Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Poor Paying for Climate Change, China's Xi, Woke Police

Episode Date: August 29, 2023

On tonight' episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and debates whether the poorest are paying for climate change. Rosanna looks into should we be bending the knee to China's Xi. Also Rosanna discusses how 'woke' are the police. 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

Electric car mandates across Europe. Can our poorest pay the bill for tackling climate change and should they have to? The UK's Foreign Secretary heads for China to reset strained relations as a slew of US officials are criticised for bending the knee to Xi. But aren't we supposed to keep our enemies close? We'll debate that. Plus, as police are told to ditch the rainbow helmets and get back to policing, should coppers be fighting culture wars or sticking to fighting crime?

From the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Good evening, welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood in the chair for Pierce tonight. Now, our capital city, London, is now the world's largest low emissions zone. I think that's something to be proud of, but I know many of you think otherwise. I'm talking, of course, about Mayor Sadie Kahn's expansion of U-LES today, costing drivers of older vehicles. non-compliant ones, at least £12 50 extra to move around the city every day. Painful? Yes, horribly painful for some. But that's how deterrents work. And this whole thing has become about more than just air quality, traffic cameras and London.

It's become about money, privilege and hypocrisy. In this brave new Ulau's world, you're either pro-motorist or anti-motorist, which means you're either on the side of hard-working ordinary people or you're not. We know. We know that people in power who make unpopular decisions about the way we live often take planes and they get driven around in big cars in order to do their jobs. They are not struggling to get to work or running a small business and we want to see them suffer too to practice what they preach, which they're telling us to do, what they're legislating us to do. And we could actually insist on that in the way that we vote. We could choose the leader that uses a bicycle and wears hemp clothing. But for many reasons, many of us don't.

We could also insist the cost of tackling climate change gets heat less on ordinary people and more on those still profiting from the stuff that is causing all of this fossil fuels. That would be very worthwhile, but again, we don't do that. So instead, we have to sit with the fact that sometimes in life, difficult decisions will be made for us by the people we put into power, decisions about our health and our future. And we should be reminded of and aware of our privilege to shout about these decisions, as loud as we want, which is going on at the moment, very much so with you, Les. And we have the power to vote differently next time, if we so choose.

And we should remember that some people in other countries would seriously envy us that. And I think that is something else we can be proud of. Well, joining me to debate the cost of the climate crisis, policy director of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, Bob Ward, and talk TV presenter Richard Tice in the studio. Down the line, Professor Judith Carey, climatologist and author of the book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Rethinking Hour. response. Thank you all three of you. Richard, I'll come straight to you. I know this is a topic

close to your heart and you've been down there at some of the protests today around you, Led, and you and I do not agree on this topic. Yeah, sure. The question is, does London have a toxic air problem? And a simple answer is no. The quality of London's air is the best it's ever been. According to who? According to everybody who looks at this, according to the World Health Organization, we've got our city of London is in the best 25% of city. around the world. The data clearly shows at the roadside, across most of London, we are within World Health Organization guidelines. The only area where it's toxic, Rosanna, that everybody seems to forget, yourself included, is the tube where it is brutally unhealthy.

Of course it's unhealthy on the tube. It's a Victorian infrastructure, and we all appreciate that. If you look at the World Health Organization data, I've used the monitors, the meters. You walk around London's roads, and particularly in outer London, and we are below the WHO guidelines. We don't have an air pollution problem in London. With all due respect, I will come to you, Bob, because I can see you're shaking your head. With all due respect, Richard, you're a politician and a businessman, but not a scientist. So we will come to the science experts shortly on this. On the politics side, I'm interested to know why you're pegging your political movement so much to this,

when there has been so much polling that shows a lot of Brits actually really do care about climate change, and they want to see the Conservatives do more. Don't confuse London's air quality with climate change. different point. You're talking about what is the quality of London's air. It's the best it's ever been. I'll tell you why, because this is what people care about in London. And this is a tax grab on the poorest, the least well-off, small businesses in London. And that's the point. And you don't seem to care about that. Of course I do. Of course I do, Richard. The cash grab point I want to come to Bob on shortly,

but it is about climate change because emissions necessarily fit into it. It's about the air quality in London. It's the data, and the data shows we're within the World Health Organization guidelines the best it's ever been. Bob, please. Go ahead. Bob, come and join us. So what Richard's saying is completely untrue. The air is monitored by a group at Imperial College London. The last set of data was for 2020. So remember, it was a year when we had the lockdown in London. There was not a single site across London where the levels of particulate matter and of nitrogen.

The two main air pollutants were below the limits set by the World Health Organization, which is 20 micrograms for nitrogen dioxide. So it's completely untrue to say that the air in London is fit to breathe. It is dangerously high. Has it ever been better than it is now, Bob? Has it ever been better? The answer is no. It's the best it's ever been.

Richard. It's not toxic air. You're down. You claim that the air was within WHOL. And it is. That is completely untrue. I've been around with the meters. It says it's healthy. Richard, you and a meter is not a scientist.

It's a world health organisation approved meter, Rosanna. Have you done it? Do you know what you're talking about? No, because I'm not a scientist. I wouldn't know how to read a meter. You don't have to be a scientist to walk around a road with a meter. Richard, you have to have the meters stay in the same place and you've got to measure them over a year. You can't just wander around join the afternoon and think,

I'm doing science, this is the answer. It just doesn't work that way, Richard. So how does it work? How does it work? When you do it day after day and it says it's healthy. Bob. They're the experts. They publish the data.

Go and have a look for yourself. Has it ever been better? Has it ever been better? Gentlemen, we have... It's above the WHO limits. We have somebody else in this discussion, Judith. She's listening in to all of this. Judith, you take a slightly different view I know

from Bob in terms of... of the climate emergency, but do you think you, Les, is warranted? Well, this is just classic seeing this disagreement. Both statements from both sides have elements of truth, but both are wrong in not recognizing the other side. So what you have, when the facts are disputed and the interpretations of the evidence disagree, well, you try to find common ground.

You focus on, you know, what are some sensible policy? without having to rely on agreeing on, you know, uncertain facts. And, you know, the climate change issue is this in spades, the U-LES, is a microcosm of this disagreement. But with regards to climate change, we have to recognize that we have the climate crisis isn't what it used to be even a few years ago. The worst emissions scenarios are now off the table. The UN Conference of the parties are now working off of a 2.5 degrees centigrade warming by the end of the 21st century, and we've already warmed by 1.2 degrees. The IPCC admits that the climate models are running too hot. Recent estimates of the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are increasingly lower.

But the biggest problem is we've confounded the slow creep of warming. with extreme weather events. The extreme weather events that we're seeing have little to no relationship with the slow creep of global warming. So we need to. Okay. Thank you. I love the topic of climate change. It's so interesting, but it is also so confounding because you've got three people, four people in fact, in this conversation coming at it from all sorts of different angles and people saying this data, no, that's wrong, this data, that's wrong. Bob is shaking his head now to what you were saying with regards to warming. And I know that in terms of the way, where the climate scientists stand on this issue.

You are somewhat of an outlier in this, aren't you? Not really. What I have to say is, well, within the framework of the IPCC assessment report, it is not within the framework of all the alarming rhetoric coming from the UN, journalists and alarmist politicians and environmental advocacy groups. I mean, we have a deeply complex, highly uncertain issue that we're trying to deal with. and the oversimplistic story that were being fed by UN officials and by activists and advocates is just misleading us into a bad direction

for urgently implementing policies that could be worse off. What's the scheme, the strategy to do that? Okay, this goes back decades into, you know, there's a worldview from the UN environmental program back in the 1980s and 1990s, you know, about DIGO. growth, anti-capitalism, and so on. So there's a worldview that likes this. And very early on in all this, in 1992, we had a treaty, an international treaty,

to prevent dangerous human-caused climate change by eliminating fossil fuels before we had any evidence of unusual warming. So the policy card has been way out in front of the scientific horse from the very beginning on it. We need to step back and rethink all this. Thank you, Judith. Go on, your thoughts. Well, Judeus is told an amusing revisionist history of the science of climate change.

The fact that we are on a lower temperature path is down to the fact that many countries are now cutting their emissions. And so we are seeing that the movement is towards lower emissions in many countries, including the UK. UK has reduced its emissions greatly since 1990. We need the emerging market in developing countries, countries like China to reduce their emissions now. So that's a good thing. But we're nowhere near on a safe path. And Judy is incredibly talking from the United States at the moment.

There's a big hurricane out in the Gulf of Mexico, which they're expecting to develop and intensify rapidly before it hits land in Florida. That intensification is linked to the fact that the sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico now are very very, very high and they're very high because the earth is warming. And Judy is saying, oh, well, it's got nothing to do with extreme weather. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go on Judy.

I am a real, genuine expert on the issue of hurricanes. I forecast them in my company. I'm an expert on the climate dynamics of hurricanes. There is nothing unusual going on with the hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico right now. It happens every single year. Judy disagrees with the national oceanic and atmospheric. She's an expert. Rosanna was wanting a scientific expert. There you have one. She agrees with the American scientific establishment. She's out on her own on this.

She's not on her own. There are hundreds of hundreds to agree with. It's absolutely not true. With the statements made by the NOAA GFDL statement on hurricanes and climate change. Okay, it's completely consistent. You're saying that there's no link between rapid intensification and climate change? No, there is not. Well, I'm afraid you're on your own again, Judy. But this is really important. This is the important. This is the, The point, scientists disagree with each other. Yeah, which allows a vacuum for people to meet with the data. No, it allows debate and discussion and challenge.

Which is what we're doing. Not what we're saying. The world meteorological organization and the IPCC did not find any evidence of an increase in intensity in the observational record or an increase in rapid intensification. Do you have you published your paper explaining that there is no link between. the rapid intensification of hurricanes and climate change? I am citing right now. I do fundamental research on this. I am citing the IPCC and the World Meteorological Organization assessments.

You are off base here. No, I'm not. I'm citing exactly what the literature says, Judy. And as you know, you've not published anything that has shown that there is no link between intensification and climate change. This has been a brilliant. example of why this debate is not going away. Why is such a heated issue even over these U-leds cameras here in London? Because, you know, as Richard, yes, you point out, there is not

consensus on this issue. That's why we're having this debate. That's why I'm open to hearing all sides. But that's why we must always have these debates and we must not be smeared and labelled. But you have to tell the truth, Richard. You have to tell the truth that you haven't told the truth. And you haven't told me the truth about it. You haven't admitted that London's air quality is the best I'm happy to answer. I'm happy to, but it's still dangerous and it's still above WHA. Answer me a simple question. If you pay £12.50, right, to drive your car in the new U-LES extended zone, right, how is that

going to help change the pollution? Don't you agree? The police should pay, the police that's the principle. So you don't care about the poor, you're so selfish, you're so rich, you don't care about the poor, the list will off the floor. Richard, really. Are you richer than me? Come on.

Richard. I work at a university. about the poorest in London. You should be ashamed of yourself. Richard. You don't care about the poor. You can't tell the truth and you lose the argument what you do. Poor people can't afford a 20 or 30 grand car. There's 2,000 pound scrapage scheme of 2 gram which makes no difference whatsoever. Scrappage scheme should be more generous and it should be the government coming in and helping. There's no such thing as government money. It's all our money. It's taxpayers money.

London's air quality, particularly announcers that is the best it would be. I think I think wealthy people shouting that, you know, other people don't care about the poor. He doesn't. He doesn't. He doesn't care about the £12.50. Those who can't afford it, Rosanna. That's what he's just admitted. Look, we have to wrap up there. We have a lot more coming on the show.

Gentlemen and Judith, down the line with us as well. This has been fascinating. New it was going to be spicy. Thanks so much. Not sure we found consensus. Not sure if we ever will. But we have had a discussion, haven't we? Unsensored next.

As the British Foreign Secretary heads to Beijing to reset relations with China, we ask if any bending the need of President Xi is fraught with Welcome back to uncensored. Now, it has been announced. The British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, is going to visit China this week in an attempt to stabilize an increasingly turbulent relationship.

He has promised to raise concerns over human rights, rising tensions about Taiwan and the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong. China is, of course, a major trading partner, but it is increasingly a geopolitical pariah. Indeed, critics say any bending of the knee to President Xi sends the wrong way. sends the wrong message. Now, one of those critics is former leader of the Conservative Party, Ian Duncan Smith.

Ian, thank you for making time to talk about this, quite simply. A trip by Cleverly to China. Not a good idea in your books. Why? I think it's a waste of time. It's interesting because just quite recently, the German foreign minister came back

from a visit to Beijing. And she said, when it comes to anything to do with human rights or social issues, all the terrible things that have happened, genocide, etc. They're just not listening. She said it's like talking to, I think in effect, she said, it's like talking to a brick wall. They're not giving anything back. They're just way too finished and they only want to talk about the things that matter to them. And if you're not prepared to talk about those, then your meeting is quite short. I mean, the problem we've got

is we're dealing with a country is enormously powerful now. We basically fed it in that direction. I say, by the way, I should give it a declaration. I am sanctioned by the Chinese government and so are my family. So the reality I have here is that this is a government that has committed genocide, is committing genocide in Xinjiang, slave labor regularly. Many of the products we buy are slave labor involved in them. They threaten to invade Taiwan regularly. They've invaded the South China Seas against the UN's edicts. They trashed the Sino-British agreement. They're arresting peaceful democracy campaigners. They trashed the Christian churches. They have been doing organ harvesting on the Falun Gong in China.

It goes on and on and on. This is a regime that is redolent, I think, of the Nazi regime in the 1930s. And we learned then the hard way that appeasement to organizations like this simply doesn't work. You have to be very clear and obvious to them that there are downsides to behavior like this, which is beyond the pale.

Those are some very, very stronger words, ways to frame it in. Of course, you're in terms of opinion on that. And it's a huge breadth of expertise on the issue as well. that you've listed all of those points there, Taiwan, the Uyghurs, what's happened to Hong Kong as well. I hear all of that. I spent the last two years over on the other side of the world in Singapore reporting on the economics of China and Asia as well.

My surprise at coming back to this side of the world is that people don't seem to be taking it very seriously the threat of the emergent China. In fact, it's too late now. It's already emerged. But in terms of it being an economic force, we can't ignore that. It's likely to overtake the US in the next decade

as the world's largest economic superpower. Can we afford to not have a relationship with it? Well, first of all, I don't think it will. Maybe seven years ago when people thought it would, that was a possibility. But China's economy is now in a real mess, to be quite frank with you. But the key thing here is you're right. It's interesting that you're in Singapore. But the reality is we're not ignoring them.

What we have to do is we need to treat with them on the basis it says, we're not prepared to bend our knee to you or to give you an inch when it comes. to the brutality that you serve out to those inside China and outside China, and you must abide by global rules that we all agree to, like the World Trading Organization. You will know then at your time at Singapore. China regularly trashes those rules. They subsidize businesses. You know, the telecoms industry was massively subsidized in China, Huawei and others.

That's why they've pretty much got rid of most of the free world's telecommunications companies, because there's no money in it for them. This goes on the whole time. So it's not just in human rights, it's elsewhere too. And so I think it's very important. A relationship with China, as America shows, can be done on the basis where you are very clear and you sanctioned those officials who behave appallingly, which America has done, which we fail to do in this country.

We haven't sanctioned a single person and administrator in Hong Kong for the trashing of the sign of British agreement and the brutality of their meeting out now. America's sanctioned 10, and they didn't actually run Hong Kong. And when it comes to Xinjiang, we've sanctioned three low officials, America's sanctioned 12, including the most senior. So, you know, other countries manage to have a relationship on the basis of robust, direct criticism, and we shouldn't shy from it, but we are shying from it.

When you lay it out like that, it makes me wonder why we're having this different type of relationship, why the lack of sanctions if you think they are so warranted and necessary, which I'm inclined to agree with you on a lot of those points. And in terms of that insight you got from the German ambassador that went over and what they found out in terms of the negotiations, is it any point at all going to the meeting? Because what's the UK got to offer China? Why would they listen to us?

Well, we've got a lot to offer them because China's busy with their spies inside the UK. We have a lot of technology here. We also have a lot of involvement and links in security and intelligence with the United States. We are a global player. But the problem is we play ourselves down in these matters. So our universities are inundated now with Chinese post-grad students. They're definitely completely in hock in terms of money to them. We have the Confucius Institute now checking up on Chinese overseas students,

scaring them out of debates and meetings. They shut down debates inside some of the universities when they're critical of China. This goes on here in the UK right now. We have false police stations, Chinese police stations. We had the people being hauled into the compound in Manchester of the consular general and beaten up in front of the police. All this stuff tells you that this is a regime that is very like the regime in the 1930s.

What we have to do is be honest and clear and straight with them about what is not acceptable and public. And say, until you change your ways, we simply cannot cooperate you on the basis that you may wish to. Ian, thank you very much for setting up this conversation for us. Some interesting insights there. For more on this now, we're going to debate with China Reporter

and the author of Beijing Rules, Bethany Allen. and the author of the coming collapse of China, and China is going toward Gordon Chang. Both of you. Thank you, Bethany. I'll come to you first. I hope you were listening to those comments there by in Duncan Smith. Obviously, we're coming at this from a sort of British viewpoint. You're based in the US.

You've got a lot of expertise covering China, especially from Taiwan. When you hear all of this, do you think there is any point for the UK to have a relationship with China? Well, look, I think what we're really debating here isn't engagement. Governments talk to other governments. the world can't function well if that doesn't happen. The problem is that previous government policy has given engagement a bad name. In the past, engagement was synonymous with naivete, with giving up on key democratic values and interests without getting anything in return.

This was engagement from a position of weakness, and that is what Britain had, that's what Germany had, that's what the U.S. had, this belief that we had to give things up simply to get a meeting that getting a meeting was enough of a takeaway and that we didn't really expect anything in return. And if China promised something, we didn't check up on it. We just believed them. That's a position of weakness. But engagement, talking with Chinese government leaders

from a position of strength can be a powerful tool. And just think about it. That's why the Chinese government pushes for it in the first place. They always want to talk with people because they do it from a position of strength, knowing that they are not going to back down on their own core interests and knowing that they can walk away from a meeting if they need to or if they want to. And I think what Britain's mistake has been with China

is too often approaching China alone. And I think that that's something that Boris Johnson began to improve on. And I think that Rishi Sunok can improve on this, understanding that when cleverly goes to China, if Sunak meets with Xi Jinping next week in India, the G20, that they aren't alone, that they have a growing number of light-minded democratic partners and allies on their side who can help back up their demand,

back up their statements, and back up our own democratic interests. Engagement can be a powerful tool. And it can also be a powerful tool to prevent the absolute worst-case scenario, which is miscalculation. misunderstanding resulting in a military conflict. And as, you know, our governments don't talk to one another, the risk of something like that happening gets higher and higher. That's why, you know, this debate about dialogue is happening,

because if you don't, the results can be absolutely catastrophic. I just want to bring Gordon into this. And Gordon, you've been listening in as well. And Ian was listing out a series of threats he sees not only to us here in the United Kingdom, but other allied countries as well. How big a threat do you think China is to the West? China is an existential threat to the West. Xi Jinping has been propagating this notion

that China is the world's only sovereign state, and you just go on from there. The problem is that when cleverly goes to Beijing, the Chinese are going to view it as Britain acknowledging its supplicant status. And that's what they do with American officials. The Biden administration is sent four senior officials to China without a return visit from a Chinese official to Washington. So the Chinese say, well, look, this is like Imperial Times

where the vassals come and they acknowledge their subordinate status. And I think that, yeah, engagement sounds like it should work. We've been trying it for five decades. It's just created this horrible situation. We got to try something new. Because if we don't try something new, things are just going to get worse. Now, I'm not saying that something new is going to be better, but at least it guarantees us, or at least it gives us the possibility of success,

whereas engagement has totally, totally failed. So what other alternative way are you proposing? Well, first of all, we're not going to send anybody to Beijing. If China wants to talk to us, they've got to come to Washington. And also, I think that if we don't talk, you know, China has this policy of not talking to Americans, for instance. Well, why don't we adopt the same thing? just not talk to them. Let them get scared for a while.

But also, I believe we need to decouple from China. China is closing itself off from the world. Xi Jinping is engaging in some very belligerent behavior. I think that, as Ian Duncan Smith said, the Chinese economy is tumbling down. That makes Xi Jinping, I think, acting in ways which will be reckless. So we now need to change our emphasis from talking to China, to starting to defend ourselves from China.

Bethany, just bring you in on that, the idea of decoupling and maybe just saying, look, if you want to speak to us, come to D.C. Does that work? Well, I don't think that works either. And to be clear, I think it's incredibly important that any kind of conversations, any kind of so-called engagement,

has to come with tough actions. And that's something that we are seeing from the Biden administration and that they're building on from the Trump administration. And that's something that increasingly we've seen from Britain. Although I will say in Britain's case, what we've had, I think, is a bad relationship with China. But as Ian laid out, not many actual strong moves to support democratic values. And so I think that there's an opening here for SUNAC to have a tougher policy on China and also talk to the Chinese and also go to Beijing, as cleverly is going to Beijing.

But to your question, Rosanna, about decoupling, look, we don't want full decoupling. That's not possible. Economic decoupling is not possible. It would cause, you know, vast poverty around the world. It would greatly increase the risk of a military conflict between China and democratic nations. However, I am strongly supportive of the idea of a selective decoupling to promote democratic values. So decoupling from companies that are deeply complicit in China's authoritarian and totalitarian state. and also selective decoupling to promote national security interests

as, you know, the UK banned Huawei from its sensitive telecommunications networks. Great idea. And I also think something we haven't done that we need to is increasingly use selective decoupling to promote human rights. This is something that we have actually done very little of with the exception of sanctioning some individuals, which is symbolic but has no real world effect. Bethany, Gordon, Ian, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Unsensored next. London's Met Police Chief says it's time for officers to stop publicly supporting so-called work causes. Is this a return to good old-fashioned crime fighting or a blow for social justice? Welcome back to Uncensored. Now, over the last few years, images like this have become somewhat familiar when we talk about police officers across the world in Welk in the UK. Met Police Chief Sir Mark Rowley wants to see an end to it, he's saying. Black Lives Matter, pride, those types of events, a range of other social and cultural issues.

From now on, his officers will be told not to take the knee to not fly rainbow flags or wear badges that support environmental causes. So is this a return to good old-fashioned policing, as some are suggesting, or is it a backward step to a time when the police were seen as enemies by some minorities and marginalised communities? Here to discuss all of this former police officer of 31 years and director of the law and order. the Foundation, Norman Brennan, in Scotland, strategic advisor, on equality, diversity and inclusion for Police Scotland and former Harringay Police Commander, Dr Victor O'Lyssa. And from Los Angeles, we're joined by former BLM activist

Xavier de Rousseau to talk about this internationally as well. But I will begin with Norman here in the studio, Norman. You know, you're a copper of the sort of traditional order, I think I can call you that. And you talk a lot about policing now. What do you make of this move to basically de-woke the police force. Well, I fully support the MEC Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. The long and the short is that when you join the police service, you join to police

all communities. You're there for everyone and everyone. There's nobody that you favour in part on one over another. That's why all police officers may act impartially. And we're told to police without fear or favour. So my main concern is that you should join the police service, wear your uniform, stand straight and strident, kneel to nobody, buckle to nobody. And the only time you kneel or buckle is when you're saving someone's life who's having a heart attack or someone that has been shot or stabbed and you're placing your hands over to try and save their lives. Apart from that, where your uniform, smart, the same uniform. I don't want to see police vehicles being painted, all sorts of colours,

and you certainly don't kneel down to anybody. And I think the few officers that did, Neil, including one chief constable, will never be doing that again. I just want to pick up that point you made about without fear or favour. I found that interesting because in journalism, we use that phrase a lot. Being a good journalist means doing so without fear or favour.

But of course, journalists are biased. It gets pointed out a lot. Everyone has personal biases. Police officers on the job. They're professional, no doubt. Many of them are, but they are going to have inbuilt biases depending on their upbringing

and the way they feel about certain topics. So there have been complaints throughout decades of ethnic minorities saying that they felt that they weren't treated fairly by police officers. So do you think any kind of social justice causes helps that? Well, to be quite honest, if you, you say that many black people I deal with, I don't look at their colour. Yes, they are black. When I grew up in Wembley, I was known as the white black man.

In my rugby team, there were 13 black players and two white players. So I grew up with the black community. I went to school with them, and I policed with them, and I policed certain areas of London that were black. And do you know what? I policed without fear or favour. A black robber, or a burglar at early hours of the morning, stabbed me in the chest when I tried to arrest him

for committing three armed burglaries. He didn't stab me because I was a white policeman. He stabbed me because he was trying to get away. I didn't arrest him because he was black. I arrested him because he was a robber. So I think all this stuff that we keep hearing in the media that the police pick on black people or gay people or anybody else, there may be a handful, but I promise you this,

you've probably got one of the best, but sadly the weakest police service that we've ever had. But they're the most tolerant we've ever had as well. And I'm afraid tolerance sometimes hasn't worked well in their favour. Interesting stuff. I want to bring in Victor to this now. He's been listening in. Victor, you're very involved, diversity and inclusion.

In the police force, you're listening to those comments from Norman now. Do you agree? No, I don't agree. There are far too many things that I don't agree with what Norman has just said. And I'll actually start before I go on. I serve 35 years in the police service. Roast to the rank of Chief Superintendent and served in some of the most challenging places.

I've had a privilege to serve in some of the most challenging places in London. and I'm proud to have been a police officer. Let me start off by Norman saying he doesn't see colour. I think you ought to. I think every single officer who polices any public area should see colour, should see difference, should respect difference. And when we start saying we don't see colour, we don't see difference, that's where the problem starts.

Now, Sir Mark has been very clear that the police as an institution, the met as an organisation, should not be linked to any causes. But that's not the same as an officer who has his or her authority under the crown as a constable. Can't show empathy, can't show respect for people who may be suffering or people who have suffered or whose community have suffered and injustice. That is very different from actually having a political cause. And as a police officer, one of the things that you ought to have going on the appealing principle that we're here to protect life, first and foremost, is to be able to show. empathy. And I think it is wrong to start quoting woke activities, being walk about anything, and not being a public servant that shows empathy and understanding. And when officers start doing

that as individuals as an organisation, we talk about the good old days of the cop going back to policing and solving crime. Police have never been particularly effective in solving crimes without the public. And if we start saying that some of the areas in which police face the greatest challenges are those areas where people from different protected characteristic lives. If we can't make, we as an organisation can't make contact, relationship, build trust with them, then we're not going to get, or the police are not going to get the information that they need to solve crime, to be effective, to be efficient, and to earn the trust of all communities. Victor, thank you. Norman, I'll give you a chance to respond shortly, but I want to bring Zavier in on this,

listening in from across the pond, the Atlantic, and the Black Lives Matter movement, of course, that started that police taking the knee and many other people as well. What do you make of the decision then to try and stop this activity within police forces, Zabye? I think it's a great decision. Police officers need to get back to basics.

Stop worrying about being woke and start worrying about being strong. Because I've been black for 26 years and I have great relationships with a lot of law enforcement officers. That's because they don't view me as a skin color. They view me as a law-abiding. citizen because that's what I am. And look, I live in Los Angeles, California. I don't even wear my glasses in public anymore because I have seen enough. There is so much crime across

our nation because we have a shortage of quality police officers to protect our communities. The reason we have such a shortage is one that defund the police movement, and more significantly, police officers are treated like crap, both by the public, but especially by their department heads. And that's only going to worsen if police officers keep being. inserted into political discussions. So to avoid that, we need to police officers to be just like most professionals in the world and hold the political views until they are off the clock. It's not a police officer's job to enforce their opinions. It's a police officer's job to enforce the law. Norman, there you go. Xavier agreeing with a lot there, but Victor also calling you

out for not seeing color. Well, Victor is doing exactly what we're all concerned about. He's saying that we should look at black people and look at them differently. I'm telling you know we shouldn't. I'm saying that we should stand up and we should police all communities without fear or favour. And one of the biggest criticisms against the police nowadays

and I was a police officer for 31 years on a robbery squad for six years is that the number of black suspects or black people, young men particularly, that are stopped in search. Well, when 73, 74% of all street robberies, murders and stabbing are committed by young black men often on other black men,

who is it? that the police are meant to be stopping. 50% white people to satisfy the black community and 50% of the black community to satisfy the politicians and the woke brigade. Or if seven crimes out of every 10 of knife crime, homicide, gun crime, is committed by young black men.

It's they that we should be targeting. And how anybody can say that is racist, it's beyond me, unless, of course, you stop someone and the connotations of your, words or conduct are racist. We have to give a final word to Victor on that. Victor, unfortunately, we're short of time, but give you an opportunity to respond. No, of course.

Norman is talking about a small part of London. There are people that commit knife crimes in other parts of England. They're not black. They're not 70%. People who commit offences, commit offences because they are committing offences. Not because of their colour, not because of the nationality, not because of protective characteristics. You should police regardless.

And if you don't see colour, you don't see difference, you don't see empathy. You don't take into account that black people, as you just said, Norman, you look at the stop and search data, they're disproportionately stopped and searched wherever you go in the UK. That's saying, as an institution of policing, black people are criminogenic. That is absolutely wrong. You need to see difference. So actually police difference. I'm not saying you should mark out people, giving privilege treatment, but you should, understand that by seeing difference, then you stop stereotyping,

you stop acting in a way that disadvantages them. Police him without fear or favour, whether you're black, white, or male or female, the long and the short is the majority of police officers do not get, do not get the support that they deserve because the majority, honest, hard working, caring, non-violent, non-racist. But unfortunately, the narrative tells everyone difference. I'm here to speak up for the front line, tens of thousands of honest men and women that are called racist, off-door or misogynics,

Mr. Norman, stop it. Majority of police officers are not called racist. The majority of police officers do a good job. There's a handful of police officers who behave badly. Let's talk about those officers, dealing with those officers. Let's don't categorize 99, 99% of police officers, men and women who do fantastic jobs, who see color, who see difference, who show empathy, who are the best of public servants and the display.

All three of you. We'll agree on that point. Let's end on that agreement. Unfortunately, straight at our time, but we do want to get all three of you back to continue this conversation. It's been really interesting. Thanks all three. Uncensored next tonight, the Spanish football kiss scandal lingers on. Now some are saying it's part of an anti-man agenda. Are they right? We'll debate.

Now by my pack, the political journalist Abys Santina and talk TV presenter Richard Tice. Rejoins us after a spy. Nicey start to the show, Richard. I love disagreeing with you. Let's have some more disagreement then, and this time about Notting Hill Carnival, a debate that comes around every August when it happens because there are incidents of violence when it happens.

In fact, we were just talking about policing. It's a challenging time for police officers in the Capitol, but it necessarily reignites this debate every year about whether it should be cancelled or moved somewhere else entirely. But of course, there's a huge cultural heritage point about having it in London, Ava. Well, I just think that the argument is very simple.

There were 2 million people there, so obviously there are going to be some arrests. When you look back at the London Olympics, there were 250 people arrested. Last year, there were 2,000 football fans arrested. And in the police itself, the police, there were 90 people arrested last year. So what does that mean?

If you're going to get rid of Notting Hill Carnival because you're worried about arrest, well, then we can't host the Olympics again. We're going to have to disband the Metropolitan Police, and we also can't host football matches. I just think it's a silly comparison. Well, I think actually what we could almost agree, on this, maybe what we should do is say

it's so popular, so many Londoners and people love it, but actually it is quite dangerous, it's completely uncontrolled within those very tight streets. Maybe what they should do is try it for a year or two, perhaps in Hyde Park, so you can still get that wonderful carnival atmosphere, but in a slightly safer environment that's easier to steward,

easier to police, and therefore I suspect a hope would be a lot less dangerous. But you would lose all of the culture of it, because the point is it's got to be on those streets. No, you've got all that joy, that colour, There was wonderful floats, the passion, the love. All of that. You know, we always have arguments.

Have you been, Richard, to the Notting Hill Carnival? I was worried you'd ask me that. The honest answer is no. I'm not sure it's my gig, but I know it's a great gig for many, many, as you say, millions of people. But the police officers, they dread it because they know it's dangerous. They know it's difficult to police. They know it's going to kick off at the back end. I just think maybe you've got to be prepared to, of course, but you've got to be able to try,

If something's really dangerous, maybe say, should we try something else? See if that works for a year and learn from it. And if it doesn't work, try something else. No more football matches in central London. I think we've solved it. Talk of football matches. Let's talk about the Spanish kiss scandal, the story that's not going away. And, you know, Spanish prosecutors have now launched this sexual assault investigation

to Luis Rubialis about the kiss. And Jenny Mercer, I feel like we've gone at this from 15 different angles over the last few days across the media. But one we wanted to run by was this video from the weekend. This is Irish jockey Sean Corain being kissed by female owner of Live in the Dream Jolene. She ran into the sort of enclosure, smacked a kiss on him. I mean, he looks pretty happy about it, but of course she's seizing his head doing it. And it did raise the question, what's so different, Ava? Yeah, I mean, I don't know why she's done that.

Maybe, I don't know, maybe she was having a really good time and it's a bit ill-advised, isn't it? But look, I think there's something to do with the power dynamic, right? So what was going on at that football match? you know, they've just won the World Cup. This is a man who is so powerful and so important and is now defining this woman's career in a way that it shouldn't have been defined. But it's more than that. He's actually brought football in Spain into disrepute.

And he's turned a massive success for women's football in Spain and for Spanish football at a broader level. He's just destroyed it all. He's ruined it. And he hasn't even had the nowse, the courage to do the decency thing. So, look, I didn't mean it, but he hasn't apologised. he's just, he's actually trebled and quadrupled down. I think it's a catastrophe for Spanish football.

Absolute catastrophe. Yeah, it says a lot about the court of public opinion as well because I think most people, I say 95% of people can appreciate this sort of stupid thing to do and he should go for it. And then there's that small minority of men who've come out to defend him and it's sort of given a good red flag

to every woman out there. Like, these are the men to stay away from. Do you think there is, you mentioned power dynamic, Ava? I'll dig into it just a little bit deeper. Do you think it's a difference when a woman plants and unwanted kiss on a man? Look, I don't know. I think in this scenario, it doesn't seem, it seems a bit lighthearted and a bit fun and he looked to enjoy it. But look, who am I? I'm not him, and I don't know how he felt about it.

I just think the best advice I could give is probably don't kiss someone unless they've consented to it. Richard, is there such a thing as an unwanted kiss from a woman if you're a man? I'm not sure there is, no. I speak for myself, isn't it? Where are we going with this? I don't know. But I just had to sense check that because I think that is, I mean, we're laughing. about it, but of course it is serious. I think for women it's very different. There's a lot of unwanted

sort of attention for men. For men, there is a slightly different dynamic going on. The power dynamic, it is different. But if you've got it wrong, just admit it. I mean, people much prefer you say, I'm really sorry, we messed up, got this one wrong. But it's become an absolute disaster for the whole relationship. The whole football team has quit, for heaven's sake. And completely overshadowed that amazing World Cup win as well. That is it from us. here in the studio. Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored. Good night. The all-new Toyota BZ-4X isn't just any all-electric SUV. It's powered by 25 years of electric innovation. Experience the freedom of a 24-hour test drive and enjoy 0% APR over 36 months

when you order. Available on PCP over 36 months when finance through Toyota financial services by 2nd of October. Optional final claimant. Indemnities may be required. Test drive subject to availability, see website conditions apply. With her new iPhone 14 Pro Max and its game-changing true depth front camera, Mary can take a perfectly focused group selfie with the new friends she made on her diving holiday. Capture your clearest and most colorful close-ups

with iPhone 14 Pro Max. Available now at Vodafone from £49 per month and £49 up front. That's £144 saving. Vodafone. Ends 31st of August, safe on 24-month, 8 gig air time.