Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Penn Jillette

Episode Date: October 10, 2022

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, investigative journalist John Sweeney speaks to Piers about the latest attacks in Kyiv. Piers questions SNP MP Ian Blackford after leader Nicola Sturgeon said she "detests the Tories". Ian Blackford also explains why he opposes Brexit but wants Scotland to leave the UK. Magician and author Penn Jillette joins Piers Morgan live and uncensored to talk Trump, Twitter, magic and more.. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, tonight on Pierce Morgan Uncensored, Putin reigned hellfire on civilians in the biggest bombardment of Ukraine since the start of the war. Is this finally our red line? Nicola Sturgeon says she detest Tories. One year on from an MP shocking murder is this kind of divisive political rhetoric becoming dangerous. Our superstar magician Pendjolet will be here live to talk Trump, Twitter, magic and more. Live from London, this is Pearz Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan on Sensor. My question tonight is simple. What is our red line? When we say,

enough is enough? There are more dead bodies strewn across the streets of Kiev in Ukraine today. They were just trying to get to work. An elegant cosmopolitan European capital once again paralyzed by terrorism, fear and grief. This is the daily reality for Ukrainians. What did she do wrong? She's just a young girl. Probably trying to walk to college. Now she's traumatized for the rest of her life and for what? For revenge, that's pretty much it, a huge explosion, damaged the Crimea Bridge this weekend. We don't know exactly who did it. What we do know is that Crimea is Ukrainian.

Don't forget that. The bridge is a legitimate strategic target. Putin's response was to attack civilians. 83 missiles filed indiscriminately at residential buildings all over the country, tourist spots, offices. These are war crimes. And the response of the Ukrainian people was as resilient as ever. They sheltered together underground, singing patriotic songs.

Teachers gave classes in the metro. In the face of the most heinous kind of terror, they came again once more in defiance. They are the reason Putin isn't winning this war and why he mustn't win this war. They need our help more than ever. Hundreds of thousands of Russian reservists are on their way to join this so-called,

what does he call it? I can't remember, but it's a war. They're going to be thrown like logs into a first. by the evil dictator. There can be no peace as long as there's Putin. Now is the time to call his bluff. It's time to give President Zelensky everything he needs and more to win this war.

Well, joining me as chemical weapons expert, Hamish De Bretton Gordon, former head of the British Army, Lord Richard Dannett, and also joined live from Kiev by the investigative British journalist and author, John Sweeney, who's been posting a series of extraordinary videos today from the Ukrainian capital. John, let me start with you. Thank you very much indeed for joining me. I was in Kiev in July to interview President Zelensky and his wife, the First Lady Zelenska.

And I was struck by two things. One, that it's a beautiful cosmopolitan European city. And at that time, they were leading relatively normal lives. And secondly, the incredible determination and stoic resilience of the Ukrainian people not to give Putin an inch, an inch of their time. territory. Looking at it today, with all these missiles raining down not just in Kiev, but other major cities around Ukraine, what is your sense about where the mood is of Ukrainian people? Oh, there's no question. You're right, Piers. There is no question at all that anything has been shifted. People have been killed today. I mean, I got out pretty early

and I saw the cars had been hit and there's a road crossing which is in London terms as busy as the junction of Hypo, Corner and Piccadilly, something like this. Then a few yards on, 100, 200 yards on, they put a missile bang next to a children's playground

and then a couple of half a mile away, a big office block. They hit that. And while we were filming that, I realized that I was stepping in someone else's blood. And the person had been standing there rushed the hospital, but died on arrival. And then there was another kind of zigzag of blood, which I followed. And it was dark as dark can be. However, this is, I think, not a sign of military strength, but a sign of weakness.

the reality is the Ukrainian army is beating the Russian killing machine hollow in the south and in the east. And my friends in the Ukrainian army are absolutely appalled and horrified by what's happening. But one of my powers is a guy called Vladenchenko who arrested me because he thought I was a Russian spy on day two with the war, but we since made up. But he's sort of said, like, not an inch. Not an inch. We're not going to surrender. We're going to keep on fighting and very, very hard. And that is the spirit, John.

I wanted just before you go on, a little mash-up we did of some of the videos you've been posting today, quite extraordinary. And as a backdrop to this, Keeves Mayor Vitalee Klitschko, who I interviewed when I was there, gave the following details about today's airstrikes. They hit 45 residential buildings,

five objects of critical information. infrastructure and communal services, three schools, one kindergarten, two after-school clubs, and five healthcare institutions. So that is the kind of thing that the Russians have been doing today to the capital city of Ukraine. Let's take a look at John Sweeney's videos today. This morning at the height of the early morning, Rush hour in central Kiev, the Russian sent a missile. And the missile hit the intersection. And as you can see, there's at least three vehicles, which are going completely burnt out. There's another two over there.

I fancy the coffee. Look what the Russian Army is onto the coffee shop. If you can see, this is the children's playground, and that's where the rocket fell. This is war crime after war crime after war crime. The people who targeted this missile, the people who hit the button, they should go to the Hague, and so should their commander-in-chief.

Very powerful journalism, John, and congratulations on that. You're doing extraordinary work there under obviously very difficult conditions. I believe that Ukraine has to win this war. I think if you let Putin simply land grab Ukraine and massacre innocent people in the way that he's doing with these war crimes, then what message is that to any dictator, frankly, and not least of all him, who I would imagine would just carry on grabbing land back until he's restored the Soviet Union.

But I guess the crucial question is how does Ukraine win? Zelensky today put out a tweet saying he had a good call with Liz Truss, the prime minister. Obviously, very important that that relationship with Britain continues in a way that it was fostered under Boris Johnson. But how do you see the Ukrainians winning here? They're already winning. They're already winning in a very simple way, which is that they're corroding and eroding the strength of the Russian killing machine by using the essentially the rocket artillery, the Haimars system, which the Americans have given them, and they've been hitting the ammo dumps.

And that has taken out the previous Russian advantage in artillery. So it's switched now. The Ukrainians can, in boxing terms, basically if you've got a much longer arm, you can hit the other guy and the other guy can't hit you back. And what's happening is the other thing is, as far as the infantry is concerned, Ukrainians are completely fired up because they're fighting to get their homes back. And the Russian army has been told a dark fairy story that Ukraine is Nazi. It's not at all Nazi. The president is Jewish.

It's a democracy. It's a democracy where people joke about the president. It's that kind of place. It's got its problems, as all democracies have. But essentially, they are, this is. an open and free society, which is fighting for its life. And there are times like today where it reminds me of what I've read about London in 1940. What people really want to do is go drinking and dancing, but they know they have to fight the monster.

Yeah. John Sweeney, thank you. I've got to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. I'm sure we'll want to talk to you again in the week because you're doing remarkable work. So keep that up. And thank you very much for your reporting. Thank you, Piz. Well, I want to discuss now, I guess what the big question on everyone's lips, which is, what will Putin do next? And if he decides to launch any kind of nuclear strike on Ukraine and who can but anything past him, given what's happened today, then how should the West respond? Well, I'm joined by Hamish to Breton Gordon. As I said, chemical and nuclear weapons expert, and also Lord Dannet, the former head of the British Army. Let's start with you, Hamish to Bretton Gordon. Thank you for joining me on the show.

what is your reading here of the potential threat, which President Biden in the United States expressed a few days ago, that this is the nearest to Armageddon we've had since the missile crisis, Cuba missile crisis back in the 60s. Do you agree with him? Is that kind of talk dangerous? Is there a likelihood that Putin could use nuclear weapons, of any kind? Well, I think there's a danger of frightening people against reassuring them.

I was in Syria in 2013 when the Obama red line disappeared with a massive chemical attack in Goethe. And I think that emboldened Putin. I was also around Aleppo in 2016 when the Russians and Syrians fought for four years conventionally and failed to get anywhere. But 15 days of chlorine barrel bombs, they won. So this unconventional warfare is something that Putin understands. As John and you've described, the conventional fight is. is failing. I do not agree with Obama that we're facing Armageddon. I think there's Biden. It was Biden.

It was Biden. Apologies. There are too many checks and balances in place. He can't press the red button at a whim. But I do think the issue of battlefield nuclear weapons is something that he could use, but I think we can prevent that. And the other area is weaponizing nuclear power stations like Zaporich, which again they've threatened. I would like to see NATO be much more here. I hope that Biden and Truss and others are saying to Putin, if you move your tactical nuclear weapons close enough to Ukraine so they can be used, we will prevent them being fired. How do we do that? Well, these are on launchers, big trucks, they're going to have to move

a couple of hundred miles, I expect to get them in place. And with our precision guided weapons, these are NATO ones, not Ukrainian ones. We could stop them being used. We could stop them being used. and hopefully the threat of that. You would blow them up? Blow the vehicles up. What happens to the weapons they carry? Well, without getting too much technical detail, the weapons don't actually weaponise themselves

till they're fired. So if you blew up the thing that was carrying them, that wouldn't detonate the nuclear weapons? There might well be contamination, but it would not be very unlikely to create a nuclear explosion as if it was used in the manner that it was supposed to be used. Okay. Let me bring in Lord Danette.

I mean, just to even be discussing nuclear weapons is frankly pretty terrifying for most people. When you've got the President of the United States talking about potential Armageddon, if this situation is not rapidly cooled, what is your response to this? Where are we, do you think, in reality with Putin? Well, what we're seeing is the reality that Putin is experiencing in the present moment. He is lashing out in a fairly, well, not fairly, in a very ill-disciplined way. and his reaction to the Crimea bridge attack with the 80-odd attacks right across Ukraine is a sign of desperation from him at the present time.

Now, the question that you're debating is whether he would be tempted to go nuclear. Hamish has pointed out the difficulties that he's got. But actually, think about another practical element. If he was going to use a tactical nuclear weapon, and Soviet, now Russian doctrine, includes battlefield use of small nuclear. weapons. He would do it in a situation whereby the Ukrainians had suddenly broken through and made a big attack. Now, let's say it happened in the north on the sort of Harkiv axis. If he was to use a weapon against a Ukrainian formation, he would be striking them and killing a lot of Ukrainian

soldiers, but in one of the provinces that he's just actually declared to be Russian, so he'd be radiating part of his own country. So he's really got to weigh that one up himself. But I think the other point is that we've seen the Americans in particular supplying very sophisticated, long range, very accurate weapons, but there are further weapons that are available that if he was minded to use a tactical nuclear weapon, we could, we don't have to reply with nuclear weapons ourselves, we could use conventional weapons of huge lethality, range and accuracy. I've said it before. I think if I was a sailor in the Black Sea Fleet, I would not sleep very happily in my bunk tonight, because frankly, if we chose to sink ships or all the ships

of the Black Sea Fleet, we could probably do it. So there is potential pain of a conventional nature that could be visited on Putin, and he's got to weigh that up. Is he crazy? No. We have to hope that he retains a sufficient degree of rationality to actually work out that it is not in his interest to use nuclear weapons. But what is our moral position here, given that he, He has just reigned indiscriminately 80-od missiles from very long range all over Ukraine into civilian areas, schools and health centers and so on, killing innocent women, children, all his usual targets. At what point do we have a moral duty to do more than simply arm the Ukrainians and actually get directly involved ourselves? We keep being told we can't get involved NATO because he may nuke us. But if actually the reality is he's unlikely to do that, why aren't we actually engaging with Russia more directly?

Well, I don't believe that that is the right response. The right response is to go on doing what we're doing and do even more of it. Yes, you're quite right. What is our moral position? Our moral position is to be outraged by the attacks that he's carried out today, and he may well be minded to carry out again in the future. But that outrage, that moral outrage, has got to be translated into a determination to make sure that the Ukrainians have got even more weaponry of a greater sophistication, sufficient ammunition,

also provide air defence systems to protect themselves from incoming cruise missiles and missiles such as came in today. But the main point is, and John Sweeney was pointing this up earlier in his film, the Ukrainian army is now prevailing on the battlefield, and we've got to help them maintain that momentum. The weather may change, that may well have an arresting aspect to it. But the Ukrainians, the balance of force has switched from the Russians to the Ukrainians. We've really got to go on supporting them, arming and training them. And training is so important. There are, as I'm sure your viewers know, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers being trained in the United Kingdom.

And they're being trained in such a way that they can go back to the battlefield and they can be successful. Whereas the conscripts that are being drafted into the Russian army are getting very poor equipment, very poor training. frankly, they are just going to be cannon fodder. We've got to back the Ukrainians to continue their momentum, to continue their attacks, to push the Russians at least back as far as the positions on the 24th of February and possibly even further.

Lord Dana, as always, thank you so much for your commentary. Much appreciated. And to you, Hamish for Greg and Gordon. Really appreciate you coming. Thank you very much. Well, still to come, Nicola Sturgeon says that she has no regrets after saying she detests Tories. But is that kind of divisive,

rhetoric, really what should be acceptable. Ian Blackford, who is the head of the SMB, Denner Westminster, joins me next to discuss. And we'll pull a rabbit from the hat as superstar magician, Hen Gillette, joins me live in the studio, always a lively guest. We normally end up arguing, I'm just not quite sure what about tonight.

Well, welcome back after the train wreck of the Conservative Party conference. Today was the termed the Scottish National Party to set up their vision for the country. But Nicola Sturgeon, that vision's a divided one. The SMP leader got a standing ovation for saying a new independence referendum should go ahead next year, but her speech was overshadowed by comments she made to the BBC's Laura Coonsberg yesterday.

If the question to me is, would I prefer a Labour government over a Tory government? I detest the Tories and everything they stand for, so it's not difficult to answer that question. And here she is, well, today, doubling down. Will I apologise for saying that I don't support and don't much like the policies of the Conservative Party? No, I won't. I've got a duty as First Minister to stand. stand up against those policies. Nicola Sergian, thank you for joining us.

It wasn't exactly what you said, though, was it, First Minister? You didn't say you detested the policies of the Conservative Party. You said you detested Tories. Well, joining me now is the leader of the Scottish National Party in the House of Commons, Ian Blackford, and my pack for tonight, entrepreneur and farmer, Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, fresh from our joint appearance on the BBC Question Time show,

woman newspaper editor, Emily Sheffield, and lawyer Paula Rohn. Adrian, welcome to all of you, a stellar pack tonight. Thank you for joining me. Well, thank you for coming all the way from Westminster. It's a pleasure. To West London.

From Aberdeen via Inverness. Exactly. I appreciate the long journey you've made. Nicholas Sturgeon saying she detests Tories. She can pretend today she said, I detest their policies. But we all heard what she said on the BBC. She said, I detest Tories. Politics is about passion peers, isn't it? We're all passionate.

You're passionate. The rest of the panel are passionate. I think there is genuine anger about the impact that Tory policies I've heard in Scotland. You know, we had a report last week from Glasgow University as a consequence of austerity. There have been 20,000 excess deaths in Scotland over the last eight years,

300,000 out of the UK. I think that's where you get justifiable anger. I don't think... Do you detest Tories? I don't. I don't. No, I don't. That's not a value that I think is a...

Vladimir Putin? I... Well, okay, so there are limits. I want that man gone. I want that man held to account. I can happily detest him. But my point is, should anyone... in Nicholas Sturgeon's position

actually say on the record I detest everybody who votes conservative. No, of course not. Reminding me of Hillary Clinton calling Trump supporters a basket of deplorables. That's not what the first minister said. I mean, you had the clip and I think for me there's a very clear inference there. It's about

Tory policies, about Tory politics. And you know, well, something what she said, that's my point. She actually said, I detest Tories. No, she didn't say Tories. Here, she said, the Tories. So there is... I detest the Tories. Exactly. What's a difference?

No, there is a difference. It's a clear difference, isn't it? And you and I understand all that clear differences. You're a lawyer now dealing in semantics. And everybody else who is reasonable understand what the difference is. I detest the Tories. She's talking about the party. That's what she's talking about.

She's not talking about an individual. Who's in the party? So, but look. Wait on, who's in the party? People. Right. Who are these people? She's talking about the party.

I'll come to the pack who are breaking ranks in a moment. But what the first minister did say in that? interview yesterday that of course she would work with the Prime Minister where it's permissible to do so all of us have to work together but I mean the fact is I gave the example of the excess deaths but you know we're in a situation that we what's you wrong though to use the phrase I detest the to look people there is genuine anger about the impact of Tory policies and scholars I'm not going to share the anger yeah but was your boss wrong no to use such an inflammatory rhetoric and let me point out today is a year

anniversary since a conservative MP was murdered look and all of us right now second MP to be murdered in five years. So all of us rightly call out any kind of abuse which is meted out to anybody, whether it's a politician or a journalist. And I think it's incumbent on all of us to raise the standard of our political discourse. But that doesn't mean that you can't have robust to be. What's your wrong to use that phrase? I think, look, in the context of what I said to you about, you know, the excess deaths

that I talked about, the fact that we don't have... No, I get all that. We don't have an agreement. But what's you wrong to use the phrase? I think in the context of everything that's happened, I think it's appropriate for the the first minister previously. But people will behave in their own way. I will certainly point out.

Hang on, she's, hang on, look. I will point out the damage. She is your boss. She is my boss. She's the leader of the party. She is indeed. And she's now said, I detest the Tories. She didn't.

I thought you yesterday distanced yourself a bit and said you wouldn't say that. Now you appear to be saying you would say that. No, I'm not. I was asked a question yesterday, but I would speak in that way. I'm a different person. I fully support. How are you different from her? You know, all of us are individuals.

All of us behave in a different ways. That's what makes life. You clearly think what she said was wrong. No, no, no, no, that's not what I... She wasn't wrong? No, I'm not saying that applying at all. Look, what I'm saying to you is that the Tories... You're tying yourself in linguistic knots here, Mr. Blanche.

The Tories have an enormous damage to Scotland. I've given you that example. The situation that we're in... I completely understand. I think... For what is worth... I think the Tories have done a lot of damage down here. Never mind in Scotland, right?

But I wouldn't say that I detest the Tories. Because actually, there's a large, large number of Tories. I detest. the impact of Tory policies in Scotland. That's a different statement. But in essence, that's what the First Minister was referring to. It's the outbursts of the... Is it irregretty that your whole conference has started with a debate about

what she meant by this? Because it must be, it must be annoying. I think we've had a very successful conference and I think what I hope we now do is we concentrate on the arguments for Scottish independence. Well, we'll come to that. We'll come to that. But what's finally, just one last try, was she wrong to say, I detest the Tories?

No, I fully respect the right of the First Minister. Let's play it again and see if you feel comfortable with this. This is what she actually said. The question to me is, would I prefer a Labour government over a Tory government? I detest the Tories and everything they stand for, so it's not difficult to answer that question. Okay. I detest the Tories and everything they stand for. Everything they stand for. That's quite a statement.

Everything they stand for. So the Tories stand for democracy, free votes. Do you genuinely stand by that statement? Or could she have phrased it differently? I want to get to a situation that we can have respect. Is that respectful? Well, look, we've got a situation that they, Prime Minister of the UK has not met with the First Minister,

hasn't met with leaders of the opposition. I'm not surprised she just says she detest the Tories and everything they stand for. Then look at the kind of things that Liz Truss was saying in the Tory leadership election campaign as well. So let's have a sense of balance and proportion to... We could go a long way, to be honest, to get into that you want to get to. I applaud you for want to get there. If people like you who actually run the SMP down here in London, if you just said, you know what, actually the First Minister shouldn't have used that phrase.

It doesn't help when a leader of a party uses such inflammatory language about a whole body of her opponents. When you've got a situation that electricity bills have doubled in a year. I can all that. Many people are facing poverty. No one's questioning any of that. When you've got the increase in mortgage costs that are going to come through, of course that people are angered by the impact of the party policies. So say what she said today, which was very cleverly crafted differently to what she said on Sunday, what she said today was, I don't like Tory policies. Our beef is what the Conservatives are done to Scotland,

and that's where the debate should be about. Attack the ball, not the men, women? To use a football term, then I absolutely agree. You and I are football fans, and that's exactly what we should always be doing. We finally got there. Wilfred Emmanuel Jones, businessman, founder of the Black Farmer,

we were on question time. We had a similarly torturous route to an apology, from Nadine Zaharwe. Let's have a look at this. What I haven't heard from anybody at senior level in this party in the last 10 days, is one word sorry, sorry to the country for what you have put the country through. You want to say it?

You said that her... One word, isn't. No, I'm going to tell you. I'm going to tell you. Liz said, I've listened and I get it. You cut and you move forward. We've got 24 most... One word. Wait, no, hold the second. What would Vladimir Putin want us to do? He wants to be divided right now because he's using energy. Oh, come on.

Because he's using energy. Come on. Maddie, people are laughing. Countries around the world are having to raise interest rates. With respect, what does this have to do with a simple apology to the most people for the train rate that has happened in the last 10 days? I just said to you, Liz, in her conference, he said, I get it and I changed the policy. Of course. I'm sorry. Thank you.

What we got there in the end. You've still got time. Indeed. On behalf of the party. You seem to have called a taxi for a minute. Let's turn to our pack. Wilfred, I mean, I have to say, I would have respected Nicholas. I do respect her as a leader.

I think she's extremely competent, probably the most skilled political leader we have in the country. And I've always felt that. And she often comes on and faces the music in tough interviews, which again, I respect. But I have to say that when I heard her use that phrase, I winced. And when I heard her doubled down by pretending she'd said something else, I thought she was being extremely disingenuous. And I would respect her more if she simply said, you know what, on balance. Having thought about it, I shouldn't have said, I detest the Tories.

I actually detest a lot of their policies. You tried your best tonight to get an apology. And you've demonstrated that you're not going to say any more to it. But there's a serious issue about this. It is dangerous language. One of the things that I'm getting really concerned about in terms of our politics is the aggression. To say all these nasty things may some idiot, some nutter,

as we've seen happening in the past, may take a cue from your leader and then think that would be an excuse to go and do something pretty nasty. When you see politicians are now being attacked, I was up in Birmingham and you just see the aggression coming from people. Now, if it's allowed that the leaders who use that sort of language do not apologize, in a sense that's giving people a permission to start using this sort of language.

It's a serious point. These are really important matters. And I've spoken out on numerous occasions over the last few years about where our political discourse is, the threats that are there, the deaths that we've had of two MPs over the course of the last few years, and all of us, individually, collectively,

have got a responsibility to raise the tenor of debate. Especially your leaders? Yes, and of course. But I think, you know, in the context of the question that the First Minister was asked, it was an appropriate way for her to respond. But look, I want all of us to... I'm only surprised about one thing

that actually you don't just say, I don't think she should have phrased it all of that because I know you yourself have now said you wouldn't have said such a thing. So you clearly believe it's not a right thing to say. No, no, that's not the case, Pierce, because everybody has the own way that they behave. I personally wouldn't do that because that's not

the person I am. Because you know, I, you know, given the person I am in the language I would use, I would hope that what's wrong with saying about that. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Why wouldn't you say it? Because what I'm saying is the First Minister is reflecting on what she sees as the impact of Tory policies in Scotland.

I'm just surprised that you wouldn't say it because you clearly think it's wrong, but you don't think it was wrong for her to say it. I detest what is the outcome of the politics of the Conservative Party in Scotland, and I want to have that debate about how we change things for the better. But, you know, I think it's because there's lots of really important things

that we need to discuss, and of course we need to make sure that people are safe. Let me be absolutely clear about that, and the obligation we all have been in that. Isn't it incumbent on all leaders to dial down the rhetoric? Yeah, I think so. You know, I said that I think it's wrong that our political discourse has been coloured. But, you know, I'm not going to talk about me, but you know the kind of abuse and the threats I've had

along with other... I do. I also know you said in July this year, candidates hoping to replace Boris Johnson make Genghis Khan look like a moderate. Genghis Khan, just for the benefit of viewers, was responsible for murdering 40 million people and reduced the entire world population by as much as 11%. Would you stand by your comment? Look, and a guy, you have to look that in the context of what I was doing at Prime Minister's question, and it hasn't exactly worked out well the changes that have taken place with the leadership of the... Well, it's been... Well, you know, if...

When you compare politicians to mass murderers on scale of millions of people. I didn't certainly compare anyone to mass murderers. You called him Genkis Khan, it's made him look like a moderate. So presumably, 40 million is moderate. I'm trying to answer your question, Pierce, because at the end of the day, Genghis Khan was quite a right-wing individual. And the fact is that we've had a neocon right-wing agenda from the... Conservative Party over the last few weeks, which has done enormous damage, the fact that the

Bank of Ingan have to step in, the fact that the interest rates are going in, the fact that... Listen, I agree with you about all this. So there's huge damage which has been done. I agree with her about this. I just think on the... I think that quote in the context of what has happened. Is it not also worth bringing up that a number 10 aid also referred to Michael Gove as a sadist this weekend? I don't think... I think there needs to be a dialing down everywhere. We've just come through. I honestly, I think it's so abhorrent to the electorate as a whole that we're seeing people who are meant to be leading the country, throwing insults left, right and centre.

These are people who are meant to be representing us abroad. And here I am. I have to say, I'm shocked that I might be sticking up in this line of argument. But the irony of being on peers uncensored and asking you, are we censoring Nicholas Sturgeon? I'm not censoring. What she did, what she did was she spoke. I'm not saying she's not allowed to say it.

I'm surprised at him. without how she felt. I'm very surprised that Ian Blackfield wouldn't say he thought it was wrong when he clearly thinks it's wrong. No, I don't think it's wrong. You think it's wrong? I mean, I plain, I think, in the context of...

Well, you wouldn't say it yourself because you think it's wrong. Yeah, you know, because everybody has their own way of expressing themselves, and I think the First Minister was absolutely right in the context of the question that she was asked. Well, I mean, I've explained that, you know, people use language the way that they think is appropriate

and it was entirely appropriate for that question. I've squeezed a lemon hard enough. You have done. Before we let you go, just quickly on Scottish independence. What is the end game here if you don't get to where you want to get to? I saw a Clystergian at the weekend basically saying, you know, if the Supreme Court doesn't rule in your favour, then you're going to use the next election result as a validation of independence.

But that's not how this works, as you know. You can't do that, right? Well, look, at the end of the day, when I mention about respect from Westminster, and the fact is the SNP, we haven't had a conference for three years. We've won the last three elections. We've actually been in power in Scotland since 2015. And you didn't win the referendum,

And you're no nearer really in the polls to the Scottish people agreeing with you about this. Well, two things, if I may say so. One is if you look at the polling last week, actually, support for independence was up. But I get the point that we have got to show demonstrably that people in Scotland want to become independent. I think we've won the right to have the referendum. One of the things we did over the course of the last few days, because I know you all want to talk about how we pay for it, how we make Scotland a successful country, I've published a plan. Oh, my God.

That looks absolutely interminable. Well, there you are. You see, you give you some details, and you think it's in terms of. I'll have a good read of your landfall plan tonight. I will. I'll email it because I'll need to get that one. But the point is, this is a plan to increase our green energy output, 5-4, 385,000 jobs,

$34 billion of an investment into the Scottish economy by the end of the period, putting people to work. That is a, if I may, paraphrase, that is a plan for growth. And your position remains, as far as I'm aware, the SMP, that you are implacably opposed to what the UK did in leaving the European Union, but you are also in placid be opposed to staying in the United Kingdom? Well, because the things that we need to do... You understand the slight contradiction to people who are not as well versed in the semantics.

Let me say to you that in every decade since 1850... Stronger in a union, weaker in a union. Well, that's not true. Because every decade, since 1850, Scotland's relative population within the UK has declined. I want to break that. I want to change that. I have a plan which is based on economic growth that will create opportunities, drive up living standards. Well, you know what? And we'll become a beacon for success. I'll say this here in, Blackford, about you.

A, thank you for coming in. And B, just by having that plan, that looks a lot more detail than the one Liz Truss and Quasi Guarthein had last week. Indeed. I congratulate you on at least having something in front of us. Appreciate you coming in. Thank you very much.

We'll keep the pack here. We're going to talk about Kanye West. We're going from one rebellious troublemaker to another. He's been suspended by Twitter and Instagram over anti-Semitic tirades. What does this mean for free speech? When does it become hate speech? Is it right that he's been no back for?

Plus the much bigger half of legendary duo Penn and Teller, rock star magician. Pend Gillette is live nonsense. Well, back with my superstar pack. I want to read you a tweet from Kanye West. It's led to him being deplatformed from various social media entities overnight. He said, I'm a bit sleepy tonight. But when I wake up, I'm going death con three. And he spelled death, D-E-A-T-H, con-3 on Jewish people.

The funny thing is I actually can't be anti-Semitic because black. people are actually Jew also you guys have toyed of me and try to blackball anyone whoever opposes your agenda. His Twitter account's now been removed, his account's been locked. So, Paul, my question of he is twofold, really. One, is it right, it's been platformed? And two, when he says I can't be anti-Semitic because black people are actually Jewish too, what do you make of this? Okay, so answer to your question, number one, absolutely he should have been de-platformed. What he was saying was completely out of order, inappropriate, broke every policy

that any normal natural human being would want in place in terms of protecting you, in terms of any racism, prejudicism. So absolutely right to have Deepak-Bont him. Can I just add a B to that? This man is clearly not well.

Why is no one seeing this? I think people are seeing it. Just heartbreaking to watch this. Yeah, right. Listen, I agree. But, Emily, the problem is he's got millions and millions of followers on social media. He is clearly going through some kind of episode, I think, from his behaviour in the last few days. So is there responsibility there for the social media platforms to make that kind of judgment call

about people in the public guy who might be having some sort of episode? I think that's a very hard thing to get into because then you're asking, then you're asking them to start judging what someone's mental state of mind is. Is it right that he's going to be asked? I think because of what he said, yes. It's purely anti-Semitic. I don't see how, if they allowed that through, we can't then complain

when they allow sort of, you know, we've just had a case where they've met as being accused in Instagram of allowing a young girl to see people killing themselves. You can't have one and not the other just because he's famous. Wilfrid, we actually had children at the same school.

So we go back a long way. And this Molly Russell case has been very close to my mind with the Kanye incident actually, because I do think social media companies have got to be a lot tougher now about what they allow to be put in their platforms. Because, for example, when I ran a newspaper,

if you publish something like this in your newspaper, you'd be in serious regulatory trouble. So it seems to me they have no choice. But there are people all over social media today saying, what about his right to free speech? If he wants to say that, why can't he? I don't believe in censorship. So this sounds very controversial, but I don't.

because one of the things that struck me was the interview you did with Andrew Tate. Right. And I just think what we need to do is that we need to trust people to be making the decisions rather than somebody else saying we don't think this is good enough for you to see.

Okay, so let me put you to the test, all right? So imagine if I started tonight's show by saying, I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up tomorrow, I'm going DeathCon 3 on black people. Okay, so what I would do? Now, hold the second. So what I do, I would say,

my editor would say, right, we're going to put this program in and then you'll have an announcement. There may be things in this program that some people might find... I've done it live. I've done it. Twitter's lied. He just put it up. Wilfred. By the way, he hasn't done... He hasn't done... He said DEF. He said DEATH.

That's a clear threat. But there are... If I said that about black people, or if at any type of people, but black people, for example... I don't think your view about... Don't censor it would have stretched that far, would it? There are... People know there are certain people that's going to be controversial.

They come and they're going to listen. It doesn't mean they can say whatever they want. That's not what free speech it means. When I'm not talking about free speech at the moment, what I'm talking about censorship, you will know that there are certain people that's going to have a view. So if you decide to listen to that person

knowing they have a view, well, that's your problem. What I want to do is that I want to leave it to people to make their decisions rather than some authority. That means anyone can say anything they like on social media. Is that your position? And Wilkins, you can't have it both ways. You said, Nicholas Sturgeon,

needed to dial down on the rhetoric. Well, yes, but she's a politician. Now we have this man who has nowhere near as much influence as Kennedy West. Exactly, exactly. But do we know he has influence? With young black males? Huge influence. Because people are, it's a bit like Andrew Tate.

Go back to that interview again. He has huge influence. That's why I interviewed him. And therefore, people are making decisions based on whether this guy was talking sense or do you think most of the people who saw that interview would have thought this guy was right to their head? But Emily, let's come back to Emily. On this, it seems to me, this is a clear threat.

making here. We don't know what the reality of that threat is, but I'm going deathcon, spelled D-E-A-T-H-3 on Jewish people. I just don't think that should ever be allowed in a public social media platform. And they're private companies. They can do it alike. And I would normally be hot on the case of censorship. But to me, this is just pure hate speech. I think it is. I mean, not I think. It is. And as I said earlier, I don't think you're going to have one rule for one person because they're famous and we're all sitting there going, fine, we all know it's Kanye

not feeling very well. I agree. Because then how can, when Molly Russell's dad took the case against Meta for why his daughter was seeing these images which they believe then led to her

committing suicide, you've then got no protection. Absolutely. And so that is the problem. I think that's the problem. But it's really, when you have extreme arguments, it's very easy,

You know, it's for me, who decides what is censored? Well, I think, I think, I think, honestly, anyone that reads that from someone like Daniel West, that to me crosses a line. It's not a difficult question to answer. We decide what should be censored. We're blatantly racist or anti-seating, you're encouraging people by.

We decide by whether we actually listen, whether we watch, rather than telling, rather than somebody says, you are not allowed to answer and telling that. I hear the point, and I've argued that many times myself, There has to be a line, though. But who decides on the line? Well, I think we all know what anti-Semitism looks like when you're making threats against Jewish people.

And we know the history of Jewish people. But we have laws as well that you can't wander around the street yelling racist or anti-Semitic things. So it follows that Twitter, which essentially is a platform which allows you to shout at lots of people, that there's got to be some of those same laws in place. We've got the perfect person to talk about this. Pend Gillette, one of the world's great libertarians.

I talk to him after the break about all this. It's a really interesting issue. Where does free speech meet a speech? And what do we do about this? Thank you to my superstar pack. Great to see you. Thank you very much indeed. Pend Gillette next in the studio.

There he is. The great man, he's here. Well, welcome back. My next guest is Magic. He's one half of the legendary duo Penn and Teller, a global TV superstar. He offered a new crime novel, Random, a Pendjolette.

Great to see you. Good to see you. It's good to see you. It's great to have it. First of all, what I talk about Teller, your great friend, co-star, has just had... 47 years. Big heart surgery after a holiday.

He had a quadruple bypass, and I got to tell you, shook me up more than it did him. Two days later, he was in physical therapy. Where were you when it happened? He was at home in Las Vegas, and it's really remarkable. As I was walking out of the...

He's in a rehab facility, where they're doing physical therapy. All the nurses took me aside and said, we've never seen anybody like him. He's like a week ahead of where he's. he should be two weeks ahead. And I said, well, he's tough. Yeah. He's going to be okay? Oh, yeah. We'll be, we'll be back into November, December.

It's scary for you as his friend. Oh, terrifying. Terrifying. Did you think for a moment you may lose it? Well, there was no reason to think that, but I thought that. You know what I mean? All your fears go through your head. Yeah. Well, please send him my very best. I certainly will. And on behalf of all the viewers, too. It's great. So much to talk to you about. But first of all, this issue of Kanye West, what he tweeted, being no platform, this whole issue of social media censorship. What's your view about it? It all comes down, as usual, to me being wrong. I remember being in a seminar at MIT at the end of the 80s, early 90s, talking about how when you'd had total free speech and everybody had access

and looking at this as kind of a utopia, I had never crossed my mind that we'd find a way to monetize shock and hate and outrage. And once you've got those, and they're algorithms that are in place. to monetize that. I don't think, of course, he should not have said that. Should he be no platform for it? These are private organizations. They can take them off and they probably should. Or not you think?

Is it the right call? Where do you think that line with free speech and hate speech begins and ends? I think that if you're talking morally, it's absolutely reprehensible and should never be said. Who decides that it shouldn't be said is a hard issue? But the real problem seems to be much deeper in that we found a way,

to reward that kind of thing. And of course, with our mutual acquaintance, Donald Trump, we saw that that got rewarded and rewarded and rewarded. You know, I don't care what they say about me as long as they talk about me. That was always kind of nonsense, but now it seems very close to being literally true. Should social media firms like Twitter,

like Facebook, like Instagram, is an awful case of this young girl who was bombarded with imagery about suicide and depression because she was looking for stuff about suicide and depression. And in the end, the court ruled that it ended up contributing to her taking her life. It seems to me it's a bit of a wild west still. When you run a newspaper, it's regulated.

You run a TV show, they're regulated. But the social media is just completely lawless, it seems to me. The whole thing is there's got to be a way to change it so that that's not rewarded. And I don't think it's really tough to say we want to have a board or a government. doing this, but private companies. I mean, Twitter can have anybody off there they won't. Of course, they can do what they want. You can allow anybody you want on your show. You can decide. You're deciding all the time who's not in a way. It's a form of censorship. By who you decide to have enough? Yeah, you've decided that 7.6 billion people won't be on your show.

What's going to happen with your country in the next election? Is Donald Trump going to run again? Should he run again? Would it be good or bad for America if you know? We've actually had one candidate run for President while in jail. It was the communist candidate in the right after the First World. Really? You can legally run in the United States. Should Trump run again? Would it be good or bad for America? For America?

Terrible. Awful. I mean, we worked with him. You and I, I think, that one of the... Many things we agree on, some we disagree on, but many things agree on, is he was wonderful as a television character. But did either one of us think he'd be a good president? I'd never thought he'd be president a million years.

No, neither did not. In a way, his instincts were pretty good. The rhetoric was a lot of the problem with Trump. Well, what I think was the problem was the complete and utter lack of shame. Yes. I don't think he has a shame valve. No. I don't think he has an empathy valve or a shame valve.

He certainly got a lot of support from people. Never heard him sincerely laugh at a joke that wasn't at someone's expense. And more importantly, kind of poetically, never saw him tap his foot to music. Did you ever see him like... No, but now you mention it, that is creepy. I totally agree. It's really creepy. Talking of people tapping their feet to music,

you're about to replace Simon Cowell on Britain's on-Tammerer Christmas special. I'll get a hundred ways to now. I'll do my shirt-month. I mean, you're far too good-looking to replace Simon Cowell, aren't you? It's one or special at Christmas on, Britain's Got Talent. Sitting in fact probably in one of the old chairs I used to sit on as a joke. Yes, yes, yes, and it'll be a two-hour Christmas special, all magicians, and I think I know all of them.

So it'll be wonderful because they really shoot magic very well. And I've seen the list of who they have on. and they are wonderful. Brilliant. Well, it's strange, isn't it? How our worlds collide. I've interviewed you around the world. You're now going to be judging

the show I judged for four years, and it's great to see you. And I will try to fill your shoes. Good luck for random, the book. Oh, thank you, sir. Our hair is great. It's great to see you. And send all our very best to tell it, please.

I certainly will. Good to see. That's it from me. What are you up to? Keep it on sense. Good night.