Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Bibby Stockholm Arrivals, Return of Blair, UFOs

Episode Date: August 7, 2023

On tonight' episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and discusses the first migrants onboard the Bibby Stockholm. Rosanna looks into how Keir Starmer deputises Tony Blair to help turn Labour fortunes around. Also Rosanna debates to whether world governments need to come clean on UFOs. 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 am Rosanna Lockwood on uncensored tonight. The first migrants arrive on the so-called Bibby Stockholm Barge following weeks of delays. Some 15 men were greeted by campaigners bearing gifts as they finally move on to the Dorset-based boat. But is the government strategy sustainable or doomed to failure? We're going to be debating that. Well, bringing in the big guns. As the election nears, Kirstarmer enlists Tony Blair to help turn the Labour Party's fortunes around, So is it time for Blair the sequel or does his legacy mean he should be left behind by Labour?

And after a whistleblower told Congress the US is concealing a multi-decade program that captured UFOs, are world governments going to have to come clean about extraterrestrial contact here on Earth? From the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan, uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Good evening. Welcome to Peers Morgan Unsensitive with me, Rosanna Lockwood, back in the chair for another week for Peers. Now, the Women's World Cup, it's almost halfway through. Have you watched any matches? If you haven't, I will excuse you, because it is, of course, being hosted by Australia and New Zealand this year.

So the games are a little bit out of our time zone, aren't they? But do you support the players anyway? Our very own lionesses from England, they've reached the quarterfinals. Meanwhile, reigning champs the US are out after a penalty shootout with Sweden. there's been drama, there's been high states, competition, skill and grit across the board. And yet still, we must hear these debates every time there's a woman's football tournament about whether we should actually be taking it seriously, whether it's as important or as gripping as the men's world cup.

And look, I understand football is typically a man's world. It's a safe space to be one of the boys, to appreciate the brilliance of the play. I admire it too. So perhaps men who try to deny or undermine the quality of women's football feel like their male space is being invaded. They want to keep that corner for themselves in a world which feels like it's increasingly prioritised in the rights of women and others over men. And a part of me, actually, I can understand that. But one thing I cannot understand is this. In the endless fiery debates about trans rights at the moment, where men are often some of the loudest voices, especially on

calling for trans women to be banned from women's sports, are those same men actually supporting women's sports when it comes down to it? Or are those same men perhaps joking about skill level and sports bras? I'm saying women's football can never be as competitive or as entertaining as the men's game. That all I'm saying is this, if you feel very strongly about women having fair and competitive sports, whether that be tied to transgender debates or not,

then put your money away your mouth is and support our women athletes. Because there's honestly nothing you stand to lose from doing so. Yes, we are getting good at it, but we can't compete against you on the same pitch in the same game just yet. So let's just accept that both things can exist and both can be done well and let's support our nation's best whether it be at home in the pub, online or in conversation

because it all counts, of course. Now, on this topic, join me fresh from Australia as talk sport presenter, Shabhan. Thank you so much for making time, probably a little bit jet-lagged. And I want to start, because you were just listening to me sort of opening the show there, I want to say that actually peers,

who I'm obviously sitting in for, I'm not saying this just to delight him. I doubt he's watching. I hope he's on holiday. But of course, he is somebody who's spoken about trans, rights and women's sports and the rest of it. And he does support women's football. He's been talking about it a lot.

He's released a column today about it, in fact. And I just want to ask you a little bit about that topic he's brought up in this column, which is that activism, well, this is actually something that Trump's also said as well, that activism is getting in the way of the US campaign because the US team didn't go as far as people would like. And so I'm saying they were too focused on activism. What do you make of that? Well, credit to you on how you opened your show there.

I have to say, I've thoroughly enjoyed hearing that because in the last 24 hours, the abuse that Megan Rapino gets from her own USA fans now off the back of the activism and the support she has for the trans community for the LGBTQ community, it's actually refreshing to sit here and go,

actually, everybody should just get behind female athletes, athletes, football and sport is a place for everyone. Now, I was reading through Pierce Morgan's tweets And I'm like, what is your obsession? Why does Trump hate Megan Rappin so much? Why the peers hate Megan Raffin so much? And why they feel they're doing the right thing

for everybody to have a place in sport? Why does so many people have an issue with that? I have no idea. Because we cannot relate to what they're going through. I don't think that trans athletes decide to be trans because they've got more of an opportunity to do well as women in sport. Do you not think they've battled enough with themselves? Do you not think they've gone through?

through enough hardship and pain and suffering to find a place in a community where they'll be accepted for who they are, to never mind to have trolls on the internet, giving it and chucking it, because they're male, they're dominant, they've got that power, they've got followers, they can influence people so much.

I just find it so, oh, and exhausting. And then I look at Pear's and I think, but he seems to love watching the lionesses, so just leave it. You know, you don't have to get involved in something that you really don't know enough about. He knows enough about sport. He supports England and whatever they seem to do.

But I do. I have an issue with that. I have an issue with going for people who have their own battles and their own struggles who are just going about their business. And Megan Rappano is speaking up for those communities. I get that. But her heart's in the right place. Thank you for your comments.

I'm slightly worried now. Pears is watching this because I think he's going to have some things to say. You might be finding yourself invited back into the studio to meet him head on. You made some very clear points, though. You got your point across. I do want to just quickly talk to you before we go to the panel of the studio about the Women's World Cup, what's going down in Australia and New Zealand currently. Did you feel like there's a groundswell of support for the women over there?

And do you think the lionesses can go far? Sorry, went down the rabbit hall. That's what I do. Yeah, no, absolutely. Listen, being out there, I spent a lot of time in Brisbane, and it was phenomenal. You know, they've really embraced it. The fan parks have been absolutely outstanding. The travelling support, I mean, the money it costs to go to any tournament,

never mind all the way to Australia to travel around and support your teams whatever it is there going to be I went to started in Sydney then to Brisbane then to Perth then back to Brisbane it costs a fortune and fans are doing it I think it's a huge change for women's football the fact that the fans have gone

to so much effort to make sure they have been there regardless the travelling support's been incredible I think the lionesses yes can go all the way I am absolutely mind-blown from what happened in the game against Nigeria today and on paper I was going okay England have this I've watched enough in Nigeria.

I thought they were tired in their final group game against Ireland. And I thought it would have been a walk in the park for England. Now that was ignorant, by the way, that was ignorant for me to think that. I think they've been phenomenal on this tournament. England are lucky to be through, but they have that penalty shootout experience, right? They've done that before we saw it in the finalisima against Brazil. They have a winner's mentality as well. But now they're without Lauren James for the next couple of games.

And that could be a problem because for me, she was their star. Saw Red today, lost our head. She would regret that for a long, long time. It was fascinating and in that number seven shirt as well. Shavant, thank you very much for giving us your insights, your knowledge, your expertise and your opinion, strong opinion, to open the show with tonight. Well, let us introduce this story to our pack as well. They were listening in.

They were hooked. Associate editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin Maguire, Talk TV contributor Esther Cracko, and Grace Blakely, the socialist commentator and author. Thanks the three of you for joining us. What did you make of that? Kevin. Well, I watched the game for a start. I really enjoyed it.

England were outclassed, outplayed, outplayed, but got through on the skin of that teeth. And Lauren James, just getting sent off and deservedly so, just shows how competitive it is. But look, you can't take politics and policies out of sport. They've always mixed. I mean, it's always been the case. I remember the, I'm old enough, the opposition

to the white supremacist tours from South Africa, rugby and cricket, I mean, 69 and 70, very successful campaigns against them. Olympic boycotts all you go. And people are going to say. women are going to speak up, because I don't want to be another one of those men shouting here, but women are going to speak up for trans women in sport or against them around that issue of biological sex.

It's going to divide women. It's going to divide players. But I don't see what the point of having to go out of it. Politics has always been in sport, as Kevin says, you know, does it distract players unnecessarily? Well, yes, especially when you lose, because then people are going to say, if you focus on playing the game instead of your activism, you may have won. And I think Megan Rappino has made a... reputation for herself, just, you know, ruffling feathers in that way.

I would say I didn't watch the game. I actually don't watch women's football. I, I... Do you watch men's football? Yes, I do. I watch women's sports. I watch mainly athletics and gymnastics. So I do support, I guess, support women's sports.

I just don't like watching women's football because I'm used to watching men's football. I think the pitches are too big for the women. I think... Seriously, no, no, no. Like, when I see that on the pitch, they look like children to me. I'm like, you need to shrink that much smaller than them. But the thing is... There was a debate.

Hold on. about reducing the goals. Let me finish. When you look at the female goalkeepers in the net, they look like children because they're, you know, they are just not as large.

So I think you need to shrink down the pitches. Is it not more challenging and more skill? No, because I think guys, I think we're missing. We're missing the point here massively, which is the, okay, so my niece is currently working as a coach. She coaches a men's, a young men's football team near where we live.

And she was telling me about all of the massive barriers she faced to getting into her career where she is now and how difficult it's been she played football for a while and then got herself into this position and she said watching the women at the Euros watching the lionesses seeing this huge support that the country had for that team was really transformational for her

not just in thinking oh maybe I can do this but actually in the way that she was treated by her peers so I think we really have to think about not just who's watching the people at the top we also think about how this is trickling down to the rest of the euros just happen enough for the Euros girls play football in school.

There used to be boys' sports and girls' sport. I don't understand the sort of comparison that's being drawn here. Do you know how difficult it is to become a successful men's football player? I mean, your odds of even getting on a team, how many players on the Premier League? But I don't think that's the point, because there is obviously a difference between there being a difficulty resulting from the competitiveness of the sport and there being a difficulty resulting from people placing barriers to your progression as a person in school. But that doesn't make sense because the whole point of football is based on skill.

The only discrimination you're going to get is if you're not to put in that. But I was just literally saying that, like, my cousin, you worked in this area has had difficulties because there are people who say, you shouldn't be doing this because you're a woman. No, maybe because she's not good enough. They are female football player. Hold on. She's very good enough to make a national team. A final point from each of you, and then we'll move on. Do you feel you resolve?

The thing is, listen, I'm happy that women's football is getting the attention that deserves and the funding and, you know, more and more people are interested in watching it. I don't think that drawing a binary between saying that actually women's football should be for biological women is the same as, you know, trying to exclude people. I mean, that's literally what it's called women's football. I think on the point that someone like Megan Rapino is getting a lot of, you know, hatred because of her activism. Well, yes, and especially because she lost, because if you're going to be an activist and you lose, well, that's a double run. I think that we've always had this argument that anyone who engages in what we call politics, i.e., sticking up for people who are like them in their sports. gets in the way of the sport, and actually they're only doing this

because they're not very good. It's just a way of basically protecting the status quo. It's a way of saying, especially at the lower rungs of the sport, which are perhaps less visible in the public, where you're going to get more kind of a laddie culture and people being excluded. It's a way of saying to people, this is not for people like you. Talking of laddy culture, let's watch a lad in his prime.

I hope you've had or hadn't had your supper yet or your dinner yet, because hold your breath, watch this. Girl, that is the, of course, Matt Hancock, the one and only displaying what's known as is Ken Aji. That's Ken from Barbie. He's miming to a song from the Barbie movie in case you haven't seen it called I'm Just Ken on a beach. I just don't know why. The man has. He's having a midlife crisis, doesn't he?

Can somebody just give him a job or put him in a box? I mean, it's just ludicrous. I mean, is he trying to be as bad as he comes across? The man has no self-awareness. and he tried to do it. I mean, that you and almost offered him a job, but then he blew that home. I don't even think it's that...

I don't even think it's that he has no self-awareness. I think he's just shameless. Like, even if he's completely aware of how terrible he looks, doing all of this stuff, he's obviously just desperate for attention. What the thing is, people like Matt Hancock... Like, does he not have friends?

Or, like, any other forms of validation? Yeah, but people like Matt Hancock great on me for a different reason. He is part of the reason why politics is seen as... is not as respected, or politicians are not a respected thing. And that's the reason. I don't care.

care that he's doing this cringe-worthy stuff. I care that someone like him, you know, sitting MP, could have gone on a reality TV show and felt no shame about it. That should be bad. That should be bad. The more celebrities that end up in the jungle, the more we could, sorry, celebrity politicians end up in the jungle. Of course, the more we could be seeing this, and more politicians, rumoured ex-prime ministers and the like. Now, talking of the Barbie movie, the Barbie movie has grossed a billion dollars at the box office. That is a, it's a female director. It makes her the first solo female director, filmmaker with a billion-dollar film. Other hits from the studio as well, Warner Brothers is, of course, they've had Harry Potter and everything,

but this is one the fastest. 17 days it took to gross a billion dollars. And we just want to remind you that some people in the media were called the Barbie Wingers. They didn't believe this movie would be a success. They thought it was an attack on men on the patriarchy. they thought it was offensive. Let's take a listen to them. The thing is just a mess.

It doesn't make any sense. And literally the only way you can have a happy world is if the women ignore the men and the men ignore the women. That seems to be the final outcome of this film. All men in the film are either bigots or idiots. Now is Barbie a smash the patriarchy feminist film? Yes, it is.

The real world and all the men in it are shown to be universally, irredeemably horrible. Strikes me, Kevin. I'll come to you in all of this, is that all the critics who said it wouldn't gross a billion dollars seem to have forgotten that half of the world's population

is female, so even if no men go and watch it, you're still going to get up. I know, this bloke went to watch it. Who says feminism doesn't pay? I mean, Kaching, Kaching, Kaching. First of all, that's complete, as a lifelong Barbie fan,

I will say two things. First of all, this film had the brand to fall back on. The Barbie film has had over 40 animated films and hundreds of books released It had a huge fan base. It's had a fan base since the 1960. So they obviously had, you know, they were propelled by the brand. Strong franchise. So hold on, second. That haven't done very well. Not real life. Secondly, the production budget was actually less than the marketing budget.

So that just goes to show if you have a massive brand and you can pump a lot of money into your marketing. It doesn't matter if you've created a trash heap of a film, which is what it was. And I will forever stand by that. I mean, I'm a woman and I still haven't seen it. And I don't. Please do not. I kind of don't plan to go and see it. I know that everyone is obsessed with this idea and thinks that it's like a feminist epic but again it's not my kind of feminism like for me

what you might smile and enjoy it no I mean it's like it's like the idea that we're going to dismantle the patriarchy and deal with all of these issues that we discuss so much in the show by having like some female CEOs or like a film done by a woman

that makes a billion dollars is absurd I don't think anybody's arguing that, though, are there. Can I also just say that there wasn't a feminist. It was a satire of some sort of feminist abomination. Now, we don't necessarily agree on anything, a lot of things, but we do have some overlap in our frustrations with regards to how the issue of feminism is dealt with, particularly in the Western world. We used to call them Western idealist feminist or whatever we call them. And you have a point.

I actually unfortunately have seen the film, so a lot of your concerns are valid. It's not a feminist film. It is just piggybacking off the massive plan that is Barbie. On that bombshell, on that bombshell, we have to wrap it there. But thank you for opening the show for us. Panel, Monday Night Pack, lots of entertainment there. Now, unscensored next to the night. We will be taking matters a bit more seriously.

Migrants have ordered the Bibby Stockholm Barge in Dorset after weeks of delays. But with over 15,000 people arriving illegally to the UK so far this year, how will a barge with the capacity of just 500 solve the ever-growing crisis? That's coming up next. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood, back in the chair. Now, after weeks of delays, the first migrants are finally aboard what's called the Bibby Stockholm Barge, around 15 male asylum seekers. Bordered the barge earlier today as the government tries to find a solution to the immigration crisis. One migrant charity has branded the barge, a quasi-floating prison.

The Rwanda plan, of course, bogged down in the courts and more than 15,000 crossing the channel. so far this year. The situation has become so convoluted, in fact, that even a small island in the South Atlantic, look at where that is, is rumoured to be the next place that the UK could send migrants who've illegally crossed the channel. Well, joining me to discuss all of this, former Brexit Party MEP, Ben Habib. Presta, Esther Cracky, rather sorry, joins me still here in the studio, and from Portland in Dorset where the barge is docked. Daniel Sands joins us from the campaign group, No to the Barge. Daniel, let's start with you then. You've been there today. What have you observed?

Yeah, good evening. So there's been an awful lot of movement at the port today. I was up at the cafe overlooking the area for around two hours. I heard a lot of buses coming and going, but didn't see an awful lot of people actually getting on the barge, if I'm honest. I hear not as many have got on as they should all. Which is a bit an odd situation because some in government might call that a disappointment. Others, of course, in society wouldn't call it that much

because the barge has been criticised for being against human rights by many quarters. Let's bring in our studio guests as well on this. Esther and Ben in the studio as British people, as people heavily involved in politics. Just quite simply, I want to start off by ask you, Ben, how comfortable are you with the idea of having migrants housed in these rooms on a barge?

Well, I find the whole debate of big digression. You know, at most this barge could take 500 people. four days worth of intake, on average, about 100-odd people are coming across the channel each day. The barges are red herring, but we can't even get the barge right. People refuse to go on the barge today for fear of being on water. Did you hear that, Rosanna? I mean, you couldn't make this up. Can't independently confirm that either, but no, I didn't hear that way.

Well, that's what I've been reading, that one of the claims that care for Calais made, which is a charitable organization that mounted a legal challenge, part of the legal challenge was the fact that people couldn't bear to be on water they were traumatised by water I mean you just literally There was an inconvenient trip across the channel I know very inconvenient

And if they originally came from Libya Or somewhere like that Can you imagine the trauma they must have gone through To get to Italy I think I'm assuming that's their point I mean the issue here I mean the Portland mayor Was saying that the bodies are uncomfortable

Because the rooms are too small I think there's like Sides of a parking space is what I've heard of it Exactly and she said The bunk beds are only about six feet long so if you're taller than six feet, it's uncomfortable and all of that. But I think there's an element of being tone deaf that we're witnessing here. The reality is there are thousands of homeless people in this country that have been homeless for years,

many of whom are men, right? You cannot justify keeping these people in hotel rooms while saying that, actually, if you can make accommodation so quickly for people that are here, albeit under different circumstances, and that need to be processed quickly. We now need to be concerned about whether their bunk beds are six feet or six feet. But I mean, the bar. But to that, there is a migrant issue. There's channel crossings.

There's thousands, tens of thousands of people going over there. Yes, there are homeless people in this country, but there are also people arriving all the time. But a 500 people's barge ain't going to solve the problem. Of course. And this barge, by the way, I mean, it looks really fancy. It's got a snooker table. It's got a built-in gym.

It's got 24-7 medical care. Would you stay there, Ben? You have tax. Well, I'm not an illegal migrant. I pay my taxes and I've paid them all my life. been privileged enough and lucky enough to make enough money to live under my own roof. So you came from a war-torn country like Syria and you travelled a long time to get somewhere and you were denied entry immediately and you were put on the barge. Do you think you could live there comfortably whilst waiting to be

I would be utterly delighted to be in that barge if I came from war-sorned Syria. Also, the question as well, let's cross back to Daniel Sands on this because it almost feels like no quarters of the migrant complex issue that we've got going on in the United Kingdom will be satisfied by anything. As we've heard from the studio, it's a red herring. Some are saying the barge. We've got this essential island planned as well. Also could be argued a hollow threat or a red herring. Whatever happens, it will be too comfortable or not enough, Daniel.

But what is the solution then to the UK migrant issue? Well, the question that we keep him back to us as no barge is who is this actually good for? and ultimately, who is it good for at the moment? Well, seemingly nobody. The government's own argument that this is cheaper than hotels is completely out the window. And it seems like there's just a complete blank check that the home office are going to keep throwing at this and unlimited resources. And ultimately, it's not up to us to have the solution. We should be in a position as a society to object an idea

without having to have the answer. It's no good to say you have to accept this bad. I'm sorry, if you're not providing any solutions, why have you created this campaign group? Surely you're just wasting your time. I don't believe we're wasting our time to object something that we morally object to. I mean, how is that wasting your time?

But why don't you offer any solutions? We all live in a society. Ideas are welcome. If you have no ideas, then why are you just making noise? If, if, if, it's, it's a slightly off-piece analogy, so forgive me. But if I was desperate for a toilet and the only place I could go was your front doorstep, I could not go there and say, well, I'm sorry that I used your front doorstep, but I couldn't find a toilet. That's your problem.

Yes, I would provide you many solutions, the back of a car park, for instance. I would never say something without offering a solution because that's not, that doesn't benefit anyone in the public discourse. You cannot say that it's okay to accept a bad solution because we cannot come up with a good solution. What is bad? What are you comparing it to? You haven't offered any viable alternative. So bad is, it doesn't mean anything if you have nothing to compare it to. The alternative that the government is comparing this to is hotels, right? And they're saying that... And I'm not defending the government, but there is an argument to say that by keeping these people on a barge,

which I'm not saying is necessarily the optimal solution, you're keeping them out of neighborhoods, for instance, which is where these hotels are, and there's also a security component. So there are so many, hold on, there's so many migrants that have been allowed to enter British society that haven't been tracked. We don't know where they are, for goodness sake. And so the argument is by keeping them in these closed quarters, you can keep a better eye on them. My point is, what is your solution? What solutions are you offering since you're heading this campaign group against these barges? Well, firstly, to answer the false claim that just made that these people are being held on the barge, they're not.

they are free to come and go as they please. Yes, but they can be trapped. They're not, you know, in the middle of Yorkshire, in the middle of nowhere. No, they cannot. No, they cannot be tracked. They are being asked to return at a certain time, but that's it. There is no curfew. But we know who they are. But we know who they are.

It's not like they're just having a bunch of random people on the barges. There is a system that's actually recorded who is on these barges. I want to come back to Ben in the studio and just ask a little bit about where this leaves. Britain in terms of a perception point of view. Well, I think that's the big question. Because the only kind of likeness I could think of when I thought about the bar,

Australia has had similar offshore immigration schemes with islands in the past. They've been condemned as being like concentration camps, according to some human rights groups. Australia has a very tight and strictly controlled immigration system. Do you think that's done them any ill will? So let's just get one thing straight.

The government's entire policy on the illegal crossings of the channel, is what they call through deterrence. And initially, Pretty Patel came up with the National Indian Borders Bill, which he said would sort the problem. It became an act. It didn't. Rwanda was going to sort the problem.

It didn't. The illegal migration bill, they say, will sort the problem. Let me tell you, it will not, because there is a carve-out for the European Court of Human Rights. And all the treatment they get when they come to the United Kingdom

is in a different league to what they get in France. which is why, of course, so many wish to come here. We are not practising any form of deterrence. The minute they enter our territorial waters, they have a warm blanket put round them, a cup of tea given them in their hands, put temporarily up in a four-star hotel, possibly in Pimlico, and then move to a barge which the human rights people are up in arms about.

But actually, I would be perfectly comfortable there if I'd come from war-torn Syria. The point about where I'm getting to is that the emperor has no clothes. Rishi Sunak cannot deter people from crossing the channel. All his policies have turned out to be a farce. We might as well call this a carry-on migration after that fantastic series of comedy films of the 1970s because that's where our policy has left us.

Carry on. I see we're going on with that, you know, and it's a smart analogy, but of course humans involved here, you know, and they are coming from difficult situations. And whilst I agree with you about the government and the mess up, I think, in the long-term policy of this, and it's going to be fascinating to see how they can hang on to this until the next election. At the same time, I think a lot of British people would say

putting a blanket around somebody who's been in a boat at sea, and maybe it's been at the hands of criminal gangs who've got them there. Isn't the worst thing. I mean, I would agree with you there. I don't necessarily object to them being shown a bit of a hospital hospital treatment, particularly since they've made the trip across the channel, which I personally wouldn't do.

I think the bigger issue is the core of this problem is the broken asylum system the fact that we can't process these people fast enough the fact that I actually think really there are people that are in a worse situation that don't have money to pay people smugglers or get across the channel that are being ignored or can't even have access to our asylum system

because there's a bottleneck now with all these people rushing in we can't process them quickly enough and we're effectively ignoring the people that really should probably get priority to even be on an asylum list. I mean can I just say? bigger issue for me. You know, they're all coming from France. They're all safe. They've all had their

security assured. This is, by any definition, this is economic migration. That's what it is. And I would take a much harder line, I'm afraid, Esther. We have an international right under the UN Convention of Law of the Sea to deter and to use whatever preventative means we need to use in order to protect our borders and to prevent illegal entry. And border force needs to do its job. It needs to use the international law at our disposal to turn these boats around. That's what Australia did and it worked in Australia. It sounds very build a wall, Ben. It's not a builder wall.

It is enforce your borders. It's what we would have done at any moment in history until this complete collapse in political world that seems to have gripped modern Britain. Well, it's certainly clear that in the United Kingdom today, whilst there, a lot of people would agree that there is an issue regarding the number of people coming into the country and those are legally doing so, there is a wide range of views. We've had them this evening. Thank you very much to Ben Habib, Esther Krakou, and Daniel Sands.

Join us down the line from Portland Dorset as well. Now, an uncensored next tonight, Tony Blair, the sequel, could the former Labour Prime Minister be the answer to Sir Keir Stama's prayers and help the party win the next election? We'll debate that next. Welcome back now here in the UK as Labor start gearing up for the next general election attention, now focused on party leader, Sakea Stama, and his chances of taking that top PM job, often criticised for hypocrisy and lack of. in clarity. It seems he's looking to the former leader and three-time election winner, Sir Tony Blair, for direction. Now, recently in their first public appearance together, Blair effectively gave Stama his handshake of approval.

Well, you know, how far you've taken the Labour Party in the last four years, as any guide to how far you can take the country will be in good hands. Thank you very much, indeed. Bit of a Labour love in there. had his fair share of controversy, of course, over the years, and the scars of the Iraq war still loom large. So is it a good move for Sarkir Stama? We're going to debate that now,

joined in the studio again by socialist and author Grace Blakely, down in the line by former Labour Party MP, Stephen Pound, who did actually serve under Tony Blair. Also joining us, Labour councillor and Momentum member, Martin Abrams. Let's start with you, Stephen, if you don't mind, seeing as you served under the man himself, do you think it would be a good thing for us to have Blair back on the scene? I think it would be absolutely marvelous, for two reasons.

One is there's a slight oddity in the world. What does an ex-president or an ex-prime minister do? And you can either be like Gordon Brown, like a prophet crying in the wilderness or you'd fade away like David Cameron did with a lot of rather dodgy business people. I think Jimmy Carter is probably the only national figure, apart from Tony Blair, who's actually made something of the life after power. So once you accept we've got to do something, you then come to what actually tells you. Tony Bear is doing. The single most important thing in politics is to avoid getting away,

to avoid the nonsense of short-termism. And as a great many politicians are so risk-avert, they dare not ask the big questions. And the biggest question in the world today is how we, in the developing West, can actually work with the developing world when it comes to global warming. And that's what Tony Blair's asking the question for, as he was at this Tony Blair Institute conference they had last week. So he's in a unique position. He still has the ability, a sort of hypnotic ability that he displayed so brilliantly on three general elections to somehow actually articulate and speak these huge issues. So we welcome him back because we do actually need somebody who's got the ideas

who can look over the horizon, someone who, yes, absolutely flawed. Of course it's flawed. There's only ever been one perfect human being on the face of the earth. All the rest of us are flawed. But I welcome him back because he brings energy, he brings ideas. But above all, he brings a global perspective on global problems. Stephen, you raised a lot of things there, including the fact that, of course, Blair... No, no, you know, you made your case very clearly.

Blair has been enormously successful post-P prime ministership. He's multi-millionaire. He's got this Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, which could be called a sort of soft power international policy initiative, and he consults a lot and the rest of it. But at the same time, I'll come to you, Martin. I think we're about the same age. I'm making assumptions here.

But when I hear the name Tony Blair, there was one thing I associate him with, unfortunately, and most Prime Ministers will be meant for one thing, and that is the Iraq War. And it's hard for many people under the age of 35 to forget that, isn't it? Absolutely. And Tony Blair cannot escape the haunting specter of the Iraq war, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq's infrastructure and society, and essentially it fostered a lethal sectarianism. that ultimately turned into a civil war spreading terrorism across the region

and across much of the globe. So this really feels like an absolutely bizarre approach for Kier Starrma to be kind of welcoming Tony Blair back into the fold because let's face it, Tony Blair is politically toxic. He is the least popular living Labour leader currently, you know, pulling well below. people like Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn. And let's remember it's 20 years since the Iraq war now.

And a recent Ugov Paul published on the 20th anniversary found a fifth of Britons think Tony Blair knowingly misled Parliament over the Iraq war and should be tried as a war criminal. One fifth of all Britons believe that. It's incredible that it's even being considered being allowed back into the party, leaven mind back into the inner. of Kyr Starma. Stephen, I will come back to your reaction, but let's cross the grace in the studio then

and talk about the fact that, yes, Tony Blair has got this sort of glowing rhetorical style, you know, seen what the fact of this speech he did recently, he's a brilliant speaker. Can he turn that reputation around, given what we just heard from Martin, the facts that stand as well about the Iraq War?

I think, you know, this debate about Tony Blair often comes down to, well, you know, he won three elections versus he did the Iraq War, and actually there's a lot more to discuss about Tony Blair, both in and out of him. out of office. And also, we need to compare that in reality to what we can see in Kirstama. So Blair's policy agenda, for example, it rested a lot on kind of, you know, we talked about climate change, bringing the private sector into the response to climate breakdown, which again,

we've seen hasn't worked. It was a lot to do with kind of deregulation, deregulating for finance sector famously, which helps to lead up to the crisis of 2008. And since he left office, he's been learning, as you said, millions going around the world, often consulting with authoritarian governments, to make that money. Now, there's a lot to critique about Blair, but I also think it's worth, you know, looking dispassionately at his record and saying, yes, he did win three elections,

and he did come in onto the political scene with some very clear ideas, a sense of we're going to change things, this kind of Obama-esque excitement, a very good kind of rhetorical style. And Kirstama has a lot of those policies and none of the rhetorical flourish. He has, he's basically backed by the same wing of the Labour Party,

which is, of course, why Blair is supporting him, but he doesn't have that same charisma, he doesn't have the same values. It's really just very difficult to say what he even stands for, which is why actually I don't even think, even though I don't approve of most of what Tony Blair did, I don't even think Kirstama is as good as Tony Blair. Let's cross back to Stephen and ask you, you've heard all of that.

You heard the case put forward by Grace by Martin as well. And obviously the facts you know about already, do you think that changes the mood in terms of whether Blair will be accepted back into modern British society because times have moved on. Well, I hope people could actually see Tony Blair's career so far in the round. I'm here in Ealing, in my old constituency. Just over the road, there's three Kosovo families. Their eldest sons have all been called Tony Blair,

because that's the names of their children, because they're so grateful for what Tony Blair did in the South Balkans. And don't forget, he also did the same thing in Sierra Leone, in East Timor. And when it comes to coming up a pro-and-ante list, you know, pros and cons of Tony Blair, you know, minimum wage, equalization of the age of consent. I can give you about 65 really, really good pieces of legislation. Whether they stack up against Iraq, I don't know. I'm not prepared to say that.

I can't sit in judgment on that. All I can say is that Tony Blair is a man of energy and intelligence and articulate ideals in a way that we need it. But I guess back to my basic point, politicians are terrified of actually committing themselves to the big, big picture. No politician, really, in my lifetime, has actually done that. they just don't want to actually look at the global issue. They are obsessed with the parochial impetus. That's the important thing. Tony Blair is stepping outside electoral politics

and is actually looking at that big picture. I think I'm grateful. Sorry, can I come back quickly on that point about Kosovo and Sierra Leone in Iraq? Because I don't know about you guys. I have actually read Tony Blair's autobiography, found it absolutely fascinating, not least because of the kind of evangelical zeal

with which he appeared to approach all of these foreign interventions. And you can see, as he moved from one to the next, from Kosovo to Sierra Leone, to East Timor, to Iraq, there's this sense that he's going to basically save the world. And I actually think that's why he ended up making a lot of mistakes in Iraq. I actually think that's why it's difficult, even for him to look back dispassionately over the course of his career.

And I think that was really why he became such a toxic figure in politics and why he still is. I want to give Martin just, we've only got about 20 seconds left, Martin. I'm sorry to run out of time like this. But if not, Tony Blair, would it be Kirstama, your vote? Well, listen, Kirstarmer needs to remember what platform he stood on during his leadership election with the Labour Party members. He needs to stand on a platform of public ownership, of anti-austerity. You know, we need to look forward and we need a little bit of hope.

We desperately need a little bit of hope. People keep calling the next general election, a hopeless general election. So reject the politics of the past and Tony Blair, and let's look forward and let's have a hopeful future. Hope is good. Hope I can get behind. Look, the three of you, thank you very much for a very interesting discussion on the return or the possible return of Blair.

Now, Uncensored next tonight, whistleblowers in the US say the government have been operating a secret program to capture and reverse engineer alien life for years. So is it time for governments to fess up about all of their extraterrestrial encounters? We'll be debating that next. Welcome back to Uncensored with me, Roseanne Lockwood in the chair this Monday.

Now it might be time to grab your tinfoil hats because the aliens are coming. And apparently a lot of them There have been almost 1,000 documented UFO sightings in the UK since January 2021. And they even seem to be targeting certain areas of the UK more than others with most sightings taking place in Greater Manchester, London and Chester. Now, at the end of July, three former military officials in the US told Congress they believe aliens are real and the government are purposely concealing evidence. A former intelligence official went on record to say the US government is in possession. of non-human biological remains.

If you believe we have crashed craft stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft? Biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah. Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics? Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program. So should we all be gearing up for an alien invasion,

or is it all a bit of a conspiracy? Joining me now to discuss all this UFOologist and host of Weaponized podcast, Jeremy Corbell. And UFO expert, the one who investigated UFOs for the US Ministry of Defense, Nick Pope. Gentlemen, thank you, Nick. I'll start with you. You were the person who obtained and released the military filmed Pentagon confirmed UFO videos that put into motion of first congressional hearings on UFOs in over 50 years. And the recent hearings as well, you were part of that. So, I mean, when we approach this topic, people can get a bit silly about it.

We had the X-Files music, talk about alien invasions, but this is very much your career, your life's work. Do you think people take it seriously enough? Well, they do in the United States. Sure. We've just had these congressional hearings. And, you know, this person, David Grush, who's testified, was verifiably part of the unidentified aerial phenomena task force.

If he was making this up, he would be committing a federal offense, by the way, because this was under oath. He has apparently given the Senate intelligence. Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, very specific, checkable facts, project names, locations, a list of people who are prepared to testify. This is being taken very, very seriously now as a defense and national security issue in the United States. And it's a long time that the British government reopened their UFO program, by the way, that was terminated at the end of 2009.

Indeed. And Jeremy, rather, sorry, I think I've misnamed you at the start there. In terms of the recent congressional hearings that we heard in the US, what struck me most was that it was announced, but to very little fanfare, people didn't seem to care. It's almost like they've been through a pandemic and there's a war going on and the price of everything is shoe the roof. And aliens suddenly aren't that interesting or worrisome to them anymore. Well, first of all, that's incorrect. And hello, Nick. Nice to see you. This is a completely different situation than is being shown right here. You said put on your tinfoil hats. People should put on their battle helmets. Right now, this is being taken seriously from the world public. It's a serious topic. And people need to understand why it's a serious topic. At this time right now, you've been told something historic. You've been told something historic. You've been told something historic. from your government. You've been told something historic from my government. Right now, what you've been told is that UFOs are indeed real, that there is a technological aspect to it,

and the world needs to catch up with consensus reality. It is being taken very seriously at the highest levels of government and for reasons that are really good. One is strategic surprise. It's really simple to understand that if somebody has technology,

that we don't have that can outpace, out maneuver, and outperform our greatest fighter planes and weapons systems like Commander David Fravor, who testified at that hearing, told you, then this is something that it should be understood differently than how it's being presented right now. Well, you've got an opportunity to respond to that. Yeah, I do. No, this is all absolutely serious. I mean, a few months ago, this sort of thing would have been maybe dismissed, but now it's being discussed in the United States Congress, in the scientific and academic community.

There is, I think, a growing realization that this is real. And there are going to be more things coming in the next few weeks and months, by the way. NASA is doing a study as we speak. They're going to report later this month. There will be more hearings in the United States Congress, and there will be more whistleblowers coming forward speaking out on the record, under oath, on the floor of Congress. This is a fact. Jeremy, is there an extent to the amount of information that normal people can handle?

Is there an argument the government should withhold some information? The poison right now is the lack of information and the lack of proper reporting on this. The only remedy and the only cure is to inform the American and global public. living in a data-rich environment when it comes to FOS, or UAP, as you say. But the real danger is secrecy and lack of transparency. And what Nick said is correct. And I know because I've directly spoken with the witnesses that have already taken action that is not yet public to come forward.

And America will lead by example, as we do at our greatest moments in history. But this is not an American issue. This is a global issue. It's not just bipartisan, and that's why you see AOC and Representative Tim Burchett leading the charge here from people who are under oath, who have been designated to protect our national interest as well as our global interest. And we need to really look at how we treat David Gresh right now, because these hearings, this historic hearings that you saw was the first time in history, that people are talking with firsthand information where they directly engaged UFOs in a combat situation. as well as in training times. So what we see right now is an embolding and an empowering

of people who desire to come forward because it is the right, the just, the ethical and the legal thing to do. But we need to see how David Grush, who is the only whistleblower that was standing up there. The other two people, they were just testifying. George Knapp and I, my mentor on journalism, we also put something on congressional record

so that the public would be informed. Both of you. Both of you. Thank you very much for your time. We've learned quite a bit there about UFOs and aliens. That is it from us this evening. Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored. And we'll be back here same time tomorrow. Good night.