All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 7, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:28
20231207_piers-morgan-uncensored-joey-barton-tory-war
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Civil War in Conservative Party 00:14:42
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored.
Knives are out for Rishi Sunak as the Prime Minister faces down another Conservative Party civil war.
Is it time for a general election or debate?
Plus, are men secretly sick and tired of women commentating on men's football matches?
Sporting bad boy Joey Barton thinks so, has said so, and he'll be here live to defend himself.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored, live again from my home because I've still got COVID.
Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister with a crystal clear brief to bring down the curtain on Britain's political circus.
Boris Johnson had brought disorder and deceit to Downing Street.
Liz Truss brought ridicule and ruin to the whole country.
And all the while the Conservative Party had indulged itself in an orgy of mudslinging, a relentless shambolic slugfest between the hardliners, the remainers, the reformers, the blue wall, the European Research Group, the Net Zero Group, the Common Sense Group, the Boris Backers, the Truss and Ox Dossers.
But they all forgot something fundamental.
Nobody cares.
Rishi Sunak seemed to get that.
He was the grown-up back in charge for most of the first year of his tenure in number 10.
Whether you think he's doing a good job or not, or like him or not, at least it was a truce in the Tories' civil war, and he brought a basic competence and civility to the office.
Well, that truce is well and truly over.
Last night, his immigration minister, Robert Jenrick, dramatically quit, claiming version 8.0 of the useless Rwanda policy is doomed to fail, which I've said it would be from day one.
Today, the PM found itself giving an emergency press conference to defend that useless policy and his future.
I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.
If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of our sovereign parliament, I will do what is necessary to get flights off.
And today's new laws already make clear that the decision on whether to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court is a decision for British government ministers and British government ministers alone.
Because it is your government, not criminal gangs or indeed foreign courts, who decides who comes here and who stays in our country.
Now, of course, our Rwanda policy is just one part of our wider strategy to stop the boats.
And that strategy is working.
Well, suddenly this has become a very serious problem for Mr. Sunak.
If he doesn't work, his job may be on the line.
Rumours are already swirling about a wave of resignations and a possible no-confidence vote next week.
And the movement against him is clearly being led by Suella Braverman, who he fired as Home Secretary for undermining him.
She was out earlier this morning to do what she does best, pour some poison and fuel onto the flames.
You've condemned the leader of your party's uncertain weak and lacking in leadership.
You've said he never had any intention of keeping his promises.
You've accused him of betrayal and wishful thinking.
Isn't the truth you're a headline grabber who does it by spreading poison even within your own party?
And sometimes honesty is uncomfortable.
And if that upsets polite society, then I'm sorry about that.
But the point is that we need to be honest.
We need to be clear-eyed about the situation right now.
We can't keep failing the British people.
We have made promise after promise.
We have put forward plan after plan.
They have all failed.
Well, she might be right about this plan not working.
I never thought it would work.
Where she's wrong is thinking she has a cat in hell's chance of being a suitable replacement as Prime Minister.
And for the Tories to be speculating about knifing Sunak and installing their fourth leader in 18 months is complete insanity.
This country faces severe challenges, an ongoing cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, an immigration crisis, an NHS crisis, a public transport crisis.
The list is endless.
People need their leaders to get on with fixing the country, not bickering over which faction of the Conservative Party they're in.
If they can't do that, then frankly, they deserve the oblivion currently awaiting them at the next election.
What John Megan is talking about this is Talk DV's international editor, Isabel Oakshot, the Talk DV contributor Paul LaRone Adrian, plus writer and commentator Anaya Falaren.
Well, welcome to all of you.
All right, Isabel, let's get into this off the top.
Rishi Sunak is facing, as were his three predecessors, potential death at the hands of probably the most disloyal bunch of ratbags I've ever seen in political history.
Discuss.
Well, Piers, I'm happy to say that tonight I actually agree with almost everything you said there.
Rishi Sunak's government is teetering on the brink here.
This is a genuine crisis for the Prime Minister.
It's not that Robert Jenrick is a particularly important or pivotal or high-profile figure.
The man who resigned last night is hardly a household name.
It is the fact that there's been a complete breakdown already of discipline within his administration.
And in theory, we could have a whole other year of this utter charade of Rishi Sunak popping up to deliver emergency legislation and emergency press conferences to try to regain the initiative.
And I just don't see how we can stagger on.
How can the country be expected to stagger on with this farce for another 12 months?
I just don't think it's sustainable.
Paula, I mean, what concerns me about this is there are far more important things for these people to be doing than bickering and squabbling amongst themselves, but it seems like they've got an addiction to this.
Completely.
And herein lies Rishi's problem.
I also agree with pretty much everything that you've just said in your monologue.
And that's his problem, that across the board, from left to right, there is an agreement that Rishi Sunak is letting this country down, that he's watching this country crumble and doing nothing about it other than providing a facade.
We're not interested in the European Convention on Human Rights.
We're not interested in the boats and people seeking asylum.
What we're interested in is the fact that this country is failing and it's failing at every single level, Piers.
I mean, Anaya, it's interesting, isn't it, what Paula said there, because if you actually judge him fairly, Rishi Sunak, he's got the illegal numbers on boats down by, I think, 30%, which is not a bad thing to have achieved this year.
Inflation is pretty much where he hoped it would be when I sat down with him at the start of the year.
So on some of his metrics, he's ticking a few boxes here, but getting no credit because his party is so split now that no one's really focusing on any wins.
All they want is to tear each other apart.
But you have to remember, Piers, that I think in many ways, Rishi Sunak set himself up for this.
One of his main pledges was stopping the boats, not just getting it down by some percentage points, but stopping it.
And therefore, people are holding him to that metric, which on that metric he has failed.
And if we go back, actually, he didn't have the majority vote of the Conservative Party or its members.
He wasn't elected in a stonking majority like what happened with Boris Johnson in 2019, even though I have very strong disagreements with Boris in some areas.
So Rishi Sunak was already on quite difficult ground and he had to really prove to people that he could commit and deliver the things that he promised and also unite the party.
And he hasn't been able to do that.
And therefore, the swords are coming out.
And therefore, I think that actually, in many ways, he should have expected this when he couldn't fulfil the very thing that he said he would do.
I mean, I think, Isabel, actually, one of his big problems was making Swella Bravo and home secretary again in the first place.
She'd already been fired from that job once.
And I said at the time on this show, this is complete madness to bring her straight back.
She's obviously damaged goods.
And I thought then not trustworthy, given the way she had lied before.
But look, you make your bed and you have to lie on it.
And he's now in big trouble, no question.
Somebody else who was in big trouble before he got turfed out was our friend Boris Johnson, who you put up the most extraordinary defense of yesterday for day one of his testimony in the COVID inquiry.
Let's play a clip.
This is the first clip I want to play you from today's evidence that he gave.
This is where he talks about Partygate.
The version of events that has entered the popular consciousness about what is supposed to have happened in Downing Street is a million miles from the reality of what actually happened in number 10.
Not as the media coverage, but the dramatic representations that we're now having of this are absolutely absurd.
So I'm just putting my little earpiece in.
One of the little problems of being at home, you have to do it all yourself with my competent handlers, obviously.
Also, is my makeup all right?
Because I've had a lot of commentary that last night I went full George Hamilton IV.
I did wonder if you were competing with me yesterday, Piers.
Not possible to compete with you for that.
I have no concerns about my skin colour, just for the record.
Better make sure you've got your passport, Piers.
You're off to Rwanda.
Only you could say Isabel, Boris.
Exactly.
That's the point.
Isabel, let me talk about Boris Johnson's initial lie again there.
And I'm going to call them lies because they're lies.
The truth is, over 80 people at Downing Street, including him, got fined by the police.
Why are we still talking about this?
Why are we talking about this?
This is ridiculous.
You know, Boris Johnson is Boris Johnson is the single most important witness in this charade of a COVID inquiry.
And yet he's only got two days of testimony in which there are multiple breaks and long lunch hours and they all pack up and go home at half past four.
And we've devoted any time of that to talking about Partygate.
I find that absolutely absurd.
Look, this is where you're so okay, but I'm not defending him on this.
Isabel.
I'm not defending him on this.
You'll be glad to hear it.
You are so, Isabel, you are so completely wrong about Partygate and why it doesn't matter.
I didn't say that.
Partygate mattered because it went right to the public trust.
Now, hang on.
Let me finish.
It went right to the heart of public trust in the government.
If they weren't obeying their own rules, why said most of the public should they be obeying them?
It broke trust between a government and its people in a health emergency.
I agree.
I completely agree.
I don't think there was a problem.
So why shouldn't he be asked about it?
Because it's the COVID inquiry and we've parked that issue.
We know he was wrong.
He lost the room on that yonks ago.
There is no point in devoting precious time to it.
I'm not defending him.
I don't think it's a good idea.
But he's lying about it, Isabel.
You don't seem to mind.
You don't seem to mind that he comes into this inquiry and tells lie after lie after lie.
No, I keep saying that.
Well, let me play the next one.
Look, he denied ever saying let the virus rip.
Let's see what happened when he tried denying it in the inquiry.
The notion that you as a government would let the virus rip was your own phrase, was it not?
What I'm saying is that this was a phrase in common parlance at the time.
Sir Patrick Valance's diary is 273901 page 92.
Actually having a discussion a meeting with the PM about quote letting it rip.
The Prime Minister meeting begins to argue for letting it rip, saying yes, there will be more casualties, but so be it.
They've had a good innings.
We should let it rip a bit.
I don't know what you explained.
I don't know what you explained.
Time after time.
I don't think that that is at the heart of the matter is not this emotive language about letting it rip because obviously that is blunt and it is not something that most people would agree with in terms of the way that was framed.
What he was talking about there was a perfectly sensible scientific approach which all the experts around him were recommending up until mid-March.
This is the so-called herd immunity approach and all those top people were advising it, not just Boris Johnson at that time.
And look, if your agenda is to present him as someone who was a totally callous granny killer, then I think you are way off the mark.
I don't know whether you actually listened to him.
Did you actually listen to him?
You know what, Isabel?
What?
Isabel, I damn people by their own words, right?
Take a look at this clip.
This is the third one.
This is him when he gets all tearful again, one of his preferred tricks in this inquiry.
He talks about being an ICU himself.
When I went into ITU, intensive care, I saw around me a lot of people who were not actually elderly.
And in fact, they were middle-aged men and they were quite like me.
And some of us were going to make it, some of us weren't.
I knew from that experience what an appalling disease this is.
You see, Paula, he wants us to all feel sorry for him.
He's welling up again.
It's like, I'm the human being.
I really felt for this.
But the rhetoric they're repeating time and again shows a callous use of language.
Let it rip.
Let the oldies die.
Bed blockers, blah, blah, blah.
It's totally different to Miss Acton Sherad who's putting on this inquiry.
And we know it's totally different because I want to remind everybody about Partygate and the Allegra Stratton and the Allegra Stratton video that was leaked where we could see how funny she thought it was that she was being asked to define whether a party had taken place.
I don't know if you remember that video, Piers.
And that is the disdain that we were treated with.
So when Isabelle denounces the fact that we are looking at Partygate, there are two reasons why we're looking at Party Gate.
Pandemic Incompetence and BBC Moment 00:03:52
Number one, because to this day, there are people quite proudly saying that COVID was a con.
There are people still today suggesting that COVID was not real and that some of the things it wasn't to be taken seriously.
And the reason we're seeing it all day long on Twitter, all day long.
I have these moments.
Hang on, hang on.
I'm just saying there are literally thousands of people all day long who think COVID's a con, and one of the reasons they often cite is if it was that serious, why were Boris Johnson and all the people at number 10 not the main role of the people?
Can I just make my second point?
My second point about why Partygate is so important is because when a government is identified as lying to its people during a time of a crisis, of an emergency, what on earth is going to happen the next time we are confronted?
Are you going to trust the government?
Exactly.
That is why I said I want to bring Anaya in here.
Anaya, this goes to the reason that I think Isabel's so off base on this, at the heart of this questioning with Boris Johnson is a question of trust.
And even now, he keeps being caught out lying.
He cannot stop lying.
And that was what brought him down as prime minister.
And that was what caused a lot of the problems in the pandemic.
That was the key problem at the heart of his own leadership.
Look, I think I don't agree with you on this, Piers.
I think Boris Johnson has many shortcomings and I'm one of the first people to name them.
But when it came to the lockdown, I think many of us are actually forgetting that we were locked down for years.
This wasn't just Boris Johnson completely callous, you know, let the lockdown end and let everybody do whatever they wanted.
That was the exact opposite that was happening.
And actually, there is still not uniformity when it comes to scientists and experts about whether lockdown was even effective.
We still are figuring out.
That's not my point.
No, no, but the idea is that the idea that Boris Johnson asking questions about whether or not we should open up, asking whether or not this is the right approach, taking a slightly different view is somehow something to be demonized.
No, but you're missing my point again.
Both you and Isabel are missing my point.
He keeps saying he didn't say things, which they then literally proved to him immediately he did.
I don't know what it's like to have a novel virus in a pressure cooker conditions where the entire world is locking him down and making decisions that are fundamentally unprecedented.
You're missing my point.
People might say things in private conversations in an informal way that taken out of context looks horrifying.
I don't think that gets to the point.
He's the prime minister of the country.
Well, Piers, you know science.
He's a prime minister.
Eno-minister science means consistent leadership and we did not have consistent science.
Well Piers, you know what does terrorism is.
Is it too much to expect the prime minister to tell the truth?
Is that too much?
Is it too much to expect you to give reasonable credence to the fact that a man who nearly died of COVID showed genuine emotion when he was talking about it?
Is that too much to ask?
Because by your negative interpretations of everything.
You can do as much to undermine trust in politics as anybody else.
I'll tell you why it's too much to ask me.
I'll tell you why it's too much to ask me because I know too many people who lost their loved ones through the incompetence of him and his government.
And the callousness of his rhetoric that's come out in this inquiry makes me puke.
So yeah, I'm afraid I'm not going to shed a tear for Boris Johnson's crocodile tears.
I'm just not.
When it comes to the trees, actually, his decision-making led to thousands of people dying who shouldn't have died.
I will weep for them as I have done for the ones I know.
Journalistic Standards Under Fire 00:15:06
Not for him.
Anyway, let's change the subject.
Let's change the subject to this happened today, which is a BBC newsreader having a moment.
This is Mariam Mashiri, a chief presenter for the BBC News Channel.
Live from London, this is BBC News.
I don't know why we did the censored version of that.
We're uncensored, for God's sake.
Where's the uncensored version?
We don't blank out the verb.
I'm not careful.
I was just going to...
Well, I did think we should end on that because I could tell both you and Anna probably wanted to give me the bird.
And if we do, by the way, we're uncensored.
You fire away, ladies.
We're too classy for that.
We're not going to do that.
We're not going to do that.
We were going to talk about Prince Harry, but I've run out of time and I've got no interest other than to point out Prince Harry in his High Court case demanding royal protection.
Of course he does because he wants to have his royal cake and eat it.
He apparently said today that he felt forced to leave the royals and it wasn't a choice.
What he'd forgotten is what he said in his statement when they left in January 2020, when he said, after many months of reflection, we have chosen, chosen to make a transition this year and starting to carve out a new role.
He can't even remember his own porcupines.
Anyway, Pac, lovely to see you all.
Thank you very much indeed.
Uncensored next football bad boy, Joey Barton, sparks a sexism scandal by claiming women shouldn't be talking about men's football on television.
He joins me live next, and I suspect knowing Joey Barton, he won't be backing down.
As a player, Joey Barton was one of the most controversial men in football.
Outspoken, aggressive, tempestuous, rarely out of the headlines.
As a manager, it wasn't much different.
This week, Barton stirred up a sexism scandal by launching a furious broadside against female pundits analysing men's football on television.
It all began with a post saying women shouldn't be talking with any kind of authority in the men's game.
Come on, let's be serious.
It's a totally different game.
I cannot take a thing they say seriously in the men's arena.
Well, since then, he's been called a sexist, misogynist dinosaur.
But is he saying out loud what some men, maybe many men, are thinking as well?
Well, Joey Barton joins me live now.
Joey, great to see you.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Piers, nice to see you.
Are you okay?
Looking well?
You've had an interesting day.
Take me back to the initial post that you put up on Twitter.
Clearly inflammatory, but that's your way.
Did you expect the reaction that you were going to get?
No, well, it's part of the, you know, when you say what sometimes you're thinking, it can obviously lead to a reaction.
It wasn't entitled, you know, I didn't do that.
I've seen, or certainly I've seen it in my game where, you know, I do feel Piers, I have enough credibility to say I'm probably a bona fide expert.
This kind of tokenism creeping in, especially when it comes to, you know, it's ruining, certainly it's ruining my experience of both the game and obviously the journalistic standards.
You know, it's nothing to do with sexism at all.
I mean, what is your particular complaint?
Is it that women have not played the game to the highest level and therefore they're not qualified to talk about it?
Piers, look, I'm against tokenism and I'm against, you know, poor journalistic standards, especially when it comes to the game I love, which is football.
No, I know it's everyone's game, you know, but there's two slightly different variants, obviously the men's game and the women's game.
And all of a sudden, if you speak out in favour of, you know, saying a men's game, people come to you and, you know, I'm getting accused of being right wing because I've said what clearly a lot of people are thinking about the journalistic standards of some of the female commentary and co-comms and punditry that I'm seeing in the game that I feel, as I say, I think I'm a bona fide expert in.
I mean, you said today I stand by everything I've said on women commenting and co-comms on the men's football, like me talking about knitting or netball way out of my comfort zone.
We've gone too far.
You can't watch a game now without hearing the nonsense.
Any man who says otherwise is an absolute fart parcel.
I mean, do you accept that some of your language here was a little incendiary?
Well, that is X or Twitter, as it was once known.
That is what those platforms are kind of used for as we all use them as just a tool.
And it leads to this debate.
Or, you know, I don't want to see sexism in football.
But if we don't talk about this properly and debate this properly, this is just going to further rise and rise and ruin.
As I say, the experience of watching, you know, elite level men's football.
And as I say, everywhere you turn now, there's for what I would deem as an unqualified opinion commentating, pontificating about the sport I love.
And it's ruining my experience of it.
And it's to fuel this woke agenda.
And if we're not careful, we're going to increase sexism massively because it's got to be a true meritocracy, Piers.
We have to have people who are not qualified.
Let me ask you again because you haven't actually to do those roles.
Right, but the question that I asked you, which you haven't answered yet, what is it about the women that you think is inappropriate?
Is it because they have not played the game at the highest level of men's football?
No, Piers, as you know with me, I'll never not answer the question.
No, it's absolutely not that.
It's about, as I say, you have to be there on merit.
Like you can't be there to fit this woke agenda that we've currently got going on in society.
You know, you don't have to have played the game.
You know, lots of managers haven't played the game at a high level.
Lots of good commentary.
People haven't played the game at a high level, kind of Mark Chapman, Rory Smiths of this world.
But they've earned the right via hard work and over a prolonged period to get into that space.
Obviously, it helps talk about the men's game if you've played that men's game.
The higher the level, arguably the better, because it gives you a unique experience.
There's a lot of similarities between both sports, Piers, absolutely no danger in that.
But the men's game is just played at a completely different speed with a completely different skill set needed.
And for someone to stand there and say, I would have done this in this situation, or he's made a mistake there, who have no experience of that.
And it's not just one or two, it's been taken over.
And it ruins the experience for most men.
And it's the men's game.
And I feel I don't want to come across a sexism.
Absolutely not.
I've got a wonderful daughter, wonderful wife, my grandmother, big matriarch.
I want women at men's games.
Bristol Rovers, we had Hair Game 2 and it's a great initiative to get women in the stadiums.
But if we're going to talk about the technical nuances of elite level football and we want to educate the audience, which is the punditary co-commentary role, then we must do that with the most credible people, not people who tick boxes or fill quotas.
And I do feel that at this moment in time.
Okay, but let me put two names to you.
Let me put two names to you.
Well, three names, right?
You've got someone like Alex Scott, who won a World Cup as a women's player, right?
Which has eluded our men's team.
I'm sorry, I'm being told she didn't win a World Cup, but she certainly competed at a very high level for England for a very long time.
You've got Laura Woods, who's one of the best, I think, one of the best football presenters in the game.
She's a woman.
She's been furious today about what you said.
Why should people like that be excluded from the men's game?
No, I'm absolutely not saying that.
I'm saying if you've earned the right to be there with credibility and hard work over a prolonged period, you should absolutely be there.
I've got a daughter.
I wanted, if she would like to, Peter, to have the opportunity to commentate or co-commentate on a men's game, the men's football game, if that's what she chooses.
But she should be there because she's worked incredibly hard over a prolonged period and has got a great skill set, not just because she's a woman and to fill a quota and this woke agenda, this tokenism.
We have to be very, very careful.
Look at what it's doing to other sports.
You know, I don't want to see the sport that I love ruined and my experience as a man, it's ruined.
I can't watch the television now.
And a lot of the information is technically incorrect that these so-called experts, women experts are saying about the men's game.
They're factually incorrect.
But Joey, someone like Alex Scott, right, who has had tremendous success as a player, been very successful as a television presenter, is she not qualified?
Does she not meet your criteria?
To talk about the men's game, to talk about the men's game?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, she hasn't played in it.
She hasn't played in any games.
I've played and been involved as a manager in 657 professional men's games.
Now, the women's game's a fantastic game at the minute, thriving.
I've never seen as many opportunities.
You know, the England team wins stuff in the women's game.
I think Sander Wagman's done a great job raising the awareness for the women's game.
It's phenomenal.
But the men's game and the women's game in this country are different.
One's about 200 years old and one's about 30, 40 years old.
If you go back to kind of Doncaster Bells and the inception for women, I've lived through it.
I've played football with women.
I've no idea.
But Joey, here's my problem with the argument, right?
If you look at people like John Motson, greatest commentator I've ever seen, Barry Davis, right up there, Clive Tilsley, Des Lynem, right?
None of them ever played professional football.
By your criteria, why are they more qualified than someone like Alex Scott, who has at least played for her country many times?
Why are they more qualified having not played professional football?
In the end, the rules of football are the same, whether you're male or foot or female.
They're exactly the same rules.
They're the same rules, but it's a complete football's about a lot more than rules, Piers.
It's time and space and velocity and impact and challenges.
And the games are at two different speeds.
It's almost like if I decide Sunday, I'm going to go the Formula One and I start saying, listen, I would have done this if I was Lewis Hamilton in this corner and I'd have done that.
And rightly Coultard or Damon Hill or Eddie Jordan, Jordan or whatever would rightly turn down and say, what are you on about?
And I'd say, well, I drive a car.
I've got a driving license.
Yeah, but one's going to 200 mile an hour and one's going to maybe 80, 70 mile an hour tops in this country.
You know, the different speeds.
So to stand there and pontificate with authority and actually when it's factually incorrect, it's infuriating because I love hijack journalistic standards and I think we're compromising it with this tokenism.
And if the girls are good enough to get there, it should be on a meritocracy.
It shouldn't be on this tokenism because they're filling a quota and we need to get someone in there because that will lead even further to the sexism that we all want to avoid.
We want it to be diverse and inclusive, but it has to be credible.
We're talking about the best product we output in this country is Premier League football, elite level football.
Okay, but Joey, let me ask you.
You've never played to my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've never played Champions League or World Cup football.
So does that qualify you to talk, notwithstanding you're a very good professional footballer, does that qualify you by your yardstick to comment on Champions League football or World Cup football?
Piers, everybody's entitled to comment.
I can talk about Premier League football, I can talk about Taekwondo, but it's about credibility and journalistic standards rather than this, as I said, this tokenism should be there on merit, not for quotas.
And there's loads of women managers, Emma Hayes, fantastic, Serena Wagman, we've spoken about.
If they come across a managing the men's game, I have no problem with that.
If they're the best, the best candidate.
Similarly with, you know, there is some female pundits out there who are capable and have earned credibility over a long period.
But also, there's lots at this moment.
There's a well, I don't want to name names.
I'm not here to name names.
There's lots of good people.
But also, the majority are poor and the standards are poor.
And it's factually incorrect information.
Well, I heard the comments from the Liverpool Fulham game about, you know, the Endo goal, the Japanese boy Endo scores.
And the commentator was female, co-comms female, and she talks about Endo scores with his laces.
Now, anyone who watched that who had any knowledge of football, seen that Endo scored with the side of his foot, but no one, because it was female co-comms and female commentator, no one said, hang on a minute, that didn't happen.
So if you're a young, impressionable person who doesn't know and you're coming for high journalistic standards and content to educate and inform, which is what we're meant to do, if we're in those spots, then we have to correct those mistakes.
And if it goes unchecked, it pulls the standard down and we can't allow that to happen for this woke agenda.
Did you, for argument?
It's taking over everything.
Did you think that Alan Hansen was a good commentator?
He was fantastic.
Right.
So when he said he was about Manchester United and they won it with kids, he made a terrible mistake.
I mean, does that discredit him?
Who hasn't made a mistake?
We all make mistakes, but over a prolonged period, you have to have more successes than failures.
So to get the opportunity, and this is what we have to be careful of.
All those great commentators you mentioned before, Motti, God rest to Saul, brilliant of what he did.
Their opportunities are going to be restricted because female, ex-female players are getting those opportunities.
So we've got to be careful here because, you know, I want a healthy game where women can go to the football and enjoy it, which they are.
I've never seen more women, Peters have football matches than what I currently see, or women's opportunities within football.
And that's fantastic.
And long may that continue.
We need to be incredibly inclusive right across the board.
But it has to be for people who are good enough, who've earned the right to be there.
Best Person for the Job Debate 00:10:42
I don't care where you're from, how many games you've played, but you have to have a body of work that's credible to get you there.
Not just you get an opportunity because you fill a quota or you tick a box.
And we've got to say it clearly what it is.
And the world's going crazy.
All right, let's take a short break.
When we come back, I've got three women lined up who will be responding to you, Joey.
But you've agreed to stay and listen to what they have to say.
And I'll get your response to that as well.
I'll be after that.
I've got to get off.
I've got to get off.
Well, welcome back to Piers Woman Uncensored.
Joey Barton's given a defense of his views about female pundits in football.
So are female pundits qualified to talk about the men's game?
Well, I've got some women here who would like to respond.
And they are Bianca Westwood, who was the first ever female football reporter for soccer Saturday.
Pearl Davis is a YouTubing anti-feminist.
And Kate Bulsay is a co-founder and presenter of the Offside Rule and Football 365.
All right, let me start with you, Bianca.
I'd imagine that you were going slightly nuts as you heard that, but maybe I don't want to speak for you.
What is your response?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, usually I wouldn't give those kinds of opinions any particular credence, but the way in which he tweeted, especially calling out the young girl, the vlogger from Manchester City, I just thought it was out of order because I've been on the wrong end of dogs abuse when I very first started reporting.
And it didn't sit well with me.
This is a young girl.
She's on social media.
She's not presenting Newsnight.
She's not saying she's an expert in football.
She's there because viewers of football are changing.
We're getting more streamers.
We're getting more influencers.
And that's a different argument entirely.
So that's particularly the reason why I didn't like what he said.
But who is qualified to speak on football then?
Because I've been watching the game for over 40 years.
My first game at West Ham was before Joey Barton was even born.
I've been watching the game the whole time.
I've watched hours and hours and hours of football.
I worked behind the scenes at Sky for 10 years before I was even given a shot on camera watching many of my male colleagues who were probably not always as good as I was getting chances that I was never given.
So I don't really understand exactly what you need to know.
How long do we need to work in the game behind the scenes before we're allowed on camera?
To be a pundit, you know, the laws are the same.
I can read a game of football.
Emma Hayes, Serena Viegman can both read games of football.
You're saying that they can't provide insight.
It sounds to me like Joey's got a problem with particular female pundits who, to his knowledge, haven't done enough in the game.
But how does he know?
And how do we quantify and qualify that?
Because there are EFL players who are commenting co-comms, being pundits on Champions League games.
What level do you have to get to before you're allowed, as far as Joey Barton is concerned, to be able to be a pundit on the men's game?
Well, that's a good question.
Let me bring in Kate.
Kate, what is your response to Joey Barton?
I think it's really clear that Joey doesn't appreciate that women can study journalism too and they can study sports journalism.
If you're Bianca Westwood, you can watch thousands of hours of football and commentate and report into a Sky Sports studio as she did for decades on the men's game and be very informed.
There has to be something more to this, I think.
Look, let's take Alex Scott.
Okay, she's got a degree in sports writing and broadcasting.
She's played for England 140 times.
She played for her club career over two decades.
How is she not qualified to talk about the game?
Just like any other pundit, whether you're talking about Mark Chapman, Jake Humphreys, none of them have played the game.
But they've done the same as the rest of us.
They've studied journalism, they love the game, and they're expressing their learned opinion and assessment on the game.
I don't understand why that's so tricky.
Well, Pearl, I can see you rolling your eyes there.
You clearly don't agree.
Well, I keep seeing women given special handouts and special treatment.
I'm seeing the same thing that he's seeing.
You know, one thing you didn't put in my bio is I'm actually a semi-pro athlete.
I've been involved in athletics for 20 years.
And no, men and women's sports are not the same.
Men jump higher, they run faster.
So I see where he's coming from.
When I was listening to him talk, he was talking about the best person for the job should be the one that gets it.
I didn't see anything wrong with what he said.
But some of the women who are getting these jobs are the best women.
I mean, I looked at them.
I looked at their Instagrams.
They look like influencers.
I mean, come on.
I don't understand why you're getting...
Kate is an influencer.
The one girl you guys brought up earlier, I didn't know her.
But I've seen women's soccer, or sorry, football here, I'm in the UK.
But women's football, they make it into an agenda and it becomes a political agenda.
And I hate it.
It ruins the sanctity of women's sports.
Then it just becomes all about this woke nonsense.
I agree with them.
I think it needs to be the best person for the job.
I think it is the best person for the job.
I don't know what kind of problem Joey's got.
Is this a different thing?
You know, I've actually nine-year-old daughter can never grow up to be a football commentator.
Yes.
What do you mean, footwear?
Well, how is she different?
How is she different?
If she goes to study journalism, she knows about the game.
Let me bring Joey back because he's not just Westburn, just like Kelly Capes.
How's that different?
All right, let's.
Joey's been listening to all this, Joey.
Well said, well said, look at a take on board every, you know, I've known Bianca being in around the game for as long as she has, and she's worked incredibly hard and does a fantastic job.
I wouldn't say Bianca's there on tokenism.
That's not what I'm, you know, she's worked incredibly hard and has earned that recognition and reward within the industry.
But that's not everybody that's in the game on the female commentary side.
That's not, and as the lady rightly points out, there, she's seen exactly what I've said.
This is not sexism.
This is saying the best person for the opportunity should get that role.
We've seen when an inch has been given in other sports, you know, I think, you know, maybe in your collegiate swimming, we've seen huge problems with Lou Thomas and Riley Gaines.
And I don't want to even go into that, but we've got to be careful that we promote the best person for the job who's worked the hardest to get there.
And for me, in the comments, the sport that I believe I'm a bona fide expert at, the women haven't reached the level in the commentating and punditry of the men, you know, and they're getting opportunities that we stick the men's opportunities.
And that's wrong.
We shouldn't create, we should create a meritocracy.
The best who work the hardest with the most ability get on and get rewarded and get recognition.
Let me just say something.
Wait a minute.
Joey thinks that's a good idea.
Wait a minute, time out, everybody.
I want to just read back Joey's own words with that first tweet.
It wasn't a question of meritocracy.
You said women shouldn't be talking with any kind of authority in the men's game.
Come on, let's be serious.
It's a completely different game.
Bianca, there was no meritocracy there.
It was all women.
Okay.
No, no, no.
Listen, Bianca, do you think...
Bianca, can I just ask you a question?
And I respect your opinion massively.
I respect your opinion massively.
Do you think the women's game and the men's game is the same game?
The laws of the game are exactly the same.
The same rules apply.
And everybody's going to be able to do that.
You know, whether it's yellow card, red card, off-side, you can read the game.
It's still exactly the same.
There's two goals, and 11 players play.
Have you ever been tackled that full story?
It's not about that.
Have you ever been tackled that full-grown man and advisory that?
How many of you have to do it?
That really doesn't have anything to do with it.
You seem to have changed your opinion, Joey.
When you read North Piers earlier, you had a problem with women who were qualified to talk about the game.
Who didn't have a journalistic background to talk about the game?
And now you're saying the game's different.
Are you saying that?
Or do you have a menu qualified background?
He's changing his mind.
He's changing his mind all the time.
Have you got a problem with the journalistic game?
Have you got a problem with the playing of the game?
Please don't all talk over each other, Bianca.
I can't hear you.
Being a top player doesn't mean you're going to be a bitch.
It's a serious conversation.
This is becoming a farce.
But not all punishments.
You're not giving these women a chance.
Joey, you're not.
You're not giving these women.
I need to have a sensible conversation.
Not everybody is a consummate broadcaster when they very first start.
Did you ever see Gary Neville when he was first on Monday night football?
He said himself he wasn't brilliant.
You have to learn on the job when you're live.
You can't learn live television anywhere but live television.
That doesn't mean they don't know anything about the game.
Maybe they're just not brilliant at broadcasting.
I got absolutely terrorised.
She's not with anyone else.
You've not done this either.
I got absolutely terrorised when I first started live reporting because people said I knew nothing about football.
That wasn't the case.
I've been watching football since I was talking about the world.
I was talking about this.
Well, how are you?
Maybe these female pundits have to be given a chance.
Now I get men coming up to me.
I'd like to know from Joey Barbara which women are not qualified to do this because I see some very talented people.
Joey, you've got to give us one name of someone you don't think is.
It's a really good job.
And I'd like to know which ones do not deserve.
It's a one name, Joey, before we get to it.
I'm talking about that poor girl at Man City, so he should tell us.
Are you ready to go?
Let me ask Joey one name, Joey, of someone you don't think is up to it.
One name, Bianca, would you like one name?
One name.
One name.
I'm not even going there.
I don't have to give you anything.
Tributes to Zephaniah and Respect 00:03:02
I've come on to a sensible debate.
And you just want to shout at the bottom.
The problem is, Joey, when you talk about it, I've got to leave it there.
All I would say is everyone's entitled to repeat it.
We've got to leave it there.
All I would say is...
I do think, Joey, I do think Joey's being a bit unfair.
If you talk about all women in your tweet, and then you won't name a single woman you actually personally object to, but think it should be a meritocracy.
That is a confusing message.
And look, I will say also, as I end this, I will say this.
I will say, no, we've ended the debate.
I will say this.
There are a lot of men who I saw replying to Joey, and they've replied to us who agree with him.
So this is a debate that probably ought to be aired, and we've had it.
And I appreciate you all joining me.
So thank you very much.
Well, uncensored next, a small tribute to a giant of British poetry and acting and activism.
It's after the break.
Welcome back to Uncensored.
Some very sad news to the writer, poet, activist, and author Benjamin Zephaniah, who was remembered as a titan of British literature, has died aged 65.
He died on Thursday with his wife by his side after being diagnosed with a brain tumor just eight weeks ago.
A statement on his Instagram said, We shared him with the world, and we know many will be shocked and saddened by this news.
And tributes poured in for the proud Brummy.
Zephaniah was born and raised in Handsworth, Birmingham, a son of a Barbadian postmaster and Jamaican nurse.
He was dyslexic and left school aged 13, unable to read and write.
And yet he wrote this extraordinary poem called The British Poet.
Take some pics, Celts and Siliers and let them settle.
Then overrun them with Roman conquerors.
Remove the Romans after approximately 400 years.
Add lots of Norman French to some Anglo-Saxons, Jutes and Vikings.
Then stir vigorously.
Mix some hot Chileans, cool Jamaicans, Dominicans, Trinidadians and Beijing with some Ethiopians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Sudanese.
Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians, and Pakistanis, combined with some Guyanese, and turn up the heat.
Sprinkle some fresh Indians, Malaysians, Bosnians, Iraqis, and Bangladeshis together with some Afghan, Spanish, Turkish, Kurdish, Japanese, and Palestinians.
Then add to the melting pot, leave the ingredients to simmer.
And some unity, understanding, and respect for the future.
Serve with justice and enjoy.
That was Benjamin Zephaniah.
A great poet.
I didn't agree with all his political views.
He was a staunch Corbynite.
He was a vegan.
But my God, I love the passion and the eloquence that he brought to the stuff that he said.
And we will miss him.
He was a great force in this country.
And clear evidence of the British poem that he so beautifully wrote.
Benjamin Dephaniah, thank you.
That's all from us tonight.
Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
Good night.
Export Selection