Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Partygate Report, Sharron Davies, Pride over Patriotism

Episode Date: June 15, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates whether Boris Johnson could ever make a return to politics after the release of the partygate report. Piers is joined by Womens Rights Campaigner and Olympic Swimmer Sharron Davies and Champion Cyclist Hannah Arensman who's quit the sport after losing to a biological man. Piers discusses the Pride over Patriotism as video goes viral of the British being removed for a Pride flag. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pierce Morgan. Oncensored tonight, Boris Johnson deliberately lied to the House of Commons, then mounted a campaign of abuse against the MPs who exposed it. As a staggering, shameful report lays bare the extent of his deception and deceit, will debate whether this is finally, in my view, hopefully, the end of the Boris show. As champion cyclist, Anna Arendzman, abandons her Olympic dream and quits the sport after losing to a biological man. She joins me live with the Olympic swimmer and women's rights campaigner Sharon Davis. And West End legend, Andrew O'Oley Webber says he can't write other musical because he's afraid of being cancelled.

It's cancelled culture, killing culture. Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan UnsenSense. The sun is shining. The bars are packed. Many people are gearing up for their summer holidays. That is an oasis of normality, you might say. very easy to forget that just three years ago, the world would become a very different, very lonely, quite deadly place.

As COVID ripped through this country, Boris Johnson ordered us to do this. You must stay at home. What followed in the subsequent months were countless stories of unimaginable grief and sacrifice. Remember this little boy, Ismail, age 13, buried alone by men in hazmat suits because his mother and siblings were ordered to self-Israel.

isolate. The late Queen sat masked and alone as she mourned her husband of 73 years. Boris Johnson's government plastered posters of dying COVID victims across the country with the words, look in the eyes and tell her you never bend the rules. But Boris Johnson bent the rules, and most of his staff bent the rules, and regardless of what you now think of those rules with the benefit of hindsight, Boris Johnson was a man who made those rules and ordered the rest of the country to follow them. Today's report by the Privileges Committee, the result of a year-long investigation into whether he lied to Parliament about breaking his own rules, is excoriating. There's a lot in it, and the conclusions are damning. I'll come to those. But for me, the whole thing is summed up by this

jaw-dropping, firsthand testimony submitted as evidence by a Downing Street official. I'm going to read it in full so that you can understand exactly what this report says. This person who worked at number 10, said during the pandemic, number 10, despite setting the rules to the country, was slow to enforce any rules in the building. The press office, Wine Time Fridays, continued throughout. Social distancing was not enforced. Mask wearing was not enforced. I once inquired to redacted name in March 2020, whether we should be wearing masks and was told the science advice was there was no point, and it had very little effect on the spread of COVID. This was all part of a wider culture of not adhering to any rules.

Number 10 was like an island oasis of normality. Operational notes were sent out from a security team to be mindful of the cameras outside the door, not to go out in groups and to socially distance. It was all a pantomime. One of those booze-soaked parties took place on the night before the late queen sat alone to mourn her husband with the rest of the country banned from socialising. staff inside the building where he lived and worked continued to party while the rest of the country

and much of the world gave up everything to keep each other safe. And when the truth came out, which it always does in the end, Boris Johnson did what Boris Johnson does best. He lied. I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged

that there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken and that is what I have been repeatedly assured. Just a massive lie. The investigation under whether he lied was carried out by seven MPs, four of them conservatives who were all

Brexiteers. They say he's guilty of deliberately lying to Parliament and their committee multiple times. They say he leaked details of the confidential report when it was sent to him last week. The amount of a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation against his colleagues. And if he hadn't already

resigned in disgrace, he'd be facing an unprecedented 90-day suspension. Now he faces being banned from the parliamentary estate altogether. Remember, this isn't some rogue backbench moron. This was the Prime Minister. And his response today, as ever, is to cry conspiracy and blame everybody else. This is rubbish, he roars, a lie, a deranged conclusion, a kangaroo court, patently absurd. Boris Johnson has now become Donald Trump with a the sosaurus. The fact is that Boris is a serial liar. He's been sacked from two previous jobs for lying. He's now lying about the people who've exposed his lies and calling

them liars. This report is 108 pages long. 30,000 words of shame. And it is a shameful read. It's shameful for Boris Johnson and he's shameful for this country. Most former prime ministers go into the annals of history. Boris, frankly, can get in the beat. Well, joining me now has talked to these political letters of Kate McCann and the former special advisor to Boris Johnson, Alex Crowley, who received an OBE in the former Prime Minister's Resonation Honors List. And I'm also joined remotely by the historian and author of Johnson at number 10, which is in its own way, an excoriating account of Boris Johnson, Sir Anthony Selden.

So welcome to all three of you. Kate, Boris appears to have gone full nuke Trump. He's attacking the institution. He's saying it's all a witch hunt. It all lies. This is real Trumpian stuff, isn't it? Yeah, I think it is. And actually, I don't think that's the only element

that is causing concern in his statement today. He mentions Rishi Sunak by name, and his supporters are doing the same thing. There's a reason for that that they are seeking to envelop Rishishish Sunak, the current Prime Minister, and others who were in office at the time in everything that goes along with this report

to suggest that anything that Boris Johnson knew, Rishu Sunaq knew too. That's going to make his life incredibly difficult. difficult, the prime ministers, but it also, as the report indicates, it has an effect on democracy, and it is already having an impact within Parliament, within the Conservative Party. There are those MPs now who were talking about suggestions that the committee members, those Tories on the committee may well be parachuted into safe seats. Nadine Dorese has said as much that she will be keeping a close eye on what happens next.

Well, you interviewed her today. Let's just take a quick look at the clip from that. It is actually the case that this report smells as though something is quite wrong. 90 days suspension, 90 days. It is far more than even Boris Johnson's worst critics thought would happen. Even his worst critics were saying, maybe he'll get 20. We're hoping he'd get 20. Even they are utterly amazed that he got 90 days.

There is something very untoward about what has happened in this report. Here's the thing, though, he didn't get 90 days originally. They made it worse because if he's a time, attack on Parliament, on the institution, on all his MP colleagues, right? I mean, that's why he got 90 days. Yeah, there's a huge extra section of this final report, which details exactly why they have chosen to do that. It talks in this report about the attack on the committee carrying it out its remit from

the democratically elected House amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. They are taking this in itself very seriously. They're saying that actually that is a serious further contempt, which is why they added to that original penalty, which we believe was around 40 days and then was Right, so they're more than doubled it because of his ridiculous antics since he's read the report. He's read the report, he's seen how bad it is, and he's gone full Trump,

which is to attack the institution, which has created this supposed attack on him. When, in fact, it's a very well-researched and detailed report by a committee that is dominated by his own conservatives. Yeah, and I think anybody who reads this report, you know, look, you can go back and forth. The clip that you showed of him in the House of Commons there, where he is accused of Michigan.

proceeding the house. He actually said no COVID rules were broken. In this report, he does concede actually what he meant to say was guidance. He also says he was told repeatedly, and he concedes in the report that he wasn't. There are a number of different things like that scattered throughout these pages, whereby he said that the gathering in the garden was because the cabinet secretary had resigned, but the cabinet secretary actually resigned a month later. When you add all of those things up, clearly those writing this report have done so, knowing that it will be absolutely heavily criticised by Boris Johnson supporters. But I think when you read it, you conclude, ultimately, as they do,

that he did mislead the House and not just that, but he was deliberately disingenuous in doing it. No, he's a liar. Alex Crowley, you got an honour in the resignation. I don't think anyone should have got any of these offers, right? I don't think if you're a prime... It's just a separate issue. But I just think if you leave as Prime Minister in shame and disgrace, why are you getting to have an honours list?

I mean, what do you think of that argument above anything else? Well, look, I mean, it's a very odd quirk of our constitutional system that a prime minister who leaves office, either with a great reputation or a terrible reputation, gets to nominate people for honours. And, of course, their successor has to sign it off. A successor, of course, doesn't have to sign it off. There's nothing in law that says their success.

Do you feel comfortable? You got an OBE, right? Yeah. And this was for what? Well, the official title is for political and public service. these are the sorts of things that I didn't know I'd got it until about two or three days ago. What do you think you did to deserve it out of interest?

Well, personally, I don't think I did a great deal to deserve it because it's a massive honour and I don't think of myself as that important. However, what I will say is that there are lots of people who work in politics for Labour, for the Tories, for all sorts of other political parties and it is a public service. Now, you can criticise people that work in politics

and say, well, they're all useless, they're all on the take, etc. but you have to have people working for those parties, for those institutions, in order for our... Okay, but you've been given this honour by somebody who, frankly, is in total meltdown now. He was found guilty in... Like we keep using this word excoriating, what that means is it's like the most extreme language you could imagine from a conservative-dominated committee

about their own prime minister, from their own party. I've never read anything quite like it. You can't surely still be defending the guy. No, look, to be absolutely clear... No. No, no. You're not defending him? I'm not defending him. No, I'm not defending him. Oh, great. Right, okay. Okay. Well, hang on. Well, hang on.

So you agree then. No, no, let me finish. Let me finish, right. Okay. So a bit of nuance here. That's something, something you might be familiar with, right? He's got to carry the can for this. Of course he has. He doesn't think, sir. Well, okay, but I think everyone else has all a witch hunt. Parliament is corrupt. It's all a witch hunt. He's been stitched up. It's everybody else's fault, but it's the usual Boris playman. Exactly. But everyone...

Do you agree with that? Most of other people in the country say he's got to carry the can. However, I think there is one area where I think he does have a point, which is this. This is a political process, not a legal process. This is other politicians judging another politician. If you look at the severity of the punishment that they have dealt out to him, it is way beyond anything that anyone expected. Really? Hang on, hang on, hang on. Most people were saying 20 days.

We are actually on prescended territory. We have a prime minister of this country who has gone to the House of Commons and brazenly lied. We've never ever had that before. No Prime Minister in this country's history has ever done that. So this is, well, they haven't. Well, they haven't been caught lying.

Well, hang on. They haven't been proven to be liars, right? Tony Blair, 45 minutes. Fine. There are lots of times you may have thought they were not telling the full truth, but he's the first Prime Minister

where a committee of his peers inside Parliament have concluded he, lied to Parliament deliberately. And that is, you know, it's unconscionable. Of course, no one's saying that's a good thing. It's a terrible thing, right? It is a terrible thing. But you've got to look at it with a little

bit of perspective. Why? Well, because... He was breaking his own rules. Of course, yeah. Rules which meant the Queen had to mourn alone. Yeah. meant that this little boy, Ismail, had to be buried alone. I know countless people who had to say goodbye to their loved ones on FaceTime videos on their phone

because of the rules that Boris Johnson said. Now we find that... out that every Friday was wine party time for his own press team. And he wants us to think he didn't know anything about it happening in his own building. It's complete hogwash. He knew all about all this stuff.

Look at him. He's there. Leading these bashes. But the point is... Hello, chaps, carry on. Don't worry about the rules for the little guys. But the point is... They don't apply to us. He was punished for that

because he lost his job as Prime Minister. Yes. At that time, that's the worst thing... So what are you actually defending him about? What I'm saying is, That's to me like you basically agree with me. Well, I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm trying to work out what part of the extent you don't agree with me.

He should have carried the canon, he did, but I think this committee goes way too far. So a bunch of Tories basically have been, what, partisan against him? Yeah, but you and I both know your worst enemies are sat behind you, not opposite you in the House of Commons. It's not good. It's not enough to say just because it's Tories, they were always going to back him. The fact is a lot of people at the party never liked. All right, let me bring in Sir Anthony. seldom. As I read your book, I told you this, on half-term vacation, and it was, well, to use the

phrase of the night, it's corrorating. So it's no surprise to you, I'd imagine what's happened here. But are you surprised by the way Boris has gone full Trump? I mean, literally, he is now attacking every part of the fabric of our institutions of democracy. Yeah, it's incredibly poor judgment on his part and also it belittles the office of prime minister it is the highest political office in the country

the second highest office to that of head of state the monarch and it's important that people who hold this office act with decorum and respect for the institutions and don't slash out criticizing those

people who have criticised you there's no portion there. There's no good example. So, look, Pierce, as you say, the book I wrote about him with Raymond Yule is full of every single page, many places, episodes where he hadn't read his material where he gave advice one way and then changed his mind, where he didn't listen to people or listened to the wrong people. COVID, Owen Patterson, leveling. up Chris Pinscher. I mean, it just went on and on.

No one by the end wanted to work with him. No officials or aides. It was a disaster. It was a fiasco. It was a fiasco. And your book makes it crystal clear in gruesome detail why it was such an embarrassing farce. I think the point is it's not about cake at birthday parties amongst colleagues.

That's not what this is about. It's far more serious than that. It's about a prime minister who set very draconian rules for the people of this country, which most people followed assiduously. Many people were fined for breaking. So they took this seriously. And now it's turned out from this report

that all the time, the Downing Street view of this, from masks to social distancing to any of it, was basically to laugh at the country, to mock them, to say, ah, the rules are for other people. None of this applies to us in here. We're like they said, low ais. But they weren't.

they were at the centre of British democracy, number 10 down in street, setting rules they were flagrantly breaking and the guy at the top knew all about it and then went to Parliament and lied to his MPs. And I'm not sure it gets more serious than that. So some perspective there. He was the most chaotic Prime Minister

since the modern office was created under Lloyd George in 1916. No Prime Minister. I mean, there might have been unsuccessful ones to raise him May, wasn't hugely successful, but she acted with great integrity. She worked hard. She read her paper. She tried to reach the right solutions.

She absolutely was absolutely. She tried her hardest. Many of them have. They're conscious of the incredible honor of being at the head of their government, the culmination of their life, the job that so many, everyone in politics wants to have. And it's essential that you behave with decorum. But also no post-prime minister. has behaved like this. Anthony Eden was accused of lying to the house during the Suez

Crisis, Tony Blair, over, as we heard, the 45 minutes, but both of them were meticulous people who slaved away at their job and did their best, even if it was wrong for their country. This is a very different kind of person, and neither of them would seek to denigrate the judiciary, parliament, their own party. it's serious. It is like Trump. We're going to have a debate after the break. Everyone's confidence. Yeah, we're going to have a debate after the break

with a different panel about can Boris make a comeback. I would say I don't think he deserves to make a comeback. But before we go to that, just quickly, Sir Anthony, do you think he will? I think he'll try because I don't think he does think that he's done anything wrong, any more than he did at the Telegraph or the Spectator or as mayor of London or as an MP.

or when he was at school or when he was at university, he never accepts that he makes any mistakes. So I think he'll try. And who knows? I mean, he is a politician unlike any politician since Tony Blair in terms of his reach and his charisma. He'll try. But I can't see it happening any time yet

because even conservatives, especially Brexiteers, no longer trust him and no longer think he's a conservative. Okay. And very quickly, Alex, do you think he'll be back? in any meaningful political way? I think he wants to be, but obviously, it's incredibly different. Should he be? I think most people will think not. What do you think?

I think probably the party needs to work out how to live a life. Come on. What do you actually think? What do you believe? You're free. You can say what you're like. Well, I believe it is. You've got your OBE or whatever it is.

Come on. The party's got to learn to probably live without him. Okay, so he's done. Says the guy he's literally just got an honour from him. The mood in Westminster is that most of them are done. And actually, it would take quite a lot for him to be able to get on the candidates list, I think he's got two hopes. No hope and Bob Hope.

But thank you to my panel. Much appreciated to all of you. Unsensor next. So does Teflon Johnson have any political future? We'll debate back next. You can make my view is quite clear. Welcome back to Pittsburgh and Unsensor. Joining us now is Talked to the contributor to Paula Roan Adrian,

talked to the presenter, Richard Tyson, and talked of the international editor, Isabel Oakshaw, and former Conservative MP across the pond, Louise Mensch. Well, there's a new UGov poll out that says 69% of the British public think that Boris Johnson deliberately lied to Parliament. 14% think he didn't.

And interestingly, 51% of conservatives think he lied to Parliament. So even his own lot think he lied to Parliament. There's also been an advisor, a former advisor called James Johnson to Theresa May, who is now a pollster, has told Sky News that only 17% of people have a positive view of Boris Johnson these days, 62% negative, and he said for context. That means Boris Johnson is now more undefed, popular with the British public than Philip

Schofield or Xi Jinping of China, which is quite something. Quite something. All right. Isabel. I mean, sorry, but that polling is absolutely ridiculous. Well, the British public you're wrong again, Olin? Of course they're being negative about him this week, but give

it a few weeks and it'll blow over a bit. Why should it blow over? Seriously. Why should it blow over? Honestly, to recycle an old argument because there are so many bigger things to worry about. Then a Prime Minister lying to But he's not the Prime Minister anymore. But he was. He's gone.

He was. And he's the first Prime Minister ever to be censored in this way. I know, I know. But what is the point of continuing... What's the point of continuing to froth at the mouth about this? Well, we're not. At the moment, we're involved in an ongoing story. The reports literally just come out.

You're one of these people that's... It's far too... It's too late to talk about this. And the next thing, it's too soon. There's never a good time, is there? No, I think... To deliberate this scandalous behaviour of this Conservative Prime Minister. But I just think we are now wasting...

energy on this. The guy is finished in the Conservative Party. I cannot see. Well, if he is, if he is, then this is energy well spent. My worry, Richard Tice, I have to be honest, is that he will try and make a comeback. And rather like Donald Trump in America, there's a constituent of people out there where the worse he baves, the more lies he tells, the less he honours democracy, the more he attacks the fundamental bedrock of our democratic system, they stay with him. Yeah, but that's the joy of democracy, peers. You know, everybody is entitled to vote for who they want to. But I think there's a serious point here,

which is that this committee, in saying that you can't even challenge their judgments, you can't even question it. That actually is against free speech. What would you challenge? What would you challenge? What would you challenge? What would you challenge?

Well, what would you challenge? By the way, he's allowed to challenge it. He was given it two weeks in advance. He's allowed to go back and say that, you know. But the fact that they increase the sentence, because he criticised it, I think as an attack on free speech, an attack on the standard.

That's the only point. All right. No one's doubting what he's done. No one's doubting what he's done. I don't agree with you, and I think Paula's going to say what I'm about to think myself. To be clear about this, he wasn't, he didn't receive the further reprimand

because he didn't agree with the report. He received the further reprimand because he was told that it was a confidential document. He was supposed to respect the confidentiality, and he failed to do that. This is another example of Boris Johnson, Where's the democratic accountability of not being able to question judgment? Why should he be allowed democratic accountability

when he himself is attacking the very idea of democracy? Out of interest? He's not attacking democracy. Oh, yes, he is. We have a democratic process. Parliament is the absolute cornerstone. And this guy is saying the whole thing's corrupt. It's all a witch-unt.

There are a bunch of liars. I don't think I've ever seen, I've never seen a former prime minister try to damage the institution of democracy in this way, ever? It is Trumpy. It's the way Trump attacks it in America. It is Trumpian, I agree with all that. You can't feel comfortable about that. I'm not feeling comfortable about what he.

No one's doubting what he did. He misled Parliament. There's no question about that. He lied to Parliament. And the likelihood is that he deliberately lied to Parliament. He obviously denies that. But I think you cannot say he can't question the report. And to increase his sentence, because he had the temerity to question it,

That, I think, is vindictive. It's not because he had the temerity. It is exactly because he questioned it. That is wrong. Exactly. It was a confidential document. One that he knew that he was supposed to respect the confidentiality, and he decided to completely disregard that.

Here's what he did. He was invited, Richard. He was invited to make a child. He got given the report two weeks before. He studied it. He realized he was going down, right? He realized he would have to probably lose his seat. He realized the game was up.

And he did. So he did what Trump did when Trump did. when Trump... He just blew up. He just blew up the whole thing and has carried on blowing it up, right? And my answer to that is, we should just... That's enough, Boris.

We don't have to go down the American route where he just comes back and does it all over again. We don't... So you're only believe in free speech when it suits it. No, no, no, no. Once again, Paul is completely right. You are wrong on this. Maybe we should go to your own partner

and get her to explain to you why you're wrong. Isabel? Because you're wrong, because the point is that he shouldn't have... criticised it before it came out, because that is the agreement. And it was basically like he broke the embargo. It's not a free speech issue. It's not a free speech issue.

It's not a free speech issue. It's about him deliberately torching the conventional process of how these things are reported to the public. And he knew what he was doing. They said they increased the sentence, right, because he challenged their report. Not because he challenged the report, because he broke every rule,

around the release of the report, and then he torched the very idea of democracy. And he's a prime minister, for God's sake. Former Prime Minister. Until recently, a Prime Minister, the most powerful politician in his country, torturing democracy. And he's paid the price.

Yeah, so he should. I'm actually getting fed up with people trying to defend Boris Johnson. I'm not defending him. He's not his cuddly, lovable guy that all his supporters... He's not defending him. Honestly, what's a consumer's report is a guy who systematically lied,

lied, lied, lied. It's not the first time on that rodeo. He lied when he was fired from a newspaper at the Times or making up stories. He lied when he lied to Michael Howard about an affair at the spectator and so on. Boris has always lied. We all know that. And it was kind of funny for a while until he started doing it over COVID, when people were dying.

And can I make a prediction here? Because I don't think he's going to make a comeback, actually. I don't think this is at all about him making a comeback. I think what this is about is him making himself this figure of intrigue, of grandeur. I've just remembered... Hang on, I just remember Louise. Louise has been waiting very patiently.

I'm still thoroughly enjoying the debate, but I completely forgotten you're over there. Louise, okay. You're going to try and defend the indefensible, are you? Yes, I am, but I don't think it is indefensible. I'm a bit of a sticky wicked if you're fed up with hearing people's offend Boris Johnson because that's what I'm just about to do.

Somebody has to push back on you as great as you are saying throughout this show, saying throughout this show that Boris Johnson has been attacking democracy and attacking Parliament. This committee, this little quango, is not the same thing as Parliament. It isn't the same thing as democracy.

Boris... Parliamentarians, led by four out of the seven being conservatives. They're your people. That's Boris's people. It's not a quango. Who were picked by the House. As the last panel, it's a group of MPs selected by Parliament

to adjudicate against MPs. And guess what? A bunch of Tory. found out that their Tory was a liar. That's it. Sort of labour thing, sort of quang-go, sort of Lib Dem thing. I didn't do it.

It's the Tory party people who did it. Pears, the committee hasn't just threatened Boris Johnson. And by the way, how do you know that it was only 40 days originally? You know that because this committee themselves have been leaking. They didn't just threaten Boris Johnson. They came out a couple of days ago and they started throwing their weight around and threatening not only Boris, but any of his supporters in Parliament who also criticise them.

They think that they are above the law, and it's a small group of people that have done this. No, I've read this report, and I don't agree with you. I don't think it is a meticulous piece of work. What? And I don't think your view is universally held. I see the Times, I see the Telegraph, the headlines today, lots of people saying that they've gone way too far,

that it's spiteful and that it is over the top. Now, is Boris' finished? Yes, he is for now. the top? No, I think he's entitled to defend himself against a group of people that are out to get him one of whom went to a party himself. He said the whole thing's a stitched up. They're all a bunch of liars. That's called free speech. Why do you believe in it? No, no. I do. You believe in it. I do. You believe in me completely wrong. Why do you believe in free speech? I don't believe in him torturing the process that these things are done. He hasn't torched democracy. He's taught the committee.

He could have defended himself, Richard, in the House of Commons. So, Louise, do you think Boris can actually make a comeback. And if so, why? Yes, he can. And the answer to why is quite simply as whoever it was said, events dear boy, events. He's not going to be able to make a comeback before the election. That is obvious.

And I think he's leaked his plans, if you like, to the Times tonight when he has said that he's waiting for Rishi Stunach to lose the election disastrously. And even then he's not going to try and come back immediately. He's going to wait for somebody to follow Rishi and not to land a blow on Kirstarmer. and then when the Conservatives are tired of losing, that's when they might go back to the guy who delivered an 80-seat majority. So you can write-in-off a few-lice, but I think you'll be the only one.

And then he squandered it, and he squandered it because he kept lying. And he kept breaking the rules that he set for everybody else. And unfortunately, when you do that as Prime Minister, people don't like it. It turns out, who knew? Isabel, can you make it come back? I just cannot see it in the Conservative Party. I mean, maybe he can do it outside the Conservative Party. What about the Reform Party?

Well, hang on, that's a bit awkward. I mean, it's a event. I'm happy to repeat the point. How would you feel if he wanted to come and run the Reform Party? Look, the point is we've got massive differences. You look down a bit nervous. Not at all. We've got massive differences about net zero, about immigration.

Where we have the similarity is doing Brexit properly. Would you stand aside for him? With the people around him, he failed to do that. So would you stand aside for him? It's not an issue. He's such a winner. I mean, why would you stand aside for him? I mean, why wouldn't you?

It's a hypothetical question. No, we've got massive... But you believe in free speech, Richard. So I've asked you a question. And in the spirit of free speech... In the spirit of free speech, we've got massive differences. That is the key. So you wouldn't want him running the party?

I don't think anyone... I don't want anybody running the party that I lead who doesn't agree with the clear principles that I agree with and are massive... To be clear, you don't want him to run the party. To be clear, no one should run our party. doesn't agree with our policies. It's sounding like a politician.

Oh, you are a politician. Come on. Should he run the party? Yes or no? He's not going to run the party. It's absolutely absurd. You're asking an absurd hypothetical question. We fundamentally disagree on some major issues or policy.

If it's so absurd, answer the question. If it's so absurd, answer the question. I think you need to rephrase the question, peers, and you might get somewhere. The fact is it. You obviously know the right question to ask. There are people. Hang on, Isabel, you ask the question. I'm just, okay, let me put it this way.

Do you think you could work with him? Good question. On Brexit, yes. No, no. With a reform party. On Brexit, we should do it. Look, we've left. We should do it properly or not do it as a tool. So you can work with Boris Johnson at the Reform Party?

On Brexit. You could work with it. In some form of... The door's open. You're inviting him in, right? What I'm saying is... Serial liar you're happy to have working in your party. That's not what I'm saying.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, on Brexit, you just invite him to come and join the party. Brexit, that's not what I'm saying, Piers... Because they're working together. We're saying on that. All of us Brexit is. We've got to leave it there. All of us Brexit is should work together.

Okay. So I'm confused whether that door's open or shut. In the spirit of free speech, we're going to move on. Thank you to my pack. Thank you, Louise, over in America. Unsensored next cycling champion Anna Arendzman has quit the sport of losing to controversial trans cyclist, Austin Killips, who beat all her biological female rivals

are five minutes in a recent race. Well, the person who's now quit the sport because of this fast, is joining me next. and I'll be joined by the former British Olympic swimmer and women's rights campaigner Sharon Davis has a new book out about this and has been one of the bravest voices in all this nonsense.

That's after the break. Welcome back to Piersborg and our sense of women's cycling champion Hannah Arendzman quit this sport after losing to controversial transgender competitor Austin Killips in December, abandoning her dream with competing at the Paris Olympics in 2024. Footage from that race

shows Kilipps shoving Arendzman, causing outrage that the six-foot-tall, very muscular born male used intimidation to get ahead. But last weekend, Austin Kitts won another race in North Carolina by five entire minutes. In a moment, I'll get the view of former Olympic swimming champion and author of a new book, Unfair Play, Sharon Davis.

But first, I'm joined by Hannah Arendzman from United States. Hannah, when you see just that bit of footage there, the brutal way he was sort of shoved away, but in a way, that's kind of what's happening in women's sport, generally. A bunch of trans athletes have come along and are shoving, biological, out the way.

Absolutely. It's very disheartening to see in all sorts of levels. It's not just the elite. It's also every level starting from open women all the way up. So, yeah, it's very sad. Honey, you've actually quit the sport, which is incredibly depressing that you've been forced to do this. Why did you come to that decision?

There were multiple reasons, but it was definitely very disheartening to leave my last race and... and be flanked on either side of the national cycle cross championship by two men in the elite women's race. And these are men who are now trans women, but they're biological men. And this is an issue now not as affecting cycling, but we're seeing it in all sorts of other sports.

Do you feel, Hannah, obviously it's such a hot topic. It's so incendiary. Very few people want to put their heads over the parapet. Do you feel a lot of female athletes and sportswomen share your view, but are just too intimidated to say it? Yes, lots, even in the cycling community, which on the front looks very pro guys racing in our field, but the women quietly try to find ways to let their voice be heard by either contacting the governing bodies or just trying to make other people wear around that this is not okay.

It's not fair, and biologically, you can never make it fair. It's completely unfair. Well, thank you very much indeed. And I'm just so sorry about what's happened to you. Sharon, let me come to you because you've written this great book, A Battle for Women's Sport. That's what it is. It's a battle for the heart and soul and integrity

of a sport that you grace so brilliantly. I mean, I go back to when you got cheated out of a gold medal at the Olympics because of the doping that was going on with the East Germans, wasn't it, at the time? And you should have won gold and you didn't because you had a bunch of doping cheats at the time. Is it that different now? Well, it's exactly the same, except for it's a different process. You know, what happened way back then in the 70s and the 80s,

that they were taking 11 and 12-year-old girls and giving them testosterone and putting them through a male puberty. And they totally and utterly dominated for 20 years. The IOC did nothing. So to the level of the European championships, they won 90% of the women's medals, you know, just stratophobic, you know, improvement, and practically nothing in the men's.

And so that was because they were given this additional testosterone, which is still less than what you would have if you were biologically male. So we're now asking our female athletes to raise people that have gone through the whole of puberty. There's 17 peer-reviewed studies out there. Not a single one says that we can remove, you know, that male biology and that advantage. So we're knowingly making,

our girls race against an advantage before they even start, which the men are never asked to do. And that's what's so frustrating is that the men would not put up with this. And also, there's no issue with trans men, right, competing against biological males. But they don't. Because they can't. Yeah, they don't.

That's why we separate the sexes at the Olympics. I mean, that's why we do it. That's exactly it. You know, we have categories and all sorts of things. We have, obviously, the biggest one is male-female. Then we have all the weight categories. We have all the Paralympic categories. But the worst thing, Sharon.

The worst thing, Sharon, is that very mediocre competitors when they identify as their biological sex then become world beaters when they put their hands up and say, I'm now a woman and compete against biological females. That's my problem with it. It's just often they're not very good competing as men, but as women, they're world beaters. Yeah, that's the thing.

You know, something like swimming, it's 11% the difference between male and female performance. So you get someone like Leah Thomas, who was 400. 165th in America, over 2000s in the world, would never have made NC2A finals, which is the collegiate finals in America, competing as a man,

transitions for one year and beats three American Olympic silver medalists. It's ridiculous. It's actually maddening, and what's even more maddening, people like you, and I've followed, I'm so glad you've come on the show because I've been trying to get you for ages just to say thank you for what you've been doing. Thank you.

Because I've watched the abuse that comes your way, right? the viciousness, you're a bigot, you're a transphob, it's all complete nonsense. You're just standing up for women's rights to equality. That's really what you're doing. And I'm not anti-trans at all. You know, I believe we should have the debate, find a place for everybody to do sport.

I love sports, spend my life. I want everyone to be able to do sport. However, it must be fair and safe. It must be safe first, then it must be fair. Then we will find ways to be inclusive. And I've always advocated for the female category in an open category. You know, you mentioned trans men.

and trans men that are on testosterone have nowhere to race and no one ever talks about them because they don't matter because they're females, right? But actually, if we have this open casket, they would have somewhere to race as well. You either compete against your biological sex. So if you're a trans woman, you compete against biological males,

as many of them have done before, or you have a different category of his own. What you can't do, you cannot continue to allow biological males to demolish biological females, otherwise the integrity of women's sport is disintegrated. And it's not just that. It's the fact that we have such a small piece of the cake anyway, peers.

In this country, for example, there's 1,000 women earning their living from sport. There's 11,000 men. In America, 1% of the sponsorship dollar goes to women. 1%.4% goes, you know, prime time sports airtime. Our piece of the cake is tiny, and now we're being asked to budge over for biological males. It's just infuriating. The book shows throughout the whole of history, this has been the case. No, no, it's...

It's brilliantly researched, but I do come back to this thing that basically it's the new form of doping. It's the new form of cheating. Everybody knows it gives them an unfair advantage. And it's not transphobic. I support trans people's rights to fairness and equality. But why should that come at the expense of fairness, safety and equality for women? It shouldn't.

No, it really shouldn't. You know, we fought very hard to try and get equality. We're nowhere near it, but we are getting there. And now this is a massive step backwards. And it is a parallel with those East German years. It is. That's probably why I speak out, because I saw so many of my friends, you know, lose out.

I have friends that came forth behind three East Germans. No one's ever remembered them. And I read that you met the East German who beat you. And she recently, and she offered to give you her medal. Yeah, she did. Yeah, they did know. You know, they knew. And they were part of the system, right?

They were part of the system. I don't have any issues with them as individuals at all. In fact, you know, I believe they were very much victims of the system. Yeah, I agree. The ISC are extremely responsible for all of this. They are not, the ISC are not to be held up as examples. No, I totally agree. Sharon, keep doing this.

Thank you very much. Because you're doing an incredibly important job, and it's a brave and lonely place to be. It's getting better. It's getting busier. It is. And eventually, justice will prevail, and common sense will prevail. It's called The Battle of the Women's Sport,

unfair play by Sharon Davis, a fantastic book. If you want to know why it's so unfair and why it's so important to have this debate and to avoid all the nonsensical abuse it goes with it, read this book. Sharon, good to see it. Thank you. And says the next rainbow flags have been replacing Union Jacks

and the stars in stripes across the UK and US who's wound a few people up, including Tommy Leran. We'll debate next, why. Well, welcome back, you may have noticed it's Pride Month, and it's pretty hard to ignore it. The rainbow flag has been hoisted over London's Regent Street in place of Union Jack and draped from the White House balcony

in place of a star-spangled banner, which has sparked quite a backlash in mistake. Have we gone Rainbow crazy? Or is Pride Month more important than patriotism? We'll debate this. I'm joined by Foxy's commentator Tom Milaren, and in the studio, the comedian, James. All right, Tommy, off you go.

You're enraged by this. Why? Well, listen, I wouldn't say I am enraged by it, but I am irritated, and a lot of American conservatives agree with me. Now, listen, Pride Month is not a new thing. They've been celebrating Pride Month for many, many years, and most American conservatives had no issue with it,

until it became forceful, until it became the need for acknowledgement, the need for force celebration, the need for force validation, that's when you lost people. And then we took LGBT, and then we added LGBTQIA plus plus, plus, and then we included men who dress up like women and mock women like influencer Dylan Mulvaney. And then a lot of American conservatives just said, listen, we've had enough. It's okay if you're proud of your sexuality, but why do I have to be proud of your sexuality? That's where you lost a lot of folks,

and we're starting to finally say that and say, enough is a woman, so you got that wrong. And secondly... Dylan was a gay man until last year. Hang on. Dylan was a gay man until last year. They've transitioned. They're a woman.

I think that we lost people right at the beginning when gay people were dying in the streets because no one was looking out for us. So actually, what we're doing right now is just... I wouldn't even use the word celebrating. I think pride is a protest. Has it, is it a bit too much?

In other words, do you want to... What does that mean? What is too much? In other words, I think with every campaign, bringing people with you is really important, right? The moment it looks like it's just over the top. Like, it's everywhere you go is pride, pride, pride, pride, do we need to be that exuberant about it? Are you blaming gay people for that?

No. I mean, it's not awful. The companies... Honestly, I don't care what sexuality anybody is. I don't think most people do anymore. Right, so what is the problem then? Why are you so triggered by a flag? A rainbow flag.

You mentioned Regent Street. I'm not triggered by a rainbow flag. I'm triggered by the fact that everywhere I go for a gallon a month, everything has to be a rainbow flag. Well, I'm triggered that everywhere I go for the entire year, everything has to be straight. Where is my straight flag? Why am I constantly going straight people?

Where is my straight flag? Straight people holding hands in the streets. When have you ever seen a straight flag? Why is Mickey Mouse got a girlfriend? Tell me one straight flag. Why are you pushing? Why are straight people pushing straight identity? Where's a straight flag?

Everywhere. Where's my straight flag? It's never been a straight flag. You're a straight flag. Let me bring Tommy back, because this made me laugh. Demi Lovato has revealed she got tired of using they-them pronouns due to constantly having to educate people about it. She said it was exhausting. Well, I know the feeling, Demi.

She's exhausting, isn't she, Tommy? It's all exhausting. Listen, nobody cares what you choose to be. It's just this. Everybody has to keep up with what you feel like today or tomorrow. Everybody has to change the way that they address you. and if somebody, heaven forbid, makes a mistake, then all of a sudden they're a transphobe

and they're akin to a domestic terrorist. It's absolutely ludicrous. That's absolutely not true. And by the way, how many letters are there now? No, no, I let you talk. Exactly. No, no, I let you talk. You finished, Tommy.

Yeah, finish. You're right. Finish your point. Yeah, and there's another part of this whole pride thing. Listen, if it was just rainbows and love is love, there's no problem with that. If you look at a nine or ten of these pride events, it's grown men and grown women wearing bondage gear, smacking each other. Often children are involved to watch this spectacle. I mean, my goodness,

if you want equality, well, Sam smiths ever want anybody else. He's always up there. They, they, Sam is a they pronoun. Sorry, please finish. Sam used to be a he too, right? We can't keep up with any of them. Demi Levato used to be they, them. Demi's exorselty. Now she's a she again. He's been a he, he's been a he. He wants to be called they then. He'll be back to being a he again. They can't make their minds up what they are. Both of you are straight and you're saying you're exhausted. How do you know I'm straight? How dare you guess my sex? Like, let's not play games here. It is exhausting to be gay.

I don't remember Tommy revealing her sexuality, do you? There are 72 countries in the world where it's illegal to be gay. That's why I can have a flag. Ask me one quote. And I'm with your gay rights to equality. Absolutely, 100% always have been. Answer one question. How many letters are there now in the official?

How many are they? It's a flag that represent. How many letters? How many are there? I don't need to know. I don't need to know because it's not about the letters. There are so many letters now. We can't keep up with these.

It's not about that. It's about. Nobody knows if they're an L, G, B, T, a Q. And now we found out, according to that John Hopkins Medical University in Baltimore, that apparently lesbians are now no men, no man who have relationships with no men, non-men, non-man having a relationship with a non-men. I personally don't even know what you're talking about. Exactly. Nobody knows what they're talking about.

The pride flag is there to represent LGBTQ plus people and minorities. And like all sorts of movement, like Black Lives Matter, the reason it's so loud and to quote you, exhausting, because we need to help people. All right, but I do want to come back next time I speak to you to the straight flag that you say exists, which I've never seen. Because I want my own straight flag. Tommy, great to see you.

May I wish you happy Pride Month? You may. Go on. Woo! Woo! That's it from me. Whatever you're up to. Keep it nonsense.