All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
June 29, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:45
20230629_piers-morgan-uncensored-man-city-financial-charges
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Integrity of the Competition 00:14:23
I'm Piers Morgan on Censored tonight.
Manchester City just made global headlines by winning three of the biggest trophies in football.
But was it won fairly?
The club faces more than 100 charges of financial rule breaking.
Tonight we'll air bombshell new revelations about those charges and we'll debate the Middle East takeover of sport.
Also tonight the cost of living like a king.
New figures show royal spending has rocketed.
I think they're worth every penny, but I'll debate with two royal naysayers who don't think they're worth anything.
Barcelona chef John Mountain sensationally bans vegans from his restaurant to protect, he says, his mental health.
Is this the way to deal with the vegan fun police?
He joins me live.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Whether you like it or not, many don't, many do.
The Middle East is hitting world sport like a ballistic missile.
Oil-rich states with bottomless pits of cash are spending untold wads of their desert dollars on buying up the games that we love.
They're competing furiously with each other.
They're transforming sport and they're just getting started.
Qatar plowed $220 billion into the World Cup.
Formula One is in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi.
Dubai boasts major boxing bouts that would have once been a shoe-in for Vegas or New York.
The Saudi-backed Liv Golf has just turned that sport upside down.
Now it's sensationally merging with the PGA Tour.
And next the Saudis are planning a massive swing into professional tennis.
And of course, they want the biggest sport of all, football.
The beautiful game.
Well, they're in the Premier League as owners of Newcastle United and barely a day seems to pass without another major star following Cristiano Ronaldo to the desert kingdom for eye-watering sums.
But this sporting arms race all began arguably with the UAE.
The Emiratis bought Manchester City back in 2008.
It's now become the jewel in the Middle East sporting crown.
City were a middling club, the ugly duckling of Manchester, forever in the shadows of Manchester United, but not anymore.
It's United in the shadows of City.
City has spent billions turning City into the champions of Europe.
They just beat my beloved Arsenal to the Premier League title, their seventh under Sheikh Mansoor.
It's a sore subject for us schooners, of course.
So you might think, perhaps, like I do, that there's something wrong with it.
And maybe there is.
We'll debate that later tonight.
But the key question we're asking first is, is it fair?
Was it a level playing field?
Did Manchester City actually play by the rules that have been laid down?
They've now been charged with more than 100 breaches of Premier League financial regulations.
And tonight, we're going to reveal new revelations which will uncover a little bit more about those charges.
Well, joining me now as the Times chief sports correspondent Matt Lawton to talk us through it.
Plus, talk to you for international editor Isabel Oakeshott and the former vice chairman of Arsenal, David Dean, and remotely by the Conservative MP and former chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damien Collins.
Well, thank you all for joining me.
Okay, Matt, tonight the Times is breaking a story which reveals some detail of these charges against Manchester City.
What is it and how significant is it?
It's a specific detail which is supported by documents.
It's supported by the fact that there is a new film that has obtained a UEFA report that was into City, these allegations of financial doping, if you like, at Manchester City.
And specifically, what you've got to do, if you roll back in time, City arrive, these guys arrive and they own City and they've got so much money, but there are rules that limit how much they can spend it.
So the allegations really are around the fact that whether they were using slightly underhand ways to spend the money faster, to close the gap on the Arsenals and the Manchester Uniteds quicker.
In this specific case, what we have are two payments of £15 million in 2012 and 2013, so 30 million in total by a mystery figure.
Now, UEFA looked at this person, Yabba Mohammed, and they couldn't actually identify who he was.
But what's important about this story is the fact that actually when it came to it, a lot of what UEFA looked at when they investigated Manchester City was time-barred and they had a five-year limit.
That's not the case with the Premier League.
And we're pretty certain that of the 115 charges that City are facing from the Premier League, and that's the thing, when we talk about City winning the treble two and a half weeks ago, it's hard, you have to still look at it within the context of these charges that are hanging over them.
We're pretty confident this will be one of the charges.
And this is the kind of thing, this random money.
But in simple layman's language.
Just shoving money in.
There's 30 million pounds have come in from this mystery donor who's not an official sponsor.
And who do we think he is?
Who do we think he represents?
Well, we think he's not far removed from the people that run the country.
And if that is the case, is that a clear breach of Premier League rules?
Yes, because it's not a sponsorship deal.
It's not a legitimate sponsorship deal.
The point is, when you are City in 2012, 2013, in 2023, they are now the richest club in the world, the most successful.
They attract all the sponsorship.
They attract all the money because they're winning everything.
So everyone wants to sponsor them.
But back then, even though they were going to win the title, they're winning their first title.
Back then, they're not commanding the sums they need to spend fast.
That squad that Pep Guardiola has just won the treble with cost the best part of a billion pounds to assemble.
So you've got to spend that money.
And they had to spend money fast to get into a position where they could really...
What are the repercussions?
If they're found guilty of a number of these charges, like the one that the Times is reporting tonight, if they're found guilty, what happens?
Well, the options open to the Premier League are pretty extensive, including relegating them from the Premier League.
Would they remove this recently won Premier League title?
And would that automatically go to the club that came second?
Well, unfortunately for Arsenal, the time span of the charges is 2009 to 2018.
But you could argue the whole edifice has been built on what they did in those first few years.
Absolutely.
If that was all done illegally, breaking the rules of the Premier League, it's pretty serious.
I mean, David, look, you've been at the forefront of all this, one of the Premier League's great creators.
What do you make of this?
I'm not sure how much of a smoking gun this really is in the scheme of things.
And whatever you say, Manchester City, and I'm not here to defend Manchester City, they've done a sensational job, not just for themselves, but for the Premier League.
115 charges.
Understand that, then they've still got to be proven yet, don't they?
No, but only one of them here out of 130,000 people.
Oh no, they're innocent until proven guilty.
Sure.
There's a long way to go yet.
They'll probably trundle on for the next couple of years in any case.
I cannot see them having any titles taken away from them.
I think that would be wrong in the scheme of things.
But let's see what the argument is.
We're going to come back to the, I want to come back to the wider debate about this sports washing concept.
But let me bring in Damien Collins.
So Damien, what do you make of this?
This whole situation around Citi and the sort of central charge, I guess, that these 115 charges which they're facing relating to the first few years that they were involved with this big takeover by Sheikh Mansoor, if it turns out that they really were masking and concealing vast sums of money, which has then led to them becoming the biggest club in the world, what should be done about this?
Well, there should be some sanction against them.
And I think that can't just be a fine, which will be irrelevant to Manchester City.
It has to be some sort of in-game sanction.
And I think these 115 charges aren't a trivial matter.
Sometimes when you hear people talking about this, it makes it sound like these are details for lawyers.
This is about the integrity of the competition.
If clubs are willingly breaking the rules for their own advantage to give them a competitive advantage within those sporting competitions, there have to be robust sporting sanctions.
I think it also shows there has to be proper, robust, independent financial oversight of football clubs as well.
I think too much of this takes place within the sport.
And also it's too easy for very wealthy clubs to use lawyers to frustrate investigations for years.
It needs to be much more transparent than it's been so far.
I mean, the bottom line is that no club should be state-owned, right?
But a lot of clubs are already, it looks to me, circumnavigating that.
They're sort of setting up entities which are clearly linked to states and they're getting around it that way.
Should we be tightening the loopholes on this?
Yeah, I think that's why we need to have this much discussed football regulator in the UK, where there's proper transparency of financial records.
This isn't just done within the sporting competitions themselves, but actually there's an external body that's got the right to know who are the ultimate owners of the club, where are the funds coming from, are they trading within the financial fair play rules?
Because what a lot of fans will feel is a club is bought effectively by a sovereign wealth fund, a very rich entity, billions of pounds are pumped in.
Where's that money going for?
How's it being spent?
Because it distorts the competition for everyone else if clubs are breaking the financial rules.
And what we've got to avoid, I think, is football being owned by a very small number of people who are the only people who've got the resources to buy some of these clubs and operate them in the way they're being run now.
Right.
Isabel, let's look at this in a bigger picture of sports washing, this new phrase.
I'm kind of torn on it because I think there's obviously a degree of sports washing.
Obviously, a lot of these Middle Eastern countries would like to improve their images, particularly the ones like Saudi that have got poor human rights records and so on.
And it's right they should be held accountable for the human rights abuses and so on.
But it's also true, I've seen it with my friend Cristiano Ronaldo over in Saudi, the amazing impact he's been having on football there, but also the reaction of the young Saudi football fans.
They're football nuts over there.
And we saw with the Qatar World Cup teams like Morocco and others, huge support, huge, huge interest in the region.
Why should they not be able to go around the world investing in sport that their own people absolutely love?
What is intrinsically wrong with that, even if along the way there is clearly an element of sports washing?
Well, as Damien Collins was saying there, it's about transparency, isn't it?
And I think you make a very fair point here about the actual impact that it's having back in those countries.
And I think to me, what this shows is the astonishing level of ambition that there is in the Middle East at the moment.
I mean, several countries that are plowing huge sums of money into getting involved in sport as part of a kind of whole overhaul of their international image for geopolitical reasons.
And the government here has, I think, rightly taken a very pragmatic view of that.
You know, taking Saudi Arabia as an example, we basically need them.
You know, we must.
We still have arms deals with Saudi Arabia.
40%.
We still buy 40% of our oil from Saudi Arabia.
The Qataris own half of London.
I mean, there's a lot of hypocrisy I found around the Qatar World Cup.
I mean, Matt, if you come to the way that journalists in this country have covered all this, there's a lot of like a sort of angry reaction from British journalists about sports washing and how wrong it all is.
But ultimately, if you ask city fans, you ask Newcastle fans, you ask golf fans, who are now going to see their biggest stars in the world come together for some collective competition, whatever it may be.
If you ask most sports fans about the huge injections of cash, I don't think they're as morally problematic about it as perhaps journalists here are.
I think we were right, just as you've done it just now.
I think we were right to question some of the human rights issues going into Qatar and even before the football started, particularly when they're confiscating rainbow hats off people and stuff like that, the sort of PRO goals that were happening.
But that's their culture.
You know, you can't expect to go into another country and they are consistent.
When England won the World Cup in 1966, it was actually illegal to be gay in this country.
Well, you know, how would we have felt if people had come along with rainbow flags?
Then they'd have been taken down, they'd have been arrested.
So I do think you have to...
Society evolves.
Yeah, but I do think the idea that England in particular takes any high level.
It's some kind of moral high ground.
We invaded Iraq illegally, in my opinion.
It's just my opinion.
Invaded Iraq illegally, caused mayhem in the Middle East.
And yet somehow we think we are morally pure enough to lecture the Middle East about how they should conduct themselves.
I've never bought that argument, particularly.
I think the reporting was balanced because the messaging before the World Cup was that everyone was welcome and then people were made to feel they weren't welcome.
And, you know, we interviewed gay football fans out there who didn't feel welcome.
Anyway, but wasn't that because you told them they weren't welcome?
Because what I found on the streets of Qatar, everyone was having a great time.
It was you going up to gay people saying, do you feel welcome?
Wasn't it to a large degree?
You know, I would read some of the stuff.
But anyway, look, it's...
But on sports washing generally.
Is there a line between genuine sports washing, which I'm sure they're all trying to do, wash their human rights records, improve their image, but also genuine recognition that they really do want to get involved in sport.
And actually, if the sport benefits like golf tremendously from grassroots up from vast injections of cash, do we care?
Look, I live in Manchester and I've been covering the Manchester United sales for seven months now.
The majority of Manchester United fans want the Qataris to win this battle because they just see an opportunity to be back up with the big boys in terms of spending, in terms of being able to take on what they see as a potential threat.
Well, a clear threat from Newcastle down the line, but more locally from Manchester City.
Financial Fair Play Debate 00:04:10
So they want that.
I think it is, you know, the horse has bolted.
I think they're here to stay.
I sat with representatives of the Saudis when I was in Qatar.
I sat with the Qataris.
They want the World Cup in Saudi Arabia.
They want the Olympics.
David, let me bring you in.
You've done a lot of business around the world, right?
We had a nice cup of tea in Qatar and it was an amazingly well-run World Cup.
Everyone had a great time.
I thought the best.
Graeme Soon has told me it was the best he'd been to.
But there are obviously political issues here.
You can't divorce politics and sport.
Obviously, some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, have very bad records on human rights.
And you can't ignore that in all this.
And obviously, they're trying to improve their image.
Where's the line for you?
Well, there is a balance.
Firstly, how do you stop overseas investment?
And it's been going on for years.
You take Rolls-Royce cars.
Who owns Rolls-Royce?
One of the best names in English car manufacturer.
Who owns it?
BMW.
Who owns Harrods, the state of Qatar?
Who owns Coleman's Mustard, if you like?
That's a hot subject.
You know who?
Unilever of Holland.
So you're always going to get overseas investment.
As long as you're a newspaper, Matt.
I mean, we're not making a huge fuss about the fact that the Chinese have huge stakes in our critical national infrastructure.
I mean, that's arguably much more worrying than anything that we're seeing here.
And the point you made about the Saudis wanting to get their own people involved, I've looked at their vision 2030, an incredible plan for how they're going to transform in every little way.
And it's from the big to the small.
For example, they want to raise life expectancy from 74 to 80 there.
They've got very specific plans about how much sport they want everybody to be doing every week.
I think it would behold the UK to slightly reduce our moral high ground on this.
Honestly.
There is something called financial fair play in existence.
So there is a levelling and it's meant to and it will work eventually if you put red.
But if these charges against CIDI are true, or even half of them are true, they have trampled all over.
Well, that's another story.
And as I say, that's yet to be proven.
You want to mention two quick things before we let you go.
Oh, that's very kind, yes.
If we can talk football for two minutes.
Yeah, of course.
Always talk football.
So I'm on two campaigns to do with football.
One is timekeeping, because you know how long it takes to score a goal, Matt?
Four minute, right, four-man move.
Guy scores, how long does it take?
35 seconds.
10 seconds.
So when the fourth official puts up three or four minutes, is he accurate for the last 10 seconds?
No, he's not.
I want the time lost.
I'm not talking about...
Let me say four minutes and get rid of VAR.
Which has been traveling.
I'm a great believer in VAR and I think it helps the referees.
We're all talking about the other peers.
We'll have to disagree on that one because...
Come back another time.
We'll debate.
So anyway, I'm on timekeeping.
I want to eventually see real time.
I want the fans to realise they're going to get 60 minutes of actually pure football.
I think fans will agree.
What's the other one?
That's another one.
The other one is penalty shootouts, believe it or not.
Why is it that the penalties are taken at one end, which has to be a disadvantage to the opposing team?
I want to see penalties taken at either end.
So let's take the cup final.
You have Man City taking their penalties.
You both take them at your own end or opposition end?
So at least the, no, you take it at your own, where you've got 20 or 30,000 fans.
You're depriving me of the joy of watching somebody from Tottenham taking a penalty against Arsenal and 50,000 of us booing at him.
I don't want you doing that.
How does a penalty?
How does he feel?
How are the fans at the wrong end of the pitch feel when they've got to watch it down the other end?
Well, look, I'm asking.
As always, you're an innovator.
You always have been.
That's why my club's in such a great condition, thanks to you and all you did.
So thank you again for that.
Thank you, Ben.
Matt, great story tonight.
It's going to be very interesting how this all plays out when we get more details of more of these charges.
Isabel, thank you as always for your perspective.
If you'd like to watch, and thank you to Damien as well for joining us, Damon Collins over there, I appreciate it.
If you want to watch Britain's biggest football scandal, it's available on YouTube now and it has more of this story about Manchester City.
Ron says the next year, cost of living like a king, new figures show that royal spending has rocketed.
The Monarchy Question 00:09:02
I think they're worth every penny, the royal family.
And I've invited two royal naysayers who think they're worth nothing to come and try and prove me wrong.
They'll get a little lively.
Show is nothing if not a fearless forum for fiery debate.
I have strong opinions.
And like all the world's eminent thinkers, I'm open to changing my mind.
So tonight I'm trying something a little new.
Prove me wrong.
It's the title of his new segment.
First up, is the royal family worth the money?
The annual crown report into royal finances was released today.
King Charles and Co appear to have maxed out the royal credit card.
Last year they spent £107 million, while the sovereign grant was only £86.3 million.
That means we're in the hole for around £20.7 million extra.
Big numbers, indisputably.
But in my view, the Royal Family still represents stunningly good value.
I say they're worth every penny.
We're here to debate the complete opposite, Alex O'Connell, the YouTuber and Royal Sceptic, and Graham Smith, chief executive of the UK's leading Republican movement, Republic, who's just handing me his new book, Abolish the Monarchy, Why We Should and How We Will.
So clear we're on different we're on different paths here, but the rules are simple.
You guys have until you hear this sound to prove me wrong.
I say the royals are worth every penny that this country gives them, which by the way is literally one penny per person in this country per year.
Per day.
Per day, not a year.
So it's a penny a day per person in the country.
Well it's not.
And the point, the first thing to say about this debate is that the monarchy is not a financial transaction.
So whether it makes a profit or not is neither here nor there.
The measure of whether it's a good institution and worth keeping is whether it's good constitutionally, because that's what it's there for.
Why are you so against out of interest?
Because firstly, your whole life is devoted to ending the monarchy.
Firstly, it's wrong in principle.
It's not democratic.
It stands on a completely different set of feudal values instead of the values of accountability, equality, and democratic rights and so on.
Secondly, as an institution, it is not fit for purpose.
It falls well short of the principles of public life.
I don't think it's going too far to say it's corrupt.
And constitutionally, in terms of our politics and the way power is exercised, it funnels a lot of power to the power.
What have been the four most watched events globally involving this country in the last three years?
Yeah, but that doesn't.
No, I can't.
Well, you're going to say the weddings and the jubilees.
Answer my question.
You're going to say the weddings and the jubilees.
I'm not sure that's even the case because I think UEFA had forget football.
Okay, you can't just say forget football.
National events, national events.
National events which universally show this country.
9% of this country were enthusiastic about the coronation.
15% by another poll.
So in terms of royalists, most people, people that you can genuinely call royalists is less than 15%.
See, here's the point I think, which I think both you guys are missing.
But I mean, try and convince me, Alex.
I just think when the world looked at the Platinum Jubilee, for example, when the world looked in a very different tone at the Queen's funeral, the King's coronation, you look at these events and it shows Britain, in my view, at its greatest.
The pomp, the pageantry, the ceremony, the military precision, everything worked like clockwork.
Everyone around the world who was watching this, who was watching, as a caveat, many people are not interested, I get that.
But the millions, tens of millions around the world that watched it thought better of our country.
How many things has happened in our country in the last three years involving our leaders, for example, which have brought shame and ignominy to the country?
Here, you have a chance to show us at our best.
What price do you put on it?
There's nothing about the royal family that's brought us shame, in your opinion, that you've been sort of relentlessly.
The idea that the human beings above the political as any of us.
And you say, you know, it doesn't help us to escape the various political scandals of prime ministers and presidents.
Well, does it?
I thought you were the one who's constantly banging on about Harry and Megan and how they're a disgrace to our country or whatever it is.
I don't think they're going to be able to do it.
Well, I think rather like you two, their attempts to damage the monarchy and bring it down are actually disgraceful because I happen to support the monarchy.
But that's a civil argument.
Few big events is not an argument for a constitution which is second rate.
It's not an argument for an institution that abuses public money, that abuses public office to lobby for their interests and so on.
I mean, you know, 12, was it 13 years ago, 14 years ago now, the MP's expenses scandal?
I'm sure you're one of the many commentators who are outraged by MPs spending public money on their own homes, their second homes.
Yeah.
And that was sort of hundreds of pounds, thousands of pounds, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds.
The royals spend millions, tens of millions.
But you know my view of that?
My view of that is if you're going to have a monarchy and a royal family, and they're performing over a thousand duties a year, which is not a lot.
Well, they're actually getting lots of charities and there's a lot of help for people.
Well, they couldn't do it as private citizens.
Well, they could, but they wouldn't have the same impact.
Okay, but here's my point.
Here's my point.
If you're going to have them, you should give them all the trappings.
Wow.
Because otherwise they're not a royal family.
I'm not a monarchy.
Where's the logic?
The logic is, if you want people to buy into the magic of a monarchy and royal family, you've got to give them the tools to be magical.
It's not magic, it's corruption.
What would you have them in?
A little Tesla?
Maybe a suit.
That'd be fine.
We could start by getting rid of these ridiculous garments.
We spent most of the time that we've known Charles, dressed like me.
And so to see him for the first time.
You're the king dressed like me.
No offense.
Well, he'd probably put on a tie.
He'd look more like you, I suppose.
Yes.
To see him suddenly put on these robes would be like watching Rishi Sunak or someone suddenly put it on the rude cross.
It gives us something so few other countries in the world have.
Nobody can take it seriously.
And you may not like it.
Nobody can take it seriously.
But many around the world love it.
If you go to the Caribbean, if you go to America, you go to Canada, you go to India, you go anywhere in the world.
Australia.
And they bring in so much money from tourism.
Well, that's not true.
It is true.
That's definitely not true.
It is true.
It's definitely not true.
Now, the thing is, there is no evidence.
I've sat down with the CEO and chair of Visited Britain about a decade ago, and I said, there's no evidence that if we got rid of the monarchy, tourism would go down.
And they said, yes, you absolutely do.
You don't think the royal family brings in any money for tourism?
No evidence that that tourism money wouldn't come in anyway.
I mean, if you just look at the money that came in in the weeks leading up to these big events that we've had over the last four years, huge amounts of money.
If you look at the visiting numbers, American tourists pour in Australian tourists.
Visiting tourists go down when these things happen.
If you look at the visitor numbers, they go down when these people are.
People fare away from these kinds of things.
And if I may say, Cheshire Zoo is a bigger tourist attraction in the UK than Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.
I wouldn't be in favour of a state-funded ceremonial opening.
When was the last time people around the world on television?
Watch the birth of a penguin at Chester Zoo.
I certainly would not be in its owners or its directors or indeed the sort of sometimes sinister and yet still to be pitied animals that are kept within its cages given any kind of political confidence.
When we beam the lives of the inmates of Chester Zoo, the women's tourists are not a justification for political office.
Where the thing that the tourists are spending money on is not the way to decide.
What about William's campaign at the moment to end homelessness?
Yeah, fantastic.
Funded by what?
Funded by us.
And what's this, like 3 million?
3 million pounds.
You say you don't like his campaign against homelessness?
I think it's formative.
What have you got against the homeless?
It's nothing he couldn't do as a private citizen.
We give him £22 million.
What do you have against the homeless?
What is this?
We give him £22 million.
We could spend that on.
You don't want him to help us.
That's the most ludicrous thing you've said on this show, and that says a lot.
The bar is low, I agree.
To say that this is something that requires royalty, to say this is something that requires he has some kind of political office, that he's going to inherit the head of statehood, that he's going to become the head of state in this country.
That's got anything to do with his ability.
If you get £3 million to charity, I'd like to talk with you guys, right?
You argue a case with great passion, but in the end, it's just a negative anti-argument.
No, it's not.
That's what you are.
Not at all.
A pair of you wake up every day and you think, how do I end this thing I hate?
Why don't you just ignore it?
It's a bit like vegan.
See what it is.
We're having a vegan debate in a minute.
It's a bit like Vegans who run into steakhouses screaming abuse about don't like me in a little restaurant in the corner.
It's a bit like, leave me to eat my steak.
It's actually a bit like say, getting up in the morning saying I want to end homelessness because I hate it, I want to end the monarchy because it is a bad thing.
It's bad for Britain, it's bad for our government, it's not bad for Britain, it's bad for our government.
And also, two out of the three times it's purely ceremonial.
When it comes to two out of the three times that i've ever spoken about the subject because you've invited me to, those are two of the three times that i've ever spoken about the subject in public.
Yeah, it's because you've invited me to.
So I don't think it's me who's banging on about this.
It's not me who's waking up every day, just desperate to see.
Veganism and Avocados 00:13:41
Every time you call we call you your answering machine says, if that's peers, i'll do it, so don't blame me.
Uh, the clax is gone.
The big question, have you?
I think we know where this is going beyond the first one, but have you proven me wrong?
No yes, we convinced you is another question.
You haven't.
The thing is read my book and then come back to me.
I will read your book, but i've got a pretty good idea what's in it because it's got Owen Jones quoted on the front saying a crucial, riveting polemic.
And what Owen Jones knows about crucial, riveting polemics can be written on a postage stamp which has the king, which has the king of the United Kingdom's head on it, by the way, not Owing Jones's.
Uh gentlemen, and God save him.
A good quote.
Nobody else is coming to in this country.
Yes, they will.
It's a lot more raw fans than you think.
Uh gentlemen, good to see you, thank you.
Your campaign will fail, but it will fail with passion and I admire that.
I'll bet you a tanner okay, is that 10 pounds with king Charles's picture on it?
Yes, it is uncensored.
Next, so many.
Chef John Mountain sensationally bans vegans from his restaurant.
He says this to protect his mental health.
He joins me next live.
Welcome back to Peersborg.
Uncensored veganism the art of eschewing all pleasure in life is one of the 21st century's most bizarre trends from where I look at it.
But there are green, plant-based shoots of recovery.
The new fashion is for high-profile vegans, including Explorer Bay Grills, revealing they're detransitioning back to healthy, meaty diets and so many chefs like John Mountain, who runs Fire restaurant in Perth Australia, is also leading the fight back.
He's made global headlines this week after announcing, sadly, all vegans are banned from fire for mental health reasons.
We thank you for your understanding.
Many didn't understand.
He's been flooded with fake bookings and hostile reviews, but i'm joined now by the vegan ban himself, John Mountain and, here in the studio, animal rights activist Joey Carbstrong.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Okay, John Mountain, why did you ban vegans from your restaurant?
Uh, morning peers.
Uh, I banned them from my restaurant because look, i've been a chef for nearly 30 years, but on this particular incident, it was just too much.
You know, they grouped together, which you know.
I'm very proud of the vegans for all sticking together, but they did.
They grouped and bandied together, and then started hammering my business with one-star reviews.
I saw my rating drop from a sensible 4.2 down to 2.8.
They they nearly broke me.
God bless the vegans, though.
What was the incident that provoked all this?
The problem that happened was a girl had uh emailed me three weeks before uh requesting a vegan selection, and I said, well look, rather than saying that, what is it that you like, tell me what you like.
And she said, well, you know, I like gnocchi and risotto.
I thought okay, no problem, we change our menu every day peers, so it's not an issue.
The problem was, on the day that she did turn up I, I couldn't do it.
I I let her down and it was a justifiable complaint and she went nuts, Yeah, slightly nuts.
I mean, my thing about vegans is they tend to be, I don't know, they seem to me permanently hangry.
Like the lack of meat in their diet makes them very intolerant of people and they get very agitated.
And if you don't sign up to all things vegan in the way that they want you to, all hell breaks loose.
I think that seems to be the issue, Piers, to be honest.
I think they're just missing a really good burger or a glass of milk, you know, or both.
You know, they need to sleep more, be a bit more healthy.
Although, you know, the vegan diet allegedly is healthy, just not for everybody else, you know.
I think each to their own fear is one of the things.
Okay, well, okay, let's come to Joey.
So Joey Bear Grills, who I know well, said he's embarrassed he used to promote veganism.
He now eats a diet of red meat, blood, bone marrow, as well as salted butter, eggs, fruit, and honey.
He says he's ever felt better.
Talking about his transition to a vegan diet, he said, I was vegan quite a few years ago.
In fact, I wrote a vegan cookbook.
I now feel a bit embarrassed about that because I promoted, I thought that was good for the environment.
I thought it was good for my health.
And through time and experience and knowledge and study, I realized I was wrong on both.
He's embarrassed that he promoted a plant-based diet when he drinks urine and bile out of a camel's stomach.
Urine's quite healthy though.
It's healthy.
Would you drink urine?
Would you rather drink urine?
Absolutely if I had to.
Yeah, but he's embarrassed that he now that he promoted a vegan diet and he's not embarrassed of his behavior on TV and he thinks that eating the bodies of animals.
Why are vegans so angry?
Well, he made a statement saying the vegans are hangry and angry, but he carried on and banned all vegans from his restaurant because of one simple complaint.
He's allowed to.
Yeah, he's allowed to ban a whole group of people from his family.
He's a chef who's just sick of tailoring to vegan people who want to have all this stuff and get angry about meat.
Listen, listen, listen, wait a second.
He got a two-star review when he was on Great British Menu, right?
He'd ripped off his mic, smashed up the studio and said that he wanted to kill the guy for giving him a two-star review of a fish dish that he made.
He didn't ban all fish eaters from his restaurant.
I know, you were banned all fish eaters.
Joey, Joey.
Joey, Joey, listen.
We're going to get personal.
You were a gang member, so don't take the high moral graduate about smashing something up.
I'm completely honest about it.
There's been documentaries made by the people.
Don't take the high moral gret about him losing your temper.
You were literally in a gang.
I was 10 years ago, 10 years sober now.
You're going to use the titanium.
I'm just saying, if you're going to get personal with it.
But anyways, I don't walk around with dead baby pigs facing them like that.
Like, does that look like someone who really gives a damn about animals?
And that's his profile picture.
Looking at a dead pig.
In Australia, one second, I just want to say in Australia, pigs are killed in gas chambers, okay?
They cause pigs, they're horrible.
Have you seen footage from inside a gas chamber?
I recently exposed one in the UK.
They scream to death and beg for mercy.
In Perth, there's a gas chamber called Lindley Valley Pork, right?
And this guy serves pork at his restaurant.
And why would you be more upset of a little complaint as a chef than pigs being murdered in the middle of the day?
Okay, let me ask you the question that I asked a vegan activist the other day, which is that given that 80% or 90% of the world's almonds come from California, where they're made involving the demolition of billions of bees who get murdered, how do you feel about the little beans?
They don't get murdered.
And that's completely false.
And I don't know where they are.
How many billions of bees die in the pollination?
I've got the 2022 data right here.
They die mostly from parasites and pests.
66% die of varroa mites or other pests and parasites in the making of almonds and avocados.
Oh, they do.
They do.
The danger is here.
It's this year.
Do you know where I read this?
Here is data from U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Do you know where I read this?
I read it in The Guardian, the vegan Bible.
Even The Guardian admitted that you vegans who eat avocados and almonds.
6.7%, this is not a lot of people.
Don't care about the little guys.
We boycotted.
Billions of bees.
Where do those herds?
And you don't care.
Where do those bees come from?
Where do those bees come from?
In America, they come from all over the country.
The commercial honey industry.
That's true.
And do you boycott what a vegans boycott?
Go on.
The commercial honey industry.
Why don't you boycott almonds and avocados?
Because I don't see a reason to.
Most of the bees are dying from mites.
Do you see people?
You don't see a reason to.
Okay.
Listen.
So you don't care about the little colours.
Only 6% die from pesticides.
So it's not really a rights violation, not murdering the bees.
Joey, here's my point.
Big pig.
A big pig makes you cry.
A little bee.
You don't care.
No, listen.
You don't care about it.
There's no reason to be upset.
Sometimes pollination.
Sometimes 50%.
They die from millions.
Why aren't you angry at the mice?
Hang on, Joey.
Barrel of mice.
Sort of shout over each other.
Sometimes 50 billion bees die in six months to give you vegans.
I've literally just avocados.
That's not true.
Agricultural stuff.
That is from America.
That's true.
Read the Guardian.
Read The Guardian.
I read it in an article.
Let me anecdote, so it must be true.
Listen, Joey, how long have you been a vegan?
10 years.
Do you actually, because you seem quite agitated to me?
Like you want a bit of...
It's about nonsense about bees being murdered when they die from mice.
They are murdered.
They're murdered.
It's behaviour.
But do you think in a way you represent what I feel about vegans?
You're all quite hangry.
Are you against animal cruelty, Piers?
Yes.
Then why do you support animal cruelty when you support the meat?
You don't.
I've defended the bees for years.
Well, they're not murdered.
They die from mites.
Billions of bees are murdered so that we vegans can eat almonds and avocados.
We've got honey where they're hired from.
John, let me bring in John here.
John, look, here's my point about the vegans.
There's a lot of hypocrisy, as there is with all these debates, right?
Which is that if you want to eat almonds and avocados as a vegan, you feel virtuous, you think you're saving the planet as well.
Actually, neither of those things are true.
Billions of bees get killed to make almonds and avocados.
People can go read the proper reports about this.
And also, they fly the men around the world or they truck them around the world and they cause that it's terrible for the planet.
They truck animal products around the world.
Do you believe, John, that there's a kind of basic hypocrisy here with the vegans?
Look, I think, Piers, what I've noticed is that there's a strange correlation that they have between eating meat and death and murder, which they like to keep promoting that murderous side.
I think if they look up the definition of murder, you know, this is human versus human, and that is it.
You know, look, I'm 100% against animal cruelty.
And for him to bring up the great British menu, well, it just shows his mentality.
You know, good lad, congratulations, well done.
It's not what we're about.
I think each should be to their own and you should just enjoy your life.
You know, if they're going to argue, Piers, why are you killing animals?
But Joey, why can't you?
Why are you killing animals?
Look at this.
Joey, suppose the murdered complaint.
Supposing when the murder people...
You can't handle a simple complaint from a and this woman, she's a very nice spoke to this young woman.
She's very nice, very kind, very polite, and you can't handle a simple complaint.
Joey, let me ask you a question.
Celebrity chef.
Joey.
And it's clear.
Joey.
Even meat eaters complain about Joe, he doesn't ban all meat eaters.
Joey, if you want to be a vegan, I don't care, right?
It's entirely down to you.
If you want, they're not being slaughtered.
Billions of bees.
Everyone going to beat them.
Billions of bees are getting killed by mites.
Here's what I say.
To everyone watching this, either on the show tonight or on YouTube later, go and Google bees, U.S. Department of Agriculture staff, almonds, avocados, and you'll see the truth.
The truth.
Even The Guardian, where they all are compelled to eat lentils every day when they wear their sandals to work.
This is a gas chamber, Piers.
This is how pigs are killed and slaughtered in the UK.
This is my investigation.
Why don't you play me the sound of billions of bees being murdered?
I know that animals get killed so that I can eat pigs.
They're screaming to death.
Look at them, face them.
What do you think bees do?
Face them, they're swapping them.
What do you think bees do when you murder them?
They get killed by mites.
This is gas chamber.
Look at it.
No, no, no.
You don't want to look at it.
They get slaughtered.
You're a coward.
I know that animals get slaughtered so that I can eat animals.
Stuck this camera in this gas chamber in the UK at Pilgrim's Pride and they scream for their lives in every single animal welfare.
But here's my problem against it.
Here's my problem.
And you eat bacon and you promote it.
I love bacon.
You promote it.
I love bacon.
You say you're against animals.
I love sausages.
I love it all.
I love eating meat.
You love animal cruelty.
Yeah, I'm prepared to admit I love eating meat.
You're not prepared to denounce avocado and almonds.
Because you're making up.
They don't get to beat it.
Because they actually lead to the extermination of bees.
Final word to John.
John, is there anything that would persuade your mind to let vegans in?
Because obviously he'd be a fantastic guest in your restaurant.
It's just discrimination, isn't it?
Thank you, Piers.
Discriminating against the whole group of people.
Just absolutely childish behaviour, discriminating against the whole group of people because of one little silly complaint.
Go ahead.
Joey, what was it?
Joey, when was the last time you laughed?
Last time I laughed.
When I heard you say that all bees are slaughtered because of avocados.
It's an absolute abject liar.
It's an absolute fact.
Facts don't care about your feelings, Piers.
Deniable.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Yeah, John, final word to you.
Final word is: how many vegans does it take to change a light bulb?
Go on.
None.
We'll wait for the punchline.
What's the punchline?
None what?
Go have a cry made as a colour.
I would prefer to stay in the dark.
Go have a cry.
The other one I like is how do you know when someone's vegan?
Don't worry.
Gas chamber footage.
Don't worry.
They'll soon tell you and play pictures and stuff of people screaming.
Well, they won't play you is bees being murdered.
Joey, great to see you.
John, thank you for joining me from Perth.
I appreciate it.
Go vegan, Piers.
Unsays the next.
The Rwanda migrant plan is ruled unlawful again, and Madonna's back are home after a six-day stay in intensive care.
Peter Piers Pack returns to feast on today's events.
Welcome back to Piers' Walk on Uncensored.
Joining me now at Talk to Vec Contributors Paul LaRone, Adrian and Richard Tice.
Do you eat avocados and almonds?
Delicious.
Absolutely delicious.
You're guilty about the bees?
I do.
I do, actually.
Enough to stop eating them or not?
Yeah, absolutely.
You're giving up avocados and almonds right now.
I will give up avocados and almonds because of what you said, because without insects, we are going to die.
Without bees, we all die.
Absolutely.
I completely agree.
If the vegans keep killing bees, the planet's over.
That's why vegans are so dangerous.
Let's tell us some other stories.
Stopping Illegal Boats 00:02:17
The Rwanda plan today, Richard, ruled unlawful.
Rishi Sunak says the government will appeal this ruling to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
But the Court of Appeal judges ruled Rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a safe third country to send people.
Prime Minister says he fundamentally disagrees, but it's another massive blow.
And what he does do, he shoves it the can down the road again.
No one's getting on planes to Rwanda anytime soon.
Rishi Sunak's running out of time to deliver on this, isn't he?
Yeah, look, I mean, he has pledged to stop the boats and he's not going to stop the boats.
Yesterday, the House of Lords, they put another block in the way.
They don't want to stop the boats.
Today, you've got the Court of Appeal.
Here's the thing, though.
What they didn't do was look last week, last Tuesday, World Refugee Day.
And in Rwanda, the UNHCR's own representative said that 132,000 refugees in Rwanda were thriving with education and employment opportunities.
Okay, let's forget about what's happening in Rwanda for a second.
Let's forget what's happening even in our courts and let's deal with the figures and what practically this government is telling us.
The government is telling us that it's going to cost £169,000 to send one asylum seeker to Rwanda.
Rwanda tells us, hang on a minute, we can only take between 200 to 1,000 actually who are going to apply.
And we know that last year, 46,000.
So we don't need to talk about the Court of Appeal decision.
We don't need to talk about what's happening in Rwanda because it's never going to work.
We are being fooled into believing that they're going to stop creating a bad thing.
They don't want to stop the boats, Richard.
I agree.
The British establishment does not want to stop the boats.
The best of the people who are going to be able to do that.
We have net migration.
We're making so much profits.
You've got to stop the boats.
The kind and compassionate thing to do is to pick up and safely take back, which we're entitled to do under existing international treatment.
The best thing to do is to set up legal systems by which they can't.
1.2 million people came here legally last year.
No, no, we have net migration.
This is 606,000.
Who came here through safe and legal routes using a lawful visa system?
Not asylum seekers.
That is different.
They can't.
And that is different.
And that is what they are playing on.
They're playing on their wishes.
So what happens?
And so what happens if someone is rejected because they're an Albanian or they're an economic migrant?
Net Migration Profits 00:02:02
And they're rejected under your safe and legal.
That's different.
No, it's not.
Because they're rejected on basic.
They continue to come illegal.
Your safe and legal point is completely, it's a whatabountary.
We need a deterrent.
It's got to be strong.
It's got to be.
All right.
Given how well you're both getting on, what's been your favourite chat up line you've ever heard?
It's too long ago, Piers.
I can't remember.
Piers, I wish I could control the alphabet because I would turn you and I together.
Oh?
Oh, Paula, you naughty girl.
Apparently, Brits were polled on this, and their favourite was, is your name Wi-Fi?
Because I'm feeling a connection.
Oh, for God's sake.
Does anyone ever fall for this?
Other ones included, is your name Google?
Because you're what I've been searching for.
Are you a parking ticket?
You've got fine written all over you.
Should we get a coffee?
I like you a latte.
Oh, for God's sake.
Is it any wonder so many people are single on this country?
Some of these words didn't exist when I was dating Piers.
Unbelievable.
Quick other serious story.
This story of the RAF discriminating against white men.
Fascinating.
The RAF has been found to have unlawfully discriminated against white men in a recruitment drive aimed at boosting diversity.
72-page report ordered by the former RAF head, Air Chief Marshal, and it's come back and said, yeah, this was completely wrong.
More than 30 men were identified as having missed out on a potential £5,000 golden handshake to start cyber roles in the RAF.
What do you make of this?
This is absurd.
I mean, this is all of this drive for diversity, inclusion, and equality, which is a good thing in itself.
But when it goes completely the other way to the other end of the spectrum, actually, all of a sudden, there's other forms of discrimination.
What about the best person for the job?
Isn't that a basic sort of common sense?
I mean, and I would agree with you, but you know, we're getting on back.
But you know that that doesn't work.
That doesn't deal, that doesn't live, that's not our reality, Richard.
It's not my reality.
It's not many people of colour's reality that the best person always gets the job.
Diversity Inclusion Absurdity 00:01:08
And that is the problem.
However, of course, you have to accept that it was unlawful.
You cannot have positive discrimination.
And it's right that this decision came out.
I absolutely support that.
Because what actually the RAF should have done is consulted.
And perhaps they didn't consult in the way they should have done in terms of inclusive.
It's a tricky one because you do want to have, obviously, diversity and inclusion.
Of course you do.
And you want everyone to get a fair crack of the whip, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality, whatever it may be.
But when you see stories like this of active discrimination against white men to try and achieve this, it is fundamentally wrong.
Of course, where's the common sense in this?
Where's the sense that, yes, you want to do the right thing and give everybody an equal opportunity and then choose the best person?
I don't think that's that difficult.
And look, we're in so much better a place than we were.
Back this pain that you're feeling.
Bag this pain that you're feeling.
And the next time I come to you.
Is that your latest chat up line?
That is the best chat up line of the night.
Back this pain you're feeling, Richard Tice.
We're going to leave you there.
Great to see you.
Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
I'm off for a drink with Paula.
Export Selection