Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Andrew Tate & the chaotic Tory party conference

Episode Date: October 4, 2022

Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Quentin Letts and Kate McCann report from the 'chaos' of the Prime Minister's first party conference as Piers asks if Liz Truss has lost control of her party, as she has the country. Additionally, Piers has an exclusive interview with the most controversial man of internet, 'king of toxic masculinity', Andrew Tate. The Times' Hugo Rifkind describes what it was like spending a lot of time with Andrew Tate, and Tate's friend Layah Heilpern says he's misunderstood and the real issue of concern is censorship. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight, up here's Morgan Unscensored Chaos at Conference as the Tory's feud over pensions, cuts to benefits, and just about everything else. Has this trust lost control of her party as she has the country? Tough talk on fixing Britain's illegal migrant crisis, but the Home Secretary admits there is no quick fix. Last, the most controversial man on the internet viewed billions of times now banned from every major platform,

I'll talk exclusively to Andrew Tate. Live from London. This is Piers Morgan Unsensored. Good evening from London, and welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensored. The Conservative Party conference was supposed to be a victory parade for new Prime Minister Liz Truss. It's turning into something more like a bar brawl. Speeches by the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary today

should have put the migrant crisis in Ukraine's war on centre stage. Instead, yet again, is squabbling in the Conservative Party that everyone's talking about. Trust was badly bruised by the tax cut fast of her own making. This morning she did what all in battled P.S. do, she put on a hard hat and then threw her Chancellor firmly under the trust bus. You made clear that it was your Chancellor who made the decision in the first place about scrapping the top rate of tax. Why would you in future leave big decisions to him again when he got such an important early decision wrong?

What we've done is we have listened to what people said. on this issue. Viewers will have heard you not answer the question about whether you trust your Chancellor, given the scale of the mistake that you say he made. Are you sure you don't want to say you trust your Chancellor? I work very, very closely with my Chancellor. We're very focused on getting the economy growing. And that's what people in Britain want.

You will note that you still haven't said you trust your Chancellor. How hard can it be to say you trust your own Chancellor unless you don't trust him? For his part, Quasi Quateng blames the Queen, bizarrely insisting that the high pressure of delivering a budget so soon after Her Majesty's funeral led to all the mistakes. Let's face it, Quasi Quarteng is not long for this world as Chancellor. And nor, I suspect, will this trust be if she can't restore control of her own team. Less than one month into the job at her own party's conference, Penny Morden and two other Cabinet ministers today brazenly attacked her plans to cut her. benefits, the Home Secretary, said the province is the victim of a coup, but there's no apparent understanding of what a coup is.

This is what happens when you scrape past the bottom of the barrel. You get chaos, you get incompetence, and you get this. The new health secretary, Theresa Coffey, couldn't even keep her audience awake. Look how many of them are asleep. Literally, most of them are asleep. Now, she would send me to sleep, but this is their own conference. These people have paid to be there. at it.

Wakey, wakey! Unbelievable. These are the people, of course, who voted in Liz Truss, who then put Quasi Quateng in the Treasury. And now look at it. Total chaos. I said at the start of September, when I came back for this brave new world of Liz Truss, we need his strong leadership.

What have we got? Complete and utter rudderless chaos. And the victims, as always, are we the British public? Well, right now, the Conservative Party looks ungovernable and more waringly for the rest of us. It looks, well, increasingly incapable of governing at all.

Joining me now is political journalist Averson Tina, talked to be contributor Esther Cracko, talk to be political editor Kate McCann, and the time political sketchwriter Quentin Letts. Well, those two have the misfortune of being at the Tory Party conference. Quentin Letts, I've been waiting all day to hear what you make of this,

Because it seems to me, from a sketchwriter point of view, Christmas has come months early. Well, I don't know. Actually, I hate conferences, peers. And why aren't you here, by the way? You're neglecting your duties, you coward. This conference has been very downbeat initially. But today, actually, Suella Braveman, the new Home Secretary, got them on their feet for the first time, really, and made a traditional old-fashioned Tory Home Secretary speech. But earlier, it was a snooze fest.

It has been a snooze fest, as you were showing earlier, with Therese Coffey's speech. And I was one of those who drifted off, I have to confess. I'd had a couple of pints at lunchtime, and it gets to you, that sort of thing. But they're in a terrible place at the moment. But things happen in politics. Things can change. Do you remember when Theresa May was 20 points ahead in the opinion polls? She was going to be strong and stable.

She was going to be our prime minister for 10 years. Boris was going to be our prime minister for 10 years. And, you know, things change. Things go up and down. and they're having a terrible, but terribly bad time. Is Liz Truss going to be our Prime Minister for 10 weeks? Would be my question. Don't ask me.

I don't know. You're the political sketchwriter preeminent. You're supposed to be the guy who knows these things. I know. I know nothing. I know nothing. None of us knows anything. I think it's very difficult, very difficult to get rid of her so fast. And also, you know, where would they turn to next? Would they go for Rishi Siddak? I don't think so, because he didn't win the leadership election.

Would they bring back Boris? That might actually work. Well, they're not going to bring back Boris. But Kate McCann... At least he had a mandate from the public. Right. Well, Quentin mentioned Rishi Sunak. I mean, he did accurately predict all this mayhem if this trust was to win

and carry through the promises she made in the leadership campaign. So actually, why not Rishie Sunek, given he seemed to be the only one who realised the dangers of what she was spouting? Well, certainly some of the chaos, the market chaos, Sunak did warn about, but the chaos here at conference, the political chaos, I mean, I don't think anybody predicted that it would be like this. You've got cabinet members basically slagging

each other off here at conference just a couple of weeks into a brand new government. It's not a great place to be. But the question of Rishi Sunak, I mean, what it actually illuminates peers on a kind of more serious point, I suppose, is the gulf that now exists between the parliamentary party, the Tories in Westminster and the party itself, the membership who are all here at conference because they're the ones who wanted Liz Trust. They're the ones who like her, they backed her, they supported her. The Parliamentary Party didn't really. They wanted Rishu Sunak. But again, Rishu Sunak never played that well with the membership, which of course is why he didn't win. And that golf is a problem because when you come to conference and people

want to hear exciting new policies, there's a disagreement. There are some in the cabinet who were saying we should do this. There are others who say we definitely shouldn't. And Liz's trust needs to come through the middle and bring everybody together. And as we've seen so far at conference, that's been pretty difficult. Well, Quentin, there's The journalist who actually started all this in a way, Noah Hoffman from the son, who was the journalist who just joined the son and revealed the scandal,

which led to Boris's terrible treatment of the scandal, which led to his departure. She tweeted earlier, which I thought was a far bit for me to suggest she might be a better sketchwriter going forward, but she said, this Tory conference is so amazingly messy. I still can't believe it's real. Minister's going completely rogue.

MP's barely here, but still throwing sheds. left, right and centre, Tory members downing champagne while half laughing, half crying, were all effed. It's wild. That's my kind of paragraph. Well, MPs never come to party conferences. If they're Labour, very, very few MPs like going to party conferences, Labour, Lib Dem or Tory. So that is nothing new there. People getting tipsy at party conferences. It has been known, Morgan, to happen, I'm afraid. I think I've got tipsy with you, None of that is new.

And I have to say, I remember the Ian Duncan Smith years, the party conferences. They were ghastly events. They were pretty bad in Theresa May's time. And this one is just another terrible party conference. But Quentin, all right. But, look, to be serious, Quentin, for a moment, you and I have had enough time in this political arena for more decades than we would care to mention to smell the stench of political death around a party. This all has a massive whiff of political death.

Like there's a sea change going on which will lead inexorably to a Kier-Starma Labour government at the next election. Can you see any way that they term is round now? Well, I go back to my first answer, peers. Although I was being joking, I was being serious as well. You can never tell what is going to happen in politics. And it certainly does have the smell of rotting fish at the moment.

but, you know, things can happen. Putin can get toppled. The British economy can bounce a bit. And then Ms. Truss could turn around and say, actually, I wasn't so stupid after all. And maybe the more time there is, the more time she's given, if she gets that time, she might not,

then things, time can bring its own surprises. All right, Kate, I think the calculation, as always, for Conservative MPs will be, are they going to keep their jobs in the upcoming election? And the clock is ticking. These polls are so catastrophic at the moment that many, many, many conservative MPs will be out of a job if this carries on.

So if she doesn't turn this round and the polls don't turn round, I reckon we get to Christmas and they're going to start thinking we've got to get rid of her. Oh, they already know that they may not have a job in a couple of years. That's not news to most people here.

You know, even ministers, government ministers, newly appointed ones will say to you, oh, I'll lose my seat. I won't say that ever outwardly, so they'll never admit to it in public, but they know behind the scenes that they probably will lose their seat. You're right that there is that sense of change and momentum towards something else. But that question about Labour, that's the problem. So Kirstama, as a Labour leader, doesn't attract people's votes. People's votes may well bleed that way, because ultimately they don't want to vote Conservative anymore,

but that's a very different thing. It's not predictable. It's not as solid. And so that's the kind of difficulty here to predict what happens next. Yes, the Conservatives are all a bit weirdly kind of happy. They keep going around asking each other, you know, how do you feel? It's a bit mad, isn't it? And they say, oh, we'll lose our jobs, and it's all going to be awful. But at the end of the day, that doesn't necessarily mean they are going to lose their jobs.

There could still be a Conservative win at the next election. It might not be a big one, but I wouldn't say that Labour are over the line yet. And the other thing is the voters really don't like having their votes taken for granted, be it by a government, as we've seen, or by an opposition, or by the means. media saying, saying, this is a foregone conclusion and, you know, you haven't got a chance. So I'm just hesitant this far out from a general election to be quite so assertive as you sometimes are here. I think Trousen quite doing a toast, personally. But we'll see. I was right about Boris,

as Kate knows, to her financial cost. And I suspect I'll be right again. But thank you both very much. I enjoy the double act tonight. We may have to reenact this. But Quentin, I can see you're chumping at the bit to go down to the bar, so off you go. And Kate, I know you'll be carrying on working. Thank you both very much indeed. Now, look, we're now going to go to the economist, Professor Danny Blancheflower. Now, Mr Blancheflower, you're in New Hampshire, I understand. What are you feeling over there looking at this?

Because you worked for the Bank of England. You've been in these positions before of economic crisis. What do you think of what's going on here? Well, I think you said the party is in chaos, the country's in chaos. I'm an economist. I think what started this off was it put markets into chaos. And I wrote a column in July and I said, I'm afraid Liz Stupid is behaving as Mrs. Stupid. And at some point she has to return to being Mrs. Sensible.

And the permanent secretary at the Treasury will probably tell her of sensible things to do. Well, on day one, they shot the messenger. was quite clear that the markets were not going to like this and they plowed on. So I think your commentators were interesting in the sense that they talked about, well, maybe this will turn around. I think in terms of the economics, Pandora's box has been opened. This is a complete disaster. And actually, I think there's a conference that's actually probably even more important

than the Tory party conference, which is next week. And next week has the meeting of the IMF in Washington, D.C. and I suspect you're going to hear cataclysmic commentary from finance ministers all around the world and they're going to come, and journalists are going to come back to Truss and Quartang and say, look what you've done, you've messed up the world. So I think it's catastrophic, I call it,

the economics of pandemonium, but I just don't think there's any turning back peers. I think this is now we're in the end game. Yeah, I do feel it could unravel very, very quick, because I think it's not just economic chaos, it's now political chaos with open infighting amongst cabinet ministers all contradicting each other.

There's no collective responsibility. There's no sense of leadership from this trust or control over her own cabinet even, let alone the economy or the country. And when you have a rudderless leader like this, my experience is it normally falls apart very quickly. Well, I agree with that. I agree with that.

And you've talked about the politics. But I want to go to the economics. I mean, the truth is in the economics, one hour is a really long time. I mean, we have to look back at things that we've never seen. We saw pension funds nearly being closed down on Monday. We saw mortgage companies not even been able to price products. So I do think that, but I think now it's a, I mean, maybe we have to use the word the death spiral.

I mean, we're literally at the point now where the markets are sitting on a knife edge. And I've sat there long and hard trying to think, well, if, you know, if Pierce Morgan and I were the, with a, with the chancellor and the governor of the Bank of England, what could we do? And I think the answer is it's very, very hard to see. I mean, if she's just scrapped everything, I don't think that works. So I think the economics is now so lost

that the political chaos and all the rest of it have kind of combined together. And the ultimate one we have to think of it. Think about the housing market piece. So now there's 1.6 million people who are going to see their mortgages tick up. We've got all these youngsters who were trying to buy new house and can't. So this is

a disaster coming. And what's the Bank of England going to have to do? It's going to have to raise rates. So now you have to think the woman on the Mile End Road Omnibus is going to stand up and say what about me? And a mile down the road, the bankers are getting extra bonuses. So I think everything

you've said I agree with, but I want to add to it that I think what will drive everything will be the economics. Because now he, I mean, okay, he does the, he says I'm going to scrap the percent rate. But what about all the other stuff? These are unfunded. You say,

I'm going to wait till November the 23rd. You can't wait till Friday. Right. I totally agree. Like you, don't you agree with that? Well, I do. But thank you for that very cheery assessment. I'm afraid that the worst thing about it is, I can't have agree with you. I think from an economic point of view,

everyone I've talked to who knows about economics thinks this has been a total basket case. And it's staggering to me, the Conservative Party, which has always historically pride of itself of being the party of economic competence has now been exposed as so unbelievably incompetent with the economy

that's where we are. Professor, thank you very much to me. Yes, thank you very much, of course, thank you. The final word to you, please. Yeah, I was going to say the question, yeah, the final question I think you have to ask people is what are you going to do to calm this all down? I mean, you're going to have the chance for it.

Okay, all of this stuff, but what are you going to do to calm everything down? And he has no clue. So that's the killer question. Yep, it is. You can't stop it, can you? You can't. Professor, I'm afraid I agree with you, which is not what I wanted to do because it's so doom-laden, but I agree.

Thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Of course. Thanks for having me. A quick word with my pact. We'll come back for more after the break. But Esther, your reaction to all this, because I mean, you hear a top economist who was literally on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee for three years saying, basically, this is economic apocalypse. I mean, I think it's very clear that List Trust is dealing with a very, let's say, inexperienced media team.

Because I've spoken to people that said the biggest issue was the lack of communication. The markets weren't expecting this. So naturally they will get spooked. And then there were questions around obviously scrapping the top rate of tax when it's like, why didn't you raise the personal allowance threshold so people on lower incomes can actually keep more of their money as opposed to people that don't really need to keep more of their money getting a tax break? Because if you balance the books, it would roughly be about the same if you pushed up the personal tax allowance. So I think that's the biggest issue is the lack of communication.

So now communication moving forward is key. You need to rein in your cabinet members that are trying to make a name for themselves. Well, they've all gone road. But that's the problem. Exactly. I mean, where is the whip? But it's because they're doing this because she herself doesn't inspire confidence. I said if Rishi Sunak won the leadership, the Tories are definitely lost. And I think the reason why conservative voters took the chance with this is because they felt that she would least come up with something. Yeah, you see, I don't actually agree with that because I think Rishi is economically competent.

And I think he's not he's not politically sexy. Well, he doesn't attract voters. We're now seeing what political sex looks like and it's pretty damn ugly. Ava, let me bring you in here. I mean, it's an interesting thing because if you actually talk to some people about it, they say, look, Some of the policy stuff obviously applies right the way down the line to the poorest people in the community. But it's all been sold optics-wise as taking care of bankers, the wealthiest sections of society, in a spare in the windfall tax for energy companies and so on.

What do you think? You do take the Michael a little bit when you say that they are economically literate. I mean, over the last 12 years, we've experienced austerity, which killed 130,000 people. And now in another economic crisis, the Tories have been in power for 12 years. and all we've experienced is stagnation. But I just want to pick up on something you said about her cabinet minister's all going rogue. You know who that reminds me of is Margaret Thatcher.

So she's got the chance now to actually kick out everyone in her cabinet and start afresh. The problem is Margaret Thatcher famously was the lady's not for turning, was her big speech. And that was her thing, that she just didn't go back on policy, however tough it was, however hard it played out. What you're seeing with this trust, at the very first hurdle,

the first time that her opponents inside her own party come for her, led by Michael Gove, she wiltz and she turns and she does a U-turn. I think that to me, that to me is shockingly weak. Yeah. Even if she had to do it,

politically it is, I think, disaster. She's lost a lot of the confidence of natural Tory voters because it's like, well, how can we take you seriously now? I agree. Let's take a short break. We come back and talk about Oslo Bravemen tonight

has been talking about migration and asylum seekers. Pretty controversial stuff coming from the new Home Secretary. We'll talk about that after the break. And I first look at my exclusive interview with possibly the most hated and controversial man on the internet. Andrew Tate.

Don't want to miss this. Welcome back to Piers Morgan and I sensitive. A poll earlier today, which was from Redfield-Wiltern on the 3rd to 4th of October. Westminster voting intention by the Red Wall. Labor, 61% up 12. Conservative, 23%, down 11.

Unbelievable. what is going on with this polling. And this is wipeout territory for the Conservatives in the Red Wall, but I suspect in many other territories that don't get their ad together. Well, let's turn to migration. More than 30,000 migrants

have crossed the English Channel in small boats this year. Of course, all illegally, or most of them, already surpassing last year's record. Naval patrols don't stem the tide, neither surprisingly descending 55 million pounds to France and living it with them. And with the government's farcical Rwanda policy

minor legal challenges, Home Secretary Suella Braverman used her conference speech on aid to try to assure delegates that she'll be the one to get a grip with this. If you deliberately enter the United Kingdom illegally from a safe country, you should be swiftly returned to your home country or relocated to Rwanda. That is where your asylum claim will be considered. Well, of course, all very tough talk. We've heard it, of course, a million times.

She went on to say she wants net migration down to the 10. of thousands. We've heard that phrase, but a decade, as far as I'm aware. Joining me now is leader of the Heritage Party, David Curt, along with Ava and Esther. David Kern, what do you make of Suella Braverman's plans today? It sounds like a good speech. I mean, she ticked all the boxes for her audience

in the Conservative Party. Any difference to Pretty Patel? Well, that's the thing. You know, they've been promising for 12 years that they're going to get a grip of migration, illegal migration, bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands. And I think with Suella Bravan, we're just hearing the same thing that we've heard from Theresa May and Priti Patel. She's gone a little bit further with some of the promises that she's made.

You know, we're going to deport people back to their home countries or to Rwanda. But then at the end of the speech, which wasn't Shane on there, she says, but there's not much I can do about it now. I'm going to be honest, I'm going to take time because there's all these people who are against us and human rights lawyers and so on. We can't really deal with that right now. So, Ava, I guess, I mean, look, on the left, the view is these are a bunch of right-wing hegg-bangers and it's all disgusting and disgraceful.

But there is a reality check. The number of people coming over on these boats across the channel is breaking all records. It appears to be getting completely out of control. People are dying in the process, which is awful. What do we do about it as a country? Yeah, but you need people to believe that so that you can put out this kind of fluff

and make people believe that we're being invaded and we're not. And they're not migrants. They're refugees. I spend a lot of time in Calais. I spend a lot of time in Calais. And a lot of these people are from Afghanistan, which we have just pulled out of...

And a lot, it turned out also from Albania, who are economic rights. Have you been? Have you been to Calais? I haven't seen one Albanian down there, but I do see a lot of Iraqis. I see a lot of Kurds. I see a lot of... The one day you spend in Calais. I haven't seen.

One day, one day. Do you know how much time I spend on there? I will take you. I will take you down to Calais and you can see that all of this is fast. But the thing is, the day... Hold on. Ava, would you treat all of them as asylum seekers? Absolutely.

And you do that them all in? And I tell you why you have to process them here. I tell you why you have to process them here. Because we don't have a system where you can apply from abroad. It doesn't exist. If you are in Afghan right now... That again. Arab system is closed.

That I understand. I think it should be twofold, right? You should have, you should, because you have UN channels that allows Ukrainian refugees to come to the UK, for instance. You should open that up to various other parts of the world. But that requires dedicating government resources to that. But I'm sorry, to pretend like these people are just refugees when they destroy a lot of their documentation upon landing in the UK.

And a good chunk of them are from... Hold on. Hang on. I think when we get over-generalizing about any of this, we make the mistakes. They're not all legitimate refugees or asylum seekers. and they're not all economic migrants trying it on, and they're not all throwing their phones in the sea, and they're not all dodging their paperwork. There's a mixed bag of people coming in,

some of whom, as Ava rightly says, are from war-torn countries, some from war on countries where we started the wars, like Iraq, for example. So my question is, where is the heart and soul of this country when it comes to asylum refugees, and where is the more perhaps hard-hearted head saying we can't let this channel migration on these small boats continue in the way that it is. I think the heart and soul should be with women and children who actually go through official channels, of which there should be more of to come to the UK.

The fact that these are all, I'm sorry, the fact these are young, able-bodied men speaks volumes. I just totally agree with you, the vast majority. To pave the way so they can bring their families over. What do you mean? Because my father, if we were in trouble, my dad would go and then he would bring me and my mom. That's cowardice. You would not. I'm sorry, you will send your wife and child to safety first.

Because they don't know if it's safe because they're going with smugglers. The vast majority are military-aged men. They're coming from a safe country. They're coming from France or Belgium. That's a safe country. So they're actually shopping around for the country where they have the best benefit. They're not shopping around.

They speak the language or they have family here. They would claim asylum in the first safe country you can get to. If you're running for your life, you'd be running for your life with your family, with your wife, with your child. Would you have said that during World War II, during the Holocaust, right after which Sir Winston Churchill,

It's a completely different situation. It's not that the refugee convention. The Holocaust was happening, you know, in Eastern Europe, obviously, in France and Germany, this is not happening. France is not undergoing a Holocaust at the moment. So anyone who's coming through France to the UK is shopping for the best country, is shopping for the best benefit. That's a totally different situation. That was 80 years ago. What's happening now is that people coming from the safe country are coming to another safe country, and they shouldn't be.

They're not genuine. They're not genuine asylum. hostile to people of Muslim faith. France is a safe country. It's not safe for a lot of Muslims in there. Exactly. And what do they do? They ban the burqa. They banned the burqa. They ban the burqa. They're risking

their lives over the channel to wear hijab. Is that what you're saying? These men are so unreasonable. The vast majority now. Men don't wear hijabs. Yeah, but who does? Their wife and children who are they bringing to safety? No, I'm sorry. The problem, let me just get involved. The problem

is, it seems to me, again, the problem I have is generalisation. When you sweepingly say, look, these are all legitimate refugees, that is not true. When other side says they're all economic migrants trying it on military age men, that's not true either, right? The truth is, it's more complicated,

but the reality of the problem is it's getting worse, not better, and nobody seems to have a good idea what to do about, specifically these boats coming over the channel, a great risk to people in there, driven by these people traffickers. So I just simply, when I talk to people on the left, I said, well, what is your answer

to this. Can I give you it right now? It can't just be to let everybody in. I won't. Can I give you it right now? You can't have an open border. Let me give you it, Pirs. McRen proposed that we put a post over in Calais where we would be able to process people. And the reason that was thrown out by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel was because they argued it would be a pool factor. But you can't say you need to get processed before coming to the UK and then not offer a processing center. So that's what I would suggest. I actually, I would go further. I agree with that. I would go further. I would say you have to dedicate, you actually have to dedicate a lot more resources and work a lot more closely with the French and Belgian governments because they have. The natural problem is once they cross the channel, you need to stop them at peak hours before they're even able to do that. And that actually requires deeper cooperation with these governments. David, let me ask you, who would you let in? What would your criteria be? Genuine asylum seekers who, this is the first state. Where would you assess? Well, I mean, someone coming from France, they shouldn't come to the country.

They shouldn't come to the UK. Some of them are perfectly entitled to try and come to our country. They can claim asylum in France. That's because they've been in France. That doesn't mean they can't come to try asylum here. But then why would they want? The thing is, I wouldn't allow anyone who's coming from France to claim asylum here, because we've got to consider the effects on this country.

This is one of the most densely population countries in the world. Fine. But what it's putting pressure on housing or hotels. We don't have this bigger population as France. And the reality is a lot of these people have come to France from war-torn countries. I know some of them personally myself, who've come over on the boat and made great lives for themselves in our country, working as COVID-walled cleaners in a pandemic, for example. The filmmaker that I've interviewed many times on this show.

So the point being, a lot of them, come to France from war countries. So they are legitimate asylum seekers and refugees who may have family, in that case, did, in our country. We surely have a moral duty to take those people. I don't think we do. Why? We have a moral duty to take some people, and we've got a great history.

So they can only come if they come direct from a war zone. Well, that's normally the case. How do they get here? Well, we do have schemes to take people. We don't have enough. We don't have enough. We need to open up more channels. But we also, we're full.

as a country. I mean, at the moment, all the people coming across the channel, they're going into hotels. I mean, there's no housing. There's no actual housing for people to go in. Well, people in this country who want a council home are on the list for 10, 20, 50 years. So we're really out of space. I think the truth, because one thing we can all agree, the current system doesn't work, right? It just doesn't work. I don't think Rwanda's ever going to work. I don't know. It's true. That's true. So they've got to come up with a plan. And this is where the problem with the List Trust government is that her plans unravel very quickly.

If you do U-turns on big plans, how can we trust you on things like this to fix it in the way that they keep staying on the going to? We will see. Thank you for joining us. Appreciate it. Some of you are staying, some are being shipped out. We're back after the break.

We're going to talk about a guy called Andrew Tate. You don't know about him. Well, you're in the minority. He was the most Googled human being in the world a few months ago. I'm saying that an 18 or a 19-year-old a woman would be more desirable. It's pretty anti-25-year-old woman.

Anti-25-year-old women, we can argue, but not misogyn. Well, that's misogy. No, no, no, it's not. Being anti any woman at all is misogyny. Not what I'm saying that women are beautiful and attractive at a certain age. Thus will debate digital censorship with a woman who defends Andrew Tate. There she is. Andrew Tate, the most famous man you've probably never heard of,

but the chances are your children will have. Videos of Tate have been viewed billions of times online. He's built an enormous following of most of young men, and it's often scandalous views. about women that have made it notorious across the world. Views like this. So I think my sister is her husband's property, yes. When a bride is walking down the aisle to marry the groom,

the father walks next to her and gives her away, true or false. Tate's opinions on mental illness are equally controversial. I don't believe in depression. Don't message me about depression because I don't believe in it. If you're asleep and you're a bed in the middle of the night You hear a noise and you believe in ghosts. Now you're afraid. But if you don't believe in ghosts,

ah, it's the wind and you go back to sea. You give the ghost power by believing in that. Well, there's some every major social media platform ban Tate amid a global backlash and concerns about his influence on the young people who watch him. But copies of his videos are still shared millions of times every day. This show is called uncensored. One of the challenges views directly.

So he flew from Romania to sit here in this studio and the full explosive interview airs later this week. Here's a bit of what has come. Do you respect women? Absolutely. Why wouldn't I? Do you think that 18, 19-year-old woman are more attractive than 25-year-old woman? I think there's attractive people.

That's a loaded question. I don't know. Well, it's not really, is it? I can't sit. You know why I'm asking it. Of course I do, but I can't sit here and say... For the benefit of viewers who don't know why I'm asking, you say this.

In general, this is also one of the reasons men find youth attractive. You want to blow up the internet? I'll blow up the internet right effing now. The reason 18 and 19-year-olds are more attractive than 25-year-olds is because they've been through less dick. People say, oh, you can't say that, but yes, I can. A 19-year-old is more attractive than 26-year-old woman, and I'll tell you why.

Because that 26-year-old has talked to more guys, been to the club more times, being effed and dumped more times, more arguments, more mess, more for me to clean up. That is misogyny. Why? Because you are encouraging a mindset about 25-year-old women that makes them sound out to be infinitely less desirable than 18, 19-year-olds, and having effectively been having too much sex to be taken in a more respectful way?

Well, firstly, even if that was the case, that wouldn't be misogyny. Well, what did you mean by what you said? That's not misogyny because it's not anti-women. I'm saying that an 18- or a 19-year-old woman would be more desirable. It's pretty anti-25-year-old women. Anti-25-year-old women, we can argue, but not misogyn. Well, that's misogy. No, no, no, it's not.

Being anti any woman at all is misogyny. Not when I'm saying that women are beautiful and attractive at a certain age and saying the ages. You're saying 18 and 19 or are more attractive than 25 years. Well, then ageist, perhaps, but misogynistic absolutely not. But you just accepted it was misogyny. No, I didn't. You said it was misogyny. I'm telling you, no, it's not.

But if a 26-year-old woman is watching this and has heard those comments, would you just say to her, look, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. No, I won't. I will say that I am sorry that offends you. However, there's a large contingent of the world. That doesn't mean you're sorry. No, I'm not sorry.

That's the point I'm making. I'm sorry if that offends you. However, there's a large contingent of the world that believed that, and I was mediating for a conversation. Parts of the world that believe that about 26-year-old women are parts of the world where women are not allowed out on their own. That's your conversation now. They have to wear full burkers. Well, that's a conversation. They're not allowed to drive cars.

That's nothing to do with me. Is that the kind of world for women that you have put in the corner? I was mediating a conversation. I'm asking what you think. I don't live in a country where that happens. You're using that as the excuse for why you're not sorry for saying it. It's not an excuse. Is it there are parts of the world where this is fine?

My friend. My question to you is, well, do you think it's fine? I don't think it's fine. I live in a world where... You don't think it's fine. The reason I... This isn't that hard, Andrew. You can simply say beers. You know what? With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I hadn't said it like that.

And if a 26-year-old woman is watching, I'm sorry I said that, because that actually is blatantly misogynist. And even though that's a view held by other parts of the world, it's not a view I share. Now, I would respect you more if you said that. Yeah. But if you try and say, well, it's said in other parts of the world, so I'm not sorry.

I think you need... You don't tell me what you think. Then you need to understand why my content existed in the first. first place. My content existed because I tried by very hardest to be an absolute and not a realist, especially with uncomfortable truths. I was pointing out that very uncomfortable. Is that a truth? It's an uncomfortable truth in many parts of the world. It's not a truth that I'm happy about. An inquest this week found that a 14-year-old girl, Molly Russell, died from an act of self-harm or suffering from depression and the negative effects of online

content. The coroner said she was exposed to material that may have influenced her in a negative way. And in addition, what started as depression had become a much more serious depressive illness, and she very sadly took her life. That's absolutely disgusting. Right. Her father's campaign for better protections against potentially dangerous social media algorithms, right? It says that the particularly graphic content she saw romanticized acts of self-harm, normalized her condition,

focused on a limited and irrational view without any counterbalance of normality. First of all, what is your response to that? Nothing to do with you. That's the first thing, yeah. It is nothing to do with me. The fact that a 14-year-old girl took her life is truly sad. The world we live in today is the fact that something like that happened is

almost mind-blowing to me. That's truly sad. I actually feel sad inside to see something like that. What has come clear to me in the interview is that a lot of things you say you wouldn't say now that you've said before. I'd say it differently, perhaps. Yeah, right. So to me, that's an acceptance, not just that you want to get back on platforms, because maybe that was one of the reasons you were no platform, but that you've recognized and understood the potential harm to the wrong kind of impressionable mind by some of the things you've said. Would that be fair? I think that's 80% fair. I recognize and understand that with massive fame, you have to be more careful about being misconstrued. Like I said earlier, 1% of people misunderstanding you doesn't matter with a small

audience. It matters with a very large audience. With power comes responsibility. I still believe the things I say. I do not want to be a negative force for the world. I also, understand that I am a man who's lived a very difficult, nuanced life, and I am capable of making nuanced points that may be misunderstood by teenagers. However, that can be said about anybody and everything. Every opinion online can be misunderstood by children. Trying to protect children from the internet is a very interesting subject in and of itself, because I would argue that 80% of the content on the internet can be negative or detrimental to a young mind that doesn't understand the world. So, interesting early preview there in my interview with Andrew Tate. I can say very

controversial guys banned from all social media, but I believe in giving people a chance to have their say and hold them to account, what I do with him? But at what point does free speech become hate speech? At what point does someone like him deserve or not deserve to be deplatformed from all social media? We'll debate that after the break with a woman who defends Andrew Tate and with a journalist who sat with him and raised similar thoughts, I think, as I did, which is not quite sure whether that line is or whether he did in fact cross it. Be back after the break. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Nonsense, and Andrew Tate is banned from social media, with videos about many women, but when exactly does free speech become hate speech?

And who should get to decide that? Joining me now, our political journalist Aversentine, and talked to the contributor, Esther Cracku, author and podcaster and friend of Andrew Tate, Leia Hale Pern, and Times columnist Hugo Rifkin. Hugo, let me start with you. Thank you for joining the show. I've read your Big Times interview with this guy, Andrew Tate. I found it very interesting because I knew I was going to interview.

on television shortly afterwards. And what I was struck by was that although you were pretty outraged by some of the stuff he said and done and found it personally pretty offensive, you didn't really seem to be able to conclude that he'd really crossed a line that deserved the punishment he's received in terms of social media wipeout. Would that be a fair categorisation? Yes, I wasn't convinced because I'm not, look, because I'm not quite sure what debate we're having here.

It seems a given to me that there would be no place for Andrew Tate on a normal conventional media outlet. They're not going to give him your show. They're not going to give him my show on Times Radio. That wouldn't happen. But it raises the question of whether we think that these tech companies, Instagram, Facebook, companies like that, ought to be being held to the same standards as traditional media. If we think they should be, then obviously he has no place in them. If we think they're actually more of a much more free arena where things that we might find in other place is unacceptable,

are in fact acceptable there, then it becomes a whole different debate. And that's a debate we haven't quite settled, I think. Right, because, I mean, to me, it's up when Trump got removed from Twitter and Facebook and so on. If you're going to let the Ayatollah of Iran continue to have active accounts on these platforms,

I don't see the consistency in banning a president of the United States or indeed someone like Andrew Tate. Yeah, I mean, that's quite fair. You've also got to accept that, look, huge numbers of people wanted to watch him. Huge numbers of people wanted to listen to him. He's very, very, very good.

good at what he does. In an earlier age, there were people at Andrew Tate who put out cassettes and CDs over on, you know, various forms of pirate radio. They had huge audiences. The audiences are much, much, much huger now, and much less police. They have much greater inroads, people like Tate into teenagers, for example. So it raises whole new questions, whole new issues. I'm not always convinced that just banning them is quite the right answer, but I'm not sure I'd quite like to be making that call myself. Right. I think that's a really good point. Leah Haleburn, you're in Miami. You know Andrew Tate.

You've been to his home in Romania. You know his brother. What kind of guy is he? I mean, many people who don't know much about him will hear some of the stuff he's been saying, which I play to him and challenge him on in the interview, and they'll be horrified. But what do you think?

He's an incredibly intelligent man. I think what he's doing is very important. Right now there's a huge war on masculinity. Men don't really have any kind of role model that they can look up to. Andrew has been very kind and very generous with me. Like I said, I know him personally. I also know him from a business standpoint.

I've spent time with him one and one. I've never felt uncomfortable. He's never been inappropriate with me. A lot of people accuse him of misogyny. He's never been misogynistic towards me. And I think what he's doing is incredibly important. Okay. Ava Tantina, your view of this.

I mean, just from the exchange we just put a preview of where he says he prefers 18, 19, 19, year old woman to 25-year-olds, I think you're 25, aren't you? But, you know, when he generalises about 25-year-old women in the really, I thought, pretty repulsive manner that he did in public, I think that is misogyny, actually, because he's branding a whole category of women in a very offensive way. I think it's close to misogyny.

I think it's actually more looking at women as objectively sexual objects, which inherently is misogynistic. But it's looking for purity in women. What he's essentially saying between those lines is that he wants some sort of virginal woman. Maybe that's why he takes this girl seriously. I don't know. But, I mean, it kind of sounds a little bit like...

But he sounds a little bit... On the other side, he's allowed to. I mean, he can have these views. Does anything that he says or the stuff that you've seen with him, does it cross a line where he deserves to be expunged from all social media, to be banished from the internet? You've got to look at the reaction that came off that, so the people who were duetting his videos

or the people who were spreading his messages, when you've got 15-year-old boys espousing these sort of views where you're talking about women in purely sexual terms and that has come from Andrew Tate and that's where the problem is. What do you think? I don't actually think that's a very fair assessment. He didn't say, oh, I only date 19 years or I prefer.

He was making the point and he could have phrased it better, absolutely. But he's saying that... Which he did concede, actually, right in the interview. But the point he's making is, and he's a very intelligent guy, like Leia was saying, so he knows what he's doing when he's saying that. Obviously, he's got a massive reaction from it, so clearly it's worth. But the point is, you know, he's saying that younger women who have had less experience with men in general

are more desirable because they don't come with a certain amount of baggage. Now, you could say they're women that are more experienced that come with less baggage because they know what they want or they're more mature men to name. But my view is he shouldn't be talking about women in that generalised way at all of any age group. I know a lot of 25-year-old women in my time, they're all very different. It's the idea that you bracket them all in this revolting way, which he did,

which is just a lad in the night club kind of way. It's fine. But that's a generalisation. Do it with a big following, I think, is a malevolent influence. And what is implied there is their sexual history. That is what he's talking about. But there are women that are 18 that have a more elaborate sexual history. Well, let me ask, Hugo.

You spent quite a lot of time with him for your big interview for the times. What did you actually make of him by the end? When you came away, what did you think of it? Oh, we got on very well. But then we were two men sitting in his cigar room, bantering. We had a good chat and a very honest chat. I mean, we had a very similar conversation to the conversation you're having at the moment. in different circumstances.

I wouldn't have liked to introduce him to my wife. I wouldn't have liked to have to have to hang out with him with my female friends. I think that would be intensely uncomfortable. But I noticed at the moment what we're doing, we're debating whether or not he's nice, whether or not the things he thinks are nice or right. What we're not debating is whether or not they should be allowed.

Right. And I think it slightly worries me that we've drifted into thinking those are the same debate. I agree. When do we all really become the moral arbiters for whether people should be allowed a social media platform? I mean, let me go back to Leia.

I mean, to me, you might find, find Andrew Tate's views offensive, unsavory, misogynist, as I did on some occasions with him, and he made some concessions in the interview. I'm not sure by the end that I concluded he'd done anything really so heinous. He deserved the punishment he's got. That was my real conclusion, if I might. Yeah, I don't think he said anything wrong. I think all he's doing is talking about reality, and I don't think it's misogynistic to say you prefer a woman that's 18 versus 25. It's literally just a sexual preference. It's the same reason why a young woman is so old a man.

I don't think... I don't think that's the misogyny. I had this argument with my son's early when they saw the clip. The misogyny isn't that he has a preference for girls of 18, 19, and 25. The misogyny is in the way he talks about every woman who's 25. As if they're all the same, and they've all been through this tawdry background, which he finds so distasteful. That's obviously ludicrous.

Well, I think he speaks with a lot of hyperbole. his goal was to go viral. Obviously, as Esther mentioned, not all 25-year-old women have been sleeping with every single man that they meet in the nightclub. So there's always exceptions, but I just think in general,

a 25-year-old woman, obviously, has had more experience than an 18-year-old woman, and some men prefer that. Some men don't like that. And I think that's completely fine. I think what really scares me is the censorship that we see online. On Twitter, there's actually porn on Twitter.

You have terrorists on Twitter, and yet a man who's just talking about reality and the real dynamics between men. You know what? I've got to say, I have to say, Lear, I think you make a good point. I think there are, the Taliban have Twitter accounts. The I tolerate of Iran. He's threatened to wipe out Israel, has a Twitter account. You know, Donald Trump doesn't. Andrew Tate doesn't. Why? You know, I can't really get a satisfactory response from these platforms. It's a very interesting debate, I think, to be had. We're going to run the full interview with Andrew Tate.

Well, the whole thing will appear on YouTube by the end of the week. We're going to run a good hour of it later of the week. It is a fascinating watch. to say. And you might like him, you might hate him. But the real question is, should he be banned? Thank you to my panel. Thank you to Hugo. Thank you to Leia. That's it from me. You can, as I say, see it all right in the week. Whatever you're up to, keep it unscensive. Good night.