All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 7, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:25
20240207_piers-morgan-uncensored-harrys-u-turn-pms-pmqs-bac
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Safest Bet of the Week 00:01:40
Tonight at Piers Morgan Uncensored, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu rejects Hamas's proposed ceasefire, which would have seen all Israel hostages freed.
He says total victory is months away, but critics say months is a death sentence for tens of thousands of more Palestinians and potentially the Israeli hostages too.
Prince William gets back to royal duties as Prince Harry heads back home to Los Angeles.
The defeating brothers have made amends after the king's cancer diagnosis, so is Prince William basically done with his little brother.
President Biden tells Crowns he recently spoke to a French president who died in 1996 before forgetting the name of Hamas.
What is happening to the President of the United States?
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
It was the safest bet of the week, wasn't it?
Or maybe the second safest.
The Furore about Rishi Sunak's £1,000 wager with me seemed like perfect fodder for Prime Minister's questions.
And Takira Starmer took about two seconds to cash in.
Mr Speaker, a year ago, the Prime Minister promised to bring NHS waiting list down.
Isn't he glad he didn't bet a grand on it?
Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, at least I stand by my commitments.
Broken NHS Waiting Lists 00:04:54
He's so indecisive, the only bet he'd make is an each way back.
Well, quite clearly, the standard of British parliamentary banter has slunk to an historic low, but on a much more serious note, so is the National Health Service our leaders were debating.
Starmer again referenced the Prime Minister's uncensored interview when he said this.
I welcome the fact that he's finally admitted that he's failed on waiting lists in the NHS.
Well, he has admitted it to me, and this was the moment he did so.
NHS waiting lists.
We've not made enough progress.
You failed on that pledge.
Yes.
Because he said NHS waiting lists will fall.
In fact, they are slightly coming down, but the waiting list is still nearly half a million more than it was at the start of last year.
You accept that?
Yes, and we all know the reasons for that.
What I would say to people is, look, we've invested record amounts in the NHS.
More doctors, more nurses, more scanners.
All these things mean that the NHS is doing more today than it ever has been.
But industrial action has had an impact.
Well, a lot's been said and written this week about that charity bet we made in that interview.
Some of it's been frankly ridiculous.
But to me, the Prime Minister's admission that his government has failed on NHS waiting lists and indeed the state of A ⁇ E was much more significant and, well, a lot more personal.
So my mother is 79 and she had a heart attack three months ago.
She was put on a trolley in A ⁇ E in a corridor for nearly seven hours.
The heart monitor battery ran out.
Nobody fixed it.
At one stage, no nurse came for three or four hours.
There were between, she reckons, 35 and 40 other people on trolleys in the corridors.
And she was also terrified, of course, having been told you've had a heart attack, that no one was putting her into the unit and actually trying to fix her.
Now, once she got up there, the treatment she got was world-class.
She was fixed within 36 hours.
But I brought this one picture to show you.
That's my mum who's worked all her life, paid her taxes all her life.
And when she really needed the NHS, yeah, eventually the NHS came through.
But she could have died on that trolley.
And I think that's shocking.
Well, a couple of things have happened since I shared that story with the Prime Minister.
Firstly, as I said last night, he had the courtesy and good grace to send my mother a bunch of flowers.
And then he called her and had a 10-minute conversation.
And she was very impressed by the fact he took time to do that and by what he said about what he hopes to do with the NHS, whilst accepting it's in one hell of a mess.
And I appreciate it.
But secondly, a viewer wrote to me after seeing the interview with a story that was awful, horribly familiar, and frankly quite disturbing.
I'm going to read part of it.
It said, my mum was admitted to hospital with dangerously low blood oxygen levels on Friday lunchtime.
This is last week.
My dad experienced similar concerns about her care that you shared.
She was still in A ⁇ E on Saturday in a crowded corridor.
My dad, 80 years old, was concerned that her oxygen levels were too low.
Her oxygen canister wasn't being checked.
She was originally given an empty canister, despite her reason for admission.
Her alarms were not being responded to.
He found it so distressing that he left the hospital rather than create conflict, entrusting my mother to their care.
Well, my mother sadly passed on Saturday evening while still in accident emergency more than 24 hours after arrival.
It's a truly shocking story, isn't it?
And here's the other shocking twist.
It was exactly the same A ⁇ E department where my mother had been just three months ago.
Now, that is not an exception.
That's pretty much the rule now in A ⁇ E departments up and down the country.
And I don't blame the staff.
There aren't enough of them.
The ones that are there are overworked, underpaid, undervalued, and completely beleaguered.
But there are people literally dying after waiting 24 hours on trolleys in A ⁇ E in this country in modern Britain.
And honestly, I find that completely and utterly shaming to the country.
Well, my friend Jeremy Bowen at the BBC yesterday shared this picture of his 86-year-old mother who was advised to go to hospital by her doctor and spent the entire night sitting on a hard plastic chair while she waited for somebody to see her.
Our doctors and nurses, they're working flat out in a system that's completely broken and often now feels, well, incapable of providing even basic care, like treating elderly people when they come to A ⁇ E and they're nearly dying.
This should be the priority, not the afterthought.
We love our National Health Service with good reason.
When it works, it's fantastic.
But when it doesn't work, as is increasingly the case, it's a disaster.
Gaza Violence and Sanctions 00:15:12
And frankly, shame on our leaders for bickering about it while it crumbles after many, many administrations from left and right have failed it.
We'll debate all that in a moment.
But first, this breaking news an hour before I came on air that Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically dismissed Hamas's new calls for a prolonged ceasefire in Gaza, pledging to forge ahead with Israel's military campaign until securing what he terms as total victory.
Netanyahu pledged to destroy Hamas and ruled out any arrangement that leaves a Palestinian militant group in full or partial control of Gaza.
I would like to emphasize once again, there is no other solution other than this complete and decisive victory, because otherwise it is just a matter of time till the next massacre and the access of terror from Iran will continue.
So only by destroying Hamas will we have security for the state of Israel in the north and in the south because Hamas would like to radiate its terror all over the Middle East.
What drew me to discuss this is the Israeli-American journalist, Emily Trader, the Israeli-American activist and author Miko Pelet, and the Palestinian commentator Omar Bada.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Start with you, Emily.
A lot of people around the world imploring Israel to have some kind of ceasefire, not least to get the hostages out, but also to stop the relentless killing of innocent Palestinians, women, children, and so on.
But Netanyahu, absolutely adamant tonight, no deal, no ceasefire.
We will go on until Hamas are completely finished.
What is your reaction to this?
Well, first of all, thanks for having me on this important topic tonight.
I think the way that even the sentiment was phrased that it's Israel rejecting ceasefire isn't quite accurate, you know, when it comes to what the situation is on the ground.
Israel has been willing to accept multiple ceasefires in the past, as well as they have done temporary pauses in fighting.
The reality is that we had a ceasefire on October 6th.
It wasn't Israel who started this war, but it is Israel who will finish it.
And you cannot invade the sovereign borders.
We're not even talking about disputed territory.
We're not talking about the West Bank, but the sovereign borders of the state of Israel, rape, murder, and maim innocent people, and then kidnap over 200 more and expect that you can dictate the terms of your own survival and staying in power in the Gaza Strip.
This is just not the way it works.
And Israel would actually be in violation of international law for doing so.
Because Israel, as a state actor, has an obligation legally to restore a sense of security to the citizens of the state of Israel.
And unfortunately, that cannot be done until Hamas is removed from power in the Gaza Strip.
Well, Miko, I can see you laughing there incredulously.
Before you respond to that, I just want to inform viewers about what the Hamas proposed deal was, as seen by the Reuters News Agency.
Phase one, a 45-day pause in fighting, during which all Israeli women hostages, males under 19, the elderly and sick, would be exchanged for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails.
Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza and the reconstruction of hospitals and refugee camps would begin.
Phase two, remaining male Israeli hostages would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners and Israeli forces would leave Gaza completely.
Phase three, both sides would exchange remains and bodies.
And Hamas is also calling for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza going forward.
Your response to Netanyahu saying no deal.
Oh, Mika.
Miko, I'm sorry.
I think you're muting.
You're on mute at the moment.
If you wouldn't mind just unmuting yourself.
Yes.
You're back.
Well, it seems certainly that the Hamas proposal is reasonable.
And Netanyahu, being a genocidal maniac who wants to continue the killing and the bloodshed, is not interested.
I mean, I think we've seen that the last several months of his policies in Gaza have led to what can only be described as mass genocide.
And since the entire world is standing with him and he's not seeing any, he's not facing any consequences seriously, there's no reason for him to stop.
And so the question is, will the international community step in and force him to stop the killing, force him to accept the Hamas or the Palestinian proposals?
And will the international community stand by the Palestinians who are now, like I said, presented the world and presented Israel with a very reasonable, a very reasonable proposal for ceasefire?
Having said that, I think the ceasefire is nowhere nearly enough.
I think the entire international community needs to come in and declare a no-fly zone over Gaza and impose severe sanctions against the state of Israel, particularly now since it's obvious that the state of Israel is refusing even a very reasonable proposal by the Palestinians, by the Palestinian representatives in the Gaza Strip.
So it seems very, very clear.
The only question is, why is the international community not standing with the Palestinians and not helping the Palestinians to enforce at least this very reasonable proposal?
Okay, but to play devil's advocate here, Israel's position is that Hamas committed an appalling terror attack on October the 7th, killing over 1,200 people, many of whom were innocent women and children, butchered in the most savage manner.
And they have publicly stated since then, Hamas, that they will do the same thing again and again and again if they're able to.
And at the moment, depending on which figures you look at, at least half the Hamas fighting force is still there and still fighting, representing to Israelis an existential threat to their very existence.
So why should Netanyahu, in that circumstance, allow half of Hamas to continue to exist and present that threat to his people?
Well, the question is why we're accepting the Israeli premise to this.
Israel has been engaged in genocide and apartheid policies for 75 years.
Palestinians have been living under a reign of terror, particularly in the Gaza Strip.
This is not the first time that Israel massacres civilians by the thousands in the Gaza Strip.
So why Palestinians are resisting and why Palestinian fighters came out of Gaza on October 7 and engaged in resistance is not the question.
It's not resistance.
What is resistance about raping and murdering and kidnapping innocent civilians?
How is that resistant?
Murdering children.
Murdering children on the streets of Israel.
Do you believe Israel has a right to exist in the first place?
Israel.
Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist in the first place?
Israel has been massacring children.
Do you believe that?
Hang on, let me talk about Achilles.
Let me interrupt.
Let me interrupt because Obama's drop.
Let me interrupt because this is the same thing.
You have to change the status.
Let me, please, with respect, Mr. Pellet, let me interrupt.
One member of the panel hasn't spoken yet and has kept very quiet, respectfully, during that exchange between the two of you.
Omar Bada, I mean, this cuts to the quick of the story, really.
If you view what Hamas did on October the 7th as simply resistance, then to me you are ignoring the reality that it was an appalling terror attack.
You can have absolutely legitimate concerns about the scale of Israel's response.
I have them myself.
But do you genuinely also believe that it was resistance, what happened that day?
I'll get to that in a minute, but I do have to respond first to the gall of somebody invoking the killing of children in light of Israel having killed nearly 12,000 Palestinian children buried under the rubble over the past three months in a genocidal scale in violence against defenceless children is utterly and completely absurd.
And the second and equally important point to make is that anybody who tells you that there was a ceasefire on October 6th was lying to you.
On October 6th, Palestinians had no freedom whatsoever throughout the Gaza Strip.
They could not go in and out of Gaza, no airport, no seaport, no jobs, no access to the outside world, no functioning electricity.
And Israel continued to steal Palestinian land in the West Bank throughout that entire year and for decades, frankly, even before that, and had killed nearly 250 Palestinians in the course of just the beginning of the year until October 6th.
So people who call that a ceasefire are basically telling you to accept a status quo in which Palestinians can be murdered.
They can have their children thrown in military detention indefinitely, in which Palestinian land can be taken away from them at will and they can be denied freedom.
And that's an acceptable status quo so long as Israelis are safe.
There's a word for that kind of world, and that's called apartheid.
That is the current status quo that always existed leading up to the violence that we saw on October 7th.
Now, certainly, anytime that you engage in violence against civilians, that is completely indefensible, and there's no way to excuse that.
Nonetheless, thinking people look at the situation that led up to it and understand that imprisoning Palestinians by the millions for no crime other than being Palestinian in Gaza and denying them access to the outside world is essentially a recipe to create a wave of violence that is effectively inevitable.
People who are serious about wanting to end violence and serious about producing a situation in which there is peace for both Israelis and Palestinians have to be concerned about the driving force of that violence.
And the driving force is absolutely Israeli apartheid that has denied Palestinians freedom for too long.
And until you solve that underlying problem, you're never going to get into a situation in which there is any safety or security for anyone.
You know, you continue, you continue using all these buzzwords, apartheid, genocide.
And those aren't what those words actually mean.
But I do want to clarify a few things that you commented on.
I shouldn't be speaking about killing children.
There is a massive difference between a defensive war targeting terrorist targets that are using civilian sites, including UN schools, including hospitals, endangering their own people in the Gaza Strip, something that they themselves have admitted.
And invading of the sovereign borders of a foreign country and murdering children in their home.
All right, let me ask Emily a question.
Let me ask Emily.
If you could stop shouting over each other, let me ask Emily a question.
And it's this.
Emily, look, I think Israel had a right to defend itself, a duty to defend itself.
But we now have, as we've heard, I think it's 12,000 children believed to have been killed.
Another 20,000 or so have been orphaned.
Two-thirds of Gaza has been flattened.
And here, Benjamin Netanyahu says after four months, well, we're nowhere near finished.
There's months more of this.
We will continue until the last Hamas terrorist is gone.
Okay, but that may mean the entire Gaza Strip is gone.
Destroyed.
Flattened.
Well, hang on.
It may mean the number of children killed doubles to 20,000, maybe 30,000.
At what point does this become, even to people who support Israel implacably about this, does it become just utterly disproportionate?
Well, I think proportionality isn't the actual question here.
There's a very easy way to end this war, and that is to return all of the hostages and to surrender unconditionally.
That is what Hamas should be doing.
That is where the fucking thing is.
Hang on, but Emily, that would not.
Benjamin Netanyahu's demands.
Now, hang on.
Benjamin Netanyahu stated unequivocally, this goes on until Hamas are finished.
All of them.
That means another.
Exactly.
That means another 20,000 people have to be killed, right?
Who are just the terrorists.
No.
So he's not going to stop.
If the hostages got released tomorrow.
That's not true.
I said unconditional surrender.
Let me finish my question.
I don't think Prime Minister Netanyahu has any intention, even if the hostages get returned tomorrow, of letting 20,000 Hamas terrorists remain in power in Gaza.
He's going to continue.
But that's, I already said that.
I said the release of hostages and the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
Hamas cannot remain in power in the Gaza Strip and restore, have Israel restore a sense of security.
Those two things cannot coexist.
That is why Netanyahu said we will not accept any term in which Hamas stays in power, because they will do the same thing again.
And the longer this goes on, the longer they stay in power, the more funding.
I think the most recent document said 150 million went through Sinoir in the documents that the IDF is.
Emily, you cannot just kill them.
The more money that Iran is funding.
No, no, no, no, you cannot just kill.
The stronger Hamas is.
You cannot just kill everybody in Gaza.
You can't.
Israel is not intending to kill everyone in Gaza.
Carry on for many more months.
We are risking.
They're carrying for many more months.
How many people are going to get killed?
I can't answer that question as to how many people are going to be killed, but I can tell you that not a single, not even one more person would be killed if Hamas surrendered unconditionally today.
All right.
I want to find.
Listen, we have to be killed.
Can I suggest something?
May I make a suggestion?
Since Netanyahu and his government have, before October 7th, have already, and previous Israeli governments have murdered more civilians than Hamas ever did.
Why don't we flip this equation and say that the hostages will be released once Netanyahu and his government are taken to The Hague and charged with war crimes?
I think it makes much more sense.
The Israelis have killed far more Palestinian children and Palestinian civilians than Hamas or any Palestinians ever have.
Israeli attacks on Gaza preceded Hamas by decades.
Israeli attacks on the West Bank go on.
Israeli attacks in Jerusalem go on where Hamas is not in charge.
I mean, this whole Hamas excuse is ridiculous.
Why don't we do this?
Let's wait till we remove Netanyahu's government and then negotiate.
I think that should be the condition.
And the Israeli military, which is a genocidal terrorist organization, is disarmed and dismantled.
That will be a good time.
Okay, let me give the final word to the Palestinian on the panel, which is you, Omar.
Look, we have to stop this pretense that Israel is engaging in accidental violence in which Palestinian civilians are killed.
Every major human rights organization in the world, including, by the way, Israeli human rights organizations, document that the Israeli military is engaging in indiscriminate violence against civilians.
And that is why the International Court of Justice has found that there is actually a plausible case for Israel being engaged in genocidal violence in Gaza.
And that should tell you something.
And we have to stop pretending that you can kill this many people on accident.
And just one issue with something that you mentioned, Piers, I don't think this is a question of proportionality.
Transphobic Jokes Explained 00:15:52
We have to be clear about what Israel is doing here.
This is not an act of self-defense because an occupier can never, in principle, be defending themselves against the people they're occupying.
If we are serious, once again, what Israel is doing in Gaza, if they wanted self-defense, there were zero Israelis in Gaza on October 6th.
Zero.
Gaza is not occupied.
They bombed it at will whenever they wanted to, and they prevented Palestinians from the United States.
No responsibility for Egypt.
Everything is always Israel's fault.
The problem with that argument is this, is that when it wanted to, at the start of this war, Israel had the power and capability to turn off the energy into Gaza, to turn off the internet, to turn off the water, to turn off the food supply.
That is a form of occupation, even if you're not physically inside Gaza.
Israel is defending the people.
Not all of it, but it was able to turn it off all the time.
I don't think Israel should have that power over any Palestinians.
If Israel was interested in the USA.
I don't think that a terrorist organization should be ruling Palestinians either.
I don't think that I agree with the organization.
I agree with you.
I agree with the organization.
Nuclear power is ruling Israel.
Okay, listen, I've got to bring it to an end.
It was a good debate.
Thank you.
I've got to leave it there.
I'm sorry.
We've run out of time.
We've gone longer than I was expecting to.
I appreciate the passion on all sides.
I hope we can get to a point where this ends and people stop dying.
I think we can all agree with that.
So thank you, all of you, for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Anne says the next Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's in hot water for what's been called a transphobic joke at Sakir Starma's expense.
We'll debate it next.
Welcome back.
joined by my super PAC tonight, talk to your contributor Esther Kraku, the comedian and podcaster James Barr, the political journalist Ava Santina from the United States, the YouTuber Hearl Davis.
Well welcome to all of you.
So I want to start with this big Fiori in the House of Commons today because what it was basically all about this show in a way because Keir Starmer opened up by attacking the Prime Minister about his admission to me that they failed to hit their waiting list targets.
And then he went on to mock him about the bet that we made for charity over the Rwanda plan.
But then things turned what many think to be quite ugly because the Prime Minister said this.
It's a bit rich, Mr. Speaker, to hear about promises from someone who's broken every single promise he was elected on.
I mean, I think I counted almost 30 in the last year.
Pensions, planning, peerages, public sector pay, tuition fees, childcare, second referendums, defining a woman.
Although, in fairness, that was only 99% of a U-turn of all the weeks to say that when Brianna's mother is in this chamber, shame.
Parading as a man of integrity when he's got absolutely no responsibility.
Well, the contentious element of that is, of course, that Brianna Jai's mother, Esther, was up in the gallery.
Now, it turned out she wasn't there actually at the moment that this joke was made by the Prime Minister.
He would say a pointed remark, making a point at Keistama's expense.
But Ava, it's caused a lot of Fiorori this, falling out, saying that it was very callous, inappropriate, and so on.
What's your view?
I'm really upset about it.
I'm sad.
I'm sad for her mother and I'm sad for every trans person in this country that had to witness that today.
I think the worst...
For those who don't know, her mother was a transgender girl who was brutally killed by two complete psychos and it was her daughter.
Yes, Brianna Jai was killed and she was a trans woman.
You know, what's really upsetting about this is that we don't even afford trans people dignity in death.
I think that the way that that is going to now be marked in Hansard in the parliamentary book forever, I think that is shame on the country.
I'm sad to hear it.
James?
Yeah, I agree.
I think it's utterly shameful.
It's just disgusting.
I'm so annoyed with Rishi Sunak.
He has absolutely no backbone.
In the same week that he made a lazy bet with the devil about refugees, he's now made a joke.
Exactly.
He's now made a joke.
He's about another minority, and it's just disgusting.
Well, okay, you're not calling me the devil, for one.
I don't have horns.
But secondly, I don't know, Esther.
I think I'm missing something.
I think the thing is, can we get some perspective here?
Rishi Sunak has made this comment about Kier Starmer being unable to define a woman many times.
But to be clear about the background to that, Keir Starmer spent most of the last two years refusing to say what a lot of people are doing.
Then eventually saying women could have penises.
Then he said, well, actually, 99% of women don't have a penis, meaning that 1% don't.
The one time that he chooses to defend himself or is himself on his record is the unfortunate time that Brianna Jai's mother is in the comments.
I'm sorry.
Look, it was in poor taste given the circumstances.
But at the end of the day, it's a very valid point.
Horrible.
It's a very valuable thing.
It's a very valid point.
Because the thing is, this whole issue about trans rights doesn't just, you know, it's not based on one thing.
It's also based on women feeling like their rights are not.
No, no, no.
But that's what trans rights.
These are politicians.
Hang on.
So let's talk about that.
But we've talked to Westminster.
It's a gossip fest.
Nobody is disputing that trans people have rights to fairness and equality.
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are.
Here's what I'm disputing.
I'm sorry, but it's 100% of women do not have a penis.
Let's just start with a biological fact.
Can you imagine?
This was not an attack on this poor woman who lost her daughter, had nothing to do with her whatsoever.
This was an attack on Kia Starma's inability to actually stand up for women's rights and to say unequivocally that women do not have a penis.
That's not the right thing.
Which, by the way, is a fact.
It is standing up for women's rights.
The moment you try and pretend women have a penis, you are destroying women's rights.
Trans women are women.
No, they're not, okay?
And I'm sorry, unless you are...
I don't have an MA fighter.
I just find that it's a female.
But your one is a biological female.
Who's having your child, having to share your female child having to share a bathroom with a biological man?
You will never understand what it means for us to sit there and pretend like trans women are not afraid of the menu.
But include it down everywhere.
Let me bring up women that have had hysterectomies.
Are they no longer women?
Let me bring in Pearl.
I'm going to bring in Pearl who've been wasting patiently.
Pearl across the pond.
A lot of people are clutching their pearls about all this, Pearl, ironically.
But I just think that in the end, what Rishi Sunak did was in a list of things that he claimed his opponent had made U-turns on, he made the completely valid point, if you take it in its isolation, that actually it was ridiculous to pretend that a percentage of women have a penis.
And for that, he's now been branded transphobic.
What do you think of that?
Well, number one, I can't believe you guys are grown adults arguing about what a woman is.
It blows my mind.
Number two, I have family members that died of obesity.
I still support people's right to make jokes about being fat.
Life is hard.
Get over it.
She loves it.
And number three, you know, I'm a semi-pro-athlete here in the UK.
You know, I play sports in London.
And I've actually had to deal with some of the consequences of women's spaces being, you know, having men come in them.
And like, you know, I had a tournament last spring where there was a whole team full of men, you know, just dressed up as women.
So is that fair?
You know, I have to think I've been standing up.
I was just by your recent tweet where you said that 16-year-old girls were hotter than 26-year-old women.
If I was a woman and I saw that tweet and I saw you in a space, I'd be terrified.
Then why aren't you protesting the age of consent laws in the UK?
If you're really outrageous.
All you guys want to do is try to find one thing out of context.
What does that mean?
And you're changing the subject, really, when we're here to talk about is it all right for him to make jokes?
Well, even though he makes jokes.
Well, he certainly wasn't.
Here's the point.
He certainly wasn't trying to make a joke at the expense of this poor girl who got murdered or with her mother there deliberately trying to score some point with her there.
He was purely making the point, which he's made repeatedly, that when Kia Startma can't say what a woman is, that is ridiculous.
And I agree with him about that.
And I'm not sure that the Prime Minister should be branded transphobic for not thinking that a woman has a penis.
Well, why do you think that?
Do you not think that all of this narrative feeds into the hate that is in this country?
No.
Absolutely not.
Because it's not hateful to safety biological amongst trans people.
Where do you think it is?
I have always supported, for example, trans people's rights to fairness and equality.
Always, right?
I've been repeatedly called transphobic myself for thinking that a six-foot-four biological male who becomes a trans woman athlete and starts demolishing biological females in a swimming pool and breaks all records or wants to be on the Olympic team, depriving a woman of a place and so on.
I think that is ridiculous.
But I'm not transphobic for thinking that.
I'm supporting and defending women's rights.
Similarly, Rishi Sunak thinks it is absurd that a political leader in this country should think that any woman has a penis.
You know, when I know she's right.
Can I pose to you that it's quite possible that Rishi Sunak is a terrible politician and he didn't even understand the attack.
I'm sorry, that's that was given to me.
Well, I'm not going to sport half of the party didn't understand it.
Kemi Vadnock said this.
Every murder is a tragedy.
We can all agree.
None should be trivialised by political point scoring.
As a mother, I can imagine the trauma that Esther Guy has endured.
It'd be shameful of Starma to link his own inability to be clear on the matter of sex and gender directly to her.
And that's the point.
Here's the issue.
We have turned Westminster into a gossip fest because Rishi Sunak has made this point about Keir Slama's inability to talk about what a woman is for literally months.
And we all understood it.
But suddenly when there's an opportunity to score cheap political points and to make the link between that and this poor lady, Brianna Jai's mother, suddenly we're now all outraged by it.
This is not the first time Rishi Sunak has said it and we know it.
But because we've decided to turn our politicians from actual politicians who have a job to do to basically reality stars, we're feigning ignorance over the real issue.
And that's a bit like, it's a bit, to be honest, it's a bit like the bet, which you said was with the devil.
All right, ha ha.
Maybe I should get all hurt and upset about you calling me the devil.
My sensitive little skin can't deal with it.
You're not a minority.
You're likening me to the most evil creature ever created.
I'm so distressed, James.
I want to burst into tears and take you to some human resources committee meeting.
Not, right?
I don't care.
You can have a laugh at my expense.
It's fine, mate.
We used to better do it and get away with it.
You're not a minor.
Without being arrested.
I am a minority.
I'm a middle-aged white bloke still on TV.
Not to the worst.
There aren't many others like that.
I'm not prime minister.
They have an effect on real people.
Yes, they do.
Why weren't they going to be aware of that?
But only when you deliberately, wrongly, disingenuously conflate two completely different things.
Then they do.
Also, I think it's very odd that tweet from Kemi where she's saying it's wrong to make jokes about murders, but you can clearly make jokes and score political points about white women.
She said it's unfair, it's not right, immoral to draw a link between a point that Rishi Sunak has made for literally months and then to try and link that because the fact that Briana Zhai's mission is some nerve when she's the one who introduced the trans guidance in December, which means that.
That's called being a politician.
That's what you're doing.
Okay, we've got to bring an end to this part of the debate.
You guys are all staying for the next segment where we're going to talk about something less contentious, the royal family.
But just for the record, just for the record, my position is with the Prime Minister.
If you are a woman, you do not have a penis.
That's it.
Doesn't make you transphobic.
And trans women deserve absolute rights to fairness and equality.
Right to the point they want to erode the rights of being a woman.
Sorry, that's just what I've said.
Let's go to the outbreak.
Let's go to the outbreak.
I'll go back to one sentence.
Prince Harry has swiftly retreated back to California.
Just a day he spent in the UK.
He had one, well, apparently, 30-minute meeting, possibly a little longer with the king at Clarence House after his cancer diagnosis was revealed this week.
Harry did not meet his brother, Prince William.
He wanted to make that quite clear.
He had no intention of meeting him.
And tonight, William returned to royal duties.
He spent this morning at Windsor Castle dispensing 50 honours.
And tonight he was at a charity event where Tom Cruise turned up and the pair of them were parading for the cameras.
So quite exciting evening there.
To discuss the royals, my pack are still with me.
Let me start with you, Pearl, about this.
Given that Harry is fleeing back to your country where you are now at a rate of knots across the Atlantic, are you pleased that he's on his way back to you?
Would you like to keep him there?
Well, not particularly.
One thing I've noticed being in London and America and going in between, he's not really liked in either country.
And I think, you know, life comes with choices and trade-offs.
And he made the choice to trash his family.
And I do think it's going to be tough for him to really get in the position he was in before.
I don't know how kind I would be to someone that trashed my entire family.
I know, I know exactly.
Even if I was related to them.
Yeah, I know how kind I'd be.
I've actually written about this for the New York Post tonight.
I mean, James, what I would do if one of my family, one of my siblings, has spent the last few years trashing the family on television, trash my wife, trash my dad's wife, trash my dad, trash my sister and so on, I would dismember them one limit of time.
And after they've severed all their limbs, I would probably incinerate them.
I think that's disgusting.
I know, but that's what I'm saying.
I'm thinking about King Charles who has cancer right now.
How can you be surprised?
I'm the devil.
What devils do?
What devils do?
Here's my point.
I mean metaphorically, right?
What I mean is I would be utterly.
Why is this conversation about Harry who wrote a book a while ago that's like being read by everyone?
Like, who cares now?
Well, it's not just a book, is it?
Why are we talking about this?
Well, because he's just flown in to see his father.
Yeah, because his dad has done well.
His own brother refused to see him.
And now you're doing a segment on bashing Harry.
Like, of course he doesn't want to stay in the house.
Defend him then.
Of course he doesn't want to stay in the UK whilst you're bashing him.
I'd be straight out of here as well.
You've defended him.
Absolutely.
I think he's brilliant.
I think he's honest with his journey.
Honest?
He'd lie through his back teeth.
No, he hasn't.
Yes, he has.
What other lies?
Listen.
What other lies?
Which ones?
He's been explaining.
He certainly wasn't lying in that court case.
Which court?
Well, the miracle case.
Right, exactly.
Well, okay.
You want to talk about that?
Not really, but I'll say that.
Okay, well then move on.
Actually, a lot of the things you're saying aren't true.
He's not lying.
No, no.
He and his wife accused the royal family of being racist.
That was a lie.
There's no evidence for it.
They've never produced any evidence for it.
Caused enormous damage to the royal family.
I think it's despicable.
Ava, can you defend Harry?
Do you think he should be allowed back into the bosom of his family?
I mean, I could really care less about the royals, to be honest, altogether.
Which in itself might be a problem for them, right?
President Mitterrand Lies 00:08:20
Because I think all this does is diminish the stature of the monarchy.
The more they're trashing each other, the more feuding and so on.
Well, I think that's good.
I think that, you know, I think the people who've got the hardest job to play for at the moment are William and Kate, because they are going to be the eventual successes.
And I think that you've got 60% of the population now don't care for the royalty and don't really want to keep funding it.
They're the people who've got to impress the rest of us.
Would I be more interested if they were engaging with Prince Harry?
Perhaps I might start liking them again.
I don't know about you.
I've said what I would do if it was one of my family, right?
I'm not advocating that that should happen.
I'm just saying if that was my family, that's what I'd feel like doing.
I would be that angry, right?
What do you feel about this from a family point of view?
Yeah, I think it's...
But never mind the fact that he's dashed all the way here to see his father who's got cancer, whereas Megan hasn't once gone to see her own father who's reported to be a family.
Oh, that is so unfair.
He's 17 miles from her front door.
He's been violating.
You may not like it.
It's a fact.
I think they're arguing about saying allowing me to do it.
But the thing is, I think it's difficult to say what they should and shouldn't do because, I mean, I know what I would do in that situation.
But again, people change, people can forgive.
But I think we have to contextualize what William is actually dealing with.
He has a wife who's basically out of action.
He has three young children.
He has to take on more responsibilities.
And he has to support his father and Queen Camilla.
I can understand.
And he may have to consider the possibility now.
And he's probably very...
Co-regent, yeah.
Well, not just maybe stepping in to do the duties of his family.
If his father had to be capacitated, or even if his father was to tragically die from this cancer, which could happen, then he would be a king in his early 40s, right?
Yeah, with three young kids.
These are, it's a serious time for William.
So I appreciate that on his top list of priorities is not really being interested in extending an all-job, by the way.
Because the thing is, as well, there's also the concern.
What if Harry has Netflix cameras taping every conversation that they have?
Where's the trust?
I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw it.
I personally, I mean, I'm a Christian.
So, you know, I might send him like a carrier pigeon being like, I still don't like you, but here you go.
All right, let me bring Pearl back in.
Is that Christian?
Let me ask Pearl.
What do you think of Meghan Markle in all this?
I think that sometimes forgiveness is letting people lie in the bed that they made.
You know, that's not true.
If someone had robbed you, I think if someone robbed me, if somebody robbed me, I don't have to let them back into my house.
I can forgive you, but it doesn't mean I have to keep dealing with you.
The idea William should have to forgive his brother after all he's done.
Why should he?
No one said he has to forgive him.
The thing is, as well, where's this definition of forgiveness?
Where have you got this definition of forgiveness from?
What's your definition of forgiveness?
To let go of something that someone has done, not like you have to let them back in your house.
But you must definitely something that someone has done without absolving them of the consequences of doing that.
I'm just asking you to say that.
I can fully forgive someone who robbed me.
You can't be baffled.
I am.
I don't know why you're asking me.
Because the front page of every paper is being irrelevant.
The front page of every paper is about this story.
About Harry baffled him.
And we didn't read the papers?
No, the story is that King Charles is unwell, has cancer, and that we need to wish him our best regards.
The story isn't, oh, Harry rushed over.
Why is there a news alert from BBC telling us William won't be seeing Harry?
Because actually, it's quite interesting that the young man who may be king sooner than he would want to be, that his only sibling, they don't, they hate each other so much, they don't even talk.
You know, I do know for a fact William certainly hates Harry for what he's done.
I think you can make the case has stressed out his father with the release of spare and all of that.
And I think it's a bit ironic that he's rushing over to his side when he's ill, but he didn't really care for his mental health when he was.
I think that's up to them.
No, but I think that's a fair point.
I think it's stupid to suggest.
Harry stayed in a hotel on this trip.
I suggest next time, given you're such a fan, he comes and stays with you.
He is more than welcome.
Of course he is.
And also, Megan, I will roll out a red carpet.
Oh, of course you would.
Yeah, of course.
All hypocrites stick together.
All right.
Thank you, Pac.
And thank you, Pearl, across there in America.
Appreciate it.
Arncen said, next, President Biden tells Crowns he recently spoke to the French president Mitterrand, who died in 1996, before then forgetting the name of Mass.
What is going on in America?
Who better to talk to thanks Fox News' comedy genius, Jimmy Phaler?
Perhaps he can explain what is happening in his country after the break.
Welcome back to Oncens.
I'm joined up by the new host of Fox News Saturday Night, the genius author of the new book, Cancelled Culture, Dictionary, and ADAZA Guide to Winning the War on Fun.
Jimmy Phaler.
Jimmy, great to have you on the show.
I want to start by playing a little paper of your president this week, just when you thought he couldn't get any more ridiculous.
There's been a response from the.
There's been a response from the opposition.
But yes, I'm sorry.
That was where he couldn't remember anything.
He later then talked about having spoken to the French president Mitterrand, who died in 1996, and then he forgot the name of Hamas, Jimmy.
What is going on?
Now, in Biden's defense, Pierce, the press has been asking him some really tough questions lately, like, what is your name?
What do you do for a living?
This is a really sad thing to watch.
The worst part about the Biden clip you showed in regards to Hamas is a reporter actually helps him out.
At one point, he goes, the opposition and the reporter goes, Hamas, meaning, speed it up, buddy.
We don't want to be all day watching you fish here.
And this is the reality of what we're faced with as a country.
Like, I don't make this point as a conservative, although I'm clearly a conservative.
I make it as an American.
We shouldn't have a president who makes the sign language interpreter shrug.
But that's what happens when Biden speaks, because from time to time, he makes up words.
Pierce, but the interpreter.
What the hell?
Yeah.
Yeah, you see the sign language interpreter go from signing to like Googling.
Okay, and that's my problem.
Pierce, we have a president you couldn't play in Scrabble because you'd be fighting the whole time.
It's not a word, sir.
It's not a word.
Second ahema hemma is not a word.
I'm sorry.
But Jimmy, the most inexplicable thing about this is that Biden fully intends to stand again in the election in November as the Democrat nominee and thinks he can do four more years.
Oh, make no mistake about it.
Biden has told everybody he knows he's going to beat President Reagan.
Okay?
He's ready.
This is the.
It's so.
He didn't ring his friend President Mitterrand to tell him.
It's the greatest thing in the world because first he says Mitterrand of Germany, wrong.
Then he says Mitterrand of when I got inaugurated, which by the way, sadly he died 25 years prior.
I mean, this is what I'm faced with as an American.
And the reality is, okay, obviously the Democratic Party likes what we perceive as a weakness because behind the scenes, they have a lot more power.
The bureaucrats are obviously running the country.
Joe Biden is an iTunes user agreement of a president.
They tell him to scroll to the bottom and click I agree.
You don't have to read it.
We're just going to get rid of the border wall, old man.
Scroll to the bottom, click I agree.
That's what this presidency is.
And it's hard for me to watch because as an American, okay, it's not normal to have my president speak at the United Nations and they translate his speech to English.
That's not normal.
Cancel Culture Origins 00:01:23
I'll tell you what isn't also normal, Jimmy, is cancel culture driven by these woke fascists who want to just eliminate absolutely everybody for any transgression.
You've written a brilliant book, The A to Z Guide to Winning the War on Fun.
We've only got about a minute, but what is the best way to combat this culture?
Well, the truth is, okay, it's to understand who cancel culture is.
They existed before the social media age.
They were always people who got mad at comedians, except we didn't call them cancel culture.
We called them losers, okay?
The bottom line is the outrage mob is not liked by either side.
They were weaponized by the left for a long time until they started to cannibalize their own.
So what we ultimately just need to do is get back to using sources of escapism, comedies, music, and movie, for common culture.
You can't let them make a cultural battleground out of the common.
I actually think, you know, Jimmy.
The whole point of the comedy club is to leave it behind.
I think you've hit them on the head.
Damn them with laughter.
Laugh at them and laugh at them and laugh at them until eventually they become such a laughing stock that nothing they say carries any merit.
Jimmy, I can talk to you for hours.
You're brilliant.
I love you.
I love your book.
Thank you for coming on Uncensored.
My man, thank you, brother.
And that's it from me.
Whatever you're up to, keep it on censored.
Like Jimmy Faylor.
Good night.
Export Selection