Ben Wallace defends the criticized Sudan evacuation and Afghan pilot scheme while Stanley Johnson supports Joe Biden's second-term candidacy against age concerns. The episode debates Labour's school respect pledges, analyzes Prince Harry and Meghan's LA rebranding, and scrutinizes Just Stop Oil protests. Hosts condemn public attacks on demonstrators surrounding Rishi Sunak, question Nicola Sturgeon's SNP resignation motives, and speculate if voters will turn to Alex Salmond. Ultimately, the discussion highlights a fractured political landscape where government failures and public unrest challenge established leadership across multiple nations. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Emergency Meetings and Diplomats00:03:17
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored with Kate McCann and Harry Cole.
British forces begin the perilous evacuation of stricken nationals from Sudan amid a blaze of criticism that they took far too long.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace joins us live.
President Biden confirms he'll run for the White House again.
The oldest president in history would be 86 by the end of his second term.
So how old is too old for the leader of the free world?
Stanley Johnson makes the case for political antiques.
Plus, Labour talks tough on boyish banter with a pledge to teach women respect.
Respect for women.
Is this an overdue reckoning for classroom misogyny or an attack on masculinity?
We will debate.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored.
Good evening from London and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Eagle-eyed viewers will have spotted that neither of us is Piers Morgan.
Sadly, he was up all night with a sickness bug.
These overnight pictures of Harry and Megan smooching in a basketball game are, we're told, entirely a coincidence.
We wish Piers a speedy recovery and in his honour, we'll have a packed hour of box office material.
Well, shortly, we will be bringing you an interview with the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
And of course, Harry, that is about the situation that's unfolding in Sudan at the minute.
And I think one of the biggest questions for the government that really we are going to be putting to Ben Wallace, and if he's watching Ben Wallace, then you're going to get a hint about our interview that's coming up shortly, is the fact that the government had a test case here.
They had the trial of Afghanistan.
They tried to get people out.
It was a complete mess.
And the situation now, they're coming in for a huge amount of criticism in Sudan.
Yeah, it's not like they haven't been talking about us for a couple of weeks now.
There's been a number of emergency meetings.
The other countries seem to have managed to get their citizens and their diplomats out.
We seem to have only managed to get our diplomats.
So mounting questions for what's gone on at the heart of government and more questions really for the Foreign Office as well.
Yeah, and I think one of the questions really for the government is, and we were talking about this earlier when we were planning what to ask Ben Wallace today, is the fact that Giles Lever was not in Sudan.
Now, he's the British ambassador.
He was in London when all of this was unfolding.
And there are some serious questions about whether actually the situation with Dominic Raab that the Prime Minister was having to deal with at the time also caused a bit of a distraction.
Yeah, did the government have the eye on the ball?
Were they fighting, you know, with a full team?
Clearly, the excruciatingly embarrassing scenario for the ambassador to be at his home in Wimbledon rather than with his team on the ground.
But also, there's questions of why they pulled the diplomats out first rather than have left a lot of them there to try and extract British citizens.
And there's a huge number of them, 4,000.
There's a lot of dual citizens there.
Yeah.
Well, look, Harry, we're going to bring you that interview with Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary.
As soon as he arrives, he's hot-footing it to a camera as we speak.
But for the moment, let's just have a quick chat about US President Joe Biden because he's announced his intention to run for a second term in the White House today.
Now, in a campaign video released this morning, Biden pledges to finish the job and continue his fight against what he calls Republican extremism.
But will the job finish him?
Managing the President's Memory00:08:47
Already the oldest president in history, Biden would be 86 by the end of a second term.
His blunders are already subject to daily scrutiny.
10, 12, 15.
Whoops, stepping on them.
There's a Let's Black.
Anyway.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday, dear Darry.
President asked me to be in charge of managing that piece.
Then President Trump.
Excuse me, Freudian slip.
That was the last president.
He caused anyway.
That was President Obama.
Joining us now is the environmentalist and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's father, Stanley Johnson.
Welcome, Stanley.
What are you going to say?
Former father.
Former Prime Minister's father.
It's a tongue twister.
Stanley, let's start with Joe Biden's age.
He's a bit.
He's a bit over the hill, isn't he?
I don't agree with that at all.
I mean, as far as I'm concerned, you know, he's got the whole world in front of him.
If I think about it, looking at Conrad Adenar, he was 87 when he gave up, and Biden's not going to be 87, even if he serves the whole term.
But you saw that video there.
He gets into these blunders.
He's tripping upstairs.
He's falling off bikes.
Surely there's big concerns about the man with his finger on the nuclear button.
We all fall off bikes.
I have been falling off bikes all my life.
And I think, actually, you think what he's actually done in terms of the experience which he brings to this job is worth going.
And in any case, where are the candidates?
Where are the other people stepping forward?
I was going to ask you that, because it's a pretty serious question here, isn't there, about the fact that, you know, okay, you say that age isn't a problem.
Some people would disagree with you, and they might think that it's not a particularly good luck for the President of the United States to be, for example, forgetting the name of the British Prime Minister.
Which one?
There have been a few, yes.
That's fair enough, but it was a pronunciation issue, not forgetting the name entirely.
But I think the question really is for the party, why have they not been able to find a better candidate?
It is a very good question.
Now, maybe, you know, Kamal Harris didn't quite get there.
Maybe she will get there next time around.
I don't think he's going to do another term.
He's not allowed to do another term, that's for sure.
It's a mystery to me why there have not been another good Democratic candidate.
If they had an age limit, for example, they'd be forced to look elsewhere, wouldn't they?
I mean, that would be a cut-off point.
Yes, I don't know of a society where there are age limits for...
Well, there are age limits for driving.
You have to be a certain age to drive.
Do you think the age limit is for being a president?
Well, I go back to it.
If I think of, as it were, the alternatives to Mr. Biden in terms of him not winning the election, I say to myself, look, stick with what you know here, because I would say, and of course I'm speaking as environmentalists, very kindly Harry, as an environmentalist, I look at what Mr. Biden has done quite recently on the environment, and it's pretty good news.
The so-called strangely named Inflation Reduction Act is actually all to do with environmental policy, and it's good stuff.
So I am batting for Biden here.
I don't think these gas are particularly important.
Someone came in today and said Piers Morgan is not well because he's been poisoned by sushi.
I said, well, who's Sushi?
You know, people do make some mistakes, obviously.
But the problem is, I think what voters will wonder is, he is the leader of the free world.
Should his age and should his mental status be a concern to people?
Let's go back.
Let's go back.
Let's have a little bit of historical perspective here.
Gladstone, well over 80 during his last administration.
I don't know.
I've already mentioned Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was getting up, getting up to 80.
I think he might even have been 80 by the time he stepped down.
Nobody's saying that Reagan wasn't a good bed.
Stanley, while we got you here, there's a question I'll be meaning to ask you.
Next time I see you, am I going to be calling you Sir Stanley Johnson?
No, I have no idea.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
How can I be abroad?
Reportedly, you're on your son's resignation honours list.
Would you accept the knighthood?
I have no idea.
Anything of that nature.
And in any case, even if I did have an idea, as I understand it, etiquette is such never ever made.
Oh, he must have been new there.
Back to Biden.
Would you accept it, though?
Back to Biden.
I'm biding Biden my time on this one.
I don't think that was his denial.
I think that was, I think they left the door open.
Well, we may well find out this week.
But, you know, speaking of Boris Johnson, there have been, I mean, you read the newspapers, there have been some interesting revelations about his response to the Brexit vote today.
Anthony Selden extracts, of course, from his reporting, suggesting that Boris said, crikey, I didn't expect that.
We don't have a plan.
Well, now you catch me here because I was a Romanian.
Am I allowed to admit here in the Holy of Holies that I was a Romana?
I'm not only with Romaina.
I fought to keep us in.
We set up an organisation called Environmentalists for Europe.
We fought rather hard, and I was determined that we didn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater as far as all of the environmental policies concerned.
And actually, I've still been doing that.
You see, because I was really worried by this something called retained European environmental legislation, which, you know, this is Mr. Reese Mogg's plan, to scrap all the environmental laws.
So coming back to the substance, coming back to Sutton, your question.
Yes, of course it was a strange...
But do you think he said it?
What he was reported to have said by Mr. Seldon.
He's probably Sir Anthony.
Dear Sir New York, Sir Anthony.
Was something like crikey or something.
Crikey, did we do that?
Well, he said we don't have a plan.
Was that right?
Well, not everybody who wins has a plan.
You know, sometimes the first step is to win.
You don't necessarily have a fully fledged plan.
But that said, that said, I think he had to live through the consequences, as we all have.
As we all have.
Briefly, before we let you go, I just want to get your response to something, because it's the first time that you've been interviewed on television since this happened.
And it's Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce on question time.
Let's just have a quick look to remind ourselves of what happened.
It was a wife beat as Stanley Johnson on record.
Okay, let me just intervene.
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, Tom Barr, 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.
Well, look, you just said to me in the break there, I am going to comment publicly.
First, your response to what was said to me.
Do you know something?
That is such total garbage.
I mean, total garbage as far as I'm concerned.
You know, if I have a chance for a comment publicly, I'm doing something.
It's total garbage.
I have my conscience.
It's 100% clear.
And honestly, I'm not going to name Sam.
I hope that I have never had to meet the people involved.
But I do not believe, I do not believe that anybody who knows me, anybody who knows the 40 years I have passed as a real friend of my former wife since we got divorced, will know that it is totally.
So was what happened to Fiona Bruce unfair?
Because she lost her position with the charity.
Fiona Bruce, I think, did as she did the right thing.
Now, had she been fully briefed, had she been fully briefed, she would have read the statement which was made by my which said, look, actually, poor Stanley Johnson's wife, Stanley Johnson's wife, Charlotte, suffered from obsessional compulsive disorder.
And yes, the only time that happened was as a result of a domestic.
I mean, it was absurd, absurd, and I have felt very strongly about it.
Well, thank you so much for your response, Sanley Johnson.
Thank you for joining us.
Next tonight, we will speak to the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, who is raring to go just after the break.
Welcome back.
The first UK evacuation flight from Sudan has now landed in Cyprus with two more planned overnight.
Well, we're joined by the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace now to talk through all of this.
Ben, thank you so much for joining us this evening.
Let's start with what's happening in Sudan.
The Arab Scheme Decision00:11:12
We've been talking about it a little earlier on in the programme.
Why wasn't the government faster in responding to this situation?
Well, I think we went in at exactly the same time as the French.
We were the first in.
So, you know, you could argue why didn't the international community see this coming?
And I think those are questions to be answered, I think, in any inquiries.
But I think fundamentally, when it did deteriorate, the British, the French, and the United States all went in on the same night.
It was important to make sure we were coordinated.
But it was also important that we got permission of the Sudanese armed forces.
They are the government of Sudan, and they were not only fighting their side of the conflict, but also they control the airspace and indeed the airfields we needed.
So we had to do some negotiations.
We all had to coordinate and get permissions.
And then when we did, we went in.
And the difference between the French and the British was a matter of hours.
In fact, the British, early parts of the British forces, went in with the United States first.
Well, I mean, I think there is some criticism, though, of the fact that, you know, there are lots of British nationals and their dependents who are saying, we've not heard anything, we don't know where to go, we're not sure whether the government knows that we're here.
I mean, it's taken eight emergency meetings to get to this point.
The first flight, of course, has left.
I mean, can you really say that you learned any lessons from what happened in Afghanistan?
Yeah, I mean, first of all, this is not Afghanistan.
So in Afghanistan, the Taliban were in control and gave us a 20-day window.
So there was some certainty that we would be able to fly in and out.
Secondly, in Afghanistan, we and the Americans had had military troops on the ground for 20 years, so there was a proper footprint and a large embassy.
There's many more people to get out.
Thirdly, in Afghanistan, we expanded not just British passport holders.
If you remember, the Arab scheme, which is some nearly 12,000 people, those are people who over the 20 years had helped us.
It's very different.
And also the chaos and the things that we saw and the humanitarian challenges around the airfield are not here.
What was going on in Sudan, what was going on in Sudan, Kate, was that, first of all, the international community, because of the fighting and the diplomatic quarter was sandwiched between the two headquarters of the two factions, because of the fighting, knowing hour by hour what was going on was very difficult.
And you reference people not having heard from the Foreign Office.
That isn't because the Foreign Office isn't trying to communicate with them.
It is because the internet cover, the television, the telephone cover is very, very minimal.
At some say just 2%.
And that presents a risk.
But I suppose that's my point, really, because the Foreign Office is supposed to be able to see these things coming.
It's supposed to have the planning and the resources to know that they have what they need on the ground to get people out.
You are, of course, in charge of what happens when people are airlifted out of a country.
And what you seem to be saying is that that is going well.
So actually, is it the Foreign Office letting the side down again here?
No, look, I mean, look, the whole international community, if you think, realised what was going on, but it descended pretty quickly into a fight.
You know, Sudan had settled into some form of stability where the two factions were supposed to merge together to form the main army.
Suddenly, I mean, literally, in a space of a few days or hours, that broke down.
And the two leaders of the Sudanese armed forces and indeed the RSF, the former sort of Janjaweed militia, some people might remember from the past, started fighting and they started fighting around the area of the diplomatic sector.
That meant a matter of hours.
And a country like Sudan, it's very difficult, poor infrastructure, very poor country, that presented some real problems.
And look, you know, we made a decision early on that the people directly...
Secretary of State, you're saying there's no criticism at all for the Foreign Office?
Absolutely none.
You're perfectly happy with how it went.
Look, we are all learning.
We're all working together.
You know, I don't criticise the Foreign Office.
People often expect the Foreign Office to have a sort of magic wand.
This was a very difficult and dangerous environment.
And it was absolutely right that the first advice was hunker down.
That's important.
You didn't want people moving around in the middle of a conflict.
And one of the reasons we've changed the advice is twofold.
One is after a few days, the food and water problem becomes a greater risk to those people.
And therefore, they may be better off actually trying to move to extract themselves.
And the second thing, Harry, is that there's been a 72-hour ceasefire.
And thirdly, we've got to know more about what's going on the ground because of our experience since the weekend.
And I think that allows us to have a window in Khartoum.
And 99% of the people registered with the Foreign Office are all in Khartoum at the moment.
But I do expect that to change.
But in the meantime, I've put in place plans in Port Sudan, which is 500 miles away, but nevertheless one of the major towns of Sudan.
I've put some Royal Marines in there and working with the Sudanese armed forces to make sure there is a backup should that airfield, and your listeners should remember and viewers that the airfield is a military airfield from which the conflict is being run from.
So we're only guests there and we have to be slightly careful about how many people we put in and how much we get in the way of the Sudanese.
Of course, Secretary of State.
And you speak on behalf there of the international community, talk about working with allies.
Are you pitching for the top job at NATO again?
No, I'm pitching on helping as many of our friends and allies as possible.
We've taken out, we took out French, we took out Norwegians, we took out Danish, and we'll take out on these planes if there are seats spare or indeed, you know, as the Germans have found out, not all their nationals turn up at the same time.
We will take out all our friends and allies across the world.
So you're not interested then in being the next Secretary General of NATO.
I hear you're in the running.
I'm always interested in a variety of interesting jobs, Harry.
At the moment, the job I have is the Defence Secretary.
But you're not saying never.
Well, when I left school as a ski instructor, Harry, I'm always interested in going back to do that job.
That's a non-denial there.
That's quite a grin, I think, Ben Wallace.
Look, it's Rishi Sinak's six months in office today.
You didn't back him originally for the job.
Has he convinced you now that he is the right man?
Yeah, he's doing an excellent job.
And I witnessed firsthand over the last few days his chairing of COBA has been very good, it's been efficient, and he's taken the decisions.
You know, sending men and women in harm's way is not an easy job for people to do.
He's done it really, really well.
He's led from the front.
Whenever I've needed assistance to speak to another leader so we could get more troops in or more aircraft, he's delivered.
And I think he's providing that stability that the country currently needs.
Well, I mean, Ben Wallace, you say, is providing that stability, but he just lost his Deputy Prime Minister, not even a week ago.
Look, the Prime Minister took a decision based on the report he read.
I think it wasn't an easy decision because I don't think it was overwhelming one way or the other.
But, you know, we have to make sure we stand for some of the issues.
People, civil servants were feeling, certainly in the evidence they gave, that this was behaviour that wasn't appropriate.
I think it's a difficult call, but I think he wanted to uphold the higher standards.
But also on the other side, Dominic Raab, I worked with when he was Foreign Secretary, funnily enough, I recognise the issue about Gibraltar.
I think in that some of those claims he made were correct.
And I think it's very tough sometimes when you're working under pressure as a leader of a department to make sure you get the outcomes you need.
But the Prime Minister read the report.
I haven't read the report myself.
He read it.
He took a decision.
I think it was a tough decision.
But the price of leadership is sometimes tough.
It sounds like you think that Rishi San could have fought a little bit harder for his Deputy Prime Minister there then in that case.
No, I think Rishi, as I've seen him in his six months, he absolutely reads the briefs he's given.
He reads the reports.
He makes an analytical view of what he thinks he's going to do.
He talks to the leaders of the department.
So if it's a defence matter, he will talk to me and then he makes his decision.
And I think he made a decision in that case.
By all accounts, I think it was a difficult decision because it wasn't necessarily overwhelming, but it was a decision where I think he erred in the right place and he took that tough call.
Ben Wallace, Piers Morgan very sadly isn't here tonight and we are doing our best to keep his seat warm.
Well I'm not being shouted at usually he shouts at me.
There's plenty of time.
But look there is a question that Piers Morgan wanted to ask you tonight.
Let's just have a quick listen to him talking about this topic.
I hope Prime Minister you do the right thing.
This man is a hero who helped us take on the Taliban.
His family are in Afghanistan.
We have a moral compulsion as a country to save this man and to take care of him and to take care of his family.
Ben Wallace, that is a plea there from Piers Morgan.
To the Prime Minister, fair enough.
But I'm putting the question to you tonight because Piers is saying that the Prime Minister should step in and not deport this Afghan pilot who has entered the UK, of course, you know, as the government would say illegally, but has done a huge amount for this country in the past.
Well, first of all, when I heard about that, I asked and I asked my department to look if he had applied under the Arab scheme, which was the scheme for those people in Afghanistan who had helped support or work directly with the United Kingdom, mainly security forces and the Foreign Office over those 20 years.
And it transpired he hadn't applied and he has now applied for the Arab scheme.
And I think he did that at the beginning of April when it was first presented to me.
We will work through his application.
I've asked my officials to keep an eye on that and we'll then see what comes of the outcome.
And we'll make sure to see if it meets the criteria of the Arab scheme.
And I think the Arab scheme has some differences that people might have forgotten now, which was, if you were in the mainstream Afghan army, for example, and you're a soldier in the army, but you weren't working with the British or the Americans or the Els, you weren't eligible for that scheme because we didn't want the army at the time just to all leave and we wanted obviously them to stay and support their government so the Taliban weren't victorious.
If you worked directly for us or in support of us over those 20 years, then you were eligible.
And your viewers and listeners will know that that's been in the thousands of people we've brought over already and we will continue to do so.
We're not closing that scheme.
So we'll look through his application and then obviously I'm very happy to make it clear what the result is on that.
That sounds like an element of hope there in that difficult story.
Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary, thank you so much for giving us your time this evening.
Thank you, Kate.
Thank you.
Beyond Cultural War Framing00:10:29
Well next tonight, should boys be taught to respect girls at school to stop misogyny and violence?
That's coming up next.
Welcome back and wow, what a load of guests there.
Years since we've been on air and quite a year it's been.
Labour is pledging a crackdown on laddish banter today in classrooms and says that boys should be taught respect for women as part of the national curriculum.
Schools are reportedly battling increases in misogyny and abusive behavior towards girls, bamed by some on the popularity of influencers like Andrew Tate.
But what's fueled that popularity in the first place and is it really the roles of schools to fix it?
Joining us now is Talk Talk TV contributor Esther Kraku and broadcaster Jenny Kleeman.
So Esther, to you first, what is wrong with teaching boys respect in schools?
I mean, is chivalry dead?
Some might say feminism killed it.
One, I don't think it's the responsibilities of teachers to teach their kids good manners.
I think it's the responsibility of parents.
I don't see why, you know, with all the pressure that teachers are under, they now have the added responsibility of teaching young boys how to behave properly.
But I also have an issue with how this sort of discussion is being framed.
They're equating bad behaviour towards women or whatever as solely being men's fault.
What about teaching women respect for boys?
I mean, we talk about the popularity of people like Andrew Tate, but taking him as a person aside, why does his message resonate with young men so much?
And it's not the fact that he is some sort of superhero character, but because there's clearly a gap with young men in talking about actual positive forms of masculinity.
He is a symptom, not the cause.
And we need to be talking about that instead of making this a cultural issue and saying, actually, it's men being bad to women.
Jenny, I can hear your sigh from here, Jeremy, Matt.
What's your response?
Well, I just don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
I think, you know, it's all very well.
I think it's totally right that parents should be having this discussion with their children.
But what if your dad is Andrew Tate?
What if your dad has all of these ideas?
We ask schools to have PHE lessons.
This could be part of that.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an extra amount of workload.
And it's a sort of thing that can very easily be included in a curriculum without making boys feel like being a man is a bad thing.
We're quite good at teaching difficult issues.
But do you not have a problem with the way it's framed?
They didn't say we're going to teach people how to respect each other.
It says we are going to teach boys how to respect girls to crack down on laddish culture.
But there's such a thing as toxic femininity.
I guess so much about young women being horrible to young boys.
We don't talk about the flip side.
But I think the effects of toxic masculinity of like men putting revenge porn videos online, which women don't tend to do, can ruin lives in a different way.
There are the kind of women influencers encouraging young women to go and ruin their male rights.
Isn't that the point here, which is that actually, this isn't necessarily a conversation about how women are negatively affecting young boys?
I mean, what this is proposing is to teach young men that it's not right to video you having sex with your girlfriend and then post it on the internet.
You can get arrested for that.
It's illegal to do that.
You shouldn't do it.
And trying to guide people in what is in some cases a new world, yes, of social media, but in others, just actually a behavior code that has kind of grown up piece by piece that some people actually do struggle to.
But then what about young women filming men at the gym and then claiming they're being aware of that?
How many times have you seen that happen?
That goes viral on TikTok.
No, but I'm saying the issue with Labour is, one, I do think this is a distraction because I don't think people are thinking, oh, actually, the cost of my food is going up, so let's teach young boys how to speak to women in schools.
I don't think that's their priority.
I think it's a distraction.
But I think the bigger issue here is they are framing it as a cultural war issue.
If you don't want to make it look like the onus is always on men and how men behave in a society where men and women disagree with you, you have to phrase it differently.
I think there are a lot of cultural wars, but I don't, I think you're wrong.
This isn't being framed as a cultural war.
No, but it's framed as a focus on the world.
Where do women have to do with the currents?
Let's Jenny speak.
I think this is being framed not in terms of cultural wars at all.
It's being framed in terms of really low rates of prosecution when it comes to rape, convictions.
That's the justice system.
This is not a culture war.
Have a problem in this country, and we have to look at the causes of those kinds of crimes as well as looking at prosecuting them.
But that's a problem for the justice system, not young kids in school.
My issue is when you're telling young, impressionable, you know, teenage boys and girls that actually the issue is how boys are treating girls, you're framing it as a cultural issue because there's no onus on women to behave properly.
Does there have any problem with having a conversation about this though?
Because it's clear that sex education in schools is a total mess.
There's a government review going on about it now.
Parents unhappy with finding out what's going on.
Why not have a talk about that?
Without framing it in families, in homes, where people are actually being...
Not everyone has that.
But I'm sorry, but that's not the government's responsibility.
The government barely gets many things right.
Why are we now offshoring more responsibilities because the government leaves some things just to parents and some children are going to have absolutely no inflation at all apart from Andrew Tate and other people?
Parents to parent.
If you leave all of this solely to parents, some parents are not very good at it.
Well, no, if you learn to think parents are good at it.
No, but it's the parents' job.
That's the thing, but some of them can't do their job.
But not to step in.
I'm sorry, that's not the government's job.
The government's barely getting policing right.
Our roads are full of potholes.
At the moment, we do rely on schools for a lot of safeguarding, for a lot of costs.
But that's how it should be.
So let's take a step back here because what Jenny's saying is that the rate of rape and sexual assault prosecutions, for example, let's take something that fundamentally mostly affects women in this country, are really low.
In some cases, politicians, including from the Labour Party, have said that rape is all but legal now because of your chances of being prosecuted.
You seem to be suggesting before that that has nothing to do with culture, has nothing to do with behavior, has nothing to do with attitudes.
But actually, in a lot of cases, rape is not strangers.
It's people that we know.
It's a boyfriend, it's a person that you've met on a night out.
That's about culture, isn't it?
But I don't think equating, I mean, there's a huge gap between how men and women or young boys and girls interact with each other.
There's a huge gap to get from there to rape and the level which rape is prosecuted in this country.
I think the prosecution rate is about 10%.
I don't think it's a gap.
I think it's a continuum.
No, it's not a continuum.
I don't agree with that at all because you cannot say that actually to reduce the level of rape prosecutions in this country, we need to teach young boys how to use better language.
How do you make that gap?
Well, it really should be the parents' responsibilities to teach their kids how to treat each other.
To reduce the number of rapes, you have to increase the level of respect so that people see the humanity of each other and don't treat each other.
Do rapists just happen to forget that it's illegal to rape?
Is that what they're saying?
No, they don't see their victims as fully human equal to the people.
So they forget to rape someone.
It's got nothing to do with the law.
It's to do with the law.
You're talking about rape.
Yes, I'm talking about actually reducing the number of rapes.
And the way to do that is to make people respect each other and for men to see women as people.
I completely agree.
So let's bring this back because it's a labour policy.
And the Labour Party, there's been a fair bit of criticism leveled at Sakir Strama and the leadership of his party about their attitudes towards women.
Let's just take a quick look at this clip, which is Sakir Starma speaking.
For the vast majority of women, this is all about biology.
And of course, they don't have a penis.
We all know that.
99.9-something percent of women, it's all biological and it's very straightforward.
I mean, you both laughed there.
99.9%.
Almost there, Keir.
Look, for the longest time, Keir Starmer has treated this whole trans issue as just a cultural thing.
I mean, Rosie Duffield has made it very clear that the leader of her party really tried to distance himself from it because he thought it was just something that was down to the culture war and he didn't want to engage with it to breathe life into something that he didn't think was a big issue.
But clearly, it is a big issue because many women in this country, as unhappy as they may be with the Tories, are generally envisaging a scenario where the Labour Party will come into government and you start to see trans rights in women's spaces go haywire and it really rolls back women's rights in that way.
And so I don't think the argument should be whether young boys should be taught how to speak to girls to reduce prosecution rates.
It's about the Labour Party actually taking women's rights seriously and stopping, you know, distracting from the real issues by saying, actually, just teach your kids in school better when that's not really a domain they should be involved in.
Keir Starmer would say that he is taking women's rights seriously because what him and the trans, the gender-critical women, they all agreed on the same thing, which is the problem that women face is violence from men.
Violence from male-bodied people.
And they're audio.
Yes, from men.
From men.
People with penises.
I'm happy to call it.
I'm happy to call it like it is.
And I think that's what Keir Starmer is saying today with this education.
The greatest threat that women face is from men.
How is that legitimate, though?
Because he can't even...
He's saying 99.9%.
He's very uncomfortable because he realises those questions.
And we can't, because he's illegitimate.
But do you think this is Keir Starmer's been, as far as I can see, trying to run away from talking about these issues that seem to get him in trouble with those clips?
Do you think he's now trying to actually take that fight to the government in the culture wars?
And do you think it'll work for him?
I think it will certainly do a lot better for him among feminists than his inability to answer the question of what a woman is.
I just think it's completely disingenuous.
I mean, the fact that yesterday he couldn't define what a woman is, now he's saying 99.9% of women don't have penises, which of course leaves the question of what happened to the 0.1% of women that apparently do have a penis.
I mean, how does he have any credibility on this issue?
But do you think this is an election-deciding issue?
Do you think voters really care about this when they're going into the ballot box?
Is the next election going to be a little bit more valuable?
No, but I think they do care about crime.
They do care about crime.
And that's what he was trying to bring it back to today by talking about violence against women and girls.
And education is part of that.
But yes, this is part of a wider remit of things he's talking about, which is to do with crime.
I think the Labour Party really should be focusing on the core issues.
I'm not saying this is not a core issue, but the reality is most people's concerns have to do with the cost of living crisis, security, immigration, all of that.
I cannot believe that with most people facing these concerns, the Labour Party's grand solution is actually let's teach boys how to speak to girls in schools.
I mean, that's quite frankly not a priority.
That's a parent's job, not the government.
SNP Emotion and Police Clashes00:10:40
Well, I mean, I think we've covered this very well, haven't we, team?
Jenny, Esther, thanks so much.
Thank both of you for joining us this evening.
Well, next tonight, Harry and Megan are caught on CelebCam at a basketball game in LA.
Was it a royally awkward night for the notoriously private couple?
We'll debate that after the break.
Welcome back.
Prince Harry and Megan Markle made a surprise appearance at a basketball game in LA last night.
The couple who now live in California are all smiles over the scene cheering on the Lakers with a celebrity camera up on the big screen.
But many royal fans have questioned why the notoriously private pair would be so comfortable appearing on television.
Well, we're joined now by Talk TV contributor Paula Roan, Adrian and Talk TV presenter Richard Tice.
Lovely to have you both with us this evening.
Let's start with that clip because, Richard, it is incredibly awkward.
Whatever you think about it, I mean, he goes in for a kiss.
She completely dodges it.
What's going on there?
Good question.
I'm actually not their greatest fan, so I've been pretty critical in the past.
But actually, I thought the whole thing, the photos, I thought it was rather sweet.
I thought they were in great form, smiling, having fun.
Actually, that's sort of what they should be doing.
In a sense, if they'd done a lot more of that, we may not be in the place we're in, frankly.
Having fun, being celebrities, you know, on the West Coast.
That's who they are.
That's what they are.
We almost want to see more of it.
Don't worry about the odd kiss or missed kiss.
Paula, is this part of, I mean, maybe I'm too cynical, but do you think this is part of a bit of a rebrand, trying to ensure that people see them as, you know, as Richard says, as celebrities, young people having a good time and not just being really critical of the royal family ahead of the coronation, of course, which is just in a couple of weeks' time.
You're right.
You are far too cynical.
I knew you were going to say that.
I knew you were going to say that.
And, you know, and it has to be said, let's take ourselves right back to the day when Harry and Megan stood in Buckingham Palace and gave the speech about, you know, having to sadly leave and move away.
This wasn't about seeking privacy.
They wanted to be able to continue to add value to the royal family in terms of doing charitable work.
And they've continued to do that.
This isn't about seeking out publicity.
And I can hear, I can hear.
They have not added any value to the royal family.
They may have added to people's bank balances, selling books and all sorts of stories.
Yes, they want to do that.
But they have not been able to do it.
Isn't it that they want privacy, except when they don't want privacy on their own terms?
And they're very good at their MPR.
But the second anyone else holds up a mirror or perhaps asks an awkward question, the shutters come down.
Absolutely not.
And this is an absolute classic example.
And can I just say that?
But why haven't they done more of that?
Can I just say, in terms of that footage, did anyone hear any booing?
Did anyone?
No, no, I didn't think so.
Perhaps if the Duchess of Sussex came to London for the coronation, there would be some booing there, I think.
They would be welcomed.
And anybody who did boo them, I think, would probably be castigated because that's just not what the great British public do in terms of celebrating and supporting the royal family.
Richard, on that point, do you think people have moved on now?
I mean, if Megan did come over for the coronation, which we know that she's not going to, I mean, chances are she probably wouldn't be booed, would she?
I don't think actually they would be booed for the reasons you've just inferred.
The British people are recognising the respect, the pomp, the ceremony.
But actually, nevertheless, I think risk reduction, they've made the right call.
And Harry's going to pop over and then disappear pretty quickly.
And Frank could go and have fun like that.
And that's, if they carried on doing more of that, then that would have been adding value.
But I'm afraid that's not.
I was going to say I could hear Piers Morgan screaming at the television.
Thankfully, Harry Carl brought it back around.
He was very pleased with that.
Trigger here.
Paula, Richard, was just talking there about the great British public and their respect for institutions.
But I want to show you a little clip because just stop oil, you know, huge protests.
They've been sitting in the road.
They've been walking slowly through the streets of London.
Just have a look at this guy.
You had absolutely no time for those protesters.
Move out of the way.
Come on, mate.
Come on.
Come on.
Richard, is that the backbone of Britain?
Is that the best in the British public there?
He is absolutely right.
There's other footage.
I thought you might say.
I'm wheeled to bits to see that.
He's doing the job that the British Bobby should be doing.
He is a good thing.
Because 1980s Highways Act.
I know I've actually read the stuff.
It says they cannot willfully obstruct the highway and the police should be moving them off the highway.
Protest peacefully, lawfully on the pavement.
Wonderful.
We can enjoy your lovely banners, but don't block the highway.
And if the police won't do the job they're supposed to do, then the great British public end up having to do it.
Oh, Paula, yeah.
Well, Richard, you would also know that, of course, you have the right to protest, and that is what these people were doing.
And what they were doing was trying to save our lives, Richard.
What do you mean save our lives?
We know endangering lives on the highway.
The statistics have told us that in 10 years' time millions annually in terms of death due to drought.
We know that in 20 years' time, we are being told about famine and what that is going to happen in terms of the movement of people.
And let's be honest, if anyone's worried about the 46,000 that made it across the channel, we are going to see far higher numbers due to what?
Due to climate change.
And fine, so if you get to net zero tomorrow, the IPCC report says how long will it take until sea level rise stops?
Is it one year?
Is it two years?
Is it five years?
What's the answer, Paula?
Well, shall I tell you what?
I'll tell you what the answer is because Professor King told us.
Shall I tell you what Professor King told us, who, of course, was the advisor for the government, he told us we had three to four years, didn't he?
So you don't need answers.
You'll be aware of 3,000 years.
This would make no difference whatsoever.
There's no climate action.
So then we don't have to.
Without getting into the net zero debate too much, we've had many, many times before.
Just on that clip, though, where do you both think the right of one person's right to protest infringes on another person's right to go about their business and earn their craft, go to work and get to work?
There's a clash there.
This is the fundamental issue with just up oil, isn't it?
There is a clash there, but shall I tell you what worries me the most?
Is that whilst our Prime Minister is surrounded by his 60-odd police protecting him from these people?
They didn't know.
They didn't attack you.
Well, would you rather they drove down the streets of motorcycle?
No, they didn't attack him.
They were fully protesting, and that's what Just Oil do say.
They are peaceful people.
No, no, they're not.
They're obstructing it.
So whilst Rishi Sunak was being cocooned by the police, what we have is a member of the public frustrated, frustrated, attacking the protesters.
It's that frustration that I'm afraid our government have let's say that you're basically saying the police are not doing their job.
If you say that the government have failed.
The police are there to manage that conflict that Harry's just referred to, and they consistently fail to uphold the law.
That's what they're there.
I'd like them disciplined for failing to uphold the law.
So Richard, what's the answer here?
Because these guys are not going to start protesting.
In fact, the coronation is a prime opportunity for them to protest.
The front page of some of the newspapers of the weekend carrying pretty worrying stories about things like rape alarms being thrown at horses to distract them on the parade.
And if they do that, they will continue to damage their reputation.
But what's the story?
We don't know where that story comes from.
We don't know where that story has come from.
But if they do that, I suspect their PR people would say that's a catastrophic mistake.
Because the great British people, we want a fantastic, wonderful coronation of pomp and ceremony that goes off faultlessly.
We don't want these grungy people interfering.
They've had their protest, but you protest lawfully on the TV.
There's nothing wrong with being grungy.
You're just grungy in our title.
I saw them yesterday with their little, their little diesel-powered lorry, and there were a bunch of about 20 or 30 grungy people.
Frankly, most of them look as though they need to go and have a bath on a market.
Well, look, let's move on because we haven't got much time left.
I want to bring you both back to politics, because this is our favourite subject, and talk about the SNP, because Nicola Surgeon has been speaking today.
She's obviously had a difficult time of it.
Her party's in an even more difficult position, Paula.
Let's just have a quick listen to what she said today.
I understand the view that some people might have that I knew this was all about to unfold and that's why I walked away.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I could not have anticipated in my worst nightmares what would have unfolded over the past few weeks.
I believe the SNP, notwithstanding the real difficulties that surround the party just now, is in good shape.
Now, Paula, there are two things about that clip.
The first is that people are saying it shows Nicola Sturgeon showing some genuine emotion.
But the second is, I mean, she's saying there, it's a real, it's a nightmare.
It's the stuff for nightmares.
I mean, her party and the new SNP leader has been left to pick up the pieces here.
Well, I mean, she's still a Scottish Member of Parliament, isn't it?
So, you know, she's still going to be having to deal with this.
You know, and in terms of what her voters are saying to her, this must be incredibly hard.
So, in terms of as an individual, in terms of what's happening with, you know, her husband, in terms of what's happening with the party, this is absolutely massive.
I have to say, the suggestion that, you know, this is the first time we're seeing her show emotion, we saw her show in real emotion when she resigned.
Well, some people said that it wasn't real emotion because she knew exactly what was about to happen and it was very well carried.
I don't think it was terror.
It could have been complete terror that she knew what was coming down the path.
But it was extraordinary in that clip.
One moment she said it's a nightmare.
And the next moment she says the SNP is in good shape.
She must be the only person in the whole of the United Kingdom that thinks the SNP is included.
What else can she say?
I mean, she's not.
Actually, this might have been one of those rare moments where she'd have been best saying not a lot.
The polls don't seem to be really shifting in Scotland, though, do they?
The SNP remain very popular.
And so the real question is: given that there are two independence parties, the extent to which if people lose confidence in the SNP, I think a true independent supporter is much more likely to go to Alex Salmons, Albert.
Nicola Sturgeon's Rare Moment00:01:35
He's the guy with the great opportunity.
Why would you then go to Labour?
That doesn't seem logical to me.
I just think in terms of who the SNP are and what the SNP are and who they mean to Scottish people, I don't think that they are concerned as you're suggesting that they should be.
I do think that they have a very strong base and that that strong base will continue.
Did you believe the crocodile tears then?
The crocodiles.
The citizens literally drowning underneath the citizens.
Those were real tears, just like the real love we saw for Harry and Megan.
Right, look, we've only got a minute left.
Richard, I want to get your thoughts on this.
Briefly, in a word, both of you, I'm going to ask you, President Biden, he's announced today he's going to stand again.
Is he too old for office?
He is, but he had no choice.
Otherwise, he would have had a lame duck presidency for the last 18, 20 months.
He had to say that, but I don't think that he will be actually on the ballot paper in November 2024.
Paula?
God.
Okay, steady yourselves, everyone.
Oh, no.
Yeah, I agree with you.
Oh, wow.
I know.
This is a moment.
I know.
Piers is not going to lie.
Someone take a night, John.
Quite a divine thing that's ever happened in the studio.
Yeah, I have to be honest with you.
I'm disappointed.
It's a shame that he didn't feel it appropriate to mention someone.
Paula, Richard, on that note, thank you so much for your thoughts.
Thank you for joining us this evening.
And thank you for watching because that is it from us.
Piers Morgan, we hope you feel much better tomorrow.
What you're up to, whatever you're up to, all of you, make sure it is uncensored.