Piers Morgan Uncensored: Professors Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein and Dylan Postl
00:05Live from the News Building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored.Good evening in London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensit. It's not every day I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with President Biden.But his latest remarks on Israel are blisteringly accurate and they could mark a major tipping point in this war.Biden accuses Israel a bombing Gaza indiscriminately, which is, of course, a breach of international law and therefore a war crime.He says it's now beginning to lose international support.right. The last night the UN General Assembly voted for a ceasefire, 153 countries back inmotion. 153 in favour. 10 against 23 abstentions. Well, that vote was non-binding and the UNhas been no friend to Israel, but it's clear the winds are changing fast. The grief and fury
01:01that followed October the 7th is now pouring in the opposite direction, as more stories and scenes of abjectmisery emerged daily from Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu's compared this to Second World Warto the atomic bomb and the carpet bombing of places like Dresden in Germany, inflicting massivecivilian casualties to defeat the Nazis. But as President Biden reminded him, we createdglobal institutions and international laws after World War II to make sure that kind of thingdidn't happen again. Israel's dependent on the United States, not just for military muscle,but for diplomatic cover. The US fights Israel's corner at the UN. It builds.alliances around the world, Israel's right to defend itself and to exist. History shows us that when
01:42the White House says stop, Israel's guns usually fall silent. And the window of legitimacy for thiswar is closing. It cannot simply carry on pounding Gaza to rubble without proving it has a planand a purpose and a moral clarity. Most people might agree that Hamas, after what they did,should be eradicated and that Israel has both a right and a duty to its people to defend itself.certainly do. But more than two months into his gruesome war, with many thousands of innocentchildren already killed, is that still what Israel is doing? Last one, we debated whether anIslamist British GP with extreme views should remain in his job. But during that debate,I was asked a pertinent question. Do you consider it as terrorist? I do not consider Israel to be a
02:28terrorist organization. The definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. That iswhat Hamas specialises in. That is what Hamas did on October the 7th. Now, is what Israel iswhat Israel is doing terrorism? No, for the following reason. They target terrorists like Hamas andthere are civilian casualties. Yes, there are. But it is not the aim of the IDF any more than it isof the British or American armies to target civilians. I've agreed up till now broadly with thatdistinction. The difference between Hamas and the IDF is clearly intent. But the longer this goes on,the blurry of that line becomes. At what point does Israel's campaign become the very terrorismit's fighting? Or whether the appalling violence of Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank
03:23has been called a policy of terror by France, specifically designed to displace Palestinian people.And with the Gaza Strip in ruins, where aren't Gaza supposed to go when this war is finally over?Whereas the evidence that Hamas is being eradicated, many thousands of people have been killed.We don't know how many of those are actually Hamas terrorists.What we do know is they're still in charge.Hamas is still negotiating the release of hostages, still has a chain of command, they're still in control.Prime Minister Netanyahu's government is stuffed with far-right hardliners who won't tolerate backing downand will never consider a two-state solution.
03:59Just tonight, Israel's ambassador to the UK reiterated a two-state solution is no longer somethingIsrael is even considering, but the US has sounded a clear warning that Israel cannot destroy Gazaand its people with impunity. And right now, Israel needs to listen to its friends.Well, it's been two decades since my next two guests agreed to debate one of their on livetelevision. First, Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz are Jewish, but their perspectives on theIsrael-Palestine conflict couldn't be more different. And they both join me now, the law and authorof the war against the Jews, Alan Dershowitz, and Professor Norman Finkelstein. Well, welcometo both of you.
04:35I feel a bit like Kofi and Nan bringing you two gentlemen back together.But I'm glad that you've both agreed.And I hope we can have a civilized debate.We've had some pretty rancorous debate this week on the program.And I want to try and really have a proper conversationabout where we are on this war and about this burning question.And I'll start with you, Alan Dershowitz,about what we're seeing in Gaza now is to many people,
05:02now the very terrorism which Israel set out to destroy.What do you say to people that think that?It is terrorism.It's terrorism by Hamas, taking human shields, putting children in the way of Israel's legitimate military concerns.Hamas has a strategy.It's called the CNN strategy.I call it the dead baby strategy.Kill as many Jews as possible.
05:28Provoke Israel into doing what every democracy would do.responding, then hide your tunnels and your fighters and your rockets behind civilians,knowing that Israel, no matter how hard they try to avoid civilian casualties, and why would Israelever want to kill a civilian? It's absurd. It hurts them tremendously. But every time Israelkills a civilian, the world condemns them, the United Nations condemns them. And then that processcontinues over and over and over again. The people who are being killed today are being killed as aresult of Hamas actions. Hamas started. Hamas uses human shields. If Hamas lay down its arms,if it's surrendered, if it agreed to give up control, if it closed its tunnels, if it stopped
06:16its rockets, then no civilians would be killed. So it's a terrible tragedy. There's no goodsolution. There's no perfect solution. If Israel stops now, Hamas continues to do it over and over andover again. If Israel continues, it gets condemned and loses friends abroad and even risks usingthe United States. It's a terrible dilemma for Israel, all the responsibility, all the fault ofHamas for starting this. And let me just end with one quote. On the day after, literally the dayafter these horrible tragedies with murders and rapes and robberies, this is what Mr. Finkelsteinsaid. It warms every fiber of my soul, every fiber of my soul, every fiber ofof my soul. He called the people who murdered these innocent Jews, many of them peace knicks. He called
07:05them part of the heroic resistance. And he compared them to the Jews who were fighting againstNazis in the Warsaw ghetto. It's that kind of animosity toward Israel before Israel fired a singleshot, which makes it clear that no matter what Israel does, it's going to be condemned by peoplelike Norman Finkelstein and by the United Nations General Assembly. I think it was obviouslywho once said, if the General Assembly were asked to vote on an Algerian resolutionthat the Earth is flattened, that Israel flattened it, it would win 128 to 32 with 65abstentions, and he would name each of the people. So the United Nations General Assembly,human rights watch, doctors will have borders. These are not objective assessments. Israel is in a
07:52very tough situation, and the future of civilization depends on Israel being able to be able todestroy Hamas and avoiding repetition.Let me bring in Professor Finkstein.Your response to that?Well, I won't address the questionof my remarks on October 7thbecause we already went over that groundin the previous program,
08:15and so it would be a waste of your viewers' timeif I were to revisit that.Yeah, that's fair enough.So let me deal with the substance...Yeah, thank you.So let's deal with the substantive issue.Number one,what you seem to be describing as a new development, namely Israel's indiscriminate assaults in Gaza.
08:37That's hardly a new development, with all due respect to you.I've lost the sound.Israel from literally day one set out as its goals.So if I can quote, first of all, the defense minister, there will be no electricity,no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we areacting accordingly. Now, that was not directed at Hamas. That was directed at the entire populationof Gaza. I think your listeners understand what is the consequence of denying a civilianpopulation, all water, all food, all fuel, and all electricity.
09:37It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a recipe for genocide.Number two, you quoted or you had on Douglas Murray, who made a distinction between what hecalled the deliberate targeting of civilians versus the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.Not to want to sound pedantic, but Israel's leading authority on international law is a fellownamed Yeram Dynstein, who I'm sure Alan Dershowitz knows. And Mr. Dynstein, or Dr. Dynstein,he stated that there is no fundamental difference under international lawbetween the deliberate targeting of civiliansand the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.
10:40There is no substantive difference.Therefore, under international law, according to Jurem Dynstein,Israel is targeting the civilian population of Gaza.That's another indication from the get-go, not from yesterday,not from when it was revealed to President Biden,but from the get-go, Israel has been engaging in a genocidal war in Gaza.Now, the genocidal war takes various forms.Again, I'm going to cite you old quotes.
11:25So let's take Giora Island, who was the head of Israel's National Security Council, the equivalent of our CIA.And he said, quote, Israel needs to create a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.Now, I'm not here to try to persuade Mr. Dershowitz or Professor Dershowitz.I am here to try to enlighten your listeners.So I would like them to cogitate, to meditate over what does it mean to sayGaza will become a place where no human beings can exist.Mr. Island, the former head of the National Security Council, went on to say,
12:27severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer and reduce casualties among IDF soldiers.And then there is Mr. Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, not on one occasion, not from the spur of the moment, but twice in national addresses to the nation, very soberly.Mr. Netanyahu said, remember what Amalek did to you.This is a war between the sons of light and the sons of darkness.Now, as Professor Dershowitz surely knows, because he attended Hebrew school,actually he grew up just a few blocks from me, or I should say I grew up a few blocks from him because he's older,he surely knows that in the midst of a war, in a country that is schooled in the Bible, that when you say your enemy is Amalek, then you are calling for the destruction, the killing of every man, woman, and child.So with all due regard to Mr. Dershowitz, I have to say this issue of human shielding is totally beside the point because it doesn't even come into play in this particular situation.
14:15The orders from the get-go denying food, water, electricity and fuel to the entire civilian population,The order from the get-go to turn Gaza into a place that is not able to sustain human life.The order from the get-go in this battle between the suns of light and the suns of darkness, I repeat,I do not believe it requires a rocket scientist to figure out that from day one, which is to say,I get the point. You've made the point. Israel has been waging a war of genocide in Gaza.You've made the point. You've made the point. Come back to Professor Dershowitz.Here's the problem, it seems to me. I've just listened to Norman Finkelstein at length,outlining that side of the argument. It's very hard when you look at what has actually been happening
15:17in Gaza in the last two weeks in particular to avoid a conclusion that Israel doesn't really seem to care if it levelsGaza to the ground, as long as it can get rid of Hamas. My issue with that is, having defendedtheir moral right to defend themselves as a country, is I don't think they're going to eliminateHamas, and they're certainly not going to eliminate the ideology. And they're going to basicallyend up with a Gaza that's flattened, two million people displaced, where are they going to live,who's going to run Gaza? How does this actually play out other than catastrophically badly?It will play out catastrophically badly because of what Hamas has done.We have to remember, first of all, you judge people by their actions, not by their words.
16:05The quotes from Professor Dynstein, who's been retired for probably 25 years, and Elon, who has nothing to do with the Israeli government, are individuals.Dynstein is 100% wrong.I'll give you an example.Is there no difference between Nazis putting Jews deliberately, six million of them into gas chambers and other means of death, deliberately targeting them, and what the United States did at Hiroshima and Agasaki?They may both be wrong, but there's an enormous difference between deliberately targeting civilians such as the Nazis did during the Holocaust and engaging in war actions, which you know are going to inevitably cause death.of civilians. So there's an enormous, enormous difference there. Then he talks about Amalek and Hamas.I know the Bible very well. And of course Amalek was a group of people that sought to destroy Israel.But when people refer to Amalek, they don't refer to the Palestinian people. They refer to
17:08Hamas and Hamas is Amalek. Hamas is the Nazi party. Hamas are not heroic resistance people.They cut off the breasts of women and throw themaround. They behave children. They put children and burn them to death. Yes, they should bedestroyed. It's going to be very difficult. This is not going to have an easy solution.Israel may in the end not be able to completely destroy Hamas. I hope they can. I hope they canin the way that the United States and Germany destroyed Nazism and destroyed imperial Japanese.And in the end, what happened is the Japanese and the Germans were grateful for it. And thenthe United States and Great Britain help rebuild Germany and Japan and turn them into great allies.
17:53That's my hope for Gaza. My hope for Gaza is that the people of Gaza will finally be rid of Hamasthat took over in a bloody coup and that the United States and Europe can then rebuild it better thanit was before, like a Marshall Plan, and hope that a democratically elected Palestinian peoplewill then have a two-state solution.I've been in favor of the two-state solution since 1970.Let me just jump in there.Only tonight the Israeli ambassador to the UKmade it abundantly clear.
18:26Two-state solution is gone.Israel, I'll play you the clip.I'll play you the clip.Yeah, but he's wrong.Is there still a chance for a two-state solution?I think it's about time for the world to realizethe Oslo paradigm failed on the 7th of Octoberand we need to build a new one.
18:42And in order to build a new one?Does that new one include the Palestiniansliving in a state of their own?Is that what it includes?I think the biggest question is what type of Palestinians are on the other side.It's what Israel realized.Do they have a state there?The answer is absolutely no.
18:58You see, when you hear that, this confirms, this confirms.But she's wrong.Hang on, Alan, this confirms what many Palestinians have feared that for 20 years or more,the Israeli government and Netanyahu in particular,have had absolutely zero interest in any two-state solution.And so if that's not...But let's remember that...But let's remember that Israel offered a two-state solution, 1948, 1967, 1994, 2000, 2001, they came very close, 2001, 2005, 2007.
19:29The vast majority of Israeli people, Israel's a democracy. Unlike Hamas, the Israeli people will vote for a two-state solution if the circumstances are right, if there is no Hamas, and if the Palestinian Authority will have elections, and if the people of the West Bank and Gaza vote.for a peaceful Palestinian authority.There will be a two-state solution.I'm going to come back to Professor Figuis in one second.But again, today Netanyahu has said explicitlythere can be no Hamas run or Fata run Gaza after this.He said it today.He's got no intention.
20:02He's got no intention of either Hamas or Fattah running Gaza.So who he's going to run it?I think he thinks he wants to.He's not going to be in power after this.After this, there will be a national security governmentprobably headed by people like Gantz, maybe a Bennett,the people of Israel are going to decide,and the people of Israel get to make that decision,
20:25and they're going to decide on a two-state solution.The one thing that's clear is with Gaza dominated by Hamas,there cannot be a two-state solution.But without Hamas, anything's possible.Okay, I agree with that.I don't think Hamas can possibly be left in control.I just don't think that this mission is going to eradicate Hamasin the time scale, which America is now clearly laying down for their support.
20:48Professor Finkelstein, you may be right.How do you see this playing out from here?Okay.I would like to say a couple of things, if you don't mind, it's okay.Number one, Professor Dershowitz attaches a lot of importance to what the people of Israel want.And so let's look at what the people of Israel want.According to the most recent polls, 60% of Israelis believe, Jewish Israelis,60% of Jewish Israelis believe that Israel is not using sufficient force in Gaza.
21:3160% believe that Israel should, or the government, should escalate the amount of force it should use in Gaza.Number two, it's the Israeli government, excuse me, it's the Israeli people who democratically elected this ultra-right-wing government.It's not as if the claims are made that Hamas has been imposed on the people of Gaza.But there is no imposition in Israel.I quite agree with Professor Dershowitz, at least for Jewish Israelis, for Jewish Israelis, it's a democratic.country, and they democratically elected the ultra-right-wing government. So I think those are twovery good indications. I can't say they're very auspicious indications, but they are very goodindications of what the Israeli people want. Number three, I'm not now going to go into a long
22:37disquisition on the history of the so-called peace process. But I would ask your listenersif they have the time, patience, and interest to just Google what's called the peaceful settlementof the question of Palestine. And that's a General Assembly resolution that comes up every singleyear for decades. And it calls for that two-state settlement on the June 19th,67 border and it calls for a peaceful settlement on the basis of international law.Now, if you look at the voting record every single year, it's the whole world, including thestate of Palestine, on one side, supporting a two-state settlement on the basis of internationallaw, and on the other side opposing, it's the United States, Israel, and usually some South
23:42Pacific atolls like Tuvalu, Nauru, and Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.That record is written in stone.It can't be changed.And it makes very clear what is the obstacle to a lot.a settlement. The obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States, opposes a two-state settlementon the basis of international law, the law that has been defined by the International Courtof Justice, the legal arm of the United Nations. Now, I'm going to make one remark now,which you will find perhaps controversial or unacceptable peers.
24:33However, I hope you'll allow me to say it, and then you can engage it, as you said, in a civil fashion.You say that the actions of Hamas have disqualified it from any participation in a peaceful settlement.Now, I am not going to make any brief for Hamas.It's for the people of Palestine to decide who should be their leaders, who should represent them.them. But I do have to ask you, peers, and I respect you. So I'm asking you this as a matter ofnot rhetoric, but one intelligent person to another, I'm asking a simple question. If it's the casethat the actions of Hamas on October 7th disqualify it from being party to a peaceful settlement,Roughly 1,200 people were killed, about 30 of them being children.
25:39Why is it not then also the case that the actions of the state of Israel,since October 7th, the deliberate war of genocide against the people of Gaza,which has left about 15,000 people dead, not 1,200,15,000 and has left dead not 30 children, but has left dead about 7,000 children.And as we speak now, a 7,000 more children are threatened with death because of starvation.I ask you, as a logical proposition, why isn't the state of Israel disqualified from any finalsettlement of the question. And one last thing because you ask, what do I believe? I will tell youwhat I believe. I believe, number one, immediately after the war comes to an end, and the
26:48blockade of Gaza, that cruel, inhuman blockade of Gaza, that war crime in Gaza, that crime againsthumanity, the blockade of Gaza, it has to be lifted. But once there's a ceasefire,and once that inhuman blockade of Gaza is lifted, once the walls of that concentrationcamp come tumbling down, then I see two steps. Step number one, there have to be war, crimes,prosecutions. I have no problem in saying on both sides, but there must be accountability.You cannot get away with executing a war of genocide in broad daylight and then continue.And number two, there has to be a settlement on the basis of international law.That is the only consensus basis for ending the conflict once and for all.
28:05Okay. I want to just a very quick reply, please, Professor Dersh.I was going to end it there, but I want to give you a right of reply.On that one point, you're a lawyer, this point about international law,when President Biden, the head of America, the biggest, strongest ally for Israel,comes out and says that the bombing has been indiscriminate.He is accusing Israel directly of committing war.That is a war crime if it has indeed been indiscriminate.Is this war now at a stage where America may pull its support because they believe that Israel is breaching international law?
28:41It's not. Today, 10 Israeli soldiers, including a commander, were killed in northern Gaza becauseIsrael refused to bomb that site, which it could easily have done. Instead, it's sent in brave 18, 19, 19, 20,year old, some of them considered children under the Hamas definition of anybody under 19,and they were all killed because Israel made a decision not to bomb indiscriminately. It has neverbombed indiscriminately. It has always bombed as part of a process.Why is President Biden saying that it is? Because he usually, very often,carelessly uses words. I'm a supporter of Joe Biden, but he's wrong. It's not indiscriminate.It's very, very discriminated. In terms of international law, uh, uh, fickle's
29:27is just dead wrong. I helped draft 242, the UN resolution. I was working with Arthur Goldberg in1967, and that talked about territorial adjustments. Israel has the right to make some territorialadjustments. They shouldn't have had occupation of civilians, but going back to the 67 bordersis an invitation to suicide. And you know when the blockade of Gaza will end? The day that Hamasis no longer in control. Okay. And the day when rockets no longerattack Israeli civilians, that's the day the blockade will end. The blockade is a good thingdesigned to prevent Hamas from firing rockets, using tunnels, and doing a repetition of whathappened on October. Okay, I do not agree that the blockade is a good thing. I do think that
30:15the occupation of Gaza for many decades has been a terrible thing. The part of the Palestinianshas been horrific. None of that justifies October the 7th, which is one of the worst terror attacksof modern times. But I'm gratefulto both of you, for agreeing to come togetherand having a civilized debateabout this, we've got to do more talking.This will only get resolved in the endby people talking and reaching
30:40a resolution. So thank you.Both of you. Very much indeed.You made it civilized by your...Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you.Welcome back. We don't to stand up for thelittle guys on the show, and today that means literallystanding up for little guys against Hugh Grant.First, he took the sole role
31:01as an umpah-lumper in the newWonka movie, depriving dwarf actors of their chance at a coveted role, and he has an audacityto whine about it, moaning about everything about the facial cameras used by animators. It's like acrown of thorns, he wailed, very uncomfortable, I made a big fuss about it. I couldn't have hatedthe whole thing more. I slightly hate making films, but I lots of children and need money.Meanwhile, he said he's too old and fat and ugly to star in romantic comedies, which is actuallythe first time he and I have ever agreed about anything he's ever said.But returning to the show now is Dylan Possible.
31:37He's also known by his wrestling ring name, Hornswoggle.Dylan, great to have you back on Uncensored.I thought about you immediately, I saw Hugh Grant moaning about the role that he playedas an umpalumper, because not only did he take a role that should have been for an actor like you,but he then complained about it.What was your reaction?I don't, I fully don't understand why he's compliment.complaining about it. He knew what he was getting into when he accepted the role. He obviously knew.
32:08So if there was any thought in his mind that there would be backlash or whatnot, even himselffeeling that way, why take the role in the first place? Whether it's the production crew asking himto do the role, he should have then, if there was any question of it, should have not accepted the role.Right. Now, the president of Little People of America, Mark Poverman,said the most troubling aspect of the Hugh Grant situation is that from what I can tell,they have CG-I-Diam to have the physical attributes of a person with dwarfism,like the larger arms, a shorter hands.So it looks like a person with achondroplasia,
32:48just like the umpalumpers from the film of the early 70s.They're trying to maintain the physicality of dwarfism,but erase the authenticity of dwarfism,which is troubling.And that's why you go, well, this is like a physical version of blackface.Would you agree with that?I wouldn't go that far.What do you think of that?
33:10I have a contraplasia myself.I have a contraplasia myself.This is kind of going back to the CGIor the normal-sized actors in the seven dwarves roleswhere it's taking roles from the dwarf community,from my community,and giving them to average-sized actors.when those roles for my community are very few and far between.
33:35So when roles like the Umpalupa or the Seven Dwarvesare really key roles for people like me,it's really a kick in the guts and it's a hard pill to swallow.It really is, and of course it comes...I'm sorry, I was going to say it's very hypocritical.Because we've seen time and again,Hollywood stars standing up and saying only gay actors can play gay,roles, only disabled actors can play disabled roles, only trans actors can play trans roles, and so on.
34:09It seems like you're the only group who do not have Hollywood's protection in that regard.That's, yeah, I just don't understand.Especially now you're spending the extra money on CGI and on edits and all of that.when there are actors such as myself and other dwarves out there that would have loved this role,I'm sure. I would have loved it, obviously. I'm trying to do more acting and more roles,whether it be dwarf roles or normal size roles. So for me, it would have been an absolute dream role.It's all in nowadays how it's viewed, and I understand completely how the umpalum,was maybe have been viewed in current day compared to in the past.
35:02But it's just, these are roles that were made for people like me.And what is your message to Hugh Gras?He couldn't have hated the whole thing more.He said, if you liked the final product, not really.Was it fun?Should have been.It wasn't.I hate making films.
35:18I just have lots of kids and need the money.He has got lots of kids by lots of women.Probably does need the money.But it just struck me as being just so dismissively cheap.of him to do that, knowing the backdrop of the controversy?He knew what he was getting into when he took the role.That's my whole thing.He knew the character.
35:40He knew how it would be viewed, edited, and all that.But he still took it.That's where I don't really...Obviously, I have zero sympathy for him feeling this way,and it's even more than that.I just, I feel it's a shame that he did take that rolebecause it could have went to someone of my stature.Well, not only somebody more appropriate, frankly,
36:07but also somebody who would have probably loved the roleand celebrated the roleand talked about your joy at playing that rolein a movie of this size.It's an absolutely huge movieand an absolutely huge part of the Wonka story and backstoryhow they're perceiving it.So for it to go to a person
36:30in the dwarf community would have been absolutely enormous.So I'll be agreed then, Dylan, that he is Hollywood's biggest wonker?I mean, I don't know about that.I know that I would have loved that role.You know what?I'll spare your blushes.Normal-sized rolls, yeah.I'm going to call him out.
36:50I'm calling him a Hollywood wunker, a gigantic stature,a massive-sized wanker.Dylan, great to have you back on the show.Thank you very much.Thank you very much.Welcome back to our sense and Harry and Meganhave been making headlines again.This is the Sun's front page today,
37:12naming them Hollywood's biggest losers,which is what they were brandedin a withering report in the Hollywood Reporter,which is a very credible Bibleof the Hollywood industry.It's also been revealedthat their family trashing Netflix documentarycosting 88 million pounds,
37:26didn't even rank in the top 200most watched Netflix shows.It was beaten by both Paul Patroland Pepper Pig.And it's also been revealedthat their charity, Archerwell, which you may remember both have been the absolute pillar ofcompassion. That's what its mission statement is when, of course, the two people behind itdon't show anybody anything remotely to do with compassion, that their donations have absolutely
37:52collapsed in year two on year one. So all in all, not being a good little period for these two.I'm joined by the host of Outkicks Tommy Layron's here. It's Tommy Leran and my PAC. Talk to youhe contributed to Esther Cracker, the Daily Mirror's Associationto Kevin McGuire. Before I get to Megan and Harry, Tommy,your reaction to Hugh Grant playing an umpah-lumper in Wonka,we just had an interview with Dylan Possible,you know, on behalf of dwarf actors, just saying,not only did he have the audacity to take their coveted role from them,
38:25but he also has never stopped whining about it ever since.Is he the biggest whiner in Hollywood, Hugh Grant?Well, there's a lot of whiners in Hollywood, so that would be a hard crown to put on anybody'shead so many contenders to discuss.But I will say this.Hollywood for a long time is like a snake eating its own tail.They want all of these diversity, equity, inclusion standards, but then they wrap themselvesup in a messy bow because they can't figure out if they should discriminate against dwarf actors,
38:57or they should put more in, or who they're going to upset, or who they're going toanoint one day to the next, that's the problem. They decided that merit wasn't important anymore,and they decided that trying to appease everybody and to tiptoe around political correctness was theway they were going to go. And now they can't navigate the waters they've created for themselves.So I don't shed a tear for Hugh Grant. I don't shed a tear for Hollywood in general. Certainly notHarry and Megan. They are all products of the same disease, which I refer to as leftism or liberalism.But it can go by many names. Wokeism might be another name for that disease.Let's agree on wokeism, because I like...
39:31You and I agree about everything to do with wokeism.Quick reaction to Hugh Grant from you to, Esther.I mean, it's just a spoiled brat, isn't he?I mean, this is kind of the ungrateful sod section of the show.Harry Megan, Hugh Grant, all...It really is.It fits into the same bubble.You know, I feel sorry for him
39:48because he's someone who, I think, is a fantastic actor.He's had a very decorated career.Well, he always plays the same role.Well, yeah, but the thing is...And as he says, by his only mission,he's now too old, fat and ugly, to play a romantic league.He is.He is.
39:58He is still getting a role.the point. To then take the role,take the money and then winge about it. It's so disrespect.Kevin? I think his finest rule wasJeremy Thorpe, a British politician and a BBCseries, but it does feel like he's ungratefuland privileged. He's taking the money.Now, perhaps he thinks the numpur's
40:13beneath him. Maybe he wanted to be Willie Wonkahimself. Well, then let a dwarf out to play the role.Yeah, but he is an actor. If you've arguedmany times, yes. I have, but I'mactually throwing back the hypocrisy of the Hollywood.And then you'll come back to whinge about as about climate changeand helping the poor and supportingall the things. Let's go back to
40:29Tommy and talk about Harry and Megan. I got to say, I did chuckle when I saw that the Hollywoodreporter had completely buried them as the biggest losers of the year, culminating in theSouth Park takedown, which made them a laughing stop. But I think the reality is America's justseen through them, right? Yeah, these two suffer from not only wokeism, but narcissism. And I wouldalso say laziness. And that's proof in the Spotify deal that they had where she failed to producereally any episode. So that's their problem. They think very highly of themselves. They want boththings. They want fame and privacy. But they also don't want to work very hard for anything beyondtheir royal titles, which they continually crap on. So they try to have it both ways. Once again,
41:15I'll use the analogy, the snake eating its own tail. I do think it's interesting that Hollywood isturning on these two, because you know, when they moved to the United States, they really were put outon a silver platter like we would be so happy to have them. I will tell you all, you can gladly havethem back. We do not. We do not want them back. Thank you. Absolutely not. I think I said to you before,Tommy, you, you've sent two of your women over to our royal family, and it hasn't gone well.First one led to the abdication of our king, and the second one has nearly brought down the monarchy.So you lot are banned. No more American women in our royal family. You can keep them.Just to repeat what Holly reporter said, after a whiny Netflix documentary, a whiny biography,
41:58spare even the titles a pouty gripe and an inert podcast,the Harry and Megan Brand swelled into a sanctimonies bubblebegging to be popped and South Park was the pin.A glorious assessment of these two little waste rules.Tommy, always great to have you on the show.Thank you very much indeed.Appreciate it.Love your show.
42:19On Outkick, so keep that going.Welcome back to Unsettlement.Esther and Kevin are still with me.I saw by Gary Denneker.So Garrette, good friend of mine,disclosure. I've never understood why anyone cares too much about his views on political stuff.He's perfectly entitled to. I'm watching my match of the day. He never mentions on that.I couldn't care less personally. However, interestingly, it's been a big furority because he was one of
42:48a number of celebrities who signed a petition about this against the government's Rwanda plan.And that apparently is allowed under the new BBC rules for people who are not using currentaffairs presenters like him. But he then got into a bit of a set to with various Tory MPs.one was Grant Shaps, who had a pop at him, and so Gary hit back, a tad rich for someone who can't even stick to one name.Four Chaps, Schnapps, quite a good line.And the other one was Jonathan Gullis, who had said he breached impartiality rules,and he said, Jonathan hasn't read the new guidelines, or should say, had someone read them to him.So, and Shaps said he should stick to football.
43:23And it's on these two points, the Samir Shah, the incoming chairman, said it seemed to be a breach because it's attacking individuals.To which, Kevin, I would say, if Tory MPs,want to have a pop at Gary De Nica for something he's done.He's perfectly entitled to have a pop back, isn't he?I agree.No, no, absolutely.And if he was picking on them and singling them out, that would be totally different.But the BBC is tying itself in knots.
43:47He's not doing news and current affairs.He's a sports presenter.On match of the day, when he's presenting the highlights of the football,he's not going into politics.He's not seeing down the right wing.That right wing is better than Suella Braverman.The one time I criticised the rest.It was the start of the Cat's World Cup when he did this big.
44:03homily about their human rights.I thought, but you won't do that when they go to America.Right? So I didn't like that. But otherwise, I just don't have a problem.The thing is, even if I agreed with his politics and what he was saying, I think the issue isnot with him, but it's with the BBC, because the BBC have set this precedent.So what should they do?You can't have someone like him, you know, on.Why not?
44:21Because the thing is, if you do that, then you can't pretend to be impartial.Here's the issue, but the public has to pay for the BBC.And so with that, we have certain standards that we expect.I don't care if I agree with everything that came out of Gary Lundick.his mouth. I don't want this person who's clearlyvery partisan in his views representing the BBCin some way. And he doesn't need the money.He doesn't need the money. I honestly think you just say, look,
44:43news car and affairs, you don't tweetabout anything which shows your political...That's unsustainable. It's an unsustainable manner.But the ones who want nothing to do with it,who cares? It's unsustainable. Alan Sugar,Lord Sir Alan Sugar, Lord Sir Alan Sugarpresented the apprentice does it very well.Hugely controversial tweets all the time.
44:59All these people don't need the money.But it would you say he should be sacked.I'm not saying you should be sad.I'm saying why would they want to keep working for the BBC?Whether you agree with them or not, it doesn't matter.It's their right to say what they are.Guys, got to leave it there.I don't think, I think it's a storm and a take-up.
45:14But good to see you both.Thank you very much.Whatever you're up to.Keep it uncensored.Good night.
There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click any sentence in the transcript to leave one.