Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Should Prince Harry be banned from the Coronation?

Episode Date: January 16, 2023

Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers Morgan comments on Prince Harry's response to Jeremy Clarkson's apology and asks if he should be banned from the King's coronation. Piers and Tessa Dunlop have a fiery debate over the Prince with Anne Widdecombe having to intervene! Piers comments on the lack of women in the Brits Best Artist category. Piers looks across the pond to Biden's hypocrisy over classified documents. 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

Tonight, our Peasbork, and uncensored, tone-deaf hypocrite Harry, demands a royal apology after skewering his family in books, documentaries and interviews. But shouldn't the grovelling apology come from him and his wife, before we even think of them being allowed to attend the king's coronation? The Brit of Wars goes gender-neutral, scrapping male and female categories be more inclusive. And guess what? Yep, no women then got nominated with chilling predictability. What a farce.

later. Plus, President Biden blasted Donald Trump as totally irresponsible for keeping classified documents at home. And, of course, with equal predictability, he's now being caught doing exactly the same thing. Well, ask Kelly Ann Conway, Trump's former top advisor, what she thinks of this situation. Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening for London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unscensored. King Charles will be crowned in May in a ceremony gilded by British history. Millions, if not billions, will watch around the world as Charles formally ascends the throne at Westminster Abbey, where every coronation for the last 957 years

has been staged. Look about that for a moment. A millennium of history, our history, Britain's history. 30 kings and queens are buried there. It's the sacred place where the late queen herself was married and crowned and where she marked the death of her own husband. And that ribbon of history is what makes the British monarchy unique.

State occasions that the coronation belong not just to the royals, but to the people of Britain and the Commonwealth. The very last thing the coronation needs is a sickening garnish of the cup-price Kardashians, hogging the spotlight and making notes for their next cash-grabbing expose. Harry won't say yet if he'll attend, but he's made his terms very clear.

I don't know whether they'll be, you know, watching this or not, but what they have to say to me and what I have to say to them will be in private, and I hope it can stay that way. The irony is just breathtaking, isn't it? 416 pages and countless interviews spewing intimate family secrets. Now he wants privacy. And according to his latest whining interview, he also wants the royals, the people he's just been slaughtering the weeks on end,

to say sorry. What I'd really like, he says, is some accountability and an apology to my wife, he told the term. You know what you did? This is beyond Barrett. You know what you did, and I now know why you did it, and you've been caught out. So just come clean. He's addressing this to our king and to our future king.

And he went on. It was 100 pages, and now it's down to 400 pages. It could have been two books, put it that way. And the hard bit was taking things out. He then accused the media of having a, quote, bleep ton of dirt about my family. I know they have it, and they sweep it under the carpet for juicy stories about somebody else.

Hmm. Is that like blackmail to you? In one breath demanding an apology and the next holding them to ransom over what he's held back, what may be to come, what the media may have that they decided not to publish in return for terrible stories about Megan and Harry.

The delusion of this guy, that he thinks that's how this works, that the press getting amazingly... sensational story about Charles or William. And actually, after the palace approached the press, they go, you know what, we'll just ditch that one and we'll run something nasty about those two in Montecito. He's completely deluded.

If you think that's what happens. This treacherous little toad has forgotten you're supposed to turn into a prince after being kissed by the spoiled princess, not the other way round. Last time a royal abandoned his duties to hook up with the divorced American Socialite, it was Edward VIII with Wallace Simpson.

He never made it to his own coronation, but he did want to attend the ceremony for his niece, Queen Elizabeth. Mr Winston Churchill stepped in and told him to sling his hook. If Rishi Sunnack was to do the same right now, probably be the most popular thing he's done so far as Prime Minister. But before we even so much to think about whether Harry and Megan should be allowed anywhere near the coronation, and for me, they absolutely should not even be considered for an invitation,

one thing would need to happen. They'd have to go on national television. They're familiar with the genre. plunged to their knees and issue a global apology to their families on both sides, who they've so mercilessly trashed on every airway that is prepared to pay them money. And what happens with these two if you do apologize to them? It's quite interesting, isn't it? One person who's made a very groveling apology today publicly is Jeremy Clarkson,

who's now infamous column on Megan sparked an avoidable and predictable backlash. To be clear, the comments he said were completely inappropriate. and wrong. He shouldn't have said them. It was a dumb joke, and I think he now recognizes, judging by his statement today, that it was a moment of madness. All columnists have fathom. I fadden myself. But he should have longed me a culprit on Instagram, a long one, expressing his deep, deep, profound regret. But it wasn't enough. Harry's spokesman immediately hit back. It's clear this is not a nice stated incident shared in haste, but rather a series of articles shared in hate. Again, the irony.

A series of articles shared in hate. Does that remind you of anything? Do it remind you of a book that's just come out called Spare Spewing Hate at the Royal Family? You can stick your apology, Harry, where the sun don't shine. Well, joining me now is former Conservative Minister Anne Whittaker, and historian Dr. Tester Dunlop, also with his Royal Editor of the Sunday Times,

Royne Nicke, and former BBC Royal Editor, Jenny Bond. so a veritable galaxy of luminaries to debate this. Let me start with you, Roy, again, because you had a big story on Sunday in which your sources at the palace were basically indicating that notwithstanding the onslaught that's come their way, King Charles in particular was prepared

to consider reconciliation before the coronation in May. Now, I've got to say, before I get you to talk about that, my own sources tonight, who I would describe as pretty impeccable, believe that's a bit of a reach, say that Charles is absolutely livid, and actually reconciliation right now is most definitely not on the cars.

There's been no contact whatsoever with anyone in Montecito, and that may well stay the same. So let's thrash out our sources here. How confident are you that you think that Charles really does want to reconcile with somebody who's really shown that any attempt to do anything just immediately gets commercialized? Well, good evening, peers. I think sources aside, if you speak to people who really know the king, they will tell you that he absolutely does not want to be estranged from his son for the rest of his life.

There is no doubt that Charles has lived, the whole royal family have pretty livid about what Harry has done. But we have a few months now, very, very crucial months leading up to the coronation. And one of the most extraordinary lines in that book was Harry's revelation that Charles said to him and William after Philip's funeral, please boys don't make the rest of my life a misery, which at the moment Harry is doing a very good job of. But what Charles will not want, really won't want, is estrangement from his son forever and any kind of major overshadowing of the coronation.

And if there is nothing done, no contact at all between now and the coronation, I really do think we're going to keep hearing from Harry and Meghan in a very negative way, and Charles will want to avoid that. But you know what my response would be? It's like, all right, keep yapping if you want to. you've done your worst. Honestly, keep yapping

and just completely ignore them. Don't invite them to any royal events. I mean, Jenny Bond, why the hell should they be invited to a coronation? It's the people's coronation. It's our coronation for our monarch. All they've done these two is damage the monarchy, damage the reputation of that institution, damage their family, the royal family,

on which the monarchy's future depends. What on earth has they done to deserve an invitation to a coronation? where it's not just Charles, by the way, it's Camilla as well getting crowned, who Harry just trashed in his book. Yeah. Well, I think, you know, this is the most important day, probably in the whole of Charles's life.

And if, as the loving father, which I believe him to be, he wants his younger son to be there, then I think that is his right and his privilege. And I think an invitation will be extended to them. I think to not invite them, really, is going to be feeding the hand that bites. Charles so it'd be wise to invite them and if they do come I think it we the media actually should take it upon ourselves not to make it not to make it overshadow

the coronation I mean we don't want to have screaming headlines about them so I think we should just have a footnote at the bottom of our coverage of the coronation say also in attendance were the Duke and Duchess of Sussex I think that might be one approach I'd like a footman to drag them out if that in eventuality if you be bringing tests at Donnellot You are the great apologist for Megan and Harry. Here's my question for you. Why would two people who hate everything the royal seem to stand for,

hate the monarchy, are intent on destroying it, have done nothing but trash it and diminish it in the last two years. Why on earth would they want to be at a coronation of the next monarch of this country? Piers, I thought you'd read the full 400 plus pages of spare. then you will have got the message loud and clear. There is no macro Harry plan. He is a dyed-in-the-wool royalist. No, he's not.

Yes, I'm afraid. He's going about it all the wrong way. He's done unspeakable damage, but he wants to save the monarchy apparently. No, no, no. No, I'm being serious. No, what he wants, Tessa, let me just respond to that. What he wants is to keep the titles,

the royal titles for him and his wife, because it's the titles that make the money. and they're making hundreds of millions of dollars. His book, number one global bestseller, his documentary series, huge success, blah, blah, blah. Of course it is. He's trashing the royal family from the inside. This is a boy in pain who grew up.

I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. Who grew up in a goldfish ball. Is he in pain or has he never been happy? Which one is it? He's telling us how happy he is. Who grew up in a goldfish bowl, who's thrashing his way out of the gilded cage,

but actually is realized he doesn't know how to exist without the gilded cage. I incidentally am no apologist for Harry. You are right. But I do apologise on your behalf because one minute you sit their peers and you say, oh, they'll keep yapping away,

they should be ignored. There is no way if they, so much as fart that you would ignore what they say, you stoke the boiler, you stoke the problems for the royal family. Let me be clear. People say this to me, go, why do you keep banging on about these two?

Why do you? Because they keep trashing the royals in podcasts, in books, in documentary series, in interviews. It never stops. And I say to them now, I will stop writing and commenting about them if they just shut up. Go to Camp Montecito. Be the happy people you keep telling us that you are. Stop trashing the royal family. Stop attacking our monarchy. Stop diminishing this country. If you do that, I'll leave you alone. You've just heard from the dignified, the dignified Jenny Bond, reduce it to a footnote, Piz. But you couldn't resist doing that because, like them, you make money

I love Jenny. Let's own it. You make money from it. I bow to nobody. Of course I do. Everybody who's involved in covering the rules makes my case. You're making money appearing on this show tonight. Double times. Thanks. Yeah, exactly. So you're making money too out of it. So let's not be hypocrites. Jenny Bond, look, no, I'm bound to nobody in my admiration of Jenny Bond. But she would have been the first in her previous capacity as the BBC's Royal Doyen to probably not actually reduce her to a footnote at the coronation because she'd know it's a big,

hot story. And this is the problem, Anne Widdickham, isn't it? Is that unfortunately, everywhere they go, so does the lens of attention, because they make it their job to make sure that we don't leave them alone. That is exactly why I think they should not be at the coronation. For this reason, I ask myself a very straightforward question, which will be the bigger circus if they don't come or if they do come? And if they come, they're likely to be booed. We all know that.

There'll be a lot of attention on them because they're there. Well, that'll be the story. They get booed at the coronation. Exactly. Whereas if they're in Montecito, we're all free to concentrate on the coronation. So I feel very strongly they shouldn't come. I also, hang on, you had a long ago. I also feel equally strongly that the Royal should not be proposing a negotiation meeting. Because we've heard Harry's terms. He wants an abject surrender. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw me.

This is the point. Roya, this is the problem I would have if I were Charles and William in particular, is how do you try? trust them? How do you trust him, given that almost all their private conversations with Harry have now appeared in this book, including really intimate stuff, including at Prince Philip's funeral and so on? How on earth can they trust him to have some sort of private meeting which stays private? Well, that's a great question, and that's something that's even been acknowledged by sources close to Harry and Megan, who's said to me, and I've written that, that even they acknowledge that there's an issue there that perhaps the royal family might not trust that private stays private. But what I would say is as much as it might stick in the

crawler of many members of the royal family, particularly the ones you've just mentioned who come under heavy fire in the book. I think if the king isn't seen to somehow do something, I think he's going to come under even more heavy fire from his son and other people down the line. But that will be the great test. I think if they do propose some sort of, I'm not saying a negotiation, but some sort of sit down and then something leaks out and it comes from Harry and Megan's side, then I think it probably is game over. But at least the may have tried. Yeah, I mean, Jenny Bond, I feel incredibly

sorry for Charles. He's lost both his parents in the space of two years. He's probably still mourning his mother, who just died a few months ago. He's taken on the monarchy. He's our new monarch. He's about to be crowned the king of this great country. I mean, all these

huge pressures both personally and professionally. And then he's got his young son causing just total, endless, relentless mayhem. I mean, I mean, if that was one of my sons, I've said to them, I've got three boys in my 20s. One of you does this to me and goes rogue like this. That's it.

Bang. There won't be any reconciliation parties. You're done. Well, you see, I don't think he wants to lose his son as well as having lost his parents. And I do think that Charles is quite a compassionate guy. And I think he would probably agree with me that what we're witnessing here is almost the unraveling of a youngish man who is so mentally fragile. now and so confused. There are so many errors in the book

and conflicted within himself and really suffering. I agree he's gone a bit. He said some terrible things. I think we should show some compassion. I want to pick you up on that thing about the mental health thing. I don't see somebody suffering or in pain. I see a smug little narcissist

making a ton of cash abusing and revealing secrets about his family. I don't see anyone fragile whatsoever. I don't see anyone fragile whatsoever. On the one hand, he says, I'm the happiest I've ever been. On the other hand, he wants us to believe he's a pain-struck young guy. He's not, he's nearly 40.

He's had a long time to get over the pain that, by the way, millions of people have to go through losing parents when they're young. He's not exclusive to him. His own brother went through exactly the same thing and doesn't seem to feel the need to trash his family in public. So I just don't really buy in, Jenny, to this, you know, he's racked with pain and is so fragile, I think he doesn't give a damn

about the damage to the mental health of all his relatives, and yet he's supposed to be the prince of mental health. I think he is wracked with pain, and in his book, I thought it was very, very moving

when he said that went for a second lot of therapy. He was frightened of losing the pain he had felt for all those years for the loss of his mother. He was frightened of losing that pain in the therapy because he would lose his mother again, and I thought it was incredibly moving. Now, I'm not going to defend Harry

for all he's done and all he's said, A lot of it's abominable, most of it's loopy. And I agree. I think he's a little bit unbalanced and deluded, perhaps, because all the drugs he took, I don't know. But I do have compassion for his mental health. I think he's a California's dope. You meet them all the time when you're out there. Tessa Dunluck, you've been raging away as normal here.

What have I said this wrong? You are renowned for lacking empathy. I won't use the... I've got plenty of empathy. No, I'm so sorry, he's renowned for it. No, no. Actually, I'm not renowned for it. You are.

You are. I actually have a lot of empathy. for the right people, actually. And my entire career, I've actually shown... No, no, I show empathy for people who deserve it. Harry is not deserving of my empathy. In your opinion. He has zero empathy for anybody else in his trashing.

As somebody who has watched Harry from birth through the death of his mudlop throughout him. You don't have a shred of empathy for his peculiar lifestyle that's trained him for nothing. No. That's left him with dump loads of expectations and shed loads of pay. Did you not go to prex school? Imagine going to practice when your mum's steamrolled bed. Actually, I went to preschool. I was 13 actually, then I went to a state school.

Then I went to a state school, and actually, what he should have done is go to a state school. And you're grimacing. Yeah, I'm absolutely just calm down the pair of you. I'm perfectly calm. Neither of you sounded at the moment. Now, can I just point this out? Pretty rich coming from you. You'll normally be the one blowing up, but go on. I've actually sat here trying to get a word in edgeways for a long time, as you know.

But, I mean, let me make this point. The coronation is not just a personal occasion. Now, you can understand a father wants to involve his son in all sorts of. of things, but it's not a royal wedding. It's a coronation. It's an occasion of state. And you've got to ask yourselves, what is the most dignified way that we can have this? Because it is an occasion of state and therefore there must be a great deal of dignity.

That won't be by having Harry Pratt. I totally agree. It would be literally like having the Kardashian sitting there. Please stay with me, my panel here. Roya, we're going to say goodbye to it. Roy, another busy week for you. I know you're writing busy away again, presumably for your next big scoop on Sunday. So thank you. We'll look forward to speaking to you about that whenever it drops.

Appreciate you joining us. Thank you very much. We'll stay with the panel because after the break, we're going to talk to a Guardian journalist who wrote a fascinating piece this week for last week in which he detailed why it wasn't the tabloids who actually Harry should be blaming for what happened to his mother. And as one of the tabloid editors at the time she died,

I agree. So we'll talk to him after the break. Well, still to come tonight. We're going to be debating the Britta Wall's ludicrous decision to go gender neutral, meant, of course, no women got any nominations? Who could have predicted that? Oh, that would be me. And we're going to talk about Joe Biden,

who is basically forgetting people's names again, and he's also been hiding documents at his home. Did he do deliberately? Is he any better or worse than Trump when he comes to that kind of thing? We'll see. Here's him singing happy birthday to somebody where he forgot the name. Cringe making. You'll watch it later on. Anyways, get back to the royal debate, because I mentioned earlier about Jeremy Clarkson,

who, listen, I get on fine with Clarkson now, but just to remind viewers, he did punch me in the head and I've got a scar here, which comes up when I have a tan like I can do now, from his right fist. So it's not like we've been the easiest to bed, there we are, easiest to bedfellows over the years, I've literally borne the scars of Clarkson.

So I'm not going to be his greatest cheerleader in a moment of misfortune. All I would say is this, is that he could not have issued a more sincere apology. than he did today. And as I've always suspected about the Woke Brigade, the moment you do that, they don't accept it.

And by the way, Harry's the king of the Wokies, they just chuck it straight back in your face. And I mean, Tesson, we didn't discuss this, but here's my problem with it. Can't he apologize enough? I mean, is there no apology that's acceptable? Did you not rummage around in the small print?

It's because the Grand Tour's apparently been pulled by Amazon Prime. That apology. Well, we don't know that. That's not be confirmed yet. Come on, wake up and smell a coffee. I'd rather wait and have it confirmed. Why do you think Clarkson apologised? Why, deep you down in your tip-and-tell-tell?

Do you think he should be cancelled from everything? To be honest, I think we've had quite a lot of clerks in over the years and time to bring on a fresh lot. Yeah, I would have no problem. But you think he should be cancelled? He's still platformed every one. You were just posting about him being cancelled. But do you think he should be cancelled?

I think maybe if the Amazon Prime think it's time for them to shuffle off, then perhaps it's... Well, we don't... They haven't confirmed that. I mean, I don't answer the question. Do you think he should be cancelled? Well, that's a good question. I think there should be a punishment for that level of vitriol.

I would like to see, and don't shoot me with it, I would like to see some modification to include misogyny in those hate laws. We're talking on a day. We are. We're talking on a day when the term institutional misogyny's being tacked around in the police. So what about all the hideously misogynistic things that Harry says in his book? Oh, not back to that. Not back to the prep school teacher whom he made laugh when he was 11 years old.

Would you have preferred that Harry White... Tessa, you've got to let me finish. I'm talking about the matron that he called ugly and greasy and didn't make the ball is horny. I'm talking about the newspaper executive who he's absolutely viciously misogynist about. I'm talking about Camilla, who he calls a dangerous villain. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The book is laced with misogyny. So I agree with you. Misogyny should be taken more seriously. What about he starts with himself? First of all, would you have preferred that he pretended he was a saint at prep school and never did that cross? Lord of the fly star.

I hate the children do. That wasn't a question. No. Tessa, my question, she was very simple. Why should he be allowed to be a misogynist? I didn't. But anyone who dares to be a misogynist about his wife, he wants to get cancelled.

I just don't think you can compare the idea of someone of being being cellular, being salient on a cellular level, created down the street naked, having human extraments thrown at her, with describing a tabloid editor as something. Actually, what was she described there? What he said about a female editor was that? actually pretty well up there. But was it sexist? It was not even. Actually, it was misogynist, and revolting. But anyway, let's move on. I want to talk to Stephen Bates, former Guardian

Royal correspondent. Hey, Stephen, I didn't even know the Guardian had a Royal correspondent. So that was a bit of a shock to me. So congratulations on that title. But thank you for joining me. Look, I wanted to get you on, not because I expect you to launch a spirited, full frontal defensive tabloid newspapers. But I do think you raise very interesting points in your column about all this. which is that Harry's real point of visceral hatred is that the British tabloids in particular were directly to blame for Princess Diana his mother's death. And you wrote of the column really saying

that isn't born by facts. No, that's right. I mean, I watched the ITV interview the other Sunday like millions of other people did. And as you see, we had this riff about the tabloids and the paparazzi causing his mother's death. That wasn't actually what I discovered and found. I was the Guardian's man in Brussels at the time, and I was sent down first thing that morning to help the coverage, of course.

And I got on into a cab at the Guardian Noor to go to the Guardian office. And the cabby, this is five or six hours after the accident, said, that driver must have been mad to drive into that tunnel at that speed. He said there's a very bad camber. and there's a twist in the tunnel. And anyone who drives in at that sort of speed, you have to stick to 30 kilometres an hour, he said. Anyone who went in at the sort of speed that car was being driven at must have been mad. And we now know, after the inquest, which I also covered eight years later,

at the High Court, that Henri Poe, the chauffeur that evening was high on drink and drugs. He hadn't been expecting to work, which was why he was drunk. And he'd never driven a Mercedes before. And Muhammad Al-Faed instructed him to drive Dodi and Diana right across Paris, a route he didn't particularly know, in a very fast car that he wasn't used to driving. He had a mini himself. And he showed off. He was showing off to the paparazzi who were outside the Ritz Hotel.

They could have stayed at the Ritz Hotel because they had a suite there. They were rooted out of the suite by Mohammed Al-Faude who wanted them to stay at his apartment. And that was the terrible thing that happened. And the other crucial thing, I think... And the other point I'm going to make, which I think is really important to this,

is that Harry talks sort of vaguely about there were flashing lights as his mother and the car she was in crashed. In fact, the paparazzi were not within one kilometre of the car when it crashed. That came out in the inquest. So there were none of them anywhere near the tunnel or the car.

What is completely true is that once they caught up with the car and they realised it had crashed, then some of these ghouls did actually try and take pictures of Diana lying in the back of the car. And that is completely unforgivable. But it's not true that they were right with the car

as it went into a tunnel, blinding the driver potentially with their flash bulbs. That's absolutely right. They were on Vespers. Vespers don't outrun Mercedes being driven at speed. They were behind. They were admittedly chasing the Mercedes, probably trying to catch up with it at lights or something like that. But they weren't in front of it. And therefore, they didn't cause the accident. They indeed did behave like ghouls afterwards. These were continental paparazzi, it has to be said. They weren't British journalists. They weren't British photographers. They were Italians and French. Maybe they wanted to sell photographs to the British tabloids, but I doubt very much whether the British tabloids,

which by then had learnt their lesson, well, I can tell you for a fact that I was in the Daily Mirror Newsroom in the early hours of that morning, about 5 a.m., when we were offered pictures of Diana lying in the back of the car, didn't know if she was dead or alive at that stage. It turned out she actually died, I think, on the way to hospital when she got to hospital.

But these pictures were offered to us, and I not only refused to even countenance using them, I rang the head of the agency who'd sent them in, advised him very strongly to withdraw them from everywhere he'd sent them, and to leave the country and keep his head down, because it might cost him his entire business. So this idea that we were sitting there and salivating over pictures of Diana in the back of the car is completely untrue. There are many things you can blame the tabloids for about their royal coverage of Diana and Charles and the breakup of all that marriage but that is not one of them.

It seems to have embittered Harry very deeply. You can understand that but as I think you were saying earlier it's probably time unfortunately that he should get over it. Well you know I would never tell anyone to get over the death of a parent and that thing but I certainly think that him continuing to apportion direct blame on a particular section of the British media for the crash that killed his mother.

It's just, unfortunately, it's not borne out by the facts. Jenny Bond, you were covering... Stephen, thank you very much indeed for joining me. Jenny, you're listening to all that. You were obviously covering all this. To me, it's a very important point. You can have a view, as Harry and William both do, that the paparazzi are the enemy for them

because they follow them all around at all times. And obviously Diana got more attention than I think anybody else did. And the rules did all change after she died, actually. But that doesn't mean that the press, the British press, were to blame for her death. That's just not true. No, it's not true.

And I've never brought into the conspiracy theory whatsoever. But Harry seems to want to revive that. He was traumatised by what happened, however it happened. And he has not been able to get over it. And for that, that's why I say, We have to have some sympathy with him. But in the book, he's suggested that he would like, Anne William would like, to have the inquest reopened

or the inquiry reopened, though he doesn't know what you gain from it. Obviously, that's not going to happen. But I don't know how he will ever be reconciled with what happened to his mother. Never mind be reconciled. No, well, you have to, look, Jenny, thank you very much for joining me. I mean, look, bottom line, Anne, you've got to stick to facts. the inquis was unbelievably thorough.

And she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. And she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The car was speeding. The driver was drunk and had drugs in his body. And he was basically, he lost control of the car on a bump in the underpass. I mean, that's what happened. It is. Go, go ahead. Sorry. The one person who survived that crash was the only person who was wearing a seatbelt.

I interviewed him. I had the first interview with Trevor Reese Jones, a bodyguard. And does he uphold Harry's version? Well, he, I mean, look, he wore the seatbelt, and that saved him. his life. The others weren't wearing seatbel. But does he say that they were trying to escape the paparazzi? No. That's the point I'm trying to make. The paparazzi were over a kilometre behind them. They were nowhere near the car. So it wasn't the paparazzi. By the way, as Stephen rightly pointed out, these weren't British press.

These were foreign paparazzi. Just talking about this, reliving it, even in a sort of forthhand version, it's horrific, it's painful. I think what we need to do is, I know this is going to be difficult for you, Pears. perhaps you too, Anne, but it's cut Harrison slack, lift ourselves above the parapet and think, what is the royal family for? It is our first family.

It's a great British brand. Do we want it to look magnanimous? Do we want it to represent redemption and forgiveness? If we do... What about him? If he's not forgiving, then we invite them to the Commonwealth. He's doing none of that. We do.

And I can tell you, the best way to do that is not to invite those to anywhere near the coronation. But thank you, Tessa. Thank you, Anne. Appreciate you coming in. Go to come. The Brit Awards goes gender neutral to be more inclusive and with obvious predictability, all five nominees for Best Artists identify as men. Do gender neutral awards exclude women? We are going to have a gender neutral panel. If these two carry on. Go on. Give each other a hug.

I don't do that. I'll be back up. Welcome back. The Brit Awards are a month away, but we already know one thing about this is Best Artist. It will be a man. or somebody currently identifying as a man. The UK's biggest music awards introduced supposedly inclusive gender-neutral awards last year. And I predicted very quickly on Twitter, this would be a complete disaster would mean women would get excluded. And guess what? All five nominees for the top best artist prize are male.

This is what Adele had to say about the decision last year when picking up her award for artists of the year. I understand why the name of this award has changed, but I really love being a woman. being a female artist. I do. I do. Yeah, sorry, Adel, but you're not allowed to be a woman anymore. Not allowed to be a female artist.

It has to be gender neutral. Here's my gender neutral panel. Joined by Sam Fox, who presented the Brits, of course. So Sam, look, to me, this was in completely predictable situation. And what's made me laugh is all those screaming loudies for gender neutral awards are actually the ones now screaming foul because they've taken the five best artists of year and they happen to be men. Listen, here's who...

Therefore, it's always disgraceful. Who has chosen these men? Probably men. What do you reckon? Well, I don't think they chose them because they were men. I think they chose them because they were best, but they happened to be men.

That's why you have a female category to make sure you have the best male artist and best female artists, because then you screw over women. It just came back the wrong way for you, lot, didn't it? That's a problem. Do you know what? I think what would be best to do in this situation?

There's only five people in that category, best artist, yeah? If they're now putting the best female artist and the best male into one category, then they should be 10 nominees, not five. Oh, what a load of... Why not? Twice as long an award show.

Do me a favour. Well, we should be more choice, shouldn't it? What there should be? It's got men and women. Is best woman artist? Best male artist? What's wrong with it? It doesn't fit into those categories anymore.

We're not there anymore. Says who? What's talking about people now? Best people? No, no, come on. Yes, they are. That's not ridiculous. Some people may want to change.

I know someone. Trust me. You're all born, sexually. Sexually, male or female. That's a biological fact. I know somebody who was born with a penis, but also had, yes, he was a man, born with a penis. Oh, there he goes, a man.

But then when he got to a certain age, he developed breasts, and when they looked into it further. What does he eat? He had ovaries. What does he eat? I didn't ask him. But these are such rare occasions. We're talking about people who are now, like Sam Smith,

who I don't know what a ward he's up for one year to the next. One minute is this. Next minute is that. Then he's this. How do you keep up with him for any awards? You have a gender neutral category which solves that, doesn't it? Have male, female and the rest of you? No, that's right?

The rest of you. I don't care what you want to call yourselves. I don't care what you think you are in any given moment. Santa Smith, who changes literally more than a chameleon, he can be whatever he wants and you park them into the corner and you say, right, male, female and the rest. And the rest can all compete with each other. But here's my question for you over.

Let's take gender neutrality to his logical conclusion. Let's have a gender neutral Olympics. And you know what would happen? Women would never win a medal again. I don't think that's the same. Other than a bit of equestrian action and a bit of shooting. That's not the same. It is the same.

No, music, music is not the same. You know, music is a brilliant thing about music is that it gives people... License to express themselves. As women. As men. As people. As people.

As people. Yeah, but women's experience... As people. No, actually. Adele sings about life and love and breakups from the perspective. of a woman. That's why she wants to win female artists at the year. How do you know she might not be singing about a woman once?

Okay, so what if a woman is saying? What are you suggesting? I don't know. Adele might tell me. Well, how do you know? What do you know that we don't know? Well, how do we know? You know, I've written songs about lovers in my life. You don't know if it's a male or female. I think in your case, both. How do you know? I think you just wrote about it in your book, didn't you? Yeah.

All right, but listen, listen. I know what I am. I know I'm a woman. Here's my point. But there's many in time. I can't even get on a plane anymore. British Airways. You get on British Airways, right? And somebody says, good afternoon. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to your British Airways.

And I feel immediately soothed, right? Now it's good afternoon, persons of indiscriminate gender. Do you need to be told? If you're non-binary, you're welcome on this flight. Shut up all of you. Just go back to ladies and gentlemen. There's an honest night, I was in Germany, yeah, doing a concert. There was many, many, many people there.

And I'm not going to say good evening, ladies and gentlemen. No, I'm going to say good evening, everybody. Why don't you say ladies and gentlemen? Because there's not only ladies and gentlemen there. Are there sheep there or goats? No, come on. What is wrong with ladies and gentlemen and everything else? What about the right of somebody who wants to be called a lady,

or in my case, wants to be called a gentleman? Where is my right to continue being called a gentleman? Why are my rights eroded? Eroded? Why are they? Why do you need that? Why are they eroded? Why can't I be called a gentleman? If you know you're a gentleman, why do you need to be reminded by someone?

If you know your non-binary, why have you got to be called non-binary? It's not that. You don't need to be called anything. We're just saying good afternoon to everyone. I don't want everything gender neutral. I'd like feminine things. I like masculine things. You don't need to be more about this then. I like males. I like females. I've fed up with this clap trout and most people are.

If you go in the street and I've got 100 people in the street, do you think this is claptrap? It is complete claptrap. Keep saying it's clap track. Piers, if you asked 100 people in the street, they wouldn't even know that British Airways were doing that. They'd have no idea. It would if they'd flown British Airways.

They don't do personally. By the way, British Airways staff don't want to do it either. They've been told to do it. Piers, can I just ask you something? Did you use the Lou before you came on television? I use my dressing room, Lou, which has mail only. Can I just say now? Well, I've just went to the loo,

and it's got a man and a woman on the door. Right. I think that's a disabled tour. Well, that was because we knew you were coming. No, it wasn't. Stop it now. disabled toilet. No, no.

I think it is, actually. You can't get the real world as well. It's true, though. It's true. I've just been in there. Do you like men using women's loos? I don't really cares. Yes, you do.

Yes, you do. No woman I know likes blokes losing their loo. End of story. No woman does. I'm peeing on the airplane. Men don't want women in their lues either. What do we do on an aeroplane? Don't go.

One at a time. You don't share them. Anyway, look. We don't share one cubicle. Come on. Here is the, well, what is that? What is that? What is that?

It's a man and a woman. Well, that's where... You've been proven rights. That's actually not a toilet. That's a little love parlour. No, no. That is the toilet. That's where when my team get a little bit frisky after a show, they get taken to the love toilet.

And there's no stand-up bit in there, which is good. That's the good part, that's... That's for the good loving. Look, it's like a short break. We're going to keep our panel here. We're going to come back and talk about Britain's universities descending into woke madness. I'm going to talk about Joe Biden, the leader of the free world, his inability to remember anything ever.

I'll be off the break. Well, look, my wife has a rule in her family. When somebody's birthday, sing happy birthday. You ready? Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Sallard. Happy birthday to you.

Her name is Andrea, Mr. President. She's the daughter-in-law of Martin Luther King. It's Martin Luther King. day in America. So now you know her name is Andrea. Let's hear it again. Have we got it again? No.

Okay, we did have it again. Have we got it again? Well, look, my wife has a rule in her family. When somebody's birthday, sing happy birthday. You ready? Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Lally.

Happy birthday. to you. Unbelievable. Well, I'm still here with my stellar pack, Sam Fogg. I didn't introduce Ava Santina and Esther Cracker because I didn't know what they were currently identifying at. So until I had that confirmation in the break, I couldn't call them Esther and Ava. But joining me now as a former senior counsel

to President Trump, Kellyanne. Well, Kelly Ann, lovely to have you back on the program. First of all, your reaction to that, I mean, it's, look, barely a week goes by without President Biden forgetting something. But on Martin Luther King Day, to forget the name of someone who's related to Martin Luther King, as you sing happy birthday tour, and it's your idea to sing it, that is a cringe moment, isn't it? It is.

But it's at least a President Biden's problem. Not that he forgot the woman's name and embarrassed himself. It's that he forgot he had classified documents, national security secrets, stuffed near his Corvette in his Delaware house where his son country things. Because, yeah, let's come to the more serious thing. serious story. It is serious. And you know, these aren't gaffes. Hey, hey, Pyrrhus, the other thing, the other thing with Biden is these aren't gaffes. I mean, the guy is not doing well. I'm a big critic of Republicans who run around all day incessantly making fun of Joe Biden's obvious

mental and physical lack of acuity and challenges because I think it creates some sympathy for him and it distracts from the disaster that is his presidency. And in this case, not just the double standard, but the prime facie case that he has violated the law. I don't need to hear Donald Trump's name. I don't need to hear we didn't mean it inadvertently mishandled. The law doesn't care about your feelings. It doesn't care Joe Biden about what President Trump is. That's all being litigating separately. I want to explain to viewers what you're talking about because I'm teed that up. But Donald Trump, as we know, was caught with a bunch of classified documents and is facing potential serious legal jeopardy as a result. But what I remember as that story unfolded was the

Democrats making a lot of hay while the sun shone and saying this is one of the most terrible things they'd ever seen. And these same Democrats now that Joe Biden has been found to have had classified documents at his home, including in his car, in his office and so on. The same Democrats, he was so outraged by what happened with Donald Trump, I've now gone a bit quiet. Now it's their guy. It's the hypocrisy. I can't stomach. That's right. And the country will be with you by and large, except for those addled with Trump derangement syndrome, for which there is no vaccine and no booster, most people will look at this,

and increasingly appears members of the mainstream media are looking at this, and they're not taking, Be Quiet for an answer from the White House press briefing room. They're not taking it from the special counsel on Biden because they know that their job is to seek out transparency to make sure hold the government accountable, make sure it's transparent.

And on this one, it wasn't just the, quote, Biden people and the Democrats saying, Oh, look at President Trump. Look what he's done. He needs to go to jail. It was Joe Biden himself in an interview on 60 minutes saying, and I quote, how could this possibly happen? Well, let's actually have the clip.

It's so irresponsible. Well, I've got the clip. Let's play it. Go for it. When you saw the photograph of the top secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself looking at that image? How that could possibly happen? how anyone could be that irresponsible.

And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods? By that, I mean names of people who helped, etc. And it's just totally irresponsible. You can say that again, Mr. President, because this just happened to you, and you actually had done exactly the same thing at the precise moment that you were hectoring

and lecturing everybody else, including Donald Trump, about being irresponsible. And what a shift gears. Come back to you in a moment, Kelly. This thing, a pack, about woke universities. Big story in America, big story in Britain now, the big study of the elite universities in Britain. Oxford and Cambridge at the top of the list of woke ravaged atmosphere at these places,

where, including Aberdeen University, for example, put a trigger warning on Peter Pan because it might be emotionally challenging to students. Ava, this stuff is the stuff of madness. The whole point of getting university is you get challenged emotionally, isn't it? I mean... I think there is a challenge. I think they're just presenting you with a trigger warning.

Why? Why do you need warnings? I don't really understand why you concern yourself with what people at university are doing. They're very young. They're the future of this country. Yeah, okay. And if they're triggered by it, then maybe that is a bit of initiative.

If they're triggered by it, they shouldn't be anywhere near a university. The whole point is you get your own views challenge. That is them getting their own goals challenge. Why do you have to have a trigger warning? What does it do, though? Does that mean that they don't have to read it? No, it doesn't at all.

It just means it's a warning of what the content inside it. I mean, Japan is going to upset you. Funny enough, Bristol University's third, which is my university I went to. So that's not surprising. I think I'm curious about what they mean by woke, though, because I think sometimes it can be a bit lazy. If you're saying that the idea is the students aren't being challenged or there's material being removed from the curriculum

because it could upset them emotionally. That is fair. The difference is this. Woke actually originally meant just being more aware of social or racial injustice. We can all sign up to that. But Kelly Ann, we've got the same thing in America with this, is that universities are becoming so pathetically weak that students need endless trigger warnings about stuff like Peter Pan?

It's completely mad. It's completely mad, and it's why people are really questioning where to send their kids to school in this country. You hear a lot of these seniors, I have two of them in high school, a lot of their friends saying, maybe I'll go south, maybe, you know, wide open spaces, friendly faces where you don't have to get somebody to sign an affidavit to invite them to have an ice cream cone. And by the way, we already hurt these kids who are now going to college, the COVID generation. We lock them down, we let them down for too long, very difficult for them in isolation, very difficult for them to get a rhythm and a routine, which is what you get in high school. And then what you're supposed to get in college at university peers,

we're denying them also, which is a free-for-all in terms of communication to suss out the facts and opinions. The whole point, Kelly, the whole point of... By the way, I don't think we know each other. I don't think we know each other anymore. The whole point of university. People are free to tell you who they really are. University is supposed to be where you formulate better opinions, because, you know, You have smart people around you saying the complete opposite,

and you debate it, and you reach points of agreement, and you evolve and you learn. Not where you go and cry because you have to read Peter Pan, and someone forgot to do a little trigger warning. It's pathetic. Love it to see you, Sam. Love it to see you, Pam. Love it to see you, Kelly Ann.

Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Remember, keep it uncensored for the love of God. Don't cry about Peter Pan. Good night.