Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Meghan No Show at Coronation, US/UK Relations, Climate Protesters to Escape Prosecution

Episode Date: April 12, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood is in Piers and discusses at Meghan not coming for the King's Coronation but Harry is. Also Rosanna looks at relationship between the UK and US as Joe Biden speaks in Belfast. Rosanna assesses whether the decision of 100 lawyers deciding to not to prosecute climate protesters undermines the justice system. 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

Hello there. Tonight, Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, of course, Rosanna Lockwood. After weeks of speculation, Buckingham Palace confirms Prince Harry will come to the king's coronation, but without Meghan. The event falls on the same day as their son Archie's fourth birthday. Is it an unfortunate coincidence or the latest royal snub from the California living couple? Joe Biden hails 25 years of peace in Northern Ireland, but hostility around his Belfast visit remains. as he's accused of hating the UK. Officials for the president insist he's not anti-British, but where exactly do we stand in a special relationship?

And after around 120 leading lawyers vowed not to prosecute what they call peaceful climate protesters, we ask whether the move undermines the basics of the justice system. Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Hello there, good evening. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna. In for today, tomorrow, Pierce is still on holiday. Now, it's confirmed after weeks, will they, won't they? Prince Harry and Meghan have deigned to return their RSVP for the King's coronation next month. But guess what? Only Harry is coming. Megan is staying behind in California with the kids. And the palace said they're pleased to confirm Harry's attendance. Sources close to the Sussexes, meanwhile, saying Prince Archie's,

fourth birthday, which is actually on the same day as the coronation, was a big factor in the couple's decision. But a child's fourth birthday party, really, seems a little bit like a convenient excuse for a more personal decision for Megan to stay home in Montecito. And for once, this probably actually pleases both her critics and her supporters. It means she's staying out of the limelight while Harry gets to come home, even if it is only for a few hours. Now, it's something I've been thinking about today. Amid these accusations that President Biden and quote, hates the UK. We'll go into that a bit later on.

How do we deal with the idea that someone might be anti-British? When a figure we trust appears to abandon a love for Britain, I think it's not so much about them as it is about us. My hunch is Harry has never been and will never be anti-British.

He loves this country, but in this rebellion over the past few years, his words and his actions, they've hurt us. And the fact he's coming back next month to be part of this historic moment shows he does want to be here.

But will we welcome him? That very much depends on us while joining me to discuss all this broadcaster and playwright Bonnie Greer. Lovely to see you again, Bonnie. Good see you. And former press secretary to the Queen Dickie Arbiter. Thank you both. Joining us down the line as well.

Former BBC Royal correspondent Jenny Bond. Jenny, we were wondering whether you complete the Royal Blue set this evening but looking resplendent in Tartan. And Jenny, given you're joining us from home this evening, let's just start with you and ask, were you at all surprised by the decision the announcement this afternoon. No, I thought it was always going to turn out this way,

and I think it's the best solution, actually. Megan, unfortunately, is a person who divides opinion. She probably doesn't wish to, but she does divide opinion. And I think she was over here, then there would be a huge debate about whether she was welcome or not. Her presence would possibly overshadow the coronation, but it's always been important that Harry should be here for the biggest, day in his father's life really. Charles has made it clear that he still loves his son,

whatever's gone on, that he wants him to be there. And so I'm very pleased that Harry's coming, and I think it's a much better solution that Megan should stay back in California with the children, quite reasonable. Dickie, coming to you, your knowledge of the protocol, of course, the royal household, the palace, the late Queen, is the right decision, surely for Harry to attend this event. It's very much the right decision, given everything that's gone before, the Oprah interview, hours of Netflix, the book, and all the little bits of interviews in between, people wonder, well, how can he show his face at the coronation? But it is the right decision. His father loves him, as Jenny rightly said. We heard in his first address following the death of his mother,

where he sent his love to both Harry and Megan in California. So it is the right decision. What I do hope is that it's not a distraction, because what will happen is the media will focus their attention on him, the photographers will focus attention, they'll haul out out of the woodwork, all the body language experts, and we'll get all sorts of things. I want to see us focusing on a once in a lifetime. For me, it's the second time,

because I saw the Queen's coronation, but I want to see the focus of attention on the king. It's his day, and it's the people of Britain's day as well. It certainly seems to beg distraction, like you said, anything about Harry. Of course, we'll be watching what his relationship will be like with William on the day as well. Perhaps I'll come back to Gin there,

but first I want to come to you, Bonnie, on Megan's decision to stay behind in Montecito with the children. I think there was no other way, shortly. No, that's absolutely right. She made a mother's decision. She's still got little children. That is her son's birthday.

She made the right decision. And I have to say, I'm actually quite moved in a way that Harry's decided to do this. It's very grown up. It's very proper. It's a tribute to his grand, who he loved and his father, but most of all, his children,

and I'm putting my historian's hat on, his children are probably two of the most extraordinary people ever born. Because on one side, his side, they're descended from every royal head that ever was, including the prophet, and on their mother's side through her mother, they are descended from my ancestors, not my literal ancestors, but enslaved Africa. So you have this lovely combination, and one day, Harry's going to sit these kids down and say, this is your heritage, too.

The other part, because these are going to be American kids, they're going to be brought up as Americans. They ain't going to be called Prince Archie and Princess Lilybet in the United States. I'm going to tell you that. But nevertheless, they will see this other side. And they're going to be extraordinary individuals because of that. So I'm happy he's there because he can say, dad, there's dad, I was there. Shouldn't they be there then, Lily Benton? Too little, and I wouldn't...

I mean, I wouldn't bring them. They are far too young. When you think of the king that he was at his mother's coronation, probably for about half an hour, he was three years old. He was three years old. No, the children should not be there. This is not a children's circus.

This is a very devout service. It is a coronation. It is anointing in the eyes of God, the king, and therefore, no, the children should not be there. They've got the right kids there, George, playing a role, and the other children. laying a role, but no, Archie and Lily shouldn't be there. And George should be there. He is the third in lines. He should be there.

He is. He is. He is. Now, let's go back to Jenny on the distraction point, Jenny. The Dickie bought up. Surely the presence of Harry in and of himself is just going to be something of a media circus. Is there any way around it? Oh, it will be. It would have been more of a media circus had Megan been here as well. But you know, we've only got ourselves to blame to this. And I've said for some, months now that if Harry and Megan came or even just Harry coming, what we should do, we the media, should say also in attendance was the Duke of Sussex. We don't need to go wild about it. We don't need to bring in the body language experts that Dickie was talking about. Of course we will. Of course we will. That's what we do. But we own ourselves to blame.

But I agree and concur with Dickie that this is Charles's day and that's where the focus should be. And I'm very sorry that in the lead-up to the decision. it's been finally announced today, there's been so much attention on Harry and Megan. I mean, I think it is rude that they've taken so long to answer a very simple question. You're invited to this occasion. Are you coming? And they kept us all on tender hooks for weeks and weeks.

But Jenny, we were kept on tender hooks because we wanted to be on them, okay? We didn't have to pay so much attention to them. People do, and it's not necessary. I agree with you about, and Dickie, this is the King's Day, and this is the King's Day as long as we allow it to be the King's Day. And I think that when Harry comes, I think he will contribute to it being the King's Day. And not only that, his Dad's Day.

And I'm very proud of him. I think it's a very mature decision, and it's very good. I'd like to qualify what Boniger said. She said, we make the decision. We, the media, make the decision that it is focus of attention on the time. king and on the queen consort and not on everybody else that is there. Yes, certain people do have roles to play, and they will be seen visually portraying that role, but the congregation of which Harry is a part of does not play a part in the coronation

ceremony, and therefore we in the media must focus attention on the big picture. So this is your campaign, Dickie, this evening, to try and get the media to listen. But it won't happen. It won't happen because there's our kind. As Dickie knows, and Jenny knows, there's not just the media, the print media, there is social media. There's all kinds of things happening. They've been happening for two weeks on social media. So Harry coming, I think, and where he will be positioned and his response to God, save the king,

and all of that is going to be a deep focus, but he has to be there. And like I say, I'm proud that he's decided to come. As part of the fabric of history, it does seem imperative. Dickie, you were nodding along vigorously when Jenny was. saying it was very rude if Harry Megg to hold that RSP? Oh, incredibly rude. Why did it take them a month to reply? They either he or she or they knew that they were coming or they didn't.

Harry knew he definitely had to be there, and he should have responded immediately without waiting a month, without all this speculation that's gone on for over 30 days. But, Dickie, we were speculating. I mean, who knows why it took them that long? I don't know. But we were speculating. I'm saying not you personally. No, I wasn't.

I mean, it's the public that's speculating. And the more that we take ourselves away from these two individuals, as individuals, let this ceremony happen. I know it won't be like that, but just let this ceremony happen. It is Charles's day. He's been waiting for, what, 67 years for it. So let's just let him have his day. Bringing Jenny back in on this, because it is, as Dickie and Bonnie have been pointing out,

it's Charles's day, it's the King's Day. It's also the country's day. there's going to be street parties, it should be a very jubilant affair. However, this Harry visit, of course, will be part of the circus, as we've already discussed. Do you think that they can get past it? How do you think the royal family are going to deal with this? How do you think they're going to instill this sense of decorum? Well, it'll all go perfectly, wonderfully.

These occasions always do. they would be polite and courteous to one another. William, by definition, has got a very important role to play during the coronation ceremony, and therefore I think he would be physically apart from Harry, so we won't be able to analyse their every look, their every movement. The two will be separated, and there's no reason for them to meet at all, because I think Harry's going to fly straight in and straight out, as he did quite recently for a court case, apparently, without seeing anyone.

So there may be no meeting between the two brothers and the animosity between the two obviously is still very, very deep. So I think it will all go as smoothly as these royal occasions do go and we will all try to draw some kind of conclusions about how they're looking at each other, but none of it will be realistic, I don't think. I think the tensions are so deep and the rifts so hurtful at the moment

that is going to take more than a flying visit by Harry to put things right. Just before we wrap up, I want to ask you both briefly, do you think the British public is going to be welcoming to Harry, Dickey? The British public are going to be welcoming for the coronation.

It's the King's Day, and they're going to focus on the King's Day, and everybody else is just there. Harry is going to find it very difficult. He's going to feel very lonely because he's fallen out with his family. He is there as a matter of duty, but he's got no support.

His wife's thousands of miles away in California, and he's going to hack this one alone. Yeah. Well, it's so privileged to be a British citizen for a long time now and watching funerals and weddings. The British people will stand right up to this. It'll be beautiful. They'll let it all smooth out. And here we will go home back to Montecito.

It'll be fine. We'll be talking much more about anti-Britishness and the idea of being British after the break. Thanks so much to our panel on The Royal Story this evening. Next tonight, Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak insists that the relationship between the UK and the U.S. is in great shape, despite strong criticism of the president. and accusations he's anti-British. We'll be discussing it after the break. Welcome back to the show.

Now, what does it mean to be anti-British? That's what US President Biden has been accused of in the past 24 hours on a visit to Northern Ireland. Now, it hasn't helped that there were some disappointing photos from this coffee meeting with British PM Rishi Sunat this morning. Look at this. Plus, a video where Biden appeared to move the British Prime Minister out the way to salute a guard last night.

Now, today, a White House, actually had to dispel this anti-British accusation? It's simply untrue. The fact that the president is going to be engaging for the third time in three months and then again next month and then again in June with the Prime Minister of the UK shows how close our cooperation is with the UK. And before that, the President had numerous calls and meetings with Prime Minister Johnson and Prime Minister Trust as well.

Now, to sum, that response wasn't enough and it doesn't actually help that Biden has turned down an invite to the King's Coronation next month. So what's happening is you just not a fan of us, Brits? Joining me now to discuss all of this. Of course, it's more complex than that. Former DUP politician Jim Wells and Finnegale, Irish Minister of State,

Neil Richmond. Thank you, gentlemen, both, for joining us. I'm going to start this off very simply. Jim, I'll come to you first. Is Biden anti-British? Well, if he's not, he's not exactly showing his true colours, I'm very disappointed that he's not going to the coronation. It's traditional for all American presidents to attend that important state event. I have no idea why he couldn't find the time.

I think part of the problem is he's simply here to keep the Irish-American vote back in the states on his side. A very powerful political lobby. And I think that's the reason he's here, not have any interest in fostering relationships with Britain or indeed with unionism, just to try and keep that big block on board. So, yeah, a wee bit disappointing, to put it mildly, and I think he's not Anglo-American relations back a good few years. Just pushing you back a little bit on that argument there, Jim, because I hear the Irish-American vote is what he's garnering,

but is it really all that powerful? Is it worth potentially losing friends in Britain as the accusations were made today in order to get that re-election chance in 2024 with Irish-Americans? It is if you're a Democrat because all the history has shown that the overwhelming majority of those who identify as Irish, be it fourth, fifth generation detached, are Democrat supporters. So therefore, as Obama did when he came over to Ireland eight years ago, it is very much focused on the home market rather than anything that's going on in the UK. I still think he should have found time to come to the coronation. I think that's a retrograde step. but he actually only visited Northern Ireland for less than 20 hours.

He came in, stayed overnight, opened the new University of Ulster and then went straight to the Irish Republic. Hardly indicates that he's particularly serious about Northern Ireland, compared to, say, Bill Clinton, who spent day after day here. So fleeting a visit, to put it mildly, once you see him, now you don't. I mean, it was about 50 now. Somebody said half of that he was sleeping, but it sounds quite like a lot of official visits you hear from world leaders.

Neil, coming to you now with that. same very basic question. Is Biden anti-British? Absolutely not. And I think it's a ridiculous and to be honest, very precious charge. You know, at the end of the U.S. British relationship is as strong now as it's ever been. This will be six, over the next six months, we'll see six discussions between the presidents and the British Prime Minister. We see the US and the UK working so closely together in terms of supporting Ukraine and the economic relationship is absolutely flourishing. But one thing I think is really important. Why?

Joe Biden is here is to celebrate, not just Mark, but celebrate 25 years since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. And ultimately, the big disappointment is he spent so little time in Northern Ireland because there was no Northern Irish government for him to meet. And that's something that Jim's former colleagues in the DUP have to answer for. Why wasn't there a First Minister or Deputy First Minister? We have a president of the United States that going back to his time in the Senate, as chair, the Foreign Relations Committee, has shown a genuine interest and knowledge in life across this island and I think it was really interesting if you actually listened to the president's speech in University

Ulster today, he spoke very warmly about his heritage, not just as heritage, his family in County Laude and County Mayo, but the fact that his family had British origins, but also, just like myself, has very proud of his Ulster, Scots origins. So I think the notion that all of a sudden Joe Biden is anti-British,

that the special relationship is off the cards, I think it's absolutely farcical, and the person who made it was probably just trying to sell a few newspapers. Let's listen to Joe Biden, giving that address today. As a friend, I hope it's not too presumptuous to me to say that I believe democratic institutions established to the Good Friday Agreement remain critical

to the future of Northern Ireland. It's the decision of you to make, not for me to make, but it seems to me they're related. An effective, devolved government that reflects the people of Northern Ireland and is accountable to them. Now, kicking the diplomatic can, somewhat into the long grass, some might say, quite responsibly there,

should the US have any role to play in this? But others saying that Biden's input today into talking about the power sharing agreement that exists in Northern Ireland, any type of political dynamic was a little bit weak. Jim, I want to give you a chance to respond to Neil's comments about some of your former colleagues in the DUP. Well, I mean, there's a much bigger issue than President Biden's visit, and that's the protocol and went to framework.

Unionists see that as a fundamental threat to their very existence within the United Kingdom. They see it's becoming a semi-detached colony of the European Union a few miles from the rest of the UK. That is much more important than a presidential visit or indeed any other issue at the minute facing an Northern Ireland electorate. And the unionism is basically to be at the point that they will not participate in the executive provided that sort of Damocles hanging over their neck. That constitutional rift that we face.

We still remain within the single mark. We still remain subject to the European Court of Justice. We still have the European bat regime. None of that's acceptable to unionism. And that is why we're using the leverage we have to remaining outside the executive to try and achieve change in the protocol. And frankly, though Joe Biden did go out of his way today

to urge the DUP to go back in, it's going to take an awful lot more than that before we can change because the union is still left out with us on this issue. Look, as you said, urging him to go back. back in. But Neil, coming to you, one DUP MP saying Biden should have come up with some creative ideas to help this political dynamic. Do you think that's fair? Do you think Biden should have that responsibility? I think anyone in the DUP who's going to start lecturing people about creative ideas to solve the problem that is Brexit, the problem that they campaign for themselves is a bit rich. The DUP held the balance of power on Westminster for two years.

The DUP throughout this seven-year period has said no to everything. They've been brought into the conversation, the concerns have been listened to. And whilst Jim feels he represents all of the unionism, we see the responsible comments by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party that within the Windsor framework, something that's been backed massively by the British Parliament, there is the opportunity to close this chapter of the Brexit discussions, to give the people of Northern Ireland, like Prime Minister Sunak has said himself, the opportunities to have brilliant economic ties

with both the United Kingdom and indeed the European Union. And this very notion that there's a constitutional rift has been absolutely struck down by the UK Supreme Court. Now, I'm no unionist, and I'm not from Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom, but I think I'd listen to Westminster, my Westminster Parliament, and indeed the Supreme Court of the UK if I was one. And Neil, a sub-colonies of the European Union? Yeah, a complete notion.

And it's a complete ridiculous notion. It's this sort of extreme language that we've seen consistently from people who aren't prepared to do the hard work. We talk about the very vague seven tests of the DUP, but at no stage of they actually proffered any real solutions that have problems Brexit calls. We have a very hard Brexit due to the decision of the British government. We respect that in the European Union.

We absolutely respect it. We respect the absolute importance to ensure there's no hardening of the border on this island. And what we have is a very minimal amount of certain goods coming into four ports of entry of Northern Ireland checks that can be reduced further with further negotiation discussion. And indeed, Northern Ireland can have a break on in terms of their discussions. We have the opportunity to move on this. But I would question whether or not there's certain people politically who don't want to move on to this in Chance Johnson, who don't realise that by getting the executive back up and running, the Assembly back up and running, not only will the people of Northern Ireland benefit politically and socially,

but we will unleash massive amounts of US investment into the whole of the island, bearing a point that US companies employ over 10% of the workforce in the Republic. Like that Northern Ireland, have that too. Neil, I hear what you're saying. I want to bring in another character on this, because of course, Britain, absolutely integral to Brexit and post-Brexit trade agreement negotiations. Those images today of Sunak and Biden meeting for their bi-late, their coffee meeting, and also Sunak seemingly sort of pushed aside some might say by Biden on the tarmac last night. Jim, I want to come to you and ask, does Sunnick have the confidence of Northern Ireland? As long as he's wedded to the Windsor framework, most definitely he doesn't.

And there is a solution to all of this. It's called the Protocol Bill, which is still before Parliament. We've always said that that bill, which is initiated by Richie Sunnock's party, goes a long, long way to meeting unionist concerns about the protocol. So it's wrong to say we've been entirely negative. We've supported that bill. And we also support a voluntary coalition in Northern Ireland, rather than the present forced marriage between parties

of very disparate political outlooks. So the DUP have been positive. But the question I asked my colleague from the Doyle is, was he his pacifers against Sinn Féin when they boycotted the Assembly for three years over a very minor issue called the Irish Language Act? Was he as critical as them as he's being of the DUP? Neil?

Actually, I was, Jim, consistently. And I've been a massive critic of Schiffbeinthos in terms of the politics here in this jurisdiction, as well as Northern Ireland. And I'm quite on the record that their decision to pull down a stormant over the Ashford Cash scandal and indeed the Irish Language Act was a mistake. And I criticised them. But ultimately, you have a situation now where the DUP have decided to target my party's leader, Leo Varadkar, incorrectly. And you talk about the positivity of the protocol bill. All the protocol bill would do with break international law and setback relations between the youth. UK and the EU, the UK and Ireland and the UK and US back decades.

Where instead, if we actually had the institutions back up and running in Northern Ireland, have the politicians in Northern Ireland take their rightful place in the Assembly, in the executive, get the Northside McPhail Council back up and running, we can actually work through issues rather than hectoring each other from newspaper articles or indeed online syndicated programmes. Jim Wells, Neil Richmond, you've both given us a very good representation of just how complex the political dynamic is in Northern Ireland at the moment. We've got you on to talk about Biden and anti-Britishness.

You both responded in the negative to that. We appreciate your inputs. Thanks so much. Coming up next, after lawyers across the UK, signed a declaration saying they'll refuse to prosecute peaceful climate protesters. We ask what exactly is a peaceful protest and does this all make a mockery of the legal justice system?

Join us in a few minutes for that. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan and Sensit. Me Rosanna Lockwood sitting in the big chair for the big man this evening. Now, more than 100. 120 lawyers have banded together in England to refuse to prosecute climate protesters such as just stop oil, insulate Britain and extinction rebellion, whose tactics include gluing themselves to roads to stop traffic. Now, the group's lawyers are responsible is made up of barristers, solicitors and academics, but the declaration breaks their professional code of conduct, which means that they have to keep personal politics out of their job.

Well, this is going to be a fascinating discussion, isn't there? Joining me in the studio, Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at Net Zero Watch, activist Donica McCarthy, and Paul Palsland, a lawyer refusing to prosecute climate protesters. Paul, let's start with you, seeing as you're part of this group, this one, just lay out to us what it is you're hoping to achieve and what you've all agreed. Well, there's actually two parts to it. So the first is the one that's taken, I think, more of the headlines, which is the non-prosecution of peaceful climate activists.

and the second is not helping to facilitate new fossil fuel expansion projects. And actually that's actually more relevant to me because I'm a civil law barrister, so I actually don't do criminal prosecution. So that's the second one is more my thing. So that I understand. So for example, a Shell or BP asked you to act on their behalf in a court case. You'd say, sorry, no, I'm not going to do that based on being part of this group, based on my ethics. No, no.

It's not unnecessary about representing them at all. So, for instance, if the head of an oil company was on criminal prosecution for a corporate manslaughter or something, then we would represent them. It's very specifically not assisting them with new fossil fuel expansion projects because we know what the consequences of those projects will be because the IPCC has told us. And so it's the subtle but important distinction between, subtle but important distinction between not, we will represent people who are accused of a crime, but we won't help them to continue committing that crime. And that's a really important distinction. And give us a sense of why this contravenes your rules as a barrister because it

because isn't it the case that you're not allowed to let sort of ethics? Well, ethics is obviously important to a job, but personal politics interfere with people's right to defence. Yeah, I should just say that the Barth Standards Board hasn't actually told me if it is or isn't allowed yet. I've written a letter saying, I think it's actually probably okay because I haven't actually refused any instructions yet,

but it may be in breach, we're not quite sure yet. But I think it's fair to say that it does contravene a principle that lawyers hold highly, which is that we should represent anyone. but we think, firstly, that the climate crisis is so serious that these two principles need to be upheld, and also that we need to reweight the scales a bit. The fact is that lawyers acting for fossil fuel companies have helped facilitate 1.6 trillion worth of new fossil fuel projects since 2017, since the Paris Agreement, and how much have those lawyers acted for climate protests,

or those trying to stop the climate crisis? Very, very few. So what this declaration does is just help to tip the scales back a little bit. Good context. I want to come back to you to find out how that's working in practice. And also, I think the Bar Association is going to find out this evening that you're on television talking about it. I have written a letter telling them what I've done, so they're fully aware. Donica and Harry, I want to come to you both because, Harry, you're with a head of policy at Net Zero Watch. Now, this organisation talks a lot about Net Zero and kind of, I think it's fair to say,

sort of campaigns against the concept of net zero. When you listen to Paul describe why he doesn't want to act for people that expand fossil fuels, can't you understand that argument? I think this is incredibly irresponsible because lawyers are there to underpin the legal system. What are we fighting to save if you are a climate activist, hopefully a flourishing society? And we're very fortunate in this country to actually benefit from trust in the rule of law and anyone who can find themselves in a court of law should be able to expect that the court system

is going to treat them without any suggestion that personal political views will come into this. So while I appreciate there are some qualifications here, I think it sends out the wrong message that actually the law depends on people's personal political views when actually, you know, this is about judging whether people have breached the law. That is a matter for barristers to debate

and that's what they should stick to. Donica, I'll come to on the climate activist shortly, but Paul, irresponsible view? No, and I think that's a slightly naive view of the way the legal system and justice system works. As I said before, what we're actually seeing is not that we're all equal before the courts. The fact is that almost all of your viewers out there

do not have the money that would allow them to employ these lawyers that the fossil fuel companies are using. And let's be clear, the fossil fuel industry is one of the richest industries that has ever existed. Of course they're going to use their wealth to try and get lawyers to act in their interests. And that's what that's, what that's leading to is a situation where they are actually getting things weighted unfairly in their favour. And similarly with prosecution, it's not as simple as saying, oh, you've broken the law, everyone gets prosecuted equally. They do not. For instance, I live on a river where the water company is throwing sewage into the river

illegally, completely illegally, they admit it. A serious crime. They've never been prosecuted because there is prosecutorial discretion and that at the moment is being used much more against climate activists. People are being prosecuted for climate activists that simply wouldn't be prosecuted otherwise. Let's speak about the climate activists, Donica, coming to you

because I know that you have your own activism and you also speak out on behalf of climate activists. Now, a lot of our viewers find it hard to find sympathy with Justop Oil and with Extinction Rebellion. I think you've probably seen some of the broadcasts from this network before. and the arguments that do ensue because it's felt like the violence sometimes,

the violent non-peaceful protests lose the cause, lose people on the important topic, the no-doubt important topic of climate change. So is it not right that people who cause violent disruption? Sorry, violent. Keep using the word violent. Come on, extinction rebellion. That's a smear on thousands of peaceful activists.

Please don't do that. That's not a good way to approach this debate. It's because we're talking about what is peaceful and what is not peaceful protest. Yeah, if we want to talk about violence, Extinct rebellion has not injured a single person. I understand that, yeah. The old companies, there's 33 million people were flooded in their homes in Pakistan. That's violence.

There's 30 million people starving in the Sahel. That's violence. So when we're talking about the law, we need to go back to Nuremberg. Because what Nuremberg said, if the lawyers and the judges are involved in perpetrating a great evil, then it is wrong for them to collude with the law. And I believe what these lawyers are doing, I was doing that now, because this, to us, is a greater evil on what was perpetrating the Second World War. The World Bank said that climate crisis is greater than World War I, World War II,

and the Great Recession put together. So the law at the moment defends the climate companies and the things. tanks and the prosecutes us. That's upside down and that needs to be reversed. I appreciate you contending me on the word violence. I'm going to contend you on likening apples and oranges climate change and the prosecution of climate change activists to the Nuremberg trials, I think equating human directed genocide with the climate change agenda and what is happening in climate change, which I believe in very much so science-based climate change. I think that is, again, a very unhelpful comparison.

You know what the word existential means? Of course. Well, the word existential, I think, sounds cuddly. But when the UN Secretary General says humanity is facing an existential crisis, he is saying the future of humanity is at stake. And what's happening at the moment is the law backs those who are threatening our existence,

the oil companies and the think tanks. And it actually prosecutes us. And you talk about fairness in the law. When I'm in court, I can't afford a lawyer. When activists are in court at the moment, the judge is telling the actress, we are not allowed to tell the jury why we're there, why we are putting our freedom on the line to actually save humanity. And that's why there needs to be a redress and rebalancing. And I think your voices of climate activists do need to be heard, but I'm hearing, Harry, you've got some points to make here on. You're being prosecuted, Donica, because you're breaking the law.

We have laws in this country. We have to respect them. And let's be real here. They are putting lives at risk. Ambulances haven't been able to reach hospitals because of activists who have been blocking the road. That's a daily mail. And there's been a number of cases where this is seriously impacting

on the emergency services. And let's remember, it isn't cynical fossil fuel companies that just want to burn fossil fuels for the sake of it. Fossil fuels underpins so many of our, of how we do things in the morning. modern world. We wouldn't be able to keep our hospitals powered without fossil fuels. We wouldn't be able to get to work. We wouldn't be able to power the studio.

I do understand that we do need energy. We're very reliant on it. But do you believe in climate change? Absolutely. Absolutely. So how would you like to see activism directed towards making people more aware of it? I think sensible solutions like nuclear energy and solutions that keep energy affordable. Because actually if energy prices rise, as we've seen over the course of the energy crisis, People will be thinking, you know, this isn't going to improve my living standards. And actually, you know, it's cheap technologies that will be much quicker transition.

We are agreed that actually we shouldn't be choosing expensive forms of energy. The cheapest form of energy at the moment is onshore wind. And we're the only country in the world that's banned it. Isn't that extraordinary? And this organisation lobbied in 2013 to actually stop the insulation program. Lord Lawson, a part of his organisation, lobbied. And that meant that nine million homes didn't have their homes insulated. And they paid the prices winter with not only with fuel property,

but a lot of them are with their lives. Because nine to eight thousand people die in Britain every year because their homes are not insulated. So when this organisation, when we talk about the law, and he says, we must obey the law. But the law backs him and not us. Let's hear from the law. Let's round off the law.

I don't know if she calls that law. What I'm hearing from both of these gentlemen, Donica and Harry, is that we want to see leadership coming from elsewhere in society. Other than just activists, you want to see companies, government, everyone else leading. So having a band of lawyers doing this, do you think you can make a difference? I think it already has. I think it's inspired many other lawyers around the world. So other lawyers of contact are saying people in the UK are doing this, we can do this too.

And also other activists, when they see lawyers standing up and actually doing something on principle, on conscience, I think that has a real power to it. I also say just in response to Harry's point about, yes, of course we need fossil fuels at the moment, but we need to begin the transition as soon as possible, which is why our declaration doesn't say we will never act for a fossil fuel company. It very specifically states we will not help them

to do fossil fuel expansion because we know from the IPCC what the consequences of that will be. So we can have fossil fuels now for the transition, but we need to start very quickly in that transition. And fossil fuel companies are deliberately obscuring and blocking that transition. because it's in their monetary industry to do so,

and they're using lawyers to do that. If we don't see more oil and gas extraction and fund it, then we will see prices rise. And those are... One argument, Harry, is prices and cost of living and we are all feeling it. The other is the future of the planet and the future of our existence. Let gentlemen, it's been fascinating. I've learnt

a lot this evening. Great to have you debating this with us and teaching us about what lawyers are doing in all of this. Now next tonight is woke culture to blame for high taxes. Former Prime Minister, This trust certainly seems to think, so I'll be diving into that next. Welcome back to the show. Joining me now to two of us on the stories of the day,

Associate Editor at the Daily Mirror, Kevin Maguire, Talk TV contributor Esther Cracko, joining us both now. There's a lot to discuss. I wanted to start here. Liz Truss speaking in the US. She's been speaking at this think tank event today. It's supposed to be her grand comeback. Let's take a listen.

A new kind of economic model taking hold in our countries. one that's focused on redistributionism, on stagnation, and on the imbueing of woke culture into our businesses. I call these people the anti-growth movement, and they come in many shapes and sizes. Now, apart from equating wokeness to taxes, which I'll come to you both on,

this was the line that stood out to me from this comeback, supposedly, for Liz Truss. She said last autumn, quote, I had a major setback, but I care too much to give up. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I care. You can give up the hubris of that. Yeah, you kind of expect men and women in white courts,

flapping white courts, to go on stage and take her away. Honestly. She can go abroad to a very, very right-wing think tank, which will make her look like a liberal Democrat. Well, she was a liberal Democrat and she was young. Make her look like a liberal Democrat. And she can present herself as a profit. Everybody in Britain just laughs at her

because they know what she did when she crashed the economy. And it's utterly shameless, and it's totally absurd. Who paid this woman to... Why did anyone think it was a good idea to pay Liz Trust to give a speech about the economy? I believe it's for the Heritage Foundation, which is, yeah, as Kevin pointed out, a right-wing think tank. They've got offices in D.C. They were very proud to get Liz Truss over there to launch this comeback. Keep up.

There we are. That's sorted. And also, I know Trust wanted to get heard from in the last 24 hours or so, because she loved it. She loves foreign policy. Remember, of course, she was foreign secretary as well. Now, she's been opining about our relationship with China and our relationship with Russia in the last. And what we're doing in Ukraine within this speech as well, she just can't seem to help us off. I mean, she's lost all credibility. That's the main issue. She's lost all credibility. She clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. Taxes and wokeness shouldn't be in the same sentence. I don't even think she knows what wokeness is. This is the issue.

She's going to be furious when she finds out which party has been in power in Britain for the last 13 years and all that all those people. problems. And she was one of the five prime ministers during that period. I mean, it is. It would be funny if it wasn't also quite serious. I wish someone put a head of letters next to her while she was giving her speech. Would that be a low blow? I'm glad

you said that, Kevin, because when I was talking to the producers earlier, I said, Liz Truss is the reason I can't get a mortgage. I was going to get one. The next day, I called off the talks to the mortgage advisors because her in Quasicato crashed the economy. Which is weird. I know someone that was well in the same position. I actually know multiple people. Oh, But she should be on Kea Stommer's Christmas card list.

She did far more for Labour in the opposition than she ever did for her own party. In 44 days, it's incredible. Look, so it seems like the comeback tour hasn't won over many fans here. Now, moving on, this show, we've been talking about the theme of Britishness, anti-Britishness, this whole dispute about whether Biden was anti-British. A couple of stories today about the theme of pride and respect and embarrassment. And to be honest, I'm embarrassed by this story that's been in the papers for a few days now about this pub in Essex, in which the landlady displayed gollywog dolls, reading about it, reading the

responses to it. I mean, seeing the police response, I assume the viewers are quite familiar of this now, Essex police sent out, I think it was around five police officers to bag up the dolls. The police not doing themselves any favour in this, because of course people are going to criticise their response to this, but ultimately I'm most embarrassed that we're talking about this in 2023 and whether or not it is racist, of course it is racist in my mind. by Suella Breverman's response. And I don't know if this woman has any media training, but I think when someone puts up clearly racist objects

in plain view of the public, your first reaction shouldn't be, the police should have better things to do. Yes, okay, it's not ideal for them to be handling this, but you have to first acknowledge it is racist. It's like having Nazi memorabilia in public, right? It's not illegal, but it's extremely distasteful. And the fact that as a Home Secretary,

she didn't recognize, she didn't speak about it, I just, I shouldn't be embarrassed every time one of the foremost members of the cabinet opens her mouth. She does it deliberately the Home Secretary. She's stirring up racism for hate-ridden division and hopes to divide and rule. I'm actually more inclined to believe that now. But they're clearly racist.

Now, I can accept some people will not recognize that or fully appreciate it, but the racism is in the name of Goliwog. But this pub, those who think these are just heroic people, one, the landlord was pictured in a Britain-First T-shirt. Britain first is an extremist, often racist and violent group. His wife, the landlady, just says, oh, it was just convenient for him to put it on. Secondly, they were pictured

and they posted on Facebook hanging those dolls in the past, saying this is what used to happen in Mississippi, where, of course, black people were alleged. Put it all together, put it all together, and do not think this is heroic because it is not. And don't think it is part of this debate about what is woke, and oh, we can't accept We must rewrite history.

I understand the commenters, the people that have viewed the story, and said, but we had these on Jam Jarls when we were children, and, you know, it was part of history. Fine, facts, that did happen, but we've moved on decades. And we're a better country for it. I quite agree. Now, and just to Esther's point about the Home Secretary, sources told Sky News said Swellabra Mara regards it as a waste of police resources.

Quote, the Home Secretary's views have now been made very plain to Essex Police, so they're under no illusions. Police forces should not be getting involved in this kind of nonsense. So as Esther pointed out, they're putting all the on the police response. They're not actually talking about the issue at hand. Essex Police in response saying this, denying the Home Secretary had contacted them directly over the instance, saying we maintain operational independence from the Home Office, which ensures that every investigation is carried out without fear or favour.

Let's move on to something a little bit more cheerful, sort of. But about being embarrassed to be English again. Now, this story caught my attention yesterday. Keith McNally, he is a restaurateur in New York. he runs this fancy restaurant called Bautasar that all celebs love to go to. He wrote an Instagram post in which he put sort of the Union Jack and he said, I'm ashamed to be English. Keith McNally was born in London.

He says, I wonder why English people are generally the worst tippers in New York restaurants, especially if they're middle or upper class. This is not a complaint. It's just a fact. In fact, even the Scots generally sit better than English in New York restaurants. What did you both make of the story, Kevin? Does he remember that? Does he know that tipping is meant to be voluntary?

I mean, I feel like that got lost in the... Why doesn't he pay staff a decent wage so they don't have to rely on tipping? Notice he used a Scottish stereotype about there somehow stingy. But look, I've never quite understood. And I do tip normally in a restaurant and give 10%. But I always wonder why, if I'm just getting my meal served nicely, why do I think that's an exceptional service and I'm tipping? I don't tip a police officer if they help me.

I would rather tip a police officer. A doctor or a teacher. Yeah, or a bus driver. Yeah. Also, on this theme of embarrass me, Bridges, is when I'm not embarrassed to be British, actually. Because as you said, Kevin, 10% seems to be the norm. I would tip 10% in a restaurant anywhere here in the UK.

And I tend to take that with me when I visit the US. Although I'm aware, I'm keenly aware, and I'm paying that bill up in New York on the few times I've been there. It's just not enough because there's a different expectation in the US. The system is much more that we suffer with their wages. 15 to 25%, I think. I mean, that's just obscene. Why don't they just raise their prices so they can pay their stuff living wages,

as opposed to expecting me to fork out at 20% extra. I mean, they might as well just put that on the bill. Let McNally put his hand in his own pocket instead of expected everybody else to subsidise his law wages. Will you both be eating imbalances our next time you go to New York? Not now. That goes to show you the power of an Instagram post, the power of some press as well.

We've been talking about it throughout the show today, what it means to be British, what it means to be anti-British, pretty proud to be British, given some of the debate we've had on the show this evening, voices from all sides. That is it from me this evening, from Esther and Kevin in the studio as well.

Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored. Good night.