Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Barry Hearn, University Snowflakes, The White Gaze

Episode Date: May 22, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers is joined by Barry Hearn as he discusses how he's going to sue to eco-protesters that ruined the Snooker World Championship. Piers debates, if he is allowed too after a top university revolt over debate with a well known feminist. Piers looks into how a London theatre urges white people to stay away from a performance exploring racial issues, to escape the 'white gaze'. 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 Piers Morgan. I'm censored tonight. Protest has made global headlines with this orange-powder protest at the World's Succa Championships. Now boss Barry Hearn says he will sue them and the eco protesters belong in jail. He joins me live. Students at the UK's top university revolt over a debate featuring feminist philosopher Kathleen Stock. But I thought hearing opposing views was the entire point of being at university. We'll have that debate if they allow us to the little snowflakes. Plus, a London theatre urges white people to start. away from performance exploring racial issues so it can be free of the white gays. Black people really need safe spaces like this, or is it just actually racism? Live from the News Building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.

Well, good-a-Dade of your London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncissed. So we normally start this show. I don't know, by talking about people who moan, who whine, who complain about life, the woke brigade. You know the ones I'm talking about, the wine. little waste rolls that wreck our ability to have fun. It's become fashionable to be fragile, trendy to be traumatized, there's validation in being a victim.

And I'm all about being a victim, by the way. I'm an arsale fan. We blew an eight-point lead at the top of the Premier League to give another title to oil-rich Manchester City. There they are, lifted the trophy yesterday, rubbing it squarely in my bitter and twisted face. But somehow, as I keep being reminded on social media, it's wrong for me to categorize what happened to me.

my team as failure. It was a great success, apparently. If I say otherwise, while I'm demeaning the players, how do we get to this place? Every day, we're overwhelmed by stories about people who are motivated by nothing and offended by everything. But not today. Today, I found an antidote, a shepherd to guide us through this maelstrom of self-inflicted misery, a little ray of sunshine through the black clouds of wokeery. His name is Michael Block. You may not have heard of it. You probably, if you don't like golf, you definitely won't have heard of him. It's not about golf.

It's about a lot more than golf. Michael Block is 46 years old. He's a club professional. Just a journeyman club professional. He gives golf lessons every week for about 150 bucks a time in his local club in California. Literally teaches people how to play the game. Once a week, he takes a bucket of balls at himself and wax them around. Well, last week, he made the cup at a major PGA golf tournament,

one of the top four tournaments in the world in golf. It was for the first time in his life, and he found himself rubbing shoulders with the superstars of the game. He didn't just make up the numbers. He did incredibly well, and on the last day, he found himself paired with Rory McElroy, one of the greatest players in golf. You serious?

That should be fine. We're going to have a good time. Well, it was fun. That every man humility and infectious spirit, he couldn't believe he was going to be playing with Roy McElroy, powered him through the week and onto that final Sunday yesterday. And the more interviews that he gave Michael Block, the more that he played,

the more the crowds, both there and on television, fell in love with this guy. He was the regular Joe, given an extraordinary once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that he seized. And boy, did he. sees it. Watch what he did yesterday. Seconds ago at the 15th.

The fairy tale story. Straight in. I mean, you hardly ever see that, by the way. It either bounces before it goes in or it rolls in. How often do you see a hole in one go straight in? And then, the next question, how often do you see it done by a 46-year-old journeyman club professional in a major tournament when he's playing with Rory Macquarie in front of thousands and thousands of spectators? If Michael Block couldn't believe it had gone, it's because nobody else could either. This shouldn't be happening.

Top-ranking stars go through careers without ever doing that. It's like scoring a hat-trick at the World Cup final in football. And in this case, it was scored by a player you've never heard of, making his first appearance. Well, friends and family watching his local club, where he normally works as a golf instructor, matched out of the thousands of spectators he's electrified all week and to cap it all off. He then gave this remarkably moving summary of the week that I think reflected his very genuine gratitude. You said it yesterday that this was the best week of your life.

What do you call it now? Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate you making me cry. It's amazing. I'm living a dream. I'm making sure that I enjoy this moment. I've learned that after my 46 years of life that it's not going to get better than this. no way. No chance in hell. So I'm going to enjoy this and thank you.

What a guy, humble, funny, inspirational, decent, hardworking, a real grafter. How moving was that? How inspiring? A normal bloke who defied ridiculous odds to tear up a major sporting tournament and thrill the world. So tonight I salute Michael Block, the Rocky Balboa of golf in this world of little winers, we should all be more like Michael Block. Well, I'm joined fortuitously by the legendary sports promoter Barry. Now, Barry, you came on to talk about something else and we'll get to that in a moment. But first of all, I love this story because it's not about golf. It's not really about sport.

It's about life, never giving up, keep trying. All these virtues which have become unfashionable, mental strength, resilience, all that stuff. Well, what's not unfashionable is that we all love a Cinderella story. Yeah. We all remember what happened to Cinderella. She went to the ball.

She lost her shoe, but she got the winning prince in the end. And what Michael blocked it was so that anyone can do it. Yeah. You know, in life in sport, you can only be the best you can be. Nothing else. Do you feel that we're in an era now where people just give up too easy on everything? No, not necessarily.

I think we're in an era of ultimate professionalism, which sometimes takes the part, of losing the personalities. That's driven out of you. Well, I wasn't talking about sports so much. I'm talking about society. It seems to me that your generation, right, would never give an inch about anything.

No. You came from a grafted generation with a grafted a mindset. Not for you celebrating losing or weakness, right? I mean, it wouldn't cross your mind. No, well, I think we did come from a different time, but I think that spirit is still there somewhere out there to be found.

And certain individuals, Don't do anything but shock you when a Michael Block comes on the scene. Oh, goodness me, never seen it before. Actually, we have. We've seen it a dozen times. And it's memories that live with us forever. And that will live with him forever, but also in a way. I think in the state that golf's in with the live tour on the one side,

PGA on the other, we forgot what the game's about. It's about people like Michael. Well, it was interesting because Brooks Kepka won obviously, and he's a live tour golfer. Rory Macquarie was pretty good to him, actually. and hugged him and congratulated him and didn't say much about Liv during this tournament. It looks to me like they're beginning to calm down, maybe do a deal. I think differently, Piers, I think they will realise that this is a horrendous accident waiting to happen,

that this Live Tour has actually reduced enormously the value of golf because of oversupply in the market. Golf doesn't rate particularly well on television, frankly. And the Live Tour has given an alternate broadcast opportunity to other broadcasters. I think they're all beginning to realise this is a lot of money involved. And for the players that draw in it, they've had some big signing on fees, etc. That's not necessarily the answer because they're suddenly realizing you can't buy history and you can't buy special moments that people like Michael Block supplied. It goes beyond the normal realms of who's getting a few million dollars more.

Let's talk about why you were due to come on here, which is the Eco Warriors, who obviously amongst their many targets, the Just Stop Oil protesters attacked the World Snooker Championship. Let's take a look. So I was on air when this happened, and it was pretty shocking. For everybody there, obviously, people watching on television. It was designed to shock. It was designed to get our attention.

First of all, what was your reaction when you saw this? Well, annoyance, obviously, you could imagine. I've got paying customers, normal working-class people that have saved up. To get a ticket, by the way, in the crucible, to watch the snookers. It's not easy. sells out already next year has already sold out. These people have been lucky enough, they've got a ticket, they're in place, ready to enjoy their special moment,

and it was spoiled by someone. My secondary thought really was, this is nothing to do with just stop oil, because it didn't do their calls any good at all. In fact, it was the opposite. I think it damaged their calls. It made me want to go and buy oil. Well, it made me not want to give anything.

You know, as individuals, we give to lots of different charities are different. There's no way. They may well have a case, by the way, ecologically speaking. But by doing that, I think they cheapen themselves into sort of the bully boys of sport. Because sport is such an easy target, Peter. You know, you can't, I mean, I believe in security. I think we've got good security. We have for 40 years.

But I don't see why wrecking the fun for ordinary people. Many of them are working class people who spent all years saving up to go to this. It's their big annual event. How does that put across their point? The answer is it doesn't at all. If anything, it's a huge negative. to them and working class people and ordinary people everywhere in the world would look on that with disdain and they wouldn't look at it and say well let's look into this just stop oil principle

they look at it and saw a rich kid getting some attention by doing something that's actually really easy to do it's been a bully boy tactics they bought a ticket i think they paid 300 quid for their ticket they bought a top class ticket with all the trimmings and went out and spot everyone's enjoyment for the night you're now going to sue just stop oil activist edred whittingham it was a guy we saw there. Tell me about that. Well, it's interesting because I was frustrated. I mean, I was frustrated when I spent two and a half hours on the M25 in a junction. That's another time, another story.

But the same principle applies. It's put in ordinary people, you know, out of pocket or out of place. I'm frustrated about what can I do? Do I make the whole place into a fortress of security and take away that very special atmosphere that exists at Christop? I don't want to do that. It's never been necessary before. I've had two streakers. We got rid of them quite quickly.

But they weren't the same. They were just extroverts. Here we've got a situation where we sat down as a group and said, what don't we do? Do we tighten security? Do we make it really body search? Everybody coming. Is that what sport's really about now?

My book says no. So I'm trying to think how I can be, you know, constructive in how we can deal with it. And we come up with this idea of the small claims court. Because we thought, well, you know, all these people have spent their money on a ticket, on their hotels, on their travel, maybe babysitters, whatever.

So I wrote to the 410 people that witnessed that and lost their table that they were supposed to be watching and said, look, I believe you've got a claim. We will help you. We will help you formulate this. Let's take this little boy, this attention-seeking little boy, let's ruin his life. Let's take him to the small claims call as many times as possible.

I wrote to 410 people. 64 have come back and said, yes, we'd like to be part of this. So now our lawyers are working with them and saying, how do we help you? 64 different cases in the small claims court where he will be expected to make an appearance. I like this. Because this will really get to the heart of these people.

If they actually have to suffer that kind of sacrifice. They might think twice about the way they protest. I've got no problem in people doing normal, peaceful protest. None at all. But when they deliberately wreck things, which other people are enjoying, or they're stopping people going to work or whatever, they lose me? They're not putting a point across.

They're just disruptive for disruption's sake. Their attention seekers that are not actually saying believe in this. We have a system in this country. It's called a democracy. It's not anarchy. This is a democracy. And there are ways of putting your point across. They chose to ignore it.

And we have to take action. I see the protesters at the Dartford Tunnel got three and a half years and two and a half years. That's another one I'm thoroughly in favor of. Yeah. I was in a traffic jam for two and a half hours. next to an ambulance trying to get through. It's outrageous. A woman, three cars away, was in tears

because she missed her father's funeral. Disgusting. So what do you do? You can't just stand back. In our small way, we thought, let's just disrupt his life as much as he's disrupted others, and there are 64 letters going out.

And, by the way, in a perfectly peaceful manner, he's just going to get a load of writs, and it will cost him a load of money, hopefully. I don't really care about the money. I want to give him some inconvenience. Yes, quite right. Barry, I could talk to you all night. Just give me one little thing.

My team Arsenal, choked, in my opinion, the Premier League. There were eight points clear, eight games to go. Do you agree with me? No, no. Look, I had 19 years as chairman of late Norrin. I know all about football, not your level. Your expectation level was lower. Well, that's the problem, isn't it?

And you're judging it on expectation level rather than reality. The reality is they're professional sportsmen, they're trained to win, and they're proud. Is it fair that Manchester's... city have all this oil money, which allows them to have a grotesque financial advantage over everybody else? There's 123 claims against them for them to justify and fight. This saga will run longer than Agatha Christie's the mouth strap. It's going to go on forever. But at the end of the day, Arsenal, and I know you don't want this because you're through blue in Arsenal, at the end of the they weren't quite good enough.

You see, I don't agree. I just don't think they weren't mentally strong enough. They didn't believe they could be champions. That may be part of being not quite good enough. They needed to be more like Michael Block. They needed to believe they belonged on the top stage. No, they've got to do it over 40 odd games throughout a season in front of a very good.

Wherever the money's come from will be an issue answered later. But for the moment, hats off to Manchester City. They are one of the greats of my life. lifetime. They are. They are a good team. All right, great to see you. Always a pleasure, Miles. Pierce. Pears. Miles. It's Miles and Miles. Where are we going? I actually have a mate called, Miles. He'll be pleased about that. You'll think you're talking about him. Good to see you. Thanks, mate. Eddie. Uncensored next, a war on free speech in the name of Professor Kathleen Stock is taking over Oxford University and could see the end of his fame debating club.

Isn't hearing opposing viewpoint the entire point of debate? We'll be debating the lack of debate at for next. Welcome back to Pittsburgh and Unsens. Professor Kathleen Stock is due to speak at Oxford University's 200-year-old DeBedenton Society next month, but she's faced a furious backlash from students who say her supposedly transphobic views means she shouldn't be given a platform. This is the same academic who had to quit her job as a lecturer at the University of Sussex after being targeted by activists for her views on gender identity. Oxford University's vice-chancellors defended Stock's appearance as a matter of free speech, but the university is braced for up to a thousand protesters and counter-protesters to take action

when she appears at the end of the month. The Student Union is understood to have cut ties with the debating society. So there's a huge riff now at the heart of Oxford University and it all begs the question. How exactly you're supposed to have a debating society if you don't actually allow proper debate with people whose opinions you don't like?

Well, joining me now as podcast host at comedian Constantine Kisson, Professor of Sociology at Oxford University, Dr Michael Briggs. and Oxford student and trans-right activist Riz Potsnett. Well, welcome to all of you. Riz, you're over there in Oxford. Let me start with you.

You've been on the show before. I don't get this. The whole point of going to university is you're supposed to have open minds, hear views you may not like, challenge them, put your own views forward, evolve, learn. What's all this censorship about? Yeah, I mean, effectively, this is students exercising their own free speech, right? Like, she has been platformed by this institution.

Students have consistently said, we don't think she should speak here. We don't want her here because her views are part of a broader hate campaign and moral panic that's really damaging the lives of trans people. So students have voted that they don't want her here in their college institutions, in the student union, and now the university have overruled that vote.

I also want to clarify something here. The S.U., the student union, voted to cut time with the debating society, the Oxford Union, not over this, but over an extensive history of them bullying, harassing, and just having general bigotry racism within their institution. So it's not over this nuance issue,

it's about the history of the... But on the specific point about Kathleen Stott, you tweeted this, you've got some effing nerve, Kathleen. You've brought your hatred into our community, and now you use the threats we receive because of your actions to try to try to... garner more sympathy for your victim narrative. Oxford doesn't want your bigotry here and we'll make it known.

Now, I've studied the Kathleen Stock saga. I actually come from Sussex, so I had a vested interest in my county and this university. What is it about her that is so hateful? What has she said or done that is actually so wicked? Yeah, Kathleen has consistently, well, so what she does is she's academic. front, basically, for this broader movement, which she has endorsed. She's endorsed Posey Parker, who has said horrific things that I don't think would be appropriate to repeat up. Hang on, what does Kathleen stock, hang on, what has Kathleen

stock herself said or done to warrant this treatment? Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, I understand. I don't know if you've read her book this. She consistently misgendered people. She talks about whether, like, trans ideology should exist, whether trans people should be part of the LGBTQ community. Now, what she talks about is part of a massive campaign against trans people. And she wasn't kicked out of Warwick University. She left because she was bummed that people didn't like what she had to say because it hurts real trans people. Can I just...

The tweet that you were talking about. Here's my point. You see, I have looked at what she said. She says many trans women are still males with male genital. Many are sexually attracted to females. They should not be in places where females undress or sleep in an unrestricted way. Self-ID threatens a secure understanding of the concept of lesbian and so on. She stands up for the sanctity of biological sex,

and I'm struggling to find out what is so offensive about all this. It seems to me what's more offensive are young students who think that biological sex is a movable feast that can be denied, and that the science is to be ignored and that anyone can put their hand up and say they're anything they like and they have to be respected. That I find more offensive

than anything Kathleen Stock has said. So that's absolutely fine if you find that offensive, peers. The reality is, as much as she exercises her right to free speech, so do we. The students have consistently said, as I've mentioned before, that they don't welcome her here. And specifically, the tweet that you quoted...

But that's not honoring free speech. That's the opposite of free speech. What you're doing is deep platforming people whose opinions you don't agree with. My argument is, I agree with a lot of what she says. I don't get it. What you're doing is you're basically behaving as a group. You're behaving like a bunch of young fascists. You want people, only people, who tow the line to your worldview.

And her worldview, by the way, is shared by the vast majority of people. You just let me know when I can come back to those points. All right. Well, let me come to the other panel first. Let me come to the other comments. Constantine, this strikes me as right to the heart of the malaise at our academia. Worldwide, actually. This worldview, I don't like this person's views, even though they're not that controversial at all.

In fact, most people would agree with them. And yet they have to be deplatformed, abused, branded bigots, blah, blah, blah. This right here is the heart of this problem. And let me answer the question that Riz didn't answer when you asked her. what Kathleen has done that is so wrong is she's blasphemed against this new religion that says trans women are women. And as you say, the vast majority of the public don't agree with that. And therefore, students have to then become little fascist, like you said, and shut this down because they can't tolerate hearing an opinion that they don't like.

And so to the extent that they have power, they're going to use it to bully people into not speaking in places that they can. I'm grateful that the government pushed through the bill, which now means universities have to ensure that free speech is respected there. It's very, very important that these people don't win because you can see their smug faces as they do this. And they enjoy the power and they enjoy exercising over people.

And by the way, I've interviewed Kathleen on my show, Trigonometry. She's one of the sweetest, kindest, most generous, gentle people that you will meet. If she's hateful, then we're all hateful. Well, this is the point, isn't it? Dr. Briggs, you've come here from Oxford University. What is going on there? because a lot of the academic people there now seem to be rising up against this

and supporting the concept of free speech. But that's causing a rift now in the university. What's really going on? Well, I think it's good that things have come to a head, and we finally can debate about whether we could listen to the very mild, as Constantine said, the very mild views of Kathleen Stock, which really represents the majority of British people. Now, maybe not the majority of students,

but even the minority of students have a right to hear, if they should say want to hear Kathleen Stock's views. And even people who are opposed to her like Riz should go along and listen and just decide why exactly what they disagree with. What I don't understand is why this whole concept, when I've taken part in the Oxford Union, which I've done and the Cambridge Union and others, I've always enjoyed it, but I've always gone there

believing it was my job to try and make people come around to my way of thinking, which was an old debate. I was back at my old prep school for the first time in 50 old years the other day at the weekend and I passed this old White House where the headmaster's wife used to hold debating society

when I was about seven or eight and that we were encouraged at that age challenge other views listen to other views formulate your own opinion and be unafraid to change it if you hear things which change your mind this is all just gone out the window

so the problem is if you have a certain identity if you have a certain view, then you can say, I'm so vulnerable, I can't listen to any opposing views that they, even the, not only can I not listen, but even the very existence of those other views being articulated somewhere, you know, within the, within a five-mile radius. Has Catherine Stock said anything that you see, which would justify this kind of treatment? No, of course not. No. Piers, just to the point you made about when you go and when I went to the Oxford Union about trying to persuade people, think about what would be the circumstances in which you wouldn't want to persuade people.

you would want to shut down people who disagree with you. The only circumstance in which you might be tempted to do that is if you know your arguments are rubbish. And that is why these people are doing it. Or if you're living in Russia, China or North Korea, where you would then call the secret police and they would come and remove the person with the offensive opinion, which was one that the government didn't agree with or whatever, and they would be taken off to some detention center in Siberia.

This is where we're heading. This is what they don't get these students, is that once you accept that you're allowed to do this to people who have perfectly mainstream opinions. This is a slippery slope to do totalitarianism, right? Quite. All right, Riz, we've... Can I respond to that? You can respond to that.

You're a totalitarian barbarian. So you've talked about fascism. Fascism is a far-right ideology about suppressing stuff. To be clear, this has been a consistent democratic decision in student institutions. Students have made this together. On that point, do you object to being called? right wing? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I only mention that because when we invited the president of Oxford University LGBTQ Plus society to come on the program, he replied, I think it's a he,

this is Adi Haran Dimmer, do you know that person? Yeah, and I'd actually like to talk about that. That person did not come on your show because they have been subject to this consistent proper, this consistent program of hate that I've been talking about. Well, that's not the reason. finish this point. Well, hang on, I'm going to finish my point. Well, it was because I know this person personally. That wasn't the reason given by this person who replied higher to my producer. Nice to meet you.

We're reluctant to work with right-wing media. So I'm not right-wing. I've never been right-wing. You're not right-wing. You object to being called right-wing. I object to being called right-wing. So we found a point of consensus. So the reason that other people don't want to take up.

interviews like this or be on platforms like this is because of the hate campaign that we have been of betting, Riz. By fans of Kathleen. At least you have the gumption to come on. Can I just respond to some of those points, Piz? Well, look, here's my part. I was actually paying you, I was paying you a compliment. You do at least come on

and debate with me, right? Here's my problem with the rest of your colleagues. They don't want to debate it because they don't want to hear someone saying something they don't like. I'd really love to respond to that point. So you mentioned that the tweet

that I said in response to Kathleen. Now, what you didn't mention is that Kathleen was responding to a tweet by Addie, who you previously mentioned, publishing a death threat that they received by one of her fans. That's why people don't want to be on platforms like this. Now, with regards to a debate, first of all, I don't believe

that trans lives should be a debate, but that's not in question here anyway. It's not about that. The Oxford Union wasn't trying to platform a debate. They weren't trying to put on a debate. There weren't equal sides on it. We've had this conversation before. No one's debating trans lives. No one's debating trans rights to fairness and equality.

I've certainly never, I've only ever supported trans rights to fairness to equality. But if you're going to stand there now on television and say that you believe what's happening in women's sport, for example, is anything but grotesquely unfair and unequal, then say so. If you genuinely believe it. I think what's grotesquely unfair. an unequal is the violence and hatred that trans people are consistently facing in the media, in person, in public and online as a result of your fans, Kathleen Stocks. Wasn't my question. Is it fair that trans athletes are now demolishing women born with female biological bodies

at women's sport? Is that fair? Yes or no? This is a really boring point, but I'm happy to answer it. Just give me a simple yes or no. That's not happening. And trans people should be absolutely allowed to. Okay.

It's not happening. You're obviously not reading the papers. You're not watching TV. You are totally oblivious to the reality of what's happening. Oh, my bad. Didn't realize. Okay. It's okay.

No problem. Ignorance is bliss, right? Good to see you. Thank you very much. I mean, again, it's the mindset. It wouldn't even consider the possibility that what's happening in sport and women's sport is horrible because she has no idea, has no interest,

only interested in the impact on trans people. It's a religion. Piers, I've said this to you before. I'll say it again. It's a religious worldview whereby your beliefs do not require evidence. They're based on a faith, right? And that's how these people think. So the reason I mentioned the Kathleen Stock, what she's doing, as all of us are doing, is violating the sacred truth of this worldview, which is trans women are women.

They don't seem to wonder why you have to put the word trans in front of it if they're women. If they were actual women, you'd call them women. Right. And they don't question it. So when you challenge that or when I challenge that, or Michael challenged, that to them is blaspheming. We're, you know, in... Well, we're being hateful.

That's right. Because she thinks she's entitled to call this woman Kathy Stock a bigot and so on and so on. I want to just quickly ask you about something else because you're a comedian. John Cleese is warned that his life of Brian's stage show, based on the movie, shouldn't include a scene about a man wanting to be a woman and having a baby, which is ironic given the subject matter we've been discussing. Let's take a look at the famous clip. Why are you always on about women, Stan?

I want to be one. What? I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta. What? It's my right as a man. Well, why'd you want to be Loretta, Stan? I want to have babies.

You want to have babies? It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them. But you can't have babies. Don't you oppress me? It was funny at the time. It's kind of ironic now. But he, even John Cleese, feels compelled to perhaps remove that because it may offend people, the concept of men, of a joke about men having babies.

But we've reached a point where, yeah, there will be protests about that because it's offensive. Isn't it amazing because it looks like they're literally quoting from 2023 conversations in the satirical piece of satire becoming real life? And it shows you, I think, most of all, how far we've come in this delusion. agree because actually Dr. Briggs, I mean, that was deemed to be humor at the time because it was so ludicrous that nobody ever assumed that would actually be a reality. But we've reached that point where satire's coming true. Yes, yes indeed. But I think, just to take up the point about the religion, I mean, the reason why there's so much hate towards Kathleen Stock is because she's a lesbian.

Because she's an apostate. So she's part of the LGBT community. But she's articulating a different view. And so therefore she has to be, she's much more threatening than than most people would be. I saw a community called Freddie Quinn on morning TV. Good morning, Britain today. And he made the point, there's a scene from that movie with a guy with a lisp. Does that have to go?

Because it's offensive to people with speech impediments. There's a scene with a character called incontinentea buttocks. Is that offensive to people with IBS? It's a scene with people with big noses. Is that offensive to people with big noses? There's one about blessing the cheesemakers. Do we have to reach out to a national association of dairy farmers to see if we're upset by it?

And the truth is, actually probably yes. because somebody somewhere will be already getting the pitchforks out ready to blow their gasket about all these scenes being offensive until eventually there is no life of Brian. And that's why I think all of us have to just ignore these people being silly, which is what they're doing, and say you're allowed to be offended. Nothing happens when you get offended.

Nothing changes, and the world does not start revolving around. That's what Ricky Javis always says. He has a right to say what he says. You have a right to be offended. Your right to be offended doesn't overcome his own right. to crack jokes. Thank you. Both very much indeed.

I appreciate it. Unsets of next, the London theatre hops on the US trend for dedicating performances to black-only audience and as blackout nights. Is that empowering or segregating?

That debate is next. New trend is sweeping theatre land in the UK and the US. Blackout performances are dedicated to black-only audiences. Those who are not black are asked not to buy tickets. The Theatre of Royal Stratford East

in London says no one's excluded from attending their new show. TAMbo and Bones, but promotional material makes clear that white people aren't wanted the production on the night in question. As a blackout night is a purposeful creation of an environment of which an all-black identifying audience, black-identifying audience, can experience and discuss an event in performing arts free from the white gaze. Does this mean I can go if I identify as a black man? There would be someone on the woke side who would have, well, they're troubled disagreeing with that, given they believe in limitless self-identity.

But it is more importantly, is it ever okay to exclude audiences based on skin color? What would happen? For example, if it was the other way around, if this was a white-only audience, well, I'm joined by the Talk TV contributor Esther Cracko and the Black Lives Matter organizer and activist, Imman Aiden. All right, Imam, I'm just trying to picture what would happen. If I put on a theatrical production in London and it said it was for whites only, or people identifying as white, which is obviously a ludicrous phrase,

but you would go nuts. You would say that is blatant. racism, segregation, dragged us kicking and screaming back to the dark days of appalling bigotry. You would? Well, it depends on the context, right? There's no. White's only audience. It depends on context.

No black people allowed. What would you say? Well, I think you're perfectly right. It would be akin to racist finding more ways to be more racist. So why is it okay this way around? Okay, so we have to put it into context. It was one out of the 29 shows. Doesn't matter. Yes, it does. Let's put it into context, please. You want to forget about context. Context is everything. It is one out of the 29 shows that was targeted towards black people. And at no point, did they say certain people are not excluded. In fact, they actually said it verbatim on their website. No one is excluded. And yet you have found racism.

No, no. I just read the rest of what they said. It's pretty clear you are not supposed to go if you're not black. No, please consider booking other dates. Right, exactly. I think the context, you're right. The context is right. The context is. is important. I think the issue here is when it's talking about sort of of blackout and it's trying to gather an audience of black people that they believe have the same experience. This doesn't transpose the same way it does in the US and the UK, right?

A black person in the UK could be black African, black British, you know, black from the Caribbean. In the US, their conversation around race is completely different and that's why it's a problem. Obviously when you bring this to the UK, people are going to be like, what are you talking about? Especially in London, the most multiculturality in the country. Can you see any merit to it? Of course not.

But that's, and I don't even think it makes sense to the American context. Why is that? If you're talking about safe spaces, because let's just be clear. We're talking about safe spaces here, right? What do you mean? Because, okay, so, again. You wouldn't feel safe if I came along? No, no, no, no.

Again, context. We're talking about a play that was done by black people for black people, targeted for black people. So? Black American. So what? Again, let's just be clear, because you're clearly not getting this message. It is basically akin to the disabled community, putting on 29 shows and one,

Oh, 29 shows about disabilities. And one of those shows is targeted towards the disabled community. That is what it is akin to. And yet you have a problem. Why is that piss? Have you genuinely asked yourself why it's different between disabilities or disabled community or Jewish? But when it comes to black, I'm wow. My problem is that you have already conceded that if it was the other way around,

and this was a white only night of this theatrical performance, you would say racist. Context. And that's my problem. Safe spaces. It's the, it's the other way. Black people are disproportionately affected by racism. So therefore, it's about safe spaces. This play is about racism.

So therefore, we should have a safe space for black people as we are disproportionately affected by racism. I don't think you tackle. You wouldn't say that to a woman. You wouldn't say that to a woman when she was talking about abuse and therefore she wanted and they wanted and she wanted a safe space. I'm sorry. The idea of safe spaces and black people need in safe space spaces extremely patronising.

But when talking about racism. What about Asian people? Do Asian people need safe spaces for racism? When talking about... When I'm answering your question. But we don't have those conversations. Let Esther finish. No, she just asked me a question, so I'm answering it.

When talking about Asian racism, I think they deserve a bit of a safe space. When they're talking about their own experiences. From black people or from all types of people that are going to promote judgment. Because it's about being free of judgment. I'm sorry. Free of white judgment. Free of Asian judgment. Free of all types of judgment.

Let somebody else speak, please. No, I'm going to. Or we're going to have a safe space where you're going to. remove so that only I can be heard speaking. Happily, and I'll say bye to you both. I will have a one night only, only peers. Happily, I'll say by to both. I'll see you on Saturday, I'll say bye to you and I won't be back.

I'll have one night of the show where only I am allowed to speak and you're not allowed to because of your skin colour. How would you like that? Well, that's called racist. Exactly, exactly my point. No, it's not. Esther, let me ask you this. What would most black friends of yours or family think about this? In other words, is it something where a lot of black people might, you know what?

Actually, I can see some merit to this. They would see it as a lot of this. as an American importation, right? Does that mean necessarily a bad thing? I think that it would... No, it's not. It would be seen as ridiculous, but ridiculously, particularly American, right? Because they... Black people are not a monolith,

which we can all agree on. Black people come from various parts of the world. They have different cultures. This idea that there is a shared black experience, I think is ludicrous other than the color of our skin. But I don't... But you have to accept there many connotations you're adding to that. By your own testimony, you say that we have shared...

I could say that as a black person, I face more racism from Asian and Middle Eastern people, so I should have a safe space from those people. Can you even identify them? No, but that's ridiculous. I don't think, okay, let me interrupt. Let me think. I don't think any form of art should ever be exclusionary

on the grounds of skin color, regardless of who it's targeted to or who it's made by. We're talking about race equity. The whole point of art is it should be for everybody. But we're talking about race equity. For everybody. No, no. Context.

I don't, no, it's not racially equal about this. It's racially unequal. You're saying no white people can come. It's ridiculous. What's the play about, Piers? I've heard you're up. What's the play about? It doesn't matter what it's about.

Yes, it does. And that's your issue. You want to negate context. No, it doesn't matter if every... Both of us without context. You know this and yet you tried to negate it. No, I don't know this. No, you can't...

Do it with the context. And if you can't do with it, don't come with an argument. You can't tell me... You can't tell me what I'm thinking. No, exactly. But that's what you do to me. And that's what people like you do to me. People like me?

Yes. What do you mean people like me? Prejudice. racially prejudiced people like yourself. That's what you do. That's why we need safe spaces. You're calling me racially prejudiced. I've done that several times, Phiz.

Why are you surprised what's going on? Ignorance doesn't actually suit you. That's ignorant, actually. What you just said? I'm not racially prejudiced. And what you just said is very offensive. You shouldn't be saying that. Pierce, what's prejudice?

Huh? What's prejudice? If you're racially prejudiced, you are a racist. That's what you just called me. I'm not accepting that, sorry. What's prejudice? Watch this. Swiftly move on.

No, I don't think you should be calling me a racist. Swiftly move on. It's ridiculous. I've done it several times and yet you have a problem then you're wrong every time. I did it last year. You're talking about it today as if it's a new new surprise. It's not.

I told you last year you were racially president and I'm telling you again today. And yet you have an argument. It's a lazy thing to say. Because I'm not racially prejudiced. It never had been. What's racial prejudice, peers? It's being a racist. Answer the question.

It's judging people prejudicially on their skin color. That's what you do. actually rather like what this theatrical production is doing. That's what you do. We've got to leave it there. Thank you both very much. I appreciate it. Uncensored next after Cannes honor Johnny Depp with a standing ovation.

His Hollywood's debt boycott. Now over. Pierce Back is next. Welcome back to Pierce, Morgan, Unsense. I'm joined by the former Conservative MP, who's Mention and the Associate in the Tulareemitelli Mirror, Kevin McGuire. What a stellar little duo we have here.

So a survey came out, Kevin. I'm going to ask you first because I was your boss, why? You were. The narcissists make the best boss. I'll be very careful how you answer this. I remember about a decade ago, the Guardian got a neuroscience writer

to run the rule over you and decided you were a narcissist. And didn't you admit? Actually, didn't you admit in your interview with Amal Rajas? I did. You are a bit of narcissistic streaks. I don't think I'm fully blind. I think I'm a self-aware now. I think you were like a brilliant and a terrible boss

depending on which day it was, if I'm honest. I think anything's really changed. I was easily pleased and easily annoyed, I think. Louise, I mean, you've had a few bosses in your time. I have. Are narcissists actually, do they have the skill set for being bosses, do you think? Well, I think they do, and I've had a bit of an unusual career. So my bosses have been either prime ministers or rock stars.

So I don't think I've got any non-narcistic bosses to compare it to. But if you've just got a slight touch of narcissism, then you're a good leader, you strike out, you try new things. A bit of the Elon Musk about you. Yes. You know, you have to confidence. a narcissist, probably a little bit. I did. But he's also doing a lot of stuff that's really interesting and good for the planet, right?

I think it goes along with the territory. I don't think he's a clinical narcissist, but he's got self-belief. I mean, he's driven, but then you see him all over the place on Twitter. Yeah. And it's not working out at the moment. It might, in the end, I think you can be a touch of a narcissist,

but if you're a total narcissist and he won't listen to anybody who's given sensible, constructive advice and support, then I think you've become a I want to play a clip of someone. He might well be a narcissist. Johnny Depp, a lot of opinion about him. Is this him talking in Cannes about being boycotted by Hollywood?

Do I feel boycotted now? No. Not at all. I don't feel boycotted by Hollywood because I don't think about it. I don't think about Hollywood. I don't have much further need for Hollywood myself. Everybody would love to be a... able to be themselves, but they can't, because they must fall in line with the person in front of them.

I mean, Louise, he's got a point. I mean, we are living in a society where I went to the Chelsea Farish today. I must have had a dozen people come up to me saying, you speak for us, right? We're just, none of us are able to say what you say now. I was really struck by the number of people on that one thing, free speech, the ability to speak. Absolutely. And the whole trans debates that we're talking about elsewhere as part and parcel of this. And can you really blame Johnny Depp for saying, look, I'm incredibly rich, I'm incredibly famous, I've got all the awards. Maybe he just wants to let it go.

He doesn't want to follow the Hollywood set path and say all the nice, polite things. And maybe he wants to let his middle-aged spread fly. Maybe he'd like to go to the Chelsea. Talking of awards in middle-age spread and letting things fly. Here is our YouTube award for Piers Morgan on a sense of passing a million subscribers. That's impressive.

In one year, which makes us a single. the fastest growing show in the country in terms of a new YouTube channel. So thank you very much for following us there. We have a lot of people watching on YouTube, which is the new place to go. What do you think? What's the answer with this free speech debate? When you hear students like that girl, I just, I'm sure I even identify as a girl, who's they, them.

I don't know what the answer is. When they are so intransigent about hearing other views. But look, the truth is this debate is as old as speech itself. It's not new. We're more aware of it now. because of social media and people can have platforms and using themselves, try to shout others down, say they should be cancelled.

But I remember the right wing in the 1980s trying to cancel anyone who was constantly... Yeah, but oddly, the woe left. Oddly, the woke left have become the nefascists. Yeah, well, I'm in their mindset. Look, I'm on the left, but... You're not a liberal... No, no, no, no.

I think you've got to engage with people and respect other opinions. Have robust debate. Before we let you go, I want a quick prediction. US president and the next UK Prime Minister after both elections. Give me two names. Right. It's going to be Joe Biden, if it's Donald Trump, opposing him.

And I regret to say, it's going to be Keir Stama as the next Prime Minister. Kier Stama, a bit more of a smile and Joe Biden. I'm going to say Rishi Sunak and Ron DeSantis. It's the outside bet, but not impossible. Yeah, I think the latter. We've got a clip now to play back, right? Yeah, yeah. On the YouTube channel.

I've got to leave it there. Remember, follow us on YouTube. It's all there. Join the million, whatever you're up to. Keep it uncensored. Keep it uncensored.