Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Russian Spies Unmasked, Trump's Fourth Indictment

Episode Date: August 15, 2023

On tonight' episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and looks into the three Russian spies that have been unmasked. Also Rosanna assesses Former US President Donald Trump's fourth indictment. 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

Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan, uncensored, with Rosanna Lockwood. Good evening and welcome to Peers Morgan, uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood back in the chair tonight for peers. Now, spies, they walk among us, always have done, always will. Part of the bargain is understanding that we have our own British spies walking elsewhere too. And the other part is staying on top of the threat, the classic game of cat and mouse.

It is down to our intelligence services to make sure they spot the spies operating here and prevent their activities from tipping over into real world danger as much as they can. We're of course talking about here, MI5, MI6, GCHQ and counter-terrorism police. And that's why this evening I tip my hat to all those involved in the investigation

and detention of three suspected spies in the UK alleged to be working for the Russian security services. Now, these suspects are allegedly Bulgarian nationals. They've lived and worked here in the UK for many years. They were actually detained back in February, along with another two suspects. Investigations like these necessarily take place beyond our view. Sometimes the whole criminal trial process

actually happens in secret behind closed jaws due to national reasons of security. It's the Official Secrets Act. In my mind, that's an arrangement worth. having in a country like ours that has been host of some really, truly horrendous Russian intelligence operations that go back to the height of the Cold War. Let's remind ourselves in the 1950s and 1960s a number of British nationals worked undercover for the Soviets. The most infamous was the Portland 5, who were later uncovered by MI5. Their 90 Soviet diplomats were expelled from the UK in 1971

after they were accused of spying for the Kremlin. In recent times, 2006, former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, a fierce critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered after his cup of tea was laced with a radioactive substance. And in 2018, just a few years ago, former Russian double-agent Sergei Scrippel and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by the nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury. Now, on those most recent occasions, fresh in our minds, it felt a little bit like we weren't ahead of the threat

that it's got to the point of Russian operatives carrying out lethal poisonings on our streets. But today's revelation about these suspects, for whatever reason, revealed to us now, even though they've been detained for six months at this point, it does seem to confirm there's more going on behind the scenes than we necessarily realize and that our authorities, they're not asleep at the wheel. And in a world filled with continuous threats from bad, murderous actors like Vladimir Putin, that's something I like to be reminded of.

Now, joining us to discuss all of this is the American investor, an arch critic of Vladimir Putin, Bill Browd, and former MI5 intelligence officer and whistleblower Annie Mashon. Great to have you both with us. Bill, I will come to you first. You've made it your latter life's work speaking out against the Kremlin, the bad actions of the Kremlin, murderous actions at this point. Tell us your reaction to the news today.

Well, my first reaction is if they've caught three, there's probably 150 that they haven't caught. I mean, the Russians have a very, very active intelligence. gathering operation in the UK. In addition to the official people who are in the embassy, there are these unofficials like these characters that have been arrested or arrested back in February. The other thing I would say is that it's not just these people

that are doing Putin's dirty work in the UK. I've been a victim myself of Russian oligarchs who were asked by Putin to do things. Those oligarchs then hire British lawyers, British, private investigators, British PR firms to carry out the Kremlin's wishes. When you say we haven't been asleep at the wheel because we caught these people, these people have been active in the UK for 10 years. And I believe that a big reason why all these things are happening is because there's so much

Russian money flowing into the UK that nobody really wanted to say a word otherwise. And that's why we're in this situation. Yeah, I mean, you bring up the important point that there are actors that are hiding, that our intelligence agencies are looking for and spotting. I said that they did well in this case, you disagree with me, but also those who hide in plain sight. And this is the very relevant point of Russian interference, Russian funding, Russian money that comes into the United Kingdom,

specifically London as well. I know this is a point that you are particularly concerned about because it's often the people that we're looking at day-to-day, it's newspaper owners, it's people in the House of Lords. It's everywhere. The scale of Russian influence in the United Kingdom is something quite shocking. And do you think that has changed at all since the onset of,

what I'm going to call the renewed invasion of Ukraine? Indeed, there's no question that the whole mood has changed in the UK since February 2022 when this terrible murderous war has started. Things are completely different now than they were before. But the trouble is that the Russians had like 20 years to get their claws into us. And they're everywhere. I mean, and just you mentioned the House of Lords. Alexander Lebedev, who was a former KGB agent,

who became extremely wealthy from his contacts in the Russian government. His son came to the UK, spending his money to buy a newspaper. He naturalized, and then he became a member of the House of Lords. I mean, you have a direct hereditary connection to the Russian security services in the House of Lords. it doesn't get much more clearer than that. I mean, that's right out in the open, right there for all of us to see, and nobody said a word about it.

It's pretty plain sight, isn't it? Bill, I want to talk a little bit about your experience as well with living alongside these threats because you have taken on the Kremlin, very forthright, and you say there have been threats to your life. Just talk to us a little bit about that, what that feels like day-to-day.

Well, my main goal has been to get the Russian government officials connected to Putin sanctioned, have their assets frozen and their visas canceled under something called the Magnitsky Act. Putin hates my guts for the Magnitsky Act. It's now been passed in the UK and 34 other countries. And he's been going after me with death threats, kidnapping threats, aid interpolarrest warrants, lawsuits, all sorts of other stuff. And there's all sorts of people involved in all these things in the West being paid for by the Russians. And so I'm constantly having to effectively look over my shoulders, not just for Russians, but

but for Western enablers who have been hired by the Russians to be working for Putin. It's very ugly. It is very ugly, and that's something I just want to discuss you before we go across to Annie to get a bit of the intelligence officer side of things. But in terms of the ugliness of it, Bill, it's something I'm also keen to remind people of,

viewers of this program, colleagues and everything else, that sometimes when it comes to spy stories, people get a bit caught up and think, oh, it's terribly sexy and interesting, because obviously we know what Hollywood does with spy stories. But the real reality of it, like we saw in Salisbury, is very grim indeed, isn't it? It is grim indeed.

And it's not just Salisbury. We've seen poisonings taking place all over Europe. Of course, there was the Litvinenko that you mentioned in the introduction with polonium 210. And there are people all over enemies of Putin who have been poisoned, shot in all sorts of other situations by people, agents working for the Russian government. And this is not just some kind of high-level stuff. This is on the street, life and death type of stuff. And it puts everybody at risk. And it's something which absolutely has to be exposed and stopped.

Well, thank you. Let's cross over to Annie now. Annie, you and I have spoken in the past, I think, in different settings and different occasions. And I want to remind you as that you were a former MI5 intelligence officer. You've turned almost a whistleblower now. I think it's fair to say you've talked more about the agency and the type of operations that they carry out. So when you saw this news today, perhaps you saw it before we did, or you knew about it before, what did you think about it? Do you think we're receiving the information

exactly as it is? I have to say I was slightly flummox when I first read the story, because these people sound so low down the pecking order. I was thinking, well, what sort of access would they have? But Bill alluded to this before, very briefly, in the sense there is a sort of hierarchy when it comes to intelligence work. So in terms of the intelligence officers who work for organizations like the FSB and the SVR, they would come into the UK under diplomatic cover, be based in somewhere like the embassy or perhaps a trade delegation. And they are the intelligence officers trying to gather secrets from the UK, sending them back to Russia. In terms of the people who were arrested and alleged to have been in possession of interesting documents, these would be

termed illegals. So, you know, you mentioned a couple of the old spirings in UK history. They tend to be people who are placed in the local community. They may be undercover for years and then activated when needed. Or indeed, they may not have been, allegedly, may not have been part of aspiring, but became active much more recently. But illegals don't have diplomatic immunity, like the intelligence officers do, who are based out of the embassy. So they can be prosecuted. And I think that's what's happened in this case. I mean, just to go back to more recent UK history as well, when it comes to other illegals in 1998,

a woman called Melita Norwood, who became known in the media as the granny spy. I don't know if you remember this case, was outed as someone who had passed national security secrets to the Russians for decades. And more recently, but in the US, there was, of course, the American spiring in 2010, of whom one of the members was

someone who became known as the glamorous spy, Anna Chapman. And they were illegals. They could have been prosecuted, but they were involved in a spice war and sent back to Russia. So this thing, you know, these sort of approaches do go on fairly routinely. And even though the access, the apparent access of these three suspects, they haven't yet been convicted, obviously, they're in a sentence or proven guilty. But the access of these three suspects perhaps is less relevant than the fact that they happen to be EU nationals, so freedom of movement before Brexit. And also they could have just been part of a sort of an undercover cell that provided low-level support to others who were more active within the intelligence.

Thanks, Annie. I think our viewers will be interested to know. I'm stressing not in specific relation to this case and these suspects, again, ongoing case, innocent to you're proven guilty, but some of the previous examples you've highlighted as well, why people choose to go and work for other governments? Obviously, Bulgaria and Russia have a long Soviet history behind them, But you say there, these people don't have the diplomatic community afforded to people who might be in the diplomatic residence of their country. It's enormously risky. What leads people? I know there's not one set answer, but to do this? It's a very complex answer. In terms of trying to recruit agents in the field, most intelligence officers use an acronym which is mice. So that means how to motivate someone to do precisely what we're discussing here, which is take a huge risk and potentially betray people, family friends that they might be.

work with. So MICE stands for money, ideology, compromise and ego. And in most cases, the most willing agents and illegals would be the most willing people because they volunteer to go and do this sort of thing would probably not be hugely motivated by money, although that will help, probably not compromise because they make a very unwilling employees. But ego certainly, the idea that you're working in the shadows, you're doing something secret, you are potentially doing something that's good for your country's longer term interests, or you might have relatives who are Russian. So you're doing something in the interest you think of Russia.

So that would be the ideological side of things. So I think with the illegals, generally you appeal to the ego and you appeal to the ideological function. And then obviously there's a sort of financial incentive thrown in on top of that. So that would be how these people could be recruited and sent in. But to live a very secret life for 10 years and a fairly humdrum one as well, you mentioned in your intro that, you know, spies are always glamorized in the media. and they are. But a lot of these sort of undercover spirings, the illegals, live very hundred-brum-looking

lives, as these three apparently did, in the suburbs, doing routine jobs, but, you know, by night they're doing a very secret job, a very secret role. So it's a weird combination. It certainly is, but it is absolutely fascinating in getting your expertise and specialism on this. Annie and Bill, thank you very much for joining us. Unsensored next tonight. We're going to be playing you a damning phone call from former President Donald Trump that will form a central part of this latest criminal case against him coming up next. Welcome back to Unsensit. And then there were four.

Donald Trump is facing a fourth indictment this time in Georgia. He denies all 13 charges against him in it, which accused him of trying to engage in a conspiracy to still votes to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Now, this phone call between the former president and Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffer, will form a key part of the criminal case. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have, because we want to say, I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.

There's nothing wrong. We're saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is one. The data you have is wrong. Well, joining me now to discuss all things Trump and the latest indictment. The host of Outkicks, Tommy Laren is fearless. Tommy Laren joins us, good friend of the show.

Also with us, Donald Trump's former lawyer, one of them, Timothy Palletori, and former Republican Congressman and fast becoming friend of the show, Joe Walsh, given the amount of news we've had lately. All three of you, it's fantastic for you to join us. Thank you for making time in a busy, busy time for you all. I'll start with you, though, Timothy,

bringing the legal mind to this. And if you could explain to our international audience, exactly what's going on here in this fourth indictment, because what we've got is RICO charges, which maybe a British audience are familiar with, and some are saying could be incredibly serious for Trump. RICO stands for racketeering influence and corrupt organizations. It's a statute that was intended to go after organized crime figures.

I've defended a lot of these cases back earlier in my career doing you know, so-called mafia cases. And reading this indictment, it certainly is something where they can take, you know, disparate separate criminal acts and, you know, bundle them together to increase the sentencing exposure. However, based on my reading of this indictment, I think that they've really missed the mark and are trying to misuse this statute. Because ultimately, Fannie Willis is just a county prosecutor. She only has a very limited jurisdiction. And so she's trying to use this statute to go beyond what she's allowed to do within her county. And I think before you even get to the merits of the case,

structurally, it's a mess. And I think it's probably going to get dismissed just based on legal grounds. And conversely, some might say, because it's a local situation, as you said there, you've got this local judge. It's in Georgia, rather than anything sort of DOJ or federal. It actually could be more powerful.

Some are saying because it means that Trump can't pardon himself when he becomes president. Is that true? It is true that he can't pardon himself. A state conviction can be pardoned by the governor as opposed to the president. But another piece of this, you know, when we talk about the local judge, because it is a local prosecutor charging a federal official, the former president, as well as Mark Meadows, with state crimes, this case will likely be taken out of the state court and actually move to the federal

court. Okay. Thank you very much for clarifying for us. I'm going to come back to and talk a little bit more about your experience working with Trump and the legal team. But Tommy, I want to come to you on that point of RICO, what racketeering criminal acts. As Timothy was saying that, she often using kind of gangster and mobster trials. Some are saying, you know, Trump's been often described some mobster. Now he really, truly is going to be one. Yeah, going to be one in the court of public opinion.

But when you look at this indictment, once again, it reads like a witch hunt, just like indictments one through three. I mean, this is political interference. And make no mistake, the timeline on this was manipulated. The timeline on this was very specific. They want Donald Trump to be marred into legal battles through the primaries, through the general election. They also want to bait Trump supporters into supporting Donald Trump, knowing that at least in one of these, they're probably going to get some kind of a conviction, even if it does go on appeal. They want to mar him. They want to destroy him.

They want to run him dry with legal bills and legal fees. And this whole RICO thing, you know, they indicted several others in this same instance in Georgia, because I think they want to get the others to speak out against. Donald Trump's to save their own tail, which strategically is probably great for them. It's horrible for the country. And it's only going to solidify Donald Trump's mega base. Unfortunately, it's going to have larger implications for a general election. The Democrats in this country are evil, but they are not stupid.

So congratulations to them. They have manipulated the American people in the election process once again. Tommy, I want to ask you whether just the volume of these cases, because as you said there, it's just ever increasing. you're saying that's going to cause the base to double down. Does it not cause you to just rethink your position slightly if more and more judges, more and more courtrooms, more and more states come forward as they can continue to keep doing?

Otherwise, do you have any faith in your justice system at all? Well, hey, listen, there's a lot of Americans that are very frustrated with our justice system, our two-tiered system of justice, and it's quite obvious. And I think that that's the exact approach that the Democrats are taking. They think if they charge him with enough things and enough places, enough times, that somehow that will make his base fall away and believe that he is a crook or a criminal.

But these cases, all of them, one through four, are ridiculous. They are structurally unsound. So if you look at this as somebody who doesn't pay attention, who just wants to believe Trump is a crook, then you might fall for it. But those of us that are paying attention know that this is a political witch hunt. And we, the American people, would like to decide the 2024 election. We would not like it to be taken out of our hands once again. And this is just another way around that, another way around the will. of the American people. It's a far as it's a witch hunt. And Donald Trump is very used to at this point. I mean, impeachment one, impeachment one, impeachment two, impeachment two, indictment two, indictment three, and diamond four. I mean, at what point are they just going to face this man fair and square?

They're scared to, and that's the problem. Tommy, thanks as ever for your point of view. Coming to Joe, who's been sitting patiently there. And Joe and I think about that, as Tommy pointed out, impeachment one, two, indictment one, two, three, four. That to me just says guilty, guilty, guilty, guiltier to other people like Tommy and to other Trump followers and supporters, they just think it means he's being attacked more. I disagree vehemently with Tommy on sort of the legal aspect of this, but I agree with her on the politics. Look, this is another indictment where there's credible evidence that Donald Trump committed

crimes to try to overturn the 2020 election, and that will be pursued. But as to the politics, Tommy's right. This is going to strengthen Donald Trump politically, not just with his base. I've heard from plenty of Republicans who are not big MAGA Trump worshippers, and they're pissed off about this. They think it looks like it's democratic piling on. So I think this will help Trump politically beyond his base. And I should clarify when I say it makes me. think guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.

Yeah, that's just my interpretation of the way I'm seeing it all playing out. Of course, everyone is innocent until proving guilty in a court, and Trump is owed his trials, and he will get them. And I also want to ask you, Joe, about the way that Republicans are handling this, because we've heard your point of view there about the sort of democratic pile on, as it's been called. The governor of Georgia is a Republican. Now, Trump released a statement on his platform, truth social today, where he talked about

the sort of evidence he's been collecting with regards to the way that the Georgia Georgia vote was handled and he said there's big revelations coming. The governor of Georgia has tweeted out a response basically saying this was not a stolen election and talking out against Trump, more and more Republicans really coming out here. I mean, does he have many, any people in the party behind him? I guess I don't see more and more Republicans coming out against Trump. Good for Brian Kemp for saying what he said. Kemp's a good man. But Brian Kemp isn't running for president against Donald Trump. All you have to do right now is look at all of Trump's Republican challengers and all of Trump's serious Republican challengers are going to echo his claims that Tommy's

claims that this is a political witch hunt. There is no anti-Trump lane in this Republican Party. So if you come out now, if you're DeSantis or Nikki Haley or Tim Scott and you come out and you condemn Donald Trump, you're done politically in this Republican Party. They all know that. And so they're going to defend Trump and hope that something happens to Donald Trump. But that's all they're going to do. Tommy, do you think that's a fair assessment? They're waiting for something to happen, a bolt of lightning and they've got no other option. Hey, listen, I agree with Joe that any other Republican, they cannot come out against Donald Trump. They cannot come out for what's happening to him. What they can't.

do, however, is they can say, listen, I think what's happening to Donald Trump as a political witch hunt and it's a political persecution. However, I do believe that I am the candidate that can take us to the White House because of this mess. I can get into the White House. I can change things. I can clean up this system, this unfair two-tiered system of justice. That is going to be the lane that other Republicans are going to have to take if they want to be the nominee or have any chance of being the nominee. But to come out and say, hey, what's happening to Donald Trump is fair and just, yeah, there's just. just no way there's a pathway for them to reach a nomination or have any future in the Republican

Party, to be quite honest with you. Tommy, before, I know you've got to rush off some way. It's a really busy day for you. But before you go, I just want to ask you, what is it about Donald Trump that captures you so much? What it is about him as a person or him as a leader that makes you want to defend him against everything? Well, listen, he had a great presidency. And I can look at that as a Trump supporter, but I can just look at that as an everyday average American who did very well under Trump policies, securing our border or doing the best he could to secure our border, on our economy, our trade deals. I mean, the man did great things for this country. So I support him for that reason. And I don't believe that they should be attacking him, piling on him,

just because they're scared to confront him head-to-head in a fair election. So that's why I continue to support Donald Trump. I also am a big supporter of Governor Ronda Santis. But more than anything, I'm America first, and I want to see my country succeed. Tommy, thanks as ever for your insights. I want to head back to Timothy now, because Timothy, when you were part of Trump's legal team, you actually stood down as one of his attorneys. You were part of this Mar-A-Lago documents case. You said the reason you stood down wasn't anything to do with the actual merits of the case itself, but more to do with the kind of disputes from inside the legal team. Is that true? And what do you think is happening in the Trump legal team? I'm going to say teams, plural,

given the amount of criminal charges he's facing at the moment. Well, so I handled both the Mar-a-Lago case as well as the January 6th case. You know, I was on both of the federal investigations at the time. And, you know, I chose to step down just because not, it wasn't anything to do with the client. It wasn't anything to do with the case. It was some of the people around the client that made it impossible for me to do my job, the way that I thought should be done. And so that's why I stepped down.

I don't talk about it as much anymore. And I do see that some of these same individuals are still around. Some are named as unindicted co-conspirators or at least one person in particular is named as an unindicted co-conspirator in these two new indictments. So it's problematic when you have people around you that are not necessarily doing everything to help you win. You've been clear about what you think about this current Georgia indictment of the fourth one, but do you think there are merits to any of the legal cases bought against Trump? I'm sorry, can you say that again?

Do you think there are merits to any of the legal cases currently bought against Trump? You've been clear about what you think about this latest fourth indictment of Georgia. So, I mean, look, there are issues here, and I stay away from the politics side of things. I'm just a lawyer. And whether it was a good idea to do certain things is different from whether, somebody should go to jail. Everything that I have seen indicates that when it comes to the actual facts here, that there was no corrupt intent, that these things had different explanations than the prosecutors are trying to put out. And so I don't think that any of these cases should correctly

and justly result in a conviction. Now, given the volume of the cases and the various jury pools that they may be seeing, I think that some of them could potentially, you know, get to a verdict. Are they going to eventually going to be able to withstand an appeal going all the way to the Supreme Court? Perhaps not. It's definitely complicated. I mean, if you just sit there and look at the volume of it and you say, okay, you have these four cases, 90-some counts, it seems overwhelming, but you've got to remember that in trial, you're going to cut those up into pieces and you just take them one piece at a time. And each one of these charges individually, in my opinion is winnable.

Interesting stuff. Look, Joe and Timothy, we've just run out of time, but thank you both very much, joining us today. Uncensored next tonight, as police chiefs, call for parents of TikTok Yobbs to be fined over morally apporrent behavior. We ask who's responsible. Plus, Piers Morgan Uncensored has been nominated for a national television award. I'll tell you how you can vote for the big man next.

Welcome back to Uncensored. Joining me on my pack tonight this Tuesday night. Talk TV contributor, Paul, Lauren Adrian, political journalist Ava Santina, and former newspaper editor, Emily Sheffield, also joining us in the studio. It's an all-women thing. I would like to say I didn't plan it that way, but of course I did. Thank you very much. No, we do have some big brains here from the worlds of legal, from the worlds of journalism, so I want to discuss some serious stories before we get to the fun stuff regards to NTAs, specifically the Met Police. Now, this came up today,

not only because it's in the news, but also because I started the show by sort of commending counterterrorism officers from the MET police for the work they've done in uncovering some suspected Russian spies at the moment and everything else. And I was thinking about that. But then this news came out this afternoon about WhatsApp messages among MET police officers

and it reminded me that the MET police are under just such a huge amount of scrutiny at the moment and some would say quite justifiably so. This latest news, sorry, six former MET police officers have been charged with sending racist messages on WhatsApp after a news night investigation. That's by the BBC. They're going to be in court on the 7th of September

some really hideous allegations about jokes made about the Rwanda policy, flooding in Pakistan, etc. The officers served in different parts of the force. But coming to the panel on this, you know, it is just a reminder of what some are saying, you know, we hear ever more calls to disband the MET, Paula. Do you think this will only add to that, obviously? I mean, it's going to add because, of course, there are lots of people on the street who come into contact with the police on a daily basis. He will tell you that they are facing racism and that they are facing racism because of not only the racist police officer, but the structure, the institution that is the Met Police. And this isn't just a problem within this country. I think they've got

the same similar issue at the moment in Northern California, similar case where they've got about 12 officers who are being investigated for racial text messages, etc. And what we have to focus on is not just that we've discovered these racist officers and the text messages, but we're also going to have to go back over all their investigations and all that part that they played in investigations to understand what motivated them and was it racism in terms of any investigations that they were involved in. So it's not just about the text messages which are damning in itself, but it's what part it played in any investigations that they undertook. This is a big job for the MET and I'm not sure that the MET are really the people who are going to be able to deal with

it themselves. This is an outside task I think who's going to have to come in and deal with this. Yeah. It's a really interesting point to raise because they are retired officers, all six of them, between 2001 and 2015. So that means, I don't know, we don't know the dates of each. We haven't been given enough information. None of us in the press have been allowed to see any of the WhatsApps. They sound horrific. It was a private group amongst retired officers. The BBC is saying that they understand that there was a still serving officer in there. I've got two thoughts about this and as the former editor of the evening standard we used to cover the MET. I still think the Mets too big and needs to be broken up.

I think it covers too large an area. There is too much that has gone wrong with it and it's unable to believe itself. I'm afraid I don't even think that the current, I don't even think Raleigh can be trusted to reform the MET because I think he's still part of the MET. He's still part of the force that clearly has

some serious leadership problems. He's discounted the report, didn't he, that raised the issue. Yeah. He said it wasn't institutionalized racism. I believe there is some institutionalized racism. I don't believe it's there in every single officer or anything. That's completely unfair to put that cross officers.

But I think your point's really interesting is that if you discover that police officer, and you're the first one I've heard mentioned this, are racist, and they have served for a long time in that police force, do you need to go back and look at the cases that they were working on? I mean, it's literally just the tip of the iceberg. But that I don't think the police can do because, you know, we're about to talk about another case here. The police have another very serious problems.

They are underfunded. There aren't enough officers on the beat. We have got current rape cases going on which are not being investigated. They're not being prosecuted. So I have a fear is what onus, how much time has been taken up, like getting these six officers retired,

the racist comments, retired officers on a private WhatsApp group that's going to go to court. What about women who are not getting their rape cases to court? I want to bring over in on this. Well, that's what we don't know. There's the women not getting their rate cases in court, but there is also, in addition to this, claims that the Met is failing to investigate this homophobic attack,

absolutely horrendous attack that happened here in London. Over the weekend, a place called Clapham, a gay pub. The two Brewers, two men were stabbed in what is being called a homophobic attack. The victim, he wants to remain anonymous, said he was punched in a face in this random attack. A picture has been released of the supposed attack, now, but today, Ava claims that the MET police didn't take warning seriously enough and didn't investigate enough either. Yeah, I mean, it has quite horrendous sort of like flashbacks to the

Wayne Cousins incident, wasn't it, when we knew that he had been flashing or he had been reported to be flashing at the time and then no one had investigated it. What I do we understand is there doesn't, it's kind of almost acting like an A&E department in the NHS, it's sort of only acting when something becomes an emergency. We're not actually looking at any kind of treatment or any kind of, you know, events that may eventually lead to a crime. What I don't understand. I mean, just today, I live in central London, and I was looking outside, and there were two young boys about 14 being arrested, or they looked like they were being arrested, because they had been smoking, well, they'd been smoking marijuana. I could smell it. And,

you know, that's, you know, whatever. Why on earth did it take six police officers to look after that event? And you go, well, where on earth are you, you know, on a day-to-day? Why aren't you in Clapham investigating a homophobic attack? Why aren't you looking at the guy who's just nicked someone's phone 200 metres away? I don't know what there. I don't know who's running this, but the whole thing needs to be looked at. Whilst we're on the topic of law and order, Emily, I'll come back to you because I believe you've got teenage sons

and the story of what we're called TikTok Yobs, but this is the Prime Minister Rishi Sunnah has blasted the organising on social media of looting and disruption as appalling and unacceptable. James. James. James.

That's actually crazy, bro. If you run, you're in trouble, I want her to give you TikTok. I think, man, do him this? Doing this. What are you on about age? Talking about this beef. Yeah, water on page.

I don't know. Now, this is the idea that TikTok is being used in other social media platforms to encourage teenagers or they're advertising kind of criminal activities. And Rishi Sunak was, it's to stop the Prime Minister, but what's he going to do to stop it? There's a huge amount you could do. I'm sorry. There is a huge amount that you could crack down further on the social media platforms.

I think, to be fair, they don't want to. to host this type of content. Oh, I totally disagree. But are they cracking down on it fast enough and firmly enough? And I would say no, because we're seeing it proliferate. And if I've seen the pictures of the crowd outside Selfridges, those adverts going out for people to go there that went viral, that must have been running for long enough

that they could have taken it down. And they could track the people who are reposting and posting. They should be banned from those accounts immediately for lifetime of TikTok. Yeah, but there's no legislation. for them to act under. If you look at the online safety bill that was going to be brought in, it was totally inadequate. For the last decade, social media companies in this country have been allowed to run riot over the market. Okay, they have been allowed to act in whatever the way that they please. They haven't had to pay as much taxes they should, you know, they should need to.

And frankly, ministers don't actually understand how the social media works. And so they can't actually put together the legislative framework in order to tackle it. No, no, but I think there's a, there's a bigger problem here. We can't just keep legislating for every single tiny event. But you go for a crime? There is legislation that should deal with that already. It's incitement to violence to crime. There's legislation that exists.

But you can't hold the TikTok accounts. Go on. Emily, this isn't about over-legislating, which I would agree with you. This government has actually been incredibly good at over-legislating. What this is about is sending a very clear message

to social media companies that this type of behaviour is not to be tolerated. They have tolerated this behaviour. They have actually supported this behaviour and I'm surprised that Rishi Sunak feels more comfortable pointing the finger at harangued and harassed and beleaguered

parents who are working two jobs who would love to be able to sit at home with their darlings but basically can't afford to who have to be reminded that there are no youth clubs there are no youth workers we were told by the local government association that apparently 88% of local authority funding in relation to youth clubs etc

has been cut since COVID I'm sorry. I'm really sorry, though, just because there isn't a youth club for a 16-year-old to hang on, does not mean they go and start robbing a store on selfages. I'm really sorry. No, it doesn't.

When we get to the point when society goes, I'm sorry, there's not enough to do in the holidays, it's okay to go and rob a store. Where have we got to? Let me explain to you why. Let me explain to you why. Before we had social media, my mum had to deal with myself

and my sister at home getting up to. mischief. Now I have to deal with not only my children and, you know, the next door neighbours, I also have to deal with 3,000, 4,000 other naughty children who will engage my child. And I am lucky. I can be at home in the summer holidays. I am lucky. I still have a certain level of control over my children. Not every parent is lucky. And that is why it makes a difference. All of you. Thank you. Fascinating discussion. We're straight at a time on that one. We will be back with information about the NTAs as well. But on Ununcensored next to the night, Peters has made himself public enemy number one in Australia recently. Do you remember that?

Because it was criticism about the ashes. Now the lionesses are getting similar treatment from some of the newspapers down under. I'll be talking to two football stars from both sides as the rivalry heats up. Welcome back to Pierce Morgan, Uncensor. You know who's been nominated in the TV interview category at this year's NTA's National Television Awards? Our very own Pierce Morgan, of course. He has been shortlisted. And do you know who hasn't been shortlisted? I want to mention this on Peers' bar. Prince Harry, who gave an interview to Tom Bradby.

That didn't make it off the long list into the shortlist. Also, that controversial docu-series, Harry and Megham, which was on Netflix, that hasn't been shortlisted either. I say this all for Peers'est's benefit, because, of course, Pears has been shortlisted. And let's remind ourselves why. Prime Minister, President Trump, Mr President, First Lady. Stormy Daniels.

Jordan Peterson, welcome. All these people protesting just don't get it. Many of them don't. Isn't it slightly patronizing? When you're going through the treatments, you have some tears. God, I'm such a softy. Not a performing monkey.

Come on, Brian. And it's something that really hurt me, because they doubt of my word. A woman is me. A woman is somebody whose breasts hang down to her stomach. Thought the margin lies we're supposed to have a voice. I've hit a terrible wire. La, la, la.

You're being a Karen. Pass Morgan on sunset! From kiss condoms to kiss caskets, we'll get you coming and we'll get you going. I think it's only room for one king, man, you know what I'm saying? It's great. How can you not vote? Let's remind you how you can, using the QR code that we just showed you on a screen. Here it is again now.

You can obviously go to the NTA website as well, but if you scan this, you can vote for peers. Voting is open. You have until midday on Tuesday the 5th of September to have your say, Obviously stick a vote in for peers. Get him another gong for his dressing groom. He loves it. Now, talking of gongs, talking about sporting events, it's the game we've been waiting for.

Tomorrow, the lionesses face the Matildas. It's the Women's World Cup semi-final. Australian newspapers have been taking swipes at England. Look at this front page of Monday's Australian Daily Telegraph reading, now for the POMS. The sporting rivalry between England and Australia does, of course, run deep. This summer's battle for the men's ashes.

It was marred by this action. accusations of unsportsman-like conduct, controversial stumpings. Even I sort of began to follow cricket and I never do. And the change of ball on the fourth afternoon of the final rest. You can tell final test, you can tell that was scripted and not from my head because I don't know anything about cricket, but I did follow Piz's outrage on it. Piz was targeted by the Aussie newspapers for the outrage, accused of being a crybaby.

So who will come out on top tomorrow? How will they deal with all this rivalry? intention is it all just silly nonsense i'm joined from sydney by the australian astinville footballer emily gilnick and by the former english lioness leanne sanderson ladies thank you ever so much for making time on this big eve ahead of this big event emily i'll come to you first given that you're the host or the co-host this year in australia and i hear that the atmosphere down there has been absolutely uh stunning how much pressure are the australian side going to be under then to perform yeah look it's always

massive pressure when you're at a World Cup, let alone a home World Cup. I think this year for us, the magnitude of this event has been bigger than we ever expected. So, yeah, there is a lot of pressure, but at the end of the day, you'd much rather in your backyard than in England. So, you know, we'll take that pressure with open arms. Okay. Leanne, coming to you. I mean, not at all biased in this, but I'm, of course, English. I do love the lionesses. But dealing with that pressure then, having that home side in Australia really cheering the Matilda's on, how the lioness is going to deal with that? I think, you know, we've shown how impactful the fans can be in last Euro's summer,

you know, when we won the Euros. I think it was amazing. And I think having that home field advantage really does help. But I think these lionesses are ready. I think the Matildas have had a really good tournament so far. And I think having the fans on their side will certainly help. We saw England in the last game against Colombia. Most of the fans inside the stadium were Colombian.

And it was very hostile. and I think the lionesses now have learned to be resilient and they've become a bit of a mentality beast. But one thing I will say is the only team that have beaten us under Serena Vigman have been Australia. So, you know, having that in their back pocket might help. But I think it's been a fantastic tournament so far. And Australia have really put...

These players in Australia have really put themselves on the map because similar to how the lineets were last summer, no one was really looking up. Nobody was really respecting the sport. And now everybody's looking up and now everybody's respecting. And it's great to see. That's great. that you think there's been that sea change in a year.

Emily, do you agree with that? We've been debating on the show over the last week or so where there has been a sea change this year and people are respecting the sport as it should be. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, when I played for Aston Villa and I was in England, I was actually at the Euro final. I saw what it did for a nation there

and I saw what it did for women's football, particularly with the crowd attendance that we had later that season. So I'm hoping Australia has the same shift because, to be honest, women's football and football alone in Australia has been at the lower end of the pecking order. So I'd like to see it, you know, to see it get right up there

because we've got AFL and rugby over here. I'm not sure if you guys are too familiar with AFL, but it's really the sport of Australia. So, you know, this World Cup needs to be the turning point and major change needs to happen with the sport. And, Emily, Leanne, was just talking there about the hostility that there could be in the stadium tomorrow against the England players.

Do you think it will be friendly rivalry or do you think there's actually serious hostility between England and Australia on the pitch tomorrow. Look, to be honest, I mean, there's going to be a bit of, I think it's more friendly rivalry. I know that the girls, you know, the Matilda's are desperate to get their hands and some silverware.

It's been a long time coming. We've always just come so close. Now, this is the furthest we've ever come. You know, I did manage to go to an England game myself, and there's still some passionate English here over in Australia that support the lioness. I know they're a big public figure. Like, it's going to be a big clash.

Unfortunately, we're probably going to dominate the ticket sales, I believe. So it's going to be a friendly rival. A lot of the girls play against each other in the WSL. So, you know, there's no unfamiliar territory there. There's no unfamiliar faces. So definitely probably our biggest game to date ever. So I'm just really looking forward to see how it pans out. I agree.

You're probably going to dominate tickets else, but we'll be watching here from England and the UK. And I know people around the world will be as well. Peers has been watching from the US tweeting about it endlessly. Leanne, what is the pressure like going to play a team in its home stadium? like that. You've played 50 caps for England. Yeah, I played in two world cups. And the last time we reached this moment

was when in 2015 and we unfortunately lost to Japan. But I think the lioness is now, after having that little bit of taste of silverware last summer, I think you can see against Colombia at the end of the game, they weren't celebrating, they were probably focusing. You can see no one was really wranging around the field. They weren't really

focused on all the fans and the music. They were focused on the next game and the challenge that was ahead. And I think this game against Australia is not a foregone conclusion. You know, I don't want to be that typical English person. Every time we get to a World Cup, we think we're going to win. You know, we haven't won anything since 1966

a World Cup. So, you know, with regards to that, it's always going to be difficult. But what I would say, you know, along with what we were saying before, there's a lot of these players are playing at WSL, and a lot of these players

are familiar with each other. And I think that would be something that would be a friendly rivalry, but I agree, it's a massive game for now. It's going to be a good one. Look, both you. Thanks so much. Unfortunately, that is all we've got time

for whatever you're up to tonight. Make sure it sounds sensitive. Good night.