Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Another BBC Scandal, Biden visits UK, Roseanne Barr

Episode Date: July 10, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored Live from New York, Piers looks into the sensational new developments at the BBC. Piers delves into President Joe Biden's visit to the UK to meet with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to discuss Ukraine. Also Piers is joined by the most cancelled comedian in the world Roseanne Barr. 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

I'm Pierce Morgan, live from New York, uncensored tonight. Scandal rocks the BBC as a top presenter, faces claims he paid a teenager for explicit photographs. Tonight, a lawyer for the young person involved sensationally denied the star did anything wrong. But why did he remain on air for so long after the explosive allegations of the 1st May? We'll have all the latest.

President Biden meets King Charles and the Prime Minister after major disagreements over support of Ukraine and the use of cluster munitions or debate the state of a special relationship. But she's the world's most cancelled comedian. Roseanne Barr's outbursts even got a drop from her own show. Tonight, fasten your seatbelts. Roseanne goes uncensored.

Live from New York, this is Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening from New York, and welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Probity at the BBC matters. It matters because every British person with a television has to pay for the BBC, and because it's a national institution. Millions of people trust it. It represents Britain across the world.

So the public has every right to expect that the people running it are fit to bear that responsibility. And once again, they appear to have let us down. This weekend, a major BBC presenter was pulled off air, suspended, and then reported to police over grave and explosive claims that he paid a teenager for explicit sexual pictures. Tonight, a lawyer for the alleged victim, now age 20, sensationally rejected the claims made by his mother to the son newspaper as rubbish.

Well, letter to the BBC says nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality. The statement came from a prestigious law firm. The same one which used to work with the late queen. That, of course, prompts other questions. The son, which uncovered these claims, says, we have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.

Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We've seen evidence that supports their concerns. It's now for the BBC to properly investigate. Well, the alleged victim's mother told the son he started paying her child at the age of 17. Payments sold to £35,000. It's alleged over three years, fueling a crack cocaine addiction in the young person involved. The mother didn't ask the son for any money.

In her words, all I want is for this man to stop paying my child for sexual pictures and stop him funding my child's drug habit. Now, there are clearly many, many unanswered questions about these claims. Undoubtedly, there will be more claims made, probably as this show is even airing. His claim and counterclaim, with most of the public none the wiser

about what the hell is going on. But the BBC's response is already becoming a scandal of his own. The family complained to the BBC on May the 19th. That's seven weeks ago. They say nobody called them to discuss it in any more detail. But in the meantime, the presenter stayed on our screens. attended formal event to the BBC personality.

According to the family, he even made another £1,000 payment in June. The son smashed his story on Friday night, and the BBC didn't seem to be able to tell even the BBC what it was doing about it. Yesterday we did have the announcement that the unnamed presenter in question has been suspended by the BBC. The BBC said in a statement, the BBC first became aware of a complaint in May. allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature.

And in addition to our own inquiries, we've also been in touch with external authorities in line with our protocols. So the BBC tells the BBC. He can't verify the claims about the BBC, but the BBC is investigating, says the BBC to the BBC, and on and on it ran. And, of course, they all know exactly who the presenter is that they're all talking about. All weekend, other male BBC presenters, who've got nothing to do with this story, have been wildly defamed and abused and shamed online. These include Gary Denneke, Nikki Campbell, Jeremy Vine, Ryan and Clark,

all outed, supposedly, by idiot armchair detectives as the presenter involved a missed scandal. And the BBC left from hanging out to dry, forcing them to issue their own furious, and sometimes not so furious, but just accepting denials, accepting because what else can they do, given how social media operates? But these unfounded claims are disgusting. and defamatory. If I were one of those BBC personalities who's been dragged through the mud like this,

I'd be suing the people on social media that do this with impunity. And those who make those allegations need to realize that it's serious. It's not a game. You're actually trashing people's entire reputations just for the cliques, and that's not acceptable. Only yesterday did the BBC finally confirm

it suspended the presenter and referred the allegations to the police. It's now working to establish if there is any evidence of a criminal. offence and says this thing stand, there is no formal investigation. Of course, this is the same BBC that flew a helicopter over Sir Cliff Richards' house after false allegations were made against him.

The same BBC that harboured Jimmy Saville, that woeful, loathsome predator for decades. The same BBC and the same director General Tim Davy, though, who acted without hesitation to suspend Gary Linekew because he tweeted something he didn't like about refugees. There seems a war-sense of priorities here, and it's causing a lot of unrest amid other BBC staff. It seems to be a failure wrapped up in a fiasco inside a farce against a backdrop of the scandal of Philip Schofield ITV, which rocked British television and the country, frankly, the hesitation looks even more unforgivable. And whatever the truth about these allegations, and we do need to get to the truth very quickly, BBC leaders have managed to put another nail in the coffin of our trust in the BBC.

Well, joining me now as the Talk TV presenter, a former Culture Secretary Nadine Doris, a former BBC Newsnight political editor, Michael Crick, and the chairman of founder of Intertalent Rights Group, Jonathan Shalett. So welcome to all of you. Michael Crick, let me start with you as a BBC man for so many years. What do you make of this? Obviously, we don't, as things stand, really know exactly what has happened here. claim and counterclaim, but we do know that a very senior BBC presenter

has been suspended by the corporation, and we do know that apparently the first allegations were made to the BBC about his conduct back in May. So what did we make of this? Well, I think tonight it looks rather less serious for the BBC than it did, say, 12 hours ago. First of all, we've had the Metropolitan Police today saying at this stage they're not investigating,

which rather suggests that they don't think the evidence that they're aware of so far is strong enough. But then much more important is this statement by the lawyers for this young man that the son's story is a load of rubbish and that he actually contacted the son to tell them that on Friday.

Well, I mean, you're a former tabloid editor. What was the editor of the Sun? What was the Sun newspaper doing? Going ahead and defaming an unnamed member of the Beebe staff on the basis of an experience by a young man, but the young man denied. I mean, it seems to me that all of this attack, all of your monologue just now is all about attacking the BBC.

I think the Sun newspaper, the Murdoch Empire, has a lot to answer tonight. And frankly, one has to wonder whether the articles that the Sun has been running over the last few days are all part of that ongoing war between Mr. Murdoch and his newspaper and the British Broadcasting Corporation. I mean, I think the Sun has been pretty robust in its response. Clearly, they have been a pathetic response tonight. That response tonight didn't. Just to be clear, I'm not involved in the inner workings of the Sun on this.

I have no inside knowledge of the evidence they have. All I've seen their statement, and it's clear that the mother of the alleged victim has clearly been talking freely to the son, apparently for no payment, about all this. So clearly the truth is going to emerge. And like I say, we don't actually know as things stand where that truth lies. And the son, of course, took a decision not to name the presenter. Let me bring in Nadine Doris. I mean, Nadine, Michael Crick raises some interesting questions there.

But again, we're all slightly guessing, aren't we, about what has really happened here. But is it right, as many believe, that the BBC, in the way they've handled this, once again, seem to be lacking? So, yeah, again, it seems like it doesn't matter what. crisis threatens to engulf the BBC and there have been many over a number of years, they seem completely unable to be on the front foot and to have a robust set of processes in place to deal with complaints as they have. And part of the BBC's problem is that they just don't seem to be able to deal with issues as they arrive. And one would have thought the experience they've had, whether it's been with Frank Barth or Gallagher Linear, or whether it's,

it's Jimmy Saville or whoever, whichever situation arises, you'd think that by now they've got enough experience with dealing with a potential crisis to know what to do, how to do it, how to protect their own brand, which is the BBC, and also how to make sure that they deal with the complaints effectively. Because, you know, at the back of all of these complaints, there are always real lives and real people and real victims. And that's part of the tragedy. If they could just get on the front foot and deal with things quickly and effectively, then a lot of hurt would be saved all round. And I think that's part of the problem. It's an inefficiency and an inability to deal with what are very serious problems. You know, you're quite right in your opening comments. The BBC is

paid for by the British public by licence fee payers. And that's not a cheap cost. to people who are struggling with cost of living at the moment. The BBC has a responsibility to the people that it serves. And sometimes it just asks as though the only people the BBC have to satisfy are the BBC, is the BBC itself. And it isn't. It should be accountable.

It should be transparent. And it has to answer to the public. And that's sometimes what it forgets and what it always fails to do. Jonathan, Shalett, there are lots of reputations at stake here, the BBC, the presenter concerned, obviously, the young alleged victim, that victim's family, so many people, indeed, the media themselves, of course, as Michael Crick said. What about the issue of social media? What about the way that so many completely unconnected

BBC presenters have been dragged through the mud? You know, I saw Nikki Campbell talk about how distressing he found it. Jeremy Vine, how distressing he found it. Gary Linneke, having to clarify it wasn't him, Ryle and Clark and so on. I mean, it's been appalling to watch, but it reminds me again that, you know, the mainstream media have a lot of restrictions on them, a lot of restrictions now, some of the most draconian actually in the free world. But social media remains the wild west. What do we do about this? Well, Nadine, which is Culture Secretary tries to do a lot about that. It's horrific what's going on on social media, not just this matter, continually terrible things are happening on social media and people are being named.

I mean, the reason most people in Britain know the individual presenter is is because he's been named on social media. And to add to that, there are pictures which are going around social media, whether they're real pictures or AI pictures, I don't know. But the picture looks a pretty unpleasant picture. And the problem with social media, as you rightly said, peers, whether it be Talk TV, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, they're very carefully governed, but social media's out of control.

And the government, until now, in spite of all their efforts, have been unable to control social media. Michael Crick, the presenter concerned, we all know who it is, the public don't know who it is yet, would it be prudent for this presenter to simply come out if he has nothing to hide, if what this young alleged victim has put in this legal letter is true and there's nothing illegal or improper about whatever relationship they may or may not have had, would it not be the smart thing to do for this presenter to come out and talk frankly about this and maybe not even defend himself,

but just say, this is what happened and I've nothing to hide. I think that might... It might well make sense for them to do that. Indeed, I think managers in the BBC, there's some frustration there that this presenter hasn't done that yet and that they dearly wish that they would do so.

Because I think at some point they're going to have to come out and make a statement about what did and what didn't happen. And I suspect it's... somewhere between I didn't do anything wrong and the allegations that the sun has made. But I don't think that they can remain in hiding for forever. They're going to have to say something before long,

and they might as well do it now rather than wait another few days or maybe a few more weeks. Now I step in, Pierce, and say, all three of you have attacked the BBC in different ways. I think as has happened today with this letter from a top law firm who's called Harbottler-Lewis, I understander. As you said, a law phone connected with the Queen. They've sent a very firm letter saying

that the alleged victim is saying what his parents have said wasn't true. On that basis, the BBC have been wise to hold back and not say too much because the facts clearly aren't known. And I think it's wrong to expect the BBC to jump in and give a conclusion to this until they know. I also suspect the presenter in question

has probably been told by the BBC to say nothing. I would put money on that. So I think there are no options but to wait. Also remember, all weekend, there's massive allegations. He was 17 when he started. Well, the police have jumped in today, and they've made it clear. They're not rushing this.

So we don't even know if the police agree it was a 17-year-old at the time. So I think, quite simply, as much as the public would like to know more, and as much as everyone's pushing for the public to know more, the BBC has to be responsible to also the alleged victim, the presenter, the presenter's family. it's not simple to say name and change someone immediately

without all the facts being known. That's not to say or condone what did or didn't happen, but I think caution is the right thing until all the facts are known. No, no, I don't disagree with that, but it's been an awful mess the way that other presenters have been dragged in from this. And of course, we don't know what evidence the Sun has. They've been pretty cautious so far in what they've published.

They haven't revealed the name of the person they're talking about. They haven't revealed much information at all about that. So I think we have to wait and see what the son. has. They've been, as I said, robust in their statement in response to this legal letter, and we'll see where this all takes us. Nadine Doris... Actually, I don't think, Piers, that they have been robust in response to this legal letter. What they've done is they've gone back on the attack against the BBC.

They haven't actually specifically answered the question, that the points made in this legal letter, which are that this young man has denied the story as total rubbish. and also they haven't answered the point made in the legal letter that the young man contacted the son on Friday to tell them that it was rubbish. What's the son's response to that? I think actually it's a very weak response from the sun tonight. Well, I think we're going to find out, I suspect, from the sun,

exactly what they have, which is behind their decision to publish in the first place and we'll see what that is. But you make perfectly valid points. Nadine, you've had to deal at the sharp end in government of what to do about social media. What do you make of what's happened in the last few days with so many completely innocent people getting their reputations completely trashed?

I've spoken to one of those people myself, actually. Yeah, it's incredibly difficult. It is, the social media is like the Wild West. And with the online safety bill, which has been debated in the Lords at the moment, hopefully some of the amendments the Lords will put down to what has been a watered-down bill since the new administration took over

will have some really robust measures in to deal with some of this. But it's always going to be that balance between freedom of speech, the fact that we now have social media, something which is still a relatively new and recent territory with the new emerging platforms which are constantly coming up. So it's always going to be a battle, and we're always going to play catch up. Whatever the online safety bill puts into law,

which hopefully it will receive, Royal Ascent very later this year will finish its journey through Parliament by the summer. Once that bill becomes law, there were provisions in it which mean that the bill can continually not have to pay catch-up and will continually be able to amend. I'm not sure if those powers will still stand by the time we reach the autumn. I hope they do, because if they don't, will be in a position where a bill becomes law in the autumn, which will already be out of date by the time that happens because this platforms, AI, all the problems that we're facing at the moment

as a result of internet usage is move so fast that it's very difficult for governments to keep up. The Dean Doris, thank you very much, Michael Crick. Thank you very much. Jonathan Shalett, thank you very much. And we're told there are more revelations coming in the Sun newspaper tonight, so we will see what they have to say, and the story, I'm sure, was a long way to go.

Unsensored next tonight, President Biden, Make King Charles in Windsor after spending only 47 minutes with our Prime Minister, Rishie Sunnack, will debate the state of that special relationship. Is it still that special with my PAC live from New York City next? Welcome back to Pittsburgh and Unsensored,

live from New York City, looking at the Statue of Liberty, glistening in the lovely, balmy, late afternoon, a bit of sunshine, certainly very warm. It's been pretty warm in England. President Biden arrived in the UK today to talk to Rishi Sunat on Ukraine, and head of a big NATO meeting in Lithuania tomorrow.

He was also treated to a royal welcome by King Charles and the two held climate change talks at Windsor Castle. The president's faced criticism since the US announced they would provide cluster bombs to Ukraine with the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Spain, all opposing the use of such weapons. Last year, former White House press secretary, Jambasaki, said that using cluster bombs is a war crime.

There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. Is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that's illegal and potentially a war crime? It would be. I don't have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime. Well, joining me now as a former Conservative MP, Louise Mensch, former Navy SEAL, Rob O'Neill, and talk to your political editor, Kate McAnne. And Kate, I'll start with you. I just want to just before we come off that story we led on, The son has now posted a new story saying the parents of the youngster at the centre of this BBC presenter scandal have said tonight that they've spoken out to protect their child. They stood by their allegation that the BBC star paid their child thousands in return for sex photographs.

The mother and stepfather of the youngster also questioned who had paid to provide the child with an expensive lawyer. So the lengthy story the son had just posted, which maybe will offer more clarity on this tomorrow. From a political point of view, Kate, the BBC, obviously, the government always gets involved, and there's lots of politicians giving their views. What is the current feeling, do you think, from the government about what's going on there with this presenter? Well, I think the feeling overall across politics is that this is a concerning story. I mean, the Prime Minister's official spokesman was asked this morning what Rishu Sunaq thinks of it, and he said that the allegations are worrying.

And across the political spectrum, there has been a concern. census that the BBC needs to ensure that its processes are fit for purpose, that it has done everything it can to follow up the complaint by this youngster's parents. The claim is that that was not followed up accurately in a timely manner, that the parents were deeply concerned that nothing was really happening. I think tonight the fact that the BBC is reporting on this statement from the youngster claiming that the allegations have nothing to them has caused some people to question what really is going on here. But as I'm sure you have said, and I'm sure many people have said across the board, the Sun newspaper is very careful. It has been very diligent in

ensuring that the allegations have the weight that would be required to publish them. And I think this further article tonight further reinforces that. There will those still be those questions leveled at the BBC about whether they have taken appropriate action and those still remain. Right. Well, we'll see. Certainly a fast. moving story. And Kate, the other big news, of course, in the UK, you've got this NATO summit coming from tomorrow. You've had President Biden in the UK meeting Rishi Sunak, meeting King Charles. One of the main bones of contention here is about the United States' decision through President Biden to send cluster bombs for Ukraine to use against the Russians, who themselves have used

cluster bombs throughout this war. This is something that the UK government implacably is opposed. to how much friction is that going to cause with these meetings do you think well the reality is that it did come up in the meeting between the Prime Minister and the president today but not much friction is the answer to your question because realistically although the UK is as you say signed up to a convention not to produce and to discourage the use of cluster bombs when the two men met in Downing Street although the Prime Minister's official spokesman did say that the issue was raised I think it was very clear that the Prime

Prime Minister did not really push the President not to use those cluster weapons. In fact, there was a further statement made about how difficult the position that the US finds itself in regarding the production and providing Ukraine with these weapons really is. I mean, President Biden himself has said that he had to be convinced to send them, that he essentially didn't really want to have to, but that Ukraine is running out of ammunition and that the US is in a position to do so, one that the UK, of course, isn't. and many other countries who have signed up to that convention. So I don't think politically there's going to be a huge amount of pushback on the Americans, but there will be talk at the NATO summit about a long-term commitment to Ukraine, and that will encompass not just ammunition, although that will be at the forefront of lots of those conversations,

but more politically too, about membership of NATO, about what happens next, about reinforcing and rebuilding the country, because there are still those questions about commitment. And I think this issue about ammunition, about who is proposed, to send what. And perhaps a hardening of some countries when it comes to what is provided is worrying for the Ukrainians. And that's something that, you know, lots of nations will want to see a renewed commitment, I think, at NATO, that all of these countries will stand behind Ukraine. Whatever happens and however long this goes on for. And yes, in some cases, however unpalatable that may be.

Right. Robert Neal, can't think anyone better to ask about this. You know all about battlefield munitions. Is it morally right for America, who have never said they wouldn't use them, but is it morally right for them to use cluster bombs for the Ukrainians to use against Russians? I don't think it's appropriate right now to use cluster bombs in this place, just because they're not a precise munition, they're designed to fight a big infantry. If we were offensively engaged somewhere as the United States, as NATO, and we needed to really push someone out in our interest, yes, you can use them. But I think right here just because of where it is, they said it's not a place where civilians are now,

which is true, but that's not the case. Will they be there later? And I just don't like the idea of someone stepping on one, someone picking one up and how, you know, they will clear it eventually. I just don't, I don't like the idea of cluster bombs. For those who don't know what they are, what is the issue about cluster bombs?

Well, it's a bomb that's dropped in an airbursts out, about 70 other little bomblets, which are smaller bombs with parachutes, and then they explode in the air and air burst, and they're designed to take out personnel. The problem is a lot of them don't go off, and then you just got a shiny little toy sitting there on the ground, and even if, you know,

you only need to be unlucky, unlucky one time to step on one or if a kid sees one in 10 years and 20 years, which could happen. I just don't think it's the right place right now because it's not an offensive war. I don't think this is a defensive weapon at all. Louise, what's your view of this? Because a lot of people are saying you've got to stick it to the Russians with everything they're sticking it to the Ukrainians with. But is there not a moral compulsion to us to be above and take the moral high ground here? I don't think there's any kind and gentle way to blow the enemy to bits.

And the difference between Russia offensively using cluster bombs, in Ukrainian cities where children can pick them up. And Ukraine deploying them on its own territory. That is the key point here. I think the objectors would have a much better point if we said, go ahead, Ukraine, use them in Russian cities. Ukraine knows how to protect its own civilians. And they're using them in fields where it's not very built up.

And really, who are we to tell Ukraine how they can defend themselves? The biggest danger to Ukrainian civilians, including children, is the genocidal Russian army that is parked right. there in front of them. And the best thing we can do for Ukrainian civilians is to get rid of the Russians as soon as possible. What about this whole issue, Rob, of Ukraine membership of NATO? Putin will be telling his people, as he always has done, this is exactly why I had to take action in Ukraine, because this was always part of the plan that they would become part of NATO, and that would be an existential threat to our existence right on our border. Of course, you could argue that what Russia

has done in Ukraine is precisely the reason why Ukraine should be a member of NATO. because if they had been, Russia probably wouldn't have gone in because they'd know that then America and the rest of NATO would have to intervene. Right. Vladimir Putin knows he can say this is exactly what I was trying to avoid because it makes him look like he still has something to stand on. But President Biden said it the right ways we can't do it now because then that's potentially World War III,

and NATO was formed to prevent World War III not to start it. And if you can't, I mean, Vladimir Zelensky is going to Vilnius for the convention. And I mean, everyone knows NATO's involved with us now. And my thing is either get in or get out. You don't need cluster bombs, B-52, if you want to get them out of there. We know we're doing it. We're mission-creeping it again. We're spending a lot of money and needlessly wasting life as far as I'm concerned.

What does this end, Louise, this war in Ukraine, do you think? No, I don't think you could believe a word that comes out of Vladimir Putin's mouth. If it was really about NATO, he would have done something when we put 800 miles of NATO directly on his border when Finland joined NATO. What did he do? He didn't lob so much as a snowball over the fence. This only ends one way with Russia leaving Ukraine. It really is quite that simple. And that's the only way forward.

Now, is Ukraine going to join NATO? Well, of course not, because there's a war going on in the middle of, we don't want to go directly to war with Russia. But we are going to help them. I think we need to help them quicker, faster. We're dragging this out. I agree with Rob that we should be giving them exactly what they need, including attack them, including aircraft,

so that we can supply them with the weapons they need to defend their own country and just get the Russians out. There was a moment, Rob, was a bit disconcerting, as so many are with President Biden, where King Charles appeared to be scolding a guard and trying to direct the president. It seemed to be losing his way as to exactly where he was or even what day it is.

I don't know if we've got any footage of that, but it was... I think we've got it here, I think. But it was all a bit awkward, and the president does look like he doesn't really know where he is. This is the latest in a series of, well, just embarrassing sort of senior moments.

Yes. President's fallen over. He's tripped on planes. He's, you know, said some daft things and so on. How concerning is this to use an American citizen? We've seen President Biden have a lot of gaps on stage, shaking hands with invisible people. In his defense on this part, I think when a lot of Americans go over there, they haven't been briefed up or studied enough on how to handle the royal family.

We've seen it with President Trump. We saw President Obama give the queen an iPod that didn't work. I think we were talking about the green room. They make a point of accidentally making themselves look like that. You know, don't walk in front of the king, even I know that. but I think the king did a good job kind of grabbing President Biden and saying, hey, pal, let's do this. Well, actually, I was more concerned with the president

kept grabbing the king because you just don't touch the monarch. I mean, Louise, we know this. When the Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating once did this to the Queen Elizabeth, he was called the lizard of Oz by the British papers because you do not touch the monarch. And Biden kept, President Biden kept putting his arms grappling like an octopus around our monarch. Trying to get a better sniff up.

I think he was just being friendly. And afterwards, the King's spokesman said, look at the great warmth there is between these two leaders. It was a flying visit. He just wanted to give reassuring signals about the special relationship. And I think mission accomplished as far as that goes. As for his gaffs, my favourite living president,

George W. Bush, you know, was famous for saying strategery and having a mouthful of marbles. So again, I don't think this is anything new quite frankly. I don't think it's having a mouthful of marbles. I think has he lost his marbles? Might be the bigger concern for the world right now. see you as always.

Any time, Chris. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Uncensored. Next, she's the world's most cancelled comedian. Roseanne Barr's words have even got a drop from her own show, but she's back and I'll talk to a live from my studio in New York City after the break and she will most definitely be

uncensored. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored, live from New York. You're looking at Times Square there on a pretty pleasant afternoon. It's pretty hot and humid actually here in Manhattan. But fasten your seatbelts can be hot and humid, right? now my next guest because it's someone who normally has something very well worth listening to.

Are you ever sorry we got married? Every second of my life. She's the world's most cancelled comic. If you just feel like you can't say it, well the chances are Roseanne Barr's probably already said it. Do I sing gritchie to you at all? And lately it's been getting her into a whole lot of trouble. Nobody died in the Holocaust either. Six million Jews should die right now, but it never happened. The Jewish comic is accused of being homophobic, transphobic, even anti-Semitic,

and were sensationly dropped from her own sitcom for racist tweets. Fans say she's misunderstood. Critics say she's missing her marbles. Trane Agonti protects me from myself. Tonight, I say she's uncensored. Well, I'm delighted to say I'm joined live from Texas by the host of the Roseanne Bar podcast. It's Roseanne. Roseanne, how are you? I'm great. How are you, Pierce?

Well, I can't think of anybody I would rather have on a show called Uncensored than you. Of course, you're smart. Have we gone mad, Roseanne, in our world? When I look at all the fallout to the things that you say or do, I look at the sort of apoplexy that people bring to jokes, to humor, to sarcasm, to irony, all these things. And I really despair. The very essence of comedy, for example, is being expunged from human life. Yes, it is.

Yeah, well, you should despair, peers, and so should anybody who has a brain or, you know, any humanity whatsoever. Or any connection to any other human beings on Earth, they should despair to. I say that they are weaponizing stupidity, and people have sunk to such a level that they can't handle satire. because satire is when you take two disparate subjects and bring them together to defamiliarize reality such as a poet does with words, defamiliarize reality. And they cannot hold two disparate ideas in their head

at the same time because they're fed bullshit 24-7 over the media. And I'm about to go crazy sitting here on the airfault, hearing the stuff you all are saying about the Ukraine. I'm about to have a heart attack, but I'm not even going to go into it. I'm from the Ukraine. The Ukrainian, there is a large faction of Nazis. I don't know if you know this, but there's a large amount of Nazis in the Ukraine, and they actually killed my whole family.

I'm from the Ukraine, and they marched my entire family, grandmother's, great grandparents. 10 siblings out into the forest and buried them alive in the Ukraine. So I don't understand why everybody's Ukraine. Well, I do understand. And that's also what terrifies me. People better wake up and do some research on their own instead of buying what comes across on the screen. And I try to shake them up, Pierce.

You're goddamn right I do. I try to shake them up and crack their mind control programming. I do it for God. Well, here's Rosam, what I would say to that. I don't agree with you about a lot of the stuff you said about Ukraine. I know what you said, and you're perfectly entitled to your views. I would say in relation to the suggestion that they're all a bunch of Nazis. You haven't seen the swastikas on those soldiers' arms.

It's in the news. The President Zelensky himself is Jewish. So obviously he is de facto not a Nazi. I know, but he's not a good one. Are all Jews are the same? For God's sake, talk about anti-Semitic. Just because the guys are Jew doesn't mean he likes Jews or that he's doing it. anything good for the Jews. I mean, so what? Who cares what anybody is? That was the whole point of

my tweet. Just because they're, just because their skin folk don't mean they're kinfolk. You know what I mean? Just because they're the same color as you don't mean they ain't trying to lock your ass up. Wake up, people. Snap out of it. Okay. Listen, like I said, you're uncensored. So you're perfectly entitled to your views. I'm entitled to a different view. I'm sure you would accept that. It's okay. I've got to be nice. You're perfectly entitled to say what you think. I can accept that you have a different view, peers. I can speak respectfully to another human being because I actually, you know, I love to converse and I just get passionate sometimes. And I love that people disagree with me. I love to have conversations. So excuse my passion. It's okay. Of course. Passion's fine.

There was a big outcry recently where I defended you actually, where you were accused of denying the... I know you did. I watched you. I was shocked. Right. Well, you know, I call things as I see them. And on that occasion, it was clear to me that you were saying a statement,

which you didn't actually mean to be taken literally. You were exposing a wider picture of what you believe to be media untruths. Yeah. Yeah. And the fact that it went over everybody's head isn't my fault. Well, I'm going to play it. Let's play a clip again to remind people of what got you into trouble. Then I'll come and say what I think about it again. Be sure to be sure to include the context which was there's no way in hell Biden got 81 million votes.

If you don't include that context, you're going to make me mad, Pierce. Okay, well, I don't want to make you mad, but we've got a 40s. We have a 42 second clip. Let's take a look. The election was not rigged. 36 counties can give you 81 million votes. Right. That's a fact. So it wasn't rigged?

Of course not. 36 counties have 81 million people in there. See? That's the truth. And don't you dare say anything against it? You'll be off YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other ones. Because there's such a thing as the truth and facts and we have to stick to it. And, you know.

It's scary. And that is the truth. And nobody died in the Holocaust. either. That's the truth. Yeah. It should happen. Six million Jews should die right now because they cause all the problems in the world, but it never happened. But it never happened. Now, I listened to that in full context. I listened to a lot more of it. And it was absolutely crystal clear and obvious to me that you didn't mean anything that you were saying there. In fact, you meant the you meant the complete opposite, but it was sliced and diced and put out on social media.

And then the next thing is you have you, Roseanne Barr, who is actually Jewish, being accused of denying the Holocaust, which obviously is ridiculous. Why do these things happen? Because I'm a targeted individual. As I say, you know, for 6,000 years there has been a Jewish civil war and nobody knows about it. And I speak about it a lot. But it's at its climax right now. And I have been targeted by, you know, largely Jewish. people on the other side of the political spectrum. Our view is centered on whether Israel should

exist or not. And these are things we don't talk about in public. But when I ran for president in 2012, they used to stand up and it was always Jewish people with silver ponytails, Marxists, you know, that would stand up. I ran as a socialist. And they would stand up and scream, what about the illegal occupation of blah, blah. And I couldn't believe it because they would do it over and over. and over again to attack me because I'm a Jew, I think. But Marxist Jews are not the same as the kind of Jew I am, and that's what really makes me mad, because when people assume that there's only one kind of Jew, they're missing a shitload of history. And I feel like, you know, I'm here to speak to that. And also, the context that I used was about the Internet is full of

Holocaust denial, Nazi comments, and saying, But the thing they always say is no Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but it should happen. That's what they all say. And it's all over bit shoot comments, YouTube. It's wall to wall. That's why I left Facebook. It made me so sick. It was wall-to-wall anti-Semitism.

And these same people, these socialists, aging socialists, which I won't even go into what a scam socialism is. I've talked about that online a lot. Anyway, you know, they have made me their target because they don't think that I'm the right kind of Jew. And they don't think that any Jew who thinks like I do is the right kind of Jew. And so I have to live with that, and it is within my community. And it's just like when black people, black activists come on and talk about, you know, being targeted by their own community, too. It's much the same. It's a cultural war.

and it is between, you know, the far left and normal sane human beings, such as myself. Well, Roseanne, I don't think any of us are normal, sane human beings. My theory is we're all slightly nuts, and it's just a question of degree, but that's just a personal view. We can take a short break. When we come back, I'm going to ask you the most contention... Hey, Pierce.

I'm going to ask you the most controversial question in the world after the break. I want to tell you a joke. Okay. Tell me the joke after the break. you back in two seconds. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Unsensored, live from New York, it's on the most famous sites in the world, of course. And still with me, is the world's most canceled comedian, which is still there. Roseanne Barr. So Roseanne, we left viewers on a cliffhanger. You were about to tell me a joke.

Yeah, I wanted to say two things. One is we have a joke, those of us who have mental health issues, that there's insane and out sane. So I wanted to cap off what you were. saying before. But also I wanted to finish saying that just last week, these leftists, such as are in the Biden administration, the State Department of the United States instituted a boycott divest and sanction against the Jewish people in Israel, and also with American businesses who do trading business with Israel. So it's a boycott of Israel and of America, the Biden administration state department. there is never an end to their censorship, their jack boot on your face if you don't do what they want,

and if the Jews don't do what they want. But I'm happy to say that for the first time in Israel in Knesset, there is not one progressive, nor is there one leftist in the Knesset. And the Jewish people in Israel couldn't be happier and feel that they've been freed from slavery. I just want to say that. That's fine. You said it. What is the joke that you were going to tell me? The people with mental health issues say there's insane and out sane.

Oh, I see. I'm sorry. Those are the only two things. I thought you were making a serious statement about it. Okay, I get it. Now, listen, Roseanne, let me ask you the most difficult question in the world, apparently. What is a woman? How much do I weigh?

No, what is a woman? A woman is me. A woman is somebody whose breasts hang down to her stomach and who has a prolapsed uterus from giving birth to five ungrateful little bastards who have never had to work for a thing in their goddamn life. That's what a woman is. I see. And how do the ungrateful little bleeps,

how do they react when you say things like this about them? Oh, they laugh. They have good sense of humor. You should hear the horrible jokes they tell about me. You wouldn't believe they have the worst jokes about me. Rosanne, what's your life? My eight-year-old grandson. I was going to ask you, Roseanne. You've obviously been through the minceau.

a bit in recent years. But how are you and yourself? I mean, you're happy? You have a happy life? Yes, I do. I have a joyous, wonderful life. It's a bit hot down here. But, yeah, I have, I own my,

I own myself and my soul and my space and my ethereal thinking and my art. And I have a wonderful loving family. and my mother's still alive, she's 89. She's a bit of a lib-tard, but I overlook it. And so are my gay brother and my gay sister and all of my family actually are libtards. But, you know, I just pray for them and love them.

And do they do the same for you, do you think? Oh, they think I'm completely off the... They think I went off the planet. Oh, yeah, but they love me. They just don't engage. But, you know, when you're sitting there at Passover and, you know, you're drinking the cups of wine to celebrate, you know, leaving Egypt, and what are your Lib-Tard nephews or, I mean, grandsons, whatever it is, he stands up. What about the Egyptians who were slaughtered? Shut the hell up!

You know, here's the thing, Roseanne, is that obviously you like saying, you know, outrageous things. And I like that about you, actually. I think more people should be doing this in life. But it seems to me you don't necessarily fall out with even your nearest and dearest over it. Have we all just got too sensitive? Are we too over-offended? Should we just be able to say outrageous things

and then have a drink and a laugh with each other? Check it out, Pierce. The people that are saying everything's offensive are walking down the streets swinging their penises and kids' face, dress. Those are the people who say shit's offensive. The fucking, you know what I mean? Jesus.

Hey, hello. I say women, this is my advice to today's woman. Keep your penis in your pants, especially when children are around women. Roseanne, I think we've certainly lived up to the billing of uncensored. Thank you very much indeed for joining the show. I appreciate it. Good to see you.

And good luck with your tour, which I know is selling like hotcakes, but I'm not surprised. That's it for me, whatever you're up to. Keep it on sunset. Good night.