All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 6, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:31
20231206_piers-morgan-uncensored-times-is-taylor-josh-lovit
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Boris Johnson Accountability 00:15:18
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Boris Johnson blusters his long-awaited appearance at the COVID inquiry's normal style, but will it help the country avoid repeating his deadly mistakes?
We'll debate that.
And the future of the government as Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick sensationally quits tonight over the Rwanda plan.
Hollywood heavyweight John Lovitz has been scathing about the rise in anti-Semitism since Israel's war on Hamas began, including he says, and other Hollywood Jews.
He'll join me live, as will Israel's ambassador to the UK.
Taylor Swift is named Times Person of the Year.
Is she now the greatest pop star of all time?
We'll debate.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored, live from my home in London.
I've still got COVID, but the show will still go on.
It's just uncensored with a dash of COVID.
Now, there are many valid criticisms about the UK government's COVID inquiry.
It's too long, far too expensive, and too knotted up in retrospective weeds to do what it's supposed to be doing.
Working out if we're better prepared for a pandemic now than we were in 2020.
And they're all fair points, but what I don't buy is the spin that we've been shoveled by Boris Johnson's acolytes ever since it started.
They want us to believe it's another anti-Boris witch hunt, a show trial.
It's not.
And if it was a show trial, the judge would be tossing him in the cells for contempt of court.
Boris Johnson quit as an MP after lying to Parliament about his pandemic parties at number 10.
Today he promised us this.
Of course, that turned out to be his first lie.
This is how he explained the curious case of the 5,000 missing WhatsApp messages on his phone from the crucial early stages of the pandemic that all just mysteriously vanished.
Do you know why your phone was missing those 5,000 odd WhatsApps?
I don't know the exact reason, but it looks as though it's something to do with the app going down and then coming up again, but somehow not automatically erasing all the things between that date when it went down and the moment when it was last backed up.
What a load of absolute cobblers.
Have you ever, ever met anyone where that's happened to them with their WhatsApps?
Boris Johnson spent his entire lifetime being economical with the truth and yet somehow he's still completely terrible at it.
Under pressure, he became like a house of cards in front of a fan.
Here he is strenuously denying he'd ever received an exasperated message from his top civil servant only for Hugo Keith KC to then read it to him.
The WhatsApp has been taken, of course, from the material which you've provided and from obviously the phones from other people who are interlocutors.
Sorry, let me correct you, Mr. Keith.
What that WhatsApp was was a WhatsApp from the cabinet secretary saying that he told me directly something.
I don't think I saw the WhatsApp directly to me.
Mark said, well, on the 2nd of July, WhatsApp chewed directly to say lots of top-drawer people had refused to come because of the toxic reputation of your operation.
I'm sorry.
Look at his face.
Rumbled.
Johnson also claimed to have never been told that he should advise people to stop shaking hands, when in fact his own scientific advisors had warned him against shaking hands on the very day that he boasted about shaking hands at a hospital with COVID patients, something that some of us at the time said was complete madness.
The more Johnson spoke today, the longer his proverbial nose extended.
He denied being told by his advisors that COVID was serious in the early months of 2020.
He was then shown this message from early February, in which his chief advisor Dominic Cummings has clearly told him, the chief scientist told me today that it's probably out of control now and will sweep the world.
How much more serious did it need to get?
He was also shown this handwritten note from his private secretary recording the Prime Minister's words at a meeting in which he said, why are we destroying everything for people who will die anyway?
Bed blockers.
Can you imagine anything more repulsively insensitive about people's loved ones than that?
He was told that he simply didn't think anyone would find out.
That was his excuse.
But they did, because it's an inquiry.
And we're finding it all out now.
It's hard to disagree with Simon Case, a senior civil servant, quoted at today's hearing, who said he, quote, never seen a bunch of people less suited to run in the country.
This was how Johnson responded to that.
WhatsApp conversation is intended to be, though clearly it isn't, ephemeral.
It tends to the pejorative and the hyperbolical.
Just bluster, babble, bullcrap.
He even attempted to tell us that no matter what the facts say, maybe he did a pretty decent job after all.
Many other countries suffered terrible losses from COVID.
They did.
And the evidence that I've seen suggests that we were well down the European table and well down the world table.
The evidence before Milady is that the United Kingdom had one of the highest rates of excess death in Europe.
Almost all other Western European countries had a lower level of excess death.
I've seen just caught again shaking his head.
He couldn't believe the fact that someone was calling him out on his lies.
Well, since Boris Johnson still has such a hard time with it, let's make some things crystal clear.
The UK's COVID response was an unmitigated fiasco.
Many thousands of people died when they shouldn't have because of his chaotic leadership and government.
Boris Johnson famously hid in a fridge to avoid an interview with me.
Well, today he snuck into the COVID inquiry in the early hours of the morning to avoid facing the bereaved families who were waiting for him outside later.
Unfortunately for him, he was met by jeering, heckling crowds when he left, who made their feelings very well known.
The public knows Boris Johnson's legacy, even if he doesn't.
He was a failed leader who lied his way into and out of power with deadly consequences.
Well, I'm joined now by Talk2V's international editor Isabel Oakeshott, by Associate Editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin Maguire, the broadcaster and biographer Tom Bauer, and the owner of Crabtree Care Homes, David Crabtree.
David, let me come to you first, if I may, because I have spoken to you from the start of the pandemic right to tonight, many times.
You've always been a very eloquent and passionate articulator of the real impact of the government's policy decisions on care homes in particular.
But when you saw Boris Johnson today at the inquiry, what did you feel about his evidence?
And so it just invokes the anger again.
They were incompetent.
Big mistakes are made.
But then to say, are we risking everything for people who are going to die anyway?
Forgetting completely that the social care staff, the mother of two, had to go in there with no PPE.
So he didn't even, even today, he's not recognized that the social care staff saved the country, but were put at risk by this incompetent.
I'm sure they must all go to some sort of radar school because him and Hancock tell the same lies.
They're just pathological in their denial of.
And what's more annoying is the reality is they'll all go on to have a happy career and yet social carers are still low paid, still at risk.
And if a pandemic happened tomorrow, there is no change.
I have received no advice to tell me anything different from last time.
You see, that is absolutely staggering.
Let me bring in Isabel Oakshop because I think this has been one of your bugbears about the whole inquiry is that it's not asking the right questions.
And one of the key ones is how prepared would we be if we were hit by another pandemic tomorrow.
According to what David just said, care homes, we're no better off than we were the last time around.
Well, I think we've learned quite a lot since then.
I don't think you need to be issued with advice to know that certain things would definitely have to be done differently.
I'm afraid, Piers, I think that your summary of Boris Johnson's evidence today was spectacularly unfair and very, very biased.
Now, you know, I hold no torch whatsoever for Boris Johnson.
I have been extraordinarily outspoken in my criticism of the way he conducted his administration, particularly with reference to the completely unjustified behaviour inside Downing Street and the lockdown parties.
But I was surprised today to see him unusually frank.
I think he was quite honest.
And I know that's not a normal state of affairs for the former Prime Minister, but actually that contrition that he demonstrated, I almost thought I was mishearing it.
But you know, this is a man whose career I followed for 15 years.
I think that was genuine.
He did nearly break down during his evidence session today.
He did accept responsibility.
And what he set out very powerfully was how difficult it was to make the judgments in his position where he had to balance the whole, not just whether lives would be saved today and tomorrow, but the impact that shutting down the whole of society would have in the longer term.
We now know that the consequences of lockdown were catastrophic.
Many, many lives have been lost, damaged, ruined, destroyed as a consequence of lockdown.
And that is what he was wrestling with in the run-up to the first historic lockdown.
So far be it from me to issue a defense of Boris Johnson, but I think your summary was very, very unfair.
Well, that is a spectacular defense of Boris Johnson.
It looks to me like he's managed to pull the wool over your eyes.
Oh, no.
And I'm equally surprised because your eyes, your eyes are normally the toughest eyes in Fleet Street.
So I'm pretty staggered to hear you launching such a determined attempt to deny what we just watched with our own eyes.
And I'll bring in Kevin here.
I mean, Kevin, you were rolling your eyes through that.
I just played a series of clips where Boris Johnson says one thing and they then show him that he's talking complete disingenuous nonsense, which is what he's done throughout this.
Now, I don't deny for a moment that we were in a very difficult situation with this pandemic, as was every country in the world.
But I also think on every conceivable metric from testing, from PPE, from controlling our border, from the timings of the lockdown, I personally think without any vaccines or therapeutic drugs, there was no alternative to lockdown.
The problem was how the lockdowns got implemented and how he didn't protect other people with other diseases.
That was always the problem.
And that again was a failure of the government.
So I look at every single way you could judge a government in a health emergency and this government failed.
I'm watching Boris Johnson today with somebody who looked like he'd been brought finally to account and just was trying to stammer his way in that normal buffoon manner he has to try and avoid proper accountability.
Yeah, I watched the same inquiry as you.
Isabel saw a different one.
Other people may have watched the same one as Isabel.
He started by apologising.
He didn't really know what he was apologizing for.
Now, he wasn't tetchy.
He managed to rein himself in, but it strikes me like he's like a boxer who's had the stuffing knocked out of him.
He's punched drunk.
But he's had months to prepare and he still couldn't get his story straight as he kept getting pulled up on Iraq inaccuracies, denying truths, which were there quoted at him.
Now, when we get to the bit on the vaccine rollout and the jabs, he may do a little better because that was a success.
But you're quite right early on, the delayed lockdown, lost messages, WhatsApp.
I just don't buy that disappearance at all.
But of course, that's when he was finalizing his divorce and he was preparing to marry again and he was just obsessed with Brexit.
So he took his eye off the ball and people died as a result.
We saw there were catastrophic failures.
The delay and the lockdown, what happened in care homes, Matt Hancock described it as a protective arm.
They didn't put a protective arm.
They actually stopped testing instead of expanding it.
There was no PPE for staff.
So I think you watch it and you can only judge, I think, if you're just reasonable.
And of course, I don't like Johnson, I'll admit, but if you look at it, you've got to think that we were very unlucky to have him as a prime minister because he was so inept and so incompetent.
Can I just pick up on one?
I also think...
Can I pick up on one of your specific accusations of Johnson there?
I knew you would go very hard on him on that note that we saw at the inquiry today, where he said, why are we destroying everything for people who will die anyway?
Very unfortunate language.
He never expected that to be public.
It was a private communication.
I don't think it was unreasonable for him to ask whether it was wise and it was his job to have these mental balancing acts that he had to make.
Wasn't unreasonable for him to ask that, given that the average age of those who died of, let me finish, those who died of COVID or with COVID were in their 80s.
So it wasn't a reasonable question for him to ask.
Let me tell you.
Let me tell you.
When I read that, hang on, David.
David, hang on one second.
It was a reasonable question.
Well, exactly.
I mean, David.
David runs a series of care homes where they literally take care of people of that age.
The lack of compassion in that note and the fact that you would defend that lack of compassion.
He defended me.
Imagine if that was your family.
That's a question.
I'm defending that he.
And phrase it the way he did.
Sunak's Flippant Advice 00:08:58
They're bed blockers.
Why are we trying to save these people?
I very clearly did not defend.
Sorry, when you're prime, sorry, as we're now discovering, Isabel, when you're prime minister of this country, everything that you say and do and write in your term of office is for public consumption.
That's why we're now reading it in a public inquiry.
In a way, it's not a problem.
There is no such thing as private communication.
It doesn't hurt anybody.
Neither here nor there.
It is neither here nor there how it was written now.
The question is whether he was afraid of the public.
I think it does.
It doesn't matter.
It does, because you come to unimage it.
It's like the way he dismissed long COVID, right?
And in a most dismissive and repulsive manner.
I know people, I had long COVID for seven months, but nowhere near as badly as other people I know who've been literally crippled by it.
It's a hideous thing that afflicted about 20 to 25% of people who get COVID in varying degrees.
And to see the Prime Minister dismiss old people.
Oh, they can all die.
He won't dismiss long COVID.
That doesn't make sense.
That's reducing.
Let me bring in Tom Bauer.
I've been waiting very patiently.
Tom, look, we've seen I rolling from Isabel to me and Kevin, I rolling from Kevin to Isabel.
Where are your eyes rolling on this?
Well, on all of you.
I mean, if Kevin had his choice, we'd have had Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister.
He actually couldn't have done a worse job, could he?
But the whole point is this, which everyone is forgetting, especially in the inquiry.
And Keith is really a dreadful person to have a very more.
And Hallett, the judge, a second-rate criminal lawyer, shouldn't be given that job either.
Because what they're all forgetting is this critical matter: that when this whole thing started, it was Valence on the 2nd of January who said herd immunity is the only way to cope with it.
And it was Public Health England led by a man who had not been successful in the previous 13 applications for jobs.
He had no A-levels, who got the job with two women and they had no idea what they were doing.
And those three people assured Valance, assured Witty, assured the Prime Minister when he went up to Collindale that they had everything under control.
And so he was relying on experts.
And he was wrong to do that.
And that is the problem.
That he relied on the science and the scientists had no idea what they were doing.
And then...
Yeah, but Tom, Tom.
I just want to say one other thing.
On the basic thing.
Let me say one other thing, which I think puts the nail on this inquiry.
The Office of National Statistics, which is the key statistical operation of our country, produced a graph which shows that we're in the middle of deaths around the world.
There is no way that Keith could have produced to the inquiry statistics which showed that we were amongst the highest, if not Zah.
But he was quite simply wrong.
He was quite simply wrong.
What he's doing is he was taking the BBC graph that they were peddling throughout this inquiry, which was always wrong.
And that is the whole problem with this inquiry.
It is two people, Keith, who's a real poseur, and a judge who thinks she's terribly important.
And they're blaming everything on Brexit and Boris.
This isn't a whitewash.
You know what it boils down to?
You know what it boils down to to me?
Boris Johnson won a massive thumping election victory on the back of getting Brexit done, which he didn't properly get done.
And then he packed his cabinet with people that agreed with him, which I always felt was a fundamental failure of legal around you.
And they turned out to be the most mediocre bunch of people, from Hancock to Grav to others.
You're absolutely right.
He arrived in Downing Street with a dreadful team of people.
And as Prime Minister, he had no idea what government entailed.
All those criticisms can be made of him, and they be true.
But the truth is that the experts all got it wrong.
And he was constantly briefed wrongly.
And the lockdown happened late because Valence and Whittie and all of them couldn't agree and then they delayed it themselves.
So, you know, the problem with this inquiry is it is the trial of Boris Johnson.
It is not actually looking at the experts, the civil servants who are catastrophic.
They built all these nightingale hospitals and there was nobody who never used them.
Whatever happened to the book stops at the top, it's always somebody.
Always somebody is.
To be fair, he accepted that, Kevin.
Boris Johnson had to be told it was not a good idea to tell the public to keep shaking hands.
That was in the middle of March.
That's a trivial thing.
Piers, that is utterly trivial.
Trivial?
It is.
That turned out to be how most people caught the damn thing.
You know what it is?
It was because of Valance and Witty that Cheltenham went ahead.
It was because of Valence and Witty that the football match in Liverpool went ahead.
What?
And that shaking of the hands.
What the shaking of the hands and ignoring the advice and being flippant about older people is it shows he just wasn't a serious prime minister.
He just didn't address it seriously.
There is an issue about the advice he got, and the experts should not get off the hook either as we look for how it happened and how we can deal with it again.
But he was at the top and he was just cavalier in his approach.
Yeah, he's a great campaigner, but he was absolutely rubber as a prime minister.
I agree with you, Kevin.
He's a prime minister.
This is the job he wanted.
The one he craved all his life.
And when it came to the big challenge, he failed us.
David Crabtree, final word to you on this.
Before these people in care homes died, 10 days before they died, social care workers had to care for them.
They were put at risk by this nonchalant non-treatment, non-PPE.
They weren't regarded as there was no safeguarding of staff.
And the second point is, we did close our doors.
We were made to open them to take back our patients that were already in for medical reasons untested.
The CQC and PHE England, Mr. Bauer's correct, take no responsibility and get away scot-free with this.
Yeah, thank you, Dave.
Well, listen, you keep up your good work.
I want to just before we leave you guys, I want to ask Isabel quickly about his breaking news tonight that Remerich has gone as immigration minister in protest over the Robert Generic, this is, over the Rwanda policy, already a very controversial policy.
How significant will this be, do you think, to Rishi Sunak's tenure as Prime Minister?
I think it is extraordinarily significant.
I think this is what you're seeing is the beginning of a complete disintegration of this government.
I really wonder how on earth he can pull things back together in coming weeks and months because the immigration problem isn't going away.
A thousand people came over in boats in the last few days alone and we're in the winter at this point.
So this is only going to get worse for Rishi Sunak and there are an awful lot of MPs now who are simply Tory MPs who are just out to save their own skin.
And it's very, very difficult to run a government when you've lost that level of control.
Kevin?
Yeah, we are.
I agree with Isabel.
We're watching the disintegration of a government now.
Of course, Generic was pulling the strings.
He was pushing for tougher controls to stop legal migration.
He wanted to go further on Rwanda and defy the European Convention and Human Rights.
And in a way, the UK government is now being outflanked by Rwanda itself, which is a repressive regime which says it wants to abide by international law.
While I think it's shaming for the Tory Party, the party of Winston Churchill, which crafted the Convention on Human Rights, that they now want to defy.
But no, it's falling apart.
How long can they go on?
Well, we might get nearly another year of this because prime ministers do not like to relinquish the keys to number 10.
But the government is just falling apart before our very eyes.
They don't, but they don't.
But Tom Bauer, very quickly, this Conservative Party has got a ruthless streak in it, as we've seen in recent years.
They've toppled quite a few of their leaders and home secretaries and others.
What's going to happen to Rishi Sunak now, do you think?
Well, I think it's too late to remove him, but I'm afraid I agree with the two panelists here.
It is the end of the Tory Party, as we know it at the moment.
The government really, Richie Sunak isn't a politician.
That's the real problem.
He's a technocrat, and it really is curtains.
That's the sad point for anybody who supports the Tory Party.
Okay, well, we leave on a point of agreement with my panel, which was not looking likely about 10 minutes ago.
So thank you all very much.
I appreciate it.
And thank you, David.
Uncensored next, the UN human rights chief condemns the apocalyptic situation in Gaza.
Gaza Humanitarian Crisis 00:09:19
I'll ask Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom if she now believes there is a humanitarian crisis.
Welcome back to our census.
The UN Secretary General today took the unprecedented step of invoking Article 99 of the UN Charter calling on the UN Security Council to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
It comes after UN human rights chief Volka Turk described the situation as apocalyptic with a heightened risk of atrocity crimes.
Last time our next guest was on the show, she didn't accept there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
So I welcome back now Tezebi Hodzovelli, who is the Israel ambassador to the UK.
And I'll ask straight off the top, Ambassador, if I may.
Have you changed your mind?
Do you now accept there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza?
There is no doubt there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but Hamas needs to be blamed for that because just today we saw Hamas taking over humanitarian aid trucks, taking food from the people of Gaza, taking over every single thing, including medicine.
So this is Hamas' behavior that is preventing the people of Gaza to receive this humanitarian aid.
So we still see Hamas as the main barrier to give the people of Gaza the humanitarian aid that Israel allows to get into Gaza.
But look, as you know, I support Israel's right to defend itself.
I think Hamas, by what it did on October the 7th, showed that it has to be removed.
And they live amongst the civilian population.
It's an incredibly difficult war to prosecute if you're Israel.
I accept all of those things.
But the stark facts are that over 15,000 people have now been killed in Gaza already in just over two months, of which 4,000 to 5,000 are believed to be children.
You cannot look at these scenes in Gaza and not feel the same way that we all do.
This is an extraordinary slaughter of innocent people as you go after terrorists.
Pierce, I totally don't accept what you're describing at the moment, because think about how much efforts Israel is doing to make sure the Palestinians will get to designated areas in the southwest area of Gaza in order to have safer places, shelters, humanitarian aid.
All these things Israel is doing, something that not in the past other countries did for enemy population.
Now, we are dealing with a terror organization that as a strategy used the people and the children and the women as human shields.
So they're basing all the bases, all their military bases, inside hospitals.
They're basing it into UNRWA schools.
They're basing it into mosques.
And as you know, now we are in Khan Yunes.
Khanyunes is the city that Ichi Sinouar, this archae terrorist, that planned in this calculated way this devil plan of October 7th.
So we now must finish the job of making sure Hamas won't control the Gaza Strip.
There is no other way if you want a better future for Palestinian children as well as Israeli children.
But where are all these Gazans going to live when this is over?
You've pretty well leveled the north of Gaza.
You're now going into the south to do the same there.
You're shoehorning these millions, several million people into a tiny area where the facilities for them are truly awful, as every independent assessor is saying.
But what happens after this?
I mean, if most of Gaza gets destroyed and tens of thousands of Gazans are killed, what life is there left for them after this?
Well, that's a very good question.
You're actually referring to the day after the war.
So first of all, there is still a big task to Israel to make sure the underground tunnel city is destroyed.
And as I'm carrying this, to remind everyone, there are over 138 innocent people kept hostage in Hamas' hands, including 15 women.
And by the way, it was Matthew Miller, the spokesperson of the State Department, that said the reason Hamas didn't release them in the last POWs is because they're very much terrified from the idea these women will speak up for all the atrocities, the rape, the systematic rape Hamas committed against innocent women.
And I really appreciate the fact you spoke up for this sexual violence.
But I want to tell you, I feel sometimes like Jewish women doesn't count.
When you think about the world silence, when you think about UN organizations saying nothing about the systematic rape, Hamas mutilized women.
There was a necrophilia.
There was innocent young women from a music festival that had a gang rape.
So those kind of things we must make sure the world won't be silent about.
And I really think that this was one of those moments of silence that was a disgrace to the UN organizations and for many women organizations by not speaking up for that.
So I want to remind you that because Hamas didn't release our hostages on that, I completely agree with you.
But it's how Israel is going about prosecuting the war on Hamas that is causing increasing concern.
And it is unprecedented for the UN Secretary General to invoke Article 99 of the UN Charter.
They've never done it before.
And this is because what he believes is a genuine, right now, safety, security, and humanitarian threat, which needs the attention of the whole UN Security Council.
This humanitarian aspect of what is going on in Gaza is now something that's requiring unprecedented United Nations intervention.
Well, obviously, this is not the case because many times in the past, there were many types of humanitarian crisis in many places.
Do you think Mosul didn't look like Gaza after the Americans' airstrikes?
Do you think Tokyo after American airstrikes didn't look worse than Gaza?
So over 100,000 Japanese got killed in the Second World War under American airstrikes.
And the reason it was, it was because the Japanese involvement in Pearl Harbor.
So we need to remember who started this war.
Hamas started this war.
And this is not in our duty, by the way.
In no way, not to protect our people.
This is actually our duty to make sure Israeli children will be protected in the future.
And no one in the international community, including our allies, the Americans, the British, the Germans, no one is thinking there is other way besides making sure Hamas infrastructure won't exist.
The military machine must be destroyed.
And you need to remember that.
Hamas brought it on his own people.
16 years of Hamas' regime since 2005, no Israeli street.
And they brought just poverty and bloodshed over the Palestinian people.
At the moment, Ambassador, we have Israel giving us their version of what they're doing in Gaza.
And the only journalists outside of people actually in Gaza, nearly 60 of whom have been killed, which is horrific, the worst death toll on journalists in living memory.
But the international journalists want to get in there, but they're only being allowed in if they're with the IDF and carefully controlled.
Why won't you let journalists go into Gaza and investigate this as they would in other war zones?
First of all, I'm sure journalists will be allowed into the Gaza Strip.
At the moment, remember that many parts of Gaza are still controlled by Hamas, and Hamas is preventing from journalists to get in.
And this is why IDF is actually giving access to journalists to get in and to see with their own eyes, to be eyewitnesses.
But only with the IDF.
And again, this is part of the reason why we want to protect them.
We don't want them to get caught in a crossfire.
But if we'll go back to the...
Yeah, but the argument is, you know, Ambassador, just to pick you up on that, as you know, what you may be protecting as far as they're concerned is access to reality.
And again, I'll just ask you, is it not time to allow foreign journalists to go in there without being escorted everywhere by the IDF, where clearly there's a conflict of interest there about what they may or may not be prepared to do?
Believe there is something that Israel doesn't have anything to hide.
What we do is a self-protection of our people after the brutal attack of 7th of October.
But if we'll go back to your question about the day after, one thing we realized after ongoing military operations, and this time we want it to be final, we don't want it to be ongoing violence cycles, in order to make sure both Israelis and Palestinians will have a better future.
There is no doubt the Gaza Strip must be, first of all, demilitarized.
And the second thing is it must be de-radicalized.
When you think about the education system under the UN symbol that brought these young Palestinians to grow up to be this monstrous terrorist, we need to stop that.
We need to make sure the next generation will receive education of respecting the other side, just like Israelis have raised an idea that in the other side there are humans.
They must stop dehumanizing Jews.
Anti-Semitism and Bullying 00:07:34
And I want to tell you something.
I thought anti-Semitism is out of this world when I saw in 2023 the presidents of US Ivy League universities still don't understand the scale of anti-Semitism.
I'm coming to that specifically with my next guest actually.
That's why I'm going to cut you off on that, Ambassador.
Listen, I appreciate you coming back on the show.
I think we should have a regular dialogue through this war.
Like I said to you, you don't have to justify October the 7th and Israel's right to defend itself after that.
It's how you're doing it that is the matter of concern now.
And I appreciate you coming on and answering some questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Ron Censor's next celebrated actor and comedian John Lovis is calling out a rise in anti-Semitism, including in Hollywood and amongst, as we just heard, the presidents of some of the most famous Ivy League universities in the world.
What the hell is going on at these places?
Welcome back to Pittsburgh and Uncensored.
I'm broadcasting from my home as I still have COVID.
Yesterday's been called the day US academia died after Congress cross-examined three elite university leaders on dealing with anti-Semitic protests on campus.
These were some of their extraordinary responses.
Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment.
That would be investigated as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
Specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
If the speech is not a problem, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.
The answer is yes.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?
Yes or no?
It depends on the context.
It does not depend on the context.
The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign.
These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Well, joining me now is the action comedian John Lovitz.
John, good to have you on the show.
I've got to say, I watched this open-mouthed with utter horror.
These are the presidents of the biggest universities in America.
What were they doing failing to answer such a basic question?
It's shocking.
And I think it's because, you know, over the years, everybody's being put into a certain category.
You know, you're this, you're that.
I identify as this and that, as opposed to everybody's, you know, has different backgrounds, but we're all people.
I was in college in a dorm, a fine arts dorm, and my friends and I were all different, and we'd tease each, we'd make fun of it because it didn't mean anything.
I was Jewish, some were African American, some were Chinese, some were from Mexico.
And we just said we were all friends.
We didn't care.
We go, isn't this exciting?
You're going to be an actor.
You want to be a singer.
You want to be a painter.
It was about that.
It's just shocking to me.
I mean, if that isn't bullying, what is?
And if they said that about any other group...
Well, it's not bullying group.
If you hear people calling for, right, if you hear about calls for genocide, that's not bullying or harassment.
That is incitement to mass murder and eradication of a people to another Holocaust.
That's what it means.
I agree 100%.
Imagine if there was a group that was in the KKK and then they said that about African Americans, which would be horrendous.
There's no question.
Well, actually, I was thinking today.
Of course.
I was thinking today, if they were asked the same question about similar attacks, verbal threat attacks on Muslims at universities, for example, what would their reaction have been?
And I suspect it would have been very different.
And that is, I think, one of the really glaring inconsistencies here is that when it comes to Jewish students and how they should be protected at university, the same rules don't apply.
No, I think there's a lot of, I think one of the sources of anti-Semitism, which has always been around, is the idea that they go, I've had people say to me, they go, oh, you're the chosen people.
You're chosen by God.
You think you're better than everyone else.
I go, no.
And that's not what chosen means.
I wish I could get that out.
Jews don't try to convert anybody.
You have to choose to believe in the Ten Commandments, choose to do the right thing morally and socially, and also choose to listen to the voice in your head that tells you the difference between right and wrong.
So if you have a group of people doing that, you can't control them.
And people that want to control other people, that drives them nuts, you know.
But I think that chosen people thing is a big cornerstone of it.
And that's not what I'm saying.
John, have you been struck by the lack of big Hollywood stars who've put their heads above the parapet to speak out in favor of Jewish people right now, many of whom are feeling under real threat around the world?
Yeah, I am.
I mean, the fact that I'm on your show talking about it, as opposed to people that are much bigger than I am.
I mean, the ones that I see talking are, you know, Gal Godot, Wonder Woman, she's Israeli, of course, you're going to say something.
And Michael Rappaportme, and Patricia Heaton, who's on Everybody Loves Raymond.
She's not Jewish, but she's very outspoken against anti-Semitism.
I don't understand it.
I think the people, they're either scared or they're afraid to say anything or they think it's going to hurt their business.
But my daddy goes.
So I was going to ask you, John, what should happen to the presidents of these universities who are incapable of saying that genocide represents even the bar of bullying or harassment?
Should they all be fired?
I think so, yeah.
I mean, you need, I mean, if you can't stand up for right and wrong, how can you lead a university where you're guiding young people and teaching them this?
It's just wrong.
It's not even...
Why can they go, yeah, of course it's bullying?
I mean, it's ridiculous.
It feels like the whole world, it's opposite day, you know, and you can be.
Yeah, it's so surreal.
And there's such a double standard because the same universities were at the forefront, of course, after things like the George Floyd murder in taking really proactive action there.
And yet when it comes to what we're seeing with the anti-Semitism, the action is the very opposite of proactive.
Well, I guess the sad thing about it is what I'm realizing is the anti-Semitism has always been there.
It just wasn't, it wasn't out in the open.
And now they've all come out in the open.
And that's the shocking part that you think it went away.
But of course, that's naive.
It's been around since the existence of Jews for 5,000 years.
Madonna Tour Reflections 00:06:18
And to me, it's just like, oh my God, here we go again.
The Germans, the Jews in Germany were German first.
They couldn't believe it.
And I had the exact same feeling.
And I realized, here we go again.
So I have to say something.
I'm not political, but I go, I can't not say anything.
It's about survival of me, my friends, my family, my relatives.
And as my dad, sorry about my voice, as my father always said, if Israel goes, all the Jews in the world, they're next.
That's it.
So I don't know why people in Hollywood aren't saying more.
I know about 700 of them signed a petition.
Well, I'm glad that you are speaking out, John.
It's important that people like you speak out.
And don't worry about your voice, by the way, because I've got COVID, which is why I'm doing the show from home.
So my voice is as bad as yours.
So we're in the same boat.
But thank you very much for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Thanks for having me.
All right.
All the best.
John Lovitz.
And says the next.
Taylor Swift is named Time Magazine's Person of the Year.
Does that now mean she's the greatest pop star of all time?
I would argue yes.
We'll discuss after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored, live from my sitting room, where I've got COVID.
So I'm doing the show from home.
But I'm joined by PAC, talk-to-view contributor Esther Kraku, and the podcaster and comedian James Tar.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Right, I want to talk Taylor Swift, who today was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year, beating off a lot of people from Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Zelensky.
You know, you could put all sorts of world leaders in the mix.
But she was the winner.
Esther, are you a Taylor Swift fan?
Should she have got this accolade?
And what does it mean about her status in the pantheon of pop idols?
Well, I'm not a Taylor Swift fan just because I feel like if she was a man, she wouldn't get away with singing about her exes in the way that she does.
I find a very, very like a drunk white girl's dream.
Oh, come off it.
Maybe that's it.
Sorry.
I just, you know, it's weird, but she does deserve her success.
She is now officially a billionaire.
Her tour has raked in so much money.
I mean, her tour has created mini economic bubbles in areas that she's actually performed.
So that is a feat of her own.
But I do think it says more about society that this is the person that's the woman of the year than well, person of the year than anyone else.
I would personally go with someone else.
Well, you see, all right, well, let me bring in James.
Now, James, you and I have locked horns about Madonna many times, but on this, we may find some agreement because I actually think Taylor Swift, she's a brilliant singer-songwriter.
I mean, one of the best there's been.
She is a fantastic role model.
I mean, you know, you could, if you had a young daughter, you would love her to be a Swift because she represents all that's wholesome and good about the world, right?
And not some of the idols that you're doing.
I mean, her love life isn't a lot of fun.
Some of these rap stars.
But let me finish with James.
But James, but she's also turned out to be an incredibly savvy businesswoman.
I mean, she's generating vast amounts of cash.
More, I was told by someone in LA, she makes more money than the Beatles, Prayer did, right?
So there is a legitimate argument.
She's now the biggest pop star there's ever been right.
I mean, she's on 200 billion, I think.
Madonna is on total sales of 300 billion.
Madonna has kind of hit her peak, and I saw the celebration tour last night.
It was Soleil.
But I think we Swifty's know that Taylor Swift is not really even at her peak yet and is only just emerging into that peak period.
And the era's tour is almost a best of.
So, wow, what is next?
Taylor Swift is just an icon.
And Esther, I really think you need to spend some time healing your heart and listening to Midnights because I know from off-air share both been going through a little bit of a diversity.
What I would say, Esther, you need some Taylor Swift.
Well, what I would say, I would say this to Esther: if James Barr and me agree about something, it is so unprecedented that you really ought to join the party.
Yeah, but Pierson.
I'm sorry.
Taylor Swift's dating history is a complete dump sapphire.
If she was my friend, I would be like, ma'am, we need to talk.
You need to take a long break and stop singing about your exes.
It's not cute.
Strange.
No, she listen.
Taylor can do whatever the hell she wants.
And actually, it is cute because she is finally breaking the patriarchal boundaries and saying, you know what?
Women are allowed to express their feelings.
It's actually so patriarchal.
I can't believe you're the Piers Morgan on the Piers Morgan show right now, Esther.
Because literally, Taylor Swift is calling out a.
Well, I don't know about that.
I've never felt so rough, Do you show?
I can tell you that.
Well, yeah.
You win some.
Here's the point, Esther, I would make about her: is that I read an amazing stat that not only does she sell out this tour around the world to huge stadiums night after night, but the merchandise average spend per fan who bought a ticket was over $230 a head per person.
You could give me her tickets to the United States.
And then she released a movie of the concert, and that was one of the biggest movie hits of the year.
I mean, everything she touches is gigantic.
Well, she is.
And I think she's a good role model.
Well, the thing is, her brand is very, it's genius, right?
Because she's very relatable.
She is literally every drunk white girl's dream.
She has terrible relationships.
She's not perfect.
She hasn't had a relationship with her.
She's had a great relationship.
I feel very done.
She is just a final word to Jay.
All right, hang on.
Don't talk over each other.
Final word to James.
She's got a hunky new football star boyfriend.
She's got it all now, right?
Yeah, she's walking around with her next album ready to go when that relationship may or may not end.
But Taylor Swift is an icon.
She's amazing.
I love her so much.
Esther, I don't know what music you're listening to, but it might be time to become a Swift.
All right, we've got to wrap it up.
James, let's end one year on a high.
We agree.
Esther, you're wrong.
That's it for tonight.
Keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection