Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Harry and Meghan Eviction Notice, WhatsApp Message Scandal, Woke Culture Suspends Prosecutor

Episode Date: March 1, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers delves into the story that King Charles has warranted Harry and Meghan an eviction notice and given their keys to Prince Andrew. Piers speaks to TalkTV's International Editor, Isabel Oakeshott for her first interview since the WhatsApp Message Scandal that makes anyone involved in a bad light,....Matt Hancock. A prosecutor has been suspended for not calling a charged male paedophile, by their correct pronouns, as Piers speaks to them. 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, on Pierce Morgan, uncensored, King Charles sensationally slaps down Harry and Megan with an eviction notice and pours salt in the wound by offering the keys to their cottage to Prince Andrew. Will he now banish the substances from his coronation? And a stunning tranche of 100,000 leaked messages lays bare the deadly fiasco that saw COVID tear through England's nursing homes. Isabel Oakshaw. She broke the story and she's giving me her first interview live tonight. We'll debate whether Matt Hancock could now face criminal justice charges. Plus, a convicted male paedophile switches genders after being accused of murder. But the prosecutor is suspended for refusing to call them she. He or talk to him. I think he's a him. Live from London.

This is Pearce Morgan uncensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan uncensored. No matter what your views on lockdowns, the COVID pandemic, It was the defining health crisis of our time. The virus has killed almost seven million people worldwide and 219,000 in Britain alone. Debate will rage for years about how many of those deaths

could have been prevented by intelligent governance and better decisions. A public inquiry in the UK is creaking into action. It took more than a year just to agree its terms of reference. It's already cost up to 85 million pounds and hasn't even started formal hearings. Sweden have already had theirs. It's done and dusted.

What's happening here? here is scandalous. It smacks of an attempt to wrap deadly incompetence in red tape, suffocate public anger by attrition and delay. We don't need hindsight or inquiry to know that expensive and fatally negligent mistakes were made in Britain. We don't need hindsight and inquiry to know that Matt Hancock, our health secretary at the time, was utterly unsuited to the gravity of the job he faced. Nothing more than that was made more devastating and clear than the tragedy in our care homes. A reminder, this is what Matt Hancock said. said about care homes in May 2020.

Right from the start, it's been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes. Well, three days later, he said this. We absolutely did throw a protective ring around social care, not least with the £3.2 billion worth of funding we put in right at the start. And the next day he told MPs this. And I'm glad we've been able to protect the majority of homes and we'll keep working to strengthen the protective ring

that we've cast around all our care homes. Protective ring, protective ring, protective ring around care homes. But there was no protective ring at all. In fact, Hancock sent thousands of elderly patients from hospitals back to their nursing homes without even testing most of them. COVID spread like wildfire inside those homes. It was a deadly fiasco of a policy

from a travesty of a health secretary with tragic consequences for thousands of families. This is what I said to him at the time. I'm really struck by the fact that you feel incensed that we're not thanking you enough for your handling of this pandemic. It's my team actually. I was asking to thank. He didn't save lives, did you? We've got 130,000 deaths, the worst death toll in Europe. We have one of the worst death rates in the world.

So I just don't know why I should be thanking you. I still don't, to be honest. All the words thank you, Mr. Hancock, are appropriate. Well, now a stunning tranche of private messages given by Hancock to journalist Isabel Oakeshot to write his memoir were published in the Daily Telegraph today, and they've laid bare the shocking extent of Hancock's failure. Right from the very beginning, on November the 14th, 2020, Mr. Hancock told his advisers, Chris Whitty has done an evidence review and now recommended testing going to all care homes and segregation whilst awaiting result. That would make obvious sense. This is obviously a good positive step, adds Hancock. and we must put it into the dock.

But later that same day, Hancock said this, tell me I'm wrong, but I would rather leave it out and just commit to test and isolate all going into care from hospital. I don't think the community commitment adds anything and it muddies the waters. Wow. Muddies the waters to not bother about people coming from communities

into care homes, not testing them or even trying to. Extraordinary turn of phrase. The chief medical officer's advice finally became government policy, on August 14th, five months later. Between the date of his advice and the date of Hancock finally taking him at advice, 17,678 people died of COVID in care homes in England. Well, later on, Hancock reluctantly agreed

to include care homes in his testing program, but only if it didn't, quote, get in the way, close quotes, of his own self-aggrandizing target of 100,000 tests a day. The text showed that he used loopholes to inflate the figures and beg for favors to save his own reputation.

I want to hit my target. He's told George Osborne, then the Evening Standard's editor, when he was asking for a front page. I gathered was Osborne's withering reply. There are many more revelations to today's leaks. We learned that Jacob Rees-Mogg had a test courier to his home for one of his children at a time when there was a national shortage. And that Boris Johnson was going crackers at Britain's testing incompetence.

There's a lot more to come. But we already have a very grim picture of a negligent health secretary whose vanity and arrogance by far exceeded his abilities. It now looks beyond doubt that that vanity and arrogance may have also cost many, many lies. Well, joining me now for her first interview about all this is the journalist at the center of the COVID-Watzap leak sensation. Talk TV's international editor, Isabel Oaksha,

along with Talk TV's political editor, Kate McCann, Daily Mirror Associate editor, Kevin McGuire. Isabel, wow. When it dropped last night, 1045, it was quite something to read all this, particularly for people like me who obviously were on air throughout this pandemic and involved in pretty heated discussions with people like Matt Hancock, in which, frankly, they lied through their back teeth about what was really going on.

To see in their WhatsApp messages the cold, hard reality were shocking. You've had this for a while. What made you, I mean, let's be brutally honest about what you did. You did a book with Matt Hancock. As part of the preparation for the book, he gives you 100,000 WhatsApp messages between him and, members of the cabinet and the Prime Minister, you don't put them in the book.

He says you signed an NDA to stop you using these, and you've now presumably broken the NDA, given these to the Daily Telegraph of publication. He says you've stolen them. Blah, blah, blah. What is your reaction to all this? Well, first of all, peers, I'm very aware of how robustly you fought

for public accountability from our politicians during this period. I can tell you that your name does crop up in some of these messages. I would hope so. I'm sure we'll come to that. later in the week. Look, you mentioned in your introduction the absolute farce that is the public inquiry

arrangement so far. This public inquiry, if you look at the terms of reference, I could spend a year on each one of about the 30 things that they have been asked to consider. The judge who is somebody of the highest integrity and has a great reputation,

no doubt will want to do justice to every one of those things. She's not been given a deadline. So the reality is that this inquiry, which I think is absolutely critical, will likely not come up with any conclusions left to the government's own devices, perhaps for at least a decade or more. Now, we could have another pandemic next month, next year. Who knows when the next one is coming?

We cannot afford to wait for a decade or more for answers as to what was really going on. So this resource that I had is an extraordinary, way to quickly get to the truth of what really happened, why crucial decisions were made that affected millions of lives, that millions of people are still paying the price for today, without us having to be fobbed off with an inquiry which I'm afraid is most likely going to end up for the best intentions of everyone involved being a whitewash. So Lord Bethel, who was a health minister at the time, has told Tom Newton Dunn for his show tonight on Talk TV, Isabel Oakshot has no idea what...

one in those rooms, she hasn't seen the paper. She's just seen a few WhatsApp from around the edges. She's fooling herself if she thinks that's really given her an insight. What she's taken is a bunch of fluff that was in transient, tracient, transit, I think that means, WhatsApp messages, and pretended that it's substantive insight into the evidence-based decision that's been made. It's simply not true, it's a confection, and quite frankly, the telegraph should be ashamed of themselves.

What an embarrassing and pathetic and lame defence from Lord Bethel there. I imagine Lord Bethel's rather nervous because he is one of the most indiscreet people in these WhatsApp messages. Highly revelatory for him to dismiss them as a few WhatsApp messages, which I heard him say this morning. The entire volume of this is almost three times the size of the Bible. It's not a few messages. And the reality is that the WhatsApp groups were used routinely minute by minute to communicate critical decisions. By the way, there is an argument. They should be public reference.

Right? I mean, in America, every communication like this with the Prime Minister, with the President, would be public record. So you can't do private messages. Let me add that if he's saying that this is a partial account, I am all he is for the rest of it. And I'm sure that the nation would be very grateful if all the WhatsApps from every minister involved were released now. Your position that is that this is in the public interest. 100%. But let me just ask you, to the specifics which Hancock has said by way of response, did you sign an NDA which pledged not to use these messages? Yes. So you've deliberately broken that?

I have in the public interest. And there could be legal consequences for you. I think the public interest is overwhelming. Whenever you break a big story, which is in the national interest, and I've done a few of them, it can be a rocky road, it can be a bumpy ride. I know that I'm going to get a few knocks over this. I'm prepared to do this because I think that the national interest is so utterly compelling. Another difficult question.

The cynic would say, well, hang on, you've just done this memoir. with this guy, which has enriched him, right? And in the memoir, you say that he's very persuasive and, you know, you thought he had good arguments and so on. Not a sign now of what you're now saying about it. And a cynic would say, well, come on, Isabel, you did this memoir with him. Why weren't you more honest? If you really felt this way, why not just pull away from writing the book with him

and expose all this at the time, rather than allow this sham of a book to come out. No, it wasn't a sham. Well, he glossed over everything. It made him out to be some kind of hero. No, I think that's quite unfair. I don't know whether you've read every word. I couldn't get through all of it. Well, even though it was so beautifully written by me.

Actually, judging by the sales book, it's not all the most people. I'm really happy. But my point being that... I'm really happy to address that question. Yeah, go on then. Because I think it is an important one. And the reality is I would of course not have put my name to anything that I thought was an untruth. The other reality is that there are nearly 3 million words in these WhatsApp messages.

I was working on this book against a clock. phenomenal effort. It was twice the length of any normal political book. It was simply impossible to go through every line of those WhatsApp messages. And of course, equally, the book is Matt Hancock's diary. It's his truth. When did he know that you'd done this? Late last night. Wow, when everybody else did? Yeah. Did you have any compulsion at all about frying a contact, like someone you've written a book with? I'm not going to sit here and disparage Matt Hancock personally because this is not about... For me, for me, this is not about...

This is not about... This is not about... As a journalist, you've written a book with this guy and within months of the book coming out, you've torched it, right? I mean, you've fried the contact, you've ripped up the NDA, you've published all the messages. I'm not taking a judgment. I'm just saying you have done that. There are many things I could sit here and say about Matt Hancock,

which I'm not going to do. Well, now it seems a good time to me. I'm not going to do because this for me is not a personal thing. Is it true that he went back on his word with you in relation to your business arrangement with the book? Again, I don't want to get into that. He certainly undertook to do an interview with Talk TV, which was very important to me as international editor of Talk TV.

He reneged on that. It's course not the reason why I did this. I cannot emphasize enough. personal against Matt Hancock. I can see many good qualities in him. We had a good working relationship by and large, various aspects towards the end. We're not quite... Have you heard from him since the publication of this? Yes, I have. What did you say? I received a somewhat menacing message at 120 in the morning. Saying? I'm not going to repeat what was in the message, but yeah.

You say menacing? What was... Well, I think you can easily surmise whether Matt Hancock is my friend at this point. I'm sure he's not, but I mean, what has menacing me? He threatened you. I think that he is extremely troubled in terms of how to respond to this. And I don't blame him, but this is not about him as far as I'm concerned. It is much bigger than that. It is about getting the truth of what really happened.

I understand that. Specifically, he says it's been edited that there were other WhatsApp exchanges about a subsequent meeting. I think you'll find. I think he's withdrawn that. No, it isn't. It's emphatically. inaccurate, we specifically refer to that meeting. I think it's on page four of the coverage. He simply hasn't read the inside story. Is there any doubt from everything you've read? Is there any

doubt at all that the veracity of that main charge in the telegraph revelations today about the care homes and about him overriding the advice from the chief medical officer, that that is entirely true? There's no doubt in my mind that what the telegraph have printed today is an accurate reflection. The Telegraph has been exceptionally careful not to selectively quote from these messages. Look, they're not daft. They know that that would be a very easy stick to beat them with. So they have been very careful. Also, the Telegraph doesn't overclaim for any of this. Of course we know there are other people whose conversations we don't have access to. That is entirely obvious.

Okay. YouTube been sitting here listening to all this. I mean, look, from a journalistly point of view, I picked up the Telegraph to the morning. It was a sensation. I mean, this was extraordinary reading to go through all this. I think I've put the tough questions to Isabelle. And she's been robust in responding. From a political point of view, first, Kate,

what has been the reaction to this and what are the likely consequences, if anything? So there's been a couple of different reactions. Clearly, Matt Hancock and his team very, very frustrated and unhappy. Helen Waitley, you know, a minister who was sort of talking about this today, suggests that there was a meeting

in between all of this, being given to Matt Hancock, where the political reality came up against the scientific advice. And I think this has been the problem all the way through this story. In fact, all the way through COVID, there is a difference between scientific advice and the reality of what can happen on the ground. And Matt Hancock's point would be, yes, Chris Whittie advised we do this, the capacity wasn't there to do it. Therefore, you know, we were forced to scale it back and we did it as soon as we could. What I actually think is that some of the messages in here do reveal something quite problematic for the government, which is about the way that care homes were not prioritised.

Helen Waitley's messages inside the telegraph showing her saying, we have a problem with PPE, we don't have enough, and I can't get anyone to tell me when I will have enough. And she's asking, you know, quite nicely of the health sector time.

I mean, I interviewed Helen Waitley several times in that period. I thought she was completely out of her depth, which I thought summarised my view of that government, a young rookie government, just come in, a lot of them completely out of their depth, didn't know what they were doing. But then did you change your mind

when you read this, because I actually did a perception of her. sympathy with her that she had clearly been asking for this stuff, but it clearly wasn't getting it back. I mean, Kevin, from, well, first of all, from a journalistic point of view, what do you think about what Isabel did here? Oh, Isabel's accused of stabbing Hancock in the back, and she'll have to deal with the journalistic ethics. But is there a public interest defence for that? But yes, clearly. And are we in a better position tonight than we were last night on COVID? Yes, we are. That's what I think. Because she's made those, she's made them public. She'd love to take the

the Knox as well as the praise for that. But we get an incredible insight into what was really happening. What do you feel you know now you didn't yesterday? That he didn't, that Hancock didn't follow always the scientific advice. Yes, he was guided by it at times and it can accept, right, COVID appears almost from a clear blue sky. It's a huge catastrophe, a real challenge. You're making decisions in real time with resource limitations, you haven't got the organisation right. So mistakes will be made. But because of some of those mistakes, people died.

They died. We can't get away from that. And by the way, in care homes, thousands and thousands of people die. I know people who lost their relatives, who lost their mother, their father in care homes. And peers, I can see this is very inconvenient for Matt Hancock because he wants to reinvent himself as a lad larking around on reality TV, no doubt doing a lot of gigs. You know, dinners and so on and getting paid. Well, people aren't going to be laughing now. Well, they're not. And they realise.

One person who definitely won't be laughing is the owner of Crabtree Carehams, David Crabtree. David, we've spoken many times throughout the pandemic and again in the last few months. What is your reaction to these revelations about Matt Hancock, in particular, in the telegraph? If you go back, thank you, and thank you for being a stalwart for the care sector. Thank you. If you go back to your opening section where he was speaking, he said from the very start, from the very start, well, from the very start, he lied. And he lied and he lied and he continues to lie. It's not that we got things wrong. Pandemic was new to everyone. It's that he lied after the event and continues to lie. And what happens with his lies and all of this publicity is he re invoked all the anger and upset the loss of life, the relatives. He risked, it wasn't just the elderly. He was risking the mother of two that was coming to work at seven o'clock with no PPE. Everything this man does

is characterized by an inadequate sociopath. Everything he does, if you look it up, there's his characteristic. I wish to goodness he would just disappear because he's managed to destroy his own career, his relationships. I cannot tell you how incensed the care sector is every time this man's name is mentioned. Yeah. No, I know. I've heard it from them myself. Okay, lots of people's names are in these WhatsApp messages.

You know, Boris Johnson's there, liberally. Rishi Sunak, we're told, is in a lot of them too. Isabel, you can confirm that? Yeah, absolutely. So the current Prime Minister is, I mean, they must all be on tenderhugs, right, waiting for the instalment tonight. We've all these revelations this afternoon that apparently we only follow, for example,

what Scotland did in relation to kids wearing masks and stuff because they didn't want to make a problem with Nicholas Sturgeon in Scotland which seems to me an extraordinary revelation. Never mind that anything else. Yeah, I think it is and actually it's a point, you raise a point that's going to be a much bigger issue for

Westminster now and it's going to have huge repercussions. Today at the lobby briefing for journalists after Prime Minister's questions, the questions were repeatedly about how do ministers use their phones? Are they using deletion on WhatsApp as a regular thing? You said that they should be held to account that those messages should be public record. They are peers. They are public record, except from who is checking that that happens right now? And the Prime Minister Spokesman was asked that today and he said, well, there is a policy on this.

You are actually, as a minister, if you are discussing policy, you're allowed to do that on WhatsApp, but you have to then ensure that it is recorded so that any official decision, which is not allowed to be made on WhatsApp but can be discussed, is then there as public record. At the moment, I'm not sure that the government can guarantee comfortably that that is happening. I'm sure they can't. Isabel, are there revelations to come, which could cause the current Prime Minister problems?

I think that the current Prime Minister, in his capacity as Chancellor, was doing what chancellors should do and protecting the public purse. Nothing damaging about him. I don't want to comment on what's to come up. I'm sure you'll understand that. But I think that this issue,

that you raise about the use of WhatsApp goes to the heart of why it's so important for people to see the way decisions were made, the casualness, the informality of a few mates in incredibly powerful positions with a thumbs up or thumbs down, deciding the fate of millions of people. You can, under certain circumstances,

get them under a freedom of information request, but it's worth saying Lord Bethel, the health minister at the time, who's had to go out, Isabel, but Elizabeth can stick off for herself. He lost a lot of his WhatsApp messages. on COVID contracts when he was transferring phones. It wasn't quite...

It wasn't quite Wagatha Christie, the phone going over the side of a boat, but nevertheless, those messages have been lost forever. So when he has a go on, other people, I think, hang on, Bethel. Some of your messages have gone already. No, it's government by WhatsApp now. Tony Blair used to be by sofa.

It's shifted. Is everyone, Kate, in Westminster, basically waiting for the telegraph to drop tonight? Yeah, I think people are, and they will be probably for some time. But I do think that this goes beyond, we're saying here, it's beyond Matt Hancock. It's about how policy is made in this country. And I think it's about the fact that a lot of these decisions, when you read them, you may not

look at them and think, wow, there's the smoking gun. But actually, it's more subtle than that. It's about the way that these decisions were made. I just remember the certainty that Hancock was saying we put a protective ring around care homes. He did not put a protective ring around care homes. He let a lot of people back from hospital without testing them, where hospitals were rife with COVID. He let anyone from the community come and go, including the carers, including family members to start with, and the whole thing was total chaos. And that was the point your guest was making, which was seemingly, and I don't know whether he believes this, I don't want to speak for him, but if actually the government

had been honest and said, we can't do this yet, we would love to, we're going to try as soon as we can. Well, let's ask David Crouchy, that, finally, that very question, David, had you know these issues that the government, and we're now reading about, you would have presumably acted differently. You don't need to be a scientist to know that you don't admit potentially infected people into a care home when Professor Valence in January said these would be breeding grounds and we watched it across Italy and France before it arrived at our doorstep. We already knew to shut the door to try and minimise. We accepted that this was, you know, there was a pandemic on and nobody had any PPE or whatever. We did the best we could and we accept that

errors were made. What is, the anger is invoked because they now lie to cover it. up. We would have coped as we would cope with diarrhoea and sickness, with flu epidemic, with all the others that we normally associate through winter. We're not stupid. We've been doing it a long time. We don't need a scientist. What we do need is truth. Factual, we don't have enough. This is what we're going to do. We're going to try and help you. Don't lie to us and say that you put a ring of protection around us. David, how many people did you lose in the pandemic from COVID? We lost 18 over 200. that's just us. But across Bradford, we lost thousands.

Absolutely shocking. It was shocking. David, thank you for your passion. And the relatives couldn't go in. Nobody could see anybody. So people were losing their loved ones without seeing them. It was awful. I know a good friend of mine who had to say goodbye to her beloved mother on FaceTime in a care home when it ripped through the care home.

I mean, imagine that. I still haunts me to this day thinking about it. David, thank you very much for David, joining me. Thank you, Isabel. If we could just get an apology off, Mr. Hancock, that would do us. You know what? I think you've got more chance, honestly, of him handing back the money from eating kangaroo testicles in the jungle. But good idea, David. Isabel, I think it's a fantastic scoop.

There's an argument to be had about whether it's all in the public interest. I think it's overwhelming in the public interest. And so I'm looking forward to reading more revelations. Thank you. So I think congratulations are in order to you for exposing this, frankly. Kate, thank you very much for joining me. That's going to be interesting to see the reaction tomorrow. There's more revelations to come back tonight.

Kevin, you're staying with me? Thank you. He's got the short straw. Are you two in mourning, by the way, in the black for Hancock's career? Yeah, accidental. Good to see it. Well, next tonight, they're out. King Charles has evicted Harry and Megan from their UK home, Frogmore Cottage.

A couple has confirmed that tonight. Will they now also be banned from the coronation? We'll debate that next. In breaking news, Arsenal are 1-0-up in the game against Everton. And if you're watching on catch-up, that may have been overtaken by events. Hopefully we're now winning 3-0. Well, King Charles has

sensually evicted Harry and Megan from Frogmore Cottage in Windsor and reportedly offered it now to Prince Andrew, who has to vacate his own larger home. Well, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were given the college as a wedding gift by the Queen in 2018. It will now be left without a home in the UK

after Buckingham Palace served eviction papers. Tonight, a spokesman for the couple confirmed the son's bomb shall scoop by saying they have been requested to vacate the property. Well, Kevin McGrath still were. I've been joined now by talk to the contributor Hester Cracko, and has joined an author, Tessa Dunlop. Well, so, Kevin, this is one of those scoombed, great scoop by the son this morning.

And completely true, it turned out, they have indeed been kicked out. They've been evicted. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town, and he's going to be the Iron King. Because you wouldn't... Is this the act of a king, not a father? In other words, has he basically put his new status as the monarch and the interests of the monarchy and his role as king above actually what maybe his instinct is as a dad?

Well, it could be as a dad he believes in tough love. He's also said to be very emotionally cold and probably not best suited to try and bringing them back in in a warm way. But it is pretty sensational, as you say, because I thought he would try and find common ground, try and build bridges, get some peace. But this is, right, if you're going to go at a war, with me, I'm going to fight back. Right, and it does beg the question, Esther, coronation

coming up in early May, only a few weeks away now. Invitations apparently going out next week, 2,000 of them. I mean, I would put good money now that there'll be no invitation heading his way to Montecito in California. I think so, too. Look, I was very skeptical when I saw this, because I thought the palace just asked them to take the rest of their belongings and strip it back to Montecito. But the fact that they've actually been given a formal eviction notice is very clear. You're not coming back. There are no warm sort of olive branches being extended to you, if that's a thing. And it's really quite scathing, actually.

Can you imagine just being evicted by your own father? It is, but I've just written a column for the son about this. And you and I, Treasurer, we've argued about this. But putting us out on different opinions about them as people, there does come a tipping point in any feud of this nature, where if one side just continues to publicly attack the other, on the global stage that Megan and Harry have, not just with Oprah Winfrey,

but then a six-part Netflix documentary series, then a 400-page book, trashing everyone, including Kate and Camilla and so on. There is a tipping point for anybody. However much Charles may want to be a good dad, William, I'm told, was utterly incandescent after that book. And I think this is the logic. Apparently, this decision was taken the next day

after the book came out. Is anyone surprised, really? I never think it's a good idea to make a decision like that in haste. you then repent at leisure. I think given the coronation is, as you've mentioned, but weeks away, and that we want our monarchy to look broad-shoulder, to look global, to look like it's an institution

that understands what redemption means. I think the timing's unfortunate. I think the optics around asking Uncle Andrew, the disgraced Duke, to move in, also is deeply unfortunate. And I would question whether this is, on numerous levels, the right decision at the right time. I certainly think, Kevin, the Andrew

bit to me was ill thought through, because that gives all the people who support Megan and Harry and don't want to believe a bad word about them. I said, really, you're going to put the guy that paid this woman who says he'd ever met millions of dollars to avoid having his day in court. You're going to give him their cottage because somehow he's better. All I would say to counter that, I was in America last week, and a new poll came out while I was there saying that they are now less popular in America than Andrew. I mean, that is how far their standing has fallen.

It could be because in America they've forgotten to some extent Andrew, although he is the real scandal in the royal family. I think Harry and Meghan haven't behaved well. Others, I don't think, have behaved well on the other side. But to give him that five-bedroom house, his adding insult to injury for them. I do think it's a bad move. I mean, if he needs a house, let him get on a council waiting list like everybody else.

Why should he be gifted a multi-million pound? With two orangeries and Megan Markle's yoga room. I mean, the thing is, this old man doesn't need a five-bedroom house. I think he needs a one-bedroom flat in Stevenage. Well, apparently, Andrew doesn't even want Frogmore College. He wants to stay where he is, which is a much larger property. He would be seeing it as a demotion because Andrew is pretty deluded about most things. Let me ask you, on the coronation specifically, it is coming up.

I mean, should he be invited? Never mind, will he, should Harry and Megan actually get an invitation? Absolutely not. That's what I think. They should have an invitation. Why do they? All right, go to the father bit. Look, families fall out all the time.

Let me go to the father a bit for you, because I put this in my column. If one of my three sons, all in my 20s now, and I have a great relationship with all of them, if one of my three sons spent years publicly trashing our family, all the members in it, right? And the very institution of our family, they would not get, as I put in my column, the remaining ash from my Christmas Day cigar, then alone a Grace and Faber home. Who are you talking to in your column? You're talking to a little bit, dare I say it, of Middle England. We want our monarchy to be bigger and better than that peers.

Who's we? We! Great Britain. This is a state-front institution. We want renegade once our royal cake and eat it, royals, who've been treacherous to stay in California and actually sink or swim by being Megan and Harrow. It looks like you're getting what you want. Because actually, this wasn't, as somebody said this morning,

Frogmore Cottage is just a place where they lay their heads. It actually came with the umbrella of security that you get as being part and past the straight window. Oh, please. All right, let me ask you about that. And they're obsessed with that. They're police protection rescinded elsewhere. They're so obsessed about privacy and security. So they won't come now anymore.

You've got what you want. Let me respond to you. These two apparently are, by your yardstick, obsessed with privacy and security. Right. They've just done a six-part Netflix documentary into their private lives at home. One, they don't care about privacy. They want to sell it. Secondly, on security, Harry was,

unbelievably reckless in the book to boast about his Taliban kill numbers and to describe the Taliban victims that he killed as chess pieces. He, by doing that, immeasurably worsened the security for his family, immeasurably, as any military expert will tell you. So don't let me hear them talk any more about privacy and safety when he has so deliberately invaded his own privacy and worsened their safety. I merely pointing out that whether he's exacerbated his own situation or not. They are always very concerned. We saw them last summer. They hardly left from your cottage except to go

nor was there any security incident around them. They have highly paid bodyguards. Do you know what, Piers? You've got what you want. And in the end, it's a nailing your own... It's all what I want. Yes, you've been shouting them down since the Netflix came out. Get them away from our family. Let's be quite clear. I think they are a malevolent duo

intent on fleecing their royal titles for hundreds of millions of dollars and causing untold damage to their family and the institution and the process. I do believe that. But I haven't evicted them from this home. Harry's father has evicted them from the home. Harry's brother wanted them evicted from this home.

I'm damn sure of it. Because they are sick and tired of not just them being trashed, but their wives being trashed by these two. I want to what Kevin makes at this, as you've got your finger on the tabloid, pass. This, if they don't come to the coronation, in terms of traction, in terms of attention, this is a depletion.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm trying to. Absolutely. Nobody cares. Look, there's grotesque inequality at here and unfairness when these houses are standing empty in a country with a homelessness crisis. But if they're not there at the coronation, they won't be missed.

In truth, the event will just take it. It's the other way around. If they are there, they become a massive distraction. And by the way, if I were William and Charles and Kate and Camilla, I wouldn't trust a pair of them as far as I could throw them. You could remember, Harry went to Prince Philip's funeral. and he then went ahead, had a private conversation with Charles and William immediately afterwards

at the scene of the funeral. And then he put all of that in his book. This is a guy who was ranted about the media, about tabloid editors like me, for invading his family's privacy and all this kind of garbage. And yet there he is invading his family's privacy at the most excruciating private time,

revealing private conversations. Uncle Andrew in a front row at the coronation. I don't think he should be there either. Hold on. And you're not going to have... Well, hold on. You're not going to have... You're presuming we want that out as what we don't.

And can I ask you, why would you even want them there? Why would you want to see a pair that have trashed their family for years? And the monarchy? Why do you want monarchy bashes there? Because actually... That's canceling a hall event. That's an easy way out. Let's scrap it.

Save the money. And I know it's hard, you know, the pain of privilege. But I think Harry is something of a victim and he's angry and in pain. And yes, he's made mistakes. I think they've slightly lost you. Yeah. Who've lost it? You've lost your venom about this.

You've lost your spark. You've lost the ability to rise up and defend them. Because in your heart, you know, Tessa Dunlop, I've been writing about them the whole time. Do you know what? You do? I'm fatigued by you. I've just seen it. It's like watching a helium balloon when it sucks out. You know, it's like as a slow like, but actually you've lost that thing, that crackle. Yeah. No. Well, you felt genuinely felt they were right. Now you think, you know what? They're just, they've lost me. No, what saddens me, Piz is that, and I write's ironic. It's how awful they think. No, is that there you are, smacking your lips, thinking that you've won something.

But the bigger picture is our monarchy, by all of this, has been depleted. And actually, is a monarchist's light, I'm sad. No, actually, what Charles has done, in my view, very smartly, he's now moving to save the monarchy and his reputation from these two flame throwers. From these two flame throwers who keep wanting to trash it and burn it to the ground. Lovely to see you, Tessis.

Love me to see you, Esther and Kevin. I think you're all staying, actually. I think we are. All right, well, that's nice to us. I'm going to see you after the break as well. Well, next to tonight, an extraordinary story. A convicted male paedophile decides they're a woman. We had a similar story like this, of course, up in Scotland with the rapist.

But the prosecutor is suspended for refusing to use the right pronouns and acknowledge them as she. That prosecutor joins me live next. The prosecutor Shay Sanna has been suspended in Los Angeles for dead naming and misgendering a convicted trans child molester, warning that she, is trying to gain the system. The case involves James Tubbs, now Hannah Tubbs, who began identifying as a woman after her, I'll be calling her, after his 2014 arrest for sexually assaulting a child.

Tubbs is also accused of murder. With the lead prosecutor, Shea Sanna, fears that Tubs may be pretending to be a trans woman to have an easier time in jail. And of course, we've just had a very similar story up in Scotland. Well, Shea Sanna joins me now. Mr. Sanna, thank you very much indeed for joining me. This is such a...

It may be speechless. We've just had a story in Scotland over here in the UK of a transgender rapist, who was a man when he committed these two rapes, pretending, according to his ex-wife, to be female, so that he could then be put into a woman's prison, which is exactly what happened. And then there was such an outcry that he returned to a men's prison where he is now, and the head of the Scottish Parliament,

the first minister, Nicholas Gersen, had to resign in disgrace over this whole scandal. This reminds me of that. How has this happened? How can it be that you are suspended for misgendering a paedophile who's killed someone? I'm just as surprised as you are. Who would have ever thought that a prosecutor by bringing hard evidence to their administration? So I took evidence to the upper administration telling them that we have a child molester

pretending to be transgender so they could orchestrate a fraud on the system and put themselves into a juvenile facility. So this was a 26thal adult man who was sentenced as a juvenile and was placed into a juvenile facility and then was pretending to be trans so that they be classified as a girl essentially. And by bringing this to their attention, I was punished for not using the correct pronoun. I mean, it's absolutely, even as you're saying this, I'm just shaking my head in total disbelief that you get suspended for pointing out what seems to me to be an absolutely clear-cut case of somebody deliberately gaming the system and playing off what has become, but certainly in California, this incredibly woke onslaught of gender activism, that you've essentially become a victim of this.

Correct. So I work for a man named George Gascon, and he cares more about virtue signaling and his progressive policy than he does about protecting children than he does about the victims in the case. So he wants to punish his prosecutors for not using the correct pronoun instead of punishing the child molesters. But the truth is, though, the truth is you did use the correct pronoun as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to call this person, she. In the same way, I'm not going to call this rapist up in Scotland, she. They're not. They're men.

They're men abusing the system so they can be put into female facilities so that they can potentially prey on women again. That's, it seems to me, completely obvious. That's what they're doing. And they get a softer time, of course, in a women's prison if they can be successful. Exactly. And when I say correct, I mean, their preferred pronoun.

So because I hurt or may have heard a child molester's feelings, Gaskon wants to punish me. It's incredible that we are even in a world. Look, Shay, it's incredible to me. We're even in the world where a convicted killer, robber, pedophile has the brass neck to demand the use of any preferred pronoun. And then a legal system led by a DA in LA County goes along with this nonsense. Right. It's crazy. And the most ironic part is, is that the murder child molester isn't the offended party here. It's the members of Gascon's executive team. They were offended for this child molester, and they're the ones that filed the complaint, and it hadn't me suspended. So I didn't even offend the child molester. I offended Gascon. So his feelings are hurt because I call the man a man. It's honestly, it is absolutely mind-boggling what has happened to you. What's the latest? Are you going to get allowed back or what's happening?

It's a five-day suspension, so I will return at the end of my suspension. But there'll probably be another one waiting for me. This is just retaliation. Gascon's under a crusade to punish and terminate anybody who speaks out against him. Well, you know what? I admire your honesty and I admire your guts because James Tubbs is a man. And he's not going to be called she or they or then by me ever. Thank you very much indeed, Shea Senner.

I appreciate you joining me. Hey, thank you for having me. Just it, I mean, I keep saying there was gone mad. This is completely nuts. Yeah, there's usually a bit more to it, though, isn't there? Yeah. And I think there is in this case and other accusations. If it was just as explained, yes.

Although I know it's the Daily Mail, the mail website referred to Jim Straw Canna, as she. Why? Because if that's how somebody wants to be called, that's it. Where you put them in? Where you put them in? It's not though, is it? Because when I have said I want to be called hot, hot, or hottest, or hottest man in the world, nobody goes along with it. That's my preferred pro no one agrees. No, no, no, now you've been ridiculous. Now you've been ridiculous. Let's take a break. Come back and talk about this and also about Jeremy Clarkson, who has now been let go by ITV. I know that feeling, involving a conflict with Mega Markle.

I know that feeling too. So we'll talk about that after the break. Welcome back Esther, Tessori-Kay. We're visiting one of our regular PAC members, Ava Santina. She's actually at the Emirate Stadium tonight as an Everton fan with her dad and just sent me this message on WhatsApp. Poor, poor Ava, having a terrible night

as my beloved Arsenal crush Everton to pieces. Anyway, enjoy your evening, over. We'd left on a cliffhanger about Jeremy. Clarkson. So apparently there's an updated statement from my TV saying, well, we've recorded the next series. And as with all series, we won't make any more decisions until after that. So they're slightly hedging their bets. They're not actually saying Clarkson is cancelled. I guess the question is, should you be? It's so inflammatory that word cancelled. Can I just extract it from your mouth? No. It's so unhelpful. You're literally looking at somebody who was cancelled.

Do you know you're not cancelled? Because you're sitting right there. No, no, somebody, Rupert Murdoch, who owns Talk TV and the company, actually came and gave me a job. So he had a rebirth, like the phoenix from the flames. And thankfully, he believes in free speech. But the truth is, I was cancelled from Good Morning Britain at a time when it became the number one morning show in the country. And I was cancelled because I refused to believe Megham Markle. Now I'd have to be cancelled for believing it. Let's return to the question of Jeremy Clarkson, who I think hasn't been cancelled, but I think ITV.

But they've certainly tried. But they are sensing the direction of travel. He's past his prime. He's not actually. I think he's past his farm things being really well. He's platforms all over the shop. And on the farm subject, he can go and grow tomatoes. But actually, in terms of hosting a mainstream family switch show.

How is he lost his crime if people are watching him growing tomatoes? Well, Haley's being put out to grass and he's doing a gentle farming show. Much more appropriate. Hester, should. Should Clarkson carry on at I TV. No. Well, he should. Obviously, they're going to go on ratings.

But there were reports that there was very clear that they didn't want to support what he said about Megan, even though he released an apology. But it was such a half-hearted apology. It was still an apology. But this is the thing. There's all such a double standard. Even though he's apologized,

because of who it's coming from, they get to play this. Oh, but it's not enough. Should he prostrate himself on the ground? He just shouldn't have done it. Has Kevin Ligo said before Christmas, they said he's a consummate profession. My issue with the whole woke brigade

is that even when you do issue a grovelling apology, it's never enough. They never accept it. They throw it back in your face. This went much wider than your little walk brigade. That's why I think ITV will plough him up and let him spend more time on his farm shop.

Is that right, for a clumsy, stupid, bad joke, which was intended to the joke. No one supports it. No one supporting it. But should he actually lose his ITV economy? It was really vile, and he stuck by it for some time until he saw public opinion was so wide against him. even his daughter came out and criticized.

He was cancelled. What happened? And this is his second chance. He wasn't cancelled by his daughter. Two seconds, but he was already knocked off our state broadcaster for lamping someone. So offset, he's behaved badly. Then on set.

To be fair, he lamped me a lot earlier than that. I know. I'm going to start the campaign to get you the job. I can't believe that I'm the one who's got the scar on my head from his fist and I'm the one defending him. I've just seen a second coming for you. There's a gap on a big quiz show on ITV. I know.

Actually, now you're talking. You could be. I can make my ITV comeback. Who wants to be a millionaire? I already am, thanks for that. It's great, trust me. Let's move on, shall we? We can't leave you there.

Thanks, Pank. That's it from me. What are you up to? Like Jeremy Clarkson, keep it uncensored. Good night.