Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Duke and Duchess Sussex PR, Boris Inquiry, Eco-Protesters at The Derby

Episode Date: June 1, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood is in for Piers and debates whether this is the end of the civil war or another PR stunt by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Rosanna looks into the Boris Covid Inquiry and his Whatsapp messages. Also Rosanna delves into how Eco-Protesters are looking to disrupt the Epsom Derby. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am Rosanna Lockwood, uncensored tonight with insiders claiming Harry and Megan will stop publicly criticising the royal family because they've got nothing left to say. We ask, is this an olive branch that could finally end the Windsor Civil War or is it just another push for publicity? The UK government are taking the COVID inquiry to court. So what's really happening to Boris's WhatsApp messages? Isabel Oakshot, Richard Tyson, Avicentina. Join me to talk politics as the standoff continues. And with eco-protesters, all set to disrupt another big horse race this weekend, I'll be asking a former jockey, a racing specialist and a member of the eco-mob

if they're pushing the British public to breaking points. Live from the News Building in London, this is Piers Morgan Unsensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Oh, that sprint never gets any shorter, does it? Happy Thursday. Welcome to Piers Morgan Unsensit. with me, Rosanna Lockwood, sitting in the chair for the big man once again and for a final time for this week. And with a topic dear to his heart, Harry and Megan,

the never-ending soap opera that some people cannot get enough of and some people would rather see and hear less of. But I suppose that's really the point, isn't it? Even if you're fed up with it, they're just always there, this ceaseless, circular feast between the couple and the media they say they hate. When they're in charge, it's the sit-down confessionals with Oprah. the unsparing tell-all memoirs and the reported $100 million multi-year Netflix contract. But now we're supposedly going to hear something different from them.

Let's take a listen. Got that? Sorry. The panel are laughing. It's the sound of silence. We'll come to the panel shortly. Yes, it is the sound of silence. According to new reports,

Harry and Meghan have apparently decided to stop criticizing the royal family in books or on TV because there's just nothing left to say. So is this a sign that this sort of real-life game of thrones between the House of Suttox and the House of Windsor is finally over? Is it checkmate to the king and the king to be? Or are these claims just part of a wider PR strategy? Let's remember what the South Park creators made of all this.

We want privacy. We want private sex. We want private sex. Now, of course, not everyone believes Harry and Megan will or ever can stay stum. Mr. Pierce Morgan himself, sharing his views on Twitter today on the Sussetik staying silent. You got the reference there.

I'm sure you do. I don't explain that one. Me, personally, I suppose a bit of silence would be nice. I mean, I'm ever the optimist. I do like to see people fulfil their dreams. And if that means, at last, a classy, quiet retreat from public spectacle and an end to the repeated attempted dismemberment of the British monarchy, then, sure, see yourselves out, enjoy life in California, shut the door quietly.

but I do have a suspicion that peers might win this bet. Here to discuss what all of this means, I'm joined in the studio by Richard Fitzwilliams, public relations consultant and world commentator and talk TV contributor Paula Rohn, Adrian. Always great to see you both. And going to Mike Paul first, President Seer of Reputation Doctor Down the Line,

joining us from the US this evening. Mike, we'll start with you. Is it, were you sold on this, these reported sources saying that Harry and Megan are kind of done with being out there? Whenever you say you're done for life, I always have a warning for any client that's in that kind of a situation.

But I think we need to remember the two pieces that really tie to why they were upset in the first place. And it was tied to remarks about their children and remarks that were filled with race, really, racism. If those two issues are off the table, dealing with the royals, and of course we know historically, that's not how it's gone. Then I think they have an opportunity.

But I think we need to look for the future to still have those two issues, discussions of the children that might not be something that they accept, especially from a race perspective. And of course, Harry marrying a woman who is biracial and race always being a part of the issue. I think you raised an interesting point. There is worth remembering where this all comes. Of course, from Harry's point of view, well. He always brings up, obviously, his upbringing, what happened to his mother.

Those are the reasons he uses, you know, in his long-running battles with the press and with the media as well. I want to come to Paula in the studio to react to some of what you've said there, Mike. Do you think that's fair, Paula, that, you know, that is what will keep the discussion going, the children and the race issues? And, of course, the press. And the press's reaction. Because let's not forget that when we have a story like Megan and Harry, It's the press and their ability to manipulate that story, manipulate the narrative. I think that's what's going to be pushing this.

So, for example, you spoke about in your introduction, about the privacy. We saw the South Park clip about privacy. Nowhere in Harry's speech when he finally said, afraid we've got to go, guys, nowhere did he say in that speech, I am going, I'm leaving the royal family, I'm leaving this country to lead a private life. That's not what they said. In fact, they said the absolute opposite. They said they wanted to continue their charitable work.

They said they wanted to continue the royal legacy because they weren't able to do that. And we also have to remember that this is a family, this is a man who lost his mother and wanted to protect his wife, a wife who has received death threats, real death threats. People are in prison now, serving sentences for those death threats. Of course he wanted to and needed to speak out. So Richard, let's come to you on this, because that is what Paul is pointing out,

a battle between the media and the Sussexes here, and what is the ultimate resolution. And often the complaint that you hear, contrary to what Paul is saying, is that they have demanded that they be left alone, and yet they still keep putting themselves out there. Well, firstly, the idea of the silent Sussexes, it's an interesting concept, but I certainly don't entertain much hope that we are going to get it, because there are several issues involved here. Now, the first one, regarding spare, which I have to say I wondered who'd advised, Harry,

issues such as how he lost his virginity, the drugs issue, which is going to be raised in court in the United States, as to how he entered and so forth, and then, of course, a penile frostbite, that sort of thing. I mean, I wondered, saying how many people and how many Afghans he'd taken out, that was extremely ill-advised, so you wondered who was advising him. But on this particular issue, what we're seeing is very much someone who's, I think, a campaigner. Now, he believes that with regard to the press, as you were saying, I mean, it is something that he feels very deeply about. He actually believes it's his life's work he's called it to clear up the clean up what he sees as the origin stables of the British media. There are several court cases, no less than five, three of them again.

to media groups either about to start or having started. And what we've seen is, I think, a very, very bitter, Harry. But on the other hand, don't forget the contract with Random House because here's another danger. If the Royal Family, for one second, think that they, Sussexes, are necessarily placated because they haven't received the apology they hoped for. It was a four-book deal we've been told with Random House. Megan could write a memoirs.

Harry could have a book out of the 800 pages. We only had 400 in the spare. He could write about his childhood. So we've a lot to play for, so to speak, so far as the Sussex is in the international arena concerned. Let, coming back to Mike, what you're thinking when you're hearing all of this. I mean, so far, we haven't had, I think, any extreme views, which you sometimes get in debates about Sussexes of sort of just everyone just wants them to shut the hell up. We're hearing pretty balanced remarks here about the problem.

and the relationship with them? I think it's important to understand some key terms like leaks. That's what those cases are about. So let's be accurate about why Harry is so upset. And he wants the world to understand, quite frankly, how the tabloids work in the UK with a lot of leaks, even from family members releasing some of those leaks. And that was also in the book.

The comments that recently came out about having a different view and saying we're done with it was, really about attacks that dealt with race, children, and various crisis issues that were tied to the sexists. Not everything. So let's not throw the baby in with the bathwater and say that they're not going to speak at all and they're never going to come out of the house. Of course, that's not what we're talking about. And yes, there are different kinds of books that can be written. And they can also produce things for Netflix and not only be the stars a bit in defending. But I would say this. I don't think Harry and Megan are ever going to give up the opportunity and the responsibility to defend

themselves and their children if they have personally attacked with lives. I don't think that is ever going to end. And Mike, they're perfectly entitled to do that, as you said, and they are private individuals and they have a certain amount of celebrity brand. Of course, I want to ask you from your reputation specialism point of view, do you think it's been a successful rebrand for the to them in the US and here in the UK? To date, no. And the reason why is the root of their brand, especially Harry's, that trips into Megan's and to the children,

is at its core, Roy. Not American, not a reality star, not a defender of various things that he's even gone through in life. If your brand at its core is warrant and you take that away, your brand is, your brand is damaged. What you need to do is leave open the opportunity or potentially, like some have said in the media most recently,

that you might rejoin the Royal Family in Fulner, that you might still move back to the UK, that you might still have a mea culpa that earns your way back into the rural family in a very different way, quite frankly, the way that the King had hoped that it would be original. Mike, I'm going to come to the voices in the studio because you've got two people here in Britain

shaking their head vigorously to some of the things you're saying and I think it's to do with Paula, Harry coming back to the UK and his relationship with the royals. I did want to slightly disagree with Mike on this one because remember we had the people's princess. Diana took a very bold move and she left. And she not only left the royal family, she left this country.

And we were told that that was absolutely her plan was to live away. from this country. And in effect, it's sad to see that Harry has had to take that same path in order to do what he thinks he needs to do to protect his wife. And coming back to this issue, this relationship with the press, ultimately, I was intrigued at the way the story was being sold today. Oh, he's finally going to stop talking. Oh, he's finally going to shush. Oh, he's finally not going to say anything. The press aren't going to leave him alone. The press aren't going to leave her alone. And any time they dare to open their mouths about anything,

She straightened her hair, Rosanna, and it made front headline news. Of course, it's important business, Paul. Their hair straightened. Apparently it is. Apparently it is. It's so important. The enormity of the brand, it's very interesting. Because when one's thinking of how well they're doing,

the extremely controversial, near catastrophic car chase, which I think much of the horrible experience, there's absolutely no doubt. And there's no doubt it brought memories of Diana back. I mean, the paparazzi, in my view, were lower than vermin. Richard, do you agree that it was near catastrophic? Because there were reports.

No, not necessarily there. Some recollections may vary on that point. Indeed, none of us were there, but near catastrophic was the wording they used. It was debunked a little bit by some reports afterwards. It certainly hasn't been backed up as the exact title. But what interests me is the positively frenetic media interests worldwide in them. And there's absolutely no doubt as Harry goes through these various court cases. We also, as I say, we could see further books.

So far as Netflix's concerned, we saw a six-hour docu-series, which I don't think was particularly helpful, although it wasn't desperately harmful. But spare was him going spare as I saw it, and those interviews as well, so many were so damaging to the world. Let me ask you, from a subjective point of view, Richard, because you've watched the world for most of your career. Do you want to see Harry go silent and disappear?

Would you think that would be better for him? I don't think that he and Megan, any intention of doing that. But do you want them? What I want to see is them ceasing to attack the royal family because what we've had is a form of guerrilla war over a period of time since they stepped down and it began with Oprah and subsequently of course we've seen a lot of it recently but the thing is the palace can't fight back not easily the moment. Of course they fight back sources say sources say the palace cannot fight and they fight hard. The palace can't make statements, and if they can't make statements, the problem is, the Sussexes then can control the agenda. And that is what they're superb in doing. And that is what I fear we've got this rift.

And I fear it's going to go on. I wish it had never happened. Believe me. Of course. Yeah, you know, there are subjective points on this. There are the facts and there is everything else. And there is the reputation of brand issue. We've been very pleased to be joined by Mike Paul in the US this evening on this as well.

As Paula and Richard here in the studio, thank you so much for joining us for this talk. unscensored next tonight. Where are Boris's WhatsApp? The government have them, but will the public or the COVID inquiry ever get to see them? Or at least the ones from pre-20201? We'll get to the bottom of that next. President, First Lady, thank you both very much indeed. Prime Minister, thank you very much for inviting me into your lair here. Comes out and does the mad team. Everyone has something to say. Not a mad thing. Is it time to say something? Because I like it.

How simple is that? Well, don't say that in public. Welcome back. To Pearce Morgan Unscensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood, sitting in the chair for Pierce tonight. Now, the government is going to take this COVID inquiry to court. Yes, you heard me right over its demand for Boris Johnson's WhatsApp messages and documents. This was during the time of the COVID pandemic.

Now, officials were given until 4pm this afternoon to hand over all that information, passed to them by the former Prime Minister. So supposedly Boris handed over what he had to the government of first. officials, they were going to hand it over to the inquiry. We're waiting until 4pm to see if that happened. Well, there's a few gaps in this. Let us tell you that. The government has refused to disclose certain elements of the material to the inquiry, and even Boris Johnson himself suggested. He was willing to hand over the messages himself, but there's still some disclaimers in that as well. Let's go into this with our pack. It's a complicated story, I promise you, it's interesting.

Here in the studio, where this is Reform UK leader, Talk TV presenter, Richard Tice. Talk TV's international editor, Isabel Oakshot. The woman behind, of course, the lockdown files, quite the person to speak to it on this, and political journalist Ava Santina as well, also a good voice on this. You all are. There's no preference here, but I do have a preference for Isabel today and pray. Because, Isabel, let's remind our viewers,

did some reporting in which she released Matt Hancock's messages from the time of the pandemic. It's called the WhatsApp files, I believe. Many of which were actually with Boris Johnson. And Boris Johnson is in various WhatsApp groups that I obtained from Matt Hancock. So I've actually seen a lot of Boris Johnson's WhatsApp messages. I am astonished that the government has taken this step. You said it's complicated, and in a way it is, and in a way it's quite simple. The simple version is the government does not want the COVID inquiry to be very revelatory.

I think we know this because there's no deadline on the inquiry. They basically just want it to go away. So the last thing they want is the judge in the COVID inquiry, seeing all the secret messages that went between the prime minister and other minister, during the pandemic. That's how many, many decisions were made. They were made via WhatsApp. So the government is trying to keep that quiet.

The complication here is that this is a government appointing a new judge to try to stop the judge they, the government, appointed to conduct the COVID inquiry from doing the job they asked her to do. Try and get your head around that. Indeed. And it seems like it would set a very dangerous precedent, Richard. It's unbelievable.

Yeah. The government is suing the... own judge that the government appointed. You couldn't make it up. This is a complete abuse of power by this government. It doesn't want the truth exposed. The reality is the inquiry would be better just to look at all the WhatsApp messages

from the key players and nothing else. It could do that, frankly, by the end of this year and that would tell us the lessons we lead to know. It's doing exactly the opposite. I think the challenge is on some of the former cabinet ministers who were involved at the time. They should actually take it into their own. hands and give the messages to the inquiry.

Voluntarily. And a few of them have said, I think a few of them have said that that is the right thing to do. I don't think the government's position is going to hold. You must be a little, a teensy bit impressed that Boris Johnson has volunteered his messages. I don't, I would be if I actually believe that he'd handed over everything. I mean, I think there's like a large part of me that thinks that he's possibly, you know, also gated a few or he might have kept a few dots up. There's a second phone, there's a third phone.

You're questioning his honesty. Well, there maybe a lot was done on telegram or another platform, which is not what's that. Eva, and the other thing on this is, of course, the taxpayer will be footing the bill for a lot of what is going this, for all it's going on. And I'm feeling like this entire conversation is entirely one-sided. But who could be in the camp of the government right now that is doing this? And the general public watching this and thinking, hang in a minute, just give over the evidence. But it was a confusing time, COVID. I mean, I kind of feel sorry for Greg Hans,

because he is the minister who keeps putting out the same message from the Labour government, from the last Labor government, which was there's no money left. I mean, by the time we finish with this inquiry, there's going to be no money left. There isn't any already. Exactly. But, you know, the big point, and I think that we really can't be stressed enough

is that Rishi Sunak, when he took the position, he said he promised accountability and integrity. And I would think everyone in the country can look at this and see there is none of that present at the moment. So, piggy off off of that, Richard. Yeah, picking up of that, what do we think people are worried about coming out? And we'll come to you, Isabella, as well, because you've probably seen on the other half of those messages

that you've seen what people are worried about. The assumption is that it's people worried about their jobs, worried about things they said about other people, gossip, Westminster stuff, but could it be worse? No, I think it's far worse. I think what they're worried about is February and March 2020. That's the period when critical decisions were taken, and actually I think they're worried about the truth is they weren't following. the best scientific advice.

I think they were making decisions on the hoof, catching up belatedly, and they were worried about how does it look, how does it affect my political career? That's what they'll be worried about. And you know, my view on this is, I was in another part of the world during the pandemic. I saw the way other governments reacted to this,

and all governments everywhere were panicking and floundering and trying to make best sense of the science at the time. So I maybe have to give a bit more allowance on this. But the public do still care about this, Isabel, as a survey, 44% of those are, say, Partygate matters as much now as it did when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister and some 26% said it matters more. So the public do really still care. Well, we should all still care about what happened during lockdown because every single person in this country is still paying a price. I mean, many people tragically paid with

their lives as a result of the government's policies, whether that is unnecessary COVID deaths linked to how care homes were managed or is it unnecessary excess deaths that we're now seeing at this point because of the collapse in things like routine cancer care. So everybody should care about what happened during the pandemic and the lessons to be learned. You asked what is it that they are worried about. Put very simply, what they're worried about is what is within those messages conflicting with what they were telling us publicly.

That's the dynamite here. Where they were telling us one thing publicly and privately, there was a different narrative, that is incredibly problematic. The gossip, the kind of off-color remarks, the personality stuff, the judge will weed that out. She will not consider a lot of that to be remotely relevant to the inquiry. So for the Cabinet office to argue that she shouldn't have access to the entire cash because some of it's irrelevant is really lame.

She's more than capable of picking the wheat from the chaff. Sifting the wheat from the chaff. The judge might be, but the press... Ava won't if they get any kind of hint of this, any of the gossip and the sort of headline-making stuff, you know, potentially politicians making jibes at each other and WhatsApp messages or stitching each other up. Can you see this rolling on for a long time?

I mean, look at what came out of the Matt Hancock files. I mean, it was absolutely extraordinary. And, you know, on your point about the sort of the fallacies and what Matt Hancock showed himself to do in those WhatsApp was trying to be trying to communicate for his own gain. Like a lot of the policies that were being put forward, he was trying to make himself look good rather than actually doing the best for the country.

And look, Boris Johnson has handed over, you know, supposedly all of his WhatsApps. That must mean that other cabinet ministers who are currently imposed look really stupid. Otherwise, he wouldn't do it in the first place. There's always an ulterior motive with him. And also, supposedly, not the phone from pre, what was it, March, May, 2021.

So he has quite good reason for not having just to hand it over that phone. Initially, I was like, oh, here it goes. This is the, you know, it's all falling apart. not as it seemed with Boris. But in fact, he had been told, he claims anyway, by the security services, that that phone had become a major risk and a vulnerability. I'm guessing that in some way that it was bugged,

that was the fear. He hasn't been allowed even to turn it on. So he has said he is very happy to hand over that phone as long as it's dealt with by the security services. Well, let's... It's... I think there's going to be a lot of Rebecca Vardy, stuff going on.

While we've got this powerful political panel, here, we must move on to this story that has just dropped. We're going to show you a video now. This is US President Biden, handing out a diploma at the US Air Force Academy. Oh. Now that is a deeply unfortunate tumble, isn't it? And if it was any other world leader,

we might sort of have a little laugh a bit cruelly, perhaps, but we would say, you know, that is just, unfortunately, he's fell off a step there. It could happen to anyone, but this is Biden. He has form. He has history of falling over, stumbling, and this is quite the thought. It's going to be a hard one to come back from. Image-wise, I think, especially Richard, when always so many questions around his age and whether he's fit to serve another term.

But it's not the first time, is it? He's stumbling up steps, down steps. He turns one way when he should have turned the other way. This man is not fit to be president of the free world, frankly. And the idea that he could be on the ballot paper in November 22, 24, I think is for the birds. And I think as this, I mean, it's a tragic scene to watch. I mean, Trump could fall over too, though. Yeah, but an old man, he keeps doing it.

This is an old man who is continually showing himself to not be fit to be president. I actually find it quite a hard watch that. I mean, he's a man in his 80s. Most people in their 80s, if they fall over like that, he fell hard. He will have really, really hurt himself, potentially injured himself quite seriously. And I just think those around him, are they doing the right thing by encouraging him to carry on? Well, Ava, is there an argument for we just need a president's brain? Do they need to be standing up giving out diplomas?

I'm sure we've got that, unfortunately. We haven't got that. I mean, you could do a bit of good PR there, couldn't you? You might look at that if you were as advisors and say, maybe he shouldn't be out in the sun for a few hours, handing out, you know, awards. Maybe he should just be kept away, just with some positive PR. Maybe not let Putin see how difficult he found it getting back up again. Gosh, every time you show it. it's making me cringe.

It's impressive for an 80-plus-year-old getting up. He gets up quite quickly. Argument for upper age limit on world leaders then, or should it be fitness assessed, Richard? It's fitness assessed, and he's clearly not fit. There's all sorts of concerns about his cognitive ability, and this has just reinforced it. It's not the first time.

They've just got to be honest with their own people, and frankly, with the world. I'd be interested in, unfortunately, we don't have an American sat in the studio this evening, but we will perhaps destroy poll them and see how they feel about that. because I think even the Democrats, it's a tough watch, obviously. Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, look, there's so much to discuss, but we're really pleased to have you in this evening to discuss all of those Boris WhatsApp messages. We'll have to see how that all pans out. Uncensored next tonight, do Eco Warriors do more harm than good with dangerous stunts and big public events? Are they finally pushing the public to the brink of apathy and despair? We'll be debating that next.

Welcome back to the show. Uncensored with me, Rosanna, in the chair tonight. Eco groups have been. targeting sporting events for months now, from Animal Rising, attempting to storm the grand national Aintree, to just-stop oil staging a stunt. You might remember this one during the World Snooker Championship, climbing onto the table there and pouring orange powder all over himself. That one really caught the headlines, didn't it? Today, delaying England's return to test cricket action by blocking the team bus on route to Lords. And another big horse racing event

this weekend in peril. Meanwhile, the government is gearing up to make changes to the law to crack down on these disruptive protests. Now, is that okay in your eyes or should the government just be letting them get on with it? With me to discuss all of this, animal rising activist, Ola Cochland in the studio, thanks for joining us once again on this show

and the horse racing journalist down the line from Epsom where the Derby is happening this weekend under threat. Kevin Blake, good to see you as well, sir. Now, let's get into this. And talk to you, Kevin, given that you are down there in Epsom already. Find out a little bit about what is planned for this weekend and your concerns. Well, look, it's been well publicised, Rosanna, that this group, Animal Rising have been very public in saying that they intend to disrupt the derby. They intend to hold, if you will, a peaceful protest outside the track, but also attempt to infiltrate the track and disrupt the race, such as the level of threat to the safety of all involved.

the race itself that the Jockey Club have successfully taken out an injunction in an effort to stop these protests, crossing the line from peaceful to law breaking. And that's where we stand at the minute. I think it's a cloud hanging over this great race that has taken place since 1780, you know, through two world wars wasn't enough to stop it. They moved it to new market. COVID wasn't enough to stop it, but the threat of these protests are really worrying everyone, not just for the race, but for the horses and all the people involved as well.

Yeah, I've spoken to somebody already today who's withdrawn a horse from the race this weekend over those concerns. It is very real, the concerns. And we spoke to you in the lead up to the Grand National, and we talked about some of the things. And obviously, we saw a lot happen from that. And some 120 protesters were, of course, I think, detained from that event in Aintree. Let's come to Alla now here in the studio from Animal Rising, the group and ask why, why are you objecting so much to this race? First of all, thank you so much for having me on the show. So we're doing this for two main reasons.

The first one is that we really care about animals. We care very much about these horses. And so we're trying to protect them from harm. And the second reason is that we are trying to have a bigger conversation about the way that we're treating animals. I believe that most good people care about animals. But I don't believe that our actions as a society are in line with those values. And so I'm trying to have a big public conversation about the way.

that we're treating horses, specifically because we know that a horse dies every other day in British racing. Let's come back to Kevin then on this, because Kevin, you highlighted an interesting point earlier where we spoke, which is that Animal Rising, there seems to be a bit of a conflict here, and I'll allow Ola to join this conversation as well, on what the whole objection to this race is, because other members of the group Animal Rising, all that have said that they can understand the horse ratings industry loves horses. And yet at the same time, you say you can't love horses and race them. So Kevin, what has it meant to you to have these kind of lines of messaging? How do you combat it?

Just to expand on that quote, that was from Nathan McGovern in the racing post today, Rosanna. It's important to repeat that because he said, in his own words, for us, it's not an animal welfare issue. It's not specifically anti-horse racing. We have been very public in saying that there is an intention to cause the Derby to be delayed or cancelled, with the ultimate goal being to bring the spotlight and what we would call our broken relationship with animals in the natural world. So that tells you exactly what a lot of us have thought, Rosanna, we've seen through this. It's been very transparent from the outset that this group's actual real understanding of the thoroughbred and horse racing is minimal. You know, they're ultimately using horse racing as a Trojan horse, if you will.

You know, for them, this is about high-profile publicity stunts to get their name out there and to try and attract donations to what is a much wider, much more extreme worldview than a simple opposition to horse racing. And Orla, in her second point there, you know, essentially confirm that. They want to have a wider discussion about our broken relationship with animals. So, like, I think it's important that we do that, Rosanna. And there's been some mixed messages in recent days. So I'd like to ask, Orla, very directly,

because I think it's very important that the British public know what this group represents, what their opinions are. You know, I would like to hear more about what Animal Rising's position is on people owning domesticated animals. Go on, Olla, because I, too, get a little bit confused about this. You know, in our lead in there, we're talking about eco-groups, and you're not a climate change activism group. But do you want veganism?

Do you want everyone to stop riding horses? Do you want people to stop owning pets? I mean, you need the British public to understand exactly what you're getting at if you want your message to get across. And as Kevin's saying there, you're using horse racing just as a pawn in this. Well, I would completely disagree that we're using horse racing. Horse racing is a part of this problem. We know that a horse dies, as I said, every other day in British racing. And so what we're trying to do is ask the general public if this is in line with our values as a nation of animal lovers.

And Kevin? You haven't answered the question there. You haven't answered the direct question there, oral. I think a lot of the viewers might be quite ambivalent about horse racing, but domesticated animals are very important to them. Nation of animal lovers, you know, what's animal rising's policy there? Do they believe that people should be allowed have own domesticated animals? Is this like cats and dogs you're referring to?

Yes, Eddie. Absolutely, yeah. So we know there's a huge problem as well in the UK with animal breeding. I do think this has gone slightly off topic, but we know. I disagree actually, although I think this is very on topic because you've began. the discussion by talking about domesticated animals, the relationship with animals. And as one of your other spokespeople has pointed out, they understand that horse racing industry actually does really love horses. So it's confusing. We just want to get to the bottom of it. Yeah, I completely understand that. I guess my point is that a majority of deaths are happening

on the racetrack in the public eye. And we also know that a billion animals are killed in the food system. So that's why we're focusing on the biggest issues. Obviously, we also have an issue with overbreeding pets. We also have an issue with things like puppy farms. And so we would always encourage people to adopt rather than shopping for pets because we believe that pets can be part of a family as opposed to, you know, being owned. Okay. And with horses, the ultimate goal here, as far as the research I've seen into what you want, is rewilding of horses. And you understand, of course, that thoroughbred horses bred for racing are unsuitable to be just let back out into the wild. So again, the statement from the another moment of your organization today was that

we'll just be okay if thoroughbred horses go extinct as a result of that. Well, not at all. I think what we can do is we can bring the horses that we have already bred into a retirement. So they can live out a long, happy life. And we know that a majority of horse races in this industry don't have that long, happy life. And so that's really what we're asking for to give these horses the life that they deserve. Kevin, is that really... How is that practical, Laura? How was that? How is that? how are you going to put these horses you know you're talking about tens and tens of thousands of horses that currently have a very specific purpose and you want to bring that direct purpose that that purpose to an end you know how is that in any way practical you know one of your

colleagues suggested putting them in sanctuaries you know i think there's only like literally a few dozen sanctuaries in the UK that are capable of taking horses you know you'd have to fit two or three thousand of them in each avail of a sanctuary like you you must know that that is completely impractical, completely unrealistic in the real world. Where would I put these horses? I hope you're not suggesting that the British horse racing industry has in its possession thousands of horses that they wouldn't care for for the rest of their lives. We're talking about a four billion pound industry here,

and I hope that they have provision to care for these horses for the duration of their life. Kevin? They have provision for their purpose, Orla, their primary purpose. You know, these weren't bred to be pets, to be companions. they're bred to have a function. There's a very clear, there's a very clear steps along the way for horses to be bred, to be raised,

to be then put into training, to then race. And then there are very clear structures for what happens after horses retire. But that structure is not cut out for a sudden influx of 50,000 or 60,000 or 70,000 or 70,000 thoroughbreds into that system. So, and also you have to bear a mind order that if you, as you seem to want to bring horse racing to an end, you know, all the professionals, all the horsemen, you know, they're going to leave the country.

They're going to go work someplace else. You know, where are these horses going to be housed? You know, the vast majority of people that own race horses rely on their trainers to house them. You know, most owners don't have a bit of land that they can put their horse in. I want to just pick up on a point that Orla made. She's made it twice now. I also am fully aware that last time we spoke, I disclosed the fact that I am a horse rider, a keen horse rider. And obviously, I don't want this to seem like it's a total gang up on Alla here.

because I have a horse in this race, if you will. But please respond to the point that Ola makes that a horse does die every other day in horse rating and how that's acceptable and what the industry is doing about that. Well, across the whole year, Rosanna, look, and the figures are very clear. 99.8% of runners in British race and come back perfectly fine. It sounds like a big number to say one every other day. It's actually one every two and a half days if you break it down. But that's across almost 100,000 runners in a year, you know, and that is,

that fatality rate has gone down by 20% sorry by by a third in the last 20 years and there's people dedicated to bringing that number down to as low as they possibly can and it's just so it's a point worth making as well Rosanna is that the way animal rising talk about racing and risk you know they imply that a horse that isn't racing that is out in a field is at no risk whatsoever and like that that is completely inaccurate because just as a As an exercise, I got in touch with a bloodstock insurance company this week, right? Because there's no one that is better equipped and better informed on risk with regard to horses than bloodstock insurers. And they will actually quote, I'll quote you, and near identical mortality insurance rate on a yearling that lives in a field night and day, as they will, that same horse one year later when they're in full training, when they're racing.

You know, people whose bread and butter is assessing risk, assessing the data, they will tell you that a horse is at just as much risk out of a catastrophic injury while turned out in the field as they are in a comparatively, highly controlled, highly supervised environment in training and racing. You've made your point, and I think it's important to address that point as well. Ola, you've made some interesting points as well this evening, which I do think will resonate with some of our viewers as well. Thank you both, Kevin, Ola, for joining us in this debate this weekend.

wishing all those involved in the Eps and Derby, best of luck, given that there looks to be some serious disruption there. Coming up here on Uncensored Tonight, it's been revealed the legendary sitcom. The Office is coming to Australia, this time with a woman playing Ricky Jervais' iconic character. So does this mean Oz has gone woke? We're going to be debating that next.

He selected stores excludes, and I? Holly cinched it? Yes. The Pallet family have cinched it. Yep, the nation have cinched it by buying their perfect car online. With helpful financing options, and an instant online part exchange price for your old car, plus a guarantee for the price quoted.

So with financing options, an instant online valuation, and a guaranteed part exchange price, join the nation in absolutely sinching. Search cinch and buy your next car today. Guarantees subject to car's accurate description, T's and Cesar Place. Your way, from driveway to motorway. Talk Radio, travel update.

Church Road and Crystal Palace, all approaches is closed due to accident investigation work between the Fitzroy Garden, at Crystal Palace and the Sylvan Hill at Upper Norwood. Traffic at the moment is coping well. A12 in all approaches in Flynn while East Sussex is currently partially blocked their slow traffic to an accident involving three vehicles at the Woodland

Enterprise Centre. N-25 anti-clockwise in London at a lay enclosure due to the broken down vehicle, switching junction 25 for the Great Cambridge Way towards Junction 24 at Potter's Bar. That's latest I'm Megan McKee. Does your broadband slither around your home? And at

peak times that things feel a little Constricted? Well, not when you get full-fiber broadband from EE. You get the peak-time speeds you pay for. Count on EE, full-fiber broadband. Powered by BT. Limited availability check coverage at e.e.doch. Trisha Goddard.

The original Queen of Talk is on Talk Radio. Get on the guest list with the legendary Trisha Goddard. When liars are found out, trust is broken forever. Sounding good, looking even better. Once you lie down with dogs, you'll get up with flea. Trisha Goddard. Saturday and Sunday. from one on talk radio and talk TV coming up on the talk the talk the cabinet office is taking the

COVID inquiry to court in a row over Boris Johnson's WhatsApp a Welsh Labour MP loses the whip over allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour and the Sussexes are reportedly going to keep quiet from now on that's all at nine o'clock hello there welcome back to one centaur joined for the last part of the show today by some familiar faces from earlier on in the show, contributor Paula Rene, Adrian, political journalist Ava Santina, and talk TV presenter, Richard Tice. Welcome to all of you. Let's have a bit of fun, shall we, because it's been quite heavy so far. Let's talk about the Office. Ricky Jervais here was obviously famous David Brent. Now, the Office has been franchised worldwide. This is the 14th version of the BBC sitcom we know in love.

Heading over to Australia, there he is, the man himself. Boy, David Brent. It is just legendary, isn't it? But it's heading over to Australia, and he's going to be played by a woman. The character is going to be called Hannah Howard, and she's going to be portrayed by a comedian in Australia called Felicity Ward.

Now, the question being posed to you is Australia going woke. I mean, but my utter response is, Paula, is that women can be idiots in the office too. Exactly. Can you believe that we've got a sentence, which says that a female actress has suddenly turned an entire country woke. I mean, I think that says it all, doesn't it?

It's a role, it's a character, and of course anyone can play that role in character, and she's clearly the best woman for the job. Well, will Australians go for it? Do you think over? I don't know. I think there'd be far more... I'm more impressed with it, actually,

than the American version of the office. I think that was far more offensive than a female lead could ever be. That was much more denigrating to the comedic profession, I would say. But look, you know, women... our bosses, it's going to absolutely shock men to find out, and it's going to shock even more, to find out that women can actually be quite funny.

And, you know, men are always going on about how you should put the best person forward from the job. But, you know, this is a commercial project, and they decided she's the best fit. So there we go. Oh, Richard, was it a diversity hire for... Well, actually, no, interesting, I suspect what they've done is they've looked at some of the other franchises

elsewhere in the world that have taken on men to try and recreate a funny office, and many of them have actually failed. in a number of European countries, they haven't been funny. The men have blown it. So the Australians have gone semi-woke, and they said, well, let's see if someone else... They've gone...

Well, so what Richard is telling us, then, is that we'll try the white male first, and if the white male doesn't work, we'll go for the female. You know what? No, I think... That's actually what happened. Let's be honest. That is actually what happened, isn't it?

They're learning the lesson. They're trying something different. Let's hope she's funny. Let's hope Australians love it. They're taking a risk, right, Richard? They're taking a big risk. But then the Australians love a risk. They do love a risk.

The biggest risk is never taking one. That's what I say. Let's watch it when it comes out and we'll make our decision then. Moving on to other matters, but of course gender-related because everything is gender-related. Now, this is the front cover of the magazine, Glamour,

shortly set to come out. Front cover star hit, Logan Brown. That was Richard Tice, I'd like to say, goffawing in the studio. Logan Brown is identified as trans-male and is currently biologically pregnant. this cover, of course, talking about, you know, the fact the wonder of being the proof of a pregnant male, but obviously was born biologically a female, hence can get pregnant.

So it's, you know, depending on your stance on the trans issue, it is either confusing to you, offending to you or celebratory. Which one is it for you, Paula? I mean, you're going to be shocked at my response. Celebratory? Of course it's celebratory. And why shouldn't it be? And can I just add, trans people?

did not just land to earth yesterday. They have always been here. So why is it only now magazine covers? Because my only objection to this, you know I'm fairly woke when it comes to most matters, is that corporations and magazines seem to be exploiting this movement for sales and for profit. And that is my only concern in all of this,

really, truly. And as a woman who reads magazines like this, you know, wouldn't put me off buying glamour visit magazine. I'd probably pick it up because it's interesting now. Oh, that's something different. and that goes into the money in their pockets, but it does lead to a narrative in a conversation that can be toxic. I think the problem is that a lot of the press around this transgender issue is negative.

It's fear-inducing. And I don't know, but I would hope that what Glamour magazine were attempting to do was to make it about a feel-good positive story. And this isn't the first photo cover, a cover of a magazine with a transgender male who's pregnant. the first time it's happened. And it will continue to happen. And quite frankly, well done. Congratulations to Glamour for doing it.

Ava, congratulations. Well, yeah, I mean, I think far more toxic is, you know, the decades of women that we've seen on the front of those magazine covers, some which I find very affecting when I was a young girl. I mean, the amount of eating disorders that were triggered from the, you know, the size zero model on there telling us that, you know, oh, I eat pizza every single day

and I still look like this. That was far more harmful to a generation of women. And look, the story itself is actually really interesting. If you delve into it. I mean, he's talking about how he fought for his masculinity, like his whole life, and then becoming pregnant was such a shock to him. He came off the testosterone because he was unwell and then became pregnant. And it was really affecting for him.

I think it's a fascinating story. It deserves the cover. Richard, that's three women here, almost in unison. Give us the other view. I tell you what, the proof will be in the pudding because it, look, that picture, sorry, that front cover is a contradiction in terms. There's nothing glamorous about that front cover. And I think they will find sales.

of that edition will plummet, and it's the old expression, isn't it? We saw it recently with that German beer company, Budweiser, go woke, go broke. I think that's catastrophic to their sales, but it's their choice. Do you know what sales plummet? When we have the telitubbies or when we have Black Barbie, and those sales plummet? You look shocked. There is a Black Barbie, Richard.

Those sales plummet, but does that mean that Mattel shouldn't continue, for example, and toy companies shouldn't continue to produce that? It's their choice. I've just said the biggest risk is never. taking one, I think they're taking a risk with that image. I suspect that it won't sell very well and they'll learn the lesson. How do you know, best on what? I mean, it's news,

it's fashion, it's interest, it's... There's nothing glamorous and attractive about that picture. Well, in your eyes, Richard, because that's not the way you sway, but for some people, maybe there is. Well, let's wait and see, shall we? Let's come back on in a few weeks' time and see what the sales are. I'll tell you what, I reckon I'm right.

Would you be happy with that? Is that a good thing? Because I would say it isn't. I don't care. It's their call, it's their choice. If the sales are low, if I'm right, they'll learn the lesson. And look, try it. Panel, we'll have to try it, suck it and see. We'll find out next week. Thanks so much for joining us in the studio, Paula, Avert, Richard. We're going to have to leave that there today.

Thanks to my panel. Thanks to you for watching. But before we finish, this stint for me on this show this week, hand back over to peers. We've had a lot of fun, but we also want to remind viewers of the ever-present reality of the ongoing war in Ukraine. This heartbreaking image circulating online today, a grandfather sitting beside. the body of his nine-year-old granddaughter who was killed by a fragment of a Russian rocket. It's reported the man also lost his daughter in the attack by the Russians. A deeply moving image, one of just so many from this war, that reminds us what really is important out there at the moment.

Now, we say all that, of course, we do have fun on the show. Pierce Morgan will be back in next week, talking about all matters serious, all matters fun at the same time as well. That is it from me. Very kind of Pierce Morgan to give me a seat for another few days. Thanks to the viewers for staying with us as well. Thanks to the panel for that lovely round of applause. Whatever you're up to, make sure it is uncensored.

Good night.