All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 19, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:51
20230719_piers-morgan-uncensored-female-footballers-equal-p
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Tyranny of Pronoun Police 00:06:21
I'm Piers Morgan, uncensored tonight.
Female footballers make fresh demands for equal pay ahead of the Women's World Cup.
Is it time for sport to pay its female talent fairly?
Or do men still earn their advantage?
We'll have that thorny debate.
Also tonight, former President Trump faces a third criminal indictment, this time over the January 6th riots.
Governor Asa Hutchinson, one of his rivals as Republican candidate to be president, demands that Trump now suspends his campaign and joins me live.
Thus, a controversial barge for housing refugees is docked in Britain as officials order children's murals to be scrubbed from the walls of a detention centre.
The UK has to solve this migrant crisis, but aren't we forgetting our humanity?
We'll debate.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Many of the stereotypes about millennials are almost as lazy as some of them are.
They like avocados on toes.
They take photos of avocados on toes.
Bad tattoos, skinny jeans, dating apps, cat, you get the picture.
And censorship, of course.
Like a lot of stereotypes, they begin life with a kernel of truth.
A major survey in the US found that a plurality of people aged 25 to 34 now think using the wrong pronouns should be a criminal offence.
Almost half of them think you should be prosecuted for saying he instead of she, if that he is becoming a she, or if he or she just wants to be they or thinks they should be a she, he, they, or something like a cat.
You could be forgiven for being as confused about this as some of them are.
And that's the point.
Most decent people have no real problem with referring to trans people by their chosen gender.
I try and do it myself.
Everything else is just polite and good manners.
But most decent people also find all this completely baffling.
Stop someone in the streets of Barnsley or Baltimore and ask them for their personal preferred pronouns.
They'll ask you what the hell you're talking about.
Look what happened when CNN, the very paragons of virtue signaling, analyzed the disastrous impact that trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who until last year identified as a gay man, had on sales of Bud Light.
They don't like the way Dylvin Mulvaney was treated after this whole controversy started.
He coerces the transgender person they were going to sponsor and go along with with Bud Light.
They didn't like how Bud Light didn't stand by him.
Him?
Oh dear.
Well he was a him last year, but not anymore.
And the next day, CNN, where I used to work for the fine people, all very well-intentioned, had to issue a grovelling apology.
Before we wrap up today, we do want to make an important note.
Yesterday in a segment about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who was featured in Bud Light's recent campaign, she was mistakenly referred to by the wrong pronoun.
And CNN aims to honour individuals' ways of identifying themselves and we apologize for that error.
Tut, tut, tut.
I mean, really, execution is too good for them.
But you see, that's how difficult it all is, isn't it?
Should CNN journalists now be jailed for that obvious hate crime?
And criminal offense or not, the tyranny of the pronoun police is all around us.
Misgendering can get you kicked off YouTube, which for some people has removed their main source of income.
It briefly led to the What is a Woman documentary by Matt Walsh being banned on Twitter.
And Oxford College just warned it will expel students for misgendering each other.
The UK government's long-waiting guidance for schools on trans pupils has today been delayed, reportedly because of legal wrangling over whether teachers must use a student's preferred pronouns.
Many businesses now require their staff to wear pronoun badges or sign off their emails with their pronouns.
And if you accept all of that, criminalisation probably looks like the logical next step.
Yeah, sling the miscreants in prison.
Now, in my view, what should actually be illegal, if you're going to get into gender criminality, might be the idea of biological men destroying women born with biological female bodies in women's sport.
That's a bit of a crime to me.
Or biological men demanding access to female changing rooms full of biological females, many of them very young.
Or biological male rapists who identify as women at their trials to get into women's prisons.
Maybe that should be a crime.
And if you think that makes me a transphobe, I'd say you're the one with the phobia of common sense.
Well, joining me in the studio is socialist and author Grace Blakely and YouTube commentator Pearl Davis, both I would imagine identifying as provocateurs.
Of course.
Let's talk about this first of all.
Pearl, I just find the whole personal pronoun thing honestly absurd.
My personal pronouns on my Twitter biography are now hot, hotter, hottest.
And frankly, if people don't call me those, then they have to be jailed.
I go along with that.
But I did that to highlight that when I do that and say that, people then accuse me of being ridiculous.
I think the whole thing is ridiculous.
Why do we need personal pronouns?
We don't need personal pronouns.
I honestly, I don't think it's kind to allow people to live in delusion.
Wait, are you still in the middle of the day?
At the end of the day, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, we don't know.
We know, we all know what a man and a woman is, okay?
Just because you dress like a woman, talk like a woman, act like a woman, it does not make you a woman.
And I am so tired of us allowing these people to let us live in delusion.
It is delusional to think you are the opposite gender.
And it is not kind.
I can't even go on...
I love Flying British Airways, right?
My preferred A-line, the wonderful A-line.
And they always used to, there would also be a lovely posh voice saying, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to Britain.
And I used to felt soothing, particularly if I came from another country back to Britain.
I felt immediately at ease.
My captain was there sounding like he was, you know, from some wonderful pathy news bulletin, and he referred to us as ladies and gentlemen.
That's now been banned.
They're not allowed to say ladies and gentlemen because there might be one person on the plane who says, oh, oh, hang on.
Equality vs Revenue in Sport 00:10:02
I don't identify as a lady or a gentleman.
Well, okay, fine.
I don't care.
But I do.
So where's my right to be called a gentleman?
Here's how I feel about this.
I'm so, so bored of it all.
I'm so bored of the fact that this is the one item that's constantly coming up over and over and over again.
And you can completely see why, right?
Conservative governments have destroyed our economy.
We're in the middle of a massive climate crisis, just after the hottest week ever.
I've just come over from Europe.
It's extremely hot.
And instead of talking about that, we spend hours and hours and hours talking about pronouns, talking about going into bathrooms, talking about, you know, all of this stuff that just doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter to you.
It's so bored.
It doesn't matter to you.
But it does matter to women in sport.
It does matter to women whose young daughters might be using these dressing rooms.
It does matter to the victims of male rapists who see their attackers identify as women get into women's prisons.
Sorry, when you say they don't matter, they really do matter.
To have those issues aired in the appropriate spaces.
People in, you know, in sports, have that discussion amongst people.
But like, literally, it's about priorities, isn't it?
There are a certain number of times that we have on these shows to discuss issues that matter.
And like I said, you don't think women's...
Hang on, before we come to our...
I don't think women's sport matters as much as climate change.
I think that's what we're talking about.
Does women's equality matter?
In which we can play sport matters more than the women's.
Does women's equality matter?
I know that that could be probably absolutely.
Does women's equality matter to you?
Well, I mean, yeah, of course, but actually, I mean, the whole point that I was going to make on this segment, actually, is that, like, you cannot separate feminism from class issues.
Like, if you're just going around saying, like, I don't know, I think the female CEO of a weapons manufacturer should be paid the same as a male CEO, and that's the hill I'm going to die on.
I'm not fighting that fight with you because ultimately, like, what I care about are the struggles that ordinary women face every day.
Well, let's come to the main point of the segment, which is this issue of women's rights to be paid the same as men in sport.
Now, the Australian women's football team have criticised the pay gap in the upcoming World Cup prize money.
Let's take a look at what they said as a team.
736 footballers have the honor of representing their country on the world's biggest stage this tournament.
Yeah, many are still denied the basic right to organise and collectively bargain.
Collective bargaining has allowed us to ensure we now get the same conditions as the socceroos, with one exception.
FIFA will still only offer women one quarter as much prize money as men for the same achievement.
Well, okay, this is an interesting pearl because if you look at the revenue, for example, in 2019, FIFA generated £586 million in total revenue.
The men's for the 2019-22 cycle, 5.8 billion, record revenue through the men's World Cup.
So the women's game has come on in leaps and bounds.
The English lionesses, fantastic win, sell out crowds.
They're making a lot more money.
They're definitely way, way further now towards where the men are commercially than they were, but they're still a way off.
And when you saw at Wimbledon, for example, the men's final was watched by three times as many people, and yet they were both free to wear on the BBC.
You can watch both if you wanted to.
So there was three times as much interest in the men's game.
They play two sets more per match than the women do, and yet the women get equal pay.
I'm not quite sure why.
I don't think it's a matter of equality.
It's just a matter of fairness, isn't it?
Yeah, well, I won.
I think all of the women should thank the men for funding our leagues because most of our leagues would not exist without the men, number one.
Number two, when we have the same numbers, then we should get the same pay.
I'm sorry, I play volleyball at the highest level.
And it's like, when we make what the men make and get the crowds that the men draw, then we should get paid the same.
Well, see, why is it actually a fight for equality, Grace?
I mean, why if women in a particular sport, for example, turned out to generate more revenue, right, because they were more watchable.
And in America, the women's football team is better than the men.
And they do generate, even at school level, far more interest from girls than boys, for example.
I don't see why equality should be the aim.
Why shouldn't they get paid more than the men?
Well, look, I mean, there are all sorts of problems with the way that this market for labor, and it is basically a market for labour, works.
Like, I personally don't think that the top football players in the world should be paid as much as they do.
I think it's ridiculous the amount of people.
Exactly.
It's market forces.
Should that be the way that we decide, you know, who has to just generate what, who generates more than that?
Personally, I'm very much in favor of the fact that they came out there and said collective bargaining.
Ultimately, like the average worker in this country hasn't had a pay rise in over a decade.
How is that going to change?
I am so sorry.
That's going to change when they organise with one another.
I am so tired of women whining.
Mate, it's like a menu.
The men, literally, the men fund our leagues and we will still whine that we don't get paid enough.
And honestly, when athletes do shit like this, it makes all of us look bad because instead of being thankful for the league that we have, we go out and whine and complain about the pay.
I mean, as I said, I'm not whining.
You sound like you're maybe doing a bit of whining.
But like, personally, I don't think we should be whining.
I think people should be organizing.
If you want a pay increase, join a union, get out there and fight for it.
Should the women footballers get the same as the men?
Yeah, I think it probably makes sense.
Even if they're not making anything like the revenue.
Ultimately, like it's not going to change.
Football is lost.
It's not going to change unless they organize.
That's actually true across every sector of the world.
Let me ask you a little bit.
How much if you're on a pay rise, join a union and fight for it.
Let me ask you this, though.
They have got unions.
Let me ask you this.
On talent alone, for example, as a yardstick, the US women's football team were beaten by a group of under 15 boys from Texas, right?
Who were very good, under 15 boys, but their under 15 boys team beat them, I think, about 8, 9, 0 or something.
So why should women footballers, who are clearly nowhere near as good as their male counterparts, just technically, why should they get paid anything like as much money?
Well, I mean, you know, it sucks, doesn't it?
That like, as a woman, okay, you play volleyball.
I'm a surfer.
I absolutely love surfing.
It's very hard for women to build up a body strength.
This is something that I've learned very much the hard way.
And so surfers, by the way, there is equal pay.
Yeah, there is.
And actually, you know, it's one of those sports where Can a woman be as good as a man or not?
Well, it's different.
It's a different sport, really.
It's not, you know, it is the same sport, but it's very different watching a woman surf than it is watching a man surf because, you know, the average male body is different from the average woman, like, uh, woman's body for all these.
But is there any actual technical reason why a woman can't do with a surfboard what a man can do?
Yeah, there's, I mean, there's loads of reasons.
Like, it is about the upper body strength.
It's about like the way that the body is built.
So, should women surfers at the elite level get the same as men?
But, like, again, I think it's, it just is different.
Like, it's a different kind of game and people watch it.
I think.
Oh, you're shaking your head.
No, I just think when we start making the same amount of money as the men, then we should get paid the same as the men.
I don't hear the men whining about OnlyFans models getting paid more than them.
I don't hear the men whining about models getting paid more than them.
Kendall Jenner is the highest paid supermodel.
Where are the male super people?
But however, men dominate in an industry, women will just complain.
I mean, I don't know if that's true about OnlyFans because there are a lot of men on OnlyFans as well.
But I mean, look, the main point is...
Do you think they make the same?
I have no idea, but like if you average out the number of men and women that are on that website.
Anyway, look, the main point here, and the point that I came on here that I wanted to make was that the problem that we have in our economy at the moment is not that the average football player isn't played the same as the average man.
It is probably an injustice, and I'm glad that they're organizing and working together to fight for that.
But ultimately, the problem we have in our economy is that nobody's getting paid enough money because inflation's eroded people's wages.
Even before that, no one had a pay rise in a really long time.
And the lesson from this is, as I've said, I'm going to say it again because it's an important lesson and no one knows about them anymore because they see them as a hangover from the 1970s.
Join a union because otherwise your boss is going to win.
But there are unions for all these.
It's the unions that are fighting for them.
Exactly.
Okay, but just as a general point, though, the principle you think that women should get paid the same, even if they're not as technically as good and not producing as much revenue.
It's an objective judgment, isn't it, on whether or not they're technically as well?
Well, no, whatnot.
No, it's not.
Because people watch men and women for different reasons.
Well, let me give you an example.
An example would be the Olympics.
If you made it non-gender specific, how many women would win medals?
Well, I mean...
None.
Okay.
I mean, maybe in equestrian and maybe in shooting, I think you're the one that's where there's no sense that the men might win.
You can say, like, oh, you know, this group is better than this group.
But again, I think it's different.
Men are better than women in sports.
Yes, let's not live in this delusion.
And in most cases, I'm always in the middle of the day.
And in most cases, more people, men and women, want to watch men play sport.
Correct.
That's just a demonstrable fact.
That may change.
But my point is, if it changes, I don't see why equality should be the only ambition for the women.
If it turns out that in some sport, women get more viewers watching and therefore draw more revenue.
I'm more for them getting more money than the men.
Can you name five WNBA players, five female soccer players?
I mean, I can't name any soccer players.
I wish we had WNBA from the finals.
Get equal pay if we would just get the support from the family.
Well, let me tell you.
Let me tell you name five.
Let me tell you what the WN be really are.
Um, but I do want to mention one thing, which is I had Dale Vince on the program.
He's this uh, he's fun been funding, just stop OIL.
And also he's he was very, very keen to show his feminist credentials because he just he owns a football team and he had just hired the first female manager of a football team.
But there was a slight problem which he only made her the caretaker and I saw a potential flaw here.
Trump's Indictment and Politics 00:12:22
So let's see what went down.
When I interviewed him, you didn't think by appointing the first female caretaker, manager of a professional men's team, you would get any attention.
She's the best candidate for the job at the club.
This is what happens.
You look at within the club, you find your best coach and you say, take the team in an interim period while we do a proper recruitment process.
That's all that's happening here.
Why do you keep coming back to that?
Because she's only a caretaker of appointments.
She's only a caretaker.
Look at our record of appointments.
So if you believed in that much, you'd have made her manager.
You've got all the publicity but actually she's not got the full job and I suspect what's going to happen is you're going to go under football, you're going to probably go and find a bloke to replace her and then you're going to have to deal with that.
I, I thought you understood football piss I do.
I'm an Arsenal fan.
Well, you might be massively unsurprised to learn that 12 days later, Anna Dinkley has been removed from her job as caretaker manager and replaced by a man.
Yeah, Dale talked a good game on feminism and women's rights and boasted about it and got all the publicity and in the end he got rid of her after 12 days and put a bloke in charge.
And you can make your own view about mr Vince for doing that.
Uh, lovely to see you both.
Thank you both very much indeed uncensored next.
Former president Trump says he expects to be arrested again by a federal inquiry into U.s Capitol riots on january 6th last year.
Republican governor Asa Hutchinson, who is running as Republican candidate to be president, says that Trump must now suspend his campaign.
He joins me next live.
Welcome back to peers organized.
Former president Donald Trump says he expects to be arrested and indicted again, this time by federal inquiry into the Capitol riots and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump posted on his Truth social platform that it was a scam and a hoax.
Saying, deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden's DOJ, sent a letter stating that i'm a target of the january 6th grand jury investigation and giving me a very short four days report to the grand jury which almost always means an arrest and indictment where former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who is running against Trump for the Republican nomination, has called for him to suspend his campaign.
Saying, anyone who truly loves this country and is willing to put the country over themselves will suspend their campaign for president of the United States immediately.
It is disappointing that Donald Trump refuses to do so, and Asa Hutchinson joins me now.
Uh, welcome to you, governor.
Um, it does seem quite extraordinary, I have to say, particularly now i've come back over this side of the pond, having been in America last week.
People are incredulous here that a presidential candidate already facing serious criminal charges is now potentially about to face yet more in an attempt to thwart the result of a Democratic election and could potentially after that face another raft in relation to phone calls he made in Georgia.
How is this happening?
Well, first of all, it's not a happy day for America.
This is not a good representation of our democracy.
And how did it happen?
It happened because of Donald Trump's irresponsibility and potential criminal conduct.
I've said all along that he was morally responsible for January 6th and what happened in the attack of the Capitol.
But now Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, is through the grand jury saying he's criminally responsible as well.
That has to be tested through the courts.
But my point is that this is an incredible distraction from all the issues that we face as a nation.
It's a distraction from the campaign.
It's a distraction to Donald Trump.
And if you put your country first, then you just step aside because this is too much for the country and for him and for everyone to deal with during this critical time in our country.
And that's what, I mean, I've been a federal prosecutor.
I know what's at stake here when you've got two pending indictments and you've got another one that's coming.
This is not going to be a pretty sight for the next six months.
Here's the problem, I think, that you have certainly as a Republican candidate, but that America also has, I guess, democratically, which is that Trump, each time he gets indicted, simply goes on the attack.
And he's doing it again here before he's actually been formally indicted, but it's almost certain that he will be.
You know, he basically turns it into a political thing.
He says that it's the third indictment, and it's the arrest of Joe Biden's number one political opponent, i.e. himself, who is largely dominating him in the race for the presidency.
Well, he's way ahead in the polls.
And each time one of these things happens, Trump's popularity in the poll seems to go up, not down, which is also extraordinary.
What can you, as a Republican candidate trying to make him suspend his campaign, which I don't think he will for a moment, what can you do to stop the Trump machine from just barreling through all this, given that his own supporters, his own base, simply don't seem to care?
Well, you're right, Pierce, that he's very likely to go up in the polls, get a bump from this because of the indictment.
And there's a perception that this is politically motivated in some way.
And of course, who drives that?
That's driven by Donald Trump.
And what's happening here is that he's not talking about the facts.
He's talking about the politics of it.
And so, you know, if this is going to change voters' thinking, it's going to be over the course of time when they realize that the Republican Party can't win with Donald Trump as the nominee with all of these external pressures.
You can't attract independents.
You can't attract suburban voters.
So we're going to lose.
And so that has to be absorbed.
And then secondly, the seriousness of the allegations.
I can't speak to the January 6th because I don't know what he's going to charge.
But whenever you look at the mishandling of classified information, these are our nation's secrets.
And for a former president to use those with entertainment value, these are important facts.
And whether they're brought out in terms of the court case, I'll certainly be bringing them out in terms of the campaign because they're relevant.
What kind of commander-in-chief are we going to have?
You, as you say, were a federal prosecutor.
When you saw what was laid out in the charges, just for the documents alone, obviously the Stormy Daniels thing, I think, is a smaller affair legally.
The stolen documents.
When you read the child sheet there, how serious do you think it is and how likely is it that he could be convicted?
Well, those charges are as serious as they get in the criminal case context.
Jack Smith laid out the facts very clearly.
I recognize that there's always a different side of this as presented in court, but it doesn't get any more serious, particularly for someone who wants to be our commander-in-chief again.
There's a presumption of innocence.
It's going to be tried in court, but this is serious.
And the allegations on January 6th are serious.
Now, they're particularly serious on the body politic, the entire voting base.
The Republican Party needs to wake up and say, we can't have someone who opposes a peaceful transfer of power under our democracy.
And that's exactly what happened.
And the question that Jack Smith has got to prove: did he know that at the time he summoned everyone to the Capitol and wanted them to oppose the transfer of power, which caused them to march on the Capitol?
What did he know at that time?
Again, what I would say, though, here is the problem politically: it doesn't stop him if he's indicted multiple times from running as a candidate.
The Constitution allows that.
It doesn't stop him even if he's convicted.
Even if he's sent to prison, Donald Trump could continue to not only run as a candidate, be actually be president.
Now, it would be completely unprecedented, but most things Trumpian are.
So, how do you look?
You're currently polling at 1% yourself in the race.
He's over 50% in many of the polls.
He's so far ahead of everybody.
All these indictments seem to do, as I say, seem to help him.
They seem to pump up his numbers.
Kevin McCarthy was saying that today.
I just don't know how you can stop him winning the nomination.
And he would then think, Trump, I know him very well, in a two-horse race against Joe Biden, who looks like he's barely functioning and was still 18 months away from an election, he'd have a very good chance of winning.
Well, that's the only hope that Joe Biden would have would be that Donald Trump is on the other side, indicted, not being able to pull independent votes.
And that was what we had in 2020 when he wasn't under indictment, and he lost.
He lost that race, and a lot's happened since then.
You ask what's going to change it.
I don't know.
But I know that as a candidate who cares about this country, you don't sit on the sideline when our democracy is at stake, whenever our country's at stake.
I'm engaged in this fight.
We got six months before the Iowa caucuses, and I know that Iowa's looking at this and potentially looking for an alternative.
The other candidates were in mostly single-digits.
It's going to be who surfaces out of that and who takes on Trump straight on.
And I think you've got to do that if you're running for president in the Republican primary.
There are two clips I want to play.
One is Donald Trump, when he talked about what he could get away with because of his popularity.
And he talked about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
Let's take a look.
They say, I have the most loyal people.
Did you ever see that?
Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?
It's like incredible.
Now, he was presumably joking, but actually, he's probably right now.
It would look like he could almost certainly do what he said there, and it wouldn't move the needle at all.
Secondly, I want to play a clip.
This is of you being booed at the Turning Point Action Conference yesterday.
Let's take a look at this.
So the two things there.
One, I think he's reached that point where he can basically do what he likes and his base isn't going to, we'll just listen to his explanation and believe it.
But secondly, for you as a Conservative, a longtime Republican, who really cares about his party and his country, to get that kind of response at a conservative event, how did you feel about that?
And what does that tell you about where the party now is?
Well, on the first clip that you played, what that tells you about Donald Trump is that he's full of arrogance.
I think everybody knows that.
And whenever I think about public service, I think more about humility and serving the public versus serving your own interest.
The second clip that you played was me speaking really at a pro-Trump gathering.
And I go to that audience because I know they're not all aligned with me by any means, but I make the case of a conservative vision for America and where we need to go.
You've got to reach out to those audiences.
Thank goodness there were a lot of young people there, thousands of them, who were very interested, despite some bad leadership and behavior on the part of some of the adults in the room.
If Donald Trump is watching this, he probably is, what would you say to him?
Well, I would say step aside for the good of the country.
You're not going to be able to successfully win.
You know that, just like you knew that you lost in 2020.
So think this through.
I hope that you'll make that decision and drop out for the good of the country.
You know the problem, Aza Hutchinson, is that that's exactly what so many people told him in 2016.
I remember everyone said, you haven't got a chance, drop out.
And he just barreled on and he won the presidency.
And I'm sure part of him's thinking, if Biden's the opponent, I've got every chance.
Step Aside for the Country 00:14:54
Good point.
And that's why if you're going to win the nomination, it's got to go through Donald Trump.
We've got to take it in the debates.
We've got to take it on the campaign trail and win.
Governor, great to talk to you.
Thanks for appearing on the show.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Piers.
What on Says the next?
A barge likened to a floating prison docks in Britain.
It'll house 500 male asylum seekers.
Is it a deterrent?
Or is Britain's migrant policy becoming increasingly inhumane?
We'll debate that next.
Welcome back to Piers World Sense.
A barge which is set to accommodate 500 asylum seekers has been likened to a quasi prison and is now docked in Dorset.
The arrival of a controversial vessel comes hours after the government's illegal migration bill passed the Lords.
The Prime Minister's spokesperson has defended the use of barges to house migrants, assisting it's a cheaper alternative to accommodating them in hotels.
I'm joined now by the political journalist Ava Santine.
I'm going to talk to your presenter, Richard Seiss.
Okay, Richard, barges for asylum seekers.
When you look at it, it does look like a floating prison.
Are you comfortable with that sound?
Completely comfortable.
Let me house asylum seekers.
Because this barge has been used as an accommodation barge for 30 years.
Twice it's been used in different countries for asylum seekers.
It's been used for construction workers, for offshore wind farms.
It's been used in Shetland in Scotland for the construction workers for a gas plant.
I don't recall hearing Alex Salmond or Nicholas Sturgeon complaining back then when it was working towards their economy.
This is a sensible...
That's such a ridiculous false equivalent.
It's not a false equivalent.
It's exactly right.
It's been used by construction workers.
They were there by choice.
They're not feeling war and persecution, weren't they?
We know that many of these are economic migrants and they made the choice to come here, Ava.
So that completely sounds like this.
No, because you're standing up.
So Why is it appropriate for construction workers, but not appropriate for people who've come across the English?
Because firstly, they were there by choice.
And secondly, the reason that they were...
These people have come here by their own choice.
They could have stayed in Protestants and they've come.
They've chosen to use this barge is because it looks intimidating and it looks unappealing.
Yes, it's a lot of people.
It's been used as an accommodation barge for 30 years and no one's complaining.
I tell you what, I'm going to make an offer.
Why don't we suggest?
I'll go down to the barge.
Here's my response to you.
They've doubled the number of people on the barge to what it's normally housing.
So that's a fact that...
That's actually not true.
It's not true?
No, that's not true.
I'm told that is true.
Well, I'm told that's not true.
It's your source that it's not true.
It's been used by the people.
Have you been on the boat?
Apparently, they've doubled it for the asylum seekers.
Yes.
There's twice as many people on it.
But it was originally used as asylum seekers in the Netherlands and elsewhere with the same sort of number.
This is its maximum capacity.
You don't know that.
I do know that because I checked it up today.
I don't know.
Here's my offer.
Let's go down jointly.
Let's go and stay for a couple of nights and see what it's like.
That's a good idea.
I'll tell you what, we could love live using their good Wi-Fi.
We could come on your show.
That's a great idea.
I'm not going to go and torment people who have already been.
It's no question of tormenting.
It's about learning the facts.
These are people.
We're talking about people who flee war and persecution.
And we're talking about them as if they're just sort of objects and movables.
Okay, this isn't the problem.
They're not all legitimate asylum seekers.
We know that last year, for example, of the people that came on the boats, about a third were economic migrants from Albania.
They weren't actually from war-torn countries at all.
So that's not statistically true.
Let me speak to that for one moment.
Why isn't the Home Office employing more people to process asylum seekers?
People who come over with claims, why?
That I agree with.
At the moment, what they're doing.
They're just processing them very slow because they're incompetent and woeful.
We're agreed on that.
But we also have this issue with this hotel, for example, in West World, in Southern Earthly, the Strady Park Hotel, where apparently they've basically made a hundred staff redundant.
They're going to put the whole place taken over by asylum seekers.
And local residents have gone completely nuts about this.
And I can understand why they'd be concerned about that.
That can't be right either.
Putting them up in four-star hotels at our expense grates with people, right?
Putting them on the barge might grate with you, but you've got to do something with them until they sort out the processing center.
Then explain to me something, Piers.
All right, there's double the amount of people that should be on that barge.
Okay, hang on.
All right, well, we'll ignore that premise for a moment.
What if something breaks up?
We can test it.
You've got to let me make a point of view.
The barge's capacity is going to be increased from 222 to 500.
There are 222 rooms, and you can have it as single beds or as double beds.
But they're actually doubling the capacity for people.
And let me talk to you about what happened in Manston, all right?
What broke out in Manston?
Don't do a bit of water boutery.
Focus on the barge.
But that's not what I was doing.
It was where we were housing.
Until we sort out the processing centre, which has to be done, where are you going to put all these people?
You need to process them.
That's what you need to do.
But where are you going to put them?
Tents?
So you want tents in armoured barracks?
If you treated this like an emergency war situation and you actually process people correctly, you wouldn't have to bring in barges to house them or bring in new hotels.
How are you going to deter the people smugglers and all the people who are just trying it on as economic migrants?
How do you sift through all that and get to legitimate...
And I agree with you.
We have to be humane about asylum seekers and legitimate refugees from war-torn countries, not least from countries where we've started the wars or engaged in them if they were fought illegally like Iraq.
So you have to sell me on that.
But my issue, I think, is on behalf of everybody else who's concerned about this, is that you've got to do something about all these people coming.
Where do you physically put them?
And putting them in four-star hotels is causing a lot of social unrest.
You can't have that.
The processing isn't up to speed yet.
The barge, all right, you can say it looks like a prison camp.
It looks a bit like a cheap cruise ship.
Actually, is it that bad to put them there and process things?
And tell me why we won't put a processing center in Calais.
That was suggested by Macron years ago.
We put a processing centre there, then no one makes that dangerous trip over.
We're agreed.
I've been suggesting that for months and months and months.
But look, hear me out.
That barge, it's used for construction workers, but according to you, it's not good enough for asylum seekers.
I was down in Philanethly yesterday, and let me tell you, the good people of Philanethly, they have blocked the access to that hotel.
It's on unregistered land.
The neighbours denied the access to it.
They've got tents there.
They're staying overnight.
They're not going to let that be used.
They are saying enough of that.
No, I've got a friend of mine who lives in that area.
He says there's absolute mayhem down there because they just think it's completely wrong.
And I got a lot of sympathy.
It's the main hotel, the main conference and spa hotel for the whole of Philanethly and the surrounding.
That cannot be right, Ava.
But what I don't understand is why there is a sort of categorisation of people, why you think that people who are fleeing war and persecution are somehow not supposed to be staying in that hotel.
Somehow, for some reason, other people are not.
So you don't care about the hundred Philaneth community residents who've been made redundant.
Why are they better people?
Because they're better citizens.
Most of those people have come here illegally.
No, I don't see you out on the other British citizens.
I was down there.
They're not talking to the good residents of Philanethy who are absolutely steaming furious.
I'll tell you what the other thing people are steaming furious about.
According to a YouGov poll released today, 63% of Britons now consider Brexit to have been more of a failure than a success.
Just 12% of those R see Brexit as more of a success than failure.
That's unbelievable.
I mean, that is heading to the point where...
It's not unbelievable, Piers.
What it is, is a reflection of the fact that most people recognise that this government hasn't taken advantage of the opportunity.
If you talk to Brexiteers who voted for Brexit, they don't regret the vote.
What they're disappointed is that last year we had a net positive migration of 600,000 people.
We're now appealing for construction workers to come into the country from other countries.
Even though we've got five million people.
We have the boats continue to be out of control.
So the loudest claim of the Brexiters that somehow we will be controlling our borders is obviously complete nonsense.
Because the government have completely failed to do that.
That's what you always say.
Because I'm not in charge.
If I'm not doing it.
They've been trying everything.
But Brexit.
They haven't tried everything.
They deliberately created a low-skilled, open borders visa policy.
At what point do you accept Brexit hasn't worked?
I say that to somebody, by the way.
I voted remain, but I then stuck my neck out and said I absolutely honour the result of the referendum.
I attacked the Ramonas who didn't.
I said democracy depends on accepting the results of these votes.
But I think the argument not to have another vote, if that number of British-Pizza two and a half years, the vote was in 2016.
Yeah, but we've only let, Piers, we've only left.
That's nearly eight years ago.
Piers, don't be disingenuous.
We left in trade terms at the end of 2020.
I tell you what, if I was in charge, it would be a great success.
No, you wouldn't have to.
And frankly...
No, because you couldn't have a trading agreement with the largest trading.
We've got a trade agreement with the largest trading block.
But you can't do that.
We've just signed another one with an even bigger trading zone in Asia, the fastest growing trading zone.
It's almost like talking.
It's like there's no point in speaking because obviously you know that exporters are now facing all of this red tape.
They're fighting to get their products into Europe and they're paying extortionate fees to do it.
You know that.
What you don't know because you haven't done the research is that our trade figures, we're actually exporting more in value terms than we were at the end of 2016 or at the end of 2020.
You don't know that because you haven't done the research.
But you know what, Richard?
The truth is, that reflects my own anecdotal chats with people.
And it's not that they feel that they were betrayed or lied to or any of those things which the Ramonas love to say.
Although there's some argument, I think on both sides were disingenuous.
It's just they just feel it's not working.
And they feel that after a pandemic and a financial crisis and a war in Europe, the last thing we need is to be pouring fuel on our own wounds.
And they feel that's what we're doing.
My question is, at what point does Brexit need to work to justify not having another referendum?
What the government of the day who fought for this, as I did, but I'm not the government of the day, they've got to do, they've got to take advantage of the opportunities.
You've got to get rid of the daft regulations.
You've got to cut government waste and cut taxes for people.
And you've got to go through it.
And you've got to control your borders.
But it's not in the world.
But why did Boris Johnson, the man who led the Brexit charge, why didn't he do all this?
Very good question.
We need to ask him.
Get him in here and ask him because he hasn't done it.
The Tory government, the Tories have come together.
They won the 2019 election on the back of getting Brexit done.
And they haven't done it because they're not going to be able to do deals.
It's all done and dusted.
It was all easy.
That's turned out to be a total disaster.
You haven't heard about a total disaster, Piers.
Let's just remember the Eurozone is in recession.
So I don't know why everybody seems to think they're a massive success story like Ava.
Germany is in recession.
We're going to outspeak.
Ava, do you think we should have another referendum?
Tony Blair thinks it's too late and that basically the damage is done and to go back in is too painful.
I think it's too much question.
But I mean, obviously, I mean, clearly this isn't working.
I mean, clearly we need to have some kind of access to the market in Europe.
It's absurd.
I would just like...
Just clarify, right?
The Eurozone is in recession.
We're not.
So we're actually doing better than the...
Most analysts do say that we are in recession.
We just haven't done anything.
We might be heading towards one.
I've got a timeout.
We've run out of time.
The debate will continue until or if Brexit works.
I'm not holding my breath, Richard.
Sorry, mate.
I'm not holding my breath.
If I'm in charge.
Good to see you both.
Well, you make it in charge.
You have to get elected first.
Correct.
That's what I'm planning to do.
Well, good luck.
If you do, come back on the show.
And so next tonight, after Carl Stefanovic and the rest of the Australian media called me a big crybaby and king of the pollen whingers following the disgraceful, treacherous, unsportsmanlike behaviour we witnessed in Australians at Lord's in the Ashes earlier this month, I thought it was time to go head to head with the cocky today show host.
That's next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
I took a bold stand against the unsporting treachery of Australia's cricketers at Laws earlier this month in the Ashes.
And in turn, the Australian media took a bold stand against me.
The Australian Telegraph newspaper addressed me, Ben Stokes, Jeffrey Boycott, and Rishi Sunak as giant babies with the headline a wobbly lower lip.
Suki Pons keeps spitting the dummy.
It wasn't just the papers.
Carl Stefanovic, a TV presenter who is flatteringly for him known as the Australian Piers Morgan, said this on the big breakfast show over there.
Pierce has said that he will come on our show when England wins the series 3-2.
He's such a lightweight.
He is a lightweight.
Oh, he's pathetic, mate.
Absolutely dreaming.
I expected more action.
Oh, I can't believe it.
What a loser.
What a loser.
He didn't stop there.
He asked Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to ban me from the country.
Is it time to revoke the visas of English elites like Piers Morgan?
That would be a very harsh measure, Carl.
What it might be better to do is to allow people like Piers Morgan to come in and to come on your show and remind him of Australia's massive ashes victory.
Yeah, you've won nothing yet, Prime Minister.
We're going to win the Ashes.
And ahead of the do or die force test match at Old Trafford that starts tomorrow, I decided it was time for me to confront Mr. Stefanovic one-on-one.
Well, I'm joined now by Carl Stefanovic.
So, Carl, you've been giving it the big one for the last few weeks, but you've gone very, very quiet since we rolled you over in the last test match.
Is that nerves?
Basically, Piers, you know how it is down under.
We don't really worry about things until the very last minute.
We've been gathering the troops at the fray.
And we've been getting our little toys out of our kids' cot so that we can send them over to you.
This is one of the native boobies that you'll be sent in the next couple of days in the lead up to the test that you can throw them out of your cot with your dummies when Australia starts to pound you on day one.
We are very fired up about this, but in a very quiet way.
Obviously, we wake up like this, Pierce.
Preparation, handsome, delicious Australians.
I know that upsets you greatly.
I know that makes you cranky, but this is how we wake up in preparation for a big test, quiet and handsome.
Actually, you look as haggard, drawn, and old as I used to when I did breakfast television.
And thank God, I'm now in prime time, words you can only dream about, which is why I look, by comparison, so youthful and dynamic.
Youthful and dynamic.
Actually, I will say this.
You have looked better after that last victory.
And I know how concerned you were about it.
Australia's Gifted Test Match 00:03:11
And that's why we gifted you one test match.
I mean, can you imagine what would have happened in your country if Australia had won that one?
You would have been crying in the streets.
The GDP would have gone down.
You would have had to replace your Prime Minister, the toothpick with eyes, as we call him over here in Australia, with another Prime Minister.
There would have been absolute mayhem.
So we've gifted you to this one.
We're giving you an opportunity to get back into the series because deep down, even though you sent the worst of us to Australia decades, hundreds of years ago, we're back here for you and we still kind of like you.
You know what, Carl.
You know what, Carl?
When we sent all the convicts to Australia, I never dreamed for a moment that the people there would be still as undesirable as they were when we sent them.
But there you are.
Undesirable.
Look at this.
Who's the person you want to have lunch with whenever you come to Australia?
And you want me to pay?
Come on, Pierce.
Let me ask you this.
Let's get serious for one moment.
Obviously, your Australian team cheated with Sandpapergate.
You cheated again when Trevor Chappell bowled under arm.
You cheated again with the Bestow fiasco.
Can you give any undertakings at all on behalf of your country that in the last two test matches, you may at least try and abide by the laws and spirit of the game?
Look, I think this is why we've come to know you as the king of the winges here in Australia, and some of us do love you.
But effectively, what we've done is, having been the worst of us sent out from, the worst and the best of us sent out from your beautiful country many, many decades, hundreds of years ago, we've basically used, you get upset because we use your rules to beat you.
That's as effective as I can be this morning in my message to you.
So we will use any rules and twist them back on the old dart because that's called progress.
You guys are stuck in the 60s and the 50s and we're progressing as a nation from a fancy place.
Just to wrap this, we're going to win the next test at Old Trafford.
We're going to go to the Oval.
We're going to Bazball you to within one inch of your lives.
And then I'm going to come on your show and I'm going to do the greatest gloating segment in the history of breakfast television.
And you're going to be physically vomiting live on air as I show you the ashes and kiss them after the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
And on that bombshell, Carl Stefanovic, as you call yourself over there, Stefanovich to your friends in Europe, I will bid you farewell until we win.
All right, I'll see you soon.
And if you win this next test match, I'll come to London and we'll do it in person.
And you could buy me a massive lunch.
I'll look forward to it.
Take care, Carl.
Done.
All right.
Love you, mate.
Bye.
So I think about Australians, I do, I love them.
I love the country.
I love the culture.
But when it comes to cricket, they are utterly unbearable.
And yes, I do know this show airs on Sky News Australia.
So good evening.
Good evening, Cobbers.
But I think we're going to win.
And when we do, I'm going to see Mr. Stefanovic.
That's it for tonight.
Come on, England.
Bring back that urn.
You can do it, Captain Stokes.
Good night.
Keep it uncensored.
Export Selection