Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Harry's Private Security, Teacher Misgendering Trans Pupil, YMCA

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers looks into how Harry, due to high court ruling can't hire the British Police Force for his private security. Piers speaks the Christian teacher who was struck off for misgendering a trans student. Piers delves into how the Village People are looking at suing Donald Trump for using the song YMCA. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pierce Morgan. I'm censored tonight the high court rules that Prince Harry cannot hire the British police force for its own private security just days after he ripped up a frenzy about his security in New York, as Harry's big PR gamble over all this spectacularly backfired. A Christian school teacher is struck off reportedly for misgendering a trans pupil in the first case of its kind of me UK. He joins me live. Plus the village people are threatening to sue Donald Trump for using the legendary anthem YMCA. Yes, young man. Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening in London.

Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. I was going to start tonight's show with a little monologue about Prince Harry whining again, being in court again, moaning about security again, the usual stuff. It's not uninteresting. He lost a big case today

in his ongoing battle with the British government over his right to have proper royal protection whenever he's in the United Kingdom. And he wants us, the British taxpayer, to pay for him. Or if that's not the case, he wants the right to pay for it himself. Well, that right today has been rejected and we're going to come to that debate in a moment. But I can't get out of my head something I watched earlier.

I just can't. I'm trying to, but it's a lot of. lurking in my membranes like a large lizard, because I can't quite believe what I heard. This is Sir Ed Davies. He's a knight of the realm in the United Kingdom. He's had the tap on the shoulder from whoever it was, the Queen or William or Charles or somebody, for his services to this country, because he's supposedly an intelligent man. And yet this morning with Nick Ferrari on LBC Radio. He was asked that whole question,

what's a woman? What do they look like? And this is what he said. Think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion. Well, that's what Sakea Starma once said to me, and he never did answer the question,

can a woman have a penis? Well, I've just answered that question. They can. Listen, I've made it really clear that if people, the vast majority of people will have the same gender as their biological sex, but a small number won't.

So a woman can have a penis? Well, quite clearly. What? Sorry? What do you mean? Quite clearly. Sir Ed, what are you talking about? Quite clearly, women can have penises.

What are you talking about? You are the leader of a major national political party in this country. You've already seen the First Minister of Scotland lose her. job for being unable to defend women's rights, for thinking it's fine for a male rapist to be put in a women's prison. She had to go. We've seen Sekeir Starma wriggling around. I mean, let's watch a bit of Keir Starma trying to explain what a woman is. For 99. I don't know, 9% of women, everything is a matter of biology. For 99.9.9 something percent of women, it's all biological and it's very straightforward.

And let me be clear, for the vast majority of women, this is all about biology, and of course they don't have a penis. We all know that. I don't think we can conduct this debate with, you know... Sorry, I've offended you in some way. No, no, no, no, I just... A woman can't have a penis. I don't think that discussing this issue in this way helps.

That's Sakea Stama, another knight of the realm, knighted, because he's a smart lawyer, intelligent man, also failing to explain simply what a woman is, which of course is just an adult human female. It's not a trick question. This ever used to be a controversial thing. And yet he can't answer. And now Sir Ed Davy has taken it to a new level altogether.

Let's just replay what Ed Davies said again. Just to really try and comprehend exactly what he's saying. I think we need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion. Well, that's what Sarkia Stama once said to me, and he never did answer the question, can a woman have a penis? Well, I've just answered that question. They can. Listen, I've made it really clear that if people, the vast majority of people will have the same gender as their biological sex, but a small number won't. So a woman can have a penis?

Well, quite clearly. It's unbelievable, isn't it? Isn't it? Or have I gone mad? It's unbelievable that in 2023, this is now something that political leaders are saying that women can have penises. They can't. Just a biological fact. It's not transphobic. It's not about trans rights. I absolutely believe that trans people should have rights to fairness and equality, like everybody else in life. regardless of anything else. But you cannot deny biological scientific fact.

And when two of the three major political parties in this country are run by men who are denying biological fact with these public statements, what does that say to women in this country? Who's defending their rights? Who is explaining what a woman is? Who's standing up for women? who is just telling the country what a woman is. It's unbelievable.

Anyway, rant over, but I have had that clip in my head all day and I can't get it out of my head. Thank God Rishi Sunat, the Prime Minister, when I asked him that question at No. 10 Downing Street, just simply replied, it's an adult human female. That's all that needs to be said. Like a man is an adult human male.

and trans people are trans people and everyone should get respected but you can't deny biological fact right I've got that off my chest let's turn into Prince Harry who last time my chat is identifying as a very irritating adult human male

I'm joined now by the author and historian Dr Tessa Dunlop former chief of two-tentat the magistrate the police Dalbabu and talk TV's Royal editor at Sarah Houston right Sarah Just bring us up to speak, because Harry's involved in about a thousand legal actions at the moment against the world. What is the thing that happened today, and why is it significant? Today, a judge decided that...

You are identifying as a woman, right? I am indeed. Harry couldn't have a judicial review on his request to pay for his own security when he comes to the UK. So when he was still a member of the royal family, working member of the royal family, he was entitled to 24-7 police protection, paid for by the taxpayer. When he stepped down in 2020, he lost that automatic right. He's got another legal challenge,

which is about the decision to remove that automatic right. This in particular was about him wanting to pay for it. He made the offer that he would fund it. The Metropolitan Police said, we're not guns for hire. The Home Office said it would be inappropriate, and today the judge has decided that it isn't right. It would set a wrong precedent, because effectively you could have all kinds of wealthy people coming into the UK

saying, well, we want to hire Metropolitan Police officers to detect us. But he could still win the review about the basic principle or whether he should be allowed moral protection when he's here. Yes, and that review looks at the way in which the decision was made and the fact that he wasn't part of that decision. So it's not over yet. And actually, he could still appeal against this part of it. But for now, he can't take it further.

He does still have. We don't have a date set for the other wider case about him losing his security. It's about automatic security as well, because actually it will be judged on a case-by-case basis. So when he was back for the coronation, he was part of the security bubble. He was protected because he was attending a royal engagement. This is about when he comes back with his family. All right. Dahl, you've been a senior police officer in this country.

As a British taxpayer, regardless of my personal feelings about Harry and everything else, Just as a British taxpayer, why should I be paying, just on principle, for someone who's quit the royal family, quit royal duty, gone off to America, now makes hundreds of millions of dollars, normally by trashing his family, whatever, you can take a view either way on whether you agree with that. It's not really relevant. But why should somebody who's made that conscious decision to exit

both the country and the royal family and royal duty? Why should they get such a perk when they come back here have been protected by our Royal Protection Squad. Well, I think that's a legitimate challenge and I think that's what a lot of people are asking. What do you think? Well, I don't think he should be entitled to that because I think he's not a royal working royal.

If you're a working royal, and no matter where you are in the pecking order, then you have that right to be protected. He's essentially, it's a commercial enterprise now with Prince Harry. He's a celebrity. Yeah, so he'll come along and he'll want that, all the resources there. We don't actually know how much policing

the royal family costs. So essentially he's unaware of what that cost would be. So in terms of the process now, he will, if there is a legitimate target placed on him, if there's any intelligence placed on him, he will be like everybody else, have police protection. Right. Specifically for that. But I think what he's asking for is general protection 24-7, which he's been used to all his life. I think he's now finding extremely difficult to realise that working as a celebrity, working on a commercial basis, then the world is totally different. Tessa, why? Why should we be paying for him to have unfettered access to one of the top protection squads in the country? I'm going to explain to you in a sec why I think we need to

flip that question around. But just to answer initially the point, or rather pose another question, is once a prince, always a prince. And I think what's interesting about Harry's case is the naivety, the presumption that everything that was around him, he wore like a second skin. If you have 24-hour security from the day that you're born, you probably don't actually realize where the line is, what's being royal and what's just being a regular bloke, celebrity or not. And I think it's been hard for him to shed that print skin. He never will. It's one of the reasons why he's a global celebrity. But Piz, the good news is, and it's somewhere to turn your attention in the future, if Harry isn't deemed to be a sufficient risk to need this protection,

and we, the public, have shed that royal skin for him, then I would counter, why don't we start examining the bloated security bill that so many of the royal family guzzle? And incidentally, we don't know how much that cost is. It's higher than the sovereign grant, they think, because whenever people put in an information, F-O-O-O in it, they don't get a response. So you would take away protection.

Hang on, for working royals, who are day by day doing their juicy for the country, and in return, they get protection, because there are lots of people out there that may want to harm them. They're targets, right? We know that they've been attacked before, right? You would take all by the way? No, you're putting words in my mouth.

What would you do? Some of the lesser royals don't require... Which of the working royals would you take it away from? Well, for instance, I mean, did you get hot under the collar, as you have just done now on gender and Harry, about Eugenie in 2009, having a security brief involving two policemen who weren't with her on a gap here to Cambodia and Thailand? Sorry, just to be clear.

To be clear, that was the case. I was out with both her and her sister recently, for lunch. They have no security. In 2009, she had two working policemen with her and Campodia. 2009? I'm just saying, did you lose it over there? I know, but I'm saying, actually, we have a vast security bill for lesser royals. Do people like Sophie and Anne need security of Harry and Megan? Everybody. But they don't have 24-7 security. No. They have security when they're on royal engagement. But they have security. And often their properties have 24-7 security paid for by us. But I think what you're fine now, this whole debate will perhaps look at what is the cost of protecting

in a royal family generally. And I don't think Harry has got a clue around what the cost is. I mean, I remember when the Queen and Prince Philip attended Enfield, it was a huge operation, not just the plot team, the specific plot team, but on top of that, you would have had every single venue would have to be searched by licensed search officers. You'd have to ensure that. That's expensive.

Yeah, absolutely. So all of that expense becomes quite significant. And I was talking to Princess Diana's former bodyguard, Ken Wolf, hugely respected individual. And Ken was saying it is quite shocking that during this incident in New York, which ironically was days before this ruling was come out. Well, I don't think it was coincidence. But you end up with a situation where they've jumped into,

they're worried about security. Put him in a taxi. They're put into a taxi. No idea who the driver is. And the driver's gone on and sold this story and whatever. They then went back and sat in a police station. Now, if you had... But these are people that worked on Obama's Secret Service detail.

a part of this protection team, apparently. Well, I mean, it seems incredibly amateurish, the way it was done. Yeah, I totally agree. And if you had somebody with the skill level that the British police have, they would have looked at the journey, where the journey was going to go, where the individuals were going to go, what was going to happen, all of those eventualities would have gone. You wouldn't have been jumping in the back of a minicab.

I did find it. And it's interesting how it's played out, isn't it, Sarah? Because when it first broke that story, I was at home, I was like, oh, wow, this looks, really serious. What's happened here? This is memories of Diana and everything else. There's been no footage. There's been no pictures. It's been nothing. This is New York City, Upper East Side at 10 o'clock at night on a Friday or whatever it was, right? It would be rammed with people with cameras. Nothing. There's no evidence that there was anything like a two-hour high-speed chase through Manhattan. It's all even possible. The traffic wouldn't allow it.

And then they stick them in a cab, which goes round the block and then comes back. And so this goes on, all to protect them from revealing where they were staying. Well, this is about a standoff between Harry and the media, isn't it? Because Harry did not want the paparazzi to get a photo of him. And he's paying for that security. He's literally just been, yeah, but he's just been at a massive event. That's not his terms, though, isn't it? For his wife to get a completely spurious award

of being the world's most inspiring woman, for the reasons that baffle me. But anyway, east of their own. Is that? It's just Harry. Is that Harry? Sorry, it's just, once again. I'm looking for his milk of you. But they've been to this sort of self-aggrandizing media event

where, of course, it's in the middle of Manhattan. It's in Midtown Manhattan crawling in paparactive. Of course it is. Of course they're going to follow them wherever they think they're going to be going. Why stay at a private residence you want to keep private? Why not go to the hotel like they normally do? I mean, it's a battle of wills, isn't it? It doesn't want them to get what they want.

If it's not on their terms, he doesn't want them to have that photograph. And if you're paying for the security, and you've said to your security detail, your one job is to make sure they don't get a photograph. It's different. But, Tessor, here's my problem with this. Here's my problem with this. They just, I don't know what it is.

I don't know what is really motivated. Whether it's just a blind hatred of all the media, so any tiny thing they want to blow out of all proportions so that it looks like they're being hunted or whatever. But everyone I've spoken to about this incident in New York has said it just was not anything like the near catastrophe they were painting. I can see there is a contradiction between their hunger for celebrity

and their desire for privacy. But, Peir, I'm asking of you to try and find some sort of empathy. I know you weren't born a prince. I know you're a pauper done good. But the bottom line is, that boy had everything, and it is far harder climbing down in life than it is climbing up.

And he has bucket loads of anxiety to do with his childhood, to do with the way in which his mother's done. You know what? Here's my response. So it's difficult for them, and they're going to have to keep on people to pay for the security.

Here is my honest response. to that, right? He has brought all of this on himself. He hasn't because of what he was doing. He goes on like he's the only person to lose a parent apart from anything else, right? I lost, my father died when I was won, right? William lost his

mother at the same time Harry did. He doesn't behave like this. This guy's quit the country, quit Royal Duty, quit everything, gone to California, lives in a wonderful mansion, and he sells his family down the river for vast amounts of cash every chance he gets. I have no sympathy.

At all. He's not perfect peers, but he's naive, and he was to the man of born, and you are stalled. Harry, every day, it will be working out how he pays for that gigantic security brief to keep his paranoia in check. How much does it cost? Be honest. To give someone like Eugenie or Anne or Sophie protection. They don't get it. We've already established that.

They get him on their own royal duty. Yeah, we haven't got the figures. But, I mean, I think the difficulty, it is an enormous figure. I think the difficulty is with Harry. I don't think he understands how the world works. in terms of how all that intelligence comes in, the briefings that we have to be done. And do you actually want somebody walking down the high street

to protect you, solving your burglary, solving crime? Do you know what he wants? He wants to, I think, he just wants to have his royal kegan eat it. It basically boils down to that. He wants to be, like he tried to propose to the Queen, half in, half out. He wants some good stuff, the celebrity status, the money, the trappings, the royal protection.

He just want to put the shift in. You know, in Cleethorpe's on a wet Wednesday, going to an old people's home. And that's not the deal that the public has with the royal family. It's just not that the deal is they do all that stuff hundreds and hundreds of times a year and in return, they get the trappings and they get the security and everything else.

I mean, his argument would be, well, I was born a prince. I didn't choose the way I was born. I am still a prince. Look at prime ministers. Former prime ministers still get their protection in life should they choose it. Regardless of how long they serve. Yeah, they do.

He did serve. That's such a good point, sir. She's the winner. Nobody would ever question the service he gave his country, least of all me. So let's keep his protection when he's head. I wish that guy was still that guy. That's all I can say.

My brother-in-law taught them at Sandhurst, William and Harry. He said he was a great little soldier. But do you know what? If he got his protection, he'd come over and give you more stuff to talk about. Ask 100 soldiers what they think of Harry at the moment. Well, I mean, Harry, Harry's sort of went out. He actually broke the code. He talked about going out there shooting.

I mean, he's... Oh, come on loads of SSIA. Guys have done that. Yeah, but he's made himself more vulnerable. I agree. He's more of a... He's not particularly bright. I think when you go out there,

you think all the people that would perhaps want to do him harm, he wanted to add to that and says, look, I've killed a little bit. It was just... I don't think... I think there's too much wacky-backy in California, unfortunately.

But that's just an allegation. Unsubstantiated, apart from regular confessions in his book. Thank you to my star panel. Much appreciate it. Uncensored. Next, a Christian teacher is banned for the profession for using the wrong pronouns for transgender people. It's the first case of his kids.

Kind of the UK, and he joins me live after the break. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Joshua Sutcliffe was a mass teacher at the Cherwell School in Oxford. That was until one lesson in 2017 when he praised a group of female students on their hard work. Or one of the girls identifies as a transgender boy. And this week, in the first case, if it's kind of the UK, Joshua Sutcliffe was banned from every classroom in England for not using the pupil's preferred pronouns. But to Suckliff said he apologised immediately and has been persecuted because of his christendom.

Christian Belice and he joins me now. Well, thank you for coming on, Peirz Morgano Sensor. Thank you, Pearce. Just tell me exactly what happened. Well, it was the TRA hearing in recent months and the principal reason that they banned me from every classroom in the UK as you mentioned was for refusing to use the pronouns

that a particular student wanted to... So what did you actually say? You called the group girls? Yeah, it was two girls at the front of the class and one of them identified as a boy. And I agree with the policy exchange report recently released by the government where it says that, you know, we're letting down a generation of young people affirming them in these, you know, dispositions.

You know, in the UK, you need a gender recognition certificate and that is post-18. And so it really is a serious issue and it's affected schools across the nation. We're saying a lot of kids now, identifying as something other than their biological sex. What do you think of that phenomenon? Well, I think it's really something our society

should be taking much more seriously. You know, it's a path. These students go down a path of taking very strong drugs and surgery, and it's something that shouldn't be so quickly brought into classrooms across the country. And it's happening everywhere, as you've seen in the news reports, not just for me, but for other teachers. Do you call these two students

girls, one of them was a transgender boy by her own, or his own definition, whichever you want to say it, right? This is at a time, this is, you know, five, six years ago when this issue wasn't anyone who's prevalent as it is now. Did you realize immediately this might be a problem? Well, I wasn't really savvy. I didn't know about the issue as we've come to know about it. But at the time, with my Christian convictions, I thought it an appropriate stance to you know, just use the student's name. And what happened to you? Well, I mean, the school sort of took a case against me

and it's ended out all the way at the... What were you accused of doing? Accused of using the wrong pronouns. Literally? Literally, yeah, accused of using the wrong pronouns. And that was actually the principal reason that the Department of Education used against me, that I refused to use the pronouns.

So really quite a shocking and sad day for myself personally, but even for England, you know. I mean, the argument, that was put forward against you was that you should treat all pupils of dignity and respect and if they're identifying in a different way then you should feel mandated to do that. Well I think the safeguarding of the pupil is paramount in this situation and if you affirm these students in their gender identity then that could lead them down a path that maybe the one day they will regret and you know maybe it's something that we should think about

you know leaving for adults to decide rather than such young students I'm going to down this path. See, on this, I'm kind of, you know, I'm kind of sympathetic to what you're saying about that issue, the pronoun misgendering and so on with so many kids now following what I think in most cases is just a fad. Why should people have to change their language to accommodate what seems to be just a fad? The complication, I think, in your case, is that you have very strong Christian beliefs, or I would say beliefs that pertain to your religion. Would you accept I accept that, Pierce, yeah. So you have four abominations on your website, for example.

Yes. Abortion, homosexuality, porn and Islam. Yes. You call them abominations. Yes. Is it right? When I read that, I was like, hang on, is it right that any teacher should be teaching kids if they call those four things abominations?

Well, you understand, Pierce, those things happened outside of the classroom. You know, that's my own person. Understand that. Yeah. Understand that. But in one case, it was cited that you had, for example, on the issue of gay marriage, you'd said to kids in the class that it should be between a man and woman.

Yeah, a student asked me about my conviction, and that was what I said, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But, you know, the Bible very clearly describes many things as sinful and as not good things for us. The Bible also tells you to stone people for various offenses, and we don't do that anymore. I mean, the point is... Well, we all deserve...

I mean, I'm a Catholic, but I wouldn't use language like these are all abominations. Particularly when a lot of people in this country are now gay, obviously, you think that that's abominable. Yes. And that's fine. It's your prerogative to have that opinion. But there will be people who think, well, hang on,

these are pretty hardcore views of someone who wants to teach young children. I understand that people might disagree with me, Piers, but that's a pretty orthodox Christian view to think. that these things are sinful and not good. I don't know any Christians who say Islam is an abomination. I know some, but they're not, it's not Orthodox, Christian teaching. Of course it's standard Christian teaching, you know,

to not agree with Islam and, you know, to... Not that it's an abomination, not a religion, there's respect for Islam. Well, I respect Muslims very much, Piers. You don't, you call their religion an abomination. We must separate ideas from people, people. Well, hang on, listen, on your website, you say Islam as an abomination. It's not respecting a religion.

It's the opposite of respecting a religion. No, I disagree very much with Islam, P.S. That's fine. It's entirely your prerogative. I'm just saying that if you want to be a teacher, is it compatible with being a teacher to have a personal website which lists a series of abominations, including the right to be gay, the right to have an abortion, legal pornography,

Islam, another massive religion, one and a half billion people? It just seems to me if I was a parent at that school and I read that on your website, I would be concerned. Well, I think it's up to parents to look these things up if they want to, but all parents that I've had interactions with would say that I'm a very respectable man and always did the job at hand.

But I think in our free society, you'd think that I'd be able to share those things outside the classroom. You now go into the street and you talk. Let's watch a little clip of what you do. His name is Jesus Christ. This is an urgent plea with your spirit. I'm not just talking to your minds.

I'm talking to your spirit to your heart. That you might be awoken from the death of this generation. That you might be shaken out of the depths of darkness and into the glorious light of the kingdom of God. I mean, again, I'm not sure I'd feel that comfortable about having a teacher of my young kid who's out there doing that every weekend. You know, it's pretty orthodox Christian beliefs that I'm... It's fine, but your teacher,

out there basically ranting away on the street. It wouldn't lend itself to most parents to think that that is entirely compatible with teaching kids. Well, you'd have to see me in the classroom, Pierce. I'm a good practitioner. When were you last in a classroom? Well, three or four years ago now. Do you want to teach again? I'd love to teach again.

I enjoy teaching. My dad's a teacher. What does your dad make of all this? He supports me, yeah. I mean, yeah. Does he agree with all your views? Well, he's a Christian himself, Pierce. He was an R.E. teacher for 30 years.

But does he agree that all these things are abominations? Well, Pierce, this is biblical teaching. It shouldn't be a surprise to you or anyone else. Like I said, the Bible also teaches people to stone people to death. We don't do that in civilized places anymore. That's the penalty for sin, Pierce. But Jesus died on the cross. Just to clarify, then, for adultery, you think it's right to stone people to death.

I think that... as they do in Saudi Arabia, for example. Do you? All sin deserves the death penalty. So adultery is a sin? Let me finish, please. Hang on, hang on. Is adultery a sin? It's an important point.

Is adultery a sin? Jesus died on the cross for sinners. He took the place of sin. Joshua, is adultery a sin? Yes. So you want to execute everyone who's committed adultery? All sin, all 613 commandments, all sin is punishable by death. Right.

Joshua, that's nuts, mate. And that's what the Bible teaches. You see, you start off, you have me at the start. You have me about the pronoun issue, because I think it's incredibly complicated. I don't see, I also have a big concern about a number of kids who are basically putting their hands up saying, I'm a woman, I'm a girl, I'm a boy with a knot, and so on. But this stuff is nuts, mate. If you're going to say that everyone who's a sinner by the rule of the Bible has to be killed,

there's no one left. There's no one left. There's only you left, and I don't feel comfortable about world with only Joshua Sutcliffe alive. Don't be silly. I am the worst of sinners, Pierce. Why are you said alive? Because Christ has died for sinners. You took the place. But by your yardstick, you should be executed.

Yes, I should be. Who by? God, he's the judge of all. No, but you're going to go and submit yourself for execution? No, but Jesus is, it's called penal substitution. It's a theological point. Joshua, it's nuts, right? It's the substitution of Christ for sinners, peers.

Joshua, it's nuts. And unfortunately, when you talk that way, it disqualifies you in my eyes from being a teacher. Not the pronoun stuff. On that, I'm with you. On this stuff, it's nuts. But we should be in a free society, Peter. Totally.

And you're, by the way, allowed of as many nutty views as you like. I just don't think... Nutty in your opinion. I think your opinion is nutty. No, in 99% of the entire planet, your views are nutty. In your world, maybe, but not in the world.

People don't think that everyone who commits adultery should be executed tomorrow. No. This is what the Bible teaches. Greed? Gluttony? Oh, sin is sin. So anyone's greedy?

It's executed? Anyone who's glutton and? gets executed, have too many donuts, Joshua Suckliss as you wheeled off to the... This is what the Bible teaches is to be put to death. And this isn't really being taught in our generation. No, there's a reason it's not taught our generation. But Christ is the perfect sacrifice for sin. Yes, I know. Jesus Christ did sacrifice himself.

But you don't think Jesus Christ will be sitting here today at my desk saying every single person who commits an act of greed or gluttony or adultery should be summarily executed. If you do think that... judgment of God. You do think that you have a very warped idea of what actually the Bible is supposed to mean. No, I think what's happened is you've got your own view of what the Bible says, but you haven't really ever been told what the Bible says. I've read the Bible. I was actually given spiritual guidance by Catholic nuns when I was 11 years old for a couple of years. So I'm very, very, very savvy with the Bible. But honestly, when I hear people say that for all these sins, you've got to be put to death, it's nuts. So for that, you shouldn't be teaching.

Well, Christ has taken our place, Pierce, and I think I should be in the last week. Well, unfortunately, someone from YMCA is about to take your place on the show, I'm afraid, and that's it. But good to see you. Thank you, Joshua Sutcliffe. Uncensored next. The village people are taking on Donald Trump over his unauthorized use of their iconic anthems. A village person will debate that with me live if he hasn't sinned too much in the break. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan, uncensored and still sinning.

You probably recognize this disco anthem. Well, YMCA by the village people has been the soundtrack of weddings, bar, midst of pretty much every drunken night I had as a teenager. More recently, it's become the unlikely soundtrack of Donald Trump's rallies in America. This will do the Trump. It's actually quite a nifty mover, but the group was now threatened to sue Trump over the use of their music and a look-like band that played at his Murillago estate without their permission. They argue that fans now believe the real village people are endorsed.

forcing Donald Trump, and they threatened, well, basically, go to legal war with him. So there's a long list of artists have argued they don't want to be associated with Trump in the past. And I'm joined now from Atlanta by the British People's Victor Willis and by MAGA rapper Forgiato Blow, who's in Florida. Well, welcome to both of you. Victor Lewis, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

To Willis, thank you, sir. I feel like a part of my life has just appeared on screen. So thank you for all the entertainment over the years. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. How are you doing? Great. Thank you. Now, your wife, Karen, I believe, is leading the legal battle with Donald Trump over this. On behalf of the band, what is your problem with Donald Trump using your music and look-a-like bands and so on? Well, first of all, again, thank you for having me on the show.

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, let me say that the press, President Donald Trump, I like the fact that he likes my music. As far as him using playing the music, I asked him a long time ago not to play the music, but at the same time legally he has a right to play it. I mean, anybody can play it that wants to. The particular problem came along when Donald Trump decided to have some people dress up like village people and have them at Marglogo performing to the song that I wrote and it was singing. And it made it become a situation to where I got a lot of calls and a lot of emails from people

and fans, etc., that were like really upset by the fact that they thought that we were endorsing Trump. And this is where the confusion became to where my wife, who is the manager of village people, at the same time, she's a jurist doctrine lawyer. I myself am the original lead singer and writer. I wrote all the songs, YMCA, macho man, et cetera, in the Navy. And we were bombarded by a lot of fans that were upset by the fact that they thought that the people

that were performing at Marlago were actually the village people. I got it. You know, whereas village people, we're not, we stay out of politics. We're not a political group. We wouldn't endorse Trump and we wouldn't endorse a Democrat.

We wouldn't endorse anybody. We stay out of that. I got it, Victor. Let me go to Fordiardo. So this is not really an anti-Republican thing, Fordiardo. This is basically a we want to stay out of politics altogether thing. Shouldn't that be respected if British people, one of the great bands in the world,

who've entertained the world, if they just want to say, look, we don't want to get political at all. Shouldn't they have that right? No, I don't think in the world right now, I mean, we have a platform and we're teaching, you know, the new generation which Trump is also putting on their song. I understand that they don't want to be political, but I don't see it's a problem. I mean, there's five to eight-year-old girls around the world dressed up like their favorite princess singing Frozen. Are we going to stop them from doing that every single day?

I don't see what the problem is. I just feel like it's an attack on Trump. Anything Trump does, people say, you know, Trump is above the law. He's not. He's under the law. They'll go out Trump for everything. So I just think that's an issue. I don't think that's a problem.

I think he's helping the song get bigger. All right. Ford Yudder. What's been your biggest hit? My biggest song isn't actually a megastong. It's called Vanneva Sprite with Rick Ross and Vanilla Ice. But four more years, probably my biggest song. But if Joe Biden or BOM or any type of organization wanted to play my music, I really

wouldn't care. That was going to be my question. You wouldn't mind if Joe Biden did that of his rallies, your song? No, because Trump's not being negative playing it. He's got to dance. He's making everybody in America, especially this America we're living in right now, happy again, you know, making America Trump again.

He's only making those who support him happy again. I mean, Trump's not doing it negative. He's being happy. He's not, I could see if he was being disrespectful to them. They know they're legends. Okay, let me bring Vickson. Let me bring Vickson back in. Please, sir.

Vickett, but come back in, Victor. Let me interject here. Thank you, sir. Number one, young man, you have a misconception of what I just said. I said, we do. not mind Donald Trump playing the music because we don't care who plays the music. He has the right to play the music as much as he wants. That has nothing to do with the particular situation.

We would not be saying anything. As a matter of fact, YMCA would him play in the music went all the way back up to number two on the billboard, something that I wrote over 40 years ago. So it is not a problem with him playing the music. Matter of fact, it helped us as a group. The situation became to where we had to put the cease and desist out when he had people dress up in our costumes and perform at Marlago,

which gave a lot of the fans the impression that it was us as village people endorsing him as a political idea. Okay, let me bring you Ford Giotto to respond to that. I don't think nobody thought the endorsement was going to make a difference in what's going to happen in this. election. I feel like karaoke's not illegal. People dress up on Halloween. We're going to stop. We're going

to cancel Halloween. People, I mean, they're, they're group, they're dressed up. He's sitting as a police officer. Was he the first police officer ever to be a police officer? Was there the first construction workers? Well, you know something? I have a confession. Yes, I have a confession to make. I actually went as Donald Trump. Hang on. Let me finish. I actually went as Donald Trump. Yes, so who was to do what I do. Sorry, I'm running this interview. I actually went dressed as Donald Trump to a Beverly Hills Halloween party. So I didn't get his permission. So I'm kind of sympathetic to that.

But did you get sued? Did you get a cease and desist about it? Not yet. Not yet. Trump, I've met, Trump, I've met, Trump, Trump gets a lot of hate from people who don't know physically met Trump. Trump's a nice guy, great guy. I've never seen another negative in person about them. I just feel like it's, they have a great song, they have a great music.

Okay, let me end on that. Let me end on a happy note. We love the music. Okay, let me end on a happy note. Victor, how much money have you made from... Yes, sir. How much money have you made from YMCA? Well, I've sold over 100 million records over the years.

Wow. So I can't... So, I mean, you know, I've sold quite a few records, etc. Again, it was the fact that... No, we get it, we get it. The fans... The fans are the ones that started bombarding me with the fact of seeing somebody dressed as village people

But you know what, Vita? Maybe they didn't pitch. You know what, Vita, here's the thing. They were doing it as a tribute to you. I mean, there's actually a little way looking at it, as Forge Yarta says, which is, it's kind of flattering, isn't it? I mean, there must be village people tribute acts all over the world. You can't go around so in the world. Well, you know, if they had announced it that, you know, there are several tribute groups that perform.

I mean, you know, if it was announced that here's a tribute group to the village people performing macho man or whatever, it would be nothing to say. I got it. I think we're going to clarify to, we'll clarify to President Trump, if he introduces them as a tribute act, it's fine. But if he tries and passes them off as the real thing, there can only be one, one village people and only one Victor Willis. And what an amazing star you've been and the happiness you brought to people of my generation, and many more, but particularly mine. Because my teenage years lit up with your music. But you said, it's a pleasure to have you on the program. And you, Forgiato. Thank you both.

Thank you both very much. I appreciate it. Trump, 2024, let's go. Oh, Forge Yarto, you had to ruin it, didn't you? Unsensit next. Lib Dem leader Ed Davy says a woman can quite clearly have a penis. Quite clearly. That is bonkers. We'll debate that with the Peers pack next.

Welcome back to Pierce, Morgan, Unsensit. I'm joined by the political journalist, Avis Zatina, and talk to you, presenter, Richard Tites. Right. Have you sinned, the other of you? Every day, period. Every day, come on. Where do we even start with you, Tides?

Actually, and you. And me. And you? We're all doomed. We're all doomed. What did you make of that interview? I mean, I grew up in a Catholic household. Yeah, I did.

And I don't know anyone who acts that fundamental about anything. And you know, when I read the headline this morning and we heard about, you know, him... And you feel instinctively quite sympathetic, I think. Most people, you wouldn't, obviously, because you're working as hell. Okay, well, I read it, and I knew immediately there's got to be so much more to this. There's no way he's just, you know, slightly, And there is a lot more too. The more I spoke to him and got out of him,

the more extreme his views became, right? I mean, the reality is on the pronouns thing, he's right. Yeah. You know, it's just, that is not the right way to be teaching and addressing people in schools. There's no question at all. Do you mean using the wrong pronouns? No, using...

Yeah, but when you've got 10% of kids now in some schools identifying as something other than their biological sex. At that point, it is ridiculous to... expect teachers to even try and keep up with this madness, right? It's insane. It's a bad. It's a bad. It's like 10 of them are doing it, I'm going to do it. It's honestly. But that doesn't matter.

You don't believe for a moment that 10% of students and Miss Country have dysphoria, do you? I do think that transphobia is where homophobia was about 10 years ago, maybe 20 years ago. It's an issue. I do. And I think that people... It's unnecessarily causing anxiety. We're not actually talking about transphobia. It's not a safeguarding issue.

It's not a safeguarding. It's not a pronoun issue. that pronouns aren't a safeguarding issue. I understand if a child might be going off to seek some sort of therapy and you need to let the parents know. I understand that. Encouraging the discussion of gender questioning...

By the way, and do you know why trans people are having to put up with extra mockery? And I feel very strongly about this. Proper trans people who are not just doing it for a fad, but genuinely believe they're trapped in the wrong body, many of them have surgery and so on. I know people who've been through this. It's an incredible ordeal they go through.

When they hear a leader, of a political party like Sir Ed Davy of the Liberal Democrats saying this, this is what causes the problems. We need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion. Well that's what Sir Keir Stama once said to me and he never did answer the question, can a woman have a penis? Well, I've just answered that question.

They can. Listen, I've made it really clear that if people, the vast majority of people will have the same gender as their biological sex, but a small number one. So a woman can have a penis? Well, quite clearly. I think he gave a perfectly good answer there. Quite clearly, women can have penises. I think you can. You ask a reductive question and you get a reductive answer.

Quite clearly, women can have penises. It's a biological question which demands a biological answer and he's completely wrong and he wants to be the leader of the country. It's absurd. You don't believe women have penises? I do believe that some trans women can have penises. Not trans women, women. No, come on. Don't be so reductive with that question. It's not reductive.

Because if I answer that question, this is why women's sport is being destroyed. No, it's not. Because people will not distinguish between trans women and women. Okay, right. Well, look. You cannot damage biology. You cannot deny biology. You just can't do it. And political leaders say, clearly, women have penises.

You know what happens? Trans people, real trans people, they get mocked and they get vilified for it. That's what increases transphobia. People who genuinely do feel they're trapped in the wrong body. Perhaps Ed Davy is referring to real trans people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body. But they are a trans person. They're not a woman, Eva. It's biologically impossible.

Why, as a woman, are you not keen to protect women's rights to be women? I don't think it affects my rights whatsoever. What does affect my rights is that this country... You've got male rapids being put in female prisons. Hang on, Piz. You've got male sprinters and swimmers and cyclists destroying biological females at sport. What more evidence do you need? None of that is a threat to me.

Do you know what is a threat to me? The fact that I can't walk home at night safely, the fact that I know that 1% of rapes reported go to conviction. Different issue. It's not a different issue. Different issue. Because you're arguing that men are dangerous and they shouldn't be in women's spaces.

That's what I agree with. I've got no problem with coming with you on that journey to make places safer for women. You don't make places safer for women by allowing male rapists into women's prisons because they go, ta-da, I'm a woman. It's bullshit. Anyway, let's agree about one thing before we finish,

which is that there is one great woman in this country. After the Queen's very sad death, there's one left in my estimation, other than my mother, obviously, and it's Dame Joan Collins, the magical Dame Joan, who today turned 90 years old, probably won't thank me for reminding her, but she looks about 50. It looks certainly younger than me.

Happy birthday, Dame Joan. You are a proper woman, and we salute you on this show. Thank you. We can agree on that, right? We can agree on that, remarkable. We'll want to be that. I'll tell you, he does keep it unscensored. Joan Collins, that woman.