Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Has #MeToo gone too far?

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers asks: Has the #MeToo movement damaged young men? Isabel Oakeshott and Connor Tomlinson think yes, whilst Ava Santina thinks the movement has successfully worked to make men concerned about making women uncomfortable. Piers Morgan and his panel discuss the sacking of an NHS health worker over comments she made to Jeremy Vine on TV. Royal correspondent Valentine Low gives his verdict on how the royal rift with Harry and Meghan might turn out. Piers asks can 'have a go heroes' save our streets following the stabbings of a victim of a "phone snatch", along with other members of the public who stepped in to help. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan Unsensored. Well, good evening from London, and welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Well, ladies and gentlemen, these are difficult times for Britain. Our neediest people are struggling to keep up with brutal rises in energy bills. Rocketing rents could leave some people homeless. Now mortgage rates are exploding too. Millions of young people have no hope of ever owning their own homes without the bank of mum and dad.

Caucasian boys, many of them raised in our most deprived neighbourhoods, are now the worst performing demographic for getting university places. And today, charities are warning the disabled and handicapped and will be the worst hit by the government's benefit cuts, fueling another split in his trust's cabinet. Meanwhile, refugees and economic migrants continue to cross the channel in small boats. The crisis the Home Secretary admits it's out of control. Now, how did all that sound to you?

The wording I used, repeatedly there. Every time you heard a little, bing, what was that about, do you think? I'll tell you what it was about. They're all banned words and phrases. That's where we've got to in this country. They've all just been banned. Can't use it. Does that make you sad about the state of our nation? Are you offended by the wording I just used? According to the local government association, he should be. It should be very, very offended. Council workers across the country have been banned from using every one of the words that tinged and plenty of others. An 18-page inclusive language guys says mums and dad should become birthing parents.

Ladies and gentlemen should now be everyone, in case people in between feel upset. Anything I'm setting here is that people on the government payroll spent their time and our money in a cost of living crisis coming up with this garbage. These are difficult times for Britain. There's an awful lot for council workers to be getting on with. offending people by using words like mum and dad should not be one of them. This is the tyrannical language police

who are deprived, my humble apologies to anyone offended by the word deprived, of common sense. Well, joining me now, Associate Editor of the Telegraph, Christopher Hope, Talk TV's international editor, Isabel Oakshot, and Associate Editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin McGuire.

So we'll love you to see you, Isabel, and two kings of the Fleet Street political pack. I'm not sure, you're allowed to call them kings, are you? Sexists. No, no, no. I'm a Republican. I don't want to be a king. Exactly, you, Royal. Welcome to both of you.

Let's just start with that before we get into the heavier stuff. What's going on with language police now in an official capacity? We've seen it at NHS level. We've now seen it at local government level. Why are they all being cowed into coming up with this nonsensical stuff?

Yeah, Pierce, but they're not banned. You've just used them. It's just in local government. They're looking for a new way. Now, I think, no, I wouldn't use more. Let me rephrase it. It's ma'am. Why are they assuming most normal people would be offended?

But come on, language evolves over the decades. You have a problem with mum and dads? Mom and dad, I'm all right with. Mum and dad, you sound a bit... Mum and dad. You sound sudden and soft with that. We can't say mother. You have to say birthing parents.

Yeah, well, I wouldn't use that, no. But if they're looking to try and be more inclusive, let's not... Who are they including? Let's not knock them for trying. Kevin, how can you be inclusive of a tiny number of people whilst excluding the vast majority. Yeah, but the vast majority isn't excluded. It's included as well.

I would still use mam and dad, but if people want to use birth and parents... What if I'm offended until you can't? Well, if you get offended easily, you might be. Kevin, I don't actually think you believe any of this. No, do I? I just don't get ahead. There are bigger problems in the world,

and you attack a lot of government association saying, look, shouldn't you be doing that? I agree. There are bigger problems. But they've taken... Because they've taken all this time and effort out of their busy working days and a cost of living crisis.

And guess who's pain for it? It's well-meaning people. Is it well-meaning? Yes, it is. My problem is, I thought my phone was getting text messages. I was like, I could let's turn it off. I had no idea they're offensive words at all. I was reading it perfectly straight,

and we were doing the tings to remind people later. This is what every one of those tings was a word that's offensive. Let's just pick up on this whole birthing parents thing. Is that not offensive to people who have adopted, who've adopted their? Women are really important. Who use just saraget. And mums do all the effort.

I used to get on a plane, right? And I used to love the moment where they said, ladies and gentlemen, as your captain speaking, you're not allowed to say it anymore. I think it would just get ignored by most people. No one's going to do this stuff. Do you three not realize the contradiction of getting upset other people get upset, then you're getting upset yourself?

I mean, just chill a bit. Just chill. No, because what we're trying to do is protect language for the vast majority of people who have no problem with that language. and my vast majority, I mean, 98% of the world's population. Peters, we're about the same age. You know that some of the language that would have been used about gay people, people of colour, when we were kids and young,

really offensive now. I think that's completely different. Yeah, but you move on. No, no. Racist and derogatory or homophobic or transphobic phraseology, I'm completely with you, right? You should never stigmatise groups of people. But changing mums and dads to birthing parents, it's actually grotesquely offensive to every mum and dad.

who wants to be called a mum and dad. Or disabled people are older people. Language, look, they're trying. They're trying their best. Once you give an inch on this stuff, it never stops. Now, now, you've given the inches. We just said you've given inches already. In fact, Miles, I'm glad to say, on gay people,

on people of colour, elderly people, disabled people. And so there are other people who will look at. We haven't got the Christmas yet. I mean, that's winter parties. Oh, that's rubbish. You know that's rubbish. There we go. You'll tie greetings, Kevin.

I mean, really, honestly. It'll all have to go. All right, Christopher, let's turn to more serious things. Liz Truss, your Daily Telegraph's big political guru, is there any defence you can put up, which doesn't constitute my belief that the whole week was a total disaster? She tried to run before she could walk. They were too quick on it.

She was a tax-cutting Tory. She basically had an idea about, a very good idea, about dealing with the energy bill crisis. That was a good idea. Then I'll pop onto this, let's call it, a Christmas tree. They attached tinsel, bang of it. bonuses, 45-pre-tax rates, stamp duty measures and other

other things. By the end, it keeled over this own weight, and that's the problem. But as a result of this, this is the problem I have with it, they keep banging on about we did all this for your energy bills, but now the mortgage bills are going to dwarf energy bills. And of course, some of the blame of that

is from the international markets, but I'm afraid to say that increase in interest rates coming soon will be blamed squarely on Quasi Qatang and Liz Trust. It's not all over for them, but it's a really bad start. But don't you think it was appalling the way She absolutely hung her own Chancellor out to drive. Her team say, that was her saying,

it's Quasi's budget, it's not mine. Which is, by the way, what a leader does when they want nothing to do with it. And it also just isn't true. I happen to know that it was her that was pushing for the time scale on the 45B, not him. My issue with it, Kevin, is it seemed to me they were playing casino politics with the nation's economy.

They were basically rolling the dice. They think we've got two years to the next election. we've got to move on with this. Every second counts. We're going to throw the kitchen sink out there or on the roulette wheel. We're going to put it all on red. And we're going to hope it comes up,

and maybe it's a 50-50 shot at best. And it's come up the wrong way immediately. I mean, I've never seen anything quite like it, where there's a run on the pound. The Bank of England steps in with billions of pounds to bail out to help the pension funds not go under. We see mortgage companies withdrawing hundreds of mortgage offers because they can't actually work out what's going on.

This was catastrophic. Oh, absolutely. It's catastrophic for just about everybody in the street because they will peer the price. Normally a new leader, new prime minister. You get a honeymoon. She's gone straight to divorce. And I think it's probably over for her now. I think that.

It's not over. If the lady is for turning and backs off on her threat to cut the incomes of the lowest pay by not raising universal credit. There's no threat. What will happen is they'll decide in November when the markets have calmed down. They have got two years.

the next election, green shoots can happen. If she is tied to the future of the war in Ukraine, if that ends or gets towards ending, and if the energy prices fall, then I think the growing economy, if this works, we'll unite the party. Christopher, you're a political historian of some repute. 81.

Yeah, I keep being... 81. Right, I keep being told, this is Minnie Thatcher in actual, Liz Truss. But Thasher did the opposite. When she first came in and there was a rough old economy, she stabilised the economy. She even put some taxes up. She had a windfall tax energy companies.

She got inflation down. She got the economy stable again. And then she cut income tax dramatically and became known as the great tax cuts, a conservative leader. But she did it the right way. This trust has gone in with the worst economy. And pretending to be Margaret Thatcher,

she's done the actual, what I think would be the opposite of what Thatcher would have done. There was no time to do what Thatcher would have done, which would wait to bring it back into line. She had to act quickly. That mini budget was... No time for her personally.

For the party, that many budget, that was an election budget. They had 60 billion away from families. And they cut taxes on the house. Right, exactly. So here's my point with that. She had no mandate from the country to do what she did. Right. She had a mandate from 160,000 Conservative Party members.

Maybe fewer than that. Because only, only 60% voted for her. So say 100,000, right? So 100,000 people determine that they're going to put Liz Trust there and she's going to do this unbelievably radical. as it turned out, reckless mini-budget, which nearly paralyzes our economy instantly. And my point about that is,

if you don't have a mandate to do that, and you're really doing it for political expediency for yourself and your party, because you've only got two years left of the election, I'm sorry, that is incredibly selfish politics. It's a big problem. They have been battered by events over the COVID crisis, Ukraine. You're laughing. These are big ones.

Let me finish. The Queen's death. It's just being the apologies for us. They got it so wrong. It squeezed everything into a couple of years. I said 81 to you because they are telling me that they think 1981 is where the party is now. In the sense that, in the sense that, the SDP were 30 points ahead and they pulled it back in two years because of the growing economy and the four.

Well, eventually. Look, Chris, you're sounding like the lad nailed to the cross at the end of life of Brian who's singing all the look on the bright side of life. You're a very naughty boy, Kevin. She got it absolutely wrong. And she got it wrong because she won a contest in the cult, the conservative. I think there's a bigger problem. And she didn't start governing for the...

the country, she was still governing for the court. I totally agree. And here's the problem with this cult. She's now, you know, anyone who doesn't agree with her is anti-growth, apparently, which is ironic, given how little they've done for actual growth in the last week, right? But I think it's, well, the bigger problem for Liz Truss. She made the mistake, Boris Johnson made, came in as Prime Minister and got rid of every alternative voice. She just surrounded herself with sick of face. Got rid of talented, smart people, Gove and all these guys. That absolutely goes to the heart of it now. So they're all on the outside of the tent now, attacking. He resigned first. She was going to be.

I know, but she could have brought Goh back. I think you would have come back. He was saying, I'm not going back to Finland and walked back. I know what he said. I don't have a little word any of them say. By point being, if you come in and you just do a clean sweep of all the negative voices. 100% that.

She has now got her biggest problem immediately is not actually the electorate because she's got another two years. It is actually managing the absolute mess that there is within the parliamentary party. And it was only that that meant that she did not press ahead with the 45 P to 40. It was. the outcry in the country, which she is actually prepared to face down. The problem is Christopher, once the rebels outside know that she has done a U-turn on one big thing, they know she's a woman who is fraternity, right? Yes, she's a weather vein, to use that term, used against Starma by Boris Johnson.

I think that's paralysing for a prime minister. She was called a lame duck leader by rebels I spoke to at the party conference. But for me, it's all about Tuesday. Tuesday is the day she says, sorry to MPs. MPs on the right who are bruised about going out to date. defending an abolished tax cut. Those who were sacked, the 29 intake, always angry about something else,

the left, everyone's crossed with it. There are all these factions. Unite them, say sorry, move on. I don't have to bring some. I don't know. Saying I guess it was not enough. It's gone beyond that. Before we leave this,

I just want to, an extraordinary clip, which was a nurse. I think it was the Jeremy Vine show. In the audience, a nurse who said this. There are no resources, and you are told persistently on the news, that, you know, care homes are being ring-fenced.

It's a lie. And I'm sorry, but if you have voted conservative, you do not deserve to be resuscitated by the NHS. Hang on. Hang on. I mean, I could barely believe what I was hearing. This thing went viral. That is a British nurse saying that if you are a conservative voter,

you do not deserve to be resuscitated. I think she actually meant it. I mean, carry us crazy. I know you don't like Tories, But what on earth would she say? Would you give Liz Chascus kids alive, Kevin? She is expressing the frustration that many people in the health service. You can't defend that, Ken.

No, I know. She was over the top. Over the top, it was disgraceful. But if she's working in the NHS and she dearly sees the pressures, and she knows what happens with patients. No, she shouldn't have said it and expressed it like that. That is absolutely right. That's it. That's where you stop talking, Kevin. There's no butts.

But if you have dealt with patients being stuck on trolley, in corridors because you don't have beds, you haven't got the care, you will feel frustrated. It's like that got to do with people who vote Tory. I mean, it's just ridiculous. I think you'll find the Tory's been in power for 12 years. I mean, you know, Tottenham fans, fine, you've got an argument. No, I just thought it was a really despicable thing to say actually. And I was shocked it came out of the mouth of a nurse.

Yeah. Because you just say, well, you go into nursing, not because of people's political persuasion, you're going to save people of all persuasion. Nurses are caring, but because of that, when she's... Stop digging. Stop digging. Can you imagine, by the way, if it had been a conservative nurse who'd said, if anyone voted Labor, I wouldn't save their lives, imagine.

You'd be, your spleen would be exploding. If somebody had said that at the end of the Labor period and they haven't trouble spending on the NHS and got waiting lists down and hadn't built new hospitals and maybe there would have been justified. You'd have been a measure would be more horrified. But maybe because of Labor's record on the NHS and it was so much better, there wouldn't be a nurse who would have wanted to say that. Sadly, we have to leave you.

You're coming back a little later, I think. Christopher, we're letting you go, I think. Oh, this is great. Are we? I think we are. Community. You've been brilliant. We've come up again soon.

We loved it. Isabelle. You're not being resuscitated. A lot of moving around the chairs today. But next tonight is five years since the first revelations about Harvey Weinstein of the launch of the Me Too movement. Has it now done more harm than good. Plus, Megan, Harry, the royal fallout of our age. We've got the author of an explosive new book with insider details at Rock the Palace.

Valentine Lowe from The Times. who really knows what's going on behind the burgundy curtains. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan on Sense. Revelation is about disgraced movie director Harvey Weinstein's abuse of women sparked a global reckoning with predatory male behavior. For five years on from what became known as the Me Too movement, there's a growing backlash. Some influential people argue has become divisive.

Pity of the sexes against each other with an assumption of male guilt, leaving many young men feeling marginalized. Recently, you've viewed two people at the forefront of that backlash, albeit with very different styles and rationales. He's psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson. People have been after me for a long time because I've been speaking to disaffected young men.

Now, what a terrible thing to do that is. And earlier this week I spoke to Andrew Tate, the so-called toxic male influencers, now bound from social media. The full explosive interview airs tomorrow night, but here's a little taster of that. I believe that confident, strong men, who stand up and protect and provide for women,

are a good thing for the world and a good force for the world. And I don't think that I put a magic spell on anybody. I think there's a whole bunch of men in the world who understands my value. And if men grow up to be like me, you're going to have a whole bunch of people with no criminal record, dedicated athletes who protect and provide for the people close to them, are fantastic for the economy. And I'm certainly not the worst influence out here, peers. Well, clips of both of those interviews have exploded online. Literally millions of people have been viewing them.

Jordan Peterson, for example, the whole interview has been viewed five and a half million times on our YouTube channels, rightly or wrongly. There's clearly a huge groundswell of interest at the very least in their views, if not support. So was Me Too an overdue reckoning, or has it become a damaging battle in a raging culture war? Isabel still with me, possibly a political journalist Avesantino, a conservative commentator, a young man who agrees with Peterson and Andrew Tate, Connor, welcome to the show. Let me ask you to start with you. I found it very interesting interviewing Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, both very controversial characters in different ways, both positioned as a kind of kings of toxic masculinity. I certainly didn't think Jordan Peterson was that.

And when it came to Andrew Tate, I couldn't really conclude after 90 minutes of grilling him, and I gave him quite a hard time, I couldn't really conclude what he had done that was so bad that he had to be expunged from social media life altogether. But it showed me the sensitivity around all this. And if any man now behaves in a way that looks like

it's toxic masculinity, bang, they're expunged. Is in that process, masculinity itself getting expunged and demonised? I would say so. I mean, I'm sure that you'll have this experience with your own relationships, peers, and that women, if you say something controversial, whether it's something on the Peterson side of the spectrum

or on the Tate's side of the spectrum, a little bit more explosive or a little bit more academic, some women are very much drawn to a man who can be a bit more confrontational, say exactly what he thinks. It's the verbal new version of what gladiators used to do in the arena way back. Well, certainly I think Ava and Isabel are laughing

because they know that they're drawn to me in that way because of my combative nature. But, Ava, you're smirking and laughing. I mean, there's a serious point here. A lot of young men feel they're getting disenfranchised by society. They're all being over-demonized that any attempt to be the traditional male figure is now being rubbish and called toxic.

Well, I mean, if you really felt that and you really went out there and you were an alpha male, then you wouldn't be bothered about a bunch of women telling you that you were... Well, you would if you get cancelled, like Andrew Tate. If you get banned from... I mean, he's hardly been cancelled. He was on your programme, which is on national television.

But it's only platform, actually, he's had for a long time because all the social media companies banned him, literally banned him. He had his email gone, his Google gone, his Facebook gone. It all went down like Domino's. Well, he's still on there, very prolific on there. I can't move for clips of him. Yeah, but they're not generated by him now. But that's been for quite some time.

But should he be punished that way? What is punished? What is punished? Punish is where companies take a decision which, in my view, in this case, was perverse because they still allow, for example, the Ayatollah of Iran to have a Twitter account. Yes. So there's no consistency here at all. Well, but, however, we love a bit of free market.

I'm sure you do, judging by that suit, which is lovely. But, you know, social media companies are private companies. Do you not objectifying, please? They can do whatever they like. Of course you will, yeah. All right, Isabel. But, Ava, your point about, you know, If men were that alpha, then they wouldn't be that bothered by this.

It doesn't really help us when it comes to boys growing up. And that is one of my worries that for teenage boys now, they are so terrified of the consequences of putting a foot out of line. It's hard enough being a young teenager, working out how things are, working out how to do dating and all of that, without the terror that if you touch in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may find that your whole life is destroyed. See, I like that terror.

I like that. As a mother of a teenage boy, I don't like that. That's a malicious thing I've ever heard. I think that men should be frightened to touch women in a way that they're not comfortable with. But we're talking about teenagers. Yeah, but it's an interesting thing that, you see. I would say that that attitude actually is part of the problem too. That is, to me, toxic femininity.

That is saying you should all be terrified, you men. If you put one... Or assaulting? Well, I'm... I think we all understand what sexual assault is. What is about is that young teenage clumsiness in many cases, which is now being recategorized as assault. Is that a problem?

It's not being recategorized as assault. It's always been assault. It's just we're finally talking about it. I don't agree with that. It's ridiculous. Teenage boy fumbling with teenage girl is not in most cases assault, isn't it? Do you remember, Aziz Ansari, right? Half the heels of me too.

Hot of the heels of Harvey Weinstein, rightly being dragged through the courts and should have got way worse than just prison time, in my opinion. Zizan Sari had a consensual relationship with a woman. She felt a bit awkward and afterwards rescinded consent and he was lump in and he had his career. No, I'm with you on that one. Why should men be afraid of that?

Because he didn't touch her without consent, did he? No, but she rescind his consent and she saw that then... How are a young boy supposed to navigate this? A whole thing? I'm thinking of my teenage son. You know, he's 14-15. What was he supposed to say? Would you mind if I put my hand...

Isabel, you are an extremely strong woman. I know in your house you're teaching them the difference between assault. And then coming on to someone. I know you are. But what we're talking about is, it's be very interesting watching the Me Too movement and the Time's Up movement,

how it's all developed. Because a lot of very bad people, Harvey Weinstein and others, got their due comeuppance. We can all agree with that. This is not even something to be debated. We're really talking about the grey line, right? Where is that grey line?

How do you navigate it? When you're an experienced adult and you've been around the block in many ways, you can navigate that much more intelligently and with emotional intelligence. Then you can if you're a teenage boy. And I think the point Isabel makes is a good one. I've had three sons and their 20s.

I've always taught them to be respectful to women, and I believe they are. But I do think it's really hard for a 16, 17-year-old boy now in this environment to know even how to start having some kind of physical relationship with a woman. Those good boys are all terrified. I know that from talking to my son. He's just like, I'm just not going there. Is that healthy?

Yes, I think it is, actually. I think it's better to not have a physical relationship than to have one that could ruin a woman's life. But then how do they ever start? Well, don't. If you're not 100% sure, don't. What are we going to have a bunch of Newton boys who never have... We actually do have that. Gen Z is having far less sexual relationships than any... They are. It's true.

Young people have stopped having sex. I agree with the first part of your sentence, actually. If you're not willing to have a sexual relationship with clearly defined lines, don't have one. And so I actually told my mates at university, don't sleep around with girls. One, girls don't bring a guy home that you don't know what he's capable of. Two, guys, don't bring a girl home if you think that possibly she could have a false action. accusation against you? Can I make another point here? Which I find, I mean, look, that centres to me.

When I was your age, right? How old are you? 23. 23. When I was your age, the idea you would even have that sort of thought process would be unthinkable. I wouldn't have those sort of mates that would ever cross the line, so I wouldn't have to have that conversation with any of my friends. Don't throw my mates in with a bunch of violent people. And is there a certain purity here

I'm detecting in a certain type of feminist who thinks that they're all unimpeachable and that this is all one-way traffic and the only men can be No, I do. Because I've got to enlighten you. I've met quite a few women in my life who are pretty toxic themselves. And I don't see the debate being framed around that at all. No, but the point is, is that we're still in a situation where only 5% of rape cases actually even go to trial. Which is ridiculous. But that's the extreme end of it, isn't it? You're talking about raping.

We can all agree that's wrong. We can all agree that's wrong. Okay, so even on the extreme end of it, rape doesn't even go to trial. If you're assaulted, and that is life changing. What happened to Rose McGowan with Harvey Weinstein was life. was life-changing. And she didn't get her come up. Yeah, but, Eva, we'd all agree about that. Well, I think what has sent a shudder through all of our spines from your mouth today is the line that all young men should be terrified of any physical contact.

Well, no, you didn't say it like that. You said basically of starting any physical contact with a woman. Unless you're sure. How does it succeed? How can you be sure when she can rescind consent on something completely nebulous? Okay, can I ask you this? If you were going to go, if you were going to take someone to bed and you weren't, 100% sure that they wanted to go to bed with you, would you go with them?

No, I would not do that. But the point was, Aziz Ansari was, for example, and then later she went and published a long piece about how she regretted it and lumped him in with Harvey Weinstein. I mean, Ava, we're not. Do you feel any of it Ava's gone too far? Do you think the pendulum has gone too far at all? No. No, I don't think it's gone far enough, actually.

Really? I don't think we've brought anything into schools. To your point, we haven't brought any teaching into school about what is assault, what isn't. If you're worried about like 16-year-old boys not understanding what it is, bring in sex. health lessons. Hang on. The idea, sorry, the idea that you can teach rapists not to rape is insane

because they already know what do you mean. Okay, right. You're saying, if boys wouldn't know what's assault and what isn't. Yeah. Okay. The idea that rather than

taking the power out of someone who can make a false accusation is what they're actually, most of them are concerned about, specifically my friends, for example, who would never dream of doing something like that. But then what the feminist failed to understand is you can educate the evils...

The feminists. Did you not identify yourself as a feminist study? No, I didn't actually. Oh, okay, sorry. You're not of hernors? But peers labelled me. Actually, I called you a toxic feminist.

Okay, then if that's my... I'll take that. That's not. Fair enough. But you cannot... If a rapist is willing to violate the law so violently, you cannot teach him out of that. All you can have is very harsh punishments to deter that.

No, because you're talking about the grey line. And the grey line is that parties have not understanding that when a woman is so inebriated that she can't stand up, boys need to understand, that is no. Well, that's a different line. You're bringing in something else. Eva, I would like to know whether you accept that women and particularly teenage girls and young women

sometimes give out pretty mixed signals. They give out mixed messages, they're not even sure what they want at any given time. I think we're victim blaming. I don't think we're victim. Come off it, David. Do you? Do you...

Every sinew of your body knows what she just said has a merit to. Women can sometimes give off mixed messages. Come on. They can. I mean, sure. That's a non-denial. I'm sure, but I'm talking about assaulting. So how are you supposed to? I don't think any of us disagree about assault. We're talking about the far greyer line of young teenage fumblings.

And they've all stopped having sexes because they are actually terrified. And I think it's a great shame if they're terrified into actually having no physical interaction with opposite sex. And the other point, can I make one other point, which is this whole thing of dredging up allegations that are 10 or 20 years old, I think is absolutely awful. Why? Because it's a he said, she said, it's impossible to prove. And there are people whose careers and their lives. are completely ruined by allegations that are bought a decade or more after the event. Now, obviously, if the person was a minor at the time of the incident,

of the alleged incident, then fine. I can't believe you're saying this, that we shouldn't bring up historic assault claims. I don't think you should be crazy. Women who would have been too afraid to confront it at the time because they were too young or too powerless to bring it up in the first place. You see, I would actually side slightly with overheat. In a sense, I don't have a problem with historic crimes. For example, Harvey Weinstein, they're all historic.

It's got to be a cutoff point. Well, has there, actually. I think it has. But someone like Harvey Weinstein, should there be a cutoff point? Or should the victims who are all bullied and scared to come forward? I think it depends on the severity of the allegation. Obviously, if it's something, you know, it's a rape case or something. But if it is a, you know, he put his hand on my knee.

You're talking about the journalist movement. The journalist that bravely came forward and told about how cabinet ministers had touched them inappropriately on the knee, which was horrendous. I'm not bothered about touching on a knee. I mean, what, 20 years later? Yes, but someone should be dragged through the courts for that. The entire sexual harassment culture that is in Westminster and it's still really pervasive at the moment.

Well, the good thing is we're of all which, completely agreement after five years of the MeToo movement. But it's interesting, isn't it? So we've got lots of different views here. It is complicated, I think. And I would argue, but maybe a man shouldn't argue this at all, but I would argue the pendulum may have swung a little too far. You don't think it's swung far enough.

You probably are on my side. probably are too, but I'm not sure we should really be taking sides either. It's a complex minefield. And I think that the, when you start using Fraser's that you should be terrified, nobody should be terrified on any side of this. I don't think. Unless they have criminal intent. But good debate. Thank you very much for coming in. We appreciate it. You can see more of my exclusive interview with Andrew Tate here tomorrow at eight. You may hate him. You might like him. You might love to hate him. I'll tell you what. It's compelling the interview, and it'll be on tomorrow night.

I believe that me standing up and saying a man must protect a woman and provide for her, so we need to make sure that she's safe. He needs a degree of authority to protect her. No, but no, but people do have a problem with it. And that's the, and that's the what we're in now. I'm over here. Why are you single? I'm not single.

Well, if I was married, the last thing I would do is advertise it to the feral psychopaths on the internet. I'm not a feral psychopaths on. Good. So we agree. No, we don't. Yes, we do. No, we don't. Fears are on my side.

Afraid of being cancelled along with me. Being anti any woman at all is massagia. Not what I'm saying that women are beautiful and attractive at a certain age. And if you fix the problem in their life, perhaps they won't feel depressed. That's not a disease. That's situation. Andrew, you're simply wrong. Why do you misquote?

No, because you're saying. You hate being misquote. That's not the question. She is hand. I believe the father. I am. The father hands are. Don't behave like a politician.

It's compelling television. It's tomorrow. 8 o'clock. Andrew Tate at the interview that's already ripping up the internet. We're next tonight. I'm joined live by the royal author who discovered Harry and Megan were so awful to work for that former aides now call themselves the Sussex Survivors Club. No. Really? I'm there hard to believe, but Valentine Lowe will be here. Plus, after three people were stabbed in London today trying to stop a thief on a motorbike, I'll be asking, is it ever safe to take the law into your own hands and why should we have to? Where are the police? Welcome back, an explosive new book, Courteers by Valentine Lowe, explores the secret details of the Royal Rift between Harry and Megan and the rest of the Royal family. Well, the author of Royal Correspondent for the Times, Valentine Lowe, is here. Welcome to you. I'm Isabelle and Kevin are still with me. Valentine's up. Congratulations, a riveting read. Thank you. Absolutely loved it. Full of juicy gossip. You've done a great tabloid hack.

Cruely wasted on the Times. Very interesting sort of perspective coming through from it. One, it looked like Harry and Meggum were a bit of a nightmare to work for, reducing lots of people to tears and all the rest of it. We knew a bit of that before, actually, from you. But also, you're not completely unsympathetic to Meghan Markle coming into the royal firm and encountering the monarchy and all its good and bad guises. No, I mean, and what happened when she arrived, people went out of their way to help her. I mean, she had a meeting with a guy called Miguel Head, who was Williams' private secretary, and he said, listen, you're coming, you're, you've had a career, you're an actress, you're a grown-up woman, you're not, you know, a new bride like Diana

was. We're here to say, we don't have to do things the old. way. You can carry on acting if you want. You can work in the industry, but if you want, you know, let's, there's no fixed way. We're not the palace of 20 or 30 years ago. So what went wrong? I think that she was... Is a piece of word? That's one way of your mouth. That's one way of putting it. I think what she, what you have to realize is that Harry was already having problems with working with within the institution. Right. So he was looking for a way out in. I think so. He had a hatred of the media, great distrust of the media.

Which goes back to how his mother died and everything else. Yeah, and it's completely understandable. He also had a mistrust of the courtiers in the other households in Bucking Palace. And was he right to have a mistrust? Are they all a bit duplicitous in there? I don't think they're duplicitous, but they may have different ideas about how to work from what he does. And also he had this thing about his shelf life. He knew that as he grew older... He got less important. He'd get less important.

Prince George would grow up. By the time, George would be 18, Harry thought he'd be over. And he was obsessed with trying to have instant results. Which is why, you know, when he invented Invictus Games, he did that in a real hurry from a year, from seeing the Warrior Games and States. What is going to happen if his book comes out?

And as people fear in the palace, because I've spoken to some of them, it trashes Camilla, the Queen, as she knows. In fact, there's been a directive, not to call a Queen consort now, but to call her the Queen. and it trashes the queen, and it has a go at his father, now the king. Is there going to be a tipping point for Charles, which the queen, the late queen, was not prepared to act on, where they basically, he says, enough, you're losing all your titles,

and you can go off and be Harry and Meghan celebrities in California, but you don't have any royal titles, any royal status, it's over. I don't think that would ever happen. I don't think whatever Harry does, I don't think Charles would do that to his son. Isabel, it's a mess. I mean, here you've got, you know, these two boys, William and Harry,

who were the nation's, you know, beloved young men when they had to do that harrowing thing, walking behind their mother's coffin. Obviously horrific. The mother was 36. You can't fail but have sympathy for them. But William's gone one way dealing with it, into duty and all the, you know, his country and all the rest of it.

Harry disappeared off. Is there a solution to this, or are you just going to be reading drama? about this for the next 10 years? I mean, I think we'd still forgive him. You know, I think there is a huge amount of residual affection there still for Harry. And I think it's very easy to make her the kind of scapegoat for all of it. And he is absolutely responsible as much as she is for where things have landed.

But I think we could forgive him if he came back. And if she played the game. And it was interesting what you said about, you know, the palace initially saying that, you know, she could do things different. I mean, I think there's some appetite for that, but I think in order to get to that level of national forgiveness, she would have to be seen to do a Kate for quite a while. Right. I mean, you don't even want a monarchy,

so you're probably the last person to ask on this. But we have one. We have a new king. And at the centre of this, Kevin, is a human drama, which is very real. These two boys don't talk to each other. They pretty much hate each other. The wives have got involved. It's a classic family dispute.

Let's just reduce it to that. What do you think is going to happen here? Oh, look, I mean, this family, you can imagine them on shameless, but they've just got, you know, footmen and butlers. If they lived on a council estate rather than country estates, they'd be known to social services. I mean, they are totally dysfunctional to this family. And it's before we mention Andrew.

But there is a human tragedy there because two brothers who were very close of falling out. But I quite admire Harry for wanting to get out. But he wants it both ways. Yeah, that's my problem. It was moaning his dad wouldn't give him the king now, wouldn't give him any more money. And also he's taken that Sussex title, which opens doors for them.

But if he wasn't a royal, what would he be doing? I mean, look, I'm from Sussex. I've spent more time in Sussex than Megan and Harry had in the last two weeks. Actually, a month. But they're never there, but they've got these titles which are given to them. That's what I mean about.

They trade off Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Royals. to make themselves incredibly rich. And I do wonder if there's a point where Charles goes, actually, you can't do that anymore. It'd be unprecedented. But why wouldn't he? Yeah, but I think it's kind of irrelevant.

I mean, no one really cares about the titles. If you strip them with their titles, they're still Harry and Megan. They'd still be equally famous. But they wouldn't be acting as members of the royal family. I don't think they go around acting as members of the Royal Family. Oh, they do. All the paperwork, all letter headings.

It's all from the Office of the Duchess of Sussex, almost nonsense. She calls herself a princess on her podcast. Little girls have got to make a real princess. You're not a princess. She's not princess anyway. But they do it quite deliberately to fuel the interest from commercial entities. And really the interest is based on them trashing their family.

I mean, without that, I'm not sure what we're interested in. We don't want to hear their woke homilies about life, do it? So I'm not sure how this all plays out, but it's a mess. And Charles may have to deal with it, I think. It certainly is a mess. And I think the woke homilies have a market in the state. that they don't have here. And the trashing the royal family,

even in the states, people begin to get bored of that, I think. Vald, how did you say, I'm fascinated at how does it end this? What is your, like your prediction? I think he's going to come back here, a tail between legs and she'll be left there. No, that will, I guarantee that will never happen for one very particular reason, the kids. Those kids are going to stay in the United States.

Harry loves those kids a bit. He's a great father. I'm convinced that he's always been terrific for children. So while she has breath in their body, those kids will remain in the States, and therefore Harry will too. Well, it's fascinating stuff, Valentine's. It's a brilliant book.

I highly recommend it. It's called Courteers, the hidden power behind the Crown. Valentine Lowe from Times. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you, Isabel. Kevin, great to see you. First time since Good Morning Britain Days. You look a bit more presentable at this time of night.

You do first thing. First thing is a bit of a horror story. Don't we all, though? Actually, you're coming back. I've just been told, so you're not going anywhere yet. Next to night, policing and crisis are vigilantes now a grim fact of life in Britain. Welcome back to Pittsburgh, Nelson, with almost half of British people saying they've never seen police on patrol. It's perhaps no surprise that more people are taking the law into their own hands. This woman in East London confronted a would-be robber in a shop,

tackling the thug and shoving him towards the door. Early this week, a mobile phone thief was rugby-tackled by him with a public before a woman chokehold it. Heroes for sure, but with potentially dangerous consequences. Today, three people were stabbed in London. Reports say members of the public were trying to stop a thief on a motorbike. So should we ever take policing matters into our own hands? Do we have any choice if there aren't enough police around to do it for us? During me to discuss this, his security and terror expert Will Gettys

and former Scotland now detective Peter Blecksstein. Peter, well, good to see you both. Peter, let's start with you. My feeling about this, some of these stats are really, more than a third of the public is dissatisfied with the police. the highest figure for a decade. Official figures published in January show that few of the one in 25 thefts is solved, half the rate of five years ago.

I also read today that in England and Wales, only one in six crimes, including murder, rape, and GBAH, involving a knife, remain, get solved. So five out of six don't get solved. When you see stats like that, it's no wonder to me that people are starting to get a bit more vigilante because they think, well, what else am I going to do? Policing is in crisis.

Violent crime is on the rise, and we're all a bit less safe than we were some years ago. It is no surprise that when people see crime being committed, some people want to get involved. They want to do their bit. Why is it getting like this? Well, because people are exasperated by what they see as the failings of the police and the criminal justice system. And people go, do you know what?

I've had enough. I'm going to have a go. Well, that's fine. But you really do need to know what you're doing. because the greatest problem is that you can sometimes make a bad situation even worse. Well, well, we saw today, you know, a theft was taking place

from a couple of people on bikes and three people got stabbed. The people involved in the stabbing, they disappeared. That is, I guess, a form of public vigilanteism which people have been injured badly, perhaps. Yeah, I mean, but I think as Peter was saying, people are feeling the pressure.

I mean, I know at least half a dozen people personally who've had their watches ripped off their arms or being robbed for their phones or whatever and certainly statistically we are going into a very very very dark territory i mean robberies of phones have gone up by 60% in the last year there's 39 000 robberies and thefts which have occurred in the last 12 months people are fed up with it and they believe if they call the police nothing will get done and i'm the first to always back the police i think they're massively understaffed under-resourced there aren't enough police on the streets. I felt this.

When the Tories took 20,000 coppers off the beat, I just thought it was a catastrophic error. And there's also the question there's no community support policing. So, I mean, in the same way, you don't see police patrols that often. What is not helping and what is aggravating the situation is that you'll see stop oil protesters and you'll see some 15 or 20 police officers attended to that. And the way that the general public will look at it is they'll go, you've got 15, 20 officers dealing with what is a passive, albeit irritating and inconvenient, protest, why aren't these officers in our neighbourhood?

Right, and Peter, I mean, there are lots of factors behind rising crime. I think increased drug abuse is probably one of them because that inspires drug gangs and so on. What is it behind in particular knife crime that is exploding as well? What is driving that, do you think? Is it the fact they don't think they're going to get caught? It's a great question. There is an aspect of that because people will walk down the corner and not bump into a police officer these days because patrolling the streets has been surrendered by the police, unfortunately.

And of course, why do people, before they leave their homes, go, right, where's my key, where's my phone, where's the knife? We've got to tackle that mentality, and we've got to stop people taking knives out onto the streets because, as today is clearly shown, there is a tired of blood running through the streets of many of ours. In America, with the guns, for example, the argument they use for why so many want to carry a gun is not because they want to use it, want to defend themselves against a lot of other people who've got guns. It's why you see so many police shootings in America, because the police always believe that everyone they stop may have a gun on them, right? We're heading that way with knives. Yeah, but so many young people who get captured with knives will say, well, others had knives, so I thought I'd better take one

out onto the streets myself. Either to be part of the gang or to defend themselves. Yeah, and the stats overwhelmingly show that if you take the knife out onto the streets, you are far more likely to become a victim of knife crime yourself. I think in some ways, peers, it's almost simpler than that. A lot of these street rats who are going out and robbing people know that if they produce a knife, they're less likely to meet any kind of resistance. You know, when I teach people in personal protection, one of the things I always say is these guys are fundamentally cowards. They rarely operate on their own. They will operate in gangs. One of the big telltales, which people have to be very, very conscious to is that many, many situations are now being

launched by on electric bicycles, because obviously they're not. There's no identifiers, no number plate, which is easy, obviously, to trace. And secondly, they're all wearing face masks. Now, maybe two years ago, when we were in the height of the COVID pandemic, that would make sense. But these days, how many people do we actually see wearing face masks? And most of these guys are trying to conceal it. But most of them are cowards, and they will simply try and bully their way through numbers and also the threat of weapons. Peter, what's the answer?

If you're Liz Trust and you've come in, you've got a basket case of issues to deal with, But what is the answer about this rising tide of crime and the apparent ineffectiveness of the police in dealing with it? Give the police services the number of officers they need, train them properly, but make sure that senior officers take sight of what is the core principles of policing. Not mucking about trying to be community engaged with every minority group that exists in the land. Stick to the Robert Peel principles that were written nearly 200 years ago

on are as relevant and as apt today as they were back then. Keep the streets safe. Investigate crime when it happens and catch the bad people. Peter, Will, thank you very much. Appreciate you both coming in. That's it from me. Turing tomorrow, 8pm, for my pretty hot hour-long interview with Andrew Tate. We don't know much about him.

You will afterwards. Don't miss that. 8 o'clock tomorrow. Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored. Good night.