Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Should ambulance workers go on strike?

Episode Date: December 19, 2022

Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers looks across the pond as the Capitol riot committee seeks four criminal charges for former President Trump. Following their controversial Netflix docuseries, Piers asks if the Royals should apologise to the Sussexes. Piers addresses the health sector strikes set to ruin Christmas for many with nurse and trade union organiser Helen O'Connor. 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 London, this is Pearz Morgan Unsensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensit. More on that major breaking news from the America Congress, a little later on the program. Of course, they've just referred Donald Trump for criminal prosecution over the riots at the Capitol. It's a recommendation, not yet a formal charge, but it's the first time in US history. That Congress has recommended a former president be prosecuted. It means that Donald Trump, by potential. be one step closer to prison.

The first tonight, so the biggest story in Britain tonight, the strike's about to rock the NHS. It's one of UK's untouchable deities, of course. Its staff, especially the nurses, are real angels. But massive industrial action by two sets of health workers this week will test their unconditional support to breaking point. Falling ill before Christmas is always unfortunate. This week is downright dangerous.

Nurses are striking again tomorrow, demanding a pay rise of 19.2%. More than 10,000 ambulance workers will also strike over pay on Wednesday. Soldiers will provide the emergency cover. Some pregnant women and elderly nursing home residents will be forced to use taxis. This is a desperate state of affairs. And the health secretary, Steve Barclay, who's done next to nothing to resolve this crisis. Well, he's right about one thing.

It's the trade unions that need to ensure that there is sufficient cover to meet their obligations in terms of life-threatening responses. so those emergency calls that are absolutely key that we have sufficient cover in the arrangements that are put in place with each individual ambulance trust. Well, if lives are threatened or even lost because of these strikes, public tolerance will disintegrate.

Health workers enjoy near-sacred levels of public support because their work is a matter of life and death. Of course, patients are worried. Of course, they want nurses and ambulance workers to show up. It literally could cost lives. But they don't buy the government's excuses either, and this mother of a very unwell, three-year-old girl, spoke for many people when she confronted Mr. Barkley today.

And the number of people coming through the door is too many, and it's not fair to blame it on the pandemic anymore, is it? Because actually, we had problems in the NHS before we went into the pandemic. We were short of doctors, there were short of beds going into the pandemic. So I think it's really wrong to blame it on the pandemic. And actually, the damage that you're doing to families like myself

is terrible. It's an emotionally charged debate, and those emotions cloud the facts. The unions say that in 12 years of government, the Conservatives have cut the NHS to shreds. In fact, spending of the NHS has grown from 130 billion to almost 200 billion during those years. But it's also true the health service has been battered by a global pandemic, the demands of an ageing population,

and in my view, massive over-middle management. The government also says that nurses' pay demands are greedy and unrealistic, but the Health Foundation think tank says their pay has fallen by 5% in real terms over the hardest period in living memory. Of course, they feel aggrieved. Ambulance workers, on the other hand,

say their pay has also been cruelly cut, but in fact, the same report shows this gone up by 23% and 8% increase in real terms. That makes the ambulance workers strike, to me, feel like a dangerous and unjustified gamble, wielding our most vulnerable people as bargaining chips. Well, this debate is too often reduced to simplistic fairy tales of good and evil,

the workers, Scrooge government, sinister unions. It's happening on all sides. It does nothing to resolve an increasingly dangerous dispute. Both the unions and the government are doing an emergency disservice to British patients and the public, and they have every right to demand better. Lives depend on it. Well, I'm joined now by Helen O'Connor, a former NHS nurse

and strike organiser for the GMB union. Well, welcome. Thank you for coming in today. Thanks much having me on the show. Here's my problem with this. I'm going to read you something. I just read as well I came in, really quite shocking when I read it. This is in The Guardian, which would normally be, you know, very supportive, I think of a lot of your workers. Thousands of patients who've had strokes, heart

attacks or broken bones will have to get themselves to A&E on Wednesday when ambulance staff strike over pay, NHS bosses have warned. The disruption has been to the last up to three days. Hospital bosses have told the gun and they fear Wednesday's strike by ambulance personnel across England and Wales will entail a huge risk of harm, including older people left left lying on a floor for days with a broken hip getting hypothermia and dying. Only category one patients, those at immediate risk of dying, for example, because they've stopped breathing, will be sent an ambulance during the 24-hour stoppage with everyone else having to make other arrangements. This is not a country.

I recognize that we're going to let old people break bones, potentially face death if they don't get treatment, they may get other infections or whatever, at the busiest time of the year. where people are doing this, the weather conditions are atrocious and have been. How do you morally justify doing it now? Well, it's a health service that I don't recognise either, appears, to be quite frank. When I first started in the NHS, everybody who came through the door of A&E was treated appropriately. And what's happened over the last few decades is years of cuts and privatisation to the point where people are dying anyway. Elderly people are lying on floors anyway, even before these strikes.

So things are in a dire state. I get that. We have 100,000. But with respect, that wasn't my question. I completely agree with you. The NHS has been absolutely on the rocks now for many years. And I hoped that in the pandemic, when the NHS rose to this extraordinary challenge so superbly,

I mean, when I'm clapped on Thursday nights that real action would be done. So I have every sympathy with the state of the service itself. But my question was very specific. How do you morally justify strikeout? which may mean that elderly people who break bones in the streets of this country don't get their treatment. Because I don't think there's any moral justification for doing that. It's one of the reasons the police don't go on strike. I'm not allowed to.

I don't think nurses and particularly ambulance workers whose pay, let's be honest, comparative to nurses, has performed pretty well in the last 12 years or so. So health workers and ambulance workers are striking because they want to stand up for the NHS. Their colleagues are leaving in droves because pay has been driven down through the floor. You've got trust setting up food banks for their staff. Staff are struggling to cover vacancies. Like I said, you already, there's 100,000 vacancies.

But again, I agree with all this, right? I get the problem. I get the gravity. I get conditions are awful. I get the lack of morale. I get the people leaving in droves. All of this absolutely is inarguable. Nobody has more admiration or empathy

for the people that were. in our NHS than me. But that wasn't my question. My question was, notwithstanding all that, how do you morally justify what may now happen in the next three days? Because I don't think there's any justification for you saying it's all terrible in the service.

So what we're going to do is put even more lives at risk. Well, Pears, perhaps you should ask whether the government can morally justify the cuts and privatization that have been making the NHS extremely dangerous for patients. How can they morally justify the fact that people are leaving health workers are going to food banks

and that existing staff are just operating in grueling conditions and those conditions are extremely unsafe for patients. You've got patients dying prematurely in hospitals because of lack of experience staffing because it's the experienced people are actually leaving the NHS and what that means is the more junior staff end up having to step up and take on tasks above their competency level. So every premature death you hear about in the NHS,

you hear about babies dying, etc. It's all because of this death in crisis, this development. I have a lot of sympathy. Okay, I have a lot of sympathy, well, I should say a lot more sympathy for nurses in this process than I do for ambulance workers. I think nurses in real terms have seen their pay absolutely be cut. But according to the 2021 report by the Health Foundation, the average basic pay for ambulance workers doesn't include overtime, this,

increased over the decade from 7,580, by 7,58 pounds to 33,487, a rise of 23% in nominal terms, 8% in real terms. So can I just say to you that's incorrect, because ambulance pay scales, the personnel are aligned to the NHS Agenda for Change. So their pay has fallen as well. They're ban five, band six. So there's a health foundation wrong? These figures do not sound correct to me.

Well, they are correct. They're aligned to agenda for change, which is the national pay bargaining. Well, the health foundation figures were based on the prior decade. And the facts were there, their facts. I mean, it's the health foundation. So the ambulance workers are aligned to exactly the same pay scales as the nurses. Well, the ambulance workers, their pay went up by £7,58 to $33,000. That's simply true.

As an average pay, doesn't include overtime, which is a rise, like I said, a 23% and in real terms, because of cost of living, 8% in real terms. That does not seem to me to be the basis or justification for going out on strike and potentially people losing their lives. So like I say to you, some of your workers, okay, I have more empathy and more sympathy. I think some of the nurses have been treated appallingly. But the ambulance workers who I, let me again state that professionally have incredible respect for ambulance workers. I think calls to use them myself and my family in the last few years, brilliant, brilliant people doing a brilliant job.

It's the union leaders that I'm holding accountable, people like yourself, who are prepared to risk people losing their lives old people losing their lives potentially in the next three days when I don't think that these pain numbers that ambulance workers justify it. So if I could answer some of your points there. First of all, our members would not be going on strike unless they weren't happy. I can't make anyone go to strike.

If everybody went on strike is unhappy, nobody would go to work. There's always some reason why people have fed up at work. The deep crisis that's developed within the NHS that's making them good work... But talk specifically about ambulance workers. Well, if I could answer your question... Don't talk about the NHS in totality, because I've already agreed with it.

Yeah, but I'm talking about ambulance workers. They're part of the NHS, their vital staff. Their pay terms and conditions have dropped through the floor also. Yeah, but the Health Foundation actually contradicts that. It was a 20-21 report. So when you say that there's a drop through the floor, that's not true. They're aligned to gender change. In that 10-year period of 2021, they actually went up by 23%

and in real terms by 8%. It hasn't dropped through the floor. The average hourly rate of the bulk of these workers will be 14 pounds, 21 pence an hour. That's what they'll be on the bulk of these workers. They are struggling. It's not true to say. Are you still denying what the Health Foundation report says?

I don't, I don't. You don't recognize that? You don't understand? You haven't read it? No, I don't recognize those figures because I know. Have you read them? I know that ambulance workers

are aligned to agenda for change. I understand. You said that already. Did you read this 2021 report by the Health Foundation? No, I haven't read it. You never read it? But I know what the ambulance pay structures are.

I know what they are. You're representing ambulance workers and you haven't read. the Health Foundation report, which revealed that over 10 years, their pay went up by 23%. You ever read that? And if their pay was so high and things were so good. How do you know it's not true when you haven't read the report?

Because we speak to our members every single day of the week. This is completely nuts. How could you not read a report by the Health Foundation into the pay of your people? We speak to and engage our members every single day of the week. You haven't read their report? That's our job. I think that's kind of beside the point. It's beside the point to read a report by the Health Foundation into pay?

Union leaders cannot take members out and strike unless there's serious problems in those workplace. How would you know there are serious problems on their pay? You've never read the report into their pay? We speak to our members. Why don't you read the report by the Health Foundation? We speak to our members. We know exactly what their pay scales are. So we know what the pay scales are. We know that pay and the NHS has plummeted.

Are they credible, the Health Foundation? No, but can you ask my question? Are they credible, the Health Foundation? I'm not going to comment on that one way or the other. You said you haven't read it here? We know exactly. You said it's untrue. Hang on, hang on, Helen O'Connor.

You said it was untrue. Then you admitted you hadn't read it. Then you said you got your information about pay from your workers. And I come back to... This is a substantial report into pay involving your workers by the Health Foundation. It's a credible body, isn't it?

I'm going to repeat you again because you don't seem to be hearing this important point. The ambulance workers' pay is aligned to NHS, agenda for change pay scales. The bulk of people on agenda for change are on Band 5, which is £14.21 an hour. It is not high pay. Has the average pay?

Numbers would not be. I hear you. Yeah. I hear you. Has the average basic pay for ambulance workers, excluding overtime, increased between 2011 and 2021 by 7,588 pounds. No, it has not.

So you're saying they're lying. No, it has not. So the Health Foundation is lying. The pay has not increased. Why would they lie? Today, the RPI figures have come out. RPI is now at 14%. Sorry, I was very specific.

How can pay rise in the face of such a high RPI rate? You're talking about the two years or the year and a half after this report. This report was 2021 last year. You haven't read this report. And yet you say their numbers are wrong. So I am telling you that I know that numbers and reports you haven't read. I'm going to repeat again. I'm going to repeat again that you didn't read this report.

So I'm going to repeat the facts. that our members pay in the ambulance service is aligned to a gender for change. Most of those staff from band five, which is 14,000 in an hour, which is very difficult to live on. In the pace of RPI being 14%, you keep saying this. People are going to food banks in the NHS kids. I understand, you're sounding like a parrot now if you don't want me saying, but the bottom line is you didn't read this major report by the Health Foundation, and yet you believe it's untrue. Do you understand how people watching this are going, hang on?

This is a union representative who didn't read a major report into the pay of her own workers, now deciding that is all a lie despite not reading the report. And actually, these numbers are correct. I think what your listeners would like to hear, though, is why... What they want is a bit of credibility from union leaders. I think what they'd like to know is how the situation is developed within the NHS and why our members are going on strike. How are you going to feel if actually, because the ambulance workers are on strike in the next three days, people die?

I think what we'd like the government to do is come back to the table and resolve this dispute. How are you feel if they don't and people die? So people are dying anyway? No, no. I mean more people... Understand, but if more people die... And then, Conner, if more people die in the next three days,

specifically because of the strikes by ambulance workers, how are you going to feel? So the question I put you is, how is the government going to do? No, no, I ask you a question. Because they're the ones... I'll ask the government the question if or when they have the guts to come on. To resolve the dispute, you did.

But let me ask you again, how are you going to feel if people die specifically because of the strikes in the next three days? Nobody wants anyone to die, but people are dying because of the state of the health service. It's been hollowed out. May it will be a few more? No, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. But that's the risk you're taking with people's lives. That's not what I'm saying peers, though. And I tell you what, if these workers don't stand up for the NHS, many, many hundreds of thousands more will die.

Because what will happen is further cuts. Here's what I suggest you do. Go and read the report by the Health Foundation. It's a good report. And there you'll find some information which might make you rethink about hold of the country to ransom over ambulance workers. I'm not holding the country to ransom. All right, I appreciate you coming in. Thank you very much.

Well, still to come. Harry and Megan are back. Of course, they are with a new trailer for yet another Netflix series. Apparently they're now invoking the spirit of Nelson Mandela, the other famous man who sought freedom. And they're demanding an apology for the claims they made in their first Netflix series from the Royal Family, the people they're accused of being a bunch of callous racics. Should they get that apology? Should the world's meet with them to give them that apology? That debate after the book.

Also to come, Harry and Megan are back with the new Netflix show on a demand for a royal apology over in century claims are made in the first one. If they get one, we'll debate that a little later on the program. But first, let's get more on this major breaking news coming out of America. In the last few minutes, the U.S. Congressional Committee investigating last year's capital riots on January 6th has referred Donald Trump, the former president to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. The charges recommended are obstruction of the obstruction of the election.

official proceedings, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a full statement, and most crucially inciting, assisting, aiding or comforting an insurrection. Now, it's a recommendation, not yet a formal charge. That will be down to the DOJ. But it is the first time in U.S. history that Congress has recommended, a former president, be prosecuted. Let me talk now to U.S. attorney Eric Gustav. Eric, what do you make of this extraordinary news? I'm not necessarily shocked by it, because as, as... the committee has set this up with all their hearings, they've taken testimony, they have shown

clips of depositions and sworn statements to really build their case in the public eye and for them to further put it into the DOJ's hands. I do expect him to be charged by the DOJ, especially on the conspiracy charges, because conspiracies are a lot easier to prove than any of the other direct charges, because conspiracy is only part of the planning and plighting, to do something with other people, and they have sworn testimony that that is what happened. So, Eric, I'm reading here, this is from Mike Pence, who, of course, was Trump's former vice president,

who said this just ahead of the committee's referrals, so it's before the news was announced. He said the following, I hope the Justice Department understands the magnitude of the very idea of indicting a former President of the United States. I think there would be a terribly divisive in a country at a time when the American people want to see us heal.

And this time of year, we're all thinking about the most important thing and our lives, our faith, and our family. And my hope is the Justice Department will think very carefully. I mean, there is a point there that even if Trump is guilty as hell, as many people believe, of these charges, and clearly Congress, a bipartisan committee here, believes that is the case, or they wouldn't have recommended it, even if he is, would it be a good thing for America

to prosecute Donald Trump criminally and potentially have him be put in jail? The big answer is, yes, it would be good for America because we have to hold every single person accountable for the things that they did. And Donald Trump, who is likely part of an insurrection, I believe he was part of the insurrection, I believe that he went forth and asked people to do these things. It doesn't matter if you're the smallest person on the totem pole or the highest person on the totem pole. You should be held accountable. And of course we have the far right extremists who many of them showed up January 6th. at the Capitol and are part of this

where they were armed and have threatened violence even after this incident. So I anticipate that side of the country to really rise up some. However, Mike Prince, he's trying to save face because he's about to run for president. So he wants everyone to kind of stay glued together so that he can get the Republican nomination.

I mean, when Richard Nixon was convicted and clearly shamed and disgraced and gave up office, in the end, he was pardoned because that was believed to be in America's better national interest going forward than to actually sling a president into prison. But again, I come back to the optics of this, I guess, to the rest of the world.

Never mind just internally for America, but if the DAJ was to charge Trump and he was to be convicted, could you really envisage a situation where he is put behind bars with all the impact that would have, not just domestically but internationally? I do believe it would be a great,

idea. And part of that peers is Donald Trump was very vocal. He was very open and very public with all the things that he did. He had a Twitter account with millions and millions of followers spewing the hate, spewing the different rhetoric that led people to January 6th. And that is one thing that he needs to be held accountable for even those actions, because if you are the sitting president and you do this to your country that loves democracy, that tries to force democracy on other nations. If a person within our government is against democracy, then they have to be charged if they're doing something such as raising insurrection against our country. Well, Eric Guster, I appreciate you joining us with such late. That is much appreciate it.

I'm sure it's a huge story now breaking all over America. And the consequences, obviously, are enormous. We could end up with the first ever example of an American president actually going to prison. And that's a remarkable thing, particularly one who is, of course, is divisive and popular and unpopular in equal doses as Donald Trump. So thank you to Eric for joining us there. Well, Harry and Megan have demanded a royal apology for the claims made in their Netflix documentary. The six-hour wine-a-thon launched blistering attacks

on Britain and the British monarchy, and the palace is reportedly baffled by the request. They're not the only ones. And as if we haven't suffered enough, tonight Netflix released a new trailer for another Harry and Megan show. This one promises to be just as smug as the first one. This was inspired by Nelson Mandela,

who once said, what counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead. It's about people who have made brave choices. To fight for change and to become leaders. And giving inspiration to the rest of us. To live, to lead. It's unbelievable, isn't it?

I mean, every time I think they can't. climate new depths these two. They're now comparing themselves to Nelson Mandela, who spent nearly 30 years in a six-by-six prison cell. Really? He went on to become the first black president for South Africa, a unifying leader of true greatness, one of the, well, actually the,

the most impressive person I've ever interviewed in my life. They are comparing their dash for freedom to a mansion in California, where they now hawk out their royal titles for hundreds of millions of dollars? That's what Mandela did in their eyes? Well, to me, it's unbelievable. But maybe there are some out there

that believe this stuff. Joining me now is the author and actor and is Natalie Collins, the former head of Royal Protection, Dyer Davis, and talk to the contributor, Esther Cracker. We'll start with you, Esther. You'd be waiting patiently here. They're the new Mandela, apparently.

Apparently. I just find it, the arrogance is incredible to demand an apology, because that's how you get an apology by demanding one. A sincere and honest and open apology. I just think, you know, they officially declared war on the royal family by coming out with this Netflix documentary. They made it clear that they wanted no reconciliation, because you wouldn't do that.

You wouldn't put your family through that if you really want to open, genuine conversation and reconciliation. Also, they just called Prince Charles a lying bully. They've called Prince William. Even worse. So they drove him out of the country with his... He drove them out of the country with his bullying and lies. They've called the whole family a bunch of races. Why would you even want apology from someone,

people like that, that are so negative in your view? Well, I think I could understand why they're demanding apology because they're so self-righteous about everything. They assume they're right about everything. I can't understand what on earth makes them think Charles and William would even consider being in the room with them right now. But I do think there's an element of the longer that they can keep this feud going. That's more money in their bank account,

because now everything they do, they would develop, oh, but what about William? How's your relationship with the royal family? How's your relationship with your father? And so that's basically, you know, a giant check that they've blank checked. How could you trust them not to just basically record everything that goes on if they did have a meeting like that? Well, they would.

Let me go to Natalie Collins. Natalie, I'm aware there are people out there that completely disagree and think that they are true freedom fighters who were oppressed by the royal family and have taken their oppression now to this vast mansion in Montecito in Santa Barbara. It's a beautiful place. I've been down to that area. Lovely. rolling ocean waves, beautiful lifestyle.

Not my idea of what oppression looks like, but there we are, each to their own. But let's get to this idea of an apology that you can basically call a family, a bunch of callous racists who refused to let you get help for suicidal thoughts that you said you had that made racist comments, apparently,

that was so demeaning you had to allude to them on an Oprah Winfrey interview. You now call them a bunch of lying, bullies, including the new king, why would you expect anybody to sit down with you and apologise after you've done all the public trashing? I think in the context of a column that was written today by Jeremy Clarkson, which described Megan Markle as worse than Rose West and calling on people to have her stripped naked and throw excrement on her in the street, I think it's really important that we put the context of what Megan and Harry are talking about in the context of the wider

hatred, which, to be fair, you were a real pioneer in that hatred of Meghan Markle years ago. I don't hate Megamarkle. I don't, no, hang on. Hang on, hang on. Well, I mean, you have made a career out of the time. You said I hate Megamarkle. Let me be clear. I've never said I hate Megamarkle.

I don't hate Megamarkle. I hate what she's done to the royal family and to the monarchy and to the reputation of Britain. Only tonight, the New York Times, has carried a major op-ed piece, absolutely trashing this country. as a racist country with a racist institution at the head of it, a callous institution that should be dismantled. So, yeah, I see real damage in what Meghan, Markle and Harry, have both done now to the reputation of his country and to our monarchy. So, yeah, but I don't hate them individually as people.

And in relation to the Clarkson column, which he's now issued a mere culper over, I didn't think he should have put that in the column for my personal view, but he's now said he wishes he hadn't either. So, you know, I don't see what that has to do with the wider picture of these two trashing their families and now demanding an apology. Well, I think in the same way that you're saying you don't personally hate them,

but you are opposed to what they stand for and what they're saying and how they've behaved. I think that's entirely the same argument that Megan and Harry are making in their documentary and in the work that they've done is saying that actually the way that they've been harmed by this institution, by this system, which, you know, we cannot.

deny the impact of colonialism. We cannot deny the impact of this monarchy in terms of we have a history in this country of doing really terrible things for the places and to deny that reality, to deny the impact of and the reality, this monarchy, how is it that in this day and age, we have a group of people who are born into wealth and privilege just because of being born into it. It is absolutely madness that in 2020, that is the norm. They're also responsible for developing the Commonwealth, which has been one of the great success stories in the world. And of course

it's not really commonwealth, though, is it? The people who've got that wealth are mainly in the royal family have a lot more wealth. So you hate them because they've got money. So presumably by that yastick, if you hate people who've got lots of money without actually earning or deserving it, you must also hate, therefore, the Sussexes, who've done nothing to deserve it, other than

trash their families. Well, I just... I think, you know, I I think there's a sense that, of course, people, we can't like hate people because of their privilege, but what they're doing with it or how they use, utilising it is really important as well. And I think there is a sense that we are also talking about a man who, as a boy, his mother was killed by obeying mob in the media and then was, you know, grew up, have a wife, who was also attacked by obeying mob. These are easy lies to say on television, but I'm afraid I'm afraid I'm.

have to hold you to account on it. But it's not a lie that his mother was killed, does it? It's not a bayed mob. Princess Diana was killed by a drunk driver. That was the official inquest report into her death. It was a drunk driver speeding who killed Princess Diana. So it wasn't a baymob that killed her. You might want it to be a baying mob. And maybe Harry has grown up thinking it was a baying mob. I could tell a hundred stories about the way his mother colluded with me as a newspaper editor with the paparazzi or colluded with me over having a private lunch at Kensington Palace giving me loads of stories,

which she knew I would then have as informed information for my newspaper. I could tell the time that Diana rang me up and gave me an hour-long interview about a visit to a clinic she'd done, signed off on every page of the interview, which was faxed to her and returned with her initials on it, and the next day said she was outraged by the intrusive story, in the Daily Mirror, which was the story

she given me at length over an hour on tape. So there are lots of different ways you can skin this cat about the relationship between the royal family and the media. My argument about Megan and Harry is they apparently were so disgusted by this callous, racist family

and institution that they fled the country, gave up royal duty, now live in California in extreme luxury, and yet bizarrely, they still want to retain the titles afforded them by the institution that they describe as callous racist and they use those titles to make themselves

stinking rich without doing any work. I think that's hypocrisy. Let's go to Di Davis. It sounds like the rest of the royal family, really. Well, not really, because they do hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of duties a year. Well, they turn up in three, four hundred events a year, the main royals. So they actually do put back. That's the whole point of the royal family.

They don't just get paid for nothing. They give back. Now, DiDavis, you were helping to run security to the Royal Family for many years. What do you make of this? I mean, I read this New York Times piece tonight with a real sinking feeling in my heart that actually the relentless attacks by Megan and Harry

are beginning to really stick in other parts of the world about our country and about our monarchy. Well, good evening. A very good friend of mine defined ethical. Being ethical means knowing what is right and having the courage to do what is right. As a former policeman, what I haven't seen one iota so far is evidence. And unfortunately, people like Clarkson give Greas to the story.

He doesn't represent you, he doesn't represent me, and he doesn't represent 99% of this country. I take great umbrage as being classified quite often as a police officer or an ex-police officer as racist. I resent it and I resent those who have the audacity to actually come out with this palable nonsense with little or no evidence. The whole issue, if they gave that hundred million to charity,

I'd have more respect, but I don't think they have. No, and you know what, Di, I get called a racist all day long on social media now as a direct result of Megam Markle levering me out of my former job in which she basically inferred if you didn't believe her, about everything, you must be a racist. I don't have a racist bone in my body, nor have I ever said anything racist about Mega Markle.

No one could find anything I've said. And yet, it got so ridiculous. Even Sharon Osborne was fired from a job she loved in America because she said I was entitled to my opinion, and for that she was called a racist sympathizer. This is how mad it's got. But this is the damage that's done. The royal family right now in America

are perceived by many people to be callous racist, without any, as you say, die, any actual evidence to support any of these claims. And, you know, I mean, die on a wider point, where does this leave the monarchy? What should they do? I mean, the historic position of the current family is you just don't respond to this kind of thing. But I'll be reaching the point, and I always think that never complain, never explain, is a good mantra, the Queen Mother's mantra for being popular in the public eye if you're a royal. But I'll be reaching a point where they need to return some fire.

Well, sometimes the royal family need good advice. Their protection officer quite often give good advice and they listen. In this case, I don't think they should apologize. I thought they were wrong in respect of Lady Hussey. In my opinion, and a lot of people disagree, she had nothing to apologize for. I felt, and I said it either on your program or others, they were wrong to jump to conclusion without hearing all the facts and actually interviewing Lady Hussey.

But we are where we are now. I just hope that doesn't set a precedent because it would be wrong. And yes, would I invite them to the coronation? Certainly not. From a security point of view, it would all about them. And unfortunately, they have caused,

as I've said in the telegraph fairly recently, in my opinion, there are nutters out there who could cause harm to, not only the royal family, but also those in America. The fixated threat assessment of the FBI and CIA, and I went to Los Angeles years ago to discuss this, they are literally thousands in America.

They're doing nothing to support their safety or their cause. They are completely, their moral compass has gone ski-whiff in my opinion. Well, I don't think anyone... I don't think anyone... I don't wish any harm on any of the people involved in this. Harry, Megan, any of the royal family, none of them. Absolutely clear about that. They're going to get harm if they carry on like this case.

I agree. I think all of it is incendiary. And this book that's coming out will be even more incendiary and pour even more fuel on the fire. But my question about the coronation, I've got to be honest, why would two people who despise the monarchy and everything it stands for who think that the royal family are a bunch of racists, why would earth would they turn up at the coronation? Why would they? I'll tell you why.

Because that's where the money is. If they're seen at the coronation, next to all the major royal players, that is gold dust for their next Netflix series. And there, right there, is the hypocrisy that underpins everything these two do. Got to leave it there. A good debate, Natalie, thank you very much indeed.

Dye, thank you very much. Esther, you're staying with us. You'll be delighted to hear. I'll talk after the break about the modern obsession with emotion which has turned us into a country of crybabies. British Battle Axe. That's a rather unkind word describing.

National Treasure. Christine Hamilton is here. So let's all to toughen up. It was Sheila Hancock, we said it first, and Christina Greens. We'll be back after break. What a lively old show tonight. And, well, good evening to Sir Rod Stewart, who's just informing he's watching and enjoying what we're doing tonight.

Good evening, Sir Rod. One of the great men in Britain. I think we were more like Rod. In fact, this brings me to our next segment. Has the modern obsession with emotion turned us into a nation of cry babies? Well, here with me are tonight's pack. Talk to you, contribute to Esther Crack. you're still with me, political journalist Avesantina,

myself declared battle acts, I'm assured, author and broadcast at Christine Hamilton. I don't want to call you that, you burst into tears. We'd rather kill the segment, Christine. This all comes apart because Sheila Hancock said it's become fashionable, almost a badge of honour to blub in public. And there's a difference, I think, qualitatively,

between why people are. If people are at a funeral, of course. They're going to be upset and emotional. I even understand great sporting athletes when they put everything into something. Of course we get that. That's not what she's talking about. She's talking about the general run-of-the-mill kind of what I would call virtue signaling tears,

where Hancock was a good example, wasn't he, when he cried to me on Good Morning Britain about the first vaccine, and there were no tears. Christine. He should have spoken to Megan because she knows her to produce the tears. Well, she boasted she could cry in three seconds. I mean, this emotion business, it's gone full circle, and it's in cycles.

It's like climate change. apparently back in the first Elizabethan age, the Italians who came here were astonished at how emotional we were. Now, coming from Italians, that's pretty rich. Then it all went completely back in the other direction, the Victorian age and empire, etc., etc., and we all became very stoic

and the stiff upper lip, etc., etc., and then we had two world wars where that was a very admirable virtue, and we wouldn't have got through them without it. Then I think the rot began in the 1960s, when it was let it all hang out, you know, and throw it all out there, and if you weren't emoting to everybody,

you weren't feeling it, etc. Well, most of it was down to drugs in the 60s, right? That's why they're all blubbing. But then the floodgates really opened when we came to Diana Gate. And then everybody was exploding with this incredible grief, which they were feeling for somebody

they'd never ever met. I mean, to me, you can't feel grief for somebody you don't know. I was very upset when the Queen died, but I wouldn't call it grief. I actually, I did feel a tear well up when the Queen died. So I think you can feel it before. people who don't exist. I think you can for people who are not family members.

But Ava... So can I just finish that tiny point? Yes. It's important. Against all that, the Queen who was showing the traditional British stiff up a lip, was regarded as uncairing and unfeeling because she wasn't emoting all over the place. Sorry to interrupt. No, you didn't. Even at all.

I don't know about that. I think I would actually say I would only implore a stiff up a lip when it comes to things like the Queen dying. I think Sheila herself, Sheila Hancock, who's come out with this bizarre comment about us. somehow being softer than we were before, is the one who says she was crying when the queen died. That to me is quite pathetic. I actually think my generation is a lot stronger than those that have gone before.

Really? Excuse me. I would just like to say, Christine, I do think it was slightly disingenuous to say that we had a stiff upper lip during the wars. I mean, in the first world war, after that, we had awful PTSD, and actually you'd find men on the streets crying, and that is documented widely in literature.

So I'm not so sure about your accounts. No, but all I'm saying is that this goes in secular cycles, as it were, and the real floodgates opened after Diana, but it started in the 60s. During the war, if we hadn't... It's also what's socially acceptable, isn't it? I mean, you did have men crying in the streets, but it wasn't socially acceptable to just be out there...

Emoting, constantly crying. I don't think it's socially acceptable now. I actually think that's the reason that we absolutely... Oh, come on. It's not socially acceptable, not to do it. People never stop flooding now. It's particularly my generation, and I would say it's my generation because it's a very American attitude.

It's very, you know, let it all hang out, explore your feelings, get in touch to your emotional side. And it's so infuriating. Because I just think there's a really good action. That is annoying. But there's something remarkable about being stoic and being able to hold it together because sometimes you're a source of strength for other people. Do you know what?

Here's my overview, that is. I think that there's no doubt encouraging people to be more open is a good thing. We've got no problem with that. I think that there's no doubt that men in particular perhaps felt a bit repressed. They weren't able to show. I get all that. That's fine. And I'm not against that at all.

But I do think that when it comes to the stiff upper lip, It's become a stick to beat people with that is somehow offensive to have a stip up a lip that it's always a malevolent thing. I don't think it is. I actually think if you're able to control your emotions most of the time and not just constantly cry about things, that's quite a good thing too.

Who has ever said that? Do you not remember when George... No, no. Every time I mention this to develop a lit, honestly, Twitter goes berserk. No, that's ridiculous. How dare you? When George Ongon cried at Margaret Thatcher's funeral, he was ridiculed and rightly so

because it was incredibly embarrassing. That needed a stiff upper lip. I mean, come on. Sorry, who cried at Marjorie? George Osborne. Oh, wow. I do think it's a generation. I'll tell you, the classic...

The absolute classic movie, stiff upper lip, was, of course, brief encounter with all that repressed emotion, one of the most wonderful movies that's ever been made. If that was made now, the Celia Johnson character would have her kit off in the station.

I just think, you know what I think we... Here's what I think we've are. You talk about this generation being stronger. I mean, maybe they are in some ways. I think the problem has become that if you actually go the other way and you say, right, dust yourself down, get back up, do the old Rocky Balboa.

It's not how often you get knocked down, it's how many times you get back up and keep moving forward. If you can do that without blubbing all over the place, people now, they criticise you for having that attitude. What, you're telling people to man up? I'm like, what? It's a toxic.

It's not. Who's telling you that? You've no idea the abuse I get when I say stuff like that. But maybe man up is not exactly the most appropriate. I think stiff up the lip is fine. man up, you're essentially saying to a generation where suicide rates are going through the roof

that their emotions aren't valid. Yeah, but actually... It's not about people who feel suicidal. It's about when you play sport, for instance, at school, I can remember all the sports teachers like, get up, man up, get on with it. I think wrong with that, right? It doesn't mean you're somehow weak,

in fear of individual. It means get a grip of yourself and get back in. And I'm going to get a grip and get back into the second part of this debate after break. We're going to bring in this whole debate. Rishie Sunak has told Gary Neville, the football pundit, to stick to football

after he went on a rant on ITV during the World Cup final about how, yeah, there were problems in Qatar. Well, what about the problems here with all the strikes and the government's attitude towards it? So should footballers stick to football? I've got three football experts waiting to get stuck in this after the break. Okay, Matt, Mastella Pack are still with me.

Should footballers stick to football? Friends of mine like Gary Denneker, very vocal about lots of issues. Are they right to do that? Should they just stick to what they do? This has all come to a head, of course, in the Qatar World Cup. Gary launched BBC's coverage with a bit of a rant about Qatar's record on human rights. Gary Neville, at ITV, ended it with a rant not just about Qatar,

but bringing in the UK's record on strikes and so on at the moment, which made the front page of The Daily Meltter? Is it just worth mentioning, we've got a current government in our country who are demonising, rail workers, ambulance workers, and terrifyingly nurses. So in our country, we've got to look at workers' rights and so on and so on. So bringing in our record here on rights as well. And Rishi Sunak said, it should stick to football.

Well, Pat, what do we think here? Ava, what do you think? I knew you'd go for me first. I knew you would. You're one resident football expert. Look, I don't think that politics is the preserve of the politicians. I don't understand why a football pundit is not allowed to talk about. I think it's fundamentally undemocratic to claim that he can't use his platform for that, you know,

for what he said. And actually, he made a really, really valid point, which is that for some reason in our country, we don't think we need to pay the nurses, but we do look at Qatar and we criticise their human rights. Well, I do agree about Western hypocrisy. I think one of the reasons Gary Neville and Gary Lennox both got criticized was they both worked Gary and, well, both Gary's for Bain Sports in Qatar

and taking their money but want to go there for the World Cup and criticize them. They would argue, well, we go there, we shine a light and so on. Other people think it's hypocritical. I'm happy you said that, you know, he made a good point because I was just wondering, would you be against it if he didn't make the point that you wanted him to make? This is the thing. We're always happy to say that they're allowed.

I think that's a bang-on point. You know, we're happy to say, you know, they're allowed to have their opinions when they agree with you. But if he was saying, actually, you know, the government's negotiation with the strike workers are just perfect. If Gary Lineke said all the things

that people on the right liked, they'd all love him. No, but most of our broadcasting is what people on the right like. I'm sorry, but like, absolutely not. Not on this show. Come on. That's why I have lunatics on left like you.

Well, look, I know absolutely nothing about football, but I think there's a world of difference between the two garries. Gary Lineca is on BBC and he's paid for by the licence pair. Gary, as I understand it, is on Sky. ITV and Sky. ITV and Sky. That is not funded by the public person. That's frankly, it's up to them.

If they don't mind him being involved in the... That's a very good point, actually. That's up to them. But as for the Qatar business, I mean, it would have been... If he's making points about the evils of the Qatar regime, it would have been much stronger if he'd made it in advance and said, I am not going. I am not taking the money.

I also think, by the way, I went to Qatar. Unlike most of the people criticising it, I went to Qatar, and it was a brilliant experience, that World Cup. You can have your issues with some of their human rights issues, as I do, but as a World Cup, it was fantastic. And I would think we should have been more World Cups in the Middle East, frankly. And we've got to take our moral halo off in this country, and stop pretending that somehow we are so morally pure,

only we can hold sporting tournaments. Because here's a shock for you, England. We're not. We are slightly above Qatar in those stakes. Maybe, but if I was at the Euro final last year, you wouldn't be saying that. Nice to see you through. Thank you very much. Whatever you're up to tonight, keep it uncensored. That's it from me. Good night.