Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: 'Leaky Sue' & Harry the 'Spare'

Episode Date: October 27, 2022

Standing in for Piers, Emily Sheffield and Douglas Murray speak to MP Alec Shelbrooke and MP Justin Tomlinson about whether Suella Braverman can take control of the migrant crisis. Oli London tells his story of gender dysmorphia to raise awareness of why he thinks children shouldn't be transitioning. CJ Pearson reacts to Trevor Noah accusing Britain of being unwelcoming to Rishi Sunak as PM because he's Indian. Royal author Dickie Arbiter speaks to Douglas and Emily about Prince Harry's tell-all book, 'Spare'.   Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, 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

Welcome to Pierce Morgan uncensored. Coming up on tonight's program, as the pressure increases over Rishi Sunak's controversial rehiring of his home secretary, we'll ask would a braver man have left Swelah on the back benches. The NHS finally gets tough on the extremist trans lobby. So we're finally moving into a new era of common sense trans advice. And just 50 days after the death of the Queen, Harry reveals the title of his much anticipated memoir.

But is it tying the monarchy through the book at the increasingly disruptive prince? Live from London, this is Pierce Morgan Uncensored with Emily Sheffield and Douglas Murray. Good evening from London and welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Myself and Douglas Murray are for the last time filling in for peers before he returns from his son lounger. So, it's been a pivotal few days in British politics, with the livelihoods of millions of you at home set to be impacted, hopefully for the better, by the changes of this week.

Yet, even in this most serious of times, the dreaded identity politics has had to infest its mainstream namesake. First up was the controversy over whether former comedian and future Labour MP and present attention seeker Eddie Isard could stand. While the possibility of Isard standing on an all-female shortlist seemed to flummox Labour leader Kirstama, Conservative MP for Ashfield, Lee Anderson, wasn't exactly on the fence. I'm going to be honest now, controversial, as always, if he does get elected and I'm still here, I shall be following him into the toilets. Ignoring the slightly troubling question as to why Mr Anderson would want to follow anyone at all into the toilet,

toilets, I'm bewildered that putting a man onto an all-woman's shortlist is even up for debate. It's not much better across the pond, where I spend most of my time these days. One prominent American broadcaster decided to consider our new Prime Minister, this week's Prime Minister, solely through his race. You hear a lot of the people saying, oh, they're taking over. You know, now the Indians are going to take over Great Britain and what's next and what? And I always find myself going, so what? That's the fantastically ignorant Trevor Noah there,

bringing in to disrepute all decent men with two first names. Klausovitz wrote that war is politics by other means. But in 2022, identity politics has become war by other means, a way of eliminating dissent and forcing entire continents to think in exactly the same way. But Putin, the economy, mass migration, our times and our troubles are too important for us to get distracted by pronouns, critical race theory, or even the great enormous wisdom of Megan Markle. But first, number 10 has given its full backing to Swayla Braverman,

insisting she maintains strong relationships with the security services, that despite MPs from all sides raising concerns about the Home Secretary's reappointment, Six days, six days after being forced out, following a misdirected email. Last night on this very show, former Tory chairman, Jake Berry, said Braverman committed multiple breaches of the ministerial code. Listen to this. From my own knowledge, there were multiple breaches of the ministerial code. In fact, from multiple beaches of the ministerial code,

it was sent from a private email address to another member of parliament. She then sought to copy of that individual's wife and accidentally sent it to a staffer in Parliament. To me, that seems a really serious breach, especially when it was documents relating to cyber security, as I believe. To discuss whether Swayla is going to prove to be the new PM's first big troublemaker, let's cross to former Boris Bacher, now Rishi convert, Conservative MP, Justin Tomlinson. Good evening.

Thank you, Justin, for joining us. Let's just start with the question of Suella Braverman. Is she the Prime Minister's first liability? Kirstama and the Labour Party seem to think this is the great weakness of the PM. Well, I mean, the opposition don't like Suella because she is a strong home secretary who understands the need to crack down on crime, be tough with our control of our borders. And as we saw today, we've now reached three quarters of our 20,000.

and extra police officers targets, and they're desperate for us not to be on the front foot on law and order issues, which is something that they lost a long time ago trust within their own voters. Look, she made an error. She made an error of a judgment, but unlike many, many politicians,

she put a hand up, she took responsibility, and she returned to the back benches now. Sure, but for events over the last week, so she'd still be there on the back benches with the likes of me. But we've got a new prime minister and a new start. Thanks, Justin. But look, can you imagine any other job in, say, the private sector, where you had to leave your job, were fired or resigned, and then got reappointed a week later because you said, sorry, I did indeed do all this stuff wrong? Well, look, as I said,

she took responsibility for her error of judgment. She paid the price because she returned to the backbenchers. We have a new prime minister. And yes, people make mistakes. Private sector, public sector, that we all make mistakes, but she is the best person to be the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister will have no doubt had conversations with her, and I trust his judgment on this. But his judgment, his opening speech to everybody outside number 10, was to restore integrity.

And then hours later, he brings back a Home Secretary who had only just been removed for breaking the ministerial code. Now, she'd only been out of the job, having resigned over that for six days. Now, one understands there might have been a bit of backroom dealing because she was one of the right supporters, supporters on the right of the party, that threw her weight behind Rishi in quite a surprise move, actually.

But do you think there's any chance he's considering this has all turned out to be a bit too much of a headache? No, I mean, he would have looked at what had happened. I think the fact that she put her hands up, she acknowledged it. is dominating the headlines. Surely this is not what Rishi planned. One assumes he's hoping that he can barrel his way out of this. But I don't see this as a great start to his tenure in number 10.

Yeah, well, you're going to get opposition MPs who don't like strong characters in politics. And Soella has that in bucket loads because she's not afraid to take a strong position around law and order issues that matter to your viewers. I think she ruffles a lot of feathers within the Conservative Party. No, I think she's well respected amongst the Conservative Party and she was an obvious choice when she was first selected to be the Home Secretary

and continues to have the support. So why do you think Jake Barry landed her in it last night? Well, you know, Jake's now got the freedom of the backbenches, but I don't remember him calling that out whilst he was serving as party chairman. Look, she made an error of judgment. Nobody's denying that, least of all her. She put her hands up. She took responsibility.

Too many politicians don't. They hide away from responsibility. She took that. The Prime Minister has made a judgment. I think she's the strongest person from that position. It was only when the evidence was put in front of her that she agreed to it. But I mean, I think we can all agree

she was having a fight with Liz Truss of immigration. For sure. Justin, we've only got a few seconds. But tell us, you're on your third leader this year. We've got the third Prime Minister this year. The Conservative Party is way behind in the polls. If you had have an election today, you'd be crushed by the Labour Party.

Do you think your party can actually do anything to come back from this state it's in? Well, yeah, the opinion polls were certainly character building. You can't ignore those when you're at, you ultimately have to have an election every five years. And actually, that's why I had to agonise over the decision who to support in this leadership contest. I was a friend of Boris. I supported him. I admired his ability to reach across traditional political divides. But the country needs calm and stability.

and there were too many potential distractions with Boris. And what Rishi was able to do was unite the party, and it didn't matter whether you were One Nation, ERG, Remainer or a lever, he had as disposable the majority of colleagues supporting him, which meant he could then select a cabinet of best talents, experience people who can deliver a quick, tangible, positive difference to people with financial sustainability underlying all of our decisions. And this matters to the public.

It's their mortgages, it's their pensions. We get these things right. We're backing him in a fighting chance for that unprecedented fifth term. There's a big if there, but thank you very much, Justin, for joining us. Joining us now in the studio is former advisor to Boris Johnson, Oscar Redrop, and talk TV contributor, Marina Perkins. Thanks so much for joining us. First of all, Oscar, what do you make of that?

The party's unbelievably behind him, the polls. It would be crushed if there is an election today. Is there any way back for the party that you've worked for? It's actually really interesting when you watch an MP there, having to take a line on a issue that is very contentious and almost potentially not quite believing it himself or not quite knowing it's going to hold. The party does have a very...

That's partly a hangover from Boris Johnson, where they were sent out to defend all these decisions only to almost as they went on air. I mean, one can sympathise that some of them are feeling a bit nervous about defending their prime minister. I do understand that. Sorry, and with Liz Truss. But you do have to measure cut through.

And this is a really interesting issue. And the Suella Bratherman issue is a really good example of that, where yes, we're talking about it in the media, and opposition MPs are, maybe even some backbench Tory MPs are, but ultimately, are people down the pubs and bars talking about these texts that went out by a home secretary? I'm not sure they are yet. They're talking about how many people are coming over in the boats.

Yep, exactly. And Suella, this is the thing with Suella. She is so in touch with what the Conservative Party view as, you know, the key home office issues on policing and immigration. But in two years' time, they've got to go to the country. And I would hold that that video from the Conservative Conference, when she talked with sort of utter glee on her face of her dream of sending refugees to Rwanda, which A, was a completely failed point. policy. But I think that won't lie very comfortably with a lot of centrist voters who may swing either way to Labour or Conservative. Marina, what are your thoughts on this? My thoughts that any credibility that Rishish Sunak had went up in smoke, the moment that he appointed her into the cabinet. You can have... You might say that, but he's actually ahead in the polls of Kirstama today. His party is behind. He is ahead. He's on 38. Heirs Stama's on 37. I think that's just because there's been some positive movement after the whole fiasis.

ago that we've seen. There's a bit stupidity. You've just said he's lost his credibility. Clearly, with the voters, according to that poll, he hasn't lost his credibility at all. I think it's one. It's one poll, and I think everyone's see, what he's done here, it's an ERG pandering move.

Let's be honest, compassion, integrity. Yes, but this poll wasn't of the ERG. This was of voters. I mean, I think this is worrying. I think this is worrying for Keir Starman. I don't think it is. And actually, I think, do know what, leave Sweller in Post,

let her have more breaches, because she's known as Leaky Sue for Good. sake, how this person has been allowed to be given the MI5 training she's about to get is going to help. And also a bit late in the day after the horses bolted here. I mean, if you've got you've got a home secretary who has to be trained whilst in post not to breach security protocols and has to have like a learner program with MI5. It's not ideal, is it? I can't think I think it's a bit of experience, Douglas, but not when your home secretary,

not when you need the government. I think that's a bit fair. There are some points I do actually have to agree with. But what I would say is late. but don't want to fall in the trap of forgetting about the issues of the day and falling into kind of just trying to remove secretaries of state and not actually addressing the cost of living crisis and issues that do deeply matter to people. That's where, that's, that's, that's Rishi Sunak's very, very, very narrow, I think, route to victory. If he just keep, because he's, every leader needs a kind of gust of wind behind them.

Boris's was Brexit and his is the financial crisis that we're currently experiencing. Well, you're, well, you're, and he is competent. Of course, you worked with Boris Johnson. and perhaps then I can ask you the inevitable question. Have we actually seen the last of him? I think I got asked this last week, and I kind of thought, yes. And then over the weekend, obviously, that turned out potentially not to be the case. Look, I think with Boris, and I really genuinely believe this, the guy's complicated.

He is a complex person. He has faults. But what he did in terms of the Ukraine-Russia situation, I think if a peaceful resolution is found in time, will be remembered in history for decades to come. I think what we're hearing, I saw a few stories that he's planning on taking a job on the international stage, you know, independently raising money for the Ukraine. We must have over-egged this thing for what he did for Ukraine.

Right, don't forget that for years, both Boris Johnson and previous Conservative governments denied any aid to Ukraine because they didn't want to ruffle Putin's feathers. And now he's been painted as some sort of hero for what, doing what any other sane PM would do. I don't think that's completely fair, because we actually trained a lot of that army, far faster than anyone else in the EU did. And we've sent weapons in far faster than any world. And remember that, hang on. When it came to mattering.

He was the prime minister at the time and he oversaw that. Look, hang on. You say any sane government, look, same governments across Europe. You can't, you can't take away their successes and blame them for every failure. I'm afraid. Look, the Germans weren't going to arm the Ukrainians at the beginning. The Germans wouldn't even allow British planes to fly over German territory to arm the Ukraine. So if you talk about sane governments, you've got to remember that there are a lot of insane governments by your standing.

Yeah, so we are now one of those. But he does also, just really quickly, he does actually want, like, you forget again, you know, there were millions of people who voted conservative who've never voted conservative before. And I think that ultimately he will just want what's best for those communities. And if that's trusting, you know, the time moving forward to Rishi Sunak in terms of leading us for a very difficult financial situation. You think Boris Johnson cares about communities? Of course. I mean, that's, I mean, ultimately.

Really? The man who goes on holiday, especially, this is during parliamentary time. They were either way. There are. Something that's already dominating. We've had a lot on immigration as well. A bravoman dominating our attention today. But we've got Prince Harry's.

We've seen for the first time the cover of his book, his autobiography, which is landing in January, we now know. It was going to land next summer. So it does look like he's managed to persuade his publishers to move it forward to January. Because as anyone who works in publishing knows, you don't publish big books, in January. But you do publish them just before the coronation. Yes, but the coronation is not,

is much later. So I'm assuming there's been a bit of towing and throwing there. But you've seen the tie, there it is on, it's entitled spare. Now, I would have thought given the controversy recently, the Queen's death, the falling out with his family, there was a moment at that, there was a moment at that funeral where you saw them all coming together for a while. This is absolutely going to throw any kind of mutual coming together again out the window. What's your thoughts? Why is he done it? I feel really, again, I feel really in a strange place of this

because if it's his truth and it comes from him and he really wanted to do this, then I think there should be a space in the world for him, for that too allowed to happen. My suspicion is, though. For the 36 million pounds he was paid for it, had nothing to do with him wanting to get his truth out there. Was that much?

Was that much? Well, apparently. Right. that does change a little bit. Why have people got such a problem with his views, voicing his experience? No, I agree. I agree with that. He did have, right, I know it, life of privilege, and I'm no royalist, but he also suffered with stuff.

He also suffered with the fact that his family didn't support him, with his father, giving him terrible advice with regards to the media and saying, well, I had to deal with it, so you're going to have to deal with it. No parents wouldn't say. Well, I didn't know. Marina and Oscar, thank you very much. I've got to say, Oskie, you can't come back again because you use the phrase, his truth. That is the most, that is the only triggering thing you can say to me. His truth.

If we have your truth, my truth, there's no truth. Anyway. Still to come tonight. First reviews of Prince Harry's books before 9 p.m. and has the NHS finally transitioned to a sensible position on what some people describe as teenager gender confusion. We're back in through. Welcome back. NHS England has unveiled new guidance for youngsters distressed about their gender. Doctors should now carefully explore all underlying health problems, being mindful that this may be a transient phase. But extremists continue to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. Just this week, Cambridge University had to apologise to students for inviting Helen Joyce,

who believes that one's sex cannot be changed. Luckily, Helen Joyce won't be silence, and she's with us now, alongside Olly London, who detransitioned and now lives as a man again. Good evening, both of you. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Now, Ollie, I wanted to talk to you first. You were very keen to come on tonight

and tell us a bit about your story. You transitioned to a woman, and now you're back as a man. What led to that decision? Did you feel forced into it? Just give us a little bit of detail. So my whole life I was actually very unhappy with the way I looked. So it actually started out as me wanting to change, wanting to look more perfect, more beautiful.

So I kind of went on this quest since 2013 to undergo surgery to try and achieve perfection. And I've kind of realised that perfection is not attainable. So do you think that was more sort of body dysmorphia? I think so. I've come to realize now I've had so many surgeries about 32 actual plastic surgeries in total. As you can see, I've got so many scars kind of all over my face. So I feel like that's how it started.

off and then I got to a point earlier this year where I still hadn't achieved happiness. So I thought maybe I should be a trans woman, maybe that's why I'm unhappy. So, you know, I was trans for six months. You know, I had the facial feminization surgery, had 11 procedures. I had the hair extensions. And I just realized, you know, it just wasn't, wasn't me, wasn't who I was inside. Were you taking any advice from anyone? Were you seeking medical help, um, psychiatric help? What kind of advice were you being offered at the time? It was more seeing things online. You know, I'm a social media person, so I'm always using TikTok and Twitter.

And we've got some pictures here of you as a woman. So how long ago was that? Was that quite recently? That was actually at London Fashion Week, so that was literally a month ago. So kind of a drastic change. But I'm always kind of changing my looks. I'm always kind of changing up. But yeah, I kind of saw on social media, you know, people constantly changing their identities.

And I thought, you know, why not? Let me try it. Let me see if it's for me. But even as a trans woman, I was very respectful for women. I would never use women's restrooms or changing rooms. I never wanted women. to feel threatened by me. I was just kind of, I guess I was having an identity crisis

or gender dysphoria, which a lot of kids have these days. So I just want to speak up to try and raise awareness that, you know, kids should not be transitioning. Well, Helen, this comes into something that you wrote about in your book. I mean, there's been this whole question in recent years about suggestibility, which you address and have a lot of thoughts on. But also this question of whether people who feel in some way uncomfortable in their bodies or not perfect, as all, he said,

are being sort of pushed the way. down this road of saying, well, if you're a teenager and you're uncomfortable in your body, instead of being just a teenager, maybe you're actually in the wrong sex. I mean, we know all people are quite easy to influence in this sort of way. Like, diseases get shaped in doctors' waiting rooms between the doctor and the patient. And then the media play a part in that. And in the last 10 years or so, I would say social media has come in to make a big, big difference there. So, yeah, I mean, I think it's inarguable that things like anorexia are social contagions.

and I think we're seeing a social contagion now with gender dysphoria, that kids who would never have thought to themselves that there was any question that they could change sex. I mean, that's not actually possible, but, you know, get that idea into their heads. They picked that idea up online. Then they presented to doctors who are thinking about an old-fashioned way to look at this, that there are a tiny number of people

who have this thing called gender dysphoria. They haven't updated their thinking for modern times in social media. They're diagnosing those kids, and they're putting them down a pathway that it's hard to get off. Now, we mentioned earlier what happened with you at Cambridge University this week. Maybe tell us a little bit about this, because it sort of seems surprising to me of all the people to sort of try to depict as some mad right-wing maniac nutter. I don't think of you as being number one on the list. Almost everybody I know I'd put on the list ahead of you.

So how come you've become uninvitable at Cambridge University? I mean, all I can say is I think the world has gone mad. I mean, all I do is say there are two sexes and you can't change sex in some situation. that matters, especially for women. That's it. That's my three beliefs. They're not even beliefs. They're just facts.

But it turns out they're inconvenient facts for people who think about the world through identities and who like to think about everything is changeable, everything is mutable. You know, it's this modern sort of queer theory-influenced way of thinking about identity, that all boundaries are fluid and that everything that is fixed

is bad and constraining and that we have to try and overturn everything. So I guess that, you know, somebody who just says very boringly, like mums are very boringly, like mums are very boring people who say to you, you know, pack an umbrella, do you know where you're going? And by the way, sorry, you can't have everything you want in life. You know, that didn't go down very well. I just wanted because I wanted the pair of you to talk about this in a way.

You talk about the reasons why people are confusing sex with gender identity. And one of them, I thought, was very interesting, was socialisation. And because of you having lots of wanting to be more beautiful, you say that being a woman is now is considered by, say, the trans community. some members of the trans community, that that's about how we behave. But that's not true. We're talking about a biological difference between us. I mean, we're mammals.

So, but I think it's interesting that you pick up on a beautifying of us, and that's exactly what you were trying to do and confusing that maybe with wanting to change sex. Is that something? You know, I definitely feel I had gender dysphoria, and I definitely think, you know, when we look at television shows, I mean, you have some really shocking things like on Channel 4, before when they had the other day the trans person ripping all their clothes off, playing a piano

with their penis. I mean, that is just beyond shocking. And, you know, unfortunately, when women tried to speak out and say, you know, this is not good for our kids, they get canceled, they get silence, just like J.K. Rowling. And, you know, I think it's wrong. And I think there are so many people out there trying to push these ideas on young people. And I think I was one of those people influenced by that. You know, I was just chasing perfection. But I thought, you know, maybe I'm trapped because everybody else is saying, oh, you can change this, you can change that. I understand biology and I also agree with Helen, you know, you can't change biology. But I think with me it was more trying to change my looks. Let me make an observation, by the way, Helen,

as we start to wrap up. In the states, the trans debate is nowhere near as advanced as it is here in the UK. And the thing that is missing there, and what we seem to have here is left-wing women, among others, speaking up, gay women, straight women. And that seems to be changing the debate. You're obviously part of this, but do you agree? I mean, there's a shift going on. Yes, I think. I think that in America, it's sadly become a totally polarised issue. That if you're a Democrat, you have to believe that people can change sex and that gender identity overrides sex. And if you're a Republican, you can be against it.

But then there's a bunch of other things that you believe that a lot of women would find quite uncongenial. And so each side sort of looks at the other side and says, you know, look at the mad things they believe, look what they'll do to us. Whereas here, I think, there are much more cross-party allegiances, and much more cross-cutting sort of approaches to it. and much more rationalist and focused on children as well.

That's the important thing. We're misleading children. I mean, Ollie's a grown-up, if he wants to do these things to himself, that's one thing. But leading a child down that path. Children believe what adults tell them. But also, I think the big thing that we're discussing is that it needs to be discussed, it needs to be debated without being shouted down. Of course there are differences of opinions that are members of the trans community

who want to bring their issues to the light, but we should be able to discuss it as adults and not be silenced on either side. Including at universities. And if you can't talk about this, at universities, where could you? Nowhere, apparently. Thank you so much for both coming on the show tonight. We really appreciate it.

Still to come, spare part. Harry reveals the title of his upcoming memoir. And after Trevor Noah implied, we are a nation of racists, we'll discuss whether he is right, back and through. Welcome back. It hasn't been the best of weeks for late-night American talk show hosts,

but Trevor Noah very much delivered Hold My Beer Moment to James Corden last night. Just take a look at this. Watching the story of Rishi Sunak becoming England's first Prime Minister of Color, of Indian descent, of all of these things, and then seeing the backlash is one of the more telling... it's just one of the more telling things

about how people view the role that they or their people have played in history. And what I mean by that is this. You hear a lot of the people saying, Oh, you, they're taking over. You know, now the Indians are going to take over Great Britain and what's next and what? And I always find myself going, so what? What?

What's the backlash exactly? Who's seen the backlash? There seems to be an entirely imaginary thing. It's like this is just happening in Trevor Noah's head. I don't know if I missed something. I think not. Now, joining us from Alabama to discuss Noah's bizarre. rant is American political commentator C.J. Pearson.

Thanks for having me. It's great to have you with us. What did you make of this, CJ? I mean, it just strikes me as something from a different planet. Yeah, but it's also a broken record. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that here in America every single day of people like Trevor Noah looking to blame racism on every single thing in the world. You know, they call our country fundamentally racist. And I guess now you guys are getting the same treatment. But Notice in that segment, he didn't point out the people that are actually attacking the new prime minister because they're not from the Conservative Party. So I wonder who those people must be.

No, but apparently, this all came from one caller calling into a popular radio show here. I mean, there has been... Rishi Sunak's coronation as our prime minister has been welcomed by everybody. Including by President Biden, who called him Rashad Sanuk or something. But, yeah, anyway, apart from that, everyone seems to have... welcomed it warmly. Why do you think he's so keen to paint the UK as having a problem with us having a Prime Minister of with Indian parents?

Because he doesn't possess the death to talk about real issues. He doesn't possess the deaf to talk about global inflation. It doesn't possess the death to talk about UK politics or anything like that. But what he can do is make everyone out to be some racist boogeyman. This is exactly what the left does every single day, where there is. isn't an issue with race at all. They make it to be as if it's something that you should consume yourself with every single day. People are championing the new prime minister of UK.

And for good reason, it's a huge milestone. But let's also point out the historical fact that every single modern PM that we've had, that's been a female, has been from the Conservative Party. And now the first Indian, English men who is a British PM from the Conservative Party. Where's Labor at on that? I don't see him at all. Well, one of the other interesting things about this, CJ, is the fact that all of this has this weird American lens put over it. I mean, you know, every country has its own historical problems.

Every country has its own issues. But this is like watching, well, first of all, Trevor knows who grew up in South Africa. So maybe he sort of sees some of this through the lens of apartheid. But he then transfers that onto America. And from that, transfers that onto the UK. And it seems to me it just doesn't work. and the most remarkable thing about our prime minister is the fact that race and religion weren't an issue

at any stage in the campaign for anyone. Nobody said he should get the job because of his race or his religion. They said he should get the job because they thought he was the best person for the job. Yeah. You know, and what's most exhausting about the narrative that you're hearing from Trevor,

and this has plagued America for far too long, is this perpetual need to be a victim and to see victimhood in every single story. This is a moment of triumph. This is a moment of something that you would think Trevor Noah will be heralding, but instead he's trying to point out racism simply where it isn't,

and you have to wonder, why is there that incessant need for them to have racism in a society? Why is there this incestant need for them to have someone be a victim? It just goes to show that the only thing they know how to do is divide and conquer,

and they seek to do that through race, religion, and so much more, and yet they blame conservatives for doing just that, but they do it every single day. But I think, is it not true to say, there are still problems with race, and we have still some issues here in Britain, and you still definitely have some issues in America,

and these problems exist around the world. But it seems like a sort of cry-wolf situation here, where why wasn't he celebrating how enthusiastic we were with our new Prime Minister? It wouldn't get him the ratings, that's why. Well, I think it's just made him look rather stupid and ill-informed myself. Yeah, you're completely right. As a person of color, I completely agree with you. But the thing about race here is, I mean, you call everything racist.

No one's going to believe you when something actually is racist. And that's the thing that these people don't understand. That's what I think is undermining real issues. Yeah, exactly that. Exactly. This is a moment to be celebrated and not shamed. And it's unfortunate that Trevor decided to reign on what otherwise is a very historic moment in the UK right now. And what about in America, CJ?

How has this gone down? Is Trevor Noah's ratings and the late night show's going to go up or down on the basis of this? Well, notice Trevor Noah is leaving the late night show, so I guess that says everything that needs to be said about his incredible career here. He can go out on a sour note. Thanks, E.J. Exactly that. Thanks so much for joining us.

Thank you. Well, in Britain, we undoubtedly do have problems. A report released today revealed the government is spending $5.6 million a day housing asylum seekers that could pay for 16,000 hospital beds. Of the 38,000 illegal immigrants crossing the channel this year, over 10,000 of Albanian men, despite no conflict in the Balkans for over 25 years. Have we lost control?

Joining us now, Chair of Migrant Watch, Alf Mehmet and Steve Valdez Simmons, Refugee and Migrant Rights Program Director at Amnesty International. Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for being with us today. Tell me, do you get a sense that the government has actually got a plan to a stem to stop the tide of little boats coming over?

And also, once they're here, it seems that the centres that they're used for processing are being overwhelmed. And visas are being stuck in the system. We've got 120, up in 110 and 120,000 visas, which is waiting to be processed, meaning that many desperate, refugees are being left sitting in hotels when they could be building new lives here, including 10,000 refugees that we invited from Afghanistan. Alf, what's your opinion? We're in a mess, unquestionably. If we're in a total mess, the system is overwhelmed.

The resources available to deal with those coming are totally in. inadequate and frankly up until now, I think we haven't had a clue as to how to stop those coming across the channel from streaming across the ever greater numbers. I think Suella Braverman actually is finally someone who may well be able to get a grip and deal with this. Why? I'd really like you to back it up with waterproof. Sorry, back it up with what proof? Well, that's my feeling. That's a feeling. That's not a fact or a proof. Having observed Home Secretaries, having worked for many of them as an immigration officer,

what I hear from her is absolutely spot on. And guess what? But what have you heard from her? This is why. Hold on. Hold on. This is why everyone is turning against her now because Labor is frankly afraid that she's actually going to get it done.

But I'd like to know how she's going to get it done because so far I have not heard a cohesive plan from the government at all. She's going to get it done. A, by talking to the French, which is an old thing. Secondly, she's going to hold on to those who arrive here. She wasn't actually part of the group who wanted to talk to. Thirdly, she's someone who's going to resile from the ECHR.

Fourthly, she's actually going to pursue the Rwanda arrangement and finally she's actually going to remove those who are coming here illegally. It's done and dusted. We didn't even get a flight off the ground, did we? We spent 160 million and anyway you can only take 200 people. We're waiting for the courts. I think we'll

see. That will be done and dusted. Sorry, sorry, Steve. What's a real plan? What is a real plan? This government has not come up with a real plan and all that it has allowed is an absolute and absolute mess in the immigration office, which is costing the tax. six point five million a day in hotels. So why don't they take some of that money and spend it on

staff for the immigration system and get these people through the system and either they're going to be asked to leave the country and we have to deport them because they're not they're not being approved or they can get out and make a life here. We have got so many jobs waiting to be filled. Let's be clear on the fundamental reason why this has happened. We have home office policy introduced by the previous Home Secretary, Pridipatel, but pursued still by Swee'Ewell. Breverman that has put a stop on actually processing claims. That's why only 4% of claims in the whole of 2021, even now towards the end of this year. Can you just clarify for me, what do you mean they stopped it? What did they bring in that

stopped it? It sounds to me more like it's just sort of chaos. No, they brought in rules to declare all of them, if they wished, inadmissible, on the basis that somehow they will persuade other countries to receive people rather than take our responsibilities with the claims that we get. There are a couple of different problems, though, here, aren't there? There's the issue of the backlog, and then there's the issue of the incoming flow. You're from Amnesty International. What's your plan for stopping the illegal boats? If you want to stop people coming by unauthorized means,

the only way that you can do that is to provide authorized means for people who need to make those journeys. and we make no such routes available. There are no routes for legal asylum seekers to the UK. Absolutely. None. To claim asylum in this country, you must physically be here. Our immigration rules make absolutely plain. There is no visa for anyone to come to this country to seek asylum. So if you wish to seek asylum...

What about the Afghan asylum seekers? If you're seeking asylum, you have to get here. You may be fortunate to come within a resettlement. So there are ways, hang on, there are ways. Well, that was a resettlement program that we had. Let's agree on. He said that there weren't any ways to get through legally. Not for anyone to seek asylum here.

You have to be picked out, fortunately, under a resettlement program of which we have one for Afghanistan, and we do have a visa system for Ukrainians. That's it. If you are fleeing persecution anywhere else, or you are just hopelessly at risk from Afghanistan, and you are not being picked and have no information about it at all, this is all that is for you. Why have we got the situation among other things of 10,000 young Albanian men fleeing the hellhole of France?

Why has that happened? Absolutely. The hellhole of France. You've put your finger on it. The fact is that all those who are coming across the channel have come from a safe country and very often have been through safe countries. and very often, something like 40% of them, have already applied and been rejected in other countries. But the fact is, you can't simply dismiss those who've come from Afghanistan, those who've come from Hong Kong, those who've come from Ukraine.

And what Steve says is right, we shouldn't really have any asylum grantees here who haven't crossed the channel. And the fact is that there are. are thousands who have been granted asylum. If you were to set up a system, a process whereby people are applying overseas, it would be overwhelmed within days. What do we do about the fact that this country now has an absolutely historic number of people crossing the channel? This wasn't the case even a few years ago. A few years ago, I think it was 20 people came across

the channel. Why is this situation happen and how on earth can it be allowed to go on? Let's be clear. Let's be clear. We do not have. We do not have. an historic number of people who have crossed the channel. When was there a year when there was more? In 2000s, more people crossed the channel. They didn't cross by small boats. You didn't see them crossing, but they crossed. These were people who jumped into a lorry back.

Lorries. And you're sure that that was more than there are now? Absolutely. Yeah, the means. The means are much more. From the Borkans, there were in the early 2000s more coming over. But they were coming over legally. They were not crossing the church.

channel in small boats. They were not coming in the backs of lorries. They were making their way legally. And they were all allowed to stay. What strikes me about this is the fact that we've basically got a system where we do actually have a legal system where you can apply for asylum. But we've now also got a system where a first person across the channel and a boat gets to come in and stay and will never be returned. Whatever the new home secretary says. And that's the reason why they will continue to come in ever greater numbers. Yeah. And I have to say, 40,000 this year, 28,000 last year. Eight thousand the years. before. We're talking about...

Of course, people will never be removed if you do not process their claims. I wish I had your confidence that because the Home Secretary says something, it happens. I do. I do if she's about to stay there. I have heard this from so many Home Secretary's over recent years that I have no faith at all. Anyway, next tonight, what a way to start 2023. Prince Harry's memoir is out 10 days into the new year. Should every one of us best-selling authors be quaking in our boots? We'll find out next.

Welcome back. Spare us all. We now know Prince Harry's memoir will be published on January the 10th and we'll feature a brooding picture of him on the front and we'll be entitled, Spare. Now, I just want to read you a little quote that's coming sort of description by Harry

about the book. I've worn many hats over the years, both literally and figuratively, excuse me. My hope is that in telling my story, the highs and lows, the mistakes, Lessons learned, I can help show that no matter where we come from, we have more in common than we think. Now, that's a perfectly nice sentiment, a bit gooey, a bit American for British audience, but a very nice sentiment.

I can't, you know, you can't. I don't know, I feel kind of. Yeah, I know, but you wouldn't. I feel kind of diabetic after that. But, but, but, but, this is a book which he has been reportedly paid for, 36 million. Now, we don't know if that's true. That's just a reported figure in Hello magazine. I suspect it's slightly exaggerated.

but we do know it's a very hefty sum, as he's already said, he's donating 1.2 million pounds of it to go to charity. Now, if you know any... And the rest to go into his pocket. And if you know anything about publishers, they will not have agreed to this book just being about Harry telling his... Now just wait here, his truth.

I know you're squirming and feeling a bit sick as I say that. So, we know there are going to be elements of this book that are going to prove highly controversial for the royal family. Now, I've always been a big defender of Harry and Megan. I am slightly running out of steam. So I just, we've got Dickie Arbott. Surprised you've lasted this long. Joining us now to discuss this literary event of the century,

we have Talk TV contributor, Paula Rohn, Adrian, and royal author, Dickie Arbiter. Thanks so much to you both for joining us. First of all with you, Dickie. I mean, this is now primed to come out just before the coronation. What are the effects of that? What are the effects of it coming out full stop? I think it's a great mistake.

He's doing what his dad did in 94, Jonathan Dimbleby cooperating. He's doing what his mum did with Andrew Morton in 1992. Why is he bringing out a book? He's obviously got a lot on his chest that he wants to get off. Unfortunately, we saw part one with the Oprah interview, My Truth, in which the Queen, Late Queen, came out with that wonderful one-liner,

Recollections may vary, and I think we'll find a lot in this book where recollections may vary. I think Dickie is interesting that you bring up the fact that he's not the first member of the royal family to bring out a book or give an interview, as you say, that causes a lot of problem. And I am concerned as someone who has defended them in the past, that they get a very large degree of hostility about anything they do. but having Harry must have seen the effect of his action so far, the Oprah interview. I am slightly staggered after the funeral

where you saw it's very painful when families are ripped apart and brothers are not talking to each other. Do you think this book was already in the process? Do you think he might be regretting this? He might well be regretting it, but it's too late.

There was talk, there was speculative, that he was asking for changes. Now, we heard how true it is, we don't know, that he had signed off on the book in summer. Publishers are very quick to press the button, to run the printing presses, to get the book out in the autumn. Did he make the changes?

We don't know. What's he doing with the money? Well, we know that a million pounds is going to send to Bali. 300,000 pounds is going to wellness organization. We're just going to get Paula in here. Paula, what's your opinion? How explosive do you think this book is going to be, or we're already... We're doing exactly what the publishers want us to,

which is getting frightfully riled up before we've even read it. And publicity too. Exactly. And really, in truthfully, what is it that we don't know already? And I suspect that that's what's going to happen. I suspect we're going to get this book, which will be interesting. We will hear Harry's voice in the way no doubt he wants us to. But ultimately, in terms of the show...

shock factor. I'm just not sure we're there anymore. I think we're probably... Are you sure? You know... What more are we got? We've had racism. We've had mental health. We have had... Oprah. We've had Oprah. We have had the sad destruction of a loving family. You know, we've had it. Where else are we going to go with this? Well, here's the thing, though. In my experience, a publisher does not pay $36 million to get a, you know, reheated stuff they've had before. They will be saying you've got to give us more of this stuff. They want their pound of flesh.

They want their pound of flesh. That's my concern is even if it's the odd paragraph in there and it really, thousands of words could be a lot more sort of self-help, my truth, garble, but it only takes four paragraphs saying something about the queen. ... entirely pleasant about his father, his upbringing. Yeah, the queen consort. Yeah.

And whether there's any truth in it, that remains to be seen. Well, and Dickie, you know, we've had numerous Bible sheets, three, four of King Charles. Look, we're not going to hear anything new. We don't need to be excited about this. I'm afraid I've got to break in. That's it from us. Peers will be making as much anticipated return on Monday. And whatever you're up to, make sure that it's uncensored.

Have a good night. Good night.