrong because, and I hate to say it, but Fiona Bruce does have to take some responsibility for this.
You've been an ambassador for refuge for over 20 years.
You would understand the impact, the severity of those words.
It only happened once.
His friend said, there is no, where's the legal obligation?
That's the only public statement that's been made.
Where's the legal obligation?
All that needed to be said was, allegedly.
That's all that needed to be said.
Now, as an ambassador of refuge, if I saw that statement and was being asked to read out that statement, I would have said, hmm, guys, I'm a little bit uncomfortable about this.
Have you ever done presenting live television?
With an audience.
I haven't.
With an audience.
But it is my job to speak carefully.
She was clearly told, you've got to read the clarification on Stanley Johnson.
She read it.
All right, it could have been worded slightly better than you're going to be.
Why has the BBC done that?
It's really hard.
It's really high pressure on something like question time.
And you can't do it word by word.
She was told what to say, and then she was thrown to the wolves by the BBC and by the charity.
I haven't heard that that is her response, i.e. I didn't want to say it or I raised a challenge to it.
I didn't speculate there because they have to do it.
Left-Wing Politics of Depression 00:01:24
Honestly, I think it's cowardly by Refuge and gutlessism to do this.
It's pathetic by the BBC and they should all be better than this.
Fiona Bruce is one of the most decent people you meet.
After all she did, that's how they treat her.
One slip of the tongue.
I just wonder if you would have that attitude in terms of dismissing it.
It's not even her view.
In terms of dismissing the trauma and the suggestions that you suggest it's reachforms.
Do you really think that if you went and if somebody was watching question time and went, oh my God, I've just been traumatised by what she just said.
Yes, is the short answer to that question.
And secondly, do you know everything that we've had to listen to today in terms of it only happened once?
That's like 1980 talk peers.
Let me just say that.
I want to switch to something else before we have time.
We've discussed this a lot today, which is left-wing people, you two, I might have the problem.
Apparently, you do suffer from genuine more anxiety than everybody else.
It's the politics of depression.
Apparently ones that are liberal, young people in America, they're suffering surging rates of depressive symptoms compared to conservatives.
It is depressing being on your side of this fence.
Well, I don't think that's quite it.
I think that if you are, you know, veering more towards left-wing politics, particularly in the US.
Running out of time, quick.
There we are.
That's it from me.
Thank you, Pat.
Whatever you're up to.
Keep it on, Seth.
And stay happy.
Only got one life.
Export Selection