Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Colonel Richard Kemp v Mustafa Barghouti, Ricky Gervais Funny or Foul, Should King Charles abdicate

Episode Date: January 2, 2024

On Piers Morgan Uncensored: Douglas Murray sits in for Piers this week, as Colonel Richard Kemp and Mustafa Barghouti goes head to head on Israel v Gaza, Is Ricky Gervais, funny or foul? Should Charles follow Denmark's lead and abdicate? Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm 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

Hello, I'm Douglas Murray, and this is uncensored tonight. In a New Year message, the Israeli military warns the conflict in Gaza will continue throughout 2024. Can the war continue to be justified after so much suffering and bloodshed? Or is it necessary to destroy Hamas for the safety of the region and the world? A satirical take on political correctness and oversensitivity or just plain offensive? We'll debate whether the backlash to Ricky Javé's and Dave Chappelle's new Netflix shows are justified. And should King Charles agree to vacate the throne

in a few years' time to let Prince William take over? I'll talk to the Guardian journalist who says the abdication of the Queen of Denmark puts our archaic system to shame. Live from the News Building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Unsensored. Good evening and welcome to Pearce Morgan Unsensored. I'm Douglas Murray, filling in for Pierce

for the rest of the week. What better way to ensure the happiest of starts to a new year I hear you all cry. Only joking, peers. I know you're watching, by the way, and don't forget the sunscreen. Over the next three days, my guests and I will be looking at the big topics and themes that will dominate the global agenda in 2024. We'll be covering everything from the potentially game-changing elections in the US and the UK to the seemingly never-ending madness of the culture wars.

We might even touch on the odd world. royal story. I, of course, am the biggest Harry and Megan fan. So expect some Marklemania to break out this week. Indeed, this is going to be a Marklerama. That's just another joke, Pierce. Sorry, if you're still watching. Trust me, folks, he's still watching. But we'll start with the story I predict will continue to dominate the headlines for the year ahead. War. As regular viewers of Unsensored will know, I spent the last few months of 2003 in Israel covering the conflict in Gaza. I saw firsthand the death and carnage unleashed by Hamas on October 7th. I visited the tunnels they used to hide beneath the civilian population.

And I experienced many times, including on this very show, during a live broadcast, what it was like to be under enemy fire. And I, sorry, there's an incoming. Incoming. Get safe, Douglas. And of course, come, come. I got to see the impact of Israel's massive response to those massacres. Hamas seized control of the Gaza in 2006-7

and they reduced it to a terrorist state that's now, in turn, being reduced to rubble with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, many Palestinian civilians, including children, are caught in the crossfire. But I've never wavered in my view that this war is not only just, but also necessary. Israel has the right and the need to defend. and Hamas need to be crushed for the sake of the region and the world. And that's why when it was reported this afternoon that Hamas deputy head Saleh al-Aaruri has been killed in an explosion south of Beirut,

I, for one, will shed no tears. Nobody could live beside a terror group like Hamas. We couldn't hear in Britain, and I don't see why the Israelis should. And yes, I know that isn't a consensus view. There are lots of people who vehemently disagree with me. disagree with me. So I'm keen to explore not just what has happened, but what happens next. Now, joining me tonight to discuss this is from Tel Aviv, the former British Army officer, a now trustee of the UK Friends of the Association for the Well-Being of Israeli Soldiers,

Colonel Richard Kemp, and from Ramallah, Palestinian National Initiative leader, Mustafa Barguti. Thank you both for joining me. Let me start with you, if I may, Mr. Barguti. We've just had this news in. We've all just heard it of the deputy head of Hamas being killed in Beirut. Obviously, this is the leader of the group that killed Palestinians in the coup in Gaza in 2006-7. And, of course, one of the people who planned the October the 7th massacre. What's your response to his killing tonight? Well, if you allow me, and I hope you will accept that from me,

I think your presentation is absolutely one-sided, totally biased to the Israeli side. You speak about the right of Israel to defend itself, but you don't mention the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves. You failed to mention that Israel is the aggressor, which started this terrible occupation since 56 years. And Palestinians, as people under occupation, according to international law, have the right to defend themselves and to resist occupation. You've failed to mention that no less than 29,000 civilian Palestinians have been. killed by Israeli bombardments. I mentioned that. I mentioned that.

No, you mentioned as if they were killed on their own, not by Israeli bombardment. What should be clear here is that 29,000 Palestinians, if we include those under the rebel, have been killed by Israeli terrible air strikes and artillery bombardment, including no less than 12,000 children. I've said so many times on so many programs, I am against the killing of any civilian, whether Palestinian or Israel. But if you speak about the killing of 30 Israeli children, you should

also speak about the 12,000 Palestinian children who were killed. Well, Mr. Barguti, I did mention the killing of children. I did say that that is appalling damage in the war. But let me finish the question before you try to answer a question I haven't yet asked. You said that the Palestinian people are allowed

to resist, as you call it. What does that look like in your view? according to international law people who are under occupation have the right to resist in all forms including military forms as long as they respect international law and international humanitarian law okay so what does it look like what does it look like israel israel once not only to look look look look look i've been struggling with non-violent resistance all my life i was injured nine times by the israeli army although i never used any weapon i was shot i was shot twice but But you're not telling me, sir, you're not telling me what legitimate resistance is. While legitimate resistance is all forms of resistance that respect international humanitarian law,

which means not attacking civilians, not attacking children. It's very clear. That's what international law says. I am not creating that. But even when I was in my white coat, wait a minute, when I was in my white coat, treating an injured person, an Israeli sniper shot me to. twice. The same mentality of these snipers killed Shireen Abu Ackli, your colleague, the journalist, and nobody, no Israeli was indicted. 3.3 of my colleagues, doctors, nurses, health professionals

have been killed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza. 104 ambulances were destroyed. All our health centers were destroyed. This is not acceptable. Okay, thank you. Mr. Barguti, we have another guest, so I'd like to go over to Tel Aviv Colonel Richard Kemp, what do you make of what you've just heard? Well, I think Mr. Barguti talks about legitimate resistance adhering to the laws of war. Well, first of all, resistance to what? The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and effectively set up a two-state solution. Let the Palestinian Authority, which was then taken over by Hamas,

run their own territory. So what are they actually resisting? What's this resistance about? And when it comes to the laws of war, the people, the Hamas butchers that Mr Barguti has been quoted as referring to as our brave fighters, they went into Israeli territory on the 7th October. They raped, burnt alive, butchered, cut off their heads, kidnapped, abused civilians and soldiers, civilians, though, which is, you know, against, obviously it's against any law of war. It was against the laws of war to kill anyone inside another country, but in that way. But to do, to butcher civilians like that, where's the laws of war there? And secondly, ever since that day, and of course many, many times before, his brave Hamas fighters,

as he calls them, have been firing rockets indiscriminately at civilian populations inside Israel, and they're still doing so. They won't be doing so much longer because they're about to be throttled by the IDF. And not only that, but they've also been firing them from within the civilian population. That is against the laws of armed conflict. And preventing the civilians from leaving the combat areas when the IDF are trying to warn them about attacks, again, against the laws of armed conflict. They've also fired many of their rockets into the Gaza civilian population. We just have to look at the Al-Ali hospital attack that was attributed to the IDF but turned out to be an Islamic jihad,

another brave Islamic jihad fighters firing their own rockets into their own civilian population. Let's not forget what Hamas is all about here. The reason Hamas launched this attack, there are strategic reasons, of course, but the overriding reason they launched this attack on the 7th of October and the reason they launch all of their attacks is to force Israel to defend itself from the warring. these attacks, which any country and every country would do and has the right and the obligation to do. And in carrying out its reaction to these attacks, Israel, unfortunately, has no choice but to kill innocent civilians in the process, despite the efforts they take, which are enormous

to avoid doing that. But that's what Hamas want. Hamas, they don't just want civilians to protect their terrorists. They want Israel to kill civilians. So that Israel is then condemned, delegitomized, vilified, isolated around the world. And it works every time in the United Nations, the universities, in some governments, human rights groups, always condemn Israel. That's what Hamas want, and that encourages Hamas to do it again and again and again. And by Mr. Barguti, who claims to support peaceful resistance, by Mr. Barguti, justifying what they do,

he also has blood on his hands from encouraging Amas terrorists. I think you are absolutely biased. Mr. Vaguti, you're going to get a moment. Mr. Vaguti, you're going to get a moment to respond to that. I just want to ask you first. Let's just clear this up before you do respond to Colonel Kemp. Did you call Hamas our brave fighters or not? I never said that, no.

I don't know where you got that from. No, it's not true. You are putting words in my mouth, but let me respond to what the colonel said. The colonel is saying is reflecting. clearly a very clear white supremacy approach. It is okay to kill the white supremacy, Mr. Wagner. Why don't you say, why don't you say clearly that you are supporting the killing of Palestinian children?

Why don't you say clearly that you are supporting the killing of Palestinian civilians? Why don't you say that you are supporting Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and supporting three terrible war crimes? Even the American public is against that. Three war crimes. The war crime of genocide, which the International Court of Justice is looking into now, the war crime of collective punishment, and the war crime of ethnic cleansing, 90, wait a minute, 90% of the Palestinian people were affected from their homes.

What would you have said if Palestinians evicted Israelis from their homes? Would that be acceptable? Would that be acceptable? Why don't you use the same standard? I'm going to go back to Colonel Kemp in a moment. But why is this white supremacy? Where did that come from? The Israeli public are not all white? Because I don't, I think you don't see us white enough.

And you are against anybody who is not white. And that's why you justify terrible atrocities that Israel is committing. And you are justifying not only the fact that Israel is occupying us, but the fact that Israel conducted the worst kind of ethnic cleansing in 1948, forcing 70% of the Palestinian people out of the man. I'm going to go back to Colonel Ken. These are the facts. I'll just go back to Colonel Kemp quickly.

Colonel Kemp, you said that Mr. Bargudi said our brave fighters were Hamas. He says he didn't say that. Who's right? Well, I certainly read him, quote. He may not have said it, but I read him being quoted as saying, I think it was Middle East Isle or something like that. But he can certainly, if he'd like to Google it, to see what he actually said.

He can find that on the internet. And what do you make of this claim, Colonel Kemp, that everyone who justifies always in any way on the side of Israel during this war is a white supremacist. Because Israel doesn't look like a very all-white country to me, but I don't know. No, I mean, you know, there are all blends of races in Israel.

And one thing we should remember as well is that there is a significant Muslim Arab population in Israel. And one thing that I've observed in recent weeks is a skyrocketing, a skyrocketing of support for Israel among the Israeli-Arab Muslim population. The polls have shown a huge growth of support for Israel, a greater association with the state of Israel since the 7th of October. And that is partly due to the fact that Hamas,

his brave fighters from Hamas, that he clearly supports, came in and butchered not just Israelis, but they also came and killed a number of Arabs and people from many different ethnicities. So what he's talking, it's a great throwaway line, white supremacy. It obviously gets, you know, it's one of these intersectional terms,

you know, Me Too and all this sort of stuff. He obviously thinks that's going to garner support for him, for people who, you know, do object, rightly object to the idea of white supremacy. But I don't think that comes into this argument one little bit. Mr. Bargutti, finally we've only got a few seconds. But you said we need to go back to 1947 and 1914. what do you say to people who say you can go back thousands of years

and you never have an end to this argument? Well, look, Palestinians were displaced from their country, including cities like Jaffa, where my father lived, and Haifa and Aqa, 75 years ago. If Israel is after 3,000 years have the right to go back and demand to be in Palestine, then why not Palestinians who have been evicted 75 years ago? Why should we forget about our own country?

And let's go back to the United Nations resolution that established the state of Israel. It said that there should be two states. Israel and Palestine. Israel was created and Palestine was occupied. That is the reality of business. We all know, Mr. Barguer, there's one thing we can be sure about about that. That's highly disputed history, as it all is.

There wasn't a Palestinian state then. There could have been, in my view. It's a very sad thing. There wasn't a Palestinian state created then and that the Palestinians... It will be. It will be. A lot of people hope it will be, but it certainly won't be if people are praising Hamas, and the longer they're around, the less likely it is there will ever be a Palestinian state,

as far as I can see. But thank you very much, Colonel Richard Kemp, in Tel Aviv. And thank you to Mustafa Banguti, our intersection list tonight in Ramallah. Now, on uncensored next, comedy superstars, Ricky Javais, and Dave Chappelle have caused massive controversy with their new Netflix specials. Well, now, surprise, surprise, there are calls for them to be cancelled. We'll debate whether comedy has the right to offend after the break. Welcome back to Unsensored.

The reaction to two controversial comedy specials over the Christmas holidays has shown that the dreaded culture wars are going nowhere in 2024. The latest Ricky Javees special, Armageddon and David Chappelle's The Dreamer have topped the Netflix charts, but also caused the furious backlash from Christmas. critics. Here's a clip from both. I've been doing a lot of video messages recently for term and the ill children. You know the charity Make a Wish Foundation?

They're great and they give these dying kids there like one wish. And if it's me, I always say yes and I always start the video the same way. I go, why didn't you wish to get better? I'm retarded as well. I ain't doing trans jokes no more. You know what I'm gonna do tonight? Tonight, I'm doing your own handicapped jokes. Well, they're not as organized as the gays.

gays. And I love punching down. One critic labeled Javei's special tiresome adolescence offence mongering, while civil rights advocacy group, the National Black Justice Coalition, called on Netflix to remove the Chappelle special from their catalog altogether. So should comedy always punch up rather than down, or are comedians free to say whatever they want, even if it offends? Joining me now, our comment

and YouTuber Dave Rubin, comedian James Barr, and here in the studio, Talk TV contributor, Paula Rohn, Adrian. Thank you all for being with me. Let me start with you, Dave Rubin, over in Miami. Do you think this is a case of sort of crossing the line, or is everything fair game in comedy? Well, of course, everything's fair game, and it's the job of a good comic to get as close to that line

as you possibly can say something true, and then through humor, allow people to laugh at it. And when you poke fun at different groups, what you're doing is showing everybody that were all equal parts of society. Chappelle and Jervais are two of probably the top ten comics of all time. But you need only look at a comedy legend,

a guy like Don Rickles, who used to walk up in front of the crowd in any part of any country, and say, look at the black guy, the Jew, the gay guy, the Italian, the wasp, the rest of it. And what it did was everybody realized they were in on the joke, that we are a multicultural society. And if we can all poke fun at our silly stereotypes and everything else, then we will actually figure out ways to build bridges. But everybody these days seems to want to burn those bridges down

and make it seem that our skin color and our religion is the most important thing about us. James, over there in Chicago, where do you stand on this, these two comedians, funny or foul? It's so funny that you accidentally called him David Chappelle just now. But really, he's so obsessed with trans people, I think his name should be Davina, because clearly he wants to transition himself. I mean, he is absolutely obsessed.

Listen, Dave Chappelle and Ricky Jervais are both incredible comedians. They have historically been brilliant. Afterlife is great. Dave has used his comedy to punch up by attacking oppression, bringing a light to racism, joking about why he doesn't call the police. So he knows how to use comedy to point out oppression and punch up. He's holding people accountable.

So why now is he pulling people accountable? punching down. In my opinion, I think Dave Chappelle is cheap and his act. Paula here in the studio, Ricky Javez said today he's playing a character when he's on stage. Do you agree with that? Do you buy it? No, I don't. And I have to say, it is disappointing because for somebody who is so intelligent, so erudite, knows the power of language, the power of words, to have become so basic and simplistic in his comedy is disappointing. And it is basic and simplistic. If you're talking about building bridges, if you're talking about bringing communities together, how is it that you are basically poking your finger at one particular community?

And when you talk about, you know, making fun of sick children, of dying children, I just wonder how desperate you have to be to do that. And, you know, we've got a, there's been a poll now that's just been commenced, I think, by a mother who son, sadly had cancer, but I think is now better. And it's over 13.5,000 people who have signed up to her poll to hopefully get that joke removed from Netflix. And I can understand why she's doing that. Dave Rubin, you know, it raises this question of whether there are or should be. I don't know about this.

Oh, God. Are there any taboos in comedy? I mean, I thought when watching, suddenly the Ricky Javees one, I did think slightly, you know, it kind of felt a bit like, gosh, choosing really low-hanging fruit to sort of hit against here. You know, I mean, but it seems because this is the most popular show on both these shows, the most popular shows on Netflix, there's clearly a huge audience for it, whether people find it funny or offensive or not.

Well, look, the audience in that room found it funny, and those are the people who are buying tickets to Ricky Ur-Jurban. So we can all whittle down whether we think that specific joke, you know, I don't think he was making fun of the sick kids per se. He was making fun of the absurdity that someone like him would be on a make-a-wish list. That's what the joke really was about. His, I don't think, and I don't think anyone on this panel

thinks honestly that Ricky Jervais has some grudge against sick kids at all. And as for Chappelle talking about trans people, first off, you know, if we're going to do this based on oppression, who you're allowed to talk about based on perceived oppression, are we only allowed to make jokes about straight, white Christians who are wealthy? Is that what comedy really is?

I don't think so, and I don't think anyone else really think so either. Comedy, again, is the great equalizer. So if you're just going to decide, okay, we can make fun of these people, but not fun of these people, you're going to have an awful lot of angry people at the end of the day. You know, I would accept that. I would wholeheartedly accept that because, no, I don't believe Ricky Chavez thinks that sick children are a cheap joke. And I don't think, actually, that Dave Chappelle, and we've seen him on Instagram attempting to pull back from the comments

that he's made. So I fully accept that. And that's why I'm saying, first of all, it's a cheap shot. And when Dave Chappelle is quoted as saying that, you know, comedians have, it's their duty to be reckless, this is where I disagree and this is where we need to look at responsibility. It's not a comedian's job actually to be reckless. It's a comedian's job to be funny. And if they're going to do politics, if they're going to do about marginalised groups, then come on, be intelligent about it. Make us think, don't do cheap, school. playground antics. James, you know, all of comedy, James, doesn't it?

It's all about transgression to some extent. Comedians do have a larger bandwidth than other people in society to say edgy things. But do you think where are the boundaries in your view? Listen, I think it is a form of activism. And I do agree with both Paula and Dave here. Like it is such a nuanced conversation, but really it is at its best when it's a weapon against the powerful.

And Ricky Jervais laughing at disabled kids. It's just a waste of bandwidth. It's a waste of an opportunity to say something important. And he says he's a free speech activist, but he has a joke about the N word, and he doesn't say the N word. So you either are a free speech activist or you're being a pussy.

Like, which is it? Well, that's very interesting. I mentioned earlier some producers, you know, some people are saying in pieces about the Jervais special. They're saying the R word. And I said, look, I mean, we've already got the N word, and everyone does know what that means. But if you then got the R word,

word that you're not meant to say as well. We're going to get a whole alphabet of A word, B, B, C words that aren't meant to be said. Dave Rubin, are there any words you wouldn't say? Well, in that you're the guest host of today's show and maybe you want to return, I'm not going to say them right now. But look, within context, within context, could you say the N word within a certain context and say it not to be racist? Of course you could if you were discussing historical reasons why people said it, or if you were making fun of people that use language like that. But this constant push for any time a comedian,

if we're all basically, I think we're all agreeing here that these guys are pretty damn funny. So maybe there's a little low-hanging fruit here or there, or maybe one joke misses. That is the challenge of a great comic, that you are going to spend an awful lot of time in a bunch of really crappy clubs night after night, perfecting that hour set so that you can get it on Netflix.

And it is possible that one joke may fall flat, and that is the risk that you are going to have to take. Douglas, I'll text you some of those words. I just don't want to put it on television. I don't want to text for those words. I don't want to incriminate it in your foul play, Rubin. Look, I mean, what's interesting, by the way, about this was that Ricky Javage, as James says, doesn't say the N-word. He refers to the N-word, but the Chappelle special has almost nothing but the N-word in it. I mean, I was sort of a little bit bruised by just hearing it constantly. I mean, I admire. I think Chappelle's the greatest comic on the planet, but it is a

bit sort of wearying. Wow. I don't know about greatest comic on this planet. I accept that he has done amazing things and made amazing strides in terms of comedy for people of colour. You've been uncomfortable about him using the N-word. I'm uncomfortable about lots of people who use the N-word. There is a context, I agree. It's a poetic context. It's an artistic context. Do I think that Dave Chappelle is an artist? No, I don't. And especially when he says, as I I said, to be reckless is his duty. That's disappointing. Well, Paula in the studio and comedians, Dave and James over there in America. Thank you all for joining us tonight. I texted you, Douglas. I texted you. I'm not opening that one. I think Douglas knows the F word.

No, no, I'm not opening that text. All right, up next on uncensored. 2023 was a big year for the royal family with the coronation. But what does 2024 have in store? Well, one controversial view is that King Charles should follow the lead of Denmark's queen by announcing a date for his abdication. Really? Already? We'll debate that next. Welcome back. When the Queen of Denmark announced her abdication in her New Year's address,

it caused shockwaves in Denmark and around the world. It's being called a shrewd move to save the Danish monarchy and avert disaster after her son's marriage has been beset by rumours of an affair. In a column for the Guardian, Simon Jenkins says King Charles should follow Denmark's example and tell us when he will abdicate. He argues that it puts our archaic system to shame. And Simon Jenkins joins me now. Simon Jenkins, thanks so much for joining us.

So it seems a little early in the reign of King Charles to talk about abdication. What's the point? I'm not absolutely sure I said he should tell us now. that may be the headlines of getting the better of it. But no, I'm in favour of constitutional monarchy. But honestly, if you're going to have seven or eight monarchs around Europe,

all of whom are hereditary monarchs, none of them have got any power, but they are heads of state. And if they are really going all to be in their 80s and possibly disabled in some sense, it makes monarchy look very odd. And I'm just all I'm saying is, I think monarchy,

unimportant though it is, just ought to grow up and modernise the stuff a bit, and that's why I'm suggesting. So what's your preferred date of departure for the king from the throne then? How long do you think you should give him? As in the case of Denmark, he ought to go when he thinks he can't do the job full time. The Queen was obsessed, I know, or we know, with not showing any sense that she couldn't do the job,

and she did amazingly well, and she shouldn't be the example for everybody. but in four cases that I cite in low countries in Scandinavia. They've said, look, I think I'm getting on. I can't do it as intensively as I used to do it. I think I should hand over to my perfectly adequate son or air, whoever it may be. And that's where you keep modernising the monarchy. Now, hang on. Simon, I've got to pick you up on that.

You can't give the example of Scandinavia and the low countries. Surely the British monarchies are different matter altogether. Well, all right. We've been incredibly lucky, frankly. we've had the queen for half a century. It is conceivable. We might have had Prince Andrew. You've got to be very careful how you organise this.

The monarchy depends on popularity. It's entirely dependent on popularity. It's not elected, it's not appointed, it's inherited. You've got to ensure that in the case of some disaster or something going wrong or whatever, or a long illness, you can update it. And all I'm suggesting is you update it in the most obvious way of anybody doing any job.

It's time expanse. There comes a point where you can't be as active as you used to be. You can't do the things you used to have. And as they've done, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, and Belgium, in Spain, they've said, all right, fine. I think the time's come to hand over to my son. And I cannot see what's wrong with that. One final question for you, Simon Jenkins.

I mean, isn't it the case that the sort of age and wisdom of the monarch is a nice, sort of counterbalance to everything else in society that's obsessed with youth and glittery new things? Isn't there something to be said for a monarch who sees, something, seen a lot of the world? I think that everything is it's very the question is, is it indefinite? I mean, the principle that you

in some sense have got to go on until you drop dead, I think it's simply absurd. The Queen Victoria, the country was really sort of under a cloud throughout her long illness at the end of her life. It's conceivable that the Queen might have gone on for another 10 years.

Her job had to have been done by Prince Charles or somebody else. All I'm really saying is, for goodness sake, let's be sensible. The British monarchy is wonderful, it's splendid, it's admired around the world. I think it's over elaborate, it's over pompous, it's too extravagant in all sorts of ways, it doesn't look modern, but if it's always going to be done by someone who's in their races, it just looks absurd. All I'm suggesting is, I'm going to say, let's have a sensible system whereby you do abdicate

and you think you can't do it particularly well anymore. There's nothing wrong with that. Let's go ahead with it. Okay, well, thank you, Sam Jenkins. I've got a couple of guests in the studio here, but thank you. keep on working until you drop dead at any rate. So thank you. I completely agree with you. In the studio now I have royal historian Tessa Dunlop

and also the historian writer and broadcaster Hugo Vickers. Now let me first of all ask you both, what do you make of that? What do you make Hugo Vickers of Simon Jenkins' argument? Already we should talk about abdication. Well, I don't think he understands the Constitution very well because there are all sorts of ways that monarchs can disappear if they have to. Tommy Lassels, who was the Queen's first private secretary,

George Six, he said, you know, the monarchy is a bit like a rose bush. Every now and again, you have to chop off ahead to keep it going. So had we ended up, let's say, with Prince Andrew, I'm sure there would have been a way for him to have been moved to one side. It's actually a very good system. The hereditary monarchy means that you get somebody who's trained from birth for the job. It also means that they're devoted to selfless service because they know that they haven't climbed up,

the greasy pole of politics, they haven't, you know, fought their way up and that in some degree they shouldn't be there. But having got into that position, they then do a very good job. And you saw the fantastic transition from the Queen to Prince Charles, which was very smooth. Couldn't have been better, could it? And you saw it actually even when the Queen wasn't, you know, totally well in the last year, he stepped in. But then when she reappeared, he stepped aside. So we got to know him in this role.

I think we already knew him, didn't we? Testadne. Well, we knew him, yes, we did. Quite familiar with Charles. We had, yes. We had had the Prince of Wales around for one. Well, on the retirement of the elderly, I think on the basis of this article written by Simon Jenkins, we should perhaps suggest that he retires, British Adam Ponto, from the Guardian.

It is a lot of guff, and I sit here next to a hardcore believers of evangelical monarchist. I'm monarchist light, and I think we disagree on many things. But if you've got hereditary monarchy, you can't pick or choose. I mean, if we could pick, we'd all have picked Prince William when he had hair to be king, wouldn't you? Let's be frank. We'll imagine the tinsle and the glitter and the glamour. I'm not so sure that you should inflict this onto Prince William any day before it actually comes to be

because as Prince Charles now, the king will have discovered, he has a lot of extremely tedious things that he has to do. Oh, the hardship of secrecy lobbying, access to cabinet papers, which palace to lay one's head out at night? I mean, it's a tough day. If you think that, then you don't understand one thing about what he's doing and his work. I mean, he's incredibly hard working. But being a monarch has a lot of responsibility,

It's a bit like being, you know, the chairman of the company and not being the sort of, you know, the managing director, the man who does the job. One other thing I want to touch on whilst I've got both of you, over Christmas, the final episodes of the Crown landed. I thought the whole thing went absolutely bananas towards the end. Well, yeah, okay, you might say earlier seasons, but you've got to admit that this one was especially bonkers.

I thought the dream sequence of the Queen and Tony Blair was, I couldn't believe it made it to screen. Anyway, it sort of seems to me to have put to rest, the whole question of whether or not the crown is anti-monarchy or not. Because look at this clip, which really stood out to me from the very end of the series, when we have the late Queen and Duke of Edinburgh standing above what was to be their final resting place in St. George's Chapel. I found this amazing.

You were born ready. You are one of a kind. By contrast, this lot. The good thing is, it's not our problem. This is where we will be, you and I, right under this stone. We'll never hear the screams from inside there. Philipp. I found that clit absolutely amazing, Hugo Vick.

I can't think of a sentiment less likely to come out of the late Duke of Edinburgh's mouth than, oh well, once we're gone, it doesn't matter if the whole thing comes down. I can't imagine the late Queen thinking anything like that either. Do you agree? I completely agree with you. I think that if you had any doubt at all about what Peter Morgan was up to, that clip and the extension of it, literally, that was what he was trying to get across to us. That was the climax of the whole thing. Yes, he was basically saying after the Queen, it's all over, the party's over, they used that very word.

Oh, come on, you two. More looking to be triggered. I thought the last... I'm not looking to be triggered, I think you are. I just wanted to watch some good drama and I didn't see it. It was bloated, it was mawkish, but it was hellishly sycophantic. I mean, actually, with the exception, of that one moment when Philip says,

oh, the lock can go and scream away as much as they want one we're dead. Everyone, Harry and Henry. Hang on. Sicophantic. It was like watching custard. Apart from the first seasons, both the other actresses who played the Queen

made her out to be this dour, loveless, uncairing, absolutely cold. These last episodes were sycophantic. The only baddies were the outsiders, Mohammed Al-Fired, and poor old Carol Middleton. She was seen as this Eago character, social climbing.

slipping up the pole. I think she comes out of it all right. No. Mohammed al-Fide, you've got to admit it's kind of hard to make into a hero of the story. Well, they did in the series before. They were rather nice about it. They were actually, yeah. They turned on, which of course...

Because they didn't want to turn on to the royal family, that's why. It's true. I think Peter's looking for a knighthood, Peter Morgan. I tell you... That's so ridiculous. I mean, it clearly had from the start a very strong Republican agenda. I was thought when Claire Foy was doing it, that they were going to say, Claire Foy, the Queen, great, all the other

ridiculous. So after the Queen, goodbye. And that's exactly what he says in that last... And you've got to admit, once it went into this sort of weird terrain where the ghosts of Diana appears and gives advice to the Queen and then appears on a plane with Prince Charles. I mean, this drama wasn't exactly sycophantic about Prince Charles and Diana. Actually, I thought they made Charles seem sympathetic

and bearing in mind this was so clearly a drama. What it did was it spread the magic of crazy monarchy with a bit of Hollywood tinsel over the top, right around the globe. It actually means that our old family, unlike the Danish one, the one without a king that's abdicated in Belgium

and the other one in Spain, is talked about that young people know who they are, love them or loathe. I think it's been a positive, an overall win for the king. Hugo Vickers, you've written about all of the factual errors

in the early seasons of the Crown. Have you done the later ones as well? Or is that volume too long? Oh yes. No, I certainly have. And they were published in the Times, Times Online, and I shall publish them as an e-book. I made a YouTube. Okay.

Well, I did an interview as well about all the things that went wrong. I mean, if you wanted, you know, historically wrong, the Mrs. Thatcher scene went, you know, Jeffrey Howe, number's out of bed, he makes his speech, she looks depressed. The ministers say this. Come on. And then Dennis says the game's up. And then suddenly she says,

I'm going to go and see the Queen and ask her to dissolve Parliament to save my skin. We know she never did that. I just felt sorry for the actress playing Princess Margaret. Yeah. I thought her next was going to break. I thought he was just going to snap. I mean, they couldn't wait to. She had a hell of a time at the end.

Are we not allowed to depict old age and the cruelty of it and the difficulties? Is that persona non grata? I thought that was particularly disgusting, actually, the way they portrayed her. I really did. But then that's not the only one. I mean, the way they had Prince Philip being blamed for the death of his sister, which I know. That was also. Anyway, we might not all agree on this, but thank you very much, Tesson, Hugo.

Unsensored next. The police have proudly announced that they will attend every home burglary after 75% of break-ins went unsolved. What's shocking is that they weren't doing that already. I'm joined by the pack to discuss that next. Welcome back to Unsensored. I'm about to go and join my pack, but before I do, I'm going to do a quick fact check.

We had an interview earlier with Richard Kemp and Mustafa Barguuti, and there was some discussion about whether Mustafa Barguti had ever referred to Hamas as Bravely. fighters. And we've, he said he had never said that and thought it had been made up by Colonel Kemp. Turns out that in November 23, two months ago, Mr. Barguti said that the heroic steadfastness of our people and their brave fighters in the Gaza Strip. So, sorry about that, viewers. Mr. Barguti seems to have told us a fib. He did in fact say the words that were said by him. Anyway, over to the pack. Today we've got back, thankfully, talk to talk to him.

contributor Paula Roan Adrian and also the filmmaker and former commando James Glancy. Now, we've got quite a lot to get through. I want to start with burglaries. I was amazed by this, Paula. We discovered over Christmas that the police are actually now going to start going to houses that are being burgled and they're going to try to do so in the first hour because apparently that's better. Does this surprise you? Wow, I mean, I was shocked that they've just worked that out. Bearing in mind we've been told because there's been enough that have come out.

Even in October 2020, 3, we recently had a report from one constabulary, which said, you know, the best way, in London, Metropolitan Police as well, have been telling us in their own reports last year, best thing to do about dealing with burglaries is be on the scene, and when you're on the scene, make sure you seal off the scene, and when you've sealed off the scene, make sure you speak to any witnesses, etc. You know, all things that one would expect a police officer to do in a burglary, particularly when we know that on average we have got a burglary,

depending on the stats that you look at, one every 106 seconds? Yes, it's over a thousand a day in this country. Shocking figures in terms of burglary. Amazing. And they're just not taken seriously. I am a lone female who suffered from a burglary. And let me tell you, it is horrifying being in a house when somebody is trying to come in and to do who knows what.

It's much more than just losing things. It's a whole sense of violation. Absolutely. And of course it stays with you as well, not just after, of course, the event. Jane, I look this up, apparently 4% of burglaries, this is according to the home office, 4% of burglaries even result in a charge, which means lots fewer than that actually get convicted. What are the police doing? In my neighbourhood down in West London, I have not seen one Bobby on the beat and I've lived there five years. You see them driving past the speed. So it doesn't surprise me that they're not getting to the scenes of crime,

but I don't understand why they're not going back to basics. Apparently, over Christmas, statistics came out that prosecutions have been down throughout every police force, except for one in Manchester, where the guy's gone back to basics, where the police chiefs have gone back to basics. What is the tax payer paying for? Yeah, the Manchester stats are really striking because they've actually realised you have to, as you say,

go back to basics with policing, and it has effects. I was very struggling over Christmas. We also heard of this. There was a woman in St. Albans, and she got robbed, burgled in her home, and the police didn't show up, and she had CCTV footage of the guy who'd burgled her,

and the police weren't interested. It turns out that in her town, in St. Albans, which is about 128,000 people, there isn't a police station. Yeah. I was thinking today, where is my local police station?

Right. And so two questions then came from that. Why am I having to think where is my local police station? And then obviously, why don't I know where my local police station is? It's true. I mean, that did begin.

probably before austerity, but you think back to George Osborne, the cuts of fire stations, the armed forces, and your local police station. And it's got to be rebuilt those capabilities. It's true. We all used to know where you could go and report a crime if it happened. Now, look, I want to get to one other subject with you both. And that's the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is claiming a win on migration figures. He's saying that he has, the groaning backlog of 92,000 legacy asylum cases has finally been cleared.

I did, however, check, and it turns out there's still 99,000 cases in backlog. Are we just being kind of fibbed to on this, Paula, by a chance? Do you know what? I'm really concerned, A, about Rishi Sunak's memory, because we saw how bad it was during his interview in the COVID inquiry when he was cross-examined.

And now he seems his grasp of reality seems to be wearing very thin. Look, first of all, he told us that he was going to reduce the backlog. Then he told us, oh, no, no, no, what I meant to say was we're going to reduce the legacy backlog. So that was from June 22. Then we were told by Tim, Tom Persebook, forgive me, if I got his first name wrong, when he was front of the Select Committee in the beginning of December,

that actually we're going to do our best to reduce the legacy backlog to a number that we can attain. So there is just this consistent, unreliable information that we're getting for Rishi Sunak. And is Dominic coming to going to help him with that? Well, I want to read to you, James, this quote from the Prime Minister. In a new year statement, Mr. Sunak said, quote, I am determined to end the burden of illegal migration on the British people. Have we heard that somewhere before? Well, I mean, I keep thinking have they employed Alistair Campbell to spin for them

because it's just so disingenuous. They know they were elected to reduce immigration, legal and illegal. And they've pumped up legal immigration, and they've done nothing about illegal immigration. And so, I mean, the next election definitely fought on this, and they're going to lose a lot of ground to the Reform Party as a result of it. And you'll probably see, in fact, if Labor would not have got away with the immigration figures that the Conservatives have done.

No, absolutely. Immigration is far lower under Labor. So I think they've got real answers. And they've got a real problem going into the next election, haven't they? Because they came into office saying we're going to get migration down. Remember, we heard David Cameron say was going to get it down to the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands,

which was what it was in the 1990s. It's not that long ago. And they've got nowhere near. They've got nowhere near. And not only have they got nowhere near, but they are feeding us, again, this foolishness, quite frankly, when actually what they know is

that our economy needs immigration. We need people here to work. We've got a low birth rate, and that is not going to change for a generation. Well, hang on, hang on, there's also, Hang on, look, one in five people in cities, including Liverpool, Manchester, Lester. One in five people of working age who are capable of working are not working

and are being paid by the taxpayer to not work. Surely they can be made to work before you have to bring other people in from around the world to work. Plus, you have extremely low productivity. We've got advances in technology. It isn't a case of just import people to replace. I know we've got an ageing population. But what we're talking about last year is 1.2 million people coming in. Net migration increases by 700,000.

And the list for worker visas continues to rise. It continues to expand because we need more people. You know, this is a discussion that I suspect we are going to both, and maybe all come back to quite a bit in the years ahead. This is going to be a long year, by the way, for the Conservatives. Roll on May. May, somewhere. November.

November. Whenever it is, that's it for me. Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored. Good night.