All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Aug. 30, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
45:37
20230830_piers-morgan-uncensored-prince-harry-on-netflix-ag
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Harry's New Netflix Series 00:14:49
Harry is back on Netflix with a new series which aims to put the spotlight on his military and charitable service.
But is it too late for the servicemen who said he'd let them down?
And does anybody really need more Harry content?
Calls to ban or move Nottinghill Carnival after eight stabbings, 300 arrests and shocking footage that's been seen around the world.
Defenders say racism is amplifying all of it.
Do they have a point?
Plus, an Out of This World exclusive, I'll talk to the Harvard Scientists making global headlines today after claiming alien materials have been recovered from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
We'll be Rosanna Lockwood in the chair for the penultimate night peers back next week.
Now, recollections may vary.
The late Queen famously said that of Harry and Megan's sit-down interview with Oprah Winfrey.
Not for the first time, those words are now being used to suggest that Prince Harry could be mistaking the truth for his truth.
And not for the first time, the criticism is about a Netflix documentary.
Harry's new five-part series, Heart of Invictus, premieres today and it tells the story of six competitors in the Invictus Games, the sporting contest he created for wounded servicemen and women.
In an interview for the show, he says his own military service brought back the trauma of losing his mother.
He takes a little swipe then at the royal family in the process.
The biggest struggle for me was the people, but no one around me really could help.
I didn't have that support structure, that network, or that expert advice to identify what was actually going on with me.
Now, critics did point out that Harry has publicly thanked his brother, Prince William, in the past for urging him to get therapy back in 2017.
Elsewhere in the show, Harry again criticises the media.
This time, he says the press was not interested in stories about British troops wounded in Afghanistan.
Three young British soldiers, all wrapped in plastic and their bodies in pieces.
I saw what only people had talked about.
That was the real trigger for I'm now seeing the real cost of war.
Stepping foot off the plane.
I was angry that this has happened to these guys.
I was angry that the media weren't covering it.
Now, various journalists from a wide range of publications are saying that's not true.
They've got clips and cuttings to prove it.
The new series is supposed to put the spotlight back on Harry's military and charitable service.
So tonight we're asking whether it's all a bit too little too late and just potentially another act in what some call the seemingly endless Sussex Circus.
For more on this, joined by the journalist and broadcaster Nina Miskoff and the commentator Lin May and the former commander in Afghanistan, Colonel Richard Kemp.
Colonel, as you're sitting there, thank you for making time for us this evening.
I want to get your initial reactions to this and the way it will likely be received amongst the military community, especially those that went to Afghanistan.
Yeah, I think, I mean, Prince Harry enjoyed enormous popularity in the armed forces, both for his determination to serve in Afghanistan on two occasions and also for the help he gave to wounded soldiers, partly through Invictus games.
Unfortunately, he's blown most of that away now.
A combination of his turning on his own family, the royal family, which means such a lot to the armed forces, and his attempts to exploit his own service for his own publicity purposes.
And we only need to think back about what he said about how he killed so many Taliban members a short while ago in his memoir Spare.
For me, the greatest problem with that memoir wasn't boasting about killing Taliban terrorists.
Of course, that was his job, and he's quite right to do so.
But he did say, and I think it was for the benefit of his woke friends in California, that he was conditioned by the army to treat them as subhuman, as less than human beings, which is simply not true, but plays well to the woke agenda.
So I think those things have combined, have led him to be, I wouldn't say vilified exactly, but certainly treated with much greater suspicion and much less affection in the armed forces than he was before.
Okay, so you really think he's gone down a woke path.
Let's come into the studio for some royal analysis.
Nina, is this what could get Harry back into the good graces of the British people?
Well, I've watched the first two episodes of the series, and it is fantastic.
It is very compelling.
The stories are wonderful.
It's beautifully filmed.
It's very, very emotional.
It's actually very moving.
I find it hard to watch without crying at some of the stories of these incredibly brave afflicted soldiers and what the games mean to them.
But just to pick out those two little phrases and you would imagine that the whole thing is about Harry whining on.
It's not at all that.
It's the story of the games, it's the story of the people, the story of what the games mean to them.
And those two comments that you've picked out when he said he didn't get therapy, he may have been advised to get therapy, but you need to have more than that.
I think what he was pointing out was that there's the great loneliness when you come back from active service.
And all the servicemen said that there's a loneliness you're on your own.
And he said, it's only when you're in a fetal position lying on the ground crying that you realise that you do need something.
And he went for that.
And so I just don't see the problem.
He's done a brilliant job with the Invictus Games.
He continues to do that.
And I think this will go a long way to showing, you know, it's very unfair to pick out these tiny things.
It's a five-part series, and these are two comments that less than 20 seconds each.
Lynn, bringing you in for your reaction.
Funny enough, I do echo a lot of what you say.
You know, there's so many people that have watched this and they've been empowered.
But the only thing I would agree with with some of the commentary is that it is being slightly disingenuous.
And I think it is almost offensive to the services because armies, the Navy, they offer counselling after.
And it would have been nice for him to say maybe I didn't take the support, maybe I didn't reach out, but there was that support available to me because, as we know, he did receive therapy when he was 28.
He did receive therapy after Diana, his mother's death.
So it's a bit frustrating to hear how he's said it.
But like you said, I think that we're picking or the media's picking on these tiny little things where, you know, why don't we hear some of the amazing things where he's donated massive amounts from even his liberal case, he's donated from his memoir.
He's going to donate from this.
And we don't seem to ever gravitate towards the positives that he's doing.
It's always these tiny little incidentals that we hone in on.
And I think that's just massively negative.
Do you think you can understand then why he creates these Netflix series, these six-part series?
It's his way of kind of countering that narrative.
Yeah, and I think, to be honest, I am one of those who was getting a bit sick and tired of Harry seeming to be like a lost puppy behind Megan and everything was all about, you know, what they've gone through, which is not always a negative.
It that's their truth.
However, we remember Harry for being this sort of, you know, about the Invictus Games, about his passion for those servicemen and what they went through.
And I think this is actually going to win the hearts of many instead of him just him and Megan talking about much to do about nothing.
This has real meaning.
So I'm glad that he's done this.
Let's bring Colonel Richard Kemp back in then, listening into all of that.
Very clear here in the studio.
People think this is probably a good move in terms of rehabilitating his image, and especially with regards to the Invictus Games, which many consider to be quite a triumph.
Yeah, I'm personally, I have to say, I'm not interested in rehabilitating his image.
I really don't care what his image is.
I think the important thing is the wounded soldiers who take part in the Invictus Games, that is the only thing that's of any significance.
And I would really question what stress he was under during his tenure of service in Afghanistan.
Yes, he insisted on going against opposition to fight and to put himself in danger, but what was he doing?
He was fighting at very, very remote distance.
Not the kind of thing, in my view, that would result in serious stress and PTSD compared to many of the other soldiers who lost limbs, had their lives shattered, and in some cases tragically were killed.
I think, you know, I don't think we should be looking at his image as being something of huge importance to this, except in as much as he can bring publicity and bring public attention to these extremely brave soldiers who gave so much.
And I think that this documentary has that benefit.
And his name being honest is extremely important, of course, because it brings publicity to their cause, but only if it results in, I would say, financial and medical assistance to them, not for any other reason.
I don't personally buy all the need to rehabilitate his image, etc.
I think the key issue is how much he can bring to the cause of wounded soldiers who still suffer so much today and still don't, in many cases, receive the support they need.
Excellent point, Colonel.
Yes, please, Leith.
I think that's terribly unfair of Richard to say that, that he couldn't see what could possibly stress Prince Harry out.
It's not for one human being to say to another what can stress them out.
Anything can stress them out.
And I think he proved that he was brave and he proved in all sorts of areas that he was willing to.
And if you read Spare and if you watch this series, you'll see that he empathises so much with his comrades.
He admires them, he respects them.
And the fact that he started up Invictus Games to help them and helped him.
And the interesting thing is, the interesting thing is, I don't know more about the Invictus Games than anybody else does.
And I just think, well, it's people who are afflicted physically.
But in fact, the second part of the series shows so much of the mental and emotional trauma.
Do you not think it's become like the Harry Fest?
I think the huge disappointing thing for me is this is about six individuals who obviously had struggles, a hard time, possibly lost limbs.
We should be focusing on them.
We shouldn't be looking at Harry.
Yes, he's going to bring in publicity, but we're all here talking about Harry when the conversation should not even be about Harry.
Because the media picks on Harry.
If you just watched the series.
He knows that.
And he should have taken himself away a little bit.
It should have been about those individuals.
He's hardly in it.
He presents it and he pops up occasionally, just reinforcing, or you see him in a part of a meeting.
But it is the story of these heroes.
It's the story of these individuals.
And that's what makes it so compelling and so moving.
And the fact of the matter is, he has facilitated this.
He has made this happen.
Without him, this would not have happened.
Without him, there wouldn't be the games.
Without him, there wouldn't be this series, which I hope people will watch because it is fantastically inspirational.
It really is.
Well, let's put that to Richard then.
Could it be possible that we'd have all the publicity around the Invictus Games and everything that he's done with that cause without having Harry feature?
Is it necessary to have him there to get people interested in it?
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's pretty important.
You know, you need, in today's world, you do need a kind of celebrity figurehead, and Harry, in many ways, is the ideal one.
And so I think his role is important in it.
But I think, as one of you, sorry, I can't remember the names, but as one of your guests rightly pointed out, he should not be, in my opinion, he should not be talking about his own hardship, because his own hardship is almost irrelevant compared to the real sacrifices made by many of the soldiers who are taking part in the games.
He should be hosting and presenting them and their hardships.
And, you know, I have to say, I disagree with one of your that put to you that he shouldn't be, you know, the idea that what triggers people.
Harry said that the death of his mother, that triggered him when he was in Afghanistan.
It all came back to him.
We can't say what upsets people and what doesn't.
Shouldn't just be ours.
A lot of soldiers have lost their mother or their father, etc.
It's not, I mean, okay, it's a big issue for the individual, but I don't think that kind of feeds into the narrative of PTSD, which he's claiming to have.
I know that one individual can't read another individual's mind, but I think his priority should be very much on the real sacrifices, the tangible sacrifices made by the other soldiers concerned.
With respect, that's exactly what he's doing.
That's exactly what he's doing.
And making this documentary, that's exactly what he's doing.
He's focusing on the stories of these people.
We wouldn't have known these stories if the documentary series hadn't been made.
We wouldn't have known it.
He could have been involved without making it about him, though.
It's not about him.
If you watch the series, it is not about him.
It's only because the media are picking on it.
And he is perfectly entitled to describe his own feelings as a means of showing empathy to the people who have suffered in other ways.
He can talk about his mental problems and all the stress and trauma that he has perfectly, rightly documented, then it means that people who are struggling can feel I'm not alone.
Media Responsibility and Sympathy 00:03:48
And people watching it will feel I'm not alone.
If even he feels that, or even if this is how he's overcome it, then I can overcome it too.
I think that's fantastically inspirational.
Well, you may well be right there.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that, but when we look at one of the most privileged people on the earth bringing his own story into it, when he, in my opinion, and okay, you know, it's only one of many opinions, he should be focusing not on his travails and hardships, which are nothing really compared to what many of the other people have experienced.
He should be focusing on highlighting what they've done.
Now, great, if this documentary does actually achieve that objective, but if it brings in money and other forms of support to these individuals, then it's worthwhile, whatever we think of it as a matter of fact.
I just want to bring in Lynn as well, because give her a comment.
Because when I'm listening to this, Lynn, what I hear is potentially the difference between civilian and military.
You're thinking about this very much from an act of service, Richard.
This is what I'm reading.
I may not be reading it right.
Nina, you're thinking it very much from the sort of normal human angle and people getting upset by various things.
You're saying stiff upper lip.
I mean, Lynn, is that what you're hearing?
My main takeaway from this is: yes, I do agree that the media is picking on Harry, and we have a responsibility to sometimes not hone in on these incidentals that I've previously said, but at the same time, Harry is well aware what the media is going to do.
And it's not as if we haven't heard his experiences before.
I'm not going to demean them.
He has every right to express them.
But it would have been nice if he veered away from talking about himself and speaking about those who have really gone through hardship while being in service, as the gentleman said, lost limbs and really suffered during their time.
So that's the only frustration for me.
It seems like, you know, once again, we're all concentrating on Harry.
But I think, yes, it's a two-pronged approach where the media are to blame.
But Harry is well aware of what the media is going to pick up.
But what he's actually said in the first two episodes that I've watched wouldn't add up to 10 minutes.
You know, so leadership.
Leadership is not about telling other people how tough it is for you.
It's not that.
That's not what leadership is about.
Leadership is about understanding other people's hardships and helping them through those.
It's exactly what he's doing.
I'm not sure that it does that by explaining how tough it is for you.
I mean, you know, I've led soldiers in battle.
Not for one moment would I consider talking about the difficulties I have and the problems I have with them.
I think it's highlighting their problems, highlighting the help that they need is the really important part of this.
And therefore, I don't really think what he's okay, it may only be for a short part of it, but I don't think it should be any part of it, that he kind of tries to evoke his own sympathy.
I think there is, while I hope this documentary does create sympathy for the and support, not just sympathy, but support for the soldiers concerned.
I don't think his, you know, we don't really need his own promotion, his own image in this.
And I've also, you know, I don't know how true this is or not, but I understand that Megan Merkel is going to give a talk to these soldiers about overcoming hardship and courage, etc.
Now, again, I don't know what she's going to say.
I don't know why she's saying it, but I don't really think that's appropriate.
It comes back down again to their overwhelming need, I think, to rehabilitate themselves after having a pleasure.
Can I just ask you, Richard, have you actually watched the documentary?
I've seen part of it.
Scientific Evidence Disputes 00:06:42
I haven't seen the whole thing, no.
And I also just want to, for the correction, obviously, Megan, Markle, Lynn, I could see your face there.
We do have to wrap this up shortly.
Lynn, do you have any final comments based on what Richard was just saying?
No, I'll just say, you know, there's good and bad to take from this.
I'm happy that he's done this.
I'm happy that it's mainly him and not Megan there.
I know she makes an appearance, but I don't see the need for her to do that.
But yeah, I do think that we have a responsibility to not pick on these small things when it's a massively inspirational documentary, but at the same time, just a little bit fed up of Harry going on about his own experience constantly.
All three of you.
Thank you very much for an in-depth conversation there about this new documentary.
Thank you.
Uncensored next tonight after a Harvard scientist claims he's recovered alien material from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
We bring you an Out of This World exclusive with him next.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Now, it is a question that has puzzled scientists for centuries.
Are we alone on the third rock from the sun, or is there life out there in the infinite abyss?
Scientists at Harvard University say they may be one step closer to that answer, claiming to have recovered material that originated outside our solar system for the first time in history.
The tiny spheres were discovered at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and Professor R. V. Loeb, known as the world's foremost alien hunter, says they may even be the debris of a UFO.
But not everyone is entirely convinced.
To find out more, let's talk to the man himself, Professor R. V. Loeb, author of Interstellar, The Search for Extraterrestrial Life and Our Future Beyond Earth.
Thank you so much for making time for us.
And please explain this to an idiot because you are when it comes to things like this, in the simplest terms, what you found and what it means.
Thanks for having me.
Well, about a decade ago, US government satellites spotted a fireball from an object that collided with Earth, roughly half a meter in size, and it moved very fast.
In fact, faster than 95% of the stars in the vicinity of the Sun.
And moreover, it was also tougher than all the space rocks reported by NASA over the past decade.
So that raised the possibility that maybe it's a Voyager-like meteor, an object that resembles the spacecraft that we launched.
And the question is whether it's technological in origin or natural.
So we went to the Pacific Ocean, collected droplets that were melted off the surface of the object and landed on the ocean floor about two kilometers deep.
And we brought them back to Harvard University, 700 of them, and studied their composition.
And amazingly, over the past two months, we realized that they are made of a composition that is very different from solar system materials.
And therefore, we conclude that this object came from outside the solar system, a very different environment.
And of course, to figure out if it's indeed technological or natural, we need to find bigger pieces.
So that will be the subject of a future expedition.
How does this differ from other reports we've heard of kind of sightings and various things?
You know, there was this House of Representatives oversight committee that we had just a few weeks ago.
Whistleblower was talking about the US government covering up knowledge from the public about extraterrestrial particles or objects.
You know, again, very simply explain to us what you've discovered is something new.
Well, the difference is that we found the materials.
We found the evidence.
We are sharing it publicly.
Whereas the discussion in the Congress was all about hearsay.
There was a person who heard from 40 other people that there are these problems, but he hasn't seen the materials himself.
And so we didn't see the evidence as of yet.
It's all about the evidence.
The work of a scientist is to collect the evidence, analyze the materials, and reach conclusions that are shared with everyone.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Now, you have come up against some disputes within your scientific community.
I'm sure this isn't a very pleasant thing to do, but I'm going to let the audience know.
Dr. Matthew Gensh of Imperial College London basically saying the seafloor is littered with spherials, some natural, some artificial.
You can find all sorts down there.
Professor Matthew Garrett, University of Manchester, says, I really admire RV's enthusiasm in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'd be surprised if this recent effort is going to produce conclusive evidence.
Why is it that you're coming up against these kinds of objections within your community?
Well, because experts have their stature based on past knowledge.
I'm trying to get new knowledge that is not in line with their past knowledge.
So that makes them a little upset and they reject it ahead of time.
But I have the evidence, we did the scientific analysis, it's not a matter of opinion.
Whatever the instruments show us, we report.
And that's the way science is done.
I'm really surprised that people have opinions before looking at the data.
That is not the way science should be done.
And of course, the ocean is littered with spheros, the type of droplets that we found.
But we did find droplets that are common elsewhere outside of the region where the meteor crashed.
And in the meteor site, we found an excess of those droplets of a completely different nature.
That's the whole point of our paper.
And just finally, within your book, you talk about this theory of governments should invest $2 trillion a year in space exploration, as say opposed to spending money on weapons and blowing each other up on Earth, which we'd have to sort out first.
Do you think that you'll ever see that kind of consensus towards space exploration?
Well, John Lennon said that imagine all the people living in peace.
And I do believe that a wake-up call from a neighbour might change our priorities because first we would realize that we are not the smartest kid on the block.
And we can learn from others who were more intelligent because they reached our doorstep before we reached their doorstep.
And so I think there is a lot to hope for that perhaps everyone on earth would realize we are all in the same boat, the Earth sailing through space, and we should work together rather than fight each other.
Police Perspectives on Events 00:15:33
Well, I've certainly learned something from somebody more intelligent this evening.
RV Noeb, thanks so much for making time for us.
Thanks for having me.
Uncensored next.
Shocking footage of the Nottinghill Carnival has been spread around the world.
Is it time to ban or move it?
That's what some are saying.
We'll be debating it next.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Now, we didn't speak about it briefly on the show last night, but wanted to revisit it today with a bit more time and some important voices.
Nottinghill Carnival.
Debates about its management and its future happen every August when police reports come out about the number of stabbings and arrests made.
This year, around 2 million attendees at Nottinghill Carnival, of which there were 308 arrests.
More than 50 police officers were injured.
And there were some eight stabbing incidents, including two young men suffering life-threatening injuries.
This picture was also on the front page of the Times today.
Understandably, there are concerns, but this year conversations are getting more heated.
They're being fanned by the flames of social media, noisy influences.
And I'm going to put it bluntly, it's becoming about racism because it's an event with Caribbean roots and holds importance with the black community.
Joining me to discuss all of this is founder of the Kingston Carnival, John Azhar, talk TV contributor Esther Kraku, and former Met Police Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley.
Kevin, thank you for making time with us.
And I understand you've policed a few of these carnivals.
Just give us a sense of what it is like preparing for one of these events.
Well, it's an event in two hearts, really.
The first bit of it, particularly the Children's Carnival, is actually really quite a pleasant event.
But as the day builds up, and particularly when it moves into night, especially on the Monday night, it is actually quite frightening to be there, particularly if you're a police officer, because it is extremely loud.
You actually can't physically talk to a person standing next to you.
And the noise from some of the speakers is actually visceral, gets your insides vibrating sometimes.
And from a police officer point of view, and I'll just describe it as a constable, sergeant there, or inspector who are the ones on the ground.
It's very intimidating because you'll get groups of black youths, if we're talking about it, bouncing into you, knocking, trying to knock you over, some of the police women being sexually assaulted and so on.
And you're very isolated, people committing all kinds of offences in front of you often, and it's really quite scary.
So that's kind of like a policeman's a police officer's perspective.
No one in the police service wants to go and work at the carnival because it's such an unpleasant and in the evenings scary experience.
But the problem with it is the first day, the children's carnival and so on, which is very good, and even on the beginnings on the Monday, is pretty good.
But what you get then is gangs of troublemakers going there, doing robberies, exploiting really the absence of any effective policing, gang fights occur, and of course, what we've seen is the stabbings, etc.
So, what are my thoughts on it?
I think we need to consider what it's like for the residents who live in that area, who for the most part have their life blighted for two days, but then hate when they bought their houses there.
They knew the carnival came around every year, so that's part of it probably reflected in the price.
But I kind of think that despite the best efforts of police and what they do in terms of kind of trying to avoid the crushing, I think from a point of view of just safety and control, a large open public space, rather like the Glastonbury events and so on, would probably be better, but then, of course, you lose some of the ambiance of parading around the streets and so on.
But all I can say, from the Met Police point of view, it's a massive drain on resources.
They have to call on the City of London Police and some other forces to bring it in.
And just to do it as a police officer is a thoroughly unpleasant experience where you're subjected to a lot of hostility, extreme noise, and quite often violence.
And do hear all of that, Kevin, and appreciate you sharing your experiences as well.
Let's come to the studio, John, and talk about this.
You're involved with Kingston Carnival, which has associations with Nottinghill Carnival as well.
When you hear a police officer talking about the experience of the event like that, do you acknowledge that there are safety concerns that need to be addressed?
Thank you for having me.
I think it's fair to say that if you pull together any big event, it doesn't have to be Carnival, it could be England playing Germany.
If you pull together any big event, depends on who is going to that event.
There's always a criminal element in that audience.
And so I think let's concentrate on the festivals that we're talking about.
Nottingham Carnival historically was set up because it wanted to bring black people who settled in London together because they felt oppressed and that they needed something to bring those communities together.
So many years later, obviously it's grown to become a very big event in Europe.
And I think rather than people like Kevin continuing to hop on about this event being very violent and police officers being fearful, we ought to look at the bigger picture.
This carnival brings attention to London.
Indeed, the one we organize in Kingston, even though it's a small event, we bring people from Nottinghill, Carliver, the Mass Barnes coming to Kingston.
We don't have any criminal element in Kingston.
In fact, we organise, I would argue, that one of the safest festivals in that part of the world is the biggest thing which happens.
And therefore, I think culturally, somehow you feel as if when black people want to do something which is special for those communities, people agnosium criticise those events no matter what it is.
Whereas Kevin compared Carnival to Glastonbury, there's a number of things which happen in Glastonbury.
I haven't heard anybody complain to argue that they should shut down Glastonbury Reading Festival and those things.
And therefore, I think it's quite rich for people who criticise Carnival not to prescribe anything positive about what we ought to be doing with communities, rather than every year when this thing comes along, they talk about only the violence, they don't talk about the good things that it brings to the area and how we should be harnessing what black people have brought as cultural migrants to this country and ought to be celebrated.
That's what we do in Kingston.
We show the barrack that this is what we bring and we bring the residents together to celebrate that diversity which in fact this year we are celebrating well-being and promoting cultural diversity because post-COVID we know that a lot of people from black and minoritized communities died and we want to harness what we've lost and celebrate with people who really want to learn something from us culturally and that's what we are doing.
And therefore it's not about stopping anything, it's about promoting and celebrating what we brought.
You mentioned the other festivals there and Kevin brought them up and Kevin I will come back to you for a reaction to that but Esther let's talk about this because a lot of people do make the comparisons.
Nottinghill Carnival versus Reading versus Glastonbury.
We compared the arrests made at those versus attendants and obviously arrests get made for all sorts of reasons, violence or drug related, it's hard to make apples and oranges comparison but actually Nottinghill Carnival percentage wise was fewer arrests this year.
Exactly and I think that's what people need to put into perspective.
Look I understand what the gentleman was saying about the difficulties with policing something like with Nottinghill Carnival with over two million attendees and there will be incidents of civil unrest.
That's a given.
That happens with even Glastonbury which has like what two hundred thousand so very you know tiny proportion of what Nottinghill gets.
But the reality is if you put it in proportion to the actual number of people that go to Nottingham Carnival, actually 300 arrests is a success and we don't that we don't often you know celebrate the Metropolitan Police.
There's always sort of negative press around the Metropolitan Police but I actually think this is one of the things that we should celebrate them the most for because yes it does it is a huge drain on resources but it's done well and that's why we have so few arrests and obviously we can't ignore the violence but that's almost inevitable.
It's just about trying to police better and trying to give the police the resources that they feel they need to do a better and job that they feel more comfortable with because I think that's the issue here.
One thing we noticed when we were discussing this in the production team was that a lot of the criticism this year picks up videos that are non-violent.
It's just people celebrating in the crowd and they're being circulated wide on social media by people in the US casting moral judgment on the event itself for people grinding.
People grinding, people twerking, listen, they went for the cheeks and they got some cheeks and if you don't like it, don't go.
There is no obligation for you to receive some of the cheeks from the cheek gods as we are seeing right now on our on our on our festival.
But John do you do do you think that people are using the discussion about safety, which is a discussion that needs to be had about the carnival, but they're using that to basically cast judgment?
Well I think you can't you can't ignore the subliminal racism which is taking place in here.
You know, we need to call this out.
I mean, I think without mentioning, you know, names, you know, Susan Hall, who is a prospective mayor candidate for London, it says some really, really dreadful things about black people and crime.
She says some really terrible things about Kingston, Nottinghill Carnival.
And I think we need to ensure that when people talk about Nottinghill Carnival, as Esther is saying, we promote the positives which are taking place rather than just concentrating.
I don't hear a lot of people any year, and I've been going to Nottinghill Carnival for years and working with some of the Mazbans for years.
I don't hear anybody coming out one year and saying, well, actually, this was a really successful cultural event and that we ought to continue to celebrate.
But most of the people that criticise Nottinghill Carnival, I must point out, haven't actually don't go.
Yeah, or they haven't been rarely.
And every year I notice there are stories like this.
And look, I'm not saying it's not important to highlight the difficulty that the police has with controlling the public and tackling anti-social behaviour.
Of course, we should talk about it, but we should talk about how to improve that, how to make their jobs easier, not to just paint it as a suspect of violence, because actually, statistically, it's a pretty safe event.
That's why two million people go.
That's why it's the largest street festival in Europe.
So I think it's important to just have some perspective there.
Let's cross back to Kevin.
And when I do, Kevin, I'm getting Susan Hall, as John brought up her remarks about people in the black community saying there's a problem with crime in that.
She's since softened her stance mayor or candidate of course, saying it's very upsetting.
I'm afraid we have this every single year.
I would say move the carnival.
It's where it can be policed much better, which is the same suggestion that you have.
You've been listening to Esther and John in the studio.
Do you have any final remarks you'd like to make about the way they perceive the event versus you as a policeman?
Well, I think the first point I'd make is that, John, as I was quite right, that I having police football grounds and dealt with hooliganism, that is extremely frightening.
I think the thing, the point I make about Carnival, again, it's an event of two parts.
It's great, it's fine.
I would have no difficulty going myself on the first day, as who I am now, you know, an old boy.
But I would not be hanging around on the Monday evening as darkness falls because there is a palpable change in atmosphere.
And the point I make is it's not really whether or not it should move there or it should go to Hyde Park or wherever, is that to do it as a police officer is very frightening because of the fact you face such hostility when you're moving around the crowd at that event.
And it's a result of what I would, what I, as we as we talk about it, I would call the Batari box of the policing experience in London in dealing with young black people and young black people being engaged with police.
It's almost like a vicious circle, how both groups tend to react to each other, young police officers and young black people.
And it kind of feeds itself in very negative terms.
How you break that, if you like, psychological situation, I don't know, but it's one of the reasons why the carnival is very unpleasant to police as a police officer.
And John's right.
It's a cultural event.
Yep, it is a cultural event.
We have just run out of time, but interesting points there.
Thank all three of you for that.
Uncensored next tonight, England Captain Harry Kane embracing German culture by wearing Leidenhosen.
But isn't that cultural appropriation?
We'll be talking about it next.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Joined now by our Wednesday evening pack, socialist author Grace Blakely and talk TV contributor Esther Kraku remains with us in the studio.
Thanks both so much.
And let's pick up that story that the talk just said they're going to cover tonight, give our own slant on it before they do.
But this idea of criminals being forced to face their victims in court, this is obviously sparked by the Lucy Lettby case.
Sunak has taken it on as a cause, basically.
Let's listen actually to a clip from him.
People who've committed awful crimes somehow are able to take the coward's way out and not appear in court for their sentencing and to hear the impact that their crimes have had on the victims' families.
I don't think that's right.
There shouldn't be an easy way out, and that's why we're going to change the law so that courts can compel these offenders to be present for their sentencing and to hear the impact that their actions have had.
Now, I don't think there's going to be many people at home that disagree with that.
I suppose it does intersect with a human rights piece at some point.
I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough about the law to say that as such, but Grace.
I mean, I think he's kind of grasping at straws a bit, isn't he?
He's launched on this case in particular, which obviously everyone is reacting to, rightly, as saying this is utterly horrific and trying to say we will use this as a launch pad to kind of be much more tough on crime, have harsher sentences for these types of crimes, compel people to appear in court.
And you know, that might be all very well and good, but ultimately, this government has been in power for a while.
The Conservative Party has been in power for a very, very long time.
Legal Implications of Court 00:04:43
He's had plenty of time to do this.
The only reason he's suddenly grasping at all of this stuff now is to appear tough on crime in the run-up to an election.
Actually, you know, if he really wanted to do something about the parlor state of our criminal justice system, he would invest something in it.
We've had legal age lawyers on strike last year because the backlog of cases in the criminal justice system is just appalling because there's not enough money going into it.
So it just seems like it's very striking as well.
To be cynical about it, Esther, it is a convenient political move.
Well, the thing is, he's ordered guidance into how to make it happen.
So he's talking about changing the law.
Actually, he's ordered guidance to see whether it would be possible to enforce reasonable force, I guess, to actually force these criminals to go into court and to face their sentencing.
But again, there will be human rights implications there.
Can you physically drag them by their hair?
Is that even possible?
And also, for the people that commit these heinous crimes, they will likely be sentenced to a whole life order.
So you can't actually sentence them to give them a worse or a more severe sentence because that's the maximum penalty you can get in the UK.
And it's not like...
So what's that to lose?
And it's not like she, you know, someone like that is presumably a psychopath.
Like, they're not going to admit, you know, fault or feel any guilt.
But what if she's not going to be able to do that?
What if she misbehaves in the court?
What if she flips the families of the bird, right?
What if she starts shouting?
What if she continues to defame the memory of the victims?
I mean, there are real implications to doing this because you don't actually know how the person that you've just dragged into court is going to behave and whether it's in an undignified manner that's actually going to prolong the victim's family's torment.
So I actually don't think this is a very...
I mean, look, the incentive in our political system to constantly jump on these trends and to jump on what we think the public will appreciate us for is actually, I think it doesn't help or ameliorate the public discourse on things that matter.
Well, your point about sentencing, you know, I've heard people say today, you know, people just get dragged into court to hear they've got a 12-month suspended sentence.
You know, look, let's move on and talk about Lederhosen, shall we?
It's what we promise people will enlighten the mood.
The real news of the day should come.
Do want to do this.
Esther wants to give you all a trigger warning because this is Harry Kane in Laderhoesen.
Have we got pictures?
We've got some pictures of Harry Kane here, and there he is, walking through.
He's, of course, been signed over to Bayer Munich.
Here he is posing for some promotional photos.
Lederhosen, of course, the national dress of Germany.
He's also wearing one of their jackets as well.
And I'm going to say this: Bayer Munich's official website bills this as De Mormund auf den irre allegewartethaut, which means the moment you've all been waiting for.
They are riding high off this.
This is the England captain eating white sausage, drinking wheat beer, and wearing Laderhosen.
Are you shocked and appalled, Grace?
They're obviously enjoying this.
I'm bald.
I love a man in shorts.
I think he looks great.
I know that you're going to disagree with me about that.
I like a man in shorts.
It depends on the shorts and the microphone.
Yeah, it depends on the man.
And you know, because the thing is, when I saw the picture in the newspaper, I was like, I can see the outline of his crotch.
I don't want to see the outline of Harry Kane's crotch before I've had breakfast.
So I was a bit perplexed.
I was just like, can I ask you?
Oh, very impressive.
Dankersham.
Dankersham.
My grandmother was Austrian.
Let's see if this changes your mind.
Somebody else in Lederhosen.
Piers Morgan.
Dancing through the fields.
I'm doubling down.
Oh, that is.
That is.
That deserves the trigger warning, I think, that we all have.
I'm doubling down.
That is look at the thighs on that.
My God.
I don't think we're in deep concern of Piers Morgan suddenly playing for Bayer Munich, but we do know what he looks like in Laderhosen now.
We'll be able to have conversations like this when he comes back.
I know, because I was just supposed to be able to shut him down.
We've got one more day for the production team to mock him up in various outfits and for us all to mock him here in the studio of his own very own show and then he's going to come back.
So let's make the most of it while we can.
But you don't have any concerns about our England captain playing in Germany?
No.
I mean, you know where I am.
Maybe he'll pick up some skills.
Maybe we will win something.
Maybe he has something to bring us.
Good luck.
I feel the camera operators here in the studio who are all male and bristling with comments.
They were like, why's all the women talking about football and objectifying male volleys?
That is it.
Because we're talking about the sports.
That is it from us.
Whatever you're up to tonight, make sure it's uncensored.
Export Selection