All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Aug. 21, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:49
20230821_piers-morgan-uncensored-lucy-letby-sentencing-maso
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Medical Serial Killers 00:13:52
I am Rosanna Lockwood, uncensored tonight.
A whole life term for Lucy Letby, the serial killer who murdered seven babies and then refused to face the families in court, will die behind bars.
We're going to be looking at how the system failed to catch a killer in plain sight.
And Mason Greenwood, given the boot from Manchester United, admitting making mistakes over now dropped rape allegations, which fueled a huge backlash from United fans.
Is it the right move by the club?
And ducking the debate, why is Donald Trump hiding under the covers, not willing to get on stage with his fellow Republican presidential hopefuls?
We'll go the latest.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood.
Good evening and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lock.
We're back in the chair for another week for Piers.
Now, we are going to be starting today's show talking about the despicable crimes of Lucy Lettby, Britain's so-called killer nurse, handed a whole life sentence today for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six more.
I mean terrifying, horrifying.
The words don't really do it justice today.
It's understandable why so many of us are interested in this case and why it's raised so many debates about the death penalty and her refusal to appear in court for her sentencing.
It speaks to the worst of humanity, how we deal with monsters in our societies.
Sunak, the Prime Minister, saying the government is planning to change the law to compel victims, convicts rather, to attend sentencing.
It seems unlikely Britain's going to see a return of the death penalty, even in a case like this.
But what we will interrogate on the show this evening with our experts is why people like Lucy Lettby exist and why the systems fail to stop them.
A final word as well on the public and media interest in this case.
I think it is vital that we hear the facts of cases like this and always remember the true extent of the horrors and the crimes committed by people like Lucy Lettby so we can do what we can to reduce the risk of it all happening again.
But let's not see Lettby raised up as a figure of notoriety to the extent that she's iconised as some sort of true crime killer or Halloween costume for the sick-minded.
Just as many media outlets now refuse to publish the manifestos of terrorists.
Let's do nothing to glorify the horror of this and let's insist on dignity and respect for the families of those poor defenseless souls who died at her hands.
Lucy Lettby will eventually die alone in jail where she belongs.
Well for reaction on all this, I'm joined by the former clinical director of the Maternity Investigation Programme at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, Professor James Walker.
Also joined by the criminal psychologist and podcast host of how to not raise a serial killer, Dr. Michelle Ward, and David Crampton, whose child was one of 13 children attacked by serial killer nurse, Beverly Allitt, in 1991.
Thank you all three of you for joining us this really, I mean, horrific topic.
It's captured the nation's attention today.
This whole life sentence or multiple whole life sentences.
Let's start with you, Dr. Michelle, if you wouldn't mind, because I think the question on so many people's lips when I've been talking to them about this is how, how can somebody do this?
What leads somebody like Lucy Lettby to commit the crime she did?
Yeah, you know, I think it's difficult given the vulnerability of these patients or these victims.
Really, we should think of her as a serial killer first and a nurse second.
And if you think like a serial killer, you're constantly looking for low-hanging fruit.
I hate to use that word, but if you want a lot of victims, then a vulnerable population like patients in the NICU are a perfect ground.
It's a breeding ground for a serial killer to collect a lot of bodies.
And, you know, serial killing, medical serial killers are not as rare as we think they are.
And I believe since the 70s, we've had 90 convicted medical serial killers, and half of those have been female, which is incredibly rare.
I mean, it's shocking, and that's what has stood out to a lot of people on this, that she was young, that she was female, that there is this sense that women should automatically have some sort of maternal protection instinct towards babies, but clearly not the case in cases like this.
That's right.
And if you look at a psychopath, and clearly she is, you can actually measure parts of their brain that not only are different morphologically, they're different sizes.
The amygdala in a psychopath is often shriveled.
You just don't have the ability to feel all of those parts that make us human, empathy, remorse, guilt.
So if you happen to be an anti-social psychopath and your goal is to kill people, that's what you're going to see.
Now, the fact that they are female, I think if you are a female psychopath drawn to serial killing, a medical profession might be the exact place you find yourself to get your victims.
There was one in your country, Jolly Jane Topin, very famous nurse who killed a ton of patients and she called it voluptuous delight that she would get as she watched them die.
That's absolutely hideous.
And, you know, there have been notable cases in the US, but as you say, we have our own here in the UK, one of which was Beverly Alet, the killing spree back in 1991.
David, coming to you, your son, poisoned with insulin, survived.
I mean, this case must have been very, very difficult for you the last few months watching it unfold.
Yeah, it certainly brings back some memories.
Of course, my memories are based on the fact that Paul is well, you know, married and now has a family of his own.
So I can look back on things much more dispassionately than some other poor, unfortunate parents of the victims of ALET.
In that sense, when you've seen what are being called the phalanx of the various sort of red flags that were raised at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked and the chances that were overlooked to stop her behaviour, what was that like seeing that happening in terms of preventing another Beverly Alet from happening?
Well, Beverly Ellett, there was an inquiry carried out immediately after the criminal case.
It was a closed inquiry.
The then Secretary of State for Health said it should be a closed inquiry rather than a public inquiry.
The reason for that, given for that, was it was felt that people at the inquiry would speak more freely if they were in a private setting.
Something I didn't accept at the time and argued against.
I think probably a very interesting point was that I gave evidence at the inquiry.
And one of the points I gave or asked the inquiry to consider is remove Alec from the picture for a few moments and consider if these children's unexplained collapses have been the result of some other cause, for instance, probably a hitherto unknown hospital-inquired infection.
What this actually showed in the 59-day period of these sudden and unexpected children's collapses was the inability of the system to respond to a developing crisis.
Now, sadly, that didn't appear.
That evidence did not appear in the final report as a recommendation.
There were recommendations, of course, about how people are employed, but I felt that was a very important point that was missed, and that is the ability to, for the system, the hotel, the hospital authorities, rather, to respond to a developing crisis.
Are you disappointed then with what has happened in the way that the Let B saga has played out in terms of the way things were overlooked?
Yes, although I think things were flagged, weren't they, by some of the staff in the hospital.
I think the point there really is that I think it's quite difficult, although you can weed people out with employment processes.
It would be quite difficult to stop someone with some benevolent intent.
It's about making sure that doesn't become a series of crimes and indeed deaths in both the Alet and the Letby case and harm to others.
Really useful to get your insights, David.
Thank you.
I'm going to come to the studio now and speak to our professor who joins us.
Part of sort of clinical investigations is something that you look at, the monitoring, the oversight.
We just heard from David about what happened, Burbille Allett, and the investigation and the inquiry and why there were parts he disagreed with in that.
What was the main oversight in the Let B situation that has allowed what happened to happen?
Well, I think the main problem there wasn't oversight.
I mean, the pediatricians flagged up a concern they had, but then nothing else was done.
And what's required at that point is an independent investigation to find out if there's anything valid in the concerns they had.
I mean, what David pointed out is two things.
One is that this is yet another example of something that happened before, but also not just in a situation like this, which is horrendous, where someone has purposely taken the lives of babies.
It may be other causes of baby collapses which should be flagged up as a series and investigated.
And if this had been investigated quickly and early, then some of these babies may have been saved.
Talk to us a little bit about how complex it is to identify those risk cases with babies in these very sort of difficult situations early on in life, you know, and certainly not seeking to blame many of the doctors and nurses that did raise the alarm.
Because how difficult is it to tell when a baby is really, you know, in true distress and may have been injected with something versus maybe just one that's sick?
Well, the problem is that it's difficult sometimes, but I think in this case, several of these babies were not sick and their collapse was therefore not unexpected.
So that was a red flag which was produced by the pediatricians.
The other thing is the number of them, that they normally have only had three deaths of this sort in a year, and they had three within a period of about two weeks.
So that was a flag which could have them concerned, and they did look at that.
But a cluster like that is not necessarily that unusual.
But once they get to 10 within a short period of time, then that's a major concern.
So an investigation is required, even though you don't suspect one individual, but there's something going on which is unusual and therefore should be investigated.
What about the existing management structures within the NHS strikes you as needing reform at this point based on this case?
The main problem is that the escalation went to the executive.
Now the executive are put in place as managers of the processes, but they're not necessarily skilled in investigation or understanding the risk of patient safety.
So what they should then do is respond by bringing in people who can give an independent investigation of patient safety with the relevant skills and training, because very few hospitals have that sort of level of skill within them to do it themselves.
So it's important to realize something has to be done.
There's a risk being flagged.
Let's look at this more closely.
And we often hear this, scandals in various different parts, sectors of society, you know, internal versus external investigations.
When it comes to hospitals and clinical care, what does that mean in terms of who are these external investigators that come in?
Well, the problem a lot of the time external investigators may be other clinicians which are often brought in by people who know them to look at the hospital.
And they're not necessarily the right people either because they don't have the right skills.
What we've done in the health services investigation branch is set up a program of investigations which was run by trained investigators along with clinical advisors who then looked at an overview of them.
And that's by far the best way.
The big inquiries which look into hospitals at the moment may not necessarily get to the right depth of each individual case to find out the answers and more importantly what to do to stop it happening again.
And that is what remains key here.
How do you stop it happening again?
Coming over to you, Dr. Michelle, if you wouldn't mind, you're listening in on all of that.
And that is something that would be in a lot of people's minds.
You know, we've heard here about how you sort of investigate these things, safeguarding in hospitals as well.
Can you give our viewers any reassurance about how you do stop stuff like this happening from a psychological perspective?
There are researchers who study this and they have found some patterns that algorithms can be built upon.
Often they take the night shift.
They often are in the room when the fetal demise happens or the baby dies.
And I think if you just if you look at it from those risk factors and you know as you guys were just speaking about looking at when there is some sort of change in a statistical frequency and pay attention to it a lot of times at least in the United States the hospitals just kind of quietly fire the healthcare provider don't don't raise any alarms about it and then they go on to work in another facility and they do this so that they can kind of shirk any sort of liability.
I mean you don't want people coming in and looking at your hiring practices and your training practices.
So we see that happening here but there are signs.
There's a doctor I think his name is Kin Kin who studies this and said that there are very clear patterns and the two that come to mind are they're always in the room when the baby dies because they want to see it and night shifts very popular.
So we have to kind of look.
Do we have a physician who's, or a nurse who's hopping around, has gone to lots of different hospitals, has been fired from other hospitals, and when are we seeing these changes in frequencies and the deaths as you were just speaking about?
Mason Greenwood's Future 00:13:14
Thank you, Dr. Michelle.
And just finally David, the multiple whole life sentences.
Sufficient for you in the Lucy Lettby case is?
I don't think the justices could do much more, can they?
It is a whole life sentence and she will never see the light of day again.
If I may just come back to the point about the future, I understand that the current inquiry proposed by the government is going to be a closed inquiry.
They say that's because of speed is of essence.
I would suggest that thoroughness is also very important and people being compelled to give evidence in a public arena with the facts looked at from the ALET inquiry as well as from the Letby case, would be advantageous to us all in helping to prevent such future incidences as this.
That's a very clear message to end with.
Professor James Walker, David Crampton, Dr. Michelle Ward, thank you very much for your insights tonight.
Thank you.
Uncensored next tonight, Mason Greenwood is out at Manchester United over now dropped rape allegations which fueled a huge backlash from fans.
Is this all the right move by the club?
We're going to be discussing that next.
Prime Minister, President Trump, Mr. President, First Lady, Stormy Daniels, John Peterson, welcome.
All these people protesting just don't get it.
Many of them don't.
Isn't that slightly patronising?
When you're going through the treatments, you have some tears.
God, I'm such a softy.
I've never before been monkey.
Come on, Brian.
And it's something that really hurt me because they doubt of my word.
A woman is me.
A woman is somebody whose breaths hang down to her stomach.
Thought the marginalized were supposed to have the voice.
I've been a terrible liar.
La la la.
You're being a Karen.
Piss Morgan on Sanford.
From kiss condoms to kiss caskets.
We'll get you coming and we'll get you going.
I think it's only rule for one king.
Well, there is that reminder that you can vote for Piers Morgan uncensored in the National Television Awards by going online and having your say at nationaltvawards.com or by scanning this code on your screen right now.
Hold your phone up to it, like you're taking a photo.
He is up for best gong for the best TV interview.
We all know he would love to add that trophy to his collection, wouldn't he?
Piers he does love a trophy.
So do get voting for him on that.
Very deserving, as you saw from all those clips there.
Now, on to our next story of the evening.
And I'm afraid to say it's certainly not upbeaten anyway, but we're going to have an interesting discussion about this.
Manchester United.
Mason Greenwood, that player, they've agreed to part ways following an internal investigation by the club.
Let's remind you what happened.
The now 22-year-old was arrested and charged for attempted rape and assault in January last year.
The striker later had the charges against him dropped after a key witness withdrew their support and new material came to light.
United, who launched their own investigation, said today that their inquiries have now ended.
United spokesperson saying all those involved, including Mason, recognise the difficulties with him recommencing his career at Manchester United.
It has therefore been mutually agreed that it would be most appropriate for him to do so away from Old Trafford.
And we will now work with Mason to achieve that outcome.
That was the statement from the club.
I am joined now to discuss more of this by Professor Ellis Cashmore, academic and author of the book Studying Football, and by the UK's first female FIFA licensed football agent, Rachel Anderson, the two of you.
Great to have you to speak about this.
Hello, good evening.
And, you know, I'd like to make clear that obviously the allegations at the heart of this are sensitive.
They involve young people, not here to make a moral judgment against either party.
Those were the facts of what's happened that we just reminded people of.
The allegations and then the fact that they were dropped and the negotiations that have happened since then.
And Greenwood hasn't been playing.
We've been wondering what's going to happen to him.
What is interesting to talk to you both about is the fact that the club at this point has had to almost step in and play judge and jury about what to do with Mason Greenwood's future, whether to keep him on or not.
I will come to you first, Rachel, and just ask you very simply: have they made the right call here?
They've made the right call for Man United for sure.
Well, they have an asset that they would like to get some of their money back for, and he's a very valuable asset.
I mean, he's a great player, there's no denying that.
But he just wouldn't be able to play here, that's for sure.
So they need to try and loan him out and try and get some money for him, hopefully with a potential sale to a country where he'll be happy and everyone else will be happy.
Okay, there's a lot I want to ask you about your comments, but I also just want to get across to Professor Ellis Cashmore and get your simple answer to that.
Have the club made the right decision?
No, poor decision.
Go on.
Because I think they're shaking the responsibility.
United, they're a club as such.
Think they should at least give this guy a chance to rehabilitate himself.
Everybody's capable of making a mistake, particularly in their youth.
I have.
I'm sure most of our viewers have at some point in their lives.
And so they should be given a second chance.
United are denying this guy that.
I mean, I'll come back to you, Rachel.
You were listening to that just there.
I hope you could hear what Professor Ellis Cashmore was saying.
I'll allow you to respond.
Go on.
Well, it's not Man United's job to rehabilitate somebody.
How can you, why would you need to rehabilitate somebody if they haven't done anything wrong?
I don't understand.
I think it is the football club's responsibility to rehabilitate.
Sport historically has been one of those experiences where people from all walks of life who have made mistakes, sometimes been in trouble with the law, sometimes have done prisons at time.
They go to sport and they find themselves in sport.
They find themselves some positive direction, some pursuit, and they usually can straighten them.
I shouldn't say usually, but a great many times they can straighten themselves out.
So I think football does have a sense of responsibility in that sense.
Can I just ask?
Can I just ask just quickly so that I can understand where the professor's coming from?
Do you have daughters or do you have daughters or sisters or anything?
I have no children.
You have no children.
Okay.
Because there are certain things that if a child misbehaves, then you'll give them another chance.
But when something is as serious as this, how many chances are you're saying it's serious, Rachel, but all charges have been dropped.
This is a we all know we're not silly.
We all know that occasionally.
You say you're not silly.
Legally, the man is free and clear.
He has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.
So just to jump in here, he's not been cleared from the point of view of having been tried on those allegations.
The allegations were withdrawn by a key witness.
Well, there is other differences.
Other material.
Okay, go on.
The outcome is the same.
He is a free man.
Let's listen to Mason Greenwood's statement in full.
He said, I want to start by saying, I understand people will judge me because of what they've seen and heard on social media.
And I know people will think the worst.
I was brought up to no violence or abuse is wrong.
I did not do the things I was accused of.
However, I fully accept I made mistakes.
I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post.
I'm learning to understand my responsibilities.
He said a good example as a professional footballer.
Then he goes on to talk about the decision made with the club.
Like I said, really complex set of allegations here, very complicated.
We have to reiterate the charges were withdrawn, dropped.
There have been upshot of this, Rosanna, is that this guy is not going to find another club, certainly not in England, probably not in Europe, nor even in Saudi.
The guy has been put out to dry and may no longer have any kind of professional career ahead of him.
Go ahead, Rachel, because you brought up in your first answer that he would find it hard to find work in this country, but you think he could find work overseas?
Of course.
I mean, there's a matter of an actual fact is that most clubs will do a deal with the devil.
And it's just he is an amazing player.
And any club that gets him as a player will get a good deal.
But what about the club's sponsors?
They may not be so keen on him.
What's the club?
What's Man United supposed to do?
They're just supposed to let him sit on the sidelines.
You have no idea.
You have no idea.
Rachel, for all we know.
How difficult that would be, how difficult that would be for the player to never play.
All his life, short as it is, he has Very skilled and he will want to play.
Whether it's at Man United or whether it's another club, he will want to play.
I know he'll want to play, but how many clubs are willing to take the risk?
Let's also talk about the reason why, one of the key reasons, likely why they couldn't retain him, which was fans.
There have been women fans outside the club who've been protesting outside and saying they want Manu to take this seriously.
As they will at every other club he attempts to go to.
And there have been a differentiation, some are saying, between the match day fans and what they're saying in the stadium and then versus the online fans who are probably quicker to make judgment because obviously we know being behind a keyboard allows you to say things a lot more quickly.
So in terms of the pressure that the club is facing, how has that influenced things, Rachel?
Well, they have an industry that they have to protect it.
You know, they have their sponsors, etc.
And the sponsors are a factor in the mix.
Sorry?
Go on, Ellis.
Sorry.
No, the sponsors are a factor in the mix, you reckon that.
No, I've always reckoned that sponsors are in the mix.
I didn't say they weren't.
Maybe Adidas had something to say.
I just think that the fact that you're saying that Man United should keep him to rehabilitate him.
I've never heard anything so ridiculous, to be honest.
Professor, I also want to...
Let me just remind Rachel, and I think she may recall the Eric Canton incident.
I mean, it was a long time ago, 27 years or what, whatever.
This is a guy that was convicted and sentenced to jail time.
He didn't serve it initially because he appealed it, but Manchester United stood by Cantona.
In fact, they pursued him.
They went cap in hand to ask him to come back.
Perhaps we're mixing our conceptions of rehabilitation here.
I'm not saying that.
That's totally different.
The accusation is.
Well, really, well, the difference is that he gets convicted.
That's also been a race.
Professor Ellis, the point that I know there have been previous examples of sportsmen and footballers who have broken rules and been charged and convicted even and have remained with clubs.
Is this not a sign of the times changing?
It is.
You're precisely right.
The times are changing very, and in fact, they've changed colossally since the Me Too movement gained momentum, which is a great thing, of course.
But it is symptomatic of the world in which we live that no one is prepared to stand by someone who is, in the eyes of the law, innocent, but has the stigma attached to him or her, as the case may be.
The charges were dropped, or the case didn't continue because a witness withdrew.
I would like to know what the percentage is.
And someone far cleverer than me will be able to tell me the tiny percentage of Kate rape cases or sexual assault that actually go to trial.
Because invariably, if it's a sexual assault against a female, it's the female that withdraws because of the pressure and the terrible situation.
I mean, there are thousands of rapes, unfortunately, every year, of which a tiny, tiny percentage go to court, let alone get convicted.
Rachel, we do also have to clarify, of course, that the charges were withdrawn and dropped.
But hearing your point loud and clear, both of you, we have to end things there.
Really appreciate it, though.
It's been fascinating.
Slavery Reparations Debate 00:08:59
Thanks so much.
All right.
Thank you.
Well uncensored next tonight, as the ancestors of British Prime Minister William Gladstone travel to the Caribbean to apologise for their families' ties to slavery, we ask, does this open more families up to being held accountable for their relatives' history?
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Now, the family of Britain's most famous Prime Minister will travel to the Caribbean this week to apologise for the family's historical ties to slavery.
William Gladstone's father, John, was one of the largest slave owners in the British West Indies.
The visit by the ancestors of the former PM coincides with the 200th anniversary of the 1823 rebellion in Guyana.
In a joint statement, they said they believed their ancestors' actions amounted to a crime against humanity.
So is this just the tip of the iceberg for families of slave traders?
To debate this, I'm joined by my pack here in the studio, Talk TV contributor Esther Kraku, former newspaper editor Emily Sheffield and the co-founder of Momentum, James Schneider.
Thank you, all three of you.
Now, Esther, I know you're not a stranger to this conversation.
You've had it a few times on television before.
I think it's coming back around again because Gladstone is obviously such a big name in this.
They're going to Guyana.
What struck me about this is the reparations figure.
I think it's somewhere around £100,000.
It's going to be used to pay for research into the impact of slavery.
It seems like a good cause.
£100,000 seems, to me, a bit small.
I mean, obviously, there is always the question of, well, if you're going to do this, then you really need to bring back the whole value of how much the slave owners were paid off.
But there's the question of, because for me, this conversation has been in the public space for a while now.
We know the issues of where does it stop.
Africans were also trading Africans.
The Arab slave trade of Africans was the most barbaric.
There are actually more enslaved people on the planet now, as we speak, than there were at the height of the slave trade.
There are all these questions, which I'm sure they're familiar with.
For me, I think what strikes me is this is a very public kind of exercise of spit-shining their halos, right?
If you're going to do this, why do we need to know about it?
For me, it's like, you know, a homeless, giving a homeless person £10 and filming it and putting on social media to show how virtuous you are.
I have no problem with how they want to spend their money.
I would like them to give me the £100,000.
I could certainly use it.
Could you use £100,000?
That's such a mean.
That's such a meaningful thing.
An absolute attitude to have.
That's true.
They're making a public apology, which many of these countries, Guyana included, are demanding from people.
They go ahead and do it.
They do it publicly.
And you're going, oh, I just think it's shining this.
The thing is, come on.
It's so ungenerous.
It doesn't help.
What do you want them to do?
Apologise or not apologize.
Listen, that's the thing.
This is why ultimately I do not care how they choose to spend their money or how they choose to behave.
It's not about the money.
You just complained.
You said you think it's spit-shining their halo because why did they need to make it public?
Yes, why do you think calling for public apologies?
They go ahead and do it.
And you know what?
They don't just call for a public apology.
They can't win.
They also call for reparations.
You can apologise a million times, but if they don't feel like they're actually getting reparations, if you're actually trying to rectify the wrongs of the past, they're not going to stop.
They're not just asking for an apology.
They're also asking for reparations.
But that's different.
That's arguing about whether the 100,000 figure is right or not.
And we could, you know, everyone could keep arguing that has to be originally paid 14.6 billion.
If they have that money, they're going to be able to do it.
But they probably don't have that money.
So they've settled on something that maybe as a family they can afford right now.
100,000 in the middle.
It's a case of people just trying to wipe the slate clean.
Well, I shouldn't be wiping the slate clean.
It should be the beginning of something larger, I think.
The 100,000 is a symbolic amount and who knows how much money they have.
But the point is, it's important that it's public because we're talking about it.
We haven't wrestled with our colonial history.
And exactly, as Emily was saying, in the English-speaking Caribbean, they really want to have this debate.
And it's important for them to know that lots of the wealth that was gathered up here, not by the majority of people in this country, by a few very rich families, was off the backs of their ancestors.
And so they want to be having that debate.
So should my answer to that?
This is not a boundary case.
No, but it's not a problem.
This is not a boundary case.
There are loads of Irish people that would like reparations.
Are you going to be the first in line to give them some?
But that's not the point you want to do.
No, but that is the point.
Hold on.
I made several points.
I said, one, this is a public exercise and them spit shining their halo, which it is.
No one needs to know about them.
They're not more virtuous than I am.
This doesn't help anyone.
But also, if we're talking about slavery reparations, which we are, if we're talking about slavery reparations, there were loads of people that were slaves from various parts of the world.
Where does this end?
And no one wants to answer that question because they know it is ludicrous and you'll never have an end for it.
This is very obviously not a boundary case, though, right?
You've got somebody whose son became prime minister, his son spoke in parliament against abolishing the slave trade.
It was on his plantation that the Demerra slave uprising began.
He did, by the way, change it later on in his career.
I mean, he was a great, you know, he did switch.
Sure, but the money that he got, he was, I think, the third biggest recipient of compensation that...
His father was.
His father was the third biggest.
So for that family, part of the reason why they've got so much money, presumably, today, is because they got paid off for, first of all, because they did slavery and then they got paid off for it.
But you can extend that argument anywhere.
Part of the reason why we're sitting here in this very wealthy, successful country, for instance, is off the back of many people.
It's basically being enslaved in parts of China.
Do we have to do the same thing?
The reason why I'm making the point as to where this is end is because we are all, everyone sitting in this room are beneficiaries of some sort of slavery at some point, a lot of it modern and current.
Where is your shirt from?
Great, this is from...
No, because the thing is, I can make the argument about the novel.
I love your argument.
I love your argument.
I think we should take it further.
I think this should be a starting point.
No one gets the slate white theme from this.
The starting point from this should say, oh, now we really should talk about why there is such injustice between, for example, Guyana or the English Caribbean and the UK.
To rectify it by just giving them more money?
No, I would change the trade system, change global patents, change economic structures.
Those are the things that we could do long term.
And you could unite the majority of people in Britain and the majority of people in former colonized countries because the majority of people in Britain also were exploited by the ruling class in this country that also hyper-exploited the ruling class.
I'm bringing Emily back in because I think what's interesting about what we're hearing between this is also the voluntary nature of it.
It's not mandatory, like you said, Guyana, demanding, or some Caribbean countries are requesting.
But it's up to these families individually to decide whether or not they do it.
Do you think the Gladstones are doing the right thing here and do you think they're doing the right way?
I do think they're doing it the right way.
And the Trevelyans did it just before.
And I think that it is right.
I don't think they're just trying to spit shine their halo.
They're actually putting the history of their family and who they are massively in the spotlight.
They're welcome to do that.
Well, I don't know who this guy is.
I didn't know William Gladstone's relatives.
I didn't really know about the Trevelyans either.
So they're actually putting themselves massively in the spotlight.
So I don't think they're trying to halo themselves.
Well, I do think they are.
I think genuinely they're part of a movement that is huge.
And you've just touched on the point of it being a movement.
And they are quite right.
But you seem to be...
My point was just that it's good this is happening.
Well, this is why we shouldn't attack them for doing it.
To be perfectly honest.
This is the biggest manifestation of white guilt you ever see.
And, you know, for me, it's an extension of white privilege.
But I will say this.
The reason why we're having this conversation, because this is one family that we don't know, we're not friends with.
They're not our family members.
But the reason why we're having this conversation is because there are wider implications.
There's always going to be a wider societal implication.
In California, for instance, here, trying to spearhead slavery reparations, even though California was not a slave state, most of the people there are not slave descendants.
They're reparations for racial discrimination.
No, no, no, they are for adults, adult descendants of slaves.
That's the group that are demanding reparations.
And I know this, and I know this, and I know this because I have relatives that live in San Francisco who are of Ghanaian descent, who actually ironically benefited from the slave trade because their ancestors made a lot of money off of it.
But again, people want to be ahistorical whenever we talk about these things.
The point I'm making is I don't care what the Gladstones want to do.
They're one family.
They have more money than God.
Give me some, please, but do what you want with it.
But the bigger point I'm making is the wider societal implications.
If we're going to have some sort of eventually some sort of reparations tax, or they're going to look into people's bloodlines, actually you're mixed race.
So you get half, you pay half reparations and give half of it back.
It's so complicated and it's so complex.
And this is just an unnecessary exercise, yes, in Spit Shining Dear Halo.
There are a bunch of white people that feel guilty and they think they're benefiting.
You know what?
If you really want to benefit people that are former colony slaves, go to sub-Saharan Africa.
Trust me, there's a lot.
There's a plethora of charity work you can do there.
Candidates vs Trump 00:10:43
Plethora.
I never thought we'd talk about Spit Shining Halos so much for this show.
Esther, you really got everyone talking with that comment.
Esther and Emily and James, thank you very much.
Really fascinating.
Uncensored next tonight.
Is Trump running scared by not appearing at this week's Republican presidential candidate?
Or is he just confident he's got the party's full backing?
We're going to be debating that next.
Welcome back to Uncensored and to the US now.
President Joe Biden finally en route to Hawaii as we speak to inspect damage and meet with survivors of the wildfires that have ravaged Maori.
At least 114 people have died after fires broke out on the island on August 8th last week.
It's so hundreds of people are still missing while entire neighborhoods and historic landmarks have been reduced to ash.
The president is expected to touch down in the next 30 minutes or so where he's going to be meeting with federal state officials and local leaders following criticism for his response to the disaster.
For more on this, I'm joined from Hawaii by Fox News weather correspondent Robert Ray.
Robert, I know you've been all over this story the last few days.
First of all, just in case, because you know, obviously we're international here, we're broadcasting from London to various places.
If our viewers aren't totally up to speed, just give us a sense of the devastation of what happened there.
Yeah, well, good evening to you and good morning from Hawaii.
You know, as you stated, President Biden on his way, expected to land shortly where he'll take an aerial tour and then hit the ground into the town of Lahaina.
12,000 people used to live there.
That town is gone.
And the death toll continues to rise well over 100 and 800 people, we were told by officials, that are unaccounted for.
And I can tell you, you know, here we sit here about two weeks after this wildfire, and there are over 1,000 federal personnel on the ground, everywhere from the FBI to the ATF to the DEA, still searching for any human remains in that charred town.
DNA swabs have to be taken by relatives of the unaccounted for.
And so this is a process that continues to unfold.
And meanwhile, lawsuits are beginning.
There are individuals that survived that have lost everything that are now suing the utility and electrical power companies here, claiming that, you know, the fact that the power lines fell down during those heavy winds, 70 to 80 miles per hour during those gusts from the remnants of Hurricane Dora, and that spread the fire, caused all that.
So the lawsuits are coming, and I've talked to attorneys about that.
I've also talked to federal sources telling me that on the ground here, you know, there is some confusion as to how they're going to maintain all of these human remains and try to get an accurate count for the dead.
They're flying more coroners in from the mainland U.S. to go through this process to try and identify what's left.
Not to be too graphic, but in some cases, it is just dust or particles of human beings.
And so Joe Biden and the first lady today will meet with officials.
They will tour.
I can tell you, everyone I've talked to here, I'd say 90% of the people have no interest in having the president on the ground here at all.
They don't want politics involved in this.
They want action.
They want more funds to be given to them.
At this point, $700 by FEMA has been given to those who are displaced.
And people think that they need more, obviously.
And there are some people that have applied for that money and have been rejected, even though they've lost everything.
So, you know, the Hawaiian Islands here, Maui specifically is where we're at, out 2,500 miles in the Pacific Ocean, just reeling right now as the president of the United States about to show up.
Is that going to do any good, according to the people here?
No.
Wow.
Robert, you really painted the picture there, the devastation, what the people want and what this visit means or doesn't mean to them.
Robert Ray, Fox Weather Reporter, thanks so much.
Well, let's stay in the U.S. now.
Donald Trump has confirmed he's not going to take part in the upcoming Republican presidential debate.
That is scheduled for Wednesday.
In a post on his very own Truth Social platform, yesterday, former President Trump confirming he won't be attending because of his legendary numbers in the polls.
But Trump is facing backlash from other candidates, including the DeSantis campaign, who said he should show up and earn his nomination.
His former friend and Republican candidate Chris Christie also had this to say.
Dared to show up on stage and debate you.
And I do think, and a lot of other people agree, I do think it's specifically about you.
If he believes he should be the nominee, if he believes that he's got such a great record, if he believes he's the best person to go against Joe Biden, then show up on Wednesday night and stop being such a coward.
Well, firm words there.
Is the former President Trump popular enough then to get away with all this, or will it actually hinder his campaign?
Joining me now to talk about it is Conservative Talk Radio host Ben Ferguson and from New York, former Republican member, the House of Representatives John LeBoutivier.
Thanks, gentlemen, very much for joining us to give our viewers a sense of this.
I was talking to producers earlier and we're sort of pontificating.
Is this, you know, a brilliant 4D chess move from Trump thinking ahead as ever, putting himself outside of the debate, doing his own thing and mark himself out as different?
Or is he just being a coward, John?
I think it's half afraid of eight or nine other candidates standing there for two hours hitting on him the whole night and attacking him.
I think that's part of it.
And the other half is I think his lawyers are begging him to shut up and not go public on these debates and press conferences.
And he's going to end up talking about the case and hurt himself.
So I think he's sort of torn.
He loves the attention, but he did listen.
Today he was supposed to hold a press conference in Dead Minister about Georgia.
He listened to the lawyers and canceled it.
I'm pretty sure they're leaning on him not to do this debate.
Yeah, let's remind ourselves that he actually said last week he was going to release this report about the Georgia 2020 votes.
And he said rather than releasing that report, as he had promised to do so, he said he's been listening to his lawyers, would prefer to put this in formal legal filings.
Ben, is he finally listening to his lawyers?
I think he's listening to them on this issue in Georgia and not having the press conference.
But I don't believe that the lawyers had anything to do with the decision of him not to show up for the debate.
Traditional, it's not a brilliant move.
It's just a traditional political move.
All over the country, if you are so far ahead of everyone else in a poll, there's nothing good that comes from you debating.
There's no reason to do that, to waste your time or to take the risk.
I mean, you look at the CBS poll, which is not a place that loves Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, the poll that came out today, he's at 62%.
DeSantis is at 16.
Vivek's at seven.
Pence at five.
And the guy that called him a coward, which really made me laugh, Chris Christie, Chris Christie is at 2% in the poll.
So I mean, no one wants to hear from Chris Christie during this debate on Wednesday night.
And I think Donald Trump is actually being smart like so many other candidates that are running for office in the country.
They understand that when you have this big of a lead, every other candidate, if you add their entire combined polling numbers, they're still 10 points outside of Donald Trump at minimum in all polls that are out there right now nationwide.
Some of them, he's still ahead by 20 points.
So if I'm advising Donald Trump or any candidate that's in this situation, I'd say, why the hell would you go to a debate?
You clearly are the person they want.
Stick with what you're doing now and don't change it.
John, coming to you then, for the rest of the contenders, if they're sort of led mud wrestling amongst themselves, if we could say that, and Trump's over there doing his own thing, what is going to mark one of them out as different?
We've got Ron DeSantis at 16%.
There's people trailing behind Avive Ravaswamy at 7%.
What is going to win over this Republican nomination in that group that could really seriously contend Trump?
But it's such a long way to make up.
Well, it's a great question.
It's the second time, 2016 being the first time you have a multi-candidate field against Trump.
None of the other candidates can figure out how to even get to be one-on-one with Trump.
And how do you clear all the other ones out?
Because there is, you know, it's roughly 50% in Iowa that is open to a different candidate than Trump.
But they're all divided up among these other 10 or 11 people.
So I suppose if you're advising these candidates on Wednesday night, someone needs to come up with something that's so brand new and different.
A la what Trump did in 2015.
Be different and shockingly so, where everybody goes, hey, I didn't realize this guy or this gal is fantastic.
I ought to take another look at him or her.
Now, having said that, I don't think it's going to happen.
I've seen enough of all these people.
They're actually running.
Most of them, Nikki Haley, Scott, they're running to be Trump's running mate.
They're not running against Trump.
Ben, is it in the spirit, we've not got much time, but of the Grand Old Party to just not take part in the debate?
Absolutely.
If you are a former president of the United States of America and you're polling at 60 plus percent and double digits ahead of the entire field with all of their poll numbers combined, then you go run your campaign the way you want to.
You're clearly the favorite at this point.
And look, he's also, by the way, not afraid to talk.
He's doing a huge interview at the exact same time.
And what I'm going to predict it, I bet you that interview gets more views than the number of people that watch the Republican debate because more people care about what Trump says than any of these people on stage.
And if the biggest problem they could have on stage is this.
Fresh out of time, guys.
So sorry, John and Ben got a go.
That is it from us.
Whatever you're up to tonight, make sure it's uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection