Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Andrew Tate's Lawyer and Tommy Fury

Episode Date: February 2, 2023

On this episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers dives into debating whether the British Empire is toxic. Also Piers speaks with the lawyer of the biggest influencer of the moment, who is still imprisoned, Andrew Tate. Is YouTube Boxing threatening the sport? Piers chats with Tommy Fury ahead of his much anticipated grudge match with influencer turned boxer, Jake Paul. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on Pittsburgh and our censor from tearing down statues to renaming buildings and handing back royal honours in shame. Is British history simply too toxic? We're obviously becoming a bunch of history snowflakes. We'll debate. And he takes detained in Romania again, facing allegations of human trafficking. I'll talk exclusively to the lawyer now defending the world's most infamous influencer. Thus, boxer Tommy Fury. Stepbrother of the Great Tyson Fury is about to fight one of the biggest YouTube stars on the planet.

tens of millions will watch, but is it a stunt that undermines the integrity of a sport or a real fight? I'll ask it. Tommy Fury, live. Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. The British Empire built roads, schools and hospitals across much of the world. It ultimately also abolished slavery, but the Empire also committed some horrific atrocities in its conquest. Just as American history is cloudy by being boldly by being abolished. built on the backs of the wicked slave trade, but illuminated by us to feed of the Nazis and communism.

History is complicated. The past is riddled with terrible and heinous acts committed in less enlightened times. That is a fact, but it's also a fact, that none of these things are your fault and are my fault. Either we weren't there, just as it's preposterous, in my view, to blame King Charles for the toxic masculinity of Henry the 8th,

which some people are doing. It's unhinged to imagine that today's generation can or should bear responsibility for their ancestors, isn't it? The self-flagellation is the vogue. There's viral currency in apologising for everything in our past to vaunt our virtue today. Well, that's what the actor Alan Cumming has done by handing back his OBE

and a flurry of indignant rage. It was given to him by the late Queen in 2009. He blamed the toxicity of empire, adding he'd been grateful at the time, but now his eyes are open. Really, Alan? They were shut, were they, for all those decades that you were alive? As a supposedly intelligent man, you had no idea about the British Empire? Not really true, is it, Alan?

Just the Queen's now no longer here, so you feel emboldened to go on a little PR rampage about how disgusted you are by the whole thing. He doesn't quite realise it, Mr. Cumming, but really, that's the point of this. It seemed fine at the time, the fashions and sensibilities have changed, and by today's standards, it all seems terrible. But history itself, of course, stays the same. Sustained assault on the past isn't just irritating as direct consequences. The Royal Family now is repeatedly hounded

by demand for apologies wherever they tour the world. The ferocious debate about reparations to the dissenters of slavery in the US is toxic and divisive. It makes ordinary people who have nothing at all to do with slavery and detest the whole notion of it

feel like they're under attack for something that they had nothing to do with. It reduces the same. to oppressors and the oppressed instead of simply people who mostly want to make the world a better place. Tearing down statues, renaming buildings endlessly apologising for our ancestors

might make some sensitive people feel better about themselves and get them a few likes on social media. But does it make the world a better place? Well, joining me now, our author and playwright Bonnie Greer, OBE, an academic professor Nigel Bigger, CBE,

Professor Bigger's book on colonialism was cancelled by the publisher for concluding me that the British Empire was not all bad. Plus the commentator and best-selling author Douglas Murray, as yet shamefully unhonored. And we intend to correct that by the end of this program, Douglas, so it gets you something out of this

at the very least. All right, let's start. Bonnie, you have an honour which you accepted. It's the order of the British Empire. What did you think you were getting? You're going to pull an out in covering? I had no idea. I think it's the officer of the British Empire. You're commander of the British Empire.

I thought it was order. No, no. Officer. So you're an officer of the British Empire? I'm an officer and Nigel's commander. Well, how does your role as Officer of the British Empire square with your criticism of the British Empire? Well, for one thing, I took the honor peers on behalf of my late father. He was here for D-Day.

He was in a segregated army. The British people were wonderful to him. He loved his country and he loved the people. And I took it on his behalf because no one gave him a medal at all. And I told him now King Charles exactly why I did. and he said thank you.

So when at my mother's funeral, I pin the medal on her dress. So it's for my dad. So it meant a lot to you? It meant a lot for me because of my father's service. So when you see Alan coming, and that's a great story, by the way, and it's wonderful to hear that,

because all you hear at the moment is all the negative stuff from the British past. That's a nice story, to positive story. But when you hear Alan coming in this fit of rage, hurling back his honor and saying he's just woken up, to the reality of the horrors of the British Empire. What is your response then?

Well, I was giggling a little bit when you did your opening oratorio because actually he would have known this, especially being a Scott about the British Empire. I mean, that's a natural thing. You know, no empire, and I don't know what you've written, Nigel, but no empire, by definition, is a good thing because what it actually is about is about someone has to be oppressed to be in an empire.

But history, in my opinion, here's where I cover all these things. History is nuanced, right? Yes. Current history will be nuanced. Yes. What we went through 50 years ago, 100 years ago, a thousand years ago, everything is nuanced in the sense there's good and bad in all these eras.

Exactly, exactly. But then we go back to, and I'm just thinking automatically, of the first strike of Indian independence, which is called the Indian mutiny, I think they would disagree with the idea of empire. They would disagree with the empire. So what's that coming wrong to hand back his honor? He was right because he was. wanted to do it, but the reason he did it, I don't really, I mean, if he didn't know that,

I don't know, I don't know what to say. And to those who say, well, Bonnie, you know, you're, if you're, if you're that concerned about the British Empire, how do you feel comfortable having a title given to you by the royal family on behalf of the monarchy, which, of course, was a major part of the British Empire? How do you feel about keeping that honor as an officer of the British Empire if you feel that way about what the Empire did? As I said, I did it for my dad. I did it for my dad. And hang on.

I get that, but what about you, person, your views at the empire now? Well, I never say OBE. People call me that. They'll put it up behind my name. I never, ever say anything about the OBE. But I won't relinquish it, and it's because of my father. Okay. Nigel, you wrote a book, Professor Begert, to give your proper title,

but you wrote a book about colonialism and moral reckoning. It was cancelled by Bloomsberg. We live in this absurd world now, where publishers are censoring authors after they commission books and tell them, what are you going to write about? And they say this and they say, great. And then you write about it and then they cancel you.

Which apart from anything else is ridiculous. So I just think publishers are making themselves like absurd. But what was the pretext of your book? And what is the overview that you drew in conclusion about the British Empire? The British Empire, I mean, you mentioned slavery. And that's true for 150 years the British were involved in.

and slaving other people, Africans, like everyone else in the world. I mean, even in, I was in North Carolina earlier this month and went to the museum with history of North Carolina, which told me that in 1860 on the eve of the American Civil War, the coltilde. 30,000 emancipated slaves, some of whom kept slaves themselves, which is so common. But in the early 1800s, Britain was among the first states

in the history of the world, the history of the world, to abolish the slave trade, and the leader in suppressing the slave trade, all of the world from Brazil to Malaysia. Nigel, may I just ask you a question? I'm sorry to interrupt you. And I would ask you this because you know more about this than me. What I understand is that the abolition of the slave trade

was partly a way for the Royal Navy to have supremacy on the seas. In fact, the Royal Navy boarded slaveships, and this was more about the Royal Navy than it was about abolition of slave trade. Yeah, you kind of say. saying that the Royal Navy wanted to exert itself and so freeing slaves is one way to do it. That's kind of back to front. I mean, the Royal Navy spent in the 1830 spent about 13% of the total manpower, just manning ships on the coastal West Africa to stop slavers.

And 17,000 sailors died of disease. It's enormous a cost. By imagine, why was your book cancelled by your publisher? Why didn't they publish? A reliable source tells me that woke junior employees in Boomsbury publishing protested against publishing anything they didn't agree with. And for some reason, I don't understand, the grown-ups in senior management caved in. But that is the problem, isn't it, in this culture,

is that you've got these very young woke employees who buy into all these narratives, and then they think it's completely right to work for a publisher supposedly supporting free speech in a democratic society. like Britain. And they think it's fine to actually try and get that author canceled because they don't agree with some of the stuff you've written. Pierce, can I say something to? I mean, Woke, I'm so unhappy about that name being taken over.

Because we're going to talk about history. Woke was a signal to, we're talking about slavery, to people escaping from slavery. They used the word on the underground railroad. That was one of the signals. Well, it was mainly actually. They know they were in the safe house. And, you know, it would...

Woke actually began mainly in the 60s in the black music community in America. And it was established as a way of expressing a bigger awareness of social and racial injustice. I completely sign up to that. By that definition, I'm woke. What woke has... What's happened to the word,

it's been hijacked by people who are now behaving like fashion. They're behaving like fascists. So it's a type of thing that Nigel Kahn, who's a professor of this stuff. And because you know that, because you know that, you shouldn't use it the way you use it. Because you know that.

Okay. And because you know that. Bonnie, your historical point's well taken. In this context, woke refers to a contemporary movement. Yes, we're using the story. All right. I want to bring in Douglas Smok, you could go that way. But since it's being used as a badge of honor.

Well, you shouldn't do it. You know better. I think it's become literally a badge of the new fascism. It's basically people now embrace the word wokes themselves to say, I'm so woke that if you say anything I don't like, I'm going to ruin shame, Villa Vice. But Pete,

you have the power to instruct people about where the word came from. I wrote a whole book about it, Bonnie. Then you shouldn't use it that way. Bonnie, I wrote a book for Wake up. Then you shouldn't use it. Literally, I wrote a book. It's the number one best seller.

You shouldn't use the word that way. Still available in all good books. Unlike Nigels, which got canceled on the altar of work right. I want to bring in Douglas Murray. The many of words changes are going to come out. Time out. I want to bring in Douglas Murray.

He's been waiting very patiently. Douglas, where are we with this, where every single aspect of our history, I'm sitting here with an eminent professor whose book about colonial Britain was banned by its own publishers because woke employees rattle their little oversensitive snowflakey cages at him, right?

But what does it say about society that this is happening? What does it say about history of this country? of America, that almost everything in history now we have to feel ashamed about. Unfortunately, it says that there's one prevailing narrative and you're not meant to say anything against it, whether the prevailing narrative is true or not. And on this occasion, the prevailing narrative is not true. The prevailing narrative at the moment in Britain is a sort of import from the American culture wars, where we've tried to put the legacy of slavery in America over the legacy of

colonialism in Britain, make it our founding original sin. derive all of our morality and our scolding of the past. From that, I mean, we've seen Sir Francis Drake as the latest victim of this, where an explorer from the 1500s gets run through our 2020s paradigm and found to be failing. It's happened with absolutely everyone, from Lord Nelson to Winston Churchill. And I think this paradigm is wildly unfit for purpose.

And the problem is that when anyone goes against, as Professor Nigel Bigger has, we see the consequences. And the problem is this, Pierce, what we're suffering from is this massive ignorance in our society where very ignorant people have been grabbing the microphone and saying there's only one way to look at the past, and that's with us being the very enlightened, clever, brilliant, modern people and everyone in the past being guilty of sin. And the fact is, if you say, look, we need more nuance on that, you get backlash. I mean, Nigel Bigger knows this because when he tried to some years ago at Oxford,

start a course in the ethics of empire, that was lambasted by academics. You know, if academics at Oxford, including the then-regious professor of ethics, are not allowed to look at the ethics of empire, the things that were good in it, the things that were bad in it, what the moral reckoning should be, who is meant to do this? If it's not historians, academics. There was a guy, you'll know this story. There was a professor at a university in America. I can't remember which one it was now.

But he, for 25 years, had delivered a brilliant lecture about the use of offensive language. And as part of the lecture, he would use offensive language to illustrate what he was talking about. And he got cancelled because the students protested about him using offensive language. In a lecture, he delivered for a quarter of a century about offensive language. Look, there are about five different arguments on his... That one is a kind of... I'll have to finish the point on that. The thing with that one is, Piers, in a way that that one is a slam dunk,

because it's just like it's ridiculous in a course about language to sort of end up policing language like that. But the point about history, it can't be stressed enough. There is a very malevolent, malign interpretation of our history in Britain that is going on at the moment. And it needs historians and others to correct it. It's not about one, you know, dogmatic narrative replacing another, quite the opposite. It's saying there is a dogmatic and

untrue narrative being pushed on British history. It's time to add some context. And the fact that there are publishers and universities and others in Britain that say, we don't want that context, we want to ban that context, says something so unhealthy is going on in our society. And just quickly, Douglas, your response to Alan Cumming returning his OBE over misgiving and surrounding the toxicity of the British Empire, which he apparently suddenly realized. He woke up after the Queen died and realized there may have been some issues with the British Empire, which he had had an OBE from, for many years. You know, Alan Cummings, I have infinite disdain for.

I mean, he's a nasty little Scottish nationalist who lives in California and talks about how Scotland should be independent. If he wanted to jump on the anti-imperial bandwagon, he should have done it 20 years ago, because Benjamin Zephaniah and others did this a long time ago and refusing this honor. So, I mean, I can sort of believe that Alan Cummings hadn't heard of the British Empire until this year. I sort of can believe it

because he runs so many contradictory narratives in his head. Yeah, I completely agree. Bonnie, you've been raging away here quite a bit. Yeah, let's talk about contradictory narratives. I mean, first of all, we all have an obligation, particularly an historian, and a particular man who's written a book on the subject, to separate out how the word can,

into being and how it is used now. It's very important. It's very important. But I did all that. Okay, no, no. You need to read my book. Well, well. Well, well. Mine actually got published, but here's. You're going to, I can tell you, I know, I know, I don't know. A group of wokeies at my publishing company also rattled their cages. And in the end, it went away. But I had a similar problem. How come they were grownups in your public? Because there were grownups running the company. Can I finish? Okay. That's the first thing about woke. It's very important. It's very important to me that you get that. right where that came from. You need to read my book. I don't need to read your book. Well, I've written a whole book about it. I lived it. I'm from Chicago. I know what Wolk is about. I don't need to read your book. Well, you just said I need to do more about it. No, I don't. No, I don't. No, I don't.

I know what I come about it. Okay. So I need to do something, but when I tell you I've already done, you see. No, you don't need to listen to it. I don't know what your book says. Apart from, I hope this, has this book being published anyway? It's coming up tomorrow. Brilliant. Yep. Well, he's published in the end. William Collins. Fantastic. Brave people. Well, get out there and buy it. And don't denigrate the word woke because it comes from a very special, sacred place. Don't do it. Clean it up. I don't need to read your book.

I don't need to read your book. Bonnie, I don't need to read your book. I'm going to send you my book for free. I don't need to read up and read my book. It's called wake up. I don't need to read it. 300,000 people have bought it. I'm giving you all nothing. I'm going to give you. I'll even sign a copy for you. I'm going to read one for you. Wake up here. I just shove me your book. I want to show this to the camera because this was the one they tried to ban.

It's coming out tomorrow. It's called colonialism. a moral reckoning by Professor Nigel Bigger is a fantastic book should never have been cancelled I wish you all the best with it over to flying bestseller you need to read my flying bestseller

That's it, no no you need to listen to me That's it Good to see you Bonnie Good to see you We're coming next I wanted just to make a little announcement When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister He kept promising me

that he would do a big sit-down interview with me in Downing Street And he kept reneging on that promise culminating in a farcical scene when he ran into a fridge on live television and stayed in there to avoid talking to me. So a few months ago, I met Rishi Sunak as an event. I asked him, can I have an interview with you

now that you're Prime Minister? Because I do it at Downing Street? Yes, came the answer. And I got a call yesterday to say, come tomorrow. So tomorrow morning I'll be with the Prime Minister of Rishishishanak. It'll be the first time I've ever interviewed a Conservative Prime Minister at Downing Street. Looking forward to it. I've done a few Labour Prime Ministers there, but never a conservative one.

And it says a lot about Rishishishunak, hasn't run into a fridge to hide from the questioning I'll be giving him. And it's to mark 100 days in office for which he's doing next, or as we now call it, in the trade, two Liz Trussets. So that'll be me, tomorrow night, the whole show, PM and the PM. See what I did there? Coming up next, more rabid shouting. No, we're going to have another big debate.

See in a moment. Welcome back to Piers Morgan on Sets. I have a flurry of texts there from people who've had honours. and I'm very proud of them, thank you very much. And don't think very much of Alan coming for accepting it and then sending it back in a little virtue-signalling peak. But first, on his 100th day in office tomorrow, I'll be sitting down with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak,

number 10 Downing Street, for an exclusive interview. That's tomorrow morning to air tomorrow night. But joining me in the studio now to debate this in advance and Mirrors Associate editor, Kevin Maguire, talked to be contributor Esther Cracko, plus from Westminster, talk to the political editor as Kate McCann and from New York, former Conservative MP, Louise Mentso, a veritable feast of a panel tonight.

Welcome to all of you. Let's start with Kate McCann down in Westminster. What is the general view about how Rishi Sunak has done in his first 100 days, particularly in context of the fact he's already outlasted two Liz Trusses? I think it depends very much who you ask peers. And that's because it's very easy to forget how much chaos there was here in Westminster just a couple of months ago. Getting rid of Prime Ministers on a whim, some people suggested.

Conservative MPs plotting in corridors, Bishishishanat came in with a promise to essentially make politics a little bit boring again. And I think most of his party thinks that he's done that. But of course, once you look past that, that's where the problem start, because people in his party want policies. They want things to change.

And the reality is that he's come in dragging a whole load of baggage that the party had accumulated over the last couple of months that he can't really do anything about. And you're seeing that play out now with those political scandals who's had to get rid of his own chairman. Didn't want to do that, had to do it in the end. He's now got an investigation into Dominic Raab

and lots of whispers going on tonight in the bars behind me in Parliament about potentially Dominic Raab quitting before that investigation is over. Now, those close to him say that's not going to happen. But the Prime Minister doesn't want to focus on this. He wants to talk about policy, and when you look across that, well, he's got no money.

He is the former Chancellor. He knows exactly how much cash is in the public purse, and the answer is not very much. There are many here in Parliament who question his approach to particularly the nurse's strike and nurses pay. And I think for Tory MPs who are looking back, some of them will remember that chaos and think, well, thank God we're not there anymore.

But others who have quite short memories will think, well, this guy was supposed to be the next big thing. And we don't necessarily think he's made a huge impact yet. There is mixed opinion, I think it's fair today. Okay, Kevin McGuire, I mean, look, on the positive note, he hasn't tanked the pound, he hasn't tanked the economy, and he hasn't gone completely start raving mad. So he's a distinct improvement on his immediate predecessor.

But, you know, he's 100 days in. He's only got about 500 days maximum until a general election. Very hard to actually get anything significantly done, particularly with an ongoing very grim economy. No, he's coming at what really feels like the fag end of conservative rule. Can he turn it around? Can he save him? A lot of his own MPs don't respect him. That is the problem.

You go drinking with them, have coffees with them, chat with them. And why is that? All the time. I think it's because he think he just hasn't got a touch for politics. You look, he didn't think it was a problem his wife, an he r. Fabulously wealthy was a non-dom avoiding tax in the UK. He didn't think it was wrong for him to keep a US green card

so he could scarper over there but didn't work out here and work back in America. Even the stupidity of recording himself making a statement without a seatbelt on so he gets buying. None of those things to me were massive things. They add up. They add up. But they're just a rough and tumble of normal politics. He appointed Gavin Williamson as a cabinet minister. He had a... Well, I certainly wouldn't have done that. And I wouldn't have brought Suella Braverman back so quickly.

After six back, really did a dodgy deal with it. But in a way, I thought the way that he dealt with Nadim Zahawi, Esther, you know, was the way I think leaders should do it, which is you start an inquiry. It doesn't go on very long. You get to the facts and you take action. To be honest, I think he is kind of just studying the ship as best as he possibly can. I think your point that, you know, his conservative MPs don't really respect him is quite poignant because he's a technocrat. He's not a politician. You can see even the way he interacts with the media, for instance, when he was asked if he has a private GP. He should have said, yes, I have a private GP because I can afford it.

It's my moral duty to take burden off the NHS by, you know, affording my own pain for my own health care. But he didn't. He ran away from the question, which was mind-boggling, because, you know, that was a clear opportunity for him to score a very easy win. So he doesn't have a very good sort of media manner. He's not charismatic. But he's not a buffoon like Boris Johnson. Oh, absolutely. And the market's trusted. And he's not a persistent liar like Boris Johnson, from what I've seen so far. He looks the part, he sounds the part, you know, he looks like he takes the job seriously. That is a step up on the last.

I don't feel embarrassed when he goes abroad for Britain, right? Which I did with Johnson. Trust wasn't really an opportunity to do it. But at the same time, has he got the ideas? Where are his big ideas? There aren't any. The thing is, Kirstama doesn't have any either. What a Kirstama's big idea?

Oh, come on. You can see Labor would transform with the tax rises they would come through, health and education. They would have negotiated and you would have these strikes. Let me bring in another aspect to this, which is the aforementioned Boris Johnson, is clearly on manoeuvres. I mean, quite literally, he's popped up in Ukraine, glad-handed President Zelensky.

He's been to Congress in America, glad-handing Mitch McConnell and other Senate leaders and so on. What's he up to? Well, Louise Minch, you're a Boris. fan, what is he up to? Because he's pretending like he's the Foreign Secretary, stroke, de facto, I should still be Prime Minister, isn't he?

Absolutely, he isn't he? You're totally right that he's on manoeuvres. He wants to be the once and future king. And I looked up the actual polls before I came on tonight. In June of last year, before Boris Johnson was pushed out, the deficit the Tories had to Labour was 7%. After 100 days of Rishi Sunak, it's now 22 points,

So 22 points down in the polls to Labour. That's really not sustainable. If you want not only to win the next election seems like a distant goal, but even to limit your losses. And I think Boris is waiting for the results of the local elections in May. He's waiting to see if he can say to the party,

this guy is going to lose every single seat we have. It was all a mistake. Let's just wipe it out and go back to me. What I would say, okay, but what I would say is you've conveniently neglected to mention the real culprit, I suspect, in all this, which was Liz Truss, whose unbelievably terrible reign of 44 days of financial terror spooked to the entire global markets, tanked a pound to record lows, so on and so on and so on. Fortunately, she went before the lettuce even expired, and that was that.

But the damage had to be repaired. And the pound is now back from a low of that 102 to 123 now, in terms of the pound dollar rate. If you're trying to be positive about Rishishishanak, you'd say, well, at least he stabilised stuff like that. I mean, that's an advantage of where we were back in September. Yeah, and he took the tourists from something crazy like a 40-point deficit down to a 20-point deficit, but he hasn't done any better than that. And frankly, Piers, I can do better than a head of lettuce. Isn't much of a recommendation for a prime minister.

It's really not. What is the point of Rishi Sunak? What is Sunakism? There is no such thing as Syracism. Nobody knows what his vision is. I've actually got that on my list of questions. What is Sunakism? I am going to ask him. There you go, see. Great minds. I actually think it's interesting to ask you. I'm going to ask him. Look, you've been in power for 100 days. It doesn't sound a lot, but it's a lot more than your predecessor.

And actually, the big question now is, what do you stand for? And what do you want your country to be? And how are you going to get us there? Because he hasn't got that long. You know, he's only got a maximum of 500 days to call the election. So this is in politics that will whiz by the accountability. economy obviously is continuing to be massively problematic. I just wonder about Boris Johnson's loyalty here. Does it exist? Does he have a loyal bone in his body? Or is every waking thought now how to Stiff Rishy? He's loyal to Boris Johnson. Is he just had a stiff Rishie basically? He just wants to be Prime Minister. He was, in my opinion, a better Prime Minister, even with all the scandals than Rishi

by some distance. He was terrible. He had a vision. Well, that's not what the opinion polls say. peers, you can't get away from it. Under Boris, seven points down to labour at the worst, under Rishi, 22 points down. It's simple mathematics. You're missing... Liz Truss again. You keep missing the one in the middle. It's like saying there's a triangle with two points to it. Let me bring in, Esther.

Esther, look, I just don't think the country should even think about going back to Boris Johnson. The idea of going from somebody who looks and sounds like they've got a brain and have a sense of duty about them, going back to this buffoon, his careering around the world, for purely self-

interest, I think he's ridiculous. I think we need to remember the fact that Boris took a spectacular win in 2019, a massive sort of... And ruined it? It's incredible. In what, three years? That's a record. Today he told someone an interview in America, Kevin. He said, you know,

anyone who thinks that I knew about these illicit parties or in any way with countenance some going on really has lost their mind, to which I tweeted, I've lost my mind. Because clearly... Of course he did. Of course he did. It's happening in his building, his home.

He was cracking jokes about the lack of social distancing at some of them. He's stalking Sunak. I mean, Sunak should get a restraining order. Should Sunak be doing, and I might ask me him, but should he be doing more to keep Boris Johnson under control? How do you do that? I agree. I don't know.

I don't know what a Prime Minister can do. But I probably used to have quite good power to do that to an MP. I mean, he's an MP. Yeah, but you're dealing with a giant ego. who just puts himself first, second and third. That's all it is with Boris. I don't know for 30-odd years. If you give him too much attention,

then the attention literally shifts on to Boris. And it's like, well, the country has bigger issues than this buffoon. I think you just let him do what he wants to do. He needs to accept the fact that he's never coming back as Prime Minister. But Rishi Sunak has much bigger fish to fry,

quite frankly. Starvo and Labor love it, though. They are people like Louise Mench and there's a little Johnsonite just ignoring the reality and pushing him forward all the time. Fantastic for a little Louise Mench for a final word on that.

I mean, Louise, there you are. You're there, maneuvering with Boris. Boris Johnson is a winner. He's won an election. Rishi Sunak wasn't only not put in by the people of Britain. He wasn't even put in by the members of the Tory party. And if your panel think that the Conservative Party is going to go gentle into that good night

and take the 20-point drop with Rishi, they've got another thing coming. Brilliant. You know who was put in by the members of the Conservative Party, Liz Truss? It just about says everything to me about their judgment. Anyway, Louise Munch, good to see. I'll be seeing you in New York shortly for a couple of weeks. Thank you very much.

You're saying with me to the pack. Kate McCann. One question for you, Kate, before we go, actually. They're all groaning in my eggs. They want to move on to the break. So that's going to make me even more determined to talk to you a little further, Kate. This idea of Boris Johnson returning, politically,

is it even a starter? Are people beginning to get a little bit jittery about this? peers i think Westminster watches will be thinking tonight that actually if anyone's due for a comeback or thinks that they could be it's Liz truss not Boris Johnson i think it's worth watching out in the next couple of days what you see from the former prime minister because yes she may well have been likened to a lettuce as the we've mentioned she was saying there but she is very far from feeling that her career here in politics is over so i think very much watch this space from her from Boris Johnson I think he's having too much fun he gets to do what he likes say what he likes and it still makes huge

driples back home. Well, you know what his own supporters are calling him right now? Nadine Doris will be in this studio tomorrow night, on Friday night. He's got an interview with Boris Johnson after years of unrestrained sucking up. And he finally sat here with it. And this was the clip, which I think says it all. Listen to this. But that point just isn't the case, because Rishy is like some kind of submarine prime minister.

He isn't out at the front making the case. You're making the case here now. But, you know, he's not out there making the place. He's invisible. I don't. He's been on TV a lot more than me lately. I can tell you that much for free. Go, God, I go. We've come back. Anyway, there we are.

The submarine Prime Minister is what Boris Johnson's allies are calling Rishi Suna. I'll put that to the Prime Minister tomorrow. Whether he views himself as a submarine Prime Minister or it'd better be it's time to put his Periscope up and gun down Boris Johnson on his manoeuvres. Coming up next, as his appeal against detention failed. Andrew Tate's lawyer talks exclusively. He's uncensored. Don't go away.

Well, next Andrew Tate will spend the next month behind bars and remaining after losing the latest appeal against his detention. Tate and his brother, Tristan, are being held as part of an investigation into rape and human trafficking. Well, speaking outside court, Andrew Tate said he's done nothing wrong.

Come, come, come. You know I'm innocent. Are you confident you're going to be a race? There's no much justice in Arabia. Thank you. Well, the pack is still with me. Plus, joining me now is the lawyer for the tape brothers, Tina Glendon, who is in Romania. Well, welcome to you, Ms. Glendia.

I really appreciate you joining me. Where are we with this case? It seems that every now and again, this pops up back on television with them being remanded for further time. How long can that process continue before a charging decision is made? Under Romanian law, they have up to 180 days, which is in 30-day increments. So every time there's a 30-day detention order, there are. allowed to renew their request and have it extended for an additional 30 days, but not to exceed 180 days.

Okay. You've taken on this case. Andrew Tate has been repeatedly bellowing his innocence as he's been led in and out of these court hearings and so on. Do you believe them? Do you believe that he and his brother are innocent? At this point, Pierce, they've had this investigation going since April. We're now February, and there are not even charges filed against them.

them. So this is a huge injustice the way we see it. They should not be detained at this point. We think it's now crossed over to the point where it's violating international human rights law because the deprivation of your liberty pretrial is the most severe form of punishment a state can impose. And that's what they've done in this case. And they've had a very lengthy investigation with the government's resources. They've been analyzing and looking at all of their devices since April when they seized everything. And here we are February and charges aren't filed. So I think there's absolutely no evidence that's been presented.

And that's our position. What is, I mean, how are your clients at the moment? How is Andrew Tate dealing with incarceration? I mean, I interviewed him just before Christmas. We had a long, wide-ranging interview. And once again, I was struck by the phenomenal following that he has online, particularly with young men. You know, he has an enormous following there.

You and I know this has been whipped up now by that community into a huge framing of a narrative that this is complete injustice. There are others who think this has been a long time coming, that he's a bad human being and that he's going to face very serious charges and that will be the last we see of him. But how is he faring right now

given at the moment he's in this limbo land of no charging but being held in incarceration? The brothers are both very strong. They're resilient and they're holding up but obviously the conditions are not good. They're in a Romanian jail cell, and they've been detained for a very lengthy period at this point. They have limited access to their attorneys.

It's not a good condition for them. You've obviously represented a lot of people. Sorry, please finish. I was just going to say, to your second point, they're controversial public figures, but that's not a crime. And at this point, we have not been provided any proof that they've committed any crimes. nor have they even been charged.

So I would ask that people presume them innocent as they are. Do they feel that they are being tried in the court of public opinion? I think the public is divided, as you know. I think they have a big following. But at the end of the day, yes, I think there is a lot of information in the public. I think there is a lot of false allegations in the public. I think some evidence has now been put forth. Again, I don't want to comment too much on the facts of the case

since there is an ongoing criminal investigation. However, I think there has been evidence put out videos and other statements for the public to see what the supposed state of the evidence actually is. It's been interesting to watch Andrew Tate's Twitter feed, in particular, that he's continued to tweet. Is he doing that himself? Has he got people doing that for him?

And how do you feel from a legal point of view? Is it a wise tactic to continue to do that on social media when you're being held in custody by the remaining authorities? Well, again, he doesn't have access, so he's not doing anything directly. And what's being put out is on his accounts. And I'm not going to speak as to the source of the posts and what's being put out.

But I think, again, as of now, he's not charged with anything. And he's free to comment publicly if he wishes to. They've obviously, we know that they seized nearly 3.5 million pounds in cash, 11 luxury sports cars, guns and other weapons. Are any of the things that have been seized from the property? Are they in themselves acts of law breaking, just the possession of any of these things? To my knowledge, they're not. I think if they were, they would have been charged with crimes. Again, they had the initial search in April,

and it's February. It's been 10 months and no charges have been filed whatsoever. We have an ongoing criminal investigation for which this is a preventative detention, which is why they're in custody. Again, this is the most severe form of punishment. I don't think it's justified under these circumstances where the prosecution hasn't set forth enough evidence to charge them, and yet they are detained, and it's being prolonged. But you do accept, of course, that if the women who've come forward here as part of the investigation, if they're telling them the truth, these are very serious allegations against your client. which could lead to charging,

and if they led to charging, could lead potentially to long prison sentence, if found guilty? Certainly the crimes at issue are very serious crimes, and I think Pierce, actually, it was on your show when you interviewed Tate several months ago.

He made very strong statements about his position on rape, and he condemned rape, and he said it was disgusting, was I'm pretty sure the word he used, and he said he thought that somebody who does that deserves the death penalty. So there's no.

question that these are serious charges and even in his own words they're very serious charges there just isn't any evidence that they committed these crimes but you know we've also had tapes which have emerged in the last few weeks of him talking about rape to a woman in a pretty unsavory manner so what is your response to that can you I'm sorry I didn't catch that you said what surfaced there have been various tapes have surfaced in part of media investigations in the last few weeks including Andrew Tate talking about rape to a woman in a pretty unsavory manner.

So what would your reaction be to that? First of all, I think the authenticity of anything that is presented through the media as opposed to turned over to the defense needs to be questioned because material is edited and it's easily manipulated. So first, I would say that.

Secondly, I don't think certain text messages, you know, there are, I'm not here to judge or to talk to people's desire, or fetishes, but certainly somebody could easily set someone up by saying they like, they have certain fantasies, they want certain things done to them or said to them. And so there's a lot that goes into. You can't take a text message out of context. You first have to know, first of all, the entire context of it and what the background is.

There needs to be explanation. So I think you have to keep all of that in mind when you're seeing something in the media. We do. And we have to keep your mind also the judge's reason. for all this. They explained on the 20th of January that they viewed the particular dangerousness of the defendants and their capacity to identify victims with increased vulnerability in search of better life opportunities. So all of this has to be taken into account. But it goes on and as you rightly say at the moment there have been no charges

against your clients and until or if that point arrives we're in a world of allegation not actual charges. Correct. And right now exactly. There's a presumption of innocence that every accused has, and that attaches from the time you're even charged. And here, we're not even there. They haven't even charged them with crimes. So any sort of comments as to their alleged dangerousness, there's no evidence of that. There isn't even a presumption of that. They need to be presumed innocent, and that hasn't happened in this case.

There's really a lack of evidence, and they are being detained unlawfully at this point. Tina Glendian, I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, Pierce. Well, next to like, boxer Tommy Fury, little brother of Tyson Fury, joins me live head of his showdown with YouTube sensation, Jake Paul and Saudi Arabia. There he is. It will be two million pounds richer.

But at what cost? We'll talk about that next. Welcome back with Tommy Fury. We'll fight Jake Paul in Saudi Arabia later this month. One is a boxer, the other is a YouTuber. So what's it all about? Let's have a look. I'm really excited to this.

If Tommy loses, he can stay in Saudi Arabia. Leave him for good. He can become Cristiana Ronaldo's best pal, and he become a PT for Ronaldo in Saudi. Well, Tommy Fury joins me now. You're going to become the Christiana Ronaldo of boxing in Saudi, apparently. Tommy, which is no bad thing to be my mate in Saudi, the highest paid athlete in the world at 37?

Yeah, definitely. I mean, there's a reason he's gone out to Saudi, isn't he? But best thought to Cristiano Ronaldo in his move out there. I hope he plays even better football out there. Look, there's a very interesting debate about these YouTubers turned boxes, about whether they're making a mockery of the great sport of boxing. You're a boxer and always have been. But what do you make of it?

I mean, are they at a level now these Paul brothers where actually that argument no longer carries water? I mean, at the end of the day, in my opinion, it's bringing new eyes to boxing, and that's the only positive thing I can say about it, really. other than that, it is what it is. They're not proper professional boxers. They're just people who's playing at it,

doing it to entertain the crowd, earn a few quids, and that's it really. But when you put one of those in with a professional boxer, well, you're all about to see what's going to happen. But I don't know, it's bringing new eyes to the sport. You know, kids are getting involved that wouldn't normally watch it. So, yeah, it's great.

What if you lose? I mean, Tyson's already made it clear what his reaction will be, which is basically disowning you, by the sound of it, but for you to lose to someone who's not even a real, boxer, that would be unthinkable, right? Of course, and that's why that's not an option. There is no way that this man could beat me, even if you had a hammer in both hands.

There is no way, and I'm going to exhibit that. Yeah, and I've made it two rules in life. Never fight anyone called Tyson or Fury. It just seems to me to be an act of self-harm. Well, soon it's going to be never fight anyone called Tyson and never fight anyone called Tommy, because I'm going to prove that in shortly under four weeks. I don't interest, if you ever had a fight with

with Tyson. I've had many fights with Tyson in the gym, yes, but I can't reach his head so I'll just take his hips. Now, that's where I'm online with. Have you ever knocked each other out? No, I mean, at the end of the day, if I steal his breakfast, he might eat with a few good right hands and wobble me up a bit, but that's not happened so far.

I'm a bit more wiser than that. Now, more personally, last time I interviewed Tyson, he was on this show, and he said he was retiring, and I said, I don't believe you, and in fact, if you do come back in the ring professionally, you've got to give me a million pounds. Will you take the bet? And he took it live on air

and then said on Talk Sport, he would pay me in pound coins. Can you just tell him I'm still waiting and every morning I run down to the post office? There's no bag of coins, Tommy. Well, I'm sorry, Piers, but I hate to say I haven't got the stones to go up to her and ask for your million pounds.

You can have to do that yourself. I'll ring you. I'm not scared. I'll ring him. What's going to happen in this fight? You think you're going to knock him out? I know I'm going to knock him out. This fight will not go

any more than four rounds. The stuff that I'm doing in the gym, the people that I'm handling in the gym, there's no way this goes the distance. And he apparently went on social media to reveal that you'd become a father without you guys even getting the chance to you and Molly May, your partner, to say it yourself.

Listen, at the end of the day, all Jake Paul can do from wherever he is in this world is speculate, and that's all that was, speculation. You know, nothing's ever true unless you hear it from me and Molly. Do you like the trash-talking side of both? boxing? It's part of the parcel. It is what it is. It's stuff that we have to do. It's called the entertainment business. That's the game that we're in. And me and Jake Paul are great dance

partners. And I've enjoyed the build-up so far. It's going to get a lot more heated. And I can't wait, but the real work starts when we get inside them ropes. And social media can't save Jake Paul. His mouth can't save him. It comes down to fighting. And I'm a lot better at doing that than him. And just in case things don't go right, do you want me to text Christiana tonight and just see if he's got any spare rooms. I mean, if he's, yeah, I mean, why not, Saudi? I mean, I could come accustomed to living out there, but Pearz, are you going to see pigs flying the air

before something goes wrong with me and Jake Paul? I'll tell you that. Well, I admire you for coming on Pierce Morgan Unsensored, as I did with Tyson. We'll always have a fury on here. You can tell Mr. Paul that we're looking forward to seeing him coming on as well. See how he gets on.

For sure, listen, make him, make all the best of it, Mr. Jake. porks in four weeks your boxing career is completely over because it never started in the first place well go get him tomm go do it for britain tomm knock him out good to talk to you tomorrow night the prime minister uncensored p.m with the pm that will be a show tomorrow night 8 pm keep it uncensored good night thank you you guys thank you guys thank you great for you