Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Near Car Crash Catastrophe Fallout, The Death of Women's Sport? Obese Positivity

Episode Date: May 18, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers continues to assess the fallout from Harry and Meghan's near catastrophe paparazzi car chase. Piers looks into how a biological male won a prestigious female cycling race but the race director says it could kill women's sport and joins Piers. Piers delves into the weird craze that is promoting obesity. 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 Piers Morgan. I'm Sensor tonight. Recollections vary over Harry and Megan's near catastrophic. Their words are not mine, car chase with paparancy. Why do they take a taxi? Why didn't they stay in a secure hotel? Why did a 10-minute journey take over two hours? Why are they once again over-egging the souffle or debates? A biological male won the women's event of a prestigious cycling tour,

sparking another furorory about women's rights. says it could kill women's sport. He joins me live and exclusively. Plus, the shocking figures lay bare the impact of obesity on the British NHS or talk to a fat influencer who's cashing in on the bizarre digital craze for glorifying obesity. Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Unsensored. Good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Harry and Megan's statement about their near catastrophic car chase for paparant. through the streets of Manhattan was disturbing. Their account of a relentless pursuit

at the hands of aggressive hordes of photographers was intentionally and unmistakably evocative of a tragedy that killed Princess Diana, Harry's mother. And so news networks across the world switched to rolling coverage, debates about the merits of Meghan Markle being given an award as a feminist icon. Well, they were put to one side,

which is probably where they belonged. But instead, Instead, we moved to a story that seemed on the face of it incredibly dramatic. We were told that friends of the couple were quietly briefing that Harry had never felt closer to understanding what his mother had gone through when she died. There were damning details about vehicles running red lights, mounting pavements, a security source that it could have been fatal. It was their security source.

But then facts began to emerge, those irritating things, and some questions began to be asked about what had really gone on. The chilling tale of a dice with death now looks a little, well, less deadly. First, as New York Mayor Eric Adams quickly pointed out, a two-hour chase in congested Manhattan is hard to imagine. I would find it hard to believe that there was a two-hour high-speed chase. That would be finding it hard to believe, but we would find out the exact duration of it.

But if it's a 10 minutes, a 10 minute chase is extremely dangerous in New York City. Well, he's right, it is, and a 10-minute chase involving near collisions with cars, pedestrians, two police officers as a couple described in that breathless, terrifying detail. Well, that would be unacceptable. But did it actually happen in the way they said it did? What we know is that Harry Megan and her mother, Doria, left the Zeefield Theatre shortly before 10 p.m. in a security vehicle with a police escort

heading to a friend's house on the Upper East Side. Now, just to put that into geographical perspective, that after 10 o'clock at night in Manhattan, I know, because I've lived in New York for a few years, is about a 10-minute journey maximum. But they drove around for another hour. Apparently suspicious they were being followed by photographers, but I don't know why,

because they literally just left a huge media event in which the media were all invited. Of course, they're going to be photographers crawling all over the place. But apparently they didn't want their friend's house to be identified. Well, okay, so you're going to a huge event that's covered by hordes of the media, including loads of paparazzi. Why stay at a friend's house if you want to protect them from having photographers turn up?

Or I'll take a secure vehicle directly to a nearby secure hotel, like the thousands of celebrities do in New York City every year. And in fact, as Harry and Megan have done in the past, staying at some of the best hotels in America. But they didn't. About 11 p.m., one of the couple's security staff held a taxi, yellow taxi, outside a police precinct on the Upper East Side. The taxi driver, Sunny Singh, has given various accounts of what happened. He spoke to me first last night and seemed all quite relaxed about the ordeal.

That must have happened before me. So there was no car chase when you were there? Not when they got into my cab. We just went around the block and the car. Two cars were tailing us behind us with a camera, and that was there. Why, if you're worried about your security, would you get jumped into a yellow cab in New York? You ever driven in one of those things? They're often lunatics at the wheel of those yellow cabs.

And that was deemed to be safety and security. Mr Singh says the taxi got stuck behind a garbage truck for five minutes, during which time I didn't move very far, paparazzi took pictures, they're allowed to, it's their job. And, of course, they're feeding off a couple who have spent the last few years deliberately making hundreds of millions of dollars from the media, from Netflix TV series, from massive best-selling books, from podcasts, from endless interviews,

all of them trashing their families. That's their choice. They're allowed to do that, but then the paparazzi are also allowed to make their corn, aren't they? Very quickly afterwards, they began moving off again. Photogicals and turn, until the security guard told him to take the yellow cab back to where they picked it up. So the cab ride lasted 10 minutes and seems completely pointless,

According to law enforcement officials who spoke to the New York Times, among others, Harry and Megan stayed at a police precinct just outside it, in fact, until officers blocked traffic in the area. After that, they left with a police escort and no paparazzi

and eventually they got to their friend's house. It all sounds, all right, a bit inconvenient. I've been followed by the paparazzi. I quite like it, actually, if I'm honest, it's when they don't turn up that you have to start worrying about what's happened to you. But was this a near-fatal?

Near catastrophic incident? No, it wasn't. Several news agency Backgrid said four photographers sent them pictures. They said some of them show Megan smiling. They do. I've seen them. And this is an hour into the ordeal. What's she smiling about? Is it the smile of trauma?

There were no near collisions or near crashes to a misincident, said the spokesman for this agency. The photographers have reported feeling the couple was not an immediate danger at any point. and there's no evidence to suggest they were. And you would think, given there are cameras all over the place in Manhattan, and there were lots of photographers there that at some stage we would be shown the horrific scenes of the near catastrophe.

I look at the reporting from Good Morning America, one of America's top morning shows. Along the way, they reported, police sources said photographers are bicycles are visible on security cameras, but not the kind of caravan described by sources close to Harry and Megan. The police interaction with the couple lasted no more than 20 minutes, according to police sources. If the episode lasted for two hours, as Megan and Harry say it is,

because their security felt the need to take a circuitur as its route back to where they were staying. But why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just get in their car and go from the theatre on 57th Street to wherever it was halfway up the Upper East of their friend's house? A cynic, and I'm certainly not cynical, but a cynic might suggest they were deliberately trying to look like victims of the media. And they were doing that after voluntarily flying to New York

to attend a pretty spurious award ceremony in which they wanted to be the center of attention. Megan was getting an award for kindness and for equality, which are the two words you most associate with her, I think. We can all agree on that. And it gets the backdrop of a court case over Harry's security in the UK where he's trying to get royal protection back.

Well, what better way to nudge that debate along than this? but they've made a lot of bad decisions with their security team on this night in New York, which created the very circus they keep insisting they want to prevent. My advice to them is if you really don't want to be the centre of a media circus, stop behaving like media clowns. Well, joining me now as a former Royal Bodyguard to Quinnersworth II, Simon Morgan, Princess Diana's former Butler Paul Burrell and Fox News contributor, and New York Post columnist Miranda Devine.

Well, welcome to all of you. Miranda, let me start with you across the pond there. You and I know Manhattan very well. We've got a lot of yellow cabs in our time. Does any of this version of events from the Sussexes ring true to you? No. And they've just chosen the wrong place to try and pull this stunt because there are so many cameras in New York,

there are so many celebrities, much more important than they are. The carry-on just fell flat. Everybody knew that it was bogus, and it's obvious why they did it. They created the drama. They drove around Manhattan for an hour and a half to create some sort of event that Harry was filming on his phone,

presumably for the next Netflix installment, and now they're on the front page. No one even cared about Megan Markle getting some award. it would have been sort of the bottom of page six. Now they're on the front page, which is what they wanted. And all I can say is life in Montecito must be incredibly boring. Completely. Well, it is incredibly boring.

We know that from the Netflix documentary. They basically walk around with a bunch of chickens and go and see Oprah Winfrey every 10 minutes. All right, let me bring you in Simon Morgan. You've been a bodyguard to the late great queen. You've seen a lot of paparazzi in your time. The rules here are much tighter in UK. particularly since the death of Princess Diana, and quite rightly so.

This couldn't have happened there. But in New York, it's an epicenter of celebrity culture in America. I've been around a lot of big stars in New York where this kind of thing has gone on. It goes with the territory. Absolutely, it does. It's part as your security detail. That's going to be part of your plan. You accept you're going to have interaction with the press.

And you're going to look at that. What is your mitigation? And what are your contingencies around that? If you had a 10-minute journey, Simon, right? This is literally a 10-minute journey. 57th Street to mid-70s, we think it was, an Upper East Side, to a friend's house. If that was the journey, how could it possibly extend to two hours?

I mean, that's the worrying factor, because, you know, you are on the move. You're out in the public domain. If it's a 10-minute journey, why let's not make it a 10-minute journey? That's the worrying bit as you're going around and around. And if you don't want the paparazzi to know where you're going, then don't go to a friend's house in New York

when you're leaving a massive media event with 100 paparazzi outside. It's completely insane unless they were doing this deliberately. Again, that seems to be the crux of it. They didn't want to show out where they were staying, and that's caused part of the problem. But the cat and mouse game with the paparazzi, back in 2008, 2009, that's a game you're not going to win.

And we realized that at royalty protection. When the security decided to put them into a yellow cab, I mean, yellow cabs are in New York are notorious for being pretty reckless, and they speed a lot. But you don't know who the hell it is, right? And you're putting in two of the most famous people in the world into the first yellow cab you see.

Would any secure, Royal Protection Guy, do that? No, as simple as that because... It's unthinkable, right? That key part, that security driving piece is actually a key part of your protection detail. Now you've put them in a yellow cab with something that you don't know. And as a security professional, your response to conflict comes in three phases, fight, or freeze. freeze is removed from you because of the training,

and then you have two options, fight or flight. But what is that man going to do in that situation? He's had no formalized training in that role, and he could be like a rabbit caught in headlines, or he could fight when we want to flight, or vice versa. That is the weakness of that particular decision. Okay, Paul Burrell, you'd be waiting patiently. You knew, obviously, Princess Diana and the boys extremely well.

Harry is trying again to use what happened to his mother as justification for his, you know, in my view, very over-emotional, in this case, over-egging of the paparazzi souffle, saying, look, this was close to death, near catastrophe, blah, blah, blah. What do you feel? When he invokes what happened to his mother in that Paris underpass, do you understand it, or do you think he's doing this too much? I think it's too much, peers. I think this drama unfolding on the other side of the Atlantic is to make them more relevant again, is to bring them back into the public spotlight. And as a as our dear late queen said, our recollections may vary, as you said in your intro.

That's obviously what's happening here. To make any comparison with a car chase in Paris, which took the princess's life, and one in Manhattan is really very sad. It's very sad, wrong and distasteful. They are two totally different circumstances. The princess was actually avoiding the media as much as she could possibly avoid the media on that night. And the reverse, Megan and Harry were courting it. And so there are two different circumstances here. Nothing is similar

other than photographs being taken. I think it's very distasteful. There's clearly an incident here, but it's been blown out of all proportion. Well, it's an incident which the police said led to no collision, no arrests, right? And as far as they can say, you can tell by the language they use. They just don't think this was a big deal at all. Miranda, let me ask you about, just generally, about Megan and Harry. They've obviously made their American bed and now have to lie on it. It's been a very lucrative bed, but they've torched their families, all their families, pretty much apart from Megan's mother, is now out of the picture. They don't seem very happy for people who were seeking happiness. But what is the American reaction to them now? I mean,

it seems to me that more and more they're becoming a bit of a laughing stock. Yes, utter contempt and just sort of bemusement about why they're carrying on like this. It's not as if they are, you know, the biggest celebrities that have ever come to New York. And the South Park episode really encapsulated it. You know, they're on this worldwide privacy tour running around trying to get people's attention while saying, give me my privacy. And I think it, you know, it stems from Megan Markle's complete. fascination with fame and narcissism.

She loves the paparazzi. She loves the cameras. And that's just the opposite of what Harry wants. Harry is, you know, deeply wounded by what happened to his mother. And he's got into his head that the paparazzi that he sees around him are his mother's murderers. And so Megan Markle has exploited that. That's her secret power to control Harry, is to exploit his.

his deepest, darkest fear, he couldn't save his mother. And maybe he can't save his wife. Yeah, I mean, I think there may be some truth to that. Paul Burrell, what would Dinah have made it? What would she say to him? If she was still with us, Dinah, what would she say about the way Harry has taken his life and what he's been doing to his family? You know, Pierce, you knew the princess as well.

And you know that she would say to Harry, Harry, you should be, I applaud you for marrying for love. I applaud you for looking after your family, but you have to abide by the rules. And Harry's rule was always to stand by his brother and to protect him. And she would be appalled. She would be absolutely appalled by this mess that's going on at the moment. Harry seems to be a victim. He seems to be a passenger on this train. And it's going to end in tears.

And we all know it's going to end in tears. and I don't want to see his heart broke again. I saw it once before, and I don't want to see that happen to him. I still love him. He's Diana's boy. And, you know, what can we do to try to save him? I'm not sure that he can save himself. No, I think that sadly that may be the case.

Simon, finally, he's got this court battle here over whether he should be allowed royal protection. If you were still working there, would you think that that's justified that he should get that? or should the British taxpayer be paying for that? It's extremely difficult. Everything has to be done on threat and risk, and that's one of the decisions that was made around that, as well as the role within the family. But I think when you go down the route of police protection

being sold to the highest bidder, I think that is a problem. And one of the main problems is there's simply not enough protection officers. So therefore, the people that would need it wouldn't necessarily get it because now they've been sold to the highest bidder. Yeah. Listen, thank you all. What a great panel.

Miranda, Paul, Simon. Thank you very, all three of you very much indeed. Unsenton, next. More on the Sussex claims that were subjected to a relentless two-hour pursuit that now seems nothing of the sort and a mockery they're now getting in the United States. Welcome back to Pierce, Morgan, Unsensitive.

New Yorkers have been having a good laugh at Harry and Megan's expense. Take a look at this New Yorker reacting to couples' claims of a near catastrophic car chase. Is anybody who wanted to know what a real car chase would look like in New York City? Well, he's getting far. That's what a real car chase will look like in New York City

Oh, Megan and Harry, you silly little Englishman Well, he's English, she isn't, just for the record, we're not claiming it And the New York Post has poked fun at Harry and Megan's latest quest for privacy, privacy, with a mock-up of their South Park characters in a New York yellow taxi, screaming for privacy. Don't look at me! I want my privacy. Well, joining me now are the talk to the contributors, Esther Cracker and Paula Ron Adrian. And in America, the host of Fox Across America, Jimmy Thaler.

All right, well, Jimmy, let me start with you because I've got a feeling I know what you'll be thinking about all this. But as a man in New York right now, what do you make of this? Well, Pierce, you know, I am a former New York City cab driver. I drove a yellow cab in New York City. Yeah, no, for sure. And the way my radio show is going this week, I'm a future New York City cab driver as well. But stick with me here, okay? It was so improbable from the get-go when they said high-speed chase.

Let me give you guys some sort of quantification of how impossible it is to speed in our city. New York is the only city in the world where bank robbers flee on foot, Pierce. Anywhere else in the world, you come outside, there's a car waiting, you peel off. In New York, it would be the opposite. You'd come running outside. you'd be like, dude, I got the money, and the getaway guy would be like, dude, I couldn't get a parking spot. I'm so sorry.

Okay. This is absurd on its face, and we all knew it from word one. Okay. Paula, you've been grimacing your way about all this, so you clearly feel sympathy for them. It's disappointing, peers, isn't it? Do you believe them? I have to remind everybody that Neil Bassu,

who was the counter-terrorist chief, who had to give an interview, who has said very clearly that Megan suffered real threats in terms of her life and that some of those people were now serving time. So this isn't a joke. So this isn't a joke in terms of the fear that they would have been feeling. You're conflating two completely different things. One is the normal threats with a lot of members of Royal Famigate and other public figures

and that's a serious thing and no one's diminishing that. This is nothing to do with that. These photographers are not trying to kill them. They're trying to take a picture of two people who've been voracious. using the media now for years to make themselves very rich. It's a two-way street. You can't just turn that tap off what you feel like it. And there is no evidence at the moment from the police

that the photographers did anything illegal or anything wrong. Well, let's look at that two-way street. So we know that Megan arrived with Harry and that her picture was taken. We know that they went inside the venue and that their picture was taken. We know that they left the venue and their picture was taken. We also know it's accepted that an incident occurred. We've heard from Harry. It's not. It's not accepted.

that an incident... There's no incident, other than they turned a 10-minute journey. For reasons that are completely baffling to everybody, they turned a 10-minute journey at 10 o'clock at night from 57th Street to the middle of the Upper East. I've done that journey many times. I used to live literally almost where they ended up. I know how long it takes,

and it's the quickest, the easiest journey imaginable. Because they didn't want anyone to know where they were going, even though they're in the middle of New York City and leaving a massive media event, they take the paparazzi on a two-hour goose chase. It's completely ridiculous. So they didn't want anyone... You accept...

You didn't want anyone... You accept... You accept... I know that peers is shouting. Well, let her answer first. I'll come to you after. You accept that they didn't want people to know where they were and that they were therefore being followed

because people were following them. Of course, they're going to be followed. But you say, of course, like it's acceptable. Yes, it is acceptable. It's not acceptable. They've got their pictures. Sorry, if you're attending a media event... They've got their pictures...

With photographers everywhere else, you are actually allowed in New York City of the First Amendment. to take people's pitches. If you abide within the law. They weren't threatening them. They were intimidating them. They were trying to take their picture.

Esther. Why didn't they factor this into their security detail? Why didn't you factor in how you're actually going to get to where you want? Because obviously they didn't want people to know where they lived. Fine. But why don't you factor that into your security deal? They spend millions of dollars every year on security. No, no, no, I'm sorry.

It's not about them. It's about the security that they spend. And we know that they're being hounded. It's about their security. They pay for tens and thousands. They paid for 10,000. But if you paid for it. In one picture in the yellow taxi,

taken an hour into this ridiculous vase, she's smiling. Is that traumatic smiling? An hour into the ridiculous wharf. How could she be smiling? We are now seemingly accepting that there was an incident. What incidents? There's no incident.

There was no collision. Nobody got arrested. If this was Justin Bieber or if this was another famous person, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be saying, oh my gosh. You know why? You know why? Justin Bieber and his security wouldn't have taken two hours to go from here to here.

It's ridiculous. Exactly. I agree with you. It's ridiculous that they have been put under so much pressure. Oh, do be a favour, Paul. Even you don't believe this. The fact is they put under pressure by the media that they've been exploiting so ruthless. The media that is paying tens and thousands of pounds for pictures of them.

They got the pictures. They should have allowed them to leave quietly. Megan and Harry are making hundreds of millions of dollars. from selling their families down the river to the media. So I'm afraid by that they're upset. They're allowed to tell their story. Let me pivot. I want to show you this picture.

This is Adidas Pride, 2023 swimsuit. I think we have it here. Here we go. This is, well, you might think that's a bloke. It's supposed to be a women's swimsuit, but that is in fact a man. This is the latest example, Esther, of the world. going completely nuts.

Why would any woman buy a swimsuit because a man is prancing around of it? I wish they at least airbrush the bulge and the hairy chest. You know, I don't even want to go down the whole gender identity debate what this person with the purple hair in the back identifies as. I just didn't want to see the bulge. Would that make you want to buy that swimsuit? Of course not. It's a part of the person's body, Esther.

It's a bulge. Most women, I think, are you not attracted to a bulge, Esther? Have you met a woman with a bulge? I'm asking the question. It's actually called a penis. Are you not attracted to a bowl? Paula, it's called a penis. Yes.

He is advertising a women's swimsuit. Is it a women's swimsuit or is it a swimsuit? It's actually marketed as a women's women's swimsuit. It's part of the women's swimwear line for 2023. Okay. And what's the problem? There's a ball. It's absurdly insulting to women.

There happens to be a penis in that. A man is prancing around with full package in tackled. Right. And he's pretending to be a woman. I mean, I can. wear trousers. Oh, please. I can find I wear trousers and that's okay. Let me bring

back Jimmy. Jimmy, Adidas, they're following Bud Light, the following Miller Light. There seems to be some contagion that is forcing otherwise sensible companies who have huge male consumer bases from committing professional suicide. Why are they

doing this? Well, because what happened is a lot of these corporations have been hijacked by woke advertising agencies that don't want to cater to the customer's sensibilities, they want to reshape it to align with their own. Corporations here in America are very much heavily chasing social credit scores, DEI scores, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

So they know their customer, it Bud Light, doesn't run into the beer freezer going, gee, if only I could find a beer that had a guy wearing a dress on the cover. They didn't want that, okay? But this is the market executive trying to change perceptions, Pierce. but where I have a problem with it is on the most superficial of levels, okay? If this stuff takes hold, think of how it changes the music I love.

I don't want to hear Paul McCartney sing, I saw them standing there. You understand? I don't need to hear Motley Crew sing they's, days, days, days. Well, hang on. Jimmy, what about Neil Armstrong, landing on the moon?

Oh, he's canceled. One small step for them, One giant leap for them kind. Houston, we have a problem. It's ridiculous. Esther, I want to bring in an NHS hospital, Darlington Memorial in County Durham, gave a form an outpatient survey to a woman in her 70s, which offered 18 gender options.

These included male and female. Okay, good so far. Non-binary. Third gender, transgender man, transgender woman, transgender, two-spirit, big ender, which sounds like a whole thing. thing altogether. Big Ender. I wouldn't mind identifying as that. Gender expression. Gender. Oh, it's by gender, apparently. Sorry. I've said big ender. Gender, queer, passing, agenda, cisgender. I think that's me.

Never quite worked out why I have to be a sissy. Gender fluid and gender various. It's a story in the sun tomorrow. Esther, when you see this stuff given to a woman in her 70s who identifies for the purposes of clarity as a woman, this is nuts. What are we doing? What's the NHS doing? Whether this was a mental health outpages? Because what does your gender identity have to do with your biology? Surely doctors are in the business of your physical being. But you're saying to a doctor, hi, I'm a two-spirit.

What does that mean? What does you mean you're a two-spirits? It has no bearing on your health other than the fact that you may be crazy. It was a sensitive way of asking people how they identify. Is it a 70-year-old woman in this country? It's going to think, how sensitive? They're asking me if I'm gender-queer, gender-fluid, gender-vary, or by-gender. And do 70-year-olds not have a gender that they can identify to?

Have you ever heard anyone over 70 call themselves two spirits? Her age is something. Well, the two-spirit is an interesting one, isn't it? Because that's in terms of how you would identify as an Indigenous person. So that is more than just about gender. But what I want to ask you in is, Paul, you can. We know what the 70-year-old is reported as saying, she's reported as saying, wow, I have a lot to learn. There is a lot to learn.

And that's all this is about. I'm so sorry. Let me tell you. If they pulled that stunt on my parents if they went to a hospital, they wouldn't say I've got a lot to learn. They'd say something else. Jimmy, final word to you on this.

This is our National Health Service. You can now identify in 18 different gender ways. How would you identify? I identify as a sane person who sees this for what it is. Do you know the old adage that Nero fiddled while Rome burned? Yeah.

Well, now with all the problems we have going on in the world, it's going to be neuro-gendered while Rome burned. It's dumb and really quick. The person I feel the worst for is the children's elementary school music teacher whose sing-alongs now last seven hours

because it used to be just the boys and then they'd go just the girls. Now it's just the non-binary cisgender half-spirit people. You're there for six months. People are going to die from starvation. It is, honestly, it is nuts. Jimmy, what a place. pleasure to have you on Pierce Morgan on Sensor.

Come back soon. Love's having you on. Paula, I'm so sorry for your pain. Esther, great to see you. I can't wait to see you in that Sports Illustrated in that swimsuit. Well, people say none of this matters, it's all trivial. Really? Why don't you consider our next segment which involves Austin Killips riding to a stunning victory

in the women's event as a prestigious tour of the Giller. Cycling tournament, one of the most prestigious in the world. That's one problem. She's biologically male. The tour's director joins me. exclusively next to express his concern over what this means for women's sport. Welcome back to Pearz Morgan Unsens. The Transgender Cyclist Austin Killips won the women's event. This year's Tour of the Gillette.

She's biologically male. He only took up cycling in 2019 before beginning hormone replacement therapy. After Killies victory, the tour's director, Michael Engelman, the very future of women's sport is now on the line. He's since been subjected, of course, to abuse and threats. But he joins me now to double down. what he said. So Michael Ingram, thank you very much indeed for joining me. It's a predictable pattern. Something ridiculous like this happens, which clearly erodes the integrity of women's

sport and is, in my opinion, grotesquely unfair. Somebody like you who understands this sport and the danger this represents says so, and you get immediately shamed, vilified, bullied, and hounded, because that's the way this debate is suppressed. First of all, how have you dealt with the backlash that you've received? Well, I think on the whole, in the end, it was kind of positive. I mean, I think part of the, it's a confusing subject, right? UCI have rules. We follow those rules.

The athletes follow those rules. The rest of the world doesn't understand that. It looks very unfair. And in certain regards, it is. So I think we've been preparing for this issue for a year now, probably. the sport has, hoping that the IOC and the UCI will step up. And I think this kind of forces the issue. So to answer your question, I mean, I think we just let it wash off our backs.

I mean, there is, at the center of this, just a core principle, which is, is it fair for biological males who then become transgender? There's nothing to do, in my estimation, with supporting transgender rights. I support that completely. But when you see what's happening in cycling, in swimming, in athletics, in almost every sport now, as the volume of transgender athletes increases exponentially,

what you're seeing are people who performed very mediocrity at their own sex level. So a biological male, when they compete against biological males, they don't do as well. When they compete as biological males against women,

then they are winning. And that cannot be right. It's certainly not the view for those of us in performance. And obviously, we're looking at this from the elite side, right? So sometimes elite sports is like real life. Sometimes it's not.

The UCI has set a series, you know, they supposedly looked at research done by the Canadian Center for Ethics on Sports, reviewed that data and said that they felt that transgender athletes that had transitioned for two years were, it was fair for them to compete. There are tons of contradictions in that study. I think John Pike from the UK has,

spell those out pretty well, among many others. Why the UCI is sticking to something that really does not look fair and it does not appear to be fair, we cannot understand. And I'm with you. Everybody's for the rights of trans people. That's not the issue here, the issue here. And I would look at Austin as a performance person, and Austin was third at Tour of the Gila last year.

You know, we did my job as competition directors to work with the UCI, the USCI, the USCIC, our governing body, make sure we stick within the rules. We knew I was sure Austin would win this year. And I think the performance, even though it's a very difficult race, it's called mediocre. She raced as fast as she needed to do to win. I would say at some levels from what I've seen in her performance, she may be one of the best women cyclists in the U.S. And it's a number of Olympic medalists and world champions have won tour of the helo. And the issue here that we have is the There is the allergy of it. You know, if an athlete transitions, are they the same as a woman?

Well, the question I would have, the question you just said one of the best female athletes in the world. Well, I don't know how you phrasing it, because Austin's not a female, right? Austin's a biological male. He's transitioned to be a transgender athlete, fine. But how would Austin do against biological males? And Austin would not be one of the best biological male cyclists in America. very, very far from it. That's where the clear evidence is,

it's why things like the Olympics, there is separation of the sexes. Because if you just had open season and sex didn't matter, biological physiology didn't matter, then I know what would happen. Hardly any women would compete in the Olympics ever again who were born with female biological bodies.

It's just a fact. And it is a fact, and that's why we can't understand why the UCI has made this huge reach to make it look like it is okay. I mean, there is some science that hasn't been tested out. I mean, the whole idea of science is you make a prediction, and then you do a test to see if it proves, and they have not proven it that, you know, 23, 24, 14 years of being a male

and the testosterone that helps that, you know, stronger bodies, bigger lungs, larger heart. And then you reduce the testosterone that makes you a female. It's a delicate issue, and the whole point is, whether it's athletes or sponsors or teams, and this is why I fear for the sport. It's such an unknown right now, and if the powers that be are not going to take control

to try to fix this, then we have a problem. Well, you're going to end up with someone like Leah Thomas that's swimming winning an Olympic gold medal or a world championship. You're going to have someone like Austin Killips doing the same in cycling. That's where this will go. And you're going to have more and more biological males identifying as transgender athletes, because I'm afraid, as we saw with doping, for example,

you know, once it was clear that you could win and make a lot of money and have a lot of celebrity attention, if you cheated, a lot of people cheated. And I think you're going to see the same Martina of Atalovar warned about this. You're going to see people eventually gaming the system. We see it in prisons at the moment over here with, you know, male rapists who identifies women to get into female prisons, I'm not equating the two things, but the principle is the same. You separate the sexes for a reason, be it in sport or be it in prisons, or be it in safe spaces for women, or any of these things. And I think the moment you start to conflate them, then it can only end badly. That's my just honest belief about this. And I agree with you. I think a lot of the

sport does as well. And I guess, you know, from Austin's side, she seems very nice. She obviously He has goals in her life. And I don't know that that means that I get your point. You know, I would look at Austin and say, well, she's playing by the rules, and I'm not defending the rules. She came and she competed, and we followed the rules. But I also think about the biological female that was second. Exactly.

Ultimately, Michael, that's the point. Is that a biological female has been robbed of the chance of winning that tournament. And this is going to keep happening more and more and more as it is doing. We saw Leah Thomas win one race against biological females in the pool by 38 seconds, I think it was. Completely ridiculous. I've got to leave it there, Michael. Thank you for speaking out because I think it needs people in your position to do this. It's a courageous thing to do.

The bile that comes your way is disgraceful and entirely predictable. But this has got to be talked through and there's got to be a fair resolution. And women's rights have to be protected. So I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Well, on the center next, the body positivity fad, another of my little annoying things in life, has reached an inevitable conclusion.

So-called fat fluences. Yeah, you heard right. Fat fluences are making money by gorging themselves on social media for the delectation of their followers. One of them joins me next. Welcome back. Damning figures today reveal that obesity cost British taxpayers almost 14 billion pounds a year. Abbeast patients cost the British Health Service twice as much as those. of a healthy weight. But the body positivity movement preaches that fat is now fabulous.

And that is craze is fat fluences who raking cash by boasting about, well, being fat. What I eat today is a fat. Let's go. I don't know how many times I have to tell you, bitches. I'm going to start my morning off with the Starbucks iced coffee. And then it had a few mouthfuls of this cake, but it wasn't a... Really? That's what people are watching. Apparently. Well, two people are watching. Well, TikTok's like my next guest are putting the pound in excess pounds. The new hot 30I is just 8999. Do you like sweets?

Well, you can get two kilos of sweets for 10 pounds. Promoting obesity. No, I'm promoting a good deal. 2599 for 63 rolls of toilet paper. A donut maker from Tower. All of these products have two-year warranty. A candy floss maker and a chocolate. founding.

Okay. So I'm joined by TikTok star George Keywood, who you just saw there. Bargans. That's why I say bargains. Bargans. All right. And his wife, Sienna, and the host of the Blair White Project, Blair. Okay, listen.

Blair, I'll come to you in a moment. First of all, all right, George, let me get some stats. Yeah. If you don't mind me asking, how much do you weigh? Look, I'm not going to talk about numbers because the thing is when you... Well, I think you should. No, no, no. The thing is, if I give you the number of how much I weigh,

It's going to be all over the sun, all those trashy newspapers tomorrow and the don't need it. Don't need it. You're on TikTok every day showing us how big you are. And you're proud of it? No, no, no. There's a difference. There's proud and then there's just being positive in my own skin. And that's what I am. Right.

I'm not proud to be fat. Would you accept that by medical definition, you are morbidly obese? Look, if that's what medically you want to call it, then call it. Well, no, you know your weight. I don't. No, no, no. But that's, yeah, you could say that. Right, so here's my issue with this body positivity thing.

People shouldn't be celebrating being morbidly obese, in my estimation. Because actually, it is a dangerous condition that causes many people to die. Look, you've got a fair point. It is dangerous. It can lead to dangerous issues which could, you know, diabetes and so on. And that is an issue. But we don't encourage gaining weight. There's a difference between the videos you just showed on the screen. Come off. George, you're doing this.

These TikToks are all good to you. No, no, no, no. You're showing people. encouraging eating food. I'm just saying, wow, look at the pizza. Look, it's from Costco. No, no, no, no, no, that's what I'm doing. Sorry, that's what I'm doing. You are glorifying. Glorifying. It's called taking the pits. Well, maybe. That's what it is. I don't think. It's having a laugh and not taking self too seriously. Why is it funny? Because it is funny. You know it is funny. It's not funny.

It's not funny. I actually don't find this kind of be funny. I think it's quite sad. It's comedy. It's not sad. It's comedy. It's satire comedy. You know it is. I. You know it is. I. You know it. You know it. You know it is, you know it is, please. I've been an actor for 13 years. George, you know. Damn right. I know this industry works. George, I'll come back to the moment.

Let me just go to Blair White in Austin in Texas. Blair, I do have a problem with this because I think it's celebrating a dangerous health condition. And if you're an influencer, why would you want to influence people to think that that is a funny, entertaining and be something they want to do? Well, you should have an issue with it. You know, my opinion is that the fat positivity movement is a death cult. You know, I'm all about living my life on my own terms, being happy, finding a partner that makes me happy.

But, you know, life is short, so you have to find happiness. But what cuts it in half is being obese. Your life will literally end halfway of the length that you would live, being obese. And so promoting it, you wouldn't be able to be anorexic on TikTok and not get comments about how you need to eat a cheeseburger, how you need to gain weight. And you can write it off as trolls, but it's the truth. You know, I've seen some TikToks made by him where he is addressing people telling him that he needs to lose weight as trolls

and sort of making fun of it. And I just wonder, you know, is it really trolls? I mean, certainly there are mean people on the internet, but there is some truth to it. I mean, I know that he is a father and the idea that you will, in all likelihood, in all certainty, actually not live past 50, 60 years old is an issue. So for me, you know, okay.

Yeah, I know. That's my view. I want to bring in Sienna, your wife, you've been listening to this. Yeah. Are you comfortable completely? When you see the statistics about obesity in this country, the cost to the NHS, what it costs the country, are you comfortable about this? The way I see it is, firstly, just us personally, we have private health care, so that NHS isn't a thing for us.

I do understand that it is costing the NHS a lot. I think it's a bigger problem to address, though. I think it's about educating people when they're young. to make healthy food choices. I think a lot of the time when you grow up in poverty, like George and I have, a lot of the time you don't have the healthiest options. But my response to that would be, okay,

but you've managed not to end up, as George has, weight-wise. And I don't mean to denigrate you, George. It could be genetic, so couldn't it? No, no, it's not. What it is. What it is. I don't think it's genetics, isn't it?

No, I believe it's because my parents were, like, cool hippie vegetarians, whereas George's were not. Are you comfortable? You've got a son, right? Are you comfortable about his current weight? Do you think when he does this stuff on TikTok, are you really laughing or are you concerned about him? I'm concerned not so much about his weight, but more about his well-being. And, you know, he has Sienna. You definitely glorify it, Sienna. And you guys post videos where you're juggling his fat and you talk about how attractive it is. And for me, when I look for a romantic...

I think... I look for someone that would make me a better version of myself. Well, yeah, but George, the point Blair's making is a sound one. You say it's to get views. We know that. And you're making money from it. But the question is, there's no incentive for you to actually lose any weight because of that stage,

your TikTok persona... Nice. George is actually on a weight loss journey, and I fully support that. I think it's more like having a laugh at yourself, making the best of... You know what made me, you pull me around to your side, George. If you're now flipped with this big audience you've got,

rather than gorging yourself every day on pizzas and donuts. But that's not why I do, Piz. But that's not why do, Piz. Why don't you actually go on a fitness regime and show people how to lose weight? If people actually knew what I was thinking and what I'm doing, I'm actually going to be doing it asemic needles privately as well before you start. So all of these things, we're paying out of our own money. We're not, we don't cost anyone anything.

How much you're making out of the TikTok? A lot of money. Like what? I got my over 100 grand a year. Over 100 grand a year. So there's no incentive to lose weight, is it? No, but it doesn't derive straight from that. That's from my sales.

And that's with the collaborations and the deals. You don't even want to tell me how much you wait. I don't need to. Are you ashamed of it? I don't really understand how you can join a panel about obesity and about weight. Okay. Blair, final word to you?

I just don't know why he would come on a panel discussing weight and body positivity, fat positivity and not actually revealing the length of his weight. I agree. Sorry, I run out of time. Thank you, all of you very much today. Before we go, a quick congratulations to our executive director, Erin Gordon, who recently got married to his far better half,

Oslim Darken. They got married in Turkey and Istanbul beside the boss for us. And we wish them all the very best from everyone. At Pierce Morgan Unsensitive. Keep it uncensored, Aaron and Oslim.