Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Donald Trump Charged, Great Expectations, Woke Police Strike Again

Episode Date: April 3, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood is in for Piers and debate whether Donald Trump being arraigned be hinder or boost his bid to return to the White House. Rosanna also looks into why writers are jazzing up classics as BBC drama Great Expectations gets sexed up. The woke police are out again after shutting down a goat cuddling event in the USA, Rosanna delves into it. 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

Tonight, Peers Morgan, uncensored, but not with peers, with me. Rosanna Lockwood, we've got Donald Trump becoming the first ever former US president to be charged with a crime. But will this harm his bid to re-enter the White House or quite the opposite? We'll be debating that. The BBC has been slammed for sexing up its new period drama. Great expectations now coming with added sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Why do modern writers keep messing with the classics, though? Can't they leave the likes of Dickens, Dahl and Agatha Christie, well alone. Plus those pesky vegan fun police. They're at it again. They've shut down a goat cuddling event in America. Would you believe it? They say it's animal cruelty. The barma say no goats are being harmed. So what's the problem? Live from London, this is Pearz Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Good evening. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unscensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood. Just in thought you thought Pierce was in a yellow dress there. Today, Donald Trump, that's what we're coming to, though.

He boarded his private jet. He's flying currently from Florida to New York. He's the first American president to be impeached twice, heading to court now to be the first American president to face criminal charges. Now, is this over January 6th? No. Is it over the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago? No.

Is it over the 2020 election in Georgia? He tried to overturn that defeat? No. Legal fights in all of those cases are still ongoing. is over that $130,000 hush money payment. Trump made to Porn Star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 election campaign. So does this mean his presidential bid is over?

No, quite frankly. In fact, quite probably the opposite. It likely means his re-election campaign is really getting underway in earnest. Now, his team raked in over $5 million in the 48 hours after his indictment was announced over the weekend. And now this is the staggering pot. This really stood out to me.

Over 25% of those donations came from first time supporters to Donald Trump. Now, if there's one thing we know about the Donald, is that he knows how to work a circus. And what he is calling a politically motivated witch hunt against him by a Democrat district attorney in a Democrat state and one of, let's call it, the most bizarre offenses in his war chest, it's only galvanizing Trump's base more, and it's attracting new fans. And guess what?

He can constitutionally, still run. for president in 2024, even if he's sitting in prison. Now, the courts have a service to justice, of course. We'll get more details of the precise charges against Trump tomorrow in that court. Remember that. We don't really even have the detail yet. A lot of people already jump into conclusions here, but the question politically is this,

is this the right approach for anyone who is indeed seeking to keep Trump out of power? Well, from the results of the weekend, the donations and the support, seemingly not. So if it is a, quote, politically motivated witch hunt, that's got a hurt. Joining me now to discuss all this, author and commentator, Bonnie Greer. I could see you. I could see you nodding along to some of that. We'll come to you.

And conservative radio host, Ben Ferguson, don't know if you were nodding along, Ben, but we will shortly find out. Ben, let's start with you then. I mean, in all of this, a crime is a crime, right? Of course a crime has got to be tried in court. Well, look, the problem is there's not a crime that's committed here, and it's going to end up being thrown out. This is the dumbest case I've ever seen broad, especially against the former president. There's a reason why federal prosecutors did not prosecute this same crime when it was before them. The former district attorney in New York also in an interview this morning said he did not bring this crime against Donald Trump when he had four years to do it because he said he believed it was a ridiculous. charge. And that was a liberal Democrat who said that as well. This activist DA Alvin Bragg has overstepped here. Democrats were begging him in the final hours to not do this. Some of the biggest

allies of Barack Obama were saying publicly on TV, he's overstepping. He needs to walk back from the brink. So you just gave the biggest in-kind donation, I think in political history, with this indictment to Donald Trump. You're rallying troops behind him. A lot of people that didn't like Donald Trump, by the way, are giving him money, which you just mentioned in historic numbers. So I think this might be the biggest backfire in political history as well. Well, let's see if we can tip out the scales then with Bonnie here in the studio, Bonnie. Let's talk about some of what Ben mentioned then. By just discussing this, by just talking about the figures from the weekend, are we emboldening Trump's campaign? Well, you can't emboldened

Donald Trump any more than he's born to be. This is how this guy rolled. And I'm saying as a former New Yorker. I mean, Donald Trump's been in the fire for, you know, 30, 40, 50 years. They've even got a headline on the New York Times that was in the 70s about the trouble he was in. So Donald has kind of been in this water for a long time. And Ben is right. You know, courses is going to galvanize his followers. Anything would galvanize his followers. So, you know, if he ate a ham sandwich in front of, you know, whatever, that would galvanize them. So that's not the issue. It's also, if the Republican Party is crazy enough, to actually run him, which would be superb,

he's going to get beaten again. See, the thing is this, and I think that what's overlooked, the United States is a country of laws, not men. I don't know who said that, but that is a quote. The district attorney is an elected official, and the district attorney determines within his or her district what the law is. The feds don't get involved, and people from the outside don't get involved. Now, this case will fall or rise tomorrow in the court when the judge decides whether it's worth it.

And the other thing we need to remember is this indictment was brought by ordinary Americans, not by the district attorney. It's brought by the grand jury. So he brings the case, they decide, and then the judge says, okay, I like it or I don't. That's it. And that was a point I wanted to bring up with Ben. So thanks for explaining that, especially to our British viewers and our other international viewers, how the US justice system works. Because as Bonnie brightly pointed out there, it's a grand jury.

It's a peer of normal people in this court, Ben. The district attorney democratically nominated, yes. But if you are saying, as many sort of Trump supporters or GOSP supporters are, that it's a politically motivated witch hunt, and it's a sham trial, not my words, but the words are plenty of supporters out there. Is that not saying there's something wrong with the US justice system? No, because, look, grand juries are very much,

not connected to the backstory on these types of indictments. I'll give you a great example. The grand jury doesn't know that the federal government refused to prosecute and said there was no crime here. The grand jury also doesn't know that they are turning a misdemeanor into a felony. That's the problem with this case. You can get indictments, and there are countless hundreds and hundreds of thousands of indictments that have been thrown out immediately and or on appeal. You are in a very limited box when you're on a grand jury and your job is to look at what they put in front of you. You have an activist DA that's selectively giving you information. You don't understand the backstory here. You don't understand the Fed said there's no crime here. You don't know

that the former DA said there's no crime here. And you don't know all of these things. So when he comes in and he says to you, here is my case, they may not even realize that he has created out of thin air a felony that doesn't exist. This will be thrown out. Mark my word. It will be thrown out. And that's where this DA is going to have egg on his face. Ben, we don't know the details of the exact charges yet.

Of course, we'll have to wait for that to be until tomorrow. There's been plenty of leaks. Ben's also given the beauty of the grand jury system. They aren't a bunch of lawyers. They aren't people who went to Harvard law or Yale law. They aren't politicians. They aren't political commentators. They're Joe Blow and his wife.

from the street. And they decided that this needed to go to a judge. The judge then decides, no, this isn't, he might throw it out tomorrow. That's his job. The job of the people, Ben, let me finish. The job

of the people is determined what it looks like to them. Now, again, it could be thrown out. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. And that's the end of this story, until he's to tell the judge rules, if he rules tomorrow.

It's not the end of the story, because this political harassment has been going on since 2016. And by the way, Hillary Clinton, if you're going to claim that Donald Trump has committed this crime of misappropriating funds, I'm saying the prosecutor.

I'm saying the prosecutor. All right, let me care. Alvin Bragg is saying that Donald Trump took money and he said it was legal fees when it actually wasn't and it was a hush payment. If that is true, then you would have to go back and charge Hillary Clinton for the exact same crime in the exact same year

in the exact same place, New York City. She had the steel dossier. There's no shaking the head here. No, I am shaking my head then. Hold on. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Hold on. Let me just finish because people need to understand this around the world. Hillary Clinton paid for the still dossier. They labeled that in her campaign finance report as legal fees. She was found guilty of doing that wrong. And the. FCC forced her and the Democratic National Committee to pay a fine. And even then, a DA did not say that she should be charged criminally. That is exactly the same law that's being used against Donald Trump right now with the exact same thing. If you're going to dust that down, if you're going to bring that from the archive, let's just really deal with,

let's just really deal with what it is. Let's deal with what it is, Ben, let's deal with what it is. The DA, the DA of the day. this is not some kind of thing in the back in the day of the day decide what the charge is. This is an ancient history, mate. This is today. Now, somebody wants to come up in charge Hillary Clinton. Well, fine.

Nobody's done it. Let's bring it back. They're not doing it because this is political and they're going after Donald Trump because they hate him. Hillary Clinton, 2016, the same year they're saying this payment story. Man, you're talking about something.

years ago, too late, out of order, too late. I'm going to bring it to the present day. Six years ago, too late. Ben, I'm not trying to gloss over history. I see the point you're making, but let's bring it to the present day. Let's bring it back to Donald Trump. That list that we read out at the beginning of the show, January 6, Georgia 2020, the dossier of documents at Mar-a-Lago.

When you look at all that in sort of entirety, isn't it the case that the American people deserve a bit better on the behavior? behavior standards? I think they deserve better from activists. What prosecutors have been put in by George Soros who are trying to take out their political opponents, the leader of the Republican Party. And that's been their obsession since 2016. I also think this is a dangerous precedent.

Let me explain why. Are you serious? We are doing this. Let me finish. The fact that we are doing this, and I don't believe that anyone, by the way, should charge Hillary Clinton with a crime that we talked about earlier, I think you don't charge people like this because you don't like them. I don't think you weaponize like a third world country and communists and dictators and tyrants.

It sounds like some high school stuff. Where does George Soros come into them? What the hell does that mean? We're talking at a whole different level here. How does George Soros get into this? George Soros backed Alvin Bragg. You should know that. He was the top donor to Alvin Bragg's campaign.

Alvin Bragg doesn't get this job without George Soros. You should know that. Oh, my God. Oh, I can't believe. You should be on a high school level. The old conspiracy theory. I'm going to break in on the soros side of things because it does get very toxic that side of the debate. But I just want to ask them, ask Bonnie then, is it a politically motivated witch hunt?

Can you see a little bit of what Ben is saying there, given that this is a Democrat state, there's a Democrat DA in charge. Could you, are you able to bend to that position a little? Let no. and I'm going to say this to Ben because he's got the same name. Let me speak, sir, because he's got the same. Let me speak, let me speak, please.

I will give this to Ben, okay? A DA is elected and runs on a platform. And Alvin Bragg made no bones about wanting to get down Trump, okay? So, in that sense, in quotes, every DA is politically motivated. The deal is...

Hang on. The deal is you take it to the grand jury. The grand jury says, yep or no. If the grand jury says yes, it goes to the judge. Then the judge says, I like this or it's out, I'm throwing it out. End of. And that's how it works in the United States. Ben, yeah, I mean, you either believe in your own justice system or you don't. If you begin to pick away at these institutions of democracy. I believe in the justice system. But I also think that. They're bad actors in every sector of life. We've had bad actors that are priests.

We've had bad actors that are teachers. We've had bad actors in law enforcement. And who are Republicans too. And Alvin Bragg is a bad actor who ran on saying, no matter what. No, I said in every sector. Bonnie, I said in every sector, okay? And I'll go back to what I was saying a moment ago. Alvin Bragg ran.

And this is going to be the problem when he gets up into the higher courts on appeal. And this is going to fall apart. He ran and he was on the record. Hell, he was doing TV interviews the week he was in. inditing Donald Trump. He's a partisan guy who said, vote for me and I'll nail Trump. Ben, you show me Donald Trump and I will find you a crime. And by the way, he's wanting to run for governor. This is all political to have. He's trying to buy votes. Ben, can't you hear what I said before? Alvin Bragg has to take it to the grand jury. He doesn't bring it by himself. I understand that,

but we already talked about the grand jury. The grand jury has a very limited scope of understanding of the charges here. You don't believe in the United States of America's jurisdiction. Of course I do. No, you don't. Obviously, you don't. Obviously, you don't. That's why you're going to lose. Obviously, you don't.

Because if you're complaining about the grand jury, which is what you're doing, then you don't. No, I'm talking about the reality of what a grand jury is ruled and what is admitted for them. You're complaining about the grand jury system. And therefore, you don't. No, I'm not. Yes, you do. I'm explaining how a grand jury works. And the fact is when this goes to a judge and they see the by.

of Alvin Bragg and they see that he created charges at a thin air that are not felonies out of a misdemeanor that has already reached statute of limitations it will be thrown out and you guys are going to you might be right you might be right you might be right don't not the grand jury system you might be right but don't not the grand jury system there we go I'm saying the United States of America this has been fascinating to listen to to find out more about the system Ben Ferguson, Bonnie Greer. Thank you both for your insights, your input. We're just getting started.

Trump hasn't even landed in New York now. Going up next tonight, the new BBC adaptation of Great Expectations. Probably make Charles Dickens blush, with its scenes of sex and drug-taking. What was wrong with the original? Why can't modern writers? Just lead the classics alone. We'll be finding out next. Welcome back to the show.

Next tonight, if you were expecting Sunday night last night to sit down and enjoy some wholesome family entertainment with the BBC's latest adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic great expectations, Well, you might have thought again. The period drama was instead turned into a sexualised fantasy with the sight of Mr. Pumblechook being spanked by housewife turned dominatrix, Mrs. Gregory. Enough to make Dickens turn in his grave. We were wondering whether we should put a trigger warning

even before that's spanky, but the irony of that. Now, just the latest in a wave of so-called woke reimaginings. Gone with the Wind, set during the American Civil War. It now contains a trigger warning for racism. James Bond books have been rewritten to remove offensive references and Roll Doll's children's classics have, of course, also been altered to drop words like ugly and fat. So we're asking this evening, is it time?

We just left those classics alone. Please say, Bonnie Gris still joining me here in the studio. You had a good warm up. With Ben. And also joined down the line by columnist from Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens, he's written a fascinating piece on this in The Mail Online. and have a look at that as well. We're going to get the inside scoop now from Peter.

Peter, lay out your case to us about great expectations. Didn't live up to your expectations? Well, great expectations is one of the greatest books ever written, beyond doubt, one of perhaps two or three. And it lives in the imaginations for those who read it. All that imagination is fortified by the tremendously good film of it made shortly after the Second World War by David Lean, of again, probably one of the greatest films over it made.

And so there it is in our imaginations, which is where books live. They're not like sculptures or buildings which have a solid form which kind of change, or even like music, which must be played more or less in the same way, depending on the conductor. They exist, say, in our imaginations. And people like me object very strongly having our imaginations invade it by people who don't seem to care very much about the book. I don't mind if people want to write and produce and televise dramas about spanking and opium smoking and swearing.

and all the other things which go on in this rather draught series, that's fine by me, but they don't have to call it great expectations or to give it that, or to pretend, which is my view is what they're doing, that they're in any way televising or dramatizing great expectations, it's something completely different. He wants to call it something else, as far as I'm concerned, then I won't mind. But if he says it's great expectations, then I'm going to object,

and I'm going to object quite strongly, that this absolutely extraordinary, astonishing, heartbreaking, is represented to people who previously never experienced it, and I think that's in very great shame. So it's not a matter of taste per se or the spanking that's the issue for you, but it's being associated with this Dickens novel. Because anybody will point out, Dickens contained all human life,

and many of the things which happen in his books can be extremely ugly, and as David O'Ollovich, right, he pointed out the other day, in a very interesting blog, which I recommend, the portrayal of Fagan as a classical anti-Semite idea of a Jew in Oliver Twist and in the film of it is something which it's almost impossible to defend. Dickens wasn't perfect, and a number of the things which he wrote about were deeply unpleasant. So I'm not objecting to these things because they're unpleasant. I'm objecting to them because they're not true to the book.

the book itself is quite powerful and frightening and distressing enough without people putting in these modern preoccupations and without turning the characters in the story into something completely different. When I look at the past, I look at the past as a point of reference to see whether we're doing as well or better or worse than we were. I think the makers of this version of great expectations look at the past, they see something to be looked down upon and despised because everything that goes on in the modern world is better.

I think they have that the wrong way rough. Bonnie, let's bring you in on this then. Is it a case of poetic license too far? Well, I'm not, you know, I don't completely disagree with Peter Hitchens on this. I mean, and one of the reasons I don't is because I'm, you know, I'm a baby boomer. Okay, I'm a boomer. I don't know if Peter Hitchens is, but we were brought up on the classics. we were brought up on that great sort of Western canon.

So you read Dickens. If you didn't read Dickens or didn't know how to read Dickens, you were taught Dickens. I also agree with Peter Hitchens about the David Lean film, which is a masterpiece. But he knows, as well as I do, that the betrayal, I mean, not in that film, but the betrayal of Fagan in one of the other films

actually got it almost banned in the United States. So people have always done this. People have always changed things to fit the taste of the time. And classics have always sort of been manipulated. I mean, I used to teach Shakespeare in this country to people in the inner city. And, of course, you can't do it straight because they can't actually take it in. So you make it so that they can. And then they enter the verse that way.

They enter it in that way. And it's quite a beautiful process. And the classics are always sort of manipulated in a sense. I think, first of all, this is business. BBC One cannot exist on attracting the likes of Peter and me. It's not just not going to be there, okay? So it's got to actually decide what it's going to do. This writer, the author of Pecky Blinders, is a very successful writer.

He has got a following. So how do you retranslate this book so that people, they'll look at the program, and then maybe they might read the book, but that's not the BBC's obligation. The BBC's obligation is for you to look at the program, and people are doing it. Now, you know, the question is, is this going to harm Dickens?

That's the question. I don't think so. I think the generational point you bring up is particularly interesting. I'm a millennial, firmly in a millennial bracket. I actually did an English literature degree at university. So I've got the classics, I got them downpatter. And when I think about this and BBC making this adaptation,

to honest, I don't really care. I don't have to watch it if I don't want to. And let me tell you something else. Gen Z would not watch it unless it was like this. So these are all the different sort of categories. It is. But then let's bring Peter back in then, Peter, the point that Bonnie made there, which I think is also salient,

about sort of respecting Dickens and his mastery. And it's the point you were making too then. Does that bring an argument in almost for sort of regulation, you know, making sure that the classics can't be touched? No, I wouldn't want that. I think this is a matter of what I'm doing is I, I'm sorry, as somebody who has some small role in the... Brilliant live pictures. Apologies, Peter, will come back to you of Donald Trump, a former president of United States. This is his plane, his private plane, of course, landing in New York. It has been in the air since Mara Lago today. Bonnie is boogeing next to me on the desk. I've got to tell you that much. Shortly going to be touching down, wheels on tarmac. He's going to be heading, I believe, to Trump Tower in Manhattan tonight, where he's going to have a cozy night in his own bed

before heading, of course, the courthouse in Manhattan. Tomorrow, where he is going to face this indictment in front of a judge, in front of a grand jury. On these charges, that a $130,000 hush payment was made to pawn start Stormy Daniels. This was during the time of his 2016 presidential election campaign. Of course, we have heard from sources speaking to certain news networks

that there may be as much as 30-plus charges contained with this in this indictment. Nobody actually really knows yet until we see the details tomorrow. Here we go. We just want to show you this moment. The wheels landing on tarmac. Bonnie really is enjoying herself here in the studio.

Is it just that you enjoy seeing Donald Trump back in his spiritual homeland of New York, Bonnie? You know, Donald Trump was made by New York. He's a quintessential. If you can't make it there, you can't make it anywhere. I mean, this guy is from Queens, and he's always one. I'm a former New Yorker, so I'm telling you.

He was always wanted to be in Manhattan. The tabloids made him. All of that made him. He's back, and look how he's back. So it's fabulous, actually. I can't even tell you. Fabulous in different ways, I'm sure, in your mind. Just want to go back to Peter,

because we so rudely interrupted him for former President Donald Trump, their landing of the time. Peter, apologize for that. Was asking you about whether or not we should almost bring in regulation to protect the classics, to protect the great writers. Of course not.

They have to defend themselves, and we have to defend them. Those of us who love them and believe them to be valuable have to defend them against the barbarians who want to water them down, change them, turn them into something else. I think it would be a terrible, terrible shame if people grew up in this country thinking that this peaky blinders version of great expectations was the real thing. And this is the great danger that it will overlay the older book and the David Lee and Phil. and we'll displace it. And so I think, therefore, for people like me, it is a simple duty. We stand up and say, this is wrong.

We shouldn't do this, leave it alone if you want to make your... Do you think... Spanking and the rest, do it, but don't call it very expectations. It's a simple request. Bonnie, do you think people are fooled that it's the real thing? No. And can I say that one of the most moving experiences I ever had was when I was teaching Shakespeare to kids who wouldn't touch it.

and this was a classroom full of boys, tearaways. I got them to settle down. I did my technique. Then I gave them the first soliloquy. And I said, just read it. You know, I would defy anybody from the world's Shakespeare theater or anybody to beat what those guys did. Because they went into that text. And when you invite people in ways they understand and you put the text down in front of them,

nobody's going to destroy Charles Dickens. It ain't going to happen. But if there's a way that a door can be opened and it can be opened with a good teacher, then he gets bigger and bigger and bigger. I mean, some of the themes of Shakespeare alive and well today in Manhattan, one could argue. We've got tragedy. We've got the works. Bonnie Greer, Peter Hitchens there, speaking to us about the classics, about great expectations.

Thanks to both you. Coming up next, the American farmer condemned by vegan activists, letting people hug his goats. Is it animal cruelty, as they claim? We'll be debating that after the break. Welcome back to the show. Well, first they came for your Sunday roasts, then they came for your Percy pigs.

Now these pesky vegan activists want to ban you from hugging animals, apparently. This farm in Pennsylvania has been forced to abandon its regular hug-a-goat event because local animal rights crusaders can't stomach the idea of goat cuddles being pimped out for profit. But here's the thing, this farm doesn't kill the animals.

They say they aren't mass farming goats on an industrial scale to supply supermarkets. and they say it's a passion project, the money they're raising from these goat cuddles, going towards building a better barn for the goats. Let's get some more on this story. I feel there's a bit more to this. Join now by Justin Steinmetz,

owner of the family farm, joining us with a goat on his lap as well. We'll come back to you very shortly. I'm going to introduce Cheryl Petrillo as well from the rights group Animal Defenders. Cheryl, thanks also for joining us. Also with me in the studio, Talk TV contributor Esther Craig,

who and Jeremy Corbyn's former advisor, one of them, James Schneider. So we're going to have a lot of views on this. But first, let's get back out to that goat shell. We sat on Jason's lap. That's the only thing we really care about here. James, rather, sorry. Jason. It's Justin.

Does he ever name, Dustin? Justin is my name. Justin. Oh, right. Apologies. I thought I was asking for the goat's name. Floppy and Brit. Floppy and Brit. It's lovely to see you there. with the goats. This is the type of service you were offering. Walk us through it. What was your

plan here? What have you been doing with the goats and why have you run into trouble? We've just been doing goats snuggling since last July and always been well until we got some slack from some animal rights activists and, you know, things kind of went a little bit south from there. When you say went south, what impact does it had on you? We've been, you know, had to remove ourselves from some local events. And they've also removed us by complaining to the event coordinators of the actual events for one of them. So basically, we just had to step away from some events that would have brought in some income for the farm. Okay, so that's had some impact on you.

Obviously, this has garnered some headlines. otherwise we wouldn't have been speaking to you about it. So let's also bring in Cheryl and talk to her a little bit about this. Cheryl, give us your outline on why you've objected to what is happening at Justin's Farm. First, I want to say thank you for having me on. This is a huge surprise. So never in my wildest dreams would I imagine I'd be sitting here talking about this or with you. So nice to meet you.

So yes. Yes. So I'm a president of a vegan organization here in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. And there are the couple vegan or plant-based events that were coming to our area. And we were very excited to be tabling at them. And, you know, when the list of the vendors came out, we saw one that had one about a farm. So, of course, we're very curious. So we did our research. And much to our dismay, I see that the majority of their work is breeding, selling and renting animals. Cheryl, yeah, I have to agree with you. I never thought I'd be here talking about this either, but I want to pose that to Justin. Justin, do you want to counter that, that you're actually breeding and selling these animals as well?

You are a farmer, I suppose. but is it more than just goat cuddles? We are farmers. So we obviously use our animals to make our income and our livelihood. That's what we do. We do have some breeding stock as well as we rescue some animals. For example, the floppy that was in my lap earlier is a rescue. This is floppy.

And this one here is Brit. She was born on our farm. So, yeah, we do breed some of the animals and we do rescue some of the animals. And we provide entertainment and we provide a good time for people that come and snuggle the goats. As well as therapy, I actually have an emotional support goat officially licensed for basically emotional support. So, yeah, we do all of those things that they claim we do. Cheryl, I'm looking at these pictures while we're listening to Justice of the goats sort of being played with and cuddled. And, you know, I have a couple of pets myself and I cuddle them and it doesn't really feel like cruelty to me.

Am I just missing something obvious here? No, no. I mean, I will say any time that an animal is being used for whatever reason, so though it's potential for harm or something not good to happen, Looking at these pictures, yes, they look like, it looks like happy people and potentially a very happy goat, not sure. The issue that we have with the event that we did not want them to be president of our event, including the transportation of the animals, which can be very stressful, bringing 40, I don't know, I'm not sure how many goats Justin brings, but I think it's a considerable number. We were always concerned about that. and basically his business doesn't align with vegan values.

So that was really why we reached out to the event organizers and asked them to reconsider. And we did offer some other alternatives of sanctuaries that would align more with what veganism is about. Well, okay, let's see if we can find some sort of resolution, some reconciliation on the show tonight then, because you're offering some compromises. You said you already reached out to the stymetters about this.

Justin, talk to us about that. Did you see these compromises? did you consider them, or is it a case of you need to make money because you run a farm? Exactly. There was no compromise other than I did bow out of the events, so I didn't want to create an opportunity for them to pick it like they've done, like the extremists do. I will tell you that a lot of the people that were going to attend that event,

or both of those events were very upset that we weren't going to be there, including vegans themselves. I don't have a problem with vegans. I just have a problem with the vegan extremists that really want to put us down. Their group called the Animal Defenders of Lehigh Valley, they put out some information that was completely false, that originally stating that all of our goats go to slaughter when they're done, that we artificially inseminate and force breed,

and that just a lot of false information. So they didn't have it correct. So I don't, I'm not going to change their mind. I understand. So that's basically how it rolls around here. We're just going to continue doing what we do and provide an awesome experience for people. Veganism is a choice.

Being a vegan is a choice, and so is being a farmer. So I'm going to continue to do what I do, and hopefully we can find some sort of happy medium here without everyone getting up in arms and upset that we do what we do. And I don't try to force my beliefs upon them. I simply, you know, just doing what we do. Let's give Cheryl a chance to respond to that. Those allegations, Cheryl, that you put out some false information about Justin's farm,

which could have been quite damaging to him, but he's saying he can still coexist alongside you. Oh, I don't know if it's a really false information. So on a whole, I mean, you know, selling goats, you know, most likely, I mean, whether some of these ghosts go to a truly adoptable home or they'll live permanently, that may be the case. But I've worked at a number of sanctuaries myself with goats, and I've gone to auction houses in Pennsylvania, New Jersey.

And there are goats. typically go to auction, also known as eventually slaughter, after they're done being used, whether it's a dairy goat who can't make milk anymore, whether it's a rental goat who's not cute and tiny anymore, and maybe doesn't serve a purpose on the farm and won't make money. I mean, it makes sense. Farmers can't keep animals that they can't use anymore.

So where do they go? If we could... Correct, exactly. Our goats strictly go to other, homesteads, other farms. In fact, every one of our sales of our goats, when they're too big to snuggle, we have record of where they're at. And we actually link them to our Facebook page so our followers can follow the history and the story of where all the goats go. And they go there and they get to visit the goats on other farms. Not one of our goats have gone to auction.

Not one of our goats have gone to slaughter. We have proof and records of where they all go. So again, a false statement about where our goats end up. You've both had an opportunity to lay out your positions. It sounds like there is some level of harmony where you both are. We've been pleasure talking to you both. Cheryl Petrillo and Justin Steinvitts and Floppy the Goat. Thanks ever so much joining us, all three of you. Next tonight here on the show, Labor's Sikir Starmer becomes the latest leader

to get stuck into the thorny issue of what exactly a woman is. We'll see if we can sort that out after the break. Welcome back. Peers Morgan Uncensored. Rosanna Lockwood, that's me, for peers. Next couple of days, while he takes a well-earned break. Now, let's get to Esther and James.

There's still with us here in the studio. You were listening to the goat reconciliation piece we just did. Your initial thoughts of that before we tackle some more serious matters. What a wonderful, weird, diverse world we live in. And I think they were both goat lovers, really. So they could have come together in and cuddled the goats. I don't know what a stretch, really.

Interesting and fun. Some of us love goats, others love curry goat. So it's a wonderful and diverse world that we live in. I'm certainly on the latter side of things. But look, I wish I had those kinds of problems in the world where I'm concerned with the well-being of goats. I would recommend they don't go to a Greek Easter because I think both of them might be traumatized beyond repair.

And you know what? I live in the country. I do care about the welfare of animals, but I do enjoy eating some goat occasionally as well. So, you know, I can't bet. Cuddling a goat does look quite enjoyable. Let's get to some more serious topics at hand. We have, of course, got you in, James as a former advisor to Jeremy Corbyn,

representing something of the left end of the spectrum, and that's what I want to come to you first, because we did talk to viewers before the break about this story over the weekend. Kea Stama, of course, the opposition Labour leader, in some hot water over what a woman is. Now, we had these comments from him over the weekend. This was in the Sunday Times, I believe it was, where he said, yeah, around 99.9% of women are biological female, are women.

Of course, when you take that headline out starkly and say, yeah, and around 99.9% of women do not have a penis. It grabbed headlines. And I think it's fair to say, it's understandable why, because as a woman, I sort of read and go, well, 100% of women don't have a penis. But of course, we understand what we're talking about here. We're talking about trans rights. there is a little bit of nuance to this, of course, but Stama has found himself struggling with this over the years. Let's hear what he said in previous months.

Nick, I'm not, I don't think we can conduct this debate with, you know... Sorry, I've offended you in some way. No, no, no, no, I just... A woman can't have a penis. I don't think that discussing... this issue in this way helps anyone. So I think what we're seeing here is a bit of a pivot, a bit of a policy shift here.

You speak to some sources, and they've said, Starma and the Labour Party need to get on board with a women's rights message because the Labour Party have struggled when it comes to getting female support, according to some sources, James. Do you think that's fair? No, I don't really think that's fair.

The polling doesn't suggest that women aren't supporting labour, and this is a very, very fringe issue that isn't at the forefront of most people's concerns. Most people, regardless of how kind of flammed up headlines are, most people in the country are broadly in the same position, which is what you outlined pretty much in your introduction, which is basically all, you know, biological women obviously don't have penises. There's a tiny minority of people that were not born as biological women

who are trans women who become women. and really it shouldn't be bothering us terribly at all. Now, Keir Stama isn't very good at talking about it, and he's not very consistent at it. But then Keir Stama is not very good at talking about a lot of things, and he's not very consistent on really anything. But that's by the by. As the issue itself, it isn't this big, dramatic thing

that it gets presented in the medium. Really, a lot of the time I think it is sort of uses a distraction from talking about other issues, because basically most people agree. they're quite sensitive about the fact that there's this very marginal group in society, very, very small, that are different from most people, the overwhelming majority of people, their sex is their gender, for a tiny number of people that isn't the case. And really, it's not such a big deal.

As we're just saying, there's a rich diversity in human existence, and that's one of them. And maybe for some people it's a bit jarring, a bit different, but many things are. But it is the case that leaders are increasing. finding themselves tied up in knots when it comes to this. Maybe they don't have the luxury of having a few minutes to explain it, as you just did there. And you see that 99.9% headline,

and it grabs people's attention yesterday. Before we come to you, let's just remind ourselves it was the undoing, really, of Nicholas Sturgeon. My question is, are all trans women women? You haven't answered that question. Well, that's not the point that we're dealing with yet. That's the question I'm actually. But in the prison context, there is no automatic rule.

right for a trans woman. So there are contexts where a trans woman is not a woman. No, there is circumstances in which a trans woman will be housed in the male prison estate. So Esther, I mean, how should politicians, how should leaders be framing this debate so that the public understand that they understand that it's a nuanced issue, but also that they understand that women are women? I mean, I remember Rosie Duffield coming on here a few months ago talking about what her impression of Kirstama's view of this issue was. And he made it very clear that he does believe it's a fringe

issue and that not many people are concerned. But for some reason, we see it coming up again and again in the headlines, because you have issues like Eila Bryson, who was in a female prison, even though this is clearly a male rapist. You do have these spectacularly unique issues of women, or trans women in sports

that are clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. So the question is, why doesn't this go away? And it's because half of the population women who are predominantly affected by these issues because if you don't draw a line in the sand then really the public policy moves to actually if you identify as a woman

and public policy reflects that you can be in women's shelters for instance or in women's prisons and that does impact women in general and I understand why it seems like a fringe issue and most people find it difficult to see but actually when you are a woman and you are in that kind of those spaces or in those circumstances

is actually becomes quite an uncomfortable experience I mean listen I've said that we need some proportionality and how we talk about these issues because they're about 10 trans people in the UK. And so we shouldn't always make it a big issue as if they're always trying to try and force their way into spaces and all of that. But there is a small minority

that do make women feel uncomfortable in the sense of what spaces they can use. And that's something that politicians need to be able to draw a line in the sand and say, actually, when I am in power, your rights won't be rolled back. And it's weird because you think they're bigger issues. There's the cost of living crisis and all of that.

But we want to be reassured that if Kirstarmer was to become the next Prime Minister of England. You're not going to have a situation where Ila Bryson's in the UK can find their way into women's spaces. And that's why we have to keep reiterating it. I'm sick of hearing people asking politicians what a woman is,

but I understand why some women feel so passionate about it, myself included. And so I don't think it's just, you know, what Kiyosama thought it was originally, which is a fringe issue. I think that is something that would really hold him back. And I think he's been underestimating it for far too long. Fascinating stuff.

We'll continue to see them picking over this topic, I'm sure, in the lead up to the election. But before we go, we do want to bring you this important story last week. Of course, Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was arrested in Russia. The Kremlin, they claimed the experienced journalist as a spy for the US government. Now, the Wall Street Journal, who Evan works for, they strongly deny this. They're calling it a hostage-taking. We just wanted to talk to you about it, because, of course, it is a start reminder of the risks that journalists take every day doing

their jobs to bring you the truth. We too, at this channel, condemn Evan Gerskiewicz's detention. call for him to be released immediately. And we just want to speak to you to both about this as well. What were your reactions? James, I can see you noddling along there. Yes, there are hundreds of journalists that are imprisoned around the world who should be immediately freed, including Julian Assange, who's in prison here in London, who's probably the most significant journalist of the last 20 years, who's being held for four years in Belmarsh prison to be sent off to the US to face life imprisonment there for the crime of doing journalism. Of course, that is a a hotly debated topic.

We don't have time to debate it today, but we'd love to speak to you again about that at another point, because I think it is a reason debate to be had about Julia Sancho, where that stacks up against this case. Esther, what did you think when you read about Evan? I mean, it's extremely disappointing, obviously,

but it's not surprising giving the Russian regime's track record in, well, lack there of political freedoms. But I do think it's a stark of mind of actually how important journalists are. I mean, in the last few years, it's become kind of fashionable to beat on the media and journalists and, you know, trying to find true journalism, true journalists and journalism, and, you know,

them not doing their jobs properly. But I actually think it's a far more nuanced and complicated issue. And there are people really risking their lives on the front line like this individual was to try and get information out there. And I think we have to remember that. Thank you both, James and Esther. A lot of topics this evening. That is it from me for today.

I'll be back here tomorrow, Info peers again. Whatever you're up to tonight, make sure it is uncensored. Thanks so much for joining us.