Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Man City Financial Charges, Royal Price Tag, Vegan Restaurant Ban

Episode Date: June 29, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates whether Man City won their wealth of trophies fairly with numerous financial charges against them. Also Piers looks into if the Royals are in fact worth the price tag and John Mountain joins to explain why he has banned vegans from his restaurant. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pierce Morgan on Sensor tonight. Manchester City just made global headlines by winning three of the biggest trophies in football. But was it won fairly, the club faces more than 100 charges of financial rule breaking? Tonight will air bombshell new revelations about those charges and will debate the Middle East takeover of sport. Also tonight, the cost of living like a king. New figures show royal spending as rocketed. I think they're worth every penny. but I'll debate with two royal naysayers who don't think they're worth anything.

Our celebrity chef, John Mountain, sensually bans vegans from his restaurant to protect, he says, his mental health. Is this the way to deal with the vegan fun police? He joins me live. Live from the news building in London, this is Pearz Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London, welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensor.

Whether you like it or not, many don't, many do. The Middle East is. is hitting world sport like a ballistic missile. Oil-rich states with bottomless pits of cash are spending untold wads of their desert dollars on buying up the games that we love. They're competing furiously with each other. They're transforming sport, and they're just getting started.

Qatar plowed $220 billion into the World Cup. Formula One is in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi. Dubai boasts major boxing balance that would have once been a shoe in for Vegas or New York. The Saudi Bank, live golf. has just turned that sport upside down, now it's sensationally merging with the PGA tour, and next to Saudis are planning a massive swing

into professional tennis. And of course, they want the biggest sport of all. Football. The beautiful game. Well, they're in the Premier League as owners of Newcastle United and barely a day seems to pass without another major staff following Cristiano Ronaldo to the Desert Kingdom for eye-watering sums.

But this sporting arms race all began arguably with the UAE. The Emirates bought Manchester City, back in 2008. It's now become the jewel in the Middle East sporting crown. City were a middling club, the ugly duckling of Manchester, forever in the shadows of Manchester United, but not anymore. It's United in the shadows of city. City have spent billions turning City into the champions of Europe. They just beat my beloved Arsenal to the Premier League title.

Their seventh under Sheikh Mansour. It's a sore subject for us, Cooners, of course. So you might think, perhaps, like I do, that there's something wrong with it. And maybe there is. We'll debate that later tonight. But the key question we're asking first is, is it fair? Was it a level playing field? Did Manchester City actually played by the rules that have been laid down?

They've now been charged with more than 100 breaches of Premier League financial regulations. And tonight, we're going to reveal new revelations, which will uncover a little bit more about those charges. We're joining me now as the Times Chief Sports correspondent Matt Lawton to talk us through it, plus talk to you, the international ad is at Isabel Oakeshaw. and the former vice chairman of Arsenal, David Dean, and remotely by the Conservative MP and former chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damien Collins.

Well, thank you all for joining me. OK, Matt, tonight The Times is breaking a story which reveals some detail of these charges against Manchester City. What is it and how significant is it? It's a specific detail which is supported by documents. It's supported by the fact that there is a new film that has obtained a UEFA report that was into city, these allegations of financial doping,

if you like, at Manchester City. And specifically, what you've got to do, if you row back in time, city arrive, these guys arrive and they own city, and they've got so much money, but there are rules that limit how much they can spend it. So the allegations really are around the fact that whether they were using slightly underhand ways to spend the money faster to close the gap on the arsenals and the Majesty United is quicker. In this specific case, what we have are two payments of 15 million pounds in 2012 and 2013, so 30 million in total, by a mystery figure. Now, UEFA looked at this

person, Yabah Muhammad, and they couldn't actually identify who he was. But what's important about this story is the fact that actually when it came to it, a lot of what UEFA looked at when they investigated Manchester City was time barred and they had a five-year limit. That's not the case with the Premier League. And we're pretty certain that of the 115 charges that City are facing from the Premier League, and that's the thing. When we talk about City winning the treble two and a half weeks ago, it's hard. You have to still look at it within the context of these charges that are hanging over them.

We're pretty confident this would be one of the charges. And this is the kind of thing, just this random money. And in simple layman's language, just shoving money. There's 30 million pounds have come in from this mystery donor who's not an official sponsor. No. And who do we think he is? Who do we think he represents? Well, we think he's not far removed from the, you know, from the people that run the country.

And if that is the case, is that a clear breach of Premier League rules? Yes, because it's not a sponsorship deal. It's not a legitimate sponsorship deal. The point is, when you are... are city in 2012, 2013. You know, in 2023, they are now the richest club in the world, the most successful.

They attract all the sponsorship. They attract all the money because they're winning everything. So everyone wants to sponsor them. But back then, even though they were going to win the title, you know, they're winning their first title. Back then, they're not commanding the sums they need to spend fast. You know, that

squad that Pep Guardiota just won the treble with cost it. The best part of a billion pounds to assemble. So you've got to spend that money, and they had to spend money fast to get into a position where they could really tell it. What are the repercussions? If they're found guilty of a number of these charges, like the one that the Times is reporting tonight, if they're found guilty, what happens? Well, the options open to the Premier League are pretty extensive, including relegating them from the Premier League. Would they remove this recently won Premier League title, and would that automatically go to the club that came second? Well, unfortunately, for Arsenal, the...

The time span of the charges is 2009 to 2018. But you could argue the whole edifice has been built on what they did in those first few years. Absolutely. If that was all done illegally, breaking the rules of the Premier League, it's pretty serious. I mean, David, look, you've been at the forefront of all this, one of the Premier League's great creators. What do you make of this? I'm not sure how much of a smoking gun this really is in the scheme of things. and whatever you say, Manchester City,

and I'm not here to defend Manchester City, they've done a sensational job, not just for themselves, but for the Premier. 115 charges? Understand that, and they've still going to be proven yet, don't think. No, but only one of them here, out of 150, they've almost 30 million pounds. As we all know, they're innocent until proven guilty.

Sure. There's a lot of long way to go yet, or probably trundle on for the next couple of years in any case. I cannot see them having any title has taken away from them. I think that would be wrong in the scheme of things. but let's see what the argument is. I want to come back to the wider debate about this sports washing concept.

But let me bring in Damien Collins. So Damien, what do you make of this? This whole situation around city and the sort of central charge, I guess, that these 115 charges which they're facing relating to the first few years that they were involved with this big takeover by Sheikh Mansour,

if it turns out that they really were masking and concealing vast sums of money, which has then led to them becoming the biggest club in the world. What should be done about this? Well, there should be some sanction against them. And I think that can't just be a fine which will be irrelevant to Manchester City. It has to be some sort of in-game sanction. And I think these 115 charges aren't a trivial matter.

Sometimes when you hear people talking about this, it makes it sound like these are details for lawyers. This is about the integrity of the competition. If clubs are willingly breaking the rules for their own advantage, to give them a competitive advantage within those sporting competitions. There have to be robust sporting sanctions. I think it also shows there has to be proper, robust, independent financial oversight of football clubs as well. I think too much of this takes place within the sport. And also it's too easy for very wealthy clubs to use lawyers to frustrate investigations for years.

It needs to be much more transparent than it's been so far. I mean, the bottom line is that no clubs should be state-owned, right? But a lot of clubs already, it looks to me, circumnavigating that. They're sort of setting up entities, which are clearly linked to states, and they're getting round it that way. Should we be tightening the loopholes on this? Yeah, I think that's why we need to have this much-discussed football regulator in the UK, where there's proper transparency of financial records.

This isn't just done within the sporting competitions themselves, but actually there's an external body that's got the right to know who are the ultimate owners, of the club, where are the funds coming from, are they trading within the financial fair player rules? Because what a lot of fans will feel is a club is bought effectively by a sovereign wealth fund, a very rich entity, billions of pounds are pumped in, where's that money going for, how's it being spent? Because it distorts the competition for everyone else if clubs are breaking the financial rules. And what we've got to avoid, I think, is football being owned by a very small number of people who are the only people who've got the resources to buy some of these clubs

and operate them in the way they're being run now. Right. Isabel, let's look at this in a bigger picture of sports washing, this new phrase. I'm kind of torn on it because I think there's obviously a degree of sports washing. Obviously a lot of these Middle Eastern countries would like to improve their images, particularly the ones like Saudi that have got poor human rights records and so on. And it's right they should be held accountable for the human rights abuses and so on. But it's also true. I've seen it with my friend Cristiana Ronaldo over in Saudi,

the amazing impact he's been having on football there, but also the reaction of the young Saudi football fans. They're football nuts over there. And we saw with the Qatar World Cup, teams like Morocco and others, huge support, huge, huge interest in the region. Why should they not be able to go around the world investing in sport that their own people absolutely love?

What is intrinsically wrong with that, even if along the way there is clearly an element of sports washing? Well, as Damien Collins was saying there, it's about transparency, isn't it? And I think you make a very fair point here about the actual impact that it's having back in those countries. And I think to me what this shows is the astonishing level of ambition that there is in the Middle East at the moment. I mean, several countries that are plowing huge sums of money into getting involved in sport as part of a kind of whole overhaul of their international image for geopolitical reasons. And the government here has, I think, rightly,

taken a very pragmatic view of that. You know, taking Saudi Arabia as an example, we basically need them. You know, we export. We still have arms deals with Saudi Arabia. 40%. We still buy oil. 40% of our arms.

The Qataris own half of London. I mean, there's a lot of hypocrisy I found around the Qatar World Cup. I mean, if you come to the way that journalists in this country have covered all this, There's a lot of like a sort of angry reaction from British journalists about sports washing and how wrong it all is. But ultimately, if you ask city fans, you ask Newcastle fans, you ask golf fans, we're now going to see their biggest stars in the world come together for some collective competition, whatever it may be.

If you ask most sports fans about the huge injections of cash, I don't think there is morally problematic about it as perhaps journalist here are. I think we were right, just as you've done it just now, I think we were right to question some of the human rights issues going into Qatar and even before the football started, particularly when they're confiscating rainbow hats off people and stuff like that, the sort of PR-owned goals that were happening. But that's their culture.

You know, you can't expect to go into another country, and they are conservative countries. When England won the World Cup in 1966, it was actually illegal to be gay in this country. Well, how would we have felt if people had come along with rainbow flags, then they'd have been taken down, they'd have been arrested? So I do think you have to... Society evolves.

Yeah, but I do think the idea that England in particular takes any high moral ground. Some kind of moral high ground. We invaded Iraq illegally, in my opinion, it's just my opinion, invaded Iraq illegally, caused mayhem in the Middle East. And yet somehow we think we are morally pure enough to lecture the Middle East about how they should conduct.

I've never bought that argument particularly. I think the reporting was balanced because the messaging before the World Cup was that everyone was welcome and then people were made to feel they weren't welcome. And we interviewed gay football fans out there who didn't feel welcome. Anyway, but... Wasn't that because you lot told them they weren't well?

Because what I found on the streets of Cato, everyone was having a great time. It was you going up to gay people saying, do you feel welcome? Wasn't it to a large... You know, I would read some of the stuff. But anyway, look, it... But on sports washing generally, is there a line between genuine sports washing,

which I'm sure they're all trying to do, wash their human rights records, improve their image, but also genuine recognition that they really do want to get involved in sport. And actually, if the sport benefits like golf tremendously from grassroots up from vast injections of cash, do we care? Look, I live in Manchester and I've been covering the Manchester United sales for seven months now. The majority of Manchester United fans want the Qataris to win this battle

because they just see an opportunity to be back up with the big boys in terms of the spending, in terms of being able to take on what they see as a potential threat, well, a clear threat from Newcastle down the line, but more locally from Manchester City. So they want that. I think it is, you know, the horse is bolted. I think they're here to stay. I sat with representatives of the Saudis when I was in Qatar.

I sat with the Qataris. They want the World Cup in Saudi Arabia. They want the Olympics. David, let me bring you in. You did a lot of business around the world, right? We had a nice cup of tea in Qatar, and it was an amazingly well-run World Cup. Everyone had a great time.

I thought the best. Graham Sooner's told me it's the best he'd been to. But there are obviously political issues here. You can't divorce politics and sport. Obviously, some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, have very bad records on human rights. And you can't ignore that in all this. And obviously, they're trying to improve their image.

Where's the line for you? Well, there is a balance. Firstly, how do you stop overseas investment? And it's been going on for years. You take Rolls-Royce cars. Who owns a Rolls-Royce, one of the best names in English car manufacturer. Who owns it?

BMW. Who owns Harrod's State of Qatar? Who owns Coleman's mustard, if you like? That's a hot subject. You know who? Unilever of Holland. So you're always going to get overseas investors. We're going to your newspaper mat.

I mean, we're not making a huge fuss about the fact that the Chinese have huge stakes in our critical national infrastructure. I mean, that's arguably much more worrying than anything. that we're seeing here. And the point you made about the Saudis wanting to get their own people involved, I've looked at their vision 2030, an incredible plan for how they're going to transform in every little way. And it's from the big to the small, for example, they want to raise life expectancy from 74 to 80 there.

They've got very specific plans about how much sport they want everybody to be doing every week. I think it would behold the UK to slightly reduce our moral high ground on this. Because honestly. There is something called financial fair plan existence. Yeah. So there is a leveling and it's meant to, and it will work eventually. If you put red. But if these charges against City are true, or even half of them are true, they have trampled all over.

Well, that's another story. And as I say, that's yet to be proven. You want to mention two quick things before we let you go. Oh, that's very kind, yes. If we can talk football for two minutes. Of course. Always talk football. So I'm on two campaigns to do with football.

One, it's time. I'm keeping because you know how long it takes the score of goal, Matt, four minute, right, four man move. Guy scores, how long does it take? 35 seconds? 10 seconds. So when the fourth official puts up three or four minutes, is he accurate, the last 10 seconds, no, he's not. I want the time loss. I'm not talking about waiting.

Can't we say four minutes and get rid of VAR, which has been a total travestee? No, no, no. I'm a great believer in VAR, and I think it helps the referees. We're all talking about integrity. I think he's killed the joy out of football. Peers, we'll have to disagree on that one. Come back in another time. We'll debate. Okay, so anyway, I'm on timekeeping.

I want to eventually see real time. I want the fans to realize they're going to get 60 minutes of actually pure football. I think fans would agree. What's the other one? That's another one. The other one is penalty shootouts, believe it or not. Why is it that the penalties are taken at one end, which has to be a disadvantage to the opposing team? I want to see penalties taken at either end. So let's take the Cup final. You have Man City taken their penalties.

So you both take it on your own end or opposition end? So at least the... No, you take it at your own, where you've got 20 or 30,000 fans. You're depriving me of the joy of watching somebody from Tottenham, taking a penalty against Arsul, and 50,000 of us, booing at him. I don't want you doing that.

How does a penalty pay? How does he feel? How the fans at the wrong end of the pitch feel when they've got to watch it down the other end? Well, look, I'm... As always, you're an innovator. You always have been. That's why my clubs are such a great condition.

Thanks to you and all you did. So thank you again. for that. Thank you, Matt, great story tonight. It's going to be very interesting how this all plays out when we get more details and more of these charges. Isabel, thank you as always, for your perspective. If you'd like to watch, and thank you to Damien as well

for joining us, Damon Collins over there. I appreciate it. If you want to watch Britain's biggest football scandal, it's available on YouTube now and it has more of this story about Manchester City. Well, on the sense of next, the cost of living like a king, you figure show the royal spending has rocketed. I've been worth every penny, the royal family.

And I've invited two royal naysayers who think they're worth nothing to come and try and prove me wrong to get a little lively. Show is nothing of not a fearless forum for fiery debate. I've strong opinions but like all the world's eminent thinkers, I'm open to changing my mind.

So tonight I'm trying something a little new. Prove me wrong, it's the title of his new segment. First up, is the Royal Family Worth for Money. The annual Crown Report into Royal Finances was released today. King Charles and Co. appeared to maxed out the Royal Credit Card. Last year, they spent £107 million pounds, while the sovereign grant was only 86.3 million pounds.

That means we're in the whole for around 20.7 million pounds extra. Big numbers, indisputably. But in my view, the royal family still represents stunningly good value. I say they're worth every penny. We're here to debate the complete opposite. Alex O'Connor, the YouTuber and Royal Skeptic. And Graeme Smith, Chief Executive of the UK's leading Republican movement of Republic, who's just handed me his new book,

abolish the monarchy, why we should and how we will. So clear we're on different paths here, but the rules are simple. You guys have until you hear this sound to prove me wrong. I say the royals are worth every penny that this country gives them, which, by the way, is literally one penny per person in this country per year. Per day. Birthday, not a year. So it's a penny a day per person in the country.

Well, it's not. And the first thing to say about this debate is that the monarchy is not a finalist. financial transactions. So whether it's got makes a profit or not is neither here or there. The measure of whether it's a good institution and worth keeping is whether it's good constitutionally because that's what it's there for. Why are you so against and out of interest? Because firstly it's the whole life is devoted to ending the monarchy. Firstly it's wrong in principle. It's not democratic. It stands on completely different set of feudal values instead of the values of accountability, equality and democratic rights and so on. Secondly, as an institution,

not fit for purpose. It falls well short of the principles of public life. I don't think it's going too far to say it's corrupt. And constitutionally, in terms of our politics and the way power is exercised, it funnels a lot of power to the power. What have been the four most watched events globally involving

this country in the last three years? Yeah, but that doesn't really... No, I don't. Well, you're going to say the weddings and the jubilies. Just answer my question. You're going to say the weddings and the jubilies. I'm not sure that's even the case, because I think UAFA had well, forget football. Okay, we can't just say forget football. National events. What are the most few events except? National events which universally

show this country at its best. Nine percent of this country were enthusiastic about the coronation, 15 percent by another poll. So in terms of royalists, most people, you know, people that you can genuinely call royalists is less than 15 percent. All right, but see, here's the point I think, which I think both you guys are missing, but I mean, trying to convince me, Alex. I just think when the world looked at the platinum jubilee, for example, when the world looked in a very different tone at the Queen's funeral, the King's coronation. You look at these events, and it shows Britain, in my view, at its greatest, the pomp, the pageantry, the ceremony, the military precision. Everything worked like clockwork. Everyone around the world who was watching this, who was watching,

as a caveat, many people are not interested, I get that, but the millions, tens of millions around the world that watched it thought better of our country. How many things have happened in our country in the last three years involving our leaders, for example, which have brought shame and ignominy to the country. Here, you have a chance to show us at our best. What price do you put on that? There's nothing about the royal family that's brought us shame in your opinion that you've been sort of relentlessly talking about. A human beings, the idea that the monarchies that sits above the politics of the country. And you say, you know, it doesn't help us to escape the various political scandals of prime ministers and presidents? Well, does it? I thought you were the one who's constantly banging on about Harry and

Megan and how they're a disgrace to our country or whatever it is. I don't think... Well, I think rather like you to, their attempts to damage the monarchy and bring it down are actually disgraceful because I happen to support the monarchy. But that's a bit argument. A few big events. It's not an argument for a constitution which is second rate.

It's not an argument for an institution that abuses public money that abuses public office to lobby for their interests and so on. I mean, you know, 12, was it 13 years ago, 14 years ago now, MP's expenses scandal. I'm sure you were one of the many commentators who are outraged by MPs, spending public money on their own homes, their second homes. And that was sort of hundreds of pounds, thousands of pounds, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds.

The Royal will spend millions, tens of millions. But you know my view of that? If you're going to have a monarchy and a royal family and they're performing over a thousand duties a year, which is not a long. They're actually getting lots of charities and they'd all have help for people. They couldn't do as private citizens.

Well, they could, but it wouldn't have the same impact. But here's my point. Here's my point. If you're going to have them, you should give them all the truth. trappings. Why? Because otherwise they're not a royal family. They're not a monarchy. Where's the logic? The logic is, if you want people to buy into the magic of a monarchy and royal family, you've got to give them the tools to be magical. It's not magic, it's corruption.

What would you have them in, a little Tesla? Maybe a, maybe a suit would be fine. We could start by getting rid of these ridiculous garments. We spent most of the time that we've known now King Charles, dressed like me. And so to see him for the first time. You're the king dressed like you, no effect. Well, he'd probably put on a tie. It looked more like you, I suppose. Yes. To see and suddenly put on these robes would be like watching Rishi Sunak or someone, suddenly donned. But it's part of our history.

Ludicrous robes. It gives us something. It's absolutely ridiculous. Nobody can take it seriously. And you may not like it. Nobody can take it seriously. But many around the world love it. If you go to the Caribbean, if you go to America, you go to Canada, you go to India, you go to India, you go to India, you go to India, you go to India, and they bring in so much money from tourism.

Well, that's not true. It is true. No, it is. Definitely not. It's definitely not true. Now, the thing is, there was no evidence. I've sat down with the CEO and chair of visit Britain about a decade ago, and I said, there's no evidence that if we got rid of the monarchy tourism would go down, and they said, yes, you absolutely do.

You don't think of all family brings in any money from tourism. There is no evidence that that tourism money wouldn't come in anyway. I mean, if you just look at the money that came in, in the weeks leading up to these big events that we've had about the last four years, huge amounts of money came in. If you look at the visitor numbers. American tourists pouring in. The visitor numbers go down when these things happen.

If you look at the visitor numbers, they go down when these things happen. People stay away from these kinds of things. And if I may say, Cheshire Zoo is a bigger tourist attraction in the UK than Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. I wouldn't be in favour of a state-funded ceremonial opening. When was the last time hundreds of millions of people around the world on television? I certainly would not be in favour. I certainly would not be in favour of its owners or its directors or indeed the sort of sometimes

sinister and yet still to be pitied animals that are kept. within its cages, given any kind of political office over the rest of us. When do we beam the lives of the inmates of Chester's zoo to the world? The wind of the next... The thing that tourists are spending money on is not the way to decide on the United States. What about Williams' campaign in a moment to end homelessness? Yeah, fantastic. funded by what? Funded by what? And what's this? Like 3 million pounds?

You see you don't like his campaign against home? I think it's wonderful. What have you got against the homeless? It's nothing he couldn't do as private citizens. We give him $1 to $2 million. What do you have against the homeless? We give him 22 million pounds. We can spend that on...

You don't want him to help the homeless. That's the most ludicrous thing you've said on this show, and that says a lot. The bar is low, I agree. To say that this is something that requires royalty, to say this is something that requires he has some kind of political office, that he's going to inherit the head of statehood,

that he's going to become the head of state in this country. They've got anything to do with this ability. To get three million pounds of charity is ridiculous. You guys, right? You argue your case with great passion with it. But in the end, it's just a negative anti-argument. No, it's not. That's what you are. Not at all.

A pair of you wake up. every day and you think, how do I end this thing I hate? Why don't you just ignore it? It's a bit like vegan. I'll say what it is. We're having a vegan debate a minute. It's a bit like vegans you run into steakhouses, screaming abuse about the meat. If you don't like meat, just go and eat your brawl in a little restaurant

in the corner. It's a bit like saying, me to eat my steak. It's actually a bit like, saying, I want to end homeless because I hate it. I want to end the moniker because it's a bad thing. It's bad for Britain. It's bad for our governance. It's not bad for Britain. It's bad for our governance. And also, if what is worth it's about our image. It's purely ceremony when it comes to government. Two out of the three times that I've ever spoken about this subject.

Because you've invited me to. There was two of the three times that I've ever spoken about the subject in public. It's because you've invited me to. So I don't think it's me who's banging on about this. It's not me who's waking up every day, just desperate to see the end. Every time we call you, your answering machine says if that's peers, I'll do it. So don't blame me. The claxons has gone.

The big question, have you, I think we know where this is going on the first one, but have you proven me wrong? No. Have we convinced you is another question. You haven't. The thing is, read my book and then come back to me later. I will read your book, but I've got a pretty good idea what's in it because it's got Owen Jones quoted on the front saying a crucial riveting polemic.

And what Owen Jones knows about crucial riveting polemies can be written on a postage stamp, which has the King of the United Kingdom's head on it, by the way, not Owen Joneses. Gentlemen. And God save him. A good while, indeed. Nobody else is going to in this country. Yes, they will. There's a lot more royal fans than you think.

Gentlemen, good to see you. Thank you. Your campaign will fail. but it will fail with passion. And I admire that. I'll bet you a tenor. Okay. Is that ten pounds with King Charles' picture on it?

Yes, it is. Unsensit next. So really, chef John Mountain, sensationally bans vans from his restaurant. He says this to protect his mental health. He joins me next live. Welcome back to Piz, Morgan, Unsensit. Veganism, the art of assuing all pleasure in life

is one of the 21st century's most bizarre trends from where I look at it, but there are green plant-based chutes of recovery. The new fashion is for high-profile vegans, including Explorer Bear Grills. to revealing the detransitioning back to healthy, meaty diets. And so many chefs like John Mountain, who runs fire restaurant in Perth, Australia,

is also leading the fight back. He's made global headlines this week after announcing, sadly, all vegans are banned from fire for mental health reasons. We thank you for your understanding. Many didn't understand. He's been flooded with fake bookings and hostile reviews. But I'm joined now by the vegan ban himself, John Mountain,

and here in the studio, Animal Rights activist Joey Carbstrong. Well, welcome to both. of you. Okay, John Mountain. Why did you ban vegans from your restaurant? Morning, peers. I banned them from my restaurant because, look, I've been a chef for nearly 30 years, but on this particular incident, it was just too much. You know, they grouped together, which, you know, I'm very proud of the vegans for all sticking together, but they did. They grouped and banded together and then started hammering my business with one-star reviews. I saw my rating dropped from a sensible 4.2 down to 2.8.

They nearly broke me. God bless the vegans, though. What was the incident that provoked all this? The problem that happened was a girl had emailed me three weeks before requesting a vegan selection. And I said, well, look, rather than saying that, what is it that you like? Tell me what you like.

And she said, well, you know, I like yonoki and risotto. I thought, okay, no problem. We change our menu every day, Piers, so it's not an issue. The problem was on the day that she did turn up, I couldn't do it. I let her down, and it was a justifiable complaint. And she went nuts? Yeah, slightly nuts, as they do. My thing about Viggins is they tend to be, I don't know,

they seem to me permanently hungry. Like the lack of meat in their diet makes them very intolerant of people, and they get very agitated. And if you don't sign up to all things vegan in the way that they want you to, all hell breaks loose. I think that seems to be the issue, peers, to be honest. I think they're just missing a really good burger or a glass of milk, you know, or both, you know, they need to sleep more, be a bit more healthy.

Although, you know, the vegan diet allegedly is healthy, just not for everybody else, you know. I think each to their own beers 100%. Okay, well, let's come to Joey. So Joey Bay Grill, so I know well, So he's embarrassed he used to promote veganism. He now eats a diet of red meat, blood, bone marrow, as well as salted butter, eggs, fruit and honey. He says he'd ever felt better.

Talking about his transition to a vegan diet, he said, I was vegan quite a few years ago. I thought I wrote a vegan cookbook. I now feel a bit embarrassed about that because I promoted it. I thought that was good for the environment. I thought it was good for my health. And through time and experience and knowledge and study,

I realized I was wrong on both. He's embarrassed that he promoted a plant-based diet when he drinks urine and buy a lot of, camel's stomach. Urine's quite healthier. It's healthy. Would you drink urine? Would you rather drink urine?

Absolutely, if I had to you. If I was in a job. Yeah, but he's embarrassed that he now, that he promoted a vegan diet and he's not embarrassed of his behavior on TV and he thinks that eating the bodies of animals. Why are vegans so angry, yeah? Well, he made a statement saying

the vegans are angry and angry, but he carried on and banned all vegans from his restaurant because of one simple complaint. He's allowed to. He's allowed to ban a whole group of people He's a chef who's just sick of tailoring to vegan people who want to have all this stuff and get angry about meat. Listen, listen, wait a second.

He got a two-star review when he was on Great British menu, right? He ripped off his mic, smashed up the studio, and said that he wanted to kill the guy for giving him a two-star review of a fish dish that he made. He didn't ban all fish eaters from his restaurant. Hang on, you were... He didn't ban all fish eaters. Wait, Joey, Joey, Joey, we're going to get personal.

You were a gang member, so don't take the high moral grad of smashing something up. Amma, I'm completely honest about it. There's been documentaries made about it. Right, so don't say the high moral ground about losing his temper. You were literally in a gang. I was 10 years ago. 10 years sober, now you're going to use that... I'm just saying, if you're going to get personal with him.

But anyways, I don't walk around with dead baby pigs facing them like that. Like, does that look like someone who really gives a damn about animals? Like, you know... That's his profile picture. Looking at a dead pig. In Australia, one second, I just want to say this. In Australia, pigs are killed in gas chambers, okay?

They're horrible. Have you seen footage from inside a gas chamber? I recently exposed one in the UK. They scream to death and beg for mercy. In Perth, there's a gas chamber called Lily Belly Pork, right? And this guy serves pork at his restaurants. And why would you be more upset of a little complaint as a chef than pigs being murdered at gas chains?

Okay, let me ask you the question that I asked a vegan activist the other day, which is that given that 80% or 90% of the world's almonds come from California, where they're made involving the demolition of billions of bees who get murdered, how do you feel about the little guys? They don't get murdered. That's completely false, and I don't know why this is. How many billions of bees die in the pollination?

I've got the 222 data right here. They die mostly from parasites and pests. 66% die of varroamites or other pests and parasites. In the making of almonds and avocados. Oh, they do. They do. The data is here. It's this here.

Do you know what I read this? This here is data from US Department of Agriculture. Do you know what I read this? I read it in the Guardian, the Vegan Bible. Even the Guardian admitted that you vegans who eat absolutely. Avocados and almonds. Only 6.7%. You don't care about the little guys.

We boycott. Billions of bees get murdered and you don't care. Where do those bees come from? Where are those bees coming from? Where? Where? The commercial honey industry. That's true.

A lot of them do. What do we boycott? What a big vegans boycott? Go on. The commercial honey industry. Why don't you boycott arms and avocados? Because I don't see a reason to. Most of the bees are dying from mites.

Do you see pollination? You don't see a reason to this? Okay. All right. So you don't care about the little guys. Only six percent die from pesticides. pesticide so it's not a really a rights violation not murdering the bees it is dying

the bees are just, a big pig makes you cry a little bee, you don't care no listen, there's no reason to be upset about pollination, sometimes 50 billion why aren't you angry at the mites? Hang on, Joey, barrel of mites. I thought of shout over each other. Sometimes 50 billion bees die in six weeks. From mites. To give you vegan. I literally just told you they got from

hivots. That's not true. That is not true. Rees the They're not lying. Read the Guardian. I read it in an article, an anecdote, so it must be true. Joey, how long have you been a vegan? Ten years. Do you actually, because you seem quite agitated to me. Like, you want to...

It's just spout nonsense about bees being murdered when they die from mice. They are murdered. It's a clown behaviour. But do you think in a way you represent what I feel about vegas? You're all quite hungry. Are you against animal cruelty, peers? Yes. Then why do you support animal cruelty when you support the media industry?

I don't. I've defended the bees for years. Well, they're not murdered. They die from mice. Billions of bees are murdered so that you vegans can eat almonds and avocados. Do you buy honey? Do you buy honey where they're hired from? John, let me bring in John here. John, look, here's my point about the vegans.

There's a lot of hypocrisy as there is with all these debates, right? Which is that if you want to eat almonds and avocados as a vegan, you feel virtuous, you think you're saving the planet as well. Actually, neither of those things are true. Billions of bees get killed to make almonds and avocados. People can go read the proper reports about this. And also, they fly them in around the world, or they chuck them around the world,

and they call that it terrible for the panic. They truck animal products around the world. Do you believe, John, there's a kind of basic hypocrisy here with the vegans? Look, I think, Piers, what I've noticed is that there's a strange correlation that they have between eating meat and death and murder, which they like to keep promoting that murder aside.

I think if they look at the definition of murder, you know, this is human versus human, and that is it. you know, look, I'm 100% against animal cruelty. And for him to bring up the great British menu, well, it just shows his mentality, you know, good lad, congratulations, well done. It's not what we're about. I think each should be to their own and you should just enjoy your life, you know. If they're going to argue, peers, I feel that they should enjoy your life.

But Joey, why can't you? Why are you killing? Look at this. Joey, it's a pig. It's a pig. It's a pig. It's a pig. That's beautiful, Joey.

You can't handle a simple complaint from a... And this woman, she's a very nice woman. I spoke to this young woman. She's very nice, very kind, very polite. And you can't handle a simple complaint as a celebrity chef. And it's clear... Joey. Even meat eater's complain about his restaurant.

He doesn't ban all meat. Joey, if you want to be a vegan, I don't care, right? It's entirely down to you. If you... If you want it, they're not being slaughtered. Billions of bees. Everyone going to Google... Billions of bees are getting killed by mites.

Exposed. To everyone watching this, either on the show tonight or on YouTube later, go and Google bees. B's, bees, almonds, avocados, and you'll see the truth. The truth. Even the Guardian, where they all

are compelled to eat lentils every day when they wear their sandals to work. This is a gas chamber, Pierce. This is how pigs are killed in the sport in the UK. This is my investigation. Why don't you play me the sound of billions of bees being murdered? I know that animals get killed

that I can eat pigs. screaming to death. Right. Look at them. Face them. What do you think bees do? Face them. What do you think bees do when you murder them? They get killed by mites. This is gas chamber. Look at it. No, no, no. They get slaughtered. You're a cowardly. I know that animals get slaughtered so that I can eat animal needs. I stuck this camera in this gas chamber in the UK at Pilgrim's Pride and they scream for

their lives and every single animal welfare. Here's my problem. Here's my problem. And you're bacon and you promote it. I love bacon. You promote it. I love bacon. You say you're against I love sausages. I love it all. I love eating meat. You love animal cruelty. Yeah, I'm prepared to admit I love eating meat. You're not prepared to denounce avocado and almond food. Because you're making up stats out you.

They don't get slaughtered. Because they actually lead to the extermination. They want to keep these bees alive. Final word to John. John, is there anything that will save your mind to let vegans in? Because obviously, he'd be a fantastic guest in your restaurant. It's just discrimination, isn't it? Thank you, Pierce.

I do apologize. I couldn't hear you then. It's just absolute childish, childish behavior. Discriminating against the whole group of people because of one little silly complaint. Go ahead. Joey, when was the last time you laughed? Last time I laughed.

When I heard you say that all bees are slaughtered because of avocados, it's an absolute abjected It's an absolute fact. Facts don't care about your feelings, piss, man. Can I get a word? Facts don't care about your feelings. Yeah, John, final word to you. Final word is, how many vegans does it take

to change a light bulb? Go on. None. They all prefer to stay in dark. Wait for the punchline. What's the punchline? None what? go have a cry, mate.

They would prefer to stay in the dark. Go have a cry. Actually, the other one I like is how do you know when someone's vegan? Don't worry. I'll see your gas chamber footage. Don't worry. They'll soon tell you and play pictures

and stuff of people screaming. Well, they won't play you is bees being murdered in gas. Joey, great to see you. John, thank you for joining me from Perth. Go vegan, Pierce. Unsets the next. The Rwandan migrant plan is ruled unlawful again and Madonna's back at home off of a six-day stay in intensive care.

The Pierce Pack returns to feast on today's event. Welcome back to Piersborkman-Ossense. Joining me now talk to your contributors, Paul Row and Adrian and Richard Tice, do eat avocados and almonds? I do. Absolutely delicious. You're guilty about the bees? I do. I do, actually.

Enough to stop eating them or not? Yeah, absolutely. You're giving up avocados and almonds right? I will give up avocados and almonds because of what you said. Because without insects, we are going to die. Without bees, we all die. Absolutely.

I totally agree with you. If the vegans keep killing bees, the planet's over. That's why vegans are so dangerous. Let's tell us some other stories. The Rwanda plan today, Richard, ruled unlawful. Rishi Sunak says the government will appeal this ruling to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. But the Court of Appeal judges ruled Rwanda had not provided enough safe cars to prove it is a safe third country to send people.

Prime Minister says he fundamentally disagrees. But it's another massive blow. And what it does do is shoves it the can down the road again. No one's getting on planes to Rwanda any time soon. Rishi Sunax running out of time to deliver on this, isn't it? Yeah, I mean, he has pledged to stop the boats, and he's not going to stop the boats. Yesterday, the House of Lords, they put another block in the way. They don't want to stop the boats.

Today, you've got the Court of Appeal. Here's the thing, though. What they didn't do was, look, last week, last Tuesday, World Refugee Day. And in Rwanda, the UNHCR's own representative said that 132,000 refugees in Rwanda were thriving, with education and employment opportunities. All up. Okay. Let's forget about what's happening in Rwanda for a second.

Let's forget what's happening even in our courts and let's deal with the figures and what practically the government is telling us. The government is telling us that it's going to cost $169,000 to send one asylum seeker to Rwanda. Rwanda tells us, hang on a minute, we can only take between 200 to 1,000 actually, who are going to apply.

And we know that last year, 46,000. So we don't need to talk about the Court of Appeal decision, We don't need to talk about what's happening in Rwanda, because it's never going to work. We are being fooled into believing that they are going to stop the boats. They don't want to stop the boats, Richard. I agree. The British establishment does not want to stop the boats.

We have net migration. Making so much profits. You've got to stop the boats. The kind and compassionate thing to do is to pick up and safely take back, which we're entitled to do under existing international treaties. The kind of thing to do is to set up legal systems by which they can make their applications. We've already got them. 1.2 million people came here legally last year.

No, no. Yes, they did. Net migration, this is 606,000. Who came here through safe and legal routes using a lawful visa system. Not asylum seekers. That is different. They can't.

And that is what they are playing on. They're playing on the weakest and most vulnerable people in this planet. And so what happens if someone is rejected because they're an Albanian or they're an economic migrant. And they're rejected under your safe and legal. That's different, isn't it? Because they're rejected on the basis of their economic migrants. Your safe and legal point is completely.

It's a what aboutery. We need a deterrent. It's got to be strong. It's got to work. Given how well you're both getting on, what's been your favourite chat-up line you've ever heard? It's too long ago, Pear. I can't remember.

For the reason, isn't it? Paula? Pears, I wish I could control the alphabet because I would turn you and I together. Oh, Paula, you naughty girl. You've been thinking about it. Apparently Brits were polled on this, and their favourite was,

Is your name Wi-Fi because I'm feeling a connection? Oh, for God's sake. Is anyone ever fall for this? Other ones included, is your name Google because you're what I've been searching for? Are you a parking ticket? You've got fine written all over you. Should we get a coffee?

I like you a latte. Oh, my God's sake. Is it any one that's so many people are single of this country? Some of these words didn't exist when I was dating here. Unbelievable. Quick other serious story. The story of the RAF. discriminating against white men. Fascinating.

The RAF has been found to have unlawfully discriminated against white men in a recruitment drive aimed at boosting diversity. 72-page report ordered by the former RAF head air chief marshal. And it's come back and said, yeah, this was completely wrong. More than 30 men identified as having missed out on a potential £5,000 golden handshake to start cyber roles in the RAF. What do you make at this? This is absurd.

I mean, this is all of this drive for diversity, inclusion and equality, which is a good thing in itself. But when it goes completely the other way to the other end of the spectrum, actually all of a sudden, there's other forms of discrimination. What about the best person for the job? Isn't that a basic sort of common sense?

I mean, and I would agree with you. Excellent. We're getting on better. But you know that that doesn't work. Why not? That's not our reality, Richard. It's not my reality. It's not many people of colour's reality

that the best person always gets the job. And that is the problem. However, of course, you have to accept that it was unlawful, you cannot have positive discrimination, and it's right that this decision came out. I absolutely support that, because what actually the RAF should have done is consulted, and perhaps they didn't consult in the way they should have done

in terms of inclusivity and diversity. It's a tricky one, because you do want to have, obviously, diversity and inclusion. Of course you do. And you want everyone to get a fair crack of the whip, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality, whatever it may be. But when you see stories like this of active discrimination against white men to try and achieve this, it is fundamentally wrong.

Of course. Where's the common sense in this? Where's the sense that, yes, you want to do the right thing and give everybody an equal opportunity and then choose the best person? I don't think that's that difficult. And look, we're in so much better a place than we were 20 years. Bag this pain that you're feeling.

And the next time I come and tell you... Is that your latest chat up line? Next time I come and tell you it. That is the best chat up line of the night. Back this pain you're feeling, Richard Tice. We're going to leave you there. Great to see. Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.

I'm off for a drink with Paula. Tonight.