Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Prince Andrew's comeback? and is China flirting with danger?

Episode Date: May 23, 2022

This episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored sees former Conservative MP Louise Mensch defending Boris Johnson saying he hadn’t lied to Parliament. It also includes a fiery debate with Lady Colin Campbell on Prince Andrew's comeback, joined by Katie Nicholl. Additionally, Piers asks whether China is flirting with danger following President Joe Biden saying the US would intervene militarily to defend Taiwan if it came under attack from China. 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

Good evening on Pierce Morgan, uncensored. First tonight, breaking news, sensationalist, these photographs of Boris Johnson, having what appears to be an illicit party in Downing Street, which seems to prove that he lied to the British people and to Parliament. Also tonight, should Prince Andrew weasel his way back into the Royal Spotlight? Should wolf whistling be a criminal offence, plus the man who ate a big Mac every day for 50 years?

Spoiler alert, it wasn't me, though I wouldn't have minded if he was. it was. But first, it's my brain down. Well, I was planning to start tonight's show with the impending report on illegal lockdown busting parties in Downing Street, which is finally due any day now. Feels like we waited longer for civil servant Sue Gray's report than the sequel to Top Gun. But now it's here.

It looks like it could be every bit as explosive. But in the last few hours, sensational photographs have been published by ITV News, which, in my view, render the report, well, frankly, superfluous. It's now pretty clear that Boris Johnson hasn't just lied to the British people and the media. He's also lied to Parliament.

Here's a clip of Boris Johnson in Parliament last December. He was asked a direct question about a specific party. Prime Minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on the 13th of November. Mr Speaker, no

but I'm sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all time. Well, we all just heard him, right? I mean, he said very clearly when he was asked, was there a party on November the 13th? No. He said that to Parliament, to the country.

And he said the rules were followed at all times. But the photos published tonight show him at a party on November the 13th. Leaving drinks held for Johnson's former spin doctor, Lee Kane. Now, remember at the time, the country was in its second lockdown. Pubs were closed. Gatherings of two or more people were banned. Here is Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, the man who made the rules,

a glass raised in toast, bottles of booze and party food on the table. And there, next to him, a government-red box with all his prime ministerial papers. What was in that box? More details of new pandemic lockdown laws for the rest of the British public to obey? Boris Johnson was always very clear about obeying the rules. Mr. Speaker, we expect everybody in this country to have. obey the law. Right, expect himself, right? Apart from him and all his staff at Downing Street. It's not very clear that a lot of people in the corridors of power of number 10 Downing Street,

led by the guy at the top, ignored their own rules and broke the law. Boris Johnson attended illicit parties and then he lied about it. And we now also know that two weeks ago, he had a secret meeting with Sue Gray, the very woman charged with investigating him and his staff. And when the meeting was exposed, the one they hadn't bothered to tell us about, Downing Street briefed it was all her idea. Then today, Downing Street admitted, actually, it was their idea. So they lied again about a meeting that Boris Johnson wanted with the woman investigating him just before the report comes out.

I'm supposed to believe this is an independent report. Well, Sue Gray must now publish the report in full, including every one of the 500 photographs of parties he said to have collected. Let the public judge with our own eyes and make up our own minds because tonight one thing is crystal clear about Partygate. We can't trust a word that comes out of a Downing Street frat house about this whole tawdry affair. We're talking of tawdry affairs.

Prince Andrew continues to shame the British establishment. He was rightly stripped of his honorary titles and the designation of His Royal Highness in public after settling his civil sex abuse case out of court for a report of $11 million. The payout for Virginia Dufre, who claimed the prince assaulted her when she was to 17, made no admission of guilt. But Andrew had said he was determined to fight the case to the end and clear his name. And then he just caved and wrote a big fat check.

That decision obliterated his reputation and heaped embarrassment on his mother the queen, and it tarnished the monarchy severely too. It should have been the end of Andrew's a public figure, but it seems literally just a few months later he wants to come back. the Queen, remember, banned him and the Sussexist from the Buckingham Palace balcony at next week's Jubilee celebrations. And that looked like he was being frozen now. But incredibly, the comeback seems on. First, he emerged centre stage at Prince Philip's Memorial, riding with Her Majesty of the Queen

and then walking her into the Abbey while all the world was watching. Now reports over the weekend say he'll appear alongside the Queen at Garter Day, one of the most important royal ceremonies of a year. He'll be listed on the formal royal court circular and dressed in full regalia as an official royal knight. The grotesque irony of Andrews starring on a day designed to honour chivalry won't be lost on his accuser, nor should it be lost on any of us.

It's frankly a disgrace that he will be going to that event at all, that alone is a royal knight. It will cause more humiliation for the Queen, more damage to the monarchy. He should be barred from attending. Well, the English football season reached a thrilling conclusion this weekend, but the final few days of action were marred by a series of. of horrendous attacks by so-called fans. Yesterday, Aston Villa goalkeeper, Robin Olsen,

the smack three times as Manchester City supporters invaded the pitch to celebrate winning the title. He'd just led in three goals in five minutes to give them a trophy. You'd think these witless morons would be chanting his name in delight, not attacking him. Last Tuesday, a boozed-up thug,

head-butted Sheff in United's Billy Sharp, as forest fans charged the pitch to celebrate making it to Wembley for their playoff final. Two days later, Crystal Palace manager, Patrick Vieira, was abused and goaded by Fowmouthed Everton supporter who was filming the entire thing on his own phone. Vieira eventually kicked out at the job, prompting calls for him to be investigated by authorities. But why? He never backed down as a player. Why should he back down to a sniveling little coward, hurling spittle at him? There's been a steady depressing increase in this kind of incident since pandemic restrictions were lifted.

Current punishments clearly aren't working as a deterrent. And the bottom line is that if these pitch invasions continue, Remember, it is a criminal offence to go on the pitch at all. Then we're going to see a player or manager get seriously injured or even killed. I would find every single pitch invader from this day on, £20,000 each with immediate effect and give them a 20-year ban from all football matches. That might sound draconian, but what other option is there? The party has to be over for these pitch invaders

because they have already ruined the party. Well, viral news now, and it's not COVID or M. monkeypox, but a rare outbreak of common sense at the heart of the British government. Officials have overturned an attempt to introduce gender-neutral language in a new law that would have replaced the word mothers with expectant people. New guidance has now been issued to ensure future bills will use gendered words that, well, correspond to a gender whoever they're talking about. That old, Chessna. This is a rare victory in the woke war on words, which is apparently designed to avoid upsetting a tiny minority whilst constantly enraging the majority. So what we have the attention,

of those in the corridors of power about this issue. Here's my uncensored guide to snowflake syntax and some other words I'm pretty sick of hearing about. Trauma. This used to be something you suffered in a car accident or after a life-changing event. Now apparently we have hidden trauma, racial trauma, gender trauma, collected trauma, trauma healing, trauma, survival, trauma bonding. It's not all trauma, is it? You can dislike something

without being traumatized. The other one's violence. You know this one. physical force intended to hurt somebody, right? Like those football yobbs attacking players, but not anymore. History is now violent. Silence is violent. Words are violent. But they're not, are they?

Violence is violence. Phobia used to mean something. It was an extreme fear of things. Now it just means someone says something you don't like. It's not Islamophobic, for example. If I say, I don't like women being forced to wear head-to-to-co coverings. It's not transphobic. If I say women are adult human,

females and not menstruating persons. Having a phobia means you're scared. The only thing I'm scared of are these over-sensitive snowflakes destroying our language. But first, back to our breaking news and those sensational new photographs that apparently show Boris Johnson drinking during a number 10 party during lockdown. A party he denied ever happened. In a moment, I'll be joined by socialist author Grace Bracley and conservative writer Esther Cracko. But first, let's talk to former conservative politician, author Louise Mensch. Munch, you're a Conservative Member of Parliament. You know Boris Johnson. I don't know how much you believed of all his denials about Partygate, but this picture, series of pictures released

tonight, seemed to me that even for the most devoted Boris supporters to be the nail in the coffin of his persistent lies about these parties. That's him. At a party, he said, never happened, drinking with bottles everywhere, food everywhere, having a party. Unfortunately, Peers, that's not exactly what he said. And if you roll the tape and go back to the clip that you had at the top of the show there, he was asked, do you remember this party on the 13th of November? Or can you confirm there was this party on the 13th of November, whatever the date was? And he looked blank and said, no.

He didn't, as you just said, as you characterised it, issue some sort of affirmative denial. It was clear that he didn't really know what she was talking about. He said all the rules. He said all the rules had been followed. And yet he knew he'd been at that party on a day when he himself, with his own rules, had ordered that no gathering of more than two people

could happen inside. His rules, he broke them. Did he? Let me tell you something about lying to the House of Commons. Let me tell you something about lying to the House of Commons, peers. You have to do it intentionally. You can't accidentally lie to the House of Commons. You have to say something that you know is for. false at the time that you say it.

If he believed that he wasn't breaking the rules, and trust me, the Prime Minister doesn't set these things up himself. He doesn't keep his own diary. He would have got a voice from civil servants. You can go to this leaving... But they were his rules. They were his rules.

Let's remember, these photographs may be new because Dom Cummings or his friend have given them to the newspapers, but they're not new to the police. I think the key point about these photographs is that Downing Street said that Sue Gray, the Metropolitan Police, had these photographs all along.

They knew about them. They may be new on the front page. They may be new to the tabloids, but they're not new to the police. Here's the problem that's happening tonight, which is you've got former deputy police commissioners, the Met Police coming out tonight, saying that they think this is very disturbing because they think it shows potentially

the police have not done their job properly because it seems such a de facto prima facie breach of the rules. And they're very concerned. So the police may come under huge pressure now to try and explain why apparently other people at that event have received fines, but not Boris Johnson, who appears to be leading it.

And you know what? I can't tell you that. That is a matter for the police. I noticed, though, that, forgive me, but you've shifted ground. You've already acknowledged that the police did have these photographs. So if the prime minister was not fined and he knows perfectly well, the police have had these photos all along.

They've been part of their investigation. It's just something that Dom Cummings has put out because he can't stand Boris Johnson. It doesn't matter where they came from. Why does it matter where it came from? In advance of the Sue Gray reports, these things have come out to make the headlines. But you've got no evidence

that the Prime Minister knowingly lied to the House at all. I'm literally looking at a guy. Louise, Louise, I've literally just played a clip, Let's play it again. Yeah, play it again. That's the picture, and here's what he said about that party when he was asked about it in Parliament. Prime Minister tell the House

whether there was a party in Downing Street on the 13th of November. Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, no, but I'm sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times. The guidance and the rules were followed, even though he needs.

knew that that was in the middle of a second lockdown when he went to that podium every single day and reminded us no gatherings inside of more than two people. So I'm afraid he's a liar. Whichever way you try and spin it, Louise, and I admire the loyalty, the guy lied to Parliament. He lied to the British people and I'm afraid I think his position because of these release of these pictures could very quickly become untenable. Senior Tories tonight are talking out against him. Scottish Conservative Party leader saying is completely unjustifiable. Other Tory MPs turning on him.

I'm just surprised you're not. I don't know the man personally, but I know what I just heard. And he was asked, can you confirm that this happened? He said no. He didn't say it definitely didn't happen. Clearly, if you look at the clip,

he didn't remember it. And honestly, we both know, peers, that Boris Johnson is a very ambitious man. He is, if you like, He's a very good man. He's a very disingenuous man. But he's a bit self-centered. Now, why would he knowingly risk his premiership

over a plastic glass full of warm wine? Why was somebody who's... Why would somebody who's... And so he did it. Why was somebody who's been fired from previous jobs for lying? Several jobs for lying lie again. Is that the question you want me to ponder? No, I just want you to ask yourself

if you just look purely at his self-motivation. He gets his guidance from civil servants, who keep his diary. Actually, I would say his motivation. If he believed it, was he lying? I would say his motivation was very straightforward. He didn't want to lose his job as prime minister, so he lied about the parties.

That's the motivation that I see on Boris Johnson. Is it somebody who thought like he's done his entire career, he could just wing it and be economical with the truth, and he'd get away with it. And he would have done with this, except that pictures tell a thousand. stories. You cannot look at these pictures and then play that clip and not deduce, in my opinion, that the Prime Minister of this country lied to Parliament. And that is an offence where you lose your

job. It is, if you knowingly lie to Parliament. Yeah. Again, it goes back to you. You say these are very serious. I say to you, the police had them all along, and the police did not decide to find. Then I would say that raises questions for the police, which I think are going to get very hot. I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Well, I'm joined now by socialist author, Grace Blakely, Conservative writer Esther Cracky.

Well, welcome to you, ladies. I just look at that picture, Grace. And whether you support him or not, a lot of people who have done are fearing at tonight, they're beginning to move their position. Because it's so damning. It's clearly a party, it's a leaving party for his former spin-docter Lee Kane.

You can see there's a lot more than two people there. The Prime Minister's a drink in his hand. There's bottles all over the table, food all over the table. That is a party. And just to remind everybody, this was a time when if, you know, people couldn't go to funerals. They couldn't go and see loved ones in hospital. People were dying on their own because of the rules set by that man who's having a party. He then told Parliament never happened.

To answer Louise's question, which is why would he do this if it was going to be so, you know, career-destroying for him? It is simply because he does not believe that the rules apply to him. him. As you said, he's been removed from many jobs before. He's been accused of lying. He's been accused of lying on, you know, multiple different occasions. Because as someone who was raised in the way in which he was raised, you know, accustomed to being able to move around society, to move around, you know, various different high political institutions, senior posts, without ever having anyone question his right to be there. He believes he deserves to be Prime Minister. He believes he deserves to make the rules, to control the country, to set the rules for everyone else. But that those

rules simply don't apply. Tough question for you, given your political allegiance. There's a picture of Keir Stama, who's the head of a Labour Party, and he's been under investigation for what appears to be a not dissimilar situation where he's having drinks for some of his staff. We know about this. Now, my question about this is that despite all his denials, Keir Stama was very, very, very clear that from the moment Boris Johnson was investigated by the police, Keir Stama said

he should have stood down. Why has the same rule not applied to Keir Stama now that he is being investigated by the police? Well, Piers, I mean, you know my political allegiances and you know that I'm not the biggest fan of Keir Stama. And I think, to be honest... You're labour. I am labour, but I think he's hoist himself by his own pitard in this situation

because he has sought to present himself to the country as, you know, this very righteous lawyer type who is going to go in and kind of, you know, make sure that the political class all obeys the rules and believes that kind of presenting himself of this stand-up character is what's going to win the elector over. Now, not only has that not worked,

because he hasn't presented a compelling message as to how he needs to change the country, he's obviously ended up in this, basically, one-sided suicide pact where he said to Boris Johnson, you need to step down and I'll step down if I'm found to have broken the rules. So, yes, I mean, Kia Stama's also messed this up.

We're suffering from a really severe dearth of political leadership in this country at a time when people are literally unable to focus on the family. I totally agree. This is a crucial. time with the country, and this is why this is also distracting, but also important. It's about trust. Esten, can you put out any defense for this? You're a conservative? Absolutely. And I, you know, I voted for Boris, but I've also been, I think, you know, in a country that, actually, if you

want to see your country progress, you should be very open about criticizing people, regardless of whether you're politically left or right. I don't think, obviously, Keistama and this beer gate is justifiable, but I think it's the same thing for Boris. I think what's worse for Boris is, it's clear, he lied, but also there's, there's, he didn't know the rules that he set for himself, right, or for the rest of the country. And I think that's what's more damning because I don't think he had any compassion when he actually looked at what he put the country through in terms of telling people not to be able to go to funerals, people not being able to see loved ones. So should you resign after this, I mean, if the rest of the report when it comes out,

the Sue Gray report, and I think it's very murky they had this meeting and have been, and he's been lying about even having the meeting, whose idea it was. But if the report is has a load more pictures like this. And Boris Johnson's involved in loads of these things. Should he just resign? On principle, he should resign, but he won't, right? And I think also there should be... Should conservative MPs have a higher moral bar than they're currently showing?

All MP should, including Labour MPs. I think what I'm seeing here is a huge lack of humility in our politics. It's okay to say we got it wrong. You know, this COVID thing happened. Everyone was scrambling for a solution. We clearly couldn't follow the rules that we set for you, so we don't blame you for not. not being able to follow those rules because we didn't follow them ourselves.

It's not just about morality, though. It's also about accountability. And this is actually a problem that goes to the heart of our politics. We have this idea of parliamentary sovereignty, and it's very difficult to really hold senior politicians account to account for anything. Historically, if this had happened to anyone else, they would have stepped down because there was a basic sense of kind of, you know, honor. It's really down to a 56 Tory MPs to decide if this reaches their moral bar.

And they know that. And you know what they know? They know that they don't have anyone else. Good question before we let you. Which is embarrassing, right? It is embarrassing. We can all agree on that, I think. I want to just quickly ask you about wolf whistling.

Very interesting piece in The Times today by a female columnist, Claire Foges. She talks about... I bring enough for you. Thank you, Grace. Thank you. I actually did get wolf whistles a little day on the street. I was actually flattened, but it's different for me. People won't believe you, but it happened.

A woman actually almost crumbled, but it was... But let me ask you. about wolf whistling, because the argument she put up was we shouldn't be criminalising wolf whistling, which is what is, at the moment, going through as a potential new legal bill, is that we should make it illegal to wolf whistle because it would be harassing women in public. Do you agree with it? Surprisingly enough, I don't, because I don't think we should be criminalising, you know, much more stuff at all.

In fact, I think we criminalise far too much stuff. And actually, if you look at the way that this is enforced, you know, we know that the Metropolitan Police has a problem with institutional racism. How is this going to get enforced? We see this historically. These rules, particularly around women, are generally enforced on certain populations when they're directed to certain populations.

I can imagine this ending up being something like, you know, why does stop and search happen? It's when the police smell weed and it's used as a way to criminalise black people. The same thing could happen here with, you know, ethnic minorities wolf whistling towards white women. Or even, Esther, I mean, do you get wolf whistled much or not?

I've never been, it might be. Really? Yeah, it would be nice to be wolf whistle that. But I think, but the thing is, one, this is unenforceable. But two, will women be prosecuted for wolf wrestling at men? Well, exactly. Because I know their instances, listen, I know men, young men that have had their bumps grabbed by older women. I know young men that have had some sort of what you would assume to be sexual assault.

But in public, by women, that thing they can take liberties with men because there's not that fear. But once it's a man doing it to a woman, because of these assumptions that it's obviously vitriolic and horrible and some sort of misogynistic violence, then all of a sudden it's a problem. Is intent a key part of this and the sense that I can imagine someone wolf-wisting in a very leering, unpleasant, quite intimidating manner

and being unpleasant with it? Or I could imagine a bunch of cheeky young builders on a building site, wolf-whistling, in a cheeky, non-threatening manner and thinking it's just a bit of fun. If you're attracted to the person wolf-wistling at you, that's not harassment. If you find them unattractive and they look like a toad,

that's suddenly... That's suddenly harassing. That's to be an aesthetic bar for the wolfways. And the line obviously can't be whether or not they're attractive. The line has to be whether the behaviour is consistently threatening. So someone's staring at you for a really long time is following you around and you feel scared. You should be able to, you know, it is more than wolf whistling. Exactly.

That is something that you should. Yes. If he wolf assort at you, would you go to the Met Police and be like, oh, the horror? Well, no, I wouldn't go to the police for anyone wolf whistling at me. But if they were like, you know, stalking me. You know, I remember Cindy. Yeah, I was. Cindy Crawford, the supermodel told me when she was 21.

She walked down Knightsbridge, dressed to the Nines, high heels, looking fantastic. And the entire street stopped. Cars stopped, builders stopped. Thousands came out. She was mobbed, right? And then I interviewed her when she was in mid-40s, and she went, I just walked down the same street

and nobody battered my lead. And she said, all what I give for a builder shouting at me now. And that was Cindy Crawford. Yeah. So, I don't know. You can be careful what you wish for. But listen, good debate. Nice to see you both. Thank you very much.

Well, unscents at next, Prince Andrew is expected to withdraw from public life onto its sexual abuse scandal, but he appears to be plotting a comeback. Should he be allowed to weasel his way back into the royal spotlight? I'll debate that lady Colin Campbell, who has a strong view about this.

Well, disgrace, Prince Andrew will reportedly appear next to the Queen in one of the most important royal ceremonies in the calendar, the Garter Day at Winter Castle in June. Of course, it's the Queen's decision, but it won't be a popular one. In April 2021, Andrew shocked us all by giving an interview to the press

before his father's funeral, despite being accused of sexual assault. In March, he took centre stage by walking the Queen into Westminster Abbey for Phillips Memorial Service. And next week, he set to step in the spotlight again when he appears in his garter robe. So is Prince Andrew John to weasel his way back into the royal family in public? I'm joining by the Royal Attorney Vanity Fair, Katie Nicoll,

and Royal author and British Socialite Lady Colin Campbell. Welcome to both of you. Katie, this does great with me. I have to say, I think if you're going to pay a woman, a rumoured $11 million. to make a sex abuse case go away, having said you're going to fight it all the way to clear your name and then he just cave.

I don't think you're entitled to just slither back into public life in a few months. I agree with you. I think it's time for him to go away, actually, in the same way that that settlement just sort of struck it all out. The dignified and actually the respectful thing to do for the Queen and for the royal family

is to bow out gracefully, as gracefully as he possibly can. This has been a spectacular fall from Anne. He doesn't have his title, doesn't have his honorary titles, doesn't represent the Queen, doesn't carry out official duties. I think it's very difficult then to reconcile seeing him on a public stage. I know these events essentially can be seen as private events. The Garter is privately bestowed. It's the highest order the Queen can give, okay?

And this is an important one because let's not forget, she's investing Camilla. And Tony Blair, I think. So, okay, less on that. But more importantly, on Camilla, this is once again going to detract from all of this. And I think that just a lot of people will be sitting and watching and thinking why. And I know from the American audience that I write for, every time the Queen has seen with Andrew, it troubles them.

It does. Well, also, they also think, quite rightly, I'll come to Lady Colin Campbell now. First of all, good evening to you. Thank you for joining the show. I do think that, for example, we give, you know, Megan and Harry a hard time, I think, justifiably in most cases. But this, what they've done, to be honest, pales into insignificance, in my opinion,

to a senior member of the Royal Family paying millions of dollars to make a sex abuse case go away. But you don't share this view. You think you should be able to come back. I certainly don't share this view. First of all, my information was that it's five figures was the settlement. and also each party had to pay its own costs and expenses. I know the press keeps on going on and on banging the drum about several million pounds and million dollars.

I don't know where they got it from because the settlement was supposed to be confidential. So... Well, if it's confidential, how do you know it's not millions? It's believable as your 10 or 20 figures. Well, how do you know it's not if it's confidential? Well, my point is, how do you know that it's $11 million? No, it's been reported.

It's a figure that's been floated. It's been reported from very good sources. It was $11 million. If you're saying it was a much smaller sum, I'm just curious how you know it. It's not been reported from very good sources. I was told it from very good sources that it was a five-figure sum. That's not true.

I can tell you I know categorically that's not true. Well, you know, you know, You mean you know categorically that you were told it to the one figure. I know 100% that what you've just said is not true. It's not a five-figure settlement. I know that for a fact. Well, I know categorically that's what I was told, and I believe my source is rather more than yours.

Okay. Well, you don't know who my source is, but if you did, you wouldn't say that. But look, let's move on to the wider point. Well, you don't know who my source is either with due respect. Look, whether it's five figures or millions or whatever it finally was, he settled a case having said he was going to fight it. to clear his name. And I think if you do that as a senior member of the Royal Family,

you should not be allowed to continue in public life. Utter rubbish, Pairs, with due respect, I mean, since when was this a country where you are guilty until proven innocent, this may play very well in the court of popular condemnation, but the reality is in this country, as in all civilized countries, you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

Why didn't he clear his name? He kept saying, I'm going to clear my name. Why didn't he clear his name? Why didn't he get a call? Why didn't she? She kept on saying, she kept on saying that she would never settle, that she wanted her day in court. She is an admitted, procurress, prostitute perjura.

No, no, you're making allegations now which are unsubstantiated, and I have to make that on the record. They are, I'm sorry, they are. They are unsubstantiated allegations. And nothing that you're saying to... She has admitted it. Nothing you're saying to attack... Nothing you're saying...

Nothing you're saying to attack the accuser, Lady Conn, will change the fact that Prince Andrew, who's nearly 30 years her senior, that he publicly declared, just a few months before the settlement, I will not settle this case, I will have my day in court, I will clear my name.

And then he settled with a big check. And she did the same thing, and she settled. He's a senior member of the royal family. And she said. He was the one. unaccused of sexual assault of in America a minor. And he settled that case without clearing his name. You say he's innocent.

How do we know he's innocent? She was not a minor for sexual purposes in either England or the United States of America, the states that were concerned. She was over the age of consent. You know, Pairs rarely. I mean, you're chatting rubbish with you. That's actually not true. She was under the age of lawful.

What is not true? She was considered. a legal minor in at least one of the American locations where the sex was alleged to have happened. But my point is, you say Andrew was innocent. That's not so. Well, that is so, actually. The state that's not so, because the state of New York is 16 years old or 17, and in England it is over, she was 17 years old.

So I'm sorry, that's absolute rubbish. No, it's not rubbish. over the age of sexual consent in both territories. You don't understand the law of consent, age of consent in American states. It's fine. Let's come back to you on this. I mean, look, emotions run high about this kind of thing. And the bottom line for me is that Andrew decided to settle it, Katie.

So when someone settles it and doesn't have their day in court having promised to, to me, it's like, well, you're not even proving you're innocent. You've just paid off the case. No, absolutely. But I think also, you know, if I can just say, move the conversation on a little bit from this. There is an underlying issue here, and I think what this

exposes is that difficult situation that the Queen is in, as monarch and as a mother. I agree. I was told by a very close source to the Queen that she had challenged Andrew, asked him if he was innocent, and he told her repeatedly that he was. Now, she clearly believes him, and she stands,

and as Lady C says, in fairness, innocent until proven guilty, right? We don't know he's guilty. We just know he didn't go and have his day in court. Absolutely. But putting that side, the problem is, I'll go back to this, is the optics. And for someone who has settled out of court and all the sort of murky image of that, really, at a time when we're wanting to see the royal family united and at its best of behind the queen, do we need Andrew tagging along? As I say, the graceful thing would have been to exited quietly. He's not serving any purpose

other than to detract and make headlines, in my opinion, for all the wrong reasons. And also on the garter day, being seen as a royal knight in all the regalia. Really? That day honours chivalry. I mean, are we really going to be having Andrew parading around in his gown honouring chivalry wearing this kind of clover? This is the problem. When he's just settled a sex abuse case. Anyway, look, got to leave you there. Katie, thank you.

Lady Colin, thank you. Feisty as always. Appreciate you joining me. No pleasure. If pleasure's the right word. You know, like you almost meant it as well. Well, many of us took up hobbies during the lockdown. baking, language lessons, gardening, for example.

What about this? This little kid, our baby. Alberto Cartuccia Changolan from central Italy, who decided to take up piano. He's five, and he plays Mozart like this. I mean, the only thing I would say in criticism was apparently it was known as the Sonata Pesile or Sanata Simplici, meaning it was the simple sonata.

And I think we can all agree, I'm a bit of a pianist. That is quite a straightforward sonata, if you know what you're doing. Five years old, Alberto, Way to go. I think we should look out for that guy. He's going to go far. Okay, we're back after the break. Unsensurate the next President Biden says the US will defend Taiwan if China invades.

That is an escalation in American policy, whatever the White House tried to say afterwards. How close are we to a potentially devastating conflict between the two superpowers? Welcome back to Pismorgan, uncensored. Tonight, the Queens at the Chelsea Flower Show in West London. In the Queenmobile, as we're now going to call it. First time we've seen her, they're going to buggy. So she's looking radiant, as always, amongst the begonias tonight. Great to see Her Majesty out and about.

Just a week, of course, now until the Platinum Jubilee four-day holiday. So really, fingers crossed that she carries on coming out and about. We can see her there. The unthinkable prospect of armed conflict between China and the US might have moved a step closer to terrifying reality. Beijing insists the island of Taiwan belong to China. President Xi says reunification must be fulfilled. Well, today President Biden pledged for,

for the first time that the United States will intervene militarily if China does attack Taiwan. We're joining a man to discuss this. His former British Army commander, Colonel Richard Kemp, CBE, and retired US Army Major John Spencer. Welcome to both of you. Major Spencer, whatever the White House tried to say after these words from President Biden, I can't recall an American president being that specific in saying that the United States would engage militarily should,

China tried to invade Taiwan? Yeah, absolutely. I can't either. And I don't like they keep walking back a statement. It's a bold statement. It's a statement after what we've seen Russia do in Ukraine. We're going to defend democracy. It's a clear statement. I mean, let's watch the statement. This is what Biden said today. You didn't want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?

Yes. You are? That's the commitment we made. I mean, Colonel Kemp, that was not the commitment that America made, in fact. It's always signed up to the one China policy, and it's always had a sort of ambiguous strategic attitude towards this, where you don't really show your cards. For the president to come out like he did,

whilst he's over in Japan and be quite so explicit, has obviously got everybody going out there. How seriously should we be taking it? you think? Well, I think, of course, times have changed in the last months since Putin invaded Ukraine, and it may be that the US policy over Taiwan is changing, and maybe they want more of a deterrent policy showing strength and threatening to intervene militarily if China does attack. But of course, for the president to say that, and for it then to be walked back by the White House, undermines any deterrent effect that that might have. It just shows confusion.

And it really suggests that, you know, it's President Biden's personal view, but not really government policy. So I think it's problematic. We've seen it before. We've seen it frequently with President Biden, unfortunately. Remember at the start of the – before Putin invaded Ukraine, we had him saying, oh, a minor incursion won't be too much for a problem, you know, that sort of thing, which he tends to say off the cuff. Right. And Major Spencer, my other issue, other than the constant warpbacks,

and then you get the warbacks to the warpbacks. from the White House. But the other problem with this situation is I'm not really sure what the moral distinction is between Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine and China invading Taiwan. Neither of the invaded countries are in NATO. So why would America's response be different, as President Biden appears to be suggesting, that they would get involved militarily with Taiwan, but they wouldn't get involved militarily in Ukraine?

I mean, like the colonel said, I mean, the world has changed. Russia is trying to upset the international rules-based order, right? Just because you have a nuclear weapon and you're a big country, you don't get to aggressively with just overtake countries and kill tens of thousands of people, which, to be clear, would be what exactly happens if China invaded Taipei or Taiwan in general. It would be the humanitarian damage would be immediate days. I think he's saying clearly that we're going to adhere to the rules-based international order, that you don't just take over democracies or other countries because you feel like it.

Colonel Kemp, with relation to Ukraine, there's a growing feeling as Putin continues to just barrel his way across the country, that the only way this can feasibend is in some kind of settlement, which involves Ukraine giving up territory. Is that your assessment? Not necessarily. that's probably what's going to happen, but I don't think it's the only thing that could happen. And I do believe that, you know, it would be possible for a different outcome to occur

if the West continued to provide Ukraine with weapons, with intelligence, with funding. It would be possible maybe to fight to a standstill short of that. And then, you know, with the support of the West to try, do whatever can be done to get Russia out of Ukraine. might involve military force by the West as well. But I don't think the prospects of that are very high. And I do think that the weakness that we've shown over Ukraine and our failure, our refusal to get involved in Ukraine apart from on the margins because of our fear of nuclear weapons and making that absolutely explicit. I think that has encouraged and will encourage President G to become offensive against Taiwan, even more than years now.

Well, I agree. Once you allow nuclear powers to use the weapons as a kind of protective shield against people intervening in any invasions that you carry out, you're basically succumbing to the bully boy strategy. I've got to leave it there. Colonel Kemp, Major Spencer, thank you. Very much indeed, very interesting debate. Unsensored next, a guy who's eaten 33,000 Big Macs.

That's him. He's basically at 2 a day. every day for decades. And he says he's quite healthy. There he is, 50 years at Max. We'll talk to Don Korski next. Well, they say you are what you eat. That certainly would be a prize example.

And in the case of Don Gorski from Wisconsin, he's a true connoisseur of red meat, no vegan or plant-based counterfeit in sight. In fact, he's very specific, Don, with his diet, because he recently broke a Guinness World Record for the most big Macs consumed in a single lifetime. So let's go through his daily routine. He doesn't have breakfast.

He has a Big Mac at lunch and another Big Mac at dinner. He washes them both down with a Coca-Cola. And that's it. That's two Big Macs a day for the last 50 years, which adds up to nearly 33,000 burgers. He truly is the Mac Daddy. Well, Don joins me now from his local McDonald's, obviously. Hi, Don. How are you?

Hi, I'm doing fine. How are you doing? Well, it's great to have you. I love a Big Mac. If I had one for lunch today, so I'm with you in spirit. But I tend to have a Big Mac every eight weeks on average. And I find that's about my lot. What I want to know is, when did your first love of Big Mac star? How old were you? I was 18 years old when I ate my first Big Mac.

I came to the McDonald's here. I went inside, got three Big Macs, went out to the car, and when I opened up the red carton, the Big Mac was wrapped in the foil, and when you open it up, it was nice, steamy hot, and I bit into that, and I said, this is the best food in the world. And you basically had a Big Mac for lunch and dinner

pretty much every day, I think, apart from eight days you've missed, we'll come to that, but for 50 years you've done this. That's great. Correct. I mean, are you not sick of them? No, I never get sick of them. A lot of people say when they see me eating one, I look like I'm eating one for the very first time. I guess that's the best way to describe it.

It's my favorite food. I never get sick of it, so I look forward to it every day. And I understand you're married to a nurse. Is she not concerned about the health issues involved with so many Big Macs? Yeah, she's a nurse, but she's not worried about my health, because, like I say, she sees me every day. I never get sick. I never missed a day of work in my life.

And so she knows I'm an active person. I'm kind of hyperactive and stuff. So I do burn off all the calories that I eat. And how much have you spent on this diet in your time? Okay, a good guess is, well, they start out at 49 cents, and now they're like 4.39. So if you average it out, it's probably $100,000. I don't know if that's the same amount in England or not.

$100,000 on Big Max. I've got to say, Don, I actually admire it. You are a living embodiment of what I would like to be, someone who just eats Big Macs all the time and looks great. Oh, thank you. Like I say, I'm just blessed with good health, so I say that helps a lot. Well, I normally have one a day,

and I have that once every eight weeks. Tonight, I'm about to nubble in to my second one. Hmm. I get it, Dom. In no time you'll be caught up to me. You know what? I get it. I get it. They're absolutely delicious.

Don, great to see you. Thank you very much indeed. Go and enjoy your next Big Mac. I sure will. Thanks, Laugh, for having me on your show. Brilliant. Great to see you. What a guy. Big Macs for the future.

Don't do that at home, everybody. Anyway, it's tough work being a toddler. Always hungry, learning the crawl, constant hiccups, and, of course, dealing with unconscious racial bias. Yeah, apparently babies are really. racist. That's according to an educational post, a shared by Labour-run London Council. It says that at three months, babies already

look more at faces that match the race of their caregivers. The title says children are never too young to talk about race. Well, you know what? They sometimes are too young to talk about race. Babies aren't racist. I've had four of them. Leave the

babies alone. That's it from me. I'm going back to my Big Mac. Whatever you're doing, keep it uncensored. Good night.