All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Sept. 25, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:56
20230925_piers-morgan-uncensored-trans-angler-brands-rumble
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Russell Brand Police Investigation 00:14:49
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensore, Russell Brand is back breaking a silence on Rumble with another conspiracy-latent tirade with advertisers pulling out and the police now investigating what will happen to the troubled star.
Members of England ladies' angling team refused to go to the World Championships in protest over a trans teammate.
Are they right?
Does physical brawn make a big difference in the world of angling?
I'll talk to two women at the very deep end of this story.
Ask questions I never thought I'd have to ask.
Did you wear anal beads while cheating?
I get to the bottom of Chess's biggest ever scandal in an exclusive interview with the new bad boy at Chess, Hans Nieman.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
I want to tell you a little story.
It's about an advertising campaign so helplessly woke and absurd that I'm convinced it was designed specifically to irritate me.
Not long ago in a large glass building filled with smug people and kale smoothies, the marketing team at HSBC commissioned a children's author to rewrite three classic fairy tales.
You might well think that's an unusual thing for a bank to do.
If you're sitting comfortably, I'll allow them to explain.
With financial attitudes shaped as early as five years old, the new book challenges traditional gender stereotypes, it says.
At this point, I've already lost track, really, of exactly why the bank is rewriting fairy tales or what any of it has got to do with gender stereotypes.
But it gets worse.
The book called Fairer Tales reimagines Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Rapunzel, a successful businesswoman.
Prince Charming is inevitably erased as the main character.
He's a prince and he's charming.
But apparently that's not enough.
The marketing geniuses decided to pay tennis player Emma Rodokanu to read the stories for reasons which remain unclear.
This is how it went.
Ace, where have you been?
The boys and girls are here and they're waiting to hear the three tales about money.
My name's Emma and this is Ace.
We have a fantastic story for you today.
Now, the story may seem like one you know, but the characters in it are a little bit different.
It's hard to believe that the tennis ball exchanging hilarious banter with Emma Rodokanu in the video is not real.
It's CGI, believe it or not.
Emma is a tennis player, not an actor.
But let's not distract from the powerful core message.
So in the end, the princesses didn't need a prince to save them.
They set up their own businesses, saved their money, and then spent it very wisely.
Thanks to our princesses, Ace has learnt some new money skills.
Maybe you'll buy a tower one day, or set up your own shoe business, or any business you want.
Now that you've learned how to save and spend money, you can do anything.
Of course, as we all know, the best way to improve the aspirations of women is by trashing men.
And as Emma says, women don't need men at all.
She's certainly never needed any men, as far as we know, to get where she is today, except, well, a father, of course, who manages her career and well fathered her.
And then there are her five coaches who so far have all been male.
Or Max Eisenbud, her agent, who apparently is very, very good at maximizing her earning potential, despite being a man.
And then a final twist of this dastardly tale of virtue signalling treachery.
It turns out the chairman, chief executive, and chief financial officer on HSBC's board of directors are all men too.
Well, joining me now as talk-to-view contributor Esther Karako, associate editor to mirrored Kevin Maguire, socialist author Grace Blakely.
Grace, I don't know where to start with this.
I mean, apart from the fact that as a man, let me just offer Miss Radagar some advice.
I think she's great.
And when she won the US Open, it was amazing.
But she hasn't won a shoebox since then.
And I think she's spending too much time on this commercial stuff and not enough time on the call.
That's my personal view as a man.
Take it, leave it, crash it, whatever you're doing.
I think you're missing actually the most important part of this story, right?
Which isn't like the big man versus women battle that we're all supposed to take a side in.
It's the fact that HSBC is a massive international bank that has frequently been accused of things like money laundering.
It was accused of money laundering for Mexican drug cartels.
It was accused of supporting tax avoidance and evasion.
It's frequently threatened the government of the UK to relocate to another part of the world if it, if we, you know, say do something like raise tax on corporations or if we start regulating financial sector properly.
And this is basically an attempt at kind of pinkwashing at saying, don't look at all the terrible things that we've been embroiled in over the last several decades.
Don't look at the fact that we're basically trying to undermine democracy by telling you what laws you can and can't pass.
Just look at the fact that we've done a nice, pretty little fairy tale.
And oh, by the way, if you're a woman and you start a business, then that's great.
And that makes you a good woman.
Feminism isn't for people who don't get the chance to start.
And it certainly isn't a great thing to be a woman at HSBC, where the vast majority of the people that run the bank are actually men.
I mean, the problem is it's a bit like Barbie, the movie.
It's a bit like all these things.
There's a kind of subtext here of, well, men are pointless and annoying.
And you should never not just rely on them, but have them in your life.
Just expunge men from the world and all will be fine.
Well, yes, but I think that we should be more concerned with why a bank or any business feels the need to actually do this.
I don't remember asking HSBC what they think about fairy tales or women in business or anything like that.
Why can't they just be a business?
Why do businesses feel the need to lecture us or take a particular political position as if we need them as our moral arbiters?
I totally agree.
I mean, Kevin...
Kevin, we've seen this time and again now.
Companies just doing these woke advertising campaigns, none of which work.
There's an immediate backlash from all their customers who don't like this kind of thing.
I think it's a growing number of people, whether you're Bud Light or Gillette, when they played this stunt or any of these others.
Now we have this.
It's not going to work.
It's not going to achieve what they think it is.
People aren't going to go, fantastic, HBC.
They're either going to say what Grace said, which is you're just a bunch of flaming hypocrites, or they're going to say, stop talking to me about this stuff.
Just make my bank do its job.
Be a banker.
That's why I love it because it backfires.
That is entirely cynical by this bank, which, look, you open a business with them.
You can't keep up your repayments on a loan.
And they'll have you.
They'll have the shirt off your back.
They'll have your handbag, your shoes, they'll have your house.
They'll have every last penny you've got.
But somehow, there's a whole industry convincing them they should do this.
Whoever's doing it, a good look to the advertising people who get them to do this.
Can I just say, kudos to Emma Radakani's agent for actually getting her this?
Because she's a terrible actress.
She looks as wooden as a board.
And she doesn't believe what she's reading.
I think there is an important underlying story here, right?
Which is the reason that we've had this explosion in kind of, you know, greenwashing, pinkwashing, things like ethical consumption, is that most people realize that the system we live in is incredibly unfair.
They want to, you know, do things to support to prevent climate breakdown.
They want to do things to support, you know, equal rights and prevent the economy from privileging certain people over others.
And corporations are basically trying to make money out of this.
Just like they're making money out of the climate work dying, just like they're making money out of the gap between between.
Okay, let's move on to this concept of making money out of things and who should and who shouldn't.
So Russell Brand, today the Met Police in the last few hours, Kevin, have announced that they are launching a police investigation into what they call historic allegations.
We don't know who it's from.
We don't know which of the stories, whether they're the people who came forward to the Sunday Times of Channel 4, whether they're new people.
They haven't explained yet exactly who these accusers are, but it's certainly multiple people.
And it takes it to where I've wanted this to go, which is legal due process.
We're now going to have a proper police investigation.
But what still concerns me about the story is what is going on off the back of the original investigation, which is this sort of huge concerted effort to cancel Russell Brand, who is now doing exactly what I knew he would do.
He's exploiting that to say, look, it's all a witch hunt.
They're all trying to shut me down.
Let's take a little look at his clip on Rumble today.
Plainly, this is a story that is much bigger than me.
Plainly, the Trusted News Initiative has an agenda, an explicit agenda, to throttle and choke independent media.
Plainly, the government are reaching out to ask big tech platforms to suppress the voices of content creators from independent media outlets, particularly those that are dissenting.
And as you have seen, many of those media organizations have been willing to comply.
Now, Esther, this is all heading to a very dark place, I think.
You now have Russell Brand facing a serious police investigation into rape, sexual abuse, all sorts of very serious allegations.
But he's just carrying on like nothing's happened.
He did a two-hour rant today with all sorts of conspiracy-fueled stuff, his normal sort of shtick.
What do you feel about the way he's behaving in light of these allegations?
There's no apology.
There's no clarification.
There's just this ongoing, no, it's all a witch hunt.
And also the way the world is responding to these allegations.
Yeah, well, I saw this coming because this is why I said originally these women should have gone to the police, because now we live in an era when someone is being attacked like this.
It's automatically a conspiracy.
And I just think there's nothing that particularly special about Russell Brand.
He's not an intellectual luminary for the likes of CNN or any of these massive media corporations to be scared of.
The reality is he has been accused of something very serious and the law should play out.
The reality is, at the end of the day, he's going to keep going and saying that this is a conspiracy against him because like he says, he's maintaining his innocence.
So if he's innocent, he's not going to do it.
But Grace, but Grace, what we have now is you see a trend.
Donald Trump sort of started this, really.
Boris Johnson has done a bit of it too, where regardless of the allegation or its seriousness, you simply say it's a witch hunt.
You simply say it's mainstream legacy media combining with big tech, combining with government, and I'm a victim here.
So this kind of turning the thing on its head and using victimhood as a protective shield against this.
And they've got millions of people who go along with this.
Well, again, you know, I think this is, it's similar to the last story and you led on from it in the sense that people are, people like Russell Brand are taking advantage of a climate basically of kind of fear and mistrust that exists in our society because of the massive disparities of power that do exist there, right?
There is, you know, a massive coordination in terms of the power of a small number of media organizations.
It is difficult for smaller media organizations to get through that.
There are, you know, a lot of very troubling things that have been, you know, done or covered up by people at the top of our society, whether we're looking at, you know, billions of dollars distributed to private corporations during the financial crisis or COVID or whatever.
People know that the people at the top of our society do not have their best interests at heart and often lie to them about what is actually going on.
And that is what fuels conspiracy.
And Kevin, the trouble is, when we had the chair of the parliamentary committee, Caroline Dinage, I think it is, and she wrote to the bosses of all of the big tech companies to say, you've got to stop monetizing this guy.
That kind of overreach by politicians plays completely into the hands of Russell Brand and his followers.
That's like clear evidence of the state trying to overreach, isn't it?
I always feel very uncomfortable about politicians using their positions to exert pressure that way.
However, if I was running a company, I wouldn't want my ads on his channel at the moment when he's facing these accusations.
And one way he's right, it is bigger than him, but not in the way he means.
The way it's bigger is one of the reasons only one in every hundred reported rapes in the UK end up in court with a prosecution is because too many powerful men and the authorities have shouted in the interests of women.
Right.
I mean, what is amazing is the BBC revealed a couple of days ago a news story involving a woman who went on the record saying that in Los Angeles, he had come into a bathroom where she was and he'd exposed himself to her and said, I'm going to sexually have sex with you.
And she said, no, you're not.
I'm as disgusted or whatever.
And she's only now come forward and said it.
Again, allegations.
But what's extraordinary is then 25 minutes later, he's on the airways on the BBC joking about this and saying, you know, the guy says 25 minutes ago, you were showing a woman you're Willie, right?
So the BBC's got this big archive now of stuff where they've just broadcast almost confessional stuff from our brand about this stuff.
Why were they not doing more standards and practices at the time?
Mistakes, frightened, in awe of him, whatever it is.
Look, his free speech.
He was a darling.
He was a darling of that subsect of British media.
Can I put a spanner?
Can I put a spanner in the words?
Was it because at the time he was a left-wing darling?
Exactly.
Oh, for goodness sake.
Well, but it's true.
Although, I do.
I'm sorry.
Have we not seen any right-wing people who've had allegations of sexuality?
No, we're not covered up there.
We're talking about revolutions.
You're missing my point.
That's my point.
The left-wing decided he was a superstar.
He attended Guardian editorial conferences next to the editor Alan Ross Bridge, who's now outraged by him.
He wrote a column for The Guardian for seven years.
He appeared at their conferences.
He edited the New Statesman.
He was on all this stuff, right?
He was being given.
And yet they must have known about the stuff that was going out on the BBC at the same time.
Did no one at the Guardian think?
Hang on, is he exposed himself to a woman?
There was a culture of permissiveness where powerful men could joke about sleeping and abusing and flashing to women.
It was all considered a laugh.
You go back in British TV, think of Benny Hill.
Just think of it.
It can come up.
Happened to people on the right, too.
But I want to make the point.
His free speech is not infringed because he can say what he likes.
But we cannot say it because of libel laws, which he uses, defamation laws, which he's been very ready to do before.
And also, there are just legal restrictions now, perhaps the police are getting him.
You know, it raises a lot of issues.
I'm just glad the police are now investigating.
We may get to the bottom of it where it becomes irrefutable, right?
If there's a proper legal process, I would hope we get to the facts and the truth.
That's not to diminish the accusers.
They may well all be telling 100% the truth.
But we know also, sadly, sometimes accusers do not tell the truth.
Rapino Free Speech Debate 00:05:47
And we've got to be fair to everyone, whoever they are.
Let's turn to John Federman, who's this senator in America who's obviously had a lot of health issues, but they've now changed the law.
Not the law, but they've changed the rules of the Senate.
That you can now, because he says he gets triggered by having to wear certain clothing to work because of his condition, he now can go in dressed like this.
And he's been wearing shorts and hoodies and all sorts of stuff.
I mean, Kevin, even you now appear on television in a smart way.
Even you put a jacket and shirt on, right?
Even you?
When we drop the standards of things like the US Senate, it'd be like the British Parliament.
If we had somebody there saying, I get triggered by wearing suits, and we saw someone coming in in shorts and a hoodie.
Come on.
They changed, actually, in the British Parliament, the House of Commons in the Chamber, the rules on having to wear a tie because there was an MP who couldn't fix a tie because of a medical condition.
Look, it's between him and his constituents.
The people who elected him.
That is it.
I'm sorry.
They are happy to elect him.
He can wear what he wants.
He can go in a pink tutor for all that.
He can go in public and moon members of the public or pull down his trousers.
I'm sorry.
The reason why you need to act and dress like you have respect for the office that you occupy.
It's not very difficult to put on a shirt.
My mother always.
Well, I'll tell you.
Hang on.
What about freedom of expression?
You know, we have freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of house.
Those aren't supposed to be...
No, no, no.
Those are the liberal rights upon which democracy, British democracy, was founded.
We are on the show all the time talking about the importance of free speech, the importance of protecting against the despotism of the state.
Freedom of expression falls into that category as well.
Let people keep on and stop being so snowy.
Do you know what?
My mother always said to me, dress as if you're going to meet the queen.
Thank you.
I would wear what I would always wear.
If you go to work, dress as if you're going to meet the queen's a pretty good rule.
But if you're a Republican and you think the queen is just the same as anyone else, dress as if you're going to meet the president.
If he meets the queen, he can bin's dress like that, can't he?
What was funny was a New York Post and a journalist ran to all the top restaurants in New York dressed like him in the hoodie and the shorts.
And most of them said, you're not coming here.
It was very funny.
I want to leave with a little tribute to Megan Rapino, the world's most annoying sports star, who's now retired from international soccer.
And she said this.
I feel like the stuff off the field is like the reason I'm, you know, here on this planet.
That feels like my life's work and something that just feels like breathing to me.
So I love that work.
You know, I love being able to leverage this amazing platform and use that to, you know, in some way make the world a better place.
Oh, shut up.
Honestly.
Good for her.
You're on the right.
Kick a round little ball around.
That's it.
Nobody wants to.
You see, you make the world a better place.
Let me tell you what she means by this stuff off the pitch, is that now she's retired, now she says she wants to see biological males who've transitioned to be trans women play in the women's national soccer team.
Not while she was playing herself, so they couldn't take her place, these biological males, but now she'd be quite happy for that to happen.
In fact, she wants it to happen.
If that's what your contribution is to women's rights, because she's basically saying, look at me, I did all this stuff for women's rights.
Actually, Miss Rapino, what you've done, you've left with a little sting in the tail, is that now, having fought for women's rights, for pay parity and so on, which I totally applaud you for, now you've left endorsing something that would destroy women's rights to fairness and equality.
That is your legacy.
Anyone got a thought?
Yeah, it's absolutely absurd to suggest.
The reason that she's left at this point is because her life has become so difficult as she's tried to campaign for fairness and equality for trans women in sport.
Even as she's, you know, fought for a very, very long time to get through all of these measures that you've just said have been really, really important.
We've reached the stage where the political debate about trans people has become so topical.
If Erling Harland feels like she stepped down in order to be afforded.
Erling Haaland says, I'm a woman.
He can play.
The number of transportation.
The number of trans people.
Alina that are going to be a family.
I support him.
It's not how he works.
Hang on.
Very important question.
Grace.
Can Erling Haaland, if he says, I now identify as a woman, play in the Norwegian national women's team.
He's the best striker in the world.
He's six foot four.
He's a massive beast.
He scores goals every 10 seconds in the men's game.
Are you happy?
He's suddenly decided to become trans, go through all of the horror.
Actually, you don't have to go through the stuff I need.
No, no, you go through nothing.
He self-identifies as trans.
He deals with all of the pushback on social media, the deaths.
Everything that he was going to get as a result of that, and then says, I want to call it a team, then, you know, the team would be able to legitimately make a decision as whether or not it's not.
That is exactly the Megan Rapino position right there.
You are our Megan Rapino.
You've just destroyed.
You're saying that I'm an international women's soccer player.
No, I'm saying you're relatively irritating, take a position which is always wrong.
And on this one, and on this one, you have just endorsed Erling Haaland playing women's football, which of course would destroy women's football.
Congratulations, women's rights nil.
I didn't lying.
I don't believe it.
Biological sex matters, right?
Yeah.
And men, born as men, should be playing sport.
Rapino, free speech.
What's wrong with that?
She doesn't exist.
Chess Cheat Controversy Explained 00:15:08
She's a lot of fun.
She's an house.
She's not allowed to.
And by the way, nothing wrong with me exercising my right to free speech to say it's complete, a bit like Gracie's position on Erling Haaland, who she only just heard of.
A man can apparently destroy women's football with a touch of a hat.
It's crazy.
It would, it would.
But thank you, Pat.
Good to see you all.
Uncensored.
Next, I get to the bottom of chess's biggest ever scandal with bad boy Hans Nieman.
It's one of my most probing interviews ever, and the language has been used very deliberately here.
We're talking chess and anal beads.
It's not for the faint-hearted this next statement, this interview.
Welcome back to Piersborg and Uncensored.
Hans Neiman is a name that may not mean much to you, but he's a chess prodigy.
In fact, right now, he's the most controversial chess player perhaps ever.
For the past year, he's been at the center of a salacious scandal that has rocked his sport.
And I sat down for an exclusive head-to-head with Hans and his lawyer.
But first of all, let's take a look at how this scandal unfolded.
Hans Neiman is the wild child of chess.
A year ago, this 20-year-old U.S. prodigy beat legendary world champion Magnus Carlson, causing major vibrations in the sporting world.
It wasn't just Neiman's bishops causing the buzz.
Carlson sensationally accused him of cheating, which sparked frenzied speculation, including a claim that Neiman used anal beads.
Even Elon Musk weighed in.
Now, Neiman does admit to cheating twice when he was 12 and 16 with computers, but he says he never did it in person.
And he insists he never used anal beads.
I mean, how could I, you know.
He soon cast $100 million.
The case has now been settled out in court.
So will there be a rematch?
And can he rebuild his battered reputation?
And once and for all, did he or didn't he?
Who's the beads?
Tonight I'll find out.
Hans Neiman goes uncensored.
Well, I'm joined now by Hans Neiman and by his lawyer, Terence Oviv.
So first question, Hans, for you.
Why have you got your lawyer with you?
Well, considering the recent case and settlement, some legal questions my lawyer might be able to better answer.
And to be honest, Terry and his team has been, frankly, great in helping me resolve this case.
And I'm very, very thankful to them for believing in me.
And, you know, this is not just my lawyer.
He's a friend.
He's a confidant.
And he's someone who I trust fully.
And that's why he's here today.
Okay.
So look, you are a chess prodigy, no question.
You're a grandmaster, which you got by the title.
You're just 17.
You ranked the fourth best junior chess pro in the world.
So you're a brilliant chess player.
The question mark that got put over your head came after you beat Norway's world champion, Magnus Carlsen.
This is back in Missouri, September 2022, so a year ago.
And you beat him, ending a 53-game unbeaten streak.
And as a result, you were accused of being a cheat.
And you were accused of cheating in a particularly fascinating manner, which is the allegation was that your coach had basically instructed you to insert anal beads inside yourself, which he would then send remote signals to.
First of all, when that story broke, those allegations, what was your reaction?
Well, obviously, it's very disheartening to be accused of cheating after that victory.
But, you know, these things, you know, it happened, and I learned a lot from that time.
And it really has taught me a lot of very, very important lessons about life and chess.
And I think it's only strengthened my resolve.
Okay, but just to be clear, you didn't cheat.
Of course not.
So what have you had to learn if you didn't cheat?
Well, I think the learning experience was more so the media attacking me and all the chess world crashing down on me.
I think dealing with that was a learning experience, dealing with all that pressure and competing under all that pressure.
But again, to be clear, on the specific allegation, have you ever used anal beads while playing chess?
Not a question I ever thought I'd ask a guest, to be honest, but.
Well, you know, your curiosity is a bit concerning.
Maybe you're personally interested, but I can tell you no.
Okay, categoric no.
Of course, yes, categorically no.
Obviously, I didn't make the allegations.
I'm just repeating what was put to you at the time.
As a result of the Furore that developed, you were investigated by chess.com.
They banned you while they did this.
And they published a report saying that you had likely cheated more than 100 times in online games.
You then admitted you had cheated, I think, twice, you said, in online games on chess.com when you were 12 and 16, but denied ever doing so in an in-person game.
Is that an accurate assessment of what went down?
That's correct.
Given you've admitted to cheating, is it completely outrageous that people thought you may have continued cheating?
Well, let me just clarify that the chess.com report where they accused me of cheating over 100 games is completely defamatory.
And as outlined in my lawsuit, the person who actually wrote that report, Danny Wrench, told me himself that they knew that I had never cheated while streaming.
And the most serious accusations in that report happened while I was streaming live on Twitch.
And the only reason that they banned me was because they were finalizing a merger with the Play Magnus group.
And their new star ambassador was making a mockery of himself.
And they needed to back up his accusations and discredit me.
So Chess.com Chess.com's report accusing me of 100 games of cheating is frankly ridiculous.
And the timing that they decided to ban me only during this merger and only after this accusation, it's absolutely ridiculous.
And that report should not be taken seriously whatsoever.
I understand, but just to be clear, again, Hans, when you did cheat, the ones you've admitted to, what were the circumstances of the cheating?
Well, I was 12 years old.
I was very young.
It was not in a tournament, but it was a childish mistake and something I've admit to.
And I don't think that something you do when you're 12 and something with a couple hundred bucks in the line should have anything you cheat.
Someone was like an iPad.
So someone was giving you moves from an iPad.
Yes, it was a very childish thing.
I didn't even understand the seriousness of what was happening.
But then you were 16 and did it again.
Was it the same thing again when you were 16?
Well, when I was 16, this was not a prize money event.
These were random, meaningless games.
It's like, you know, going to the basement.
But how did you cheat?
Call of Duty.
It was a similar manner.
You see, so the first one you can put down to being a 12-year-old kid, all right, you make a mistake, you learn your lesson, you move on.
But to do it again four years later when you're 16, it's only like four years ago.
Why did you do it again?
I saw those views, those games, as meaningless.
And they were meaningless.
There was no money or anything attached to them.
And again, it was a childish mistake.
I was living on my own when I was 16.
I was financially independent and I felt a lot of pressure.
I just simply wanted to get a higher rating on the website.
But I want to make a differentiation, Piers.
When you talk about online chess and in-person chess, this is a very, very different thing.
And you need to understand the difference between that.
These online games, these are absolutely, absolutely meaningless.
I don't like people that cheat in any form of competition or sport because to me, it just kills the integrity and purity of it.
And I guess you would agree with that, right?
No, of course.
But you should understand the difference between when you're a young child and you're under severe pressure and you make a mistake.
And you should also understand that when it comes to over-the-board official tournaments, I've never cheated and there's absolutely no evidence that I've ever cheated.
Yeah, but we have been.
But here's the problem.
Here's the problem with that.
Like I say, when you're 12, all right, I get it.
But to do the same thing again when you're 16 shows there's a pattern.
And we only actually have your word for it, right?
I mean, there might not be hard evidence to have nailed you, but you can understand why people will be suspicious given your omissions.
Pierce, we understand Hans was 16 years old.
He made a mistake.
We understand that you have a different interpretation.
He was playing online in a game that really didn't matter at a young age.
We understand and you're not wrong.
But to try to extrapolate from the fact of something that he did on an online game when he was 16 and say, once a cheater, always a cheater.
If you did something when you were 16, I'm going to hold it against you for the rest of your life.
We think that's a little harsh and it certainly doesn't properly characterize.
All right, but why couldn't he answer that question?
I think he was trying to jump in.
Yeah, Hans, it was really aimed at you.
You know, if you cheat in a sport once.
Well, I can understand.
Well, I can give you an analogy as well.
So let's say that a 16-year-old kid went into a pickup basketball game.
That is the equivalent of the games that I cheated in at 16 years old is the equivalent of a meaningless pickup basketball game.
Do you think that that should define my entire career, especially?
You're using computerized systems to some way of understanding.
To make moves.
I mean, in chess, I can't think of a more egregious way of cheating than doing that.
You're using a non-human brain to beat a human.
I mean, it's just frustrating.
But he did not do that here, but he did not do that here.
Meaning what he did back then, what he did about five years ago and then about 10 years ago, you're correct.
He's admitted that and he's apologized for that.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here.
Nothing else could be closer to the truth.
Well, that says the next explosive finale to my interview with Hans Neiman.
If you thought part one was buzzing with revelations, you might need to strap yourself in for round two.
Welcome back to Petersburg, I said.
So now the second part of my exclusive interview with the chess bad boy Grand Master Hans Neiman, things get a little tetchy.
So yesterday, I believe, you played Vladimir Kremnik on chess.com and you beat him.
And Kramnik said afterwards, I've decided to stop playing on chess.com from tomorrow on.
There's too many obvious cheaters on here and nothing is done to clean the platform from these small crooks.
Harsh words, but true.
What did you make of that?
Well, the Kremnik situation is quite complex because I actually beat him about a week ago and he made a video that was a bit confusing.
But actually a couple of days ago, I had private correspondence with him where he told me that he personally has no issue with me and where he said that it was not meant to be an accusation whatsoever.
What was it supposed to be?
It couldn't have been a more blatant suggestion that you cheated against.
Well, that contradicts the private correspondence and email that he sent to me.
Why would he infer you're a cheat in public in the way that he did?
That was yesterday.
But my name was never mentioned.
He's just accused a lot of people of cheating.
He's accused...
Yeah, but that same day he played against 10 other people.
And considering that I was invited by him to Amsterdam to meet him and to play games with him, it seems a bit weird that he would do that and then the next day supposedly accused me of cheating.
So I understand how it might look, but he's privately reached out to me and I was invited to Amsterdam.
I unfortunately can't go due to another conflict, but I hope to meet him and to discuss things in more detail with him.
Okay, you sued Michael.
Isn't that the real damage of this also, Piers?
Isn't that the real damage as well?
So whenever now someone beats someone, rather than acknowledge it and say that I'll get better, now this has set a precedent that whenever someone beats you, you're trying to take it away from them.
Yes, but unfortunately, actions have consequences.
If you admit you've cheated twice over a four-year period and you become a grand master the year after the second time, and you're now only 20 now, people are going to obviously cast aspersions.
Well, why don't you focus on those two isolated incidents?
Why don't you focus on?
Of course, but the other hundreds of matches that he's won, are those totally meaningless?
So you can always focus on the shade.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not judging your client.
I'm just saying he's admitted to cheating twice over a four-year period.
And that's why maybe people are...
In meaningless games, you know.
I mean, people do wonder.
How did you beat...
They do wonder, how did you beat Magnus Carlson?
Okay, well, if you want to take that logic, you want to take that logic, right?
So I have proven my strength, right?
Chess.com themselves have said that since I, you know, since they gave me a short ban before, they said that since then I have never cheated.
So on their website, I have beaten some of the best players in the world.
I've performed at the highest level on their website, which they themselves say that I didn't cheat in.
In addition to that, in over-the-board tournaments, I have continued to play chess at a very, very high level.
I have, you know, my ranking, my ranking did not just drop.
I continued to play well even after this victory.
I have proven my chess level, my chess strength time and time again.
This is simply a case of, you know, where bullies are, you know, going after someone because they threaten their business interests.
So it's an action.
Chess Carlson is a very interesting fact that, of course, he's a bully.
He used his entire empire.
He used his connections to chess.com.
He leveraged the fact that there's a merger happening.
And he got all these people to attack me.
And it's a bully.
It's a simple thing.
But I don't let people bully me.
I'm going to stand up to him.
And I stood up to him.
And I look forward to competing him against the board again.
And I'm going to do what I do best and prove myself.
Are you still suing him for $100 million?
No.
You dropped that.
The case has been resolved, Pierce.
Yeah, did he did he pay any money or?
We can't discuss that.
Okay.
Magnus Carlsen Bullying Claims 00:03:43
Out of interest, how do you disprove that you've used anal beads to cheat?
I mean, how could I, you know, disprove a negative?
It's like how would you expect me...
That was never a serious thing.
That was something that the media caught up.
But that was, you know, if you look at the... the consensus among chess players, the consensus among experts, it is an unequivocal fact that I have never cheated in an over-the-board game.
Yeah, but hands.
I'm just wondering, how do you disprove it?
I mean, were you strip search?
Did they explore cavities?
Where do we go here?
Well, through tournaments, there are security checks where they'll do various security checks, metal detectors, different scanners.
Would that pick up anal beads?
I don't know, Pierce.
I have no idea.
You should invite them on your show.
You should invite them on your show and ask them that.
It appears that that's the main topic of your curiosity appears to be that, as opposed to the fact that you have a 19-year-old champion who defeated a champion who defeated the whole world of chess in the largest cyberbullying case in history, the world of chess versus Hans Niemann.
And he's here to talk about it and he's still a victor.
And instead of becoming bitter, he became better.
And you want to ask him about the anal beads, something he never said or never did.
We don't know the answer to that question, Pierce.
Maybe you can ask the anal bead people.
Have them on your show and they can explain it to you better.
I think I will, because it's actually a fascinating...
Listen, I love chess.
I was my school, my prep school children.
You seem to love anal beads better, Pierce.
Well, I was my prep school chess champion.
I never cheated.
You're a better person.
You're a better person.
Your words, not mine, Terence.
But I'm just genuinely curious.
It was a massive story, as you know.
It's why you're famous outside of the chess world.
It's because there was this allegation made, and it was fueled by the world champion who couldn't understand how in normal circumstances you would beat him.
And then Kay Mrs. Well, he's lost to many people of my same ranking many times.
So this idea that it's a statistical anomaly, he can lose one game.
And that's the issue, right?
He lost to people similar age, similar rating multiple times recently.
So me beating him in a singular game is not a statistical anomaly, right?
He hasn't agreed to play you, as I understand it.
Is he chickening out?
What's the deal there?
No, he has agreed to play me.
He put out a public statement that he will play me.
Right, because there's no date, right?
Well, when we are matched in a tournament, which is inevitable, we will play.
And will you allow yourself to be stripped searched just to rule out any rumors?
I find that question to be just, you know, I can't take you seriously when you ask those questions, Pierce.
I'm sorry.
Because you're entertaining, honestly, an allegation that should not even be taken seriously.
Because it's purely for you to get media attention when it's not even a serious thing.
How can you, as a reporter, take that allegation seriously at all?
Well, but do you genuinely believe that?
No, but do you actually believe that that is the case?
I don't know.
Could you even check that?
I don't know.
I know you're capable of cheating because you've admitted it.
I don't know how far you go.
You cheated twice in a four years.
I've never cheated in an over-the-board game.
I've never, well, I'm clearly not, I'm not capable, and I've never cheated in an over-the-board game.
But we only have your word for that.
You accept that, right?
We have your word for that.
My word, it's unequivocal.
Chess.com themselves said that.
It is an unequivocal statistical fact that I have never cheated in an over-the-board game.
And that is something you cannot debate.
Elon Musk, as you know, tweeted on what was known as Twitter, then is now X. Talent hits a target no one else can hit.
Genius hits a target no one can see because it's in your butt.
What did you feel when you read that?
Angling Team Transgender Rules 00:07:24
Well, I was a bit surprised.
You know, I was surprised.
You know, I didn't really think much of it.
You know, I focus on competing and I don't let these things affect me.
And my goal is to become the best chess player in the world and to give back to chess players all around the world.
And I think that chess is a beautiful game that should be spread.
And that's why I intend to do a lot more charity work and give back to the communities who help me.
Do you think when you play Magnus Carlson again, you'll kick his butt, for want of a better phrase?
You know, I'll just let my chess speak for itself.
Hans Neiman and Terence, your lawyer.
Thank you both very much indeed.
Thank you.
Still not quite sure what that lawyer was doing there, to be honest with you, or where the truth lies with Hans Neiman, the bad boy of chess.
Did he or didn't he?
I don't think I'm any the wiser after that.
We know he does cheat or has done, but did he go that far?
What a story if he did.
You can see the full uncut interview with Hans Neeman, there's plenty more on the Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube channel.
It's worth looking in full.
Fascinating, fascinating story.
Coming in tonight, England's women's fishing team has pulled out of the World Angling Championships in protest at a trans angler's inclusion in their squad.
Does physical power of a biological male lose transition, does that actually have a huge impact in fishing?
Well, apparently it does, and we'll talk to those at the deep end of this row after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan.
I said some members of the England ladies' angling team have refused to compete in this year's World Championships.
The decision comes after a trans woman, Becky Lee Burtbusle Hodges, a former male rugby player, was picked for the team.
Well, England's angling trust, the governing body, says trans women have no advantage over biological women.
Many of England's star female anglers, however, vehemently disagree.
Here to explain, our former captain of the England ladies' angling team, Heather Linfield, and Wendy Metcalfe, a former England ladies' angling star who's described by North New Norfolk News as a leading figure of the sport.
So welcome to both of you.
All right, let me start with you, Heather, if I may.
There's a kind of belief from the governing bodies here that being a biological male would have no impact on the sport of angling.
Is that right?
That's what they're saying, and it's not true, but they do not realise that.
They're mixing us up with course anglers, game anglers.
Sea fishing, we're battling the elements of the weather.
There's weed, there's the tide.
It's even walking in the water, getting knocked over because we're women.
We cannot cast as far.
You know, sort of majority of men are well over 100 yards.
Women aren't guessing that distance whatsoever.
And it's just about the unfairness to us women.
You know, with transgenders being on the team, and it's not fair competitiveness.
For those like me who don't fish much, my brother's a massive keen fisherman, has been his whole life, so he would know.
But if you can cast twice as far or more than one of your competitors, what advantage does that give you?
Well, you've got obviously more water that you can cover.
Sometimes there's fish that's further out.
You get fish that sort of like do come close into shore, and a lot of majority of fish can be further out.
So when you're fishing, you've got far more choice if you can cast further than a woman, female.
Okay, let me bring in Wendy.
You pulled out of the England team in 2018 because of all this.
Well, I've covered a lot of this stuff about trans women beginning to dominate and in my view start to ruin women's sport and the integrity of women's sport.
Why did you feel so strongly about this?
I feel strongly about it.
I feel very strongly about it.
I think that this is nothing about Becky Lee.
This is nothing against Becky Lee herself as a person.
What she does in her life is entirely up to her.
It's no concern of ours.
The problem is she has a significant amount of upper body strength and it's not fair.
It's not a fair and level playing field, Piers.
Something's got to happen.
The Angling Trust have really got to sit up and take notice of this.
It's really not fair.
I mean, what's fascinating to me is that this is really a point of principle for both of you, because, of course, it gives England an unfair advantage and therefore we would have a better chance, presumably, of winning big competition.
So you guys are really making a stand, Wendy, on a genuine point of principle, which would actually harm your chances of success.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I'm very proud that the England ladies this year have pulled out.
I just can't thank them enough for standing their ground.
It's about time that something was done about it.
And yes, you're right.
If we had Becky Lee in the team, it would give us an advantage.
But if we won a medal, which I believe they did when Becky Lee was put in the team, when the Angling Trust said that she wouldn't be entered into the team, they won bronze medal.
But it's a hollow victory, Piers.
It's not right.
No, it's not.
And Heather, I think this is the problem with all these, is that nobody feels good about this.
And I don't feel good about this trans athlete, this trans fisherwoman, fisherman, whatever she wants to call herself.
It doesn't matter to me, but what matters to me is the integrity of women's sport being preserved and that women's rights to equality and fairness are not destroyed in the process.
Yeah.
Exactly.
I'm sort of, you know, I've done a 20-odd year stint at this and I just want it right for the people that are coming in and who haven't got the voice because they're too scared in case they're not chosen or selected for a team.
And they won't speak up because they're afraid of this.
Whereas I want to leave what I have put my whole life into.
I want it leaving in safe hands for us women.
Yeah, and I just don't understand.
I don't understand why this particular person, Becky, can't just continue to compete with biological men, which is her biological sex as a male.
Why can't she just keep doing that with people who are of the same physical build?
Yeah, that's my main point is to Becky Lee, if you're watching this, why don't you put all your efforts into campaigning to get your own category?
That would make sense.
Can you imagine, Piers, what it would be like in the future?
The whole of the women's team could be transgender.
Well, I think it's honestly, like I say, I've done lots on this issue.
I think it's ridiculous.
I think it's got to stop.
And we've got to protect women's sport.
Thank you.
We run out of time, ladies.
Thank you both very much indeed for joining me and good on you for sticking up for your principles.
That's it from me.
What are you up to?
Keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection