Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Diane Abbott Racism, Harry and Meghan Circus, Black Cleopatra

Episode Date: April 24, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates about Diane Abbott claiming that Jews, Gypsies and travellers haven't experienced real racism. Piers speaks about how Harry and Meghan have orchestrated a circus surrounding suggesting that the media is at fault. Also Piers looks into the controversy surrounding Netflix casting a Black Cleopatra. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Peter Morgan. Uncensored tonight, Labour's Diane Abbott is suspended for incendiary claims that Jews, gypsies and travellers haven't experienced real racism. Would she flat wrong to argue that racism is, well, quite literally, a black and white issue or debate? And Harry and Megan blame the media, of course, and who else, were creating an exhausting circus by dwelling on past events. This is after the pair of them have spent the last three years whipping up an exhausting circus by, whining repeatedly about past events. Is this even by their standards, their most hypocritical statement yet? And Netflix faces a fan backlash for casting a black Cleopatra, but after scandals about straight actors playing gay roles,

able-bodied men, playing disabled characters, and Americans are playing urges? Should we care? Or is this actually the whole point of acting? Live from the news building in London, this is Here's Morgan, uncensored. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensor. Barry Humphreys was a lifelong antidote

to the sensitivity and scandal but now dominate our culture. For more than 50 years, he roasted, regaled and enraptured audiences in the UK, America and his native Australia. Quite simply, he was a comedy legend. They've found me a better seat, I'm sorry, Mike.

What is it? I've grown my hands. Oh, it's an ointment, I'm supposed, to use. I was just giving myself a quick application before the show. You're a man who speaks his mind. A man who refuses to learn from his mistakes. That's a lovely attitude. You have to wonder if the characters he played with such affection and comic mastery for half a century

would survive even a single night on air today. This was a straight white man who performed in drag to satirised snobbery in suburbia. As Dame Edna, he was merciless. No cultural. trope and no celebrity excess was ever off limits. As well as Les Patterson, the lecherous Aussie cliche, he was misogynist, racist, homophobic and about everything else in between. Yes, he was shocking and offensive, but that is precisely what he was mocking. And his audiences

were always in on the joke. Last time I saw Barry Humphreys was a few years ago at a star studied lunch in London. His guests included Liz Hurley, Tracy Emmon, Jimmy Carr, Nigella Lawson, all of whom were in regular fits of laughter. I asked him then if he'd had to tone down his stage act to appease the sensitivity brigade. No, he roared. Les Patterson is the last offensive man standing. I can get away with anything as long as it comes out of his mouth or out of Edna's. And he was right.

Barry Humphreys had a unique ability to mock his own characters, mock himself, and to mock the world around him all at the same time. More than once, he turned on me. Do you inspire strong reactions as I do? I quite like that. He didn't have to say anything else, sadly. But no malice, just mischief and joy of a good jape. I'm having the gall to offend everything and everyone with his self-reverential wit.

He made us ask questions about ourselves and our society that otherwise wouldn't have been asked. He'll be greatly missed, and so too will lend Goodman, another straight-talking icon that we sadly lost today. Like Barry Humphreys, Goodman fizzed with charisma and with fun, And with plain speaking, he had that special, you can't say that sparkle, which he exhibited perfectly during the late Queen's Platinum Jubilee. My wife did Coronation Chicken yesterday for our tea.

And I've never had it before. Really? No, I've never had, you know, curry and curry powder. No. My nan used to call it all foreign muck. So I'm always worried about it. But I must say it was delicious. All hell broke loose after he said that.

There were calls for him to be cancelled for being a racist. But if you actually listened carefully to what he was saying, he was talking about what his nan in the early part of last century used to say about things like curry powder. Not what he personally now thinks. And that's where we are in society. People don't listen. They don't care.

They just want to rush to judgment and cancel. As a master ballroom dancer and judge, Goodman also exhibited remarkable patience and politeness were only trying to make a dancer of the impossible. You want the hold? Yes, the hold, please. No, no, five points of contact. Okay. Just to start moving, Lenin.

We'll worry about the camera angles later. Little turn. I think Peir is teaching you. No, you are a knack. I am the new Ed Balls. I'm coming to the strictly dance floor. Oh, good to see you. He was famous to saying you're a seven.

He was a 10. And in Goodman and Humphreys, we've lost two great performers whose legacy should be that we should all try to be a little bit more like them. Risky, funny, honest to a fault, and allergic to all things woke. There are lots of humourless people in today's world who see offence and outrage where we used to see wit and wisdom. I launched this show about a year ago today, actually, or it's tomorrow,

with a clip from another dearly departed legend who some miss up better than anybody, the Australian cricket genius, shame warm. In this politically correct day and age, we've just got to be a little bit careful, but sometimes just say get stuff to the fun police. Exactly. So to mark the first anniversary of Piers Morgan O'Censored

and Talk TV, and to pay tribute to these departing legends, I'll say it one more time. Fun police, just get stuffed. We'll be talking about. We're talking more about Barry Humphrey's little later, including Dame Edna's prescient words on the royal family in an extraordinary interview with me at Williams' wedding. But first, the Labour MP, Diane Abbott's political future is hanging by a thread after comments she made in the Observer newspaper. She's suggested that Jewish people, along with gypsies, Irish people and travellers don't suffer the same racism.

They undoubtedly experienced prejudice, she wrote. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable. It's true of many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads can experience this prejudice, but they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheist South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote, and at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships. Well, Diane Abbott issued an apology for this extraordinary rant, with the ridiculous excuse that the remarks were from an initial drive. which she has so far failed to produce, which nobody believes actually exists.

Why would you send an initial draft to a national newspaper for publication as a letter? Labour leader, Sequea Stama, has suspended her for anti-Semitism. Well, joining me now as the journalist whose article Diane Abbott was responding to, Tommy Waugh-Omalade, along with Black Lives Matter activist, Imman Aiton, and former Labour MP, Chris Williamson. Well, welcome to all of you.

All right, let me start with you, Tommy War. an extraordinary chain of a bit. You write a piece for the observer and you make an argument that racism in all its guises is racism. Seems a pretty straightforward argument to me. And Diane Abbott, who, to be fair to her, has been subjected to a lot of racism,

particularly from social media, for being a black female MP. But then she writes this letter and the letter is not just tone deaf. In my estimation, when I first read it, I thought this must be a parody. someone trying to deliberately mock her. It wasn't. It was genuinely what she believes

that somehow you can't be subjected to the same kind of racism as a black person if you're Jewish or if you're Irish or if you're a gypsy. She didn't explain how, well, what if you're a black Jew of which there are a number of black Jews? Tell me back to when you wrote the original piece. Did you ever imagine that someone like Diane Abbott

would come forward and say this? Definitely not. And I think it's worth emphasizing that it's not just the case of Dan Abbott not imagining Jewish people being subject to the same kind of racism as black people. It's the case of her arguing that Jewish people can't be subject to racism at all. They can only be subject to prejudice, as she describes. As if you have red hair. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, unbelievably crass and energy. Extremely offensive. And many people rightly pointed out the example of the protocol which was one of the greatest acts of racial atrocities in the past century. And yeah, so she subscribes to a very strange but increasingly popular definition of racism, which only looks at racism in terms of what she would call prejudice and power. So certain minority groups can't be victims of racism because they're not subjects, they can't be discriminated against, basically, which is completely patently false.

When did you know about the letter? I discovered the letter about 11 a.m. yesterday. Yeah. Quite extraordinary. Okay, well, let's go to Chris Williamson. So Chris Williamson, you were an MP. You had to leave an MP over the whole ongoing saga under Jeremy Corbyn of this issue of how the Labour Party deals with anti-Semitism.

But today you were defending Dian Abbott. Why? Well, peers, in your opening remarks, She described her letter as an extraordinary rant. It was anything but an extraordinary rant. I mean, she was merely stating a fact. I mean, the truth is that Jewish people in this country don't experience racism by and large. And certainly not to the same extent as black Muslims and people from African Caribbean community.

And as you said in her letter that you quoted from, I mean, she talked about the way in which black people obviously. were subjected to apartheid in South Africa, and that didn't apply in the same way to Jewish people or people from other backgrounds if they didn't have black skin or pigment to their skin. So I think what she was saying was really stating an obvious fact, and it's been taken out or blown out of all proportion. There's a letter, 126 words long,

and it's been blown out of all proportion. by the usual suspects, exactly the same characters that came after me, that came after Jeremy Corbyn, that weaponised anti-Semitism. And you know, you talked about, you know, there could be black Jews. And you're absolutely right. There are. One of the most prominent black Jewish members of the Labour Party was Jackie Walker. She was the vice chair of Momentum.

She was accused of anti-Semitism extraordinarily and was suspended and then expelled. We had children of Holocaust survivors who were members of the Labour Party who were accused of anti-Semitism, bringing the party into disrepresenting. and were expelled. And indeed, the Jewish voice for Labor have done some number crunching and they've calculated that you're considerably more likely now

as a Jewish member of the Labour Party to be suspended or expelled than you are, if you come from any other background, as it were. So, you know, this is nothing to do in reality with anti-Semitism. This is all about trying to protect criticism or to prevent criticism of Israel gaining any track.

And what they're doing is conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I've let you answer at length. Why in that case has Diane Abbott unreservedly withdrawn her remarks and disassociated herself from those remarks? Well, obviously you'd have to ask Diane, but I suspect it's because she's trying to save her parliamentary career. People are running scared. The worst thing you can do is to apologise,

particularly to bad faith actors. And it's nothing to do with. I mean, they're not really concerned about, you know, anti-Semitism. and the truth is what they want to do is to destroy the last semblance of any support for the kind of socialist ideals and anti-imperialist ideals that Jeremy Corbyn represented when he was a leader of the Labour Party. Remember, the policies of Jeremy Corbyn called forward, were very, very popular. Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party after an investigation into anti-Semitism within the party under his leadership. And this included, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. This included the former Labour MP, Luciana Berger,

who described constant and violent anti-Semitic abuse. She said, Corbyn's supporters. I'm sorry. Well, hang on, no, you'll let me finish. Called me Judas, a neo-Nazi, an absolute parasite, told me to get out of the country and go back to Israel. Labor's John Manson said his wife had been threatened with rape by a left-wing anti-Semite.

Corbyn lost Labour, after saying the investigation was dramatically overstated. But that's not what other people think. When you are prepared to literally sit here now and defend Diane Abbott saying Jewish people, along with travellers and Irish people, were not required to sit at the back of the bus, given that we know 6 million Jewish people were murdered in the Holocaust,

including millions who were forced to sit literally in the back of buses and taken to their death in gas chambers, if you can't understand why... Well, I've just pointed out. If you can't understand why that is not... not incredibly offensive to Jewish people. There's something wrong with you. No, I'm sorry.

There's something wrong with you, Pears, if we're going to get personal. When you're trying to sort of conflate what Diane Abbott said with some sort of Holocaust denial, it's an absurdity. And just look, let me take you back to what I said. Children of Holocaust survivors were accused, Labour Party members were accused of anti-Semitism and thrown out the Labour Party. People like Luciano Berger, these are right-wing neoliberals,

and they're not, Zionists as well. Let's also remember that. Same with John Mann. He's an out-and-out Zionist, and they are weaponising anti-Semitism shamelessly in order to try to, you know, destroy that kind of anti-Pilitarious Socialist. But they're not, are they?

Just let me just make this point. Hang on. Piers, but there's just one important quote. It's really important you hear this one. Shillemar Aloni, a former cabinet member in the Israeli government, was on democracy now, 21 years ago, actually. And she was asked about this issue of anti-Semitism,

and she said, these were her words, It's a trick, and we always use it. And they use it, she said, in order to deflect criticism of Israel. And this is what this is all about. It's neither to do with concern about anti-Semitism. People like Tony Greenstein, son of a rabbi, says that Jewish people in this country do not, do not experience prejudice or racism. Actually, many, many Jewish people have stated who live in this country that they've experienced racism. And what Diane Abbott's letter did

was it said that what Jewish people go through is never racism, it's a form of prejudice as if you have red hair. That is a disgusting thing to have said about a group of people, six million of whom lost their lives in a Holocaust, purely because of their ethnicity of Jewish people.

Look, Diane Abbott's record is second to none in standing up to racism. In the same way that... She doesn't know what racism is. But that for that matter, Ken Livingston. She's no idea what racism Ken Livingston, in fact, Ken Livingston, uh, uh, uh, well, hold on a minute. I think somebody like Diabot actually has got more idea about racism. No, she thinks you can only experience racism if you're a black person. That's not true. It's palpably not true.

Well, no, no, no, well, hold on a minute. If you actually look for what she said, she said, she talked about bigotry and prejudice. People can experience prejudice. But racism is a different thing. I think she does make a valid point. So you don't think Jewish people have been subjected to racism, just to clarify. I think Jewish people have certainly been in the past been subjected to racism and certainly have been subjected to bigotry and prejudice. There's no doubt about that. But that isn't the case today. And indeed, look, you know, I'm speaking to a rabbi today.

In fact, he was doing a tour of this country, just flown in from the United States of America. And, you know, he's very, very critical. As many Orthodox Jews are actually of Zionism, and he said all religious Jews actually oppose the formation of Israel. And he similarly is very concerned about the weaponisation of anti-Semitism. It's not the weaponisation of anti-Semitism. It is the existence of anti-Semitism. And when people like Diane Abbott, notwithstanding her own racism experience,

when they deny Jewish people in particular, but also Irish people and travellers, all groups of whom have been subjected to appalling racism in the last hundred years, when you say that no Jewish people, get racism today, that is just not only a bare-faced lie, because we know they do, we know the rise of anti-Semitic attacks in both the UK and America is real.

So you're denying these people, you're denying these people actual racism. What are the statistics peers? And what you don't seem to understand is by doing that, by downgrading what Jewish people go through, that actually makes you anti-Semitic. But Jewish, but hold on a minute. What are Jewish people going through in the world?

Jewish people going through in this country, in reality. Why don't you ask them? Well, I do. I speak to many many Jewish people. I've just told you, I'm speaking to a rabbi. I spoke to people like Tony Greasstein, Jackie Walker, Cyril Chilson, the son of a, the son of Holocaust survivors.

His mother and father survived Ashvitz, and he was thrown out the Labour Party accused of anti-Semitism. It's clearly nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It's clearly, it's about denying, it's about denying the fact that Jewish people are subjected to racism. Let me bring in Imman, you've been waiting patiently.

Imman, look, I read that letter, and I was horrified by what Diane Abbott wrote, because there shouldn't be a competition for who gets the highest grade of racism. Racism is racism is racism. That's it. And Jewish people are subjected today to racism and to anti-Semitic attacks. We know this. So when people who have literally recently been members of our parliament deny that, And when people like Diane Abbott, who've been shout at cabinet ministers for goodness sake,

when they talk in this language, if you're Jewish or if you're Irish or a traveler, and you've been subjected to proper racism with very dangerous consequences on occasion, you find this sickening. You think, how can this be happening in my country? Okay, so I think, well, not I think. Her statement was inaccurate, ill-informed, ill-advised. It was an ill-conceived, clumsy attempt to explain the nuances and complexities of prejudice and racism. So where did she go wrong?

When she spoke about prejudice versus racism and, of course, when she alienated everyone in the process. So let's just be clear, what is prejudice? Prejudice is a preconceived thought. Everyone has it. It's unavoidable. And it's also the foundation of every form of discrimination you can think of, including racism, sex and misogyny, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. What is racism? It is the manifestation of your racial prejudice.

And that could be towards an ethnic group or racial group, which includes Roma, gypsy, travellers, etc. And how does all of this manifest? It manifests itself overtly, which is racial prejudice that is obvious, deliberate and direct. It manifests itself covertly, which is racial prejudice that is subtle and discreetic. It manifests itself institutionally.

Are you all using the phrase? Hold in a second, let me get there, please. Institutionally. And last but not least, global racism. So I actually am trying to tell you that that is the point I believe she was trying to make. I believe she was trying to... Hold on a second. I told you she made it clumsily.

She didn't make that point. You're giving her a pass and a way out. It's something she never said. No, no, no, let me finish. Let me finish. You spoke about the things that she referred to in terms of the ships, etc. What I'm talking about is the racist system of global oppression and exploitation of black people. That's ultimately what I think she was trying to get to.

that differs to the everyday experiences of discrimination. She clumsily tried to make that point and didn't make it. Let me bring some of a while back. You've heard varying degrees of defence for this. What do you make of it? I think it's still indefensible. And she was quite plain as well in what she said. Yeah, it wasn't ambiguous.

Yeah, there was very little room. I've seen people really working hard to try and give her a way out. She was inaccurate. She must have meant this. I think she knew exactly what she was writing. It's a letter to a newspaper editor. for publication. You know, you get every syllable right.

I don't believe all this initial draft nonsense. It's a lie. Yeah, it wasn't a sort of throwaway tweets or a Facebook comment. It was a letter intended for public as well. So I... You've heard someone who was a Labour MP until very recently just state as a fact that no Jewish people

have subjected to any ongoing racism whatsoever. That is a demonstrable lie. Yeah, it's a demonstrable lie. Because she was inaccurate. That's the point. She confused me. No, I'm talking about Dianab. I'm talking about the Labor MP

who just tried to do. Even still, you're still saying that it's indefensible. She made an inaccurate comment and felt to present her argument cogently. That is what she did. Look, we've got to leave it there. But the truth is, I don't think she stumbled or misspoke. She wrote a letter to a newspaper with quite deliberate phraseology. And then all hell broke loose.

Now she's trying to lie her way out of it. And that, I'm afraid, is almost as shameful as what she originally wrote. Anyway, got to leave it there. Tommy Well, thank you very much indeed. Who would have thought a column could spark this kind of thing, right? Quite amazing. Iman, thank you, and Chris Williamson. Thank you. Well, Onsense said next, should actors be able to play characters of a different race, sexuality, or physical ability?

Isn't that? After all what acting is all about? We'll be discussing the huge backlash to Netflix casting a non-Egyptian woman as Cleopatra next. Welcome back to Pizzleaw, Goose. The Big Budget Netflix series on Cleopatra has been hit with claims of cultural vandalism over the casting of black actress Adel James of the lead role. Well, Cleopatra's precise heritage is appointed a scholarly debate. There's no evidence that she was black and the casting has caused major controversy in Egypt, spurring a lawsuit and claims the programme makers are erasing Egyptian identity. It's not the first casting controversy.

We've seen, of course, although the backlash is normally the other way round. Brian Cranston was Lambastiff of playing a disabled character in the upside, as was Jake Gyllenha, who starred in the Prince of Persia despite not being Persian or a prince. And, of course, Eddie Redmayne, who is should have grovelling upon. for playing a trans woman in the Danish girl. So is casting Cleopatra as a black woman culturally insensitive? Should we care? Isn't the job of an actor, after all, to act?

Well, joining me now is legendary Egyptian comedian Bassim Husef and author of the case The Cancel Culture, Ernest Owens. Well, welcome to both of you. Okay, let me start with you, Ernest Owens. Off your go. Yeah, I think that this is ridiculous. I think that she is in full range. to play Cleopatra. I think people should remember that there was controversy when the late

great Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra, and people thought that it was inaccurate for a white woman like her to play the character. History has said that there is some racial ambiguity around Cleopatra's identity. She's definitely not white. And I think to even assume that Egyptians do not carry some level of African ancestry that can have darker skin complexion, is also historically inaccurate. So I think she's more of the ideal of what Cleopatra would look like more than Elizabeth Taylor would be,

and you didn't see as much backlash for Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra compared to that. That's a fair point. So let me go to you best. I mean, that is a fair point. Liz Taylor was the biggest movie star on the world at the time she played Cleopatra.

She was not Egyptian. What's the difference? Well, first of all, this was Hollywood before it was informed. This is where 1961 went to Cleopatra by Elizabeth C. We're not crazy about Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra either. That was also inaccurate. I don't know where do you get the idea that we're happy that she played the role. As a matter of fact, 1961, Cleopatra movie was banned in Egypt and many Arab countries

because of Elizabeth Taylor stands towards the state of Israel because they were supported them. So I don't know where does he kind of get this information. Second of all, this is the same Hollywood that in 1956 they cast John Wayne at Jankis Khan. So this is a time where Hollywood didn't know any better. Now, the problem for me, it's not about color. It's not about white and black. This is a very reductive way to talk about things. This is the way that Americans talk about it.

I'm very sorry. Like, I come from Egypt. Egypt has a very diverse color palette. People can look like me or they can look deeper skin tone like Anor Sedat, who comes from a Nubian origin. It's not about black and white. It's about the continuous culture appropriation and falsification of history that has been done by what the so-called Afrocentrist movement.

The Afrocentric movement started the last century as a way in a good intention to teach African-American about their rich history of West Africa, the great empire of Benin, of Ghana, of Sungali, the great empire of Mali. But the thing is, that's why you find people like Kevin Hart who subscribes to these theories, who claim that his ancestors build the pyramids. I'm sorry, your ancestors had their own wonderful civilization in West Africa. They are culturally appropriating my culture, calling the people in Egypt of today, despite their skin tone that they call us as invaders, they call us as intruders, and they are being erased from our own history. This is something that Hollywood has done over the years. I understand, but let me throw this back at you.

This point that we've had so many cases now where people talk about appropriation with actors, be it their sexuality, be it their gender on occasion, be whatever it may be. And ultimately, I always come back to one point, which is shouldn't actors do what their job description is, act? I mean, shouldn't any actor be able to play any part, actually. And once you start making exceptions for that rule, where do you stop? Is that question for me? Yeah. Yeah, well, first of all, this is not a work of fiction. This is a documentary.

This is a documentary. There is a huge difference. This is not The Little Mermaid, which is like a fictional character where anybody can play anything. The Kiliopatra came from a Macedonian Greek origin. And the thing is, it's not about like the skin color. As I don't, we don't care about if they're black or white. It's about how Hollywood is so culturally sensitive, and they're so sensitive about all kinds of minorities.

But when it comes to my people, we seem to be erased. A couple of years ago, they announced that Galgado, an ex-Israeli soldier who condones her government actions, the atrocities against Palestinian children. She was going to play Cleopatra. For me, this is even a bigger insult. And Galgado is not black. It's not about black and white.

It's about this idea of Hollywood always stealing the culture of my own people. I don't care what Charleston tells you in the Ten Commandments or Stephen Spielberg tells you in the Prince of Egypt. But I am sorry, Jewish slaves did not build a great pyramid. This has been debunked many times by two historians. Let me think is like, we are the only people who are not allowed to tell our own. We are the only people who are not. allowed to talk about our own history.

All right, let me bring, all right. Let me. I disagree. Hang on, hang on. Ernest, let me ask you a question, Ernest, which is, how would you feel if a white actor was chosen to play Nelson Mandela? I think that there is historical inaccuracies there. I think that, you know, I think what he's confusing is race and nationality.

And I also think that that is why you don't see as many black actors upset at Cynthia Revo, who is British, who played, you know, know, Harriet, because we understand the nuances of racial identity compared to nationality versus the identity of the African diaspora. So no one's upset about the fact that David Oniolulu played MOK. There may be some people, but others didn't because we understood the nuance of racial identity. So when we're talking about race and nationality, there's the two different things. But I think the issue that I want to push back on what he said earlier is that there are other actors in this film

that are playing Egyptians that do not look like Cleopatra or come from there. And I just feel like the energy being focused on Cleopatra is why some people are pushing back because this actress could easily look by identity, looks closer to what Cleopatra could look like. But the rest of that cast is fairly white.

And you're not saying anything about those individuals. You're only focused on Cleopatra who's being played by this black actress. But when you look at the other cast, I don't think they're all Egyptian. I don't think they all represent the cast. All right, let me bring in... Okay, let me bring back back back seven.

I mean, if this was in a theater production, I could imagine this happening without people creating much of a fuss. Is it because it's a Hollywood movie and Hollywood's put itself in the vanguard of cultural appropriation? It's a documentary. Hollywood has been erasing my people from... We have not allowed to tell our own history. And I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the gentleman.

It's not just Kilopatra. Everybody in that movie, her court, everybody who's supposed to be Egyptian, they looked like they came from West Africa from the south of the Sahara. We as Egyptians are being called intruders and invaders in our own culture. This has been going on systematically. I don't want to wake up one day and find a museum of the African-American culture and history claiming the stolen Egyptian artifacts in the British Museum to be theirs. And now I'm hearing that Zendaya, the very part,

who I would love her to play. But the Tindaya ethnically is half Nigerian, half German, and now she's gonna play, where are the Egyptian actors? Where are the Arab actors who suppose it? And the thing is, even like historically wise, you see in the trailer, it's like, I don't care what they told you, but Cleopatra was black. Who's that woman?

Why is African-American people are telling my own history? She is, there's all of these pseudoscience, and pseudo history has been going on, and it has implications. No, I am sorry, African people from West Africa did not build the pyramids. Okay. Kriyukhā did not like that. And also Jewish people do not build the pyramids.

It is time for Hollywood to listen to the people who own that history. So you've made that. You've made that. One more thing. I just want to say one more thing. Egypt, Egypt, Egypt had 30 dynasty over 2700 years. We had kings and queens from their kins. from the Kingdom of Kush, from Nubia, from Libya.

This area had bled into each other and expanded and shrunk into each other. I understand exactly what I mean when I say nationality or heritage or ethnicity. You both made your point strongly. It's an interesting debate. Thank you both very much indeed. Well, on the sense of next,

it's been a weekend of chaos and confusion over Twitter's blue ticks. I'll reveal what Elon Musk said to me about mine next. Welcome back to you, Piersville, that Elon Musk's Twitter has removed blue verified ticks for accounts previously deemed notable in an attempt to persuade famous and professional users to pay. Well, the move triggered outpourings of self-pity

from many celebrities this weekend. It was actually quite nauseating, as well as considerable confusion, as many blue ticks then reappeared, apparently at Musk's personal win. We're joining me now is Seth Dillon, the founder of satirical site Babylon B, which is a favourite of Elon Musk's.

I'm talking to you, contribute to Esther Krakka, a social citizen of Daily, Mary, Kevin McGuire. I talked to you, presented Nicola Thor. Let's do a quick rundown. Who's got a blue tick? Have you paid for it? I have, yeah. You paid individually? Yes. And you did two? I had one for years, and then it disappeared,

and I paid to have it back. Kevin? I've got one, but I've not paid for it. So we checked this out just now. It looks like your company of a daily mirror. My old paper may have bought a company account, and you've got one as an affiliate. So I'm like an agricultural labour with a tied cottage. Yes. I leave the mirror. I lose my blue tick. And Seth, Dillon,

let me ask you, do you have a blue tick? And have you paid for it? I do. I had the legacy one, and now I for it. So my situation was that I've got about 8.4 million followers. I was curious, what would Elon do with people who've got really big follow accounts? Because clearly we have a bit of bang for the buck on Twitter. And the truth was, we all got the ticks taken away. And then mysteriously yesterday, we woke up and found that everyone with, I think, over a million followers had had their blue ticks restored, whether you paid or not. Now, I was quite happy to pay, but I haven't paid

things down, but I've got my tick back. So what's really going on here? Did Elon just not get the kind of take-up from people with blue ticks he was hoping for, or is he just chucking stuff at the wall? What's going on? It's a really good question. There's a lot of chaos and confusion. I mean,

I wish I understood it. Honestly, I don't really understand why we're charging for verification. I do think there were problems with the verification system before. They were kind of handed out on favors. They were handed out. There were people who should have had them, who didn't get them.

So there were things that could have been fixed about that system, but abolishing it and charging people for it. I personally don't know what the value is to a regular user who subscribes to get the blue check. When anyone can subscribe to get it, what value does it really have? I mean, it conveys that you're not a bot, I guess, because you're willing to pay for something.

You put a credit card down, but doesn't the substance of your tweets convey that you're not a bot? Well, it does, but actually, I'm not sure about that. I think that when you saw them all stripped away from high-profile people, it was quite hard to know if they were the real one as you buried yourself into their feed. So I think it's the immediate identification of people who are who you think they are

and there are lots of scammers out there, as we know. What I was struck by was Elon actually direct message me personally because I raised a particular issue which is quite a few of the big phone operators in the UK are not supported by Twitter Blue. So you couldn't actually register to pay because they weren't supporting your phone provider. So he wasn't aware of this and he replied to me

we're looking into this, then he said that he thinks they fixed it. But before I could then go through and test that, my blue tick came back, which I think means that there's a balance, isn't there? Because when I see these famous people whining about it, paying $8 a month, it is pathetic. And also, I think they really do think they're the ones doing Elon Musk a big favor and the rest of us by being on the platform. When all of us, whoever we are in the public eye, we all get an enormous amount of value from Twitter. It goes both ways.

I mean, look at YouTube's model. YouTube's model is they share revenue with creators who are bringing value to the platform. And that makes a lot of sense. It means everybody wins because YouTube is bringing in the best talent and the best talent is making money and getting rich on YouTube. Nobody's really making any money on Twitter. I mean, you can drive traffic to your website, but you're not monetizing on the platform. And so Musk has talked about finding ways to do that, but he really seems to be looking at generating

revenue off these subscriptions rather than sharing revenue with content creators. I do think that there is a place for him to be rewarding those talented people who are bringing, who are engaging and are bringing a lot of people onto the site and keeping them on the site, making Twitter sticky. Those are the people that you want to be monetized and happy on your platform and sticking around no matter what silly mistakes you make or what you do because it's just too valuable to leave it. Right. Let's come to the panel of him in.

Esther, the problem Elon Musk has got, he's paid 40-odd billion for Twitter. And he said already the value is probably halved. So he's got rid of thousands of staff. He's trying different ways of monetizing it, but he's going to make it pay. Otherwise, there won't be a Twitter. Well, yeah, he has to make it count. I think one of the things he tries...

Why should it be free? I mean, why should... Of course. Why is the grasping expectation of the world now that everything has to be free? Especially because a lot of people actually spend hours on Twitter. So really, you should pay for it. Getting great content for free,

but also being able, in my case, to promote columns, to promote TV shows with all the residual financial benefit that comes from it, promoting books. You know, I just... I think it's absolutely a two-way street for $8 a month. I mean, it's a bargain, yeah. Yeah, but it'd be making money out of you because you'll bring so many pairs of eyes.

You can then sell ads. So it's a two-way-stree, but why shouldn't I pay? Well, you can't pay if you like. But maybe others can't afford $8. But it's also a balance, right? Because back in the day, people used to complain that Twitter was too vanilla because it just depended on, you know, ad revenue and sponsorship. But now it depends on the users who are actually paying to get their blue ticks

and be verified and ads as well. So you can have a balance of the internet. Nickler, what do you know when it tells me? I think it's so important that we have a proper verification process. The reason I paid from, well, I had a legacy account and was verified. As a women's rights campaigner, I had a lot of survivors come forward, whistleblowers come forward. They needed to know that I was who I say I am. So whatever happens going forward, I agree.

I think it probably could be quite useful to have some people paying for Twitter. Aside from that, we need a proper, robust verification system. I was impressed that he contacted me directly. I don't know him. I don't know. I've never had any dealing with it. He direct, basically, we're quite an exchange about this particular issue. Obviously, I'd then ask for an interview. And didn't get a no.

But I don't know. I think he's trying everything. I do think Musk is one of those guys, as with SpaceX and as with Tesla and others. Early on, he had a lot of teething problems. But boy, did they come to do. But this was a mad idea. And out of 400,000 people who had verified legacy accounts, only 500, including myself, actually paid for it as a result. Piz, I hope you get your interview, but it's all for him contact new shows.

He's running it in a very confused way without a clear strategy. Or he has a very, very sharp and quisitive mind about how to resolve it. Seth, before I let you go, if you were a betting man, would you bet on Elon Musk still owning Twitter in a calendar year? Yeah, I think he'll still own it. I'm not exactly sure who's going to buy it off of him. It all depends on what he ends up doing with it and whether he adds value. I think that he's gotten into a place.

where he said it's basically cash flow net even, like it's breaking even at this point, which is a huge improvement over what it used to be. He laid off a lot of people and he can still run the platform. In that sense, he's running it better than it was run before. It's certainly a lot leaner than it was run before. I don't understand paying. I get what you're saying about paying for the service. A lot of people, I would argue that we bring a lot of value to the service. So we're bringing something there already because we have a huge following and a lot of people who engage with us. But a lot of people who are using that platform, it makes sense for them to pay for it maybe, but why for verification?

They're not even putting up an ID when they get verified. I'm not even sure what the verification badge means right now. The whole thing is kind of confluited and confusing. But what Musk is doing is hysterical the way he's trolling these people. It's all entertaining. Well, the best one was Stephen King. It's very entertaining. So Stephen King was trying to score points by saying, you know,

I don't want this money because he gave him a free blue tick. I don't want your largesse, you know. I want you to donate money to Ukraine. And Elon Musk responded by saying he's donated 100 million. to Ukraine. That is a bit of a slam dunk. A slam done a bit of trolling right there. Seth, could we just talk to you again.

Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Well, on the sense of the next, Harry and Megan. Oh, God. They spent the last three years creating a circus through interviews, an exhausting circus, through books, TV series, and so on. But according to them, it's the British media, once again, that's to blame it's us that is on our own creating the exhausting circus.

Not then with their antics. We'll debate that after the break. Welcome back to Piersburg and our censored. Harry and Meghan blame the media again, of course, for creating an exhausting circus by dwelling on past events. You've got all that, haven't you? The brass neck of it. They were responding to an article published in Telegraph over the weekend,

which said the Duchess of Sussex didn't feel she received a satisfactory response to her concerns about unconscious bias in the royal family in a letter to the king. That's the same unconscious bias, which Harry now says, was never intended to mean racism. God forbid. In response, Team Sussex said,

Megan is going about her life in the present. Any suggestion otherwise is false and frankly ridiculous. And they encourage tabloid media to stop exhausting circus that they alone are creating. I'm back with us to Kevin and Nicola. Nicola, let's start with you on this one. Apparently, it's the media creating the exhausting circus surrounding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Your thoughts? Absolutely. I would agree with that. Oh, please. I would agree with it wholehearted. In this case, this was a letter that was written. Did we go on Oprah? Did we do a six-part Netflix series? Did we do a 420-page

Wineathon Kiss and Tell book? Not at all. Did we go on James Cordon on an open-top bus around Hollywood while bleeding about privacy? Did we do any of these things? Did we trash our families? Did we trash the monarchy? Their side of their story, a story that had been told by the tabloid media on their behalf, not necessarily with their consent,

for many, many years. It's disingenuous of you, peers, to say that we don't. don't in the media create a circus around this. A lot of our jobs depend on it. Esther, it's all awful. I think, I don't think it's fair for them to create all the circus with the Netflix deals and all of that and then feel like now is the time

that they get to switch it off, right? That is how it works. If you, if you choose to do this, if you choose to invade your own privacy and many other people's privacy in this way, you cannot then turn around and tell them, actually now it's enough. Now it's enough, we have to move up. But they're not just saying it on their own sake. They're saying it on behalf of the king as well.

If this is old news. It's just what I loved about the original... But you can't turn it off. But the original story was so great that Megamark was unhappy with the response from a man who's about to be king of his country, ground. I mean, for God say, who do you think you are? Kevin, I'm going to spare you any royal janet.

I want to talk to you about this. This is Rishi Sunak and is, well, I'm not quite sure what you call it other than something Kim Jong, I'm going to be proud of. This is him just traveling around while with a bunch of police on bicycles. Let's just watch a bit of this. They're running.

they're cycling. It reminds me when the Secret Service ran by Trump. Do you remember? And then Kim Jong-un had this kind of thing. And then some of the middle of it all, a little car with Rishi Sunnack in it. Is he getting delusions of grandeur here, Kevin? Rishi Jong-ung was worried

that extinction rebellion protesters were going to jump out and stop his car. There's the split screen. That's why... It's ludicrous of that. Kim Jong-un on the left. And on the right, just a bunch of... At least he had cycling.

It's so weird. But I admire the fitness of some of those metropolitan police officers. They didn't have to run far. Why not just have the normal motorbike outriders? It's the epitome of small man syndrome. He is a short blow. He has to make up for it. Listen, I'm very disappointed you're being so sizes.

Oh, okay. Really, picking on someone because of their height is very unlike you, Nicola. Given just how much virtue you have signalled over the years. Do you mention Extinction Rebellion? I can't let this go. This is absolutely hilarious. So you remember I said on Thursday

what a bunch of frauds they all are and how they never practice what they preach these people? So the son revealed that Gail Bradbrook, one of the leading Extinction Rebellion drivers, that she drives a diesel car and buys imported food wrapped in non-recyclable packaging. There she is caught in the supermarket. This is Waitrose.

I was in there myself today. disobeying every rule that she lectures the rest of us about. Esther? Well, it's to be expected. But this is the thing, though. Most extension of rebellion or eco-activists tend to be actually from very privileged backgrounds. I mean, the guy that invaded that snooker tournament, he apparently grew up in a very lavish part of Cambridge

and, you know, went to private school. It's not surprising. That's how they have the time to... Some of the fruits she had was flown 17 and a half thousand miles before she got into a diesel car. I can't... And he defended? It's a defence. Nothing.

He's not another. Very little. Nicola, given you're now the chief defender of the indefensible, great chance to defend this. Given the society we live in, I think it would be impossible for her to live a life that wasn't in some way hypocrites. So rules for me, but not for thee. Well, she's trying to make, I suppose, it's not a good look. I'm taking you with you. Not a good look.

It's brazen, flaming hypocrisy. But she doesn't decide where waitrose sourced their freedom bed. Where she... Nicol, it's great to have you, mate. You're dead. You're dead. come back. Last time didn't end so well between you and I. We're making progress. Kevin, Esther, good to see you both. That's it for me. What are you up to? Keep it uncensored. Good night.