Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Sir Tim Rice, Tom Kerridge & Seth Dillon

Episode Date: January 26, 2023

Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers speaks to censored social media star Seth Dillon about who was invited to President Trump's dinner ahead of his run for the presidency. Sir Tim Rice joins the conversation surrounding a 'non-binary' Jesus Christ in his musical production, 'Jesus Christ Super Star'. TV chef Tom Kerridge shares with Piers his experience on fat-shaming and how he lost 12-stone. 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 Peasmore, going to censor, Donald Trump returns to Facebook in a stunning boost for his campaign to return to the White House. Is it a victory for free speech or for hate speech? We'll debate that with the censor social media star who's actually been advising Trump on his comeback. Jesus was non-binary and Judas was a woman, according to a woke-washed reversioning of Jesus Christ Superstar. His culture caving to the culture warriors. I'll ask the musical's legendary original lyricist, Tim Rice, and stage legend, Tom Conte. Thus, Oscar-onid star Brendan Fraser says we should be more kind

to them morbidly overweight. But is body positivity one of the big reasons for the obesity epidemic? Is fat-shaming actually not a bad thing? I'll be joined by top TV chef, Tom Cove. You lost 12 stone. We'll join me live. Live from London. This is Piersmore.

Morgan Unsensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Worship him or detest him. And it's usually one of the two. Donald Trump can never be fully written off. Hammered by lawsuits, humbled in the midterm elections, hemorrhaging backers to his younger rival, Ron DeSantis.

Trump still believes he can return to the White House. And returning to Facebook and Instagram might be the first big step on an explosive march back to power. campaigning used to be about pounding pavements, bashing phones, kissing babies' heads. Now the heat is where we all spend hours every day on social media. That's why Trump's ban from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram was seismic. The tech giant suspended Trump for glorifying and, in their view, inciting an insurrection on January 6th of the Capitol. They choked off his ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars,

riling and rousing tens of millions of voters. And most damagingly for Trump, they choked off his ability to be. be the center of attention. This was why they did it. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. Well, it was all a bit late for that, wasn't it?

Because people had already started dying at the Capitol. And it was an outrageously irresponsible thing that Trump did in relation to that event. He whipped up his supporters into a frenzy. If he ever steps alone again, then I'm sure he will be banned again, because free speech always comes with some guardrails. You can't incite hatred, demand violence, or shout fire in a crowded theater. But banning Trump is at the heart of a much bigger debate. Who gets to decide what those?

those guardrails are. Big tech companies themselves are unelected and unaccountable. So why should they get to make decisions that literally change the outcome of elections? A former leader of the free world, a man who got 74 million votes from the last election, was banned for inciting violence. But the idolat of Iran, who literally has called for America to be wiped off the map, still has a Twitter account which he uses to spew Holocaust denial and demand actual war. The Communist Party of China has used Twitter to say it's genocide. against the Uyghur Muslims is about setting them free. Putin's Kremlin still pumps out propaganda,

even as the Russian army blows up maternity hospitals in Ukraine. Human rights abusing despots in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia were deemed acceptable too. Now, billionaire Elon Musk wants to fix this nonsense. He spent $44 billion buying Twitter, and he did that after one of his favorite satirical websites, Babylon B, were suspended. This is what they do. What? My mom got you an apron.

This? isn't an apron. This is a message. A symbol of patriarchal oppression and a shackle of cis heteronormativity. I belong in the world, toppling gender stereotypes, objectification, inequality, and the subjugation of half the world's population. Breaking news, World War III has officially commenced. As our mission goes to war, the president has declared that one able-bodied member of each American household will be drafted into the military.

On the other hand, traditional gender roles exist for a reason. I'm your wife, and I belong in the kitchen. Well, you may not share Elon my sense of humor, although actually I do. Babylon B, which is a funny conservative satirical site, was actually banned for posting that a trans woman in the U.S. government, Rachel Levine, was one of their men of the year.

You might not find that funny. You might even find it offensive. That's your right. But is it really more offensive than the Ayatollah of Iran tweeting that Israel should be incinerated? Too often these decisions are taken by chin-stroking bearded hipsters who voted for Bernie Sanders and think Trump is the devil. Banned people for breaking the law, not because they're not woke enough.

Well, joining me now is host of podcast on Kara Swisher. And Seth Dillon, CEO of the statistical website, Babylon B, who met Trump actually this week to discuss all this. And we've got by PAC as well, the broadcaster Alex Phillips, Laurie and commentator Paula Rohn, Adrian, and Talk to the International Editor, Isabel Oggshot. so a stellar panel of frenzied social media users, I might add, have all been gathered to debate all this.

Let me start with you, Seth Dillon, because you're really, one of the reasons that Elon Musk ended up buying Twitter, if you believe, his tweets, because he was incensed that people like you were getting effectively censored and banned by the former Twitter regime, and that this was only ever skewed towards conservatives.

Well, I don't think that. were the sole reason that he did that. I think he was primarily concerned about restoring free speech. And we were one egregious example of how just making jokes, you know, making jokes that you're not supposed to make was resulting in suspensions where our speech was being curbed. So, you know, he saw that is problematic and wanted to step in and do something about it. And I think it's a great thing that he did. Somebody needed to. As Bill Maher said, Twitter needs a new sheriff. They weren't doing a very good job deciding what's true and what's right and what's hateful. Yeah, well, I completely agree. And it always seemed to be skewed one way towards people on the right.

So Karas Swisher, I mean, that was my experience. There's somebody who sits, you know, pretty much in the middle. I like to consider myself. I was watching this thinking, well, it is only actually people on the right who were getting slung off Twitter. It's only people like Babylon B. It's only people like Donald Trump. It's never the hardcore left who sometimes can be just as outrageous and offensive.

Well, you know, the Babylon B thing was ridiculous. I would agree that they shouldn't have been kicked off. I mean, you can think the joke was funny or not. but there was nothing wrong with having satire and things like that on there. And I think it gets more problematic when you have someone like Donald Trump, possibly promoting violence. And that's the problem here is that they have these rules, and they were just, they were never, they were random.

And that's the problem with it. I don't necessarily think there's any beard stroking Bernie Sanders personally. That's a trope also. But that they were randomly put in place. And there's actually been some new reporting also that they were too scared to take things down too of conservatives. And I think that's the problem is that these companies were unaccountable to anyone, as you noted, have no ability to make rules that they stick to.

And that's the problem with Facebook, too. They sort of did this two-year ban. What's a two-year ban? What does that mean? Because they didn't have the guts to kick them off, I guess, or not, or I don't kick them off if you don't think it's a real ban. And so I think the problem is these are being made by singular people, even if it's Elon Musk. He had the same problem this week with Nick Fuentes.

He brought him back on and he kicked him. right off. And I think that's going to be the problem. Yeah, Kanye West. I think it's going to be a problem forever because they make these rules, they don't enforce them, and then they change them, and nothing makes sense. And that, that to me, is the real problem, is that you're putting people in place that don't have any business making decisions for the rest of society, and including real societal harm. Possibly. Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I mean, Seth Dillon, you were actually with Donald Trump yesterday, I think. You were having dinner with him. What was his view about whether he should come back onto social media?

Because obviously he's had the invitation to come back to Twitter, which he hasn't taken yet because he has his own truth social media platform. But did you get a feeling he is going to come steaming back? I'm not sure. I don't know that he's made that decision yet. But he shares the concern that a lot of Americans can share that there's politically motivated viewpoint discrimination happening on these platforms. He was a victim of it.

We've been a victim of it. Whether it goes one way or not, I don't think is really the issue. Sure, it's a problem if it's one-sided or the rules aren't being applied fairly, but this is the public square of the modern age where people need to be able to have a voice. There's a recent case that just happened. You had this House Bill 20 was passed in Texas where they were trying to make politically motivated viewpoint discrimination illegal, and an Obama appointed judge enjoined that law. And then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at it.

They said, no, listen, there is no hidden right to censor in the First Amendment. Censorship isn't speech. So these platforms don't have a constitutional right to be able to censor you. They need to let you speak and express your viewpoints. They shouldn't be deciding what's true. They shouldn't be moderating jokes because they think the jokes are hateful. And saying things like when Trump got kicked off Twitter, people don't know this. But Trump got kicked off Twitter for saying, I won't be attending the inauguration.

And he said, my supporters will have a voice long into the future. What rule does that supposedly violate? It's not unlawful speech. It's not inciting anyone. It's not calling for anything. you have to read that into it. And that's the problem is you should be able to express your opinions, say what you believe.

Even if it's not true, you have a right to be wrong. Hillary Clinton said that his election in 2016 was illegitimate. She had every right to say that if she wanted to say that. I was going to make that point. It was exactly the same thing about that. They all said that that election was stolen from them. There was no qualitative difference. But, Carran, let me just say.

It's not accurate. That's not actually accurate. You know, look, it was slightly different. But to me, the generalized sort of overview of it all, it's not much difference between one group of people saying, we lost that election unfairly in another group. Let me say one thing. First of all, you're saying it's a public square.

It's not a public square. It's a profit-making business, and they can do whatever they want. You can do whatever you want. You don't have any right to be on Twitter. You don't have any right to be on Facebook. And I think that's the problem is we become to think of it as that. I think the real problem is when the government does intervene, including in Texas, which is going to get over-

going to be an overrule because of the First Amendment. They should also be able to put on what they want. And I think the problem is everyone's decided they own these things. We did start the internet. The US taxpayer paid for the internet and that's for sure. But these businesses can do whatever they want. The real problem, Clara, it seems to me, the most

egregious example, I think, of what was going on was the New York Post expose of Hunter Biden and that laptop several weeks before that election where we don't know what would have happened. If Twitter hadn't banned the New York Post site completely

and basically airbrushed that expose which turned out to all be completely true. They changed it really quickly. You and I have talked about this. They changed it really quickly. They said they made a mistake. He said it in Congress. Hang on, Kara, hang on.

Cox and Dominion. They didn't change it until after the election. And the big unanswerable question now is what impact would it have had if the mainstream media had not all convinced themselves this was Russian propaganda and had actually gone.

after that story as aggressively as they should have done three weeks before an election, it could have tilted things trumps weight. So you actually had a direct example of a social media platform banning a story and a newspaper from publishing that true story, which could have influenced the result of an election. And you have the same thing with Fox and Dominion, should they have been able to broadcast those election things? I mean, I think that's the problem, is that these sites have so much power over everyone. And you, you know, yet they're private companies. And so what is the solution? In the case of Babylon B, it takes Elon Musk to buy it and let them back on. And that's the solution. Unfortunately, a billionaire has to

buy it. I think the problem is, we've gotten, we have these private profit making companies, making decisions for all of society. And by the way, they're allowed to, even if they make a mistake, even if they make a mistake, even if they make the wrong call, even if they say they make a distinction, though. We need to make a distinction between how it is and how it should be. And like you just acknowledge these private companies exercise a ton of power. The primary threat to speech used to be the government. But now because people speak online, the primary threat to speech is these online forums that are owned by private companies. And the question like Justice Thomas is asking is should a common carrier doctrine apply to them? Should we have rules in place, regulations in place

where discrimination is prohibited? I think a good argument can be made that common carrier doctrine could and should apply to these private companies, even though they're privately owned, so that people are not discriminated against unfairly and they still have a voice in the public square. Let me ask you, Seth, let me ask you, where do you think the line is with freedom of speech? Nobody, I don't think, believes it should be completely unfilled, in other words, that anything goes.

For example, well, Kanye West, for example, when he literally is brought back on Twitter and one of the first things he does is post The Star of David with a swastika inside it. If you were running Twitter, even with your Zee, for free speech which I share, would you have tolerated that? Well, I do think there's a place for moderation. I think that you get into really tricky places

when you try to moderate people's opinions. I think that people have a right to opinions, even opinions that are wrong, that are morally wrong. That's not an opinion. That's a deliberate attempt to... I mean, that's not an opinion, is it? That's just, that's basically inciting Nazi hatred against the Jewish people through symbolism, isn't it?

Yeah, and these platforms should be able to moderate content that they believe is observes. seen and objectively offensive that isn't viewpoint related. I think they absolutely should be able to. They should be able to moderate unlawful speech. I think that they give people a lot of tools. For example, if you say things that upset me all the time, if you're trolling me or making fun of me and making me feel bad, I can block you. I can mute you. I have the control and I can control who I see and who I hear from. Leave it in people's hands, what they see, what they consume, let them reach their own decisions, stop trying to decide for them what's true, what they're

allowed to joke about, what they're allowed to believe. The thought control. and speech control that these private companies are exercising right now is having detrimental effects in society. It is affecting election outcomes. I just want to ask you one question, because you were at this dinner with Trump, and in the background of the picture of one of the other people you were with,

the libs of TikTok, I think they called themselves, they mock liberal people for doing silly things. In the background, there's a picture of what looked like Nick Clegg, who's the spokesman for Facebook, who we know well over here. Was it Nick Clegg? Was he there? I'm not sure. I wasn't aware of that,

and I don't know who else was present. I've got to say, either it's Nick Clegg or it's a dead ringer for Nick Clegg, which prompts all sorts of questions. What the hell was he doing there? Anyway, you've been a minute response. I've got to leave it there with you too. This was great.

Thank you both very much, because you're both very tapped into all this. It is a complex thing. I personally am very glad Elon Musk is wrestling through it because I think he comes from a good place about it. But we'll see. He's found that pretty quickly. It's tough.

It's tough. the jungle. Bakara and Seth, thank you both very much indeed. And Seth, great to have you back on Twitter. I've missed Babylon B. You're hilarious. So good to see you, but thank you very much. All right, quick reaction from the pack. You'll stay with us for the show.

So don't worry, you've got plenty of air time. But Isabella, it's complex. But would you have let Trump back? Absolutely. I think that banning him for as long as he was banned, it was completely disproportionate. You gave brilliant examples in your intro about the Iranian Ayatollah, you know,

the bile that comes and the nonsense that's churned out by the Kremlin, it makes no sense whatsoever to ban Trump in that context. And, you know, your interviewee made really important points about no one has to follow Trump. I mean, you can just unfollow, you don't have to read this stuff.

And I think the thing that concerns me, and they're right that these are private businesses, it's up to them, but they mustn't masquerade as arbiters of the truth. They mustn't masquerade as independent. You know, perhaps they should say what their position. is we are a left-leaning whatever. So likely you're not going to get

a fair hearing. If you disagree. Would you have let Trump back on? I would have, actually. I know this is going to be a shock to you, Isabel, but actually there's a lot we agree on here. I'm a fair woman. And the reason why I would have let him back on, actually, is because I want

to be able to see him and I want to be able to hear him. And I want to be able to challenge him. And my concern is, is that if he doesn't have a platform, where I can do that. If he isn't accessible to me, if I can't hear him, then he's going to continue to say these things,

and I'm going to be out of reach. Well, it's one of the reasons, actually, Alex, I, for example, interviewed Andrew Tate twice in the last few months because I was made aware by my sons, all in my 20s, that this guy has an unbelievable following sort of below the radar. It's not on mainstream media.

He'd been no platform everywhere. And I thought, well, this is actually really odd situation. And when I interviewed him, they both got gigantic viewer numbers. I mean, off the charts. It's a really good example you've brought up there because, you know, let's do an appraisal of what social media has bought.

It is the most pervasive and pernicious weapon of mass destruction, essentially, against society that's being created in San Francisco. What does social media usher in? It bombards young people, vulnerable people, with woke trends that see them mutilate their own bodies. It enables traffickers to usher tens of thousands of people as human cargo across the channel.

It is fundamentally changing the fabric of society and it is penetrable and manipulatable by foreign enemies, essentially. The GD's out of the bottle. It's an unregulated Wild Wild West in which life goes in parallel to regular life and bad, toxic things on the internet seep down and tear society into pieces. And you know the problem I have is a former newspaper editor. We were highly regulated in the newspaper game. We're highly regulated now in the British television game by Ofcom.

But there's no regulation really that goes on with these tech giants. And in particular, we've had these stories of these young girls who are getting sucked down rabbit holes on Instagram taken to places that fuel suicidal thoughts and so on with no legal accountability or regulation at the moment to stop these companies, let in their algorithms do this kind of thing. And that, I think, is almost one of the biggest scandals of all about it. Well, we know about your own situation, don't we?

The terrifying situation where you've had death threats, and it's there for everybody to see and everybody to read and yet the police will come back and tell you. Well, I had it myself. I mean, somebody made a death threat against me on my son's Instagram in public, clear specific death threat. I reported it to the police. Someone gets arrested five months later.

And a year after that, they come back and say, we can't do anything. So he gets away with it. I mean, literally, unbelievable. I've got to leave it there for now. I'm going to come back with you guys. Quick question, though. Was Jesus non-binary? Certainly not.

Non-biteram? Don't know. Was Judas a woman? Probably black, though. If you couldn't ask that question about Mohammed, could you? Well, we're about to debate Jesus Christ Superstar, which has gone woke with a non-binary actor playing Jesus, a woman playing Judas, has the world gone nuts?

I'll debate that with Oscar-nominated actor Tom Conti and the original lyricist to Tim Rice. We're coming up. We're in the grip of the global obesity epidemic. Should we be kinder to obese people, like Oscar-nomited actor Brendan Fraser, is urging us to do? Or is it time for some straight,

talking home truth, fat-shaming. I'll ask a celebrity chef who's lost 12 stove. Tom Kerrish, she'll be on in a moment. But first, more than 50 years since it first sparked controversy on stage, Jesus Christ Superstar has been resurrected. And the 21st century plot twist, it's gone gender neutral, of course. Jesus is non-binary. Judas will be played by a woman,

and none of the apostles are men. The production is required to keep the original lyrics, which means non-binary Jesus will be referred. to as him rather than they, all rather confusing. When joining me now to discuss this is the Tony Award-winning actor Tom Conte. And Sir Tim Rice, who of course wrote the original Jesus by Superstar featuring a red-blooded male Jesus alongside Andrew Lloyd Webber. Well, welcome to both of you.

Sir Tim, let me start with you. This is your baby. This is your production. Are you happy that it's gone all woke? Yeah, I'm fine, basically, peers, because if, if, If they sing the right words in the right place to the right tune, that's really all that matters. We've seen all-girl performances of superstar before. I slightly resent you saying it's been resurrected because it's never gone away, if I may brag for a minute.

But the first time I saw it with an all-female cast was at St Mary's Khan School in, oh gosh, I think about 1989 or 1990, an all-girl cast. And they did it brilliantly, but they stuck to the words. So after a few songs, you forgot this. Judas was actually being sung by a woman or Jesus being sung by a woman and you get into it and This this show I gather doesn't change the words and we said fine you can do it, but you mustn't start singing I don't know how to love them Right but this is where I look okay I get it but this is where to me it becomes a bit of a farce if you're gonna have a non-binary Jesus then you have to use the correct preferred pronas the whole point of being non-binary is you don't get called

he or she. You get called them and they, which I never understand because there's only one person involved. But if you're the guy here saying this is all fine, but at the same time, insisting on the original lyrics, what you're really saying is to Tim, because you're very clever, is, yeah, you can have our production, but you stick to our words, which means actually Jesus is not non-binary after all, is he? Well, that's their problem.

I mean, they can say Jesus is this is a non-binary production, but for far as I'm concerned, it is an all-female. production and they are not changing the show. We've had lots of different productions of superstar. I've seen it in Japan. I've seen it in, you know, Mexico, we've seen it Africa, Kenya. It's been done everywhere and the cast hardly ever bears an accurate resemblance to the original people. What I did object to in this particular case was the producer, some chap or, I don't know whether he's a chap or not, but whatever he was, he was saying that the Christian community, he was saying that the Christian community

had never really embraced superstar but that's absolute cobbler's the Pope likes superstar I'm not saying that everybody in the Christian community likes it but it has definitely made a positive impact I think that wasn't our intention speaking as a Catholic I love superstar he's one of the all-time great musicals

all right Tom Conti you've heard the witness for the defence here who actually wrote the words to this but I do think I've exposed the slight flaw here which is if you're going to bill it as non-day binary, but then not use the non-binary pronouns. Isn't this really just a PR scam? Well, I don't think it's a PR scam. I don't know what it is.

Actually, I was accused of attacking the show. I didn't ever mention the show on the World at One. I didn't mention Jesus Christ Superstar. Helen led with that. What? You didn't mention it? Tim Rice is actually more upset. You didn't mention the show.

You gave a pretty animated interview to World at One. What is your take about this generally? I mean, it comes back to the debate, for example, about James Bond, right? Should James Bond be a woman, as some people would like him, her to be? Should James Bond go non-binary? Blah, blah, blah. What do you think the line should be with all these calculations? It's very difficult.

I mean, you know, I'm a liberal person, so I think people ought to be able to do what they want to do. And this guy wants to do this production of thing. He's entitled to do it. I don't want to go and see it because I don't understand why. I don't see the point in doing it. I don't see the point in casting a woman to play Mark Antony because then you begin to wonder, was she having an affair with Caesar?

And that's why he's so upset when Caesar was murdered. You know, it opens all sorts of doors. Also, if you write roles for women, then they're going to be different to the way you would write a role for a man. So I don't think you could just change gender. You'd have to basically go back and re-refer women. write the whole script. That's right, because men and women are psychologically different. They react in different ways to different situations. You can't just change he to she.

But I just, I think Tim is chomping at the bit to get in here. Tim, what are you hearing this wounding you up? No, I was only going to say that there have been plenty of all-female versions of Hamlet or Othello and this, that and the other. And as long as the basic work is the same, I don't really mind what people do. As long as, I mean, I'm delighted that. that superstar and other stuff I've done over the years can be done in lots of different ways. But you can't change what's there. If you don't like the piece, don't do it.

But if you do like it, then I'm delighted it's done in different ways. But this is obviously not the way forward for something like James Bond. I believe James Bond was written for a bloke. I mean, the character has to be a man. You can do lots of wonderful movies and plays with super dynamic female agents or non-binary agents or whatever the expression is. I don't really understand what non-binary is myself.

But the basic work is paramount. Hang on it. Let me pick you up on that. So that's very interesting. So you think James Bond couldn't be non-binary or female, but you're happy for Jesus Christ to be non-binary or female. Which point I go, hang on, surely the two of them are inextricably linked to the fact they're men. Well, yes and no.

I mean, there's no reason on earth why, there's no reason on earth, I suppose, why James Bond couldn't be female, but he should still be, or it, or God, I'm getting confused myself. I'm getting into a terrible rabbit hole now, but he could start using the word it. Yes, but what does he have, does he have girlfriends? No, he's a girl. Well, that's the point.

I mean, if James Bond suddenly becomes a woman, what happens to all those dingy scenes at the end? Well, I don't know. I mean, it's not my problem. I would not get involved with changing James Bond to that extent, but, but, but, I mean, we had a case in New Zealand, of all places, with Joseph, which you would have thought

nobody would be mad enough to change Joe. But they wanted to change the line, children of Israel are never alone, to children of kindness are never alone, which was meaningless and frankly sentimental drivel. And we weren't sure why. And we said, sorry, you can do the show. We're delighted you're doing it, but you have to stick to the words that were written, even if we don't like them. And they said, well, in that case, we won't do the show.

And we said, fine. And in the end, as it happened in that case, they backed down. But I think the work itself should not be altered. I mean, James Bond is a slightly different case. because there is no actual standard James Bond plot. Right. My concern about this gender issue generally is take the Brit Awards,

which has just announced last year, they're going to go gender neutral with the awards. And I warned when this happened, Tom Conti, that when it happened, that what would be the inevitable result was that the next batch of nominations would probably all be met, and then everyone would scream how ridiculous it was.

That's exactly what happened. So all five nominations for best artists turned out to be male this year. And all the women, who've been excluded, quite rightly go, well, this is ridiculous. I don't see any problem in celebrating women, femininity, female roles, female singers. I don't want a gender-neutral Oscars, do you?

No, absolutely not. And you deny someone an Oscar or a bathtub, whatever it is. If you say, no, we're only going to give best actor. And, of course, by saying actor, we also include the word actress. then one person doesn't get, you know, it should be two people getting an award, but now only one person is getting an award. So who does that benefit? Well, it doesn't benefit women.

No, certainly doesn't. But also, I mean, I know Dame Joan Collins very well, and she insists on calling herself an actress. She has not been called an actor. She thinks men are called actors. Yes. But this is all part of the sort of the gender neutralizing of language generally, which I think is very problematic.

No, I agree. I don't know why. know why this is happening. It's bewildering to people. You know, people just say, well, I'm a stupid old white man, you know, which is a kind of racist comment, but there we are. But I don't understand why it's happening. I don't see the point of any of it, really. Tim Rice, you've actually, I think, hosted the Brits, right? What do you think of the Brits going gender neutral? Do you agree with gender neutral awards? Well, I've... Not really. Well, I mean, quite a few of the awards, as it happened, are general neutral, gender neutral. I mean, best director, best life. whatever. But I think the Brits have slightly shot themselves in the foot. I did present the Brits back in the Stone Age when no one really took much notice of them. But, I mean, once you get into this whole gender thing, I mean, it's ludicously complicated. I mean, both Tom and I are slightly about as to what to say. I can just go back to the same thing saying the work is paramount. And if you want to do the piece, do it. But don't try and rewrite it. Well, to me, yeah. You are rewriting it, aren't you? If you suddenly having old women or all men playing women or the...

You are completely changing the... Well, in a way you're not. I mean, I mean, the Indigo Girls, an American, all-female band, did a rather nice album of Superstar with only women singing all the parts, and they stuck to the actual songs. They got the words right, they got the tunes right, they made a great album. I didn't mind that at all.

I thought that was nice. That was an interesting way. But if they changed it to, I don't know how to love her or, you know, so you are the Lady Christ, the Great Lady Christ or something, that would have been wrong. I just, I think you're heading into it. Once you start trying to pretend it's non-binary, but the lyrics stay the same as if it's a man,

then the non-binary thing becomes to me a complete farce, because the whole point of being non-binary is you insist on being called they and them. Where is this going on this production? Up in Scotland, in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh? Yeah. Oh, they're very confused. Well, we know, listen, we know what's happened in Scotland.

I mean, on a serious point, where this gender stuff takes you is it takes you right down this rabbit war and we get in Scotland with this trans rapist who ends up raping two women as a man, transitions before his trial, and ends up being sent to a woman's prison until today when he's now being taken or she or they or them, whatever he or they want to call themselves,

he's a rapist, so I don't care, about respecting his pronouns, but he's now been put back into a male prison, and I would say quite rightly, but this is the problem. When gender gets that confused, people will exploit it. And also this whole thing in Scotland of letting youngsters of 16 decide what they're going to be.

I mean, the synapses in the brain are not fully connected until you're about 20. They're not allowed to buy a drink legally in Scotland until they're 18. But the brains aren't fully formed at 16. That's the huge danger. Yeah. Tom Conti, Tim Rice. what a great debate with two legends.

Legends. I don't use that word loosely. Legends of stage and screen. Good luck with the chute. I presume, just finally, you're both identifying as male this evening? Well, I'm trying hard. I'm a bloke, I think. I'm a fairly inefficient bloke.

All three of us are currently identifying as blokes. Yeah, right. Great to see you. We've got to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed, chats. Much of joy. Well, coming up next, actor Brendan Fraser plays an obese recluse in his new film and says, we need to stop the bias against fat people. But is he right?

Do fat people actually need to be fat-shamed into losing weight? We talked to a man who lost 12 stone, the superstar chef Tom Kerritch, next. Welcome back. Brendan Fraser's portrayal of a morbidly obese recluse in the film The Whale has earned an Oscar nomination. He's spoken out about society's treatment of overweight people, calling for the need to stop the bias against those with obesity. but at the age where the world is in the grip of, and he's the epidemic, not least which in this country,

is this whole notion of body positivity making the problem worse? I'm joined now by great British men star Tom Kerritch, who famously lost 12 stone and looking in magnificent shape. You work out every day, you were just telling them. I do. I try to work out every day in different things. So when I first lost a load of weight, it was through cardiovascular stuff, so I swam, so I used to swim a mile every day. How big were you at your biggest?

Oh, I was over 30 stone. 30 stone. Yeah, yeah, yeah. In that moment, what was the trigger for you actually saying, I've really got to do something about this? Age. So there's a point where you get to, so I was approaching my 40th birthday.

And I think that's always a point of reflection, isn't it? I think when you get to 40, I mean, I know it's not that long ago for you peers, but you get to that point where you just think, what have I achieved, what have I come to, and where am I going? So I think there's a point, 40th is always a real kind of a testing point for many people. For me, it was, okay, what have I achieved, what am I doing? career-wise it was all going great.

The restaurants were fantastic. The pub was great. The recognition was good. We were doing stuff on the telly. So there wasn't a health scare, which I'm sure there would have been at some point. There was no conversation. Were mates of yours or family or viewers, wherever it may be,

were people making comments to you that made you think, you know what? About your weight, about your size? Was that part of it as well? No, no, none of it. It was all self-conscious. So the thing about anything that you have to do, whether it's losing weight,

whether it's an issue with addiction, whether it's giving up smoking, whether it's alcohol, whether it's gambling, whatever it is, whatever it's part of your life. None of us are stupid. We all know it's bad for you. If you eat loads of Mars bars every day, you know you're going to be in a bad space.

If you drink too much, it's about self-responsibility. So a lot of it comes to, you know, what am I going to do to change the bad habit? My issue with the debate is obesity rates, we know are just going through the roof all around Europe, particularly in this country, where it's shocking and America. And I see people,

For example, I remember a while ago, a model in America, she was a plus-sized model called Tess Holiday. She appeared on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine here. She was over £300 and about five foot tall. And there wasn't a single word in the whole piece which did anything other than celebrate her supposed body positivity. I felt that was incredibly harmful in terms of making people think this is actually a positive thing.

That's morbid obesity. That's going to kill someone. So I think the positivity, that's a mindset. Yes, okay, I think if you are, if you're morbidly obese, I mean the word morbid in front of it, it's frightening and it's something that you have to reflect on on yourself.

But at the same point... But my point is, does fat shaming... When I put on a bit too much timber, I can absolutely rely on one of my sons are all pretty fit, or my brothers, who are not as fit, actually, but like to do it out. the first thing they'll do is say,

God, you put some timber on, right? And that will always make me go back to the gym. In other words, I believe that a bit of fat-shaming goes quite a long way in making you think, actually, really? Okay, I better do something about it. Well, not all of us are in the same fortunate position as just me and you where we can go to a gym. We have a gym that we can go to that we're members of them.

Yeah, but we all know that if it's not something that you actually enjoy doing, it's not something that you're going to continue to do. So the exercise that you need to do, the way that you can do it, is by finding something that you enjoy doing. Do you think fat shaming is wrong? Yeah, I think a lot of it is about education.

A lot of it comes down to education. A lot of it comes down to poverty. And if you think of the majority of places where you'll find that most people are morbidly obese are places where they come from economically challenged areas where the foods that they can afford down that process. So a lot of it will come down to food poverty. So it's not necessarily about eating too much.

It's about eating the wrong foods. And the problem with those wrong foods of processed foods that are saturated fat, high in sugars, they lead to what you think is those processed carbohydrates fill you up, but they don't last very long, so you eat more, and you get into this very vicious circle. And it's not about fresh vegetables, it's not about... And that's also a food education point.

You gave up alcohol completely. I did, yeah, I stopped drinking with it. How big a factor do you think in your dramatic weight loss was just killing the booze? Oh, massive. So I have an issue with alcohol. So first and foremost, that was a big part of giving up and losing weight, was an issue with alcohol.

But also, even if you're a mild drink or someone who just drinks at a weekend, alcohol changes your mindset. So it does lead you to go and I'll have cheese on toast or I'll go for that curry or I'll have that cab. No question. So it's not just about the lost calories or the weight that you could put on from alcohol

and the sugars that are in it. It's actually from the mindset that changes. See, I'm on a bit of a health kick at the moment. So I've had barely any alcohol in five weeks, eating very healthily, going to the gym two or three times a week, Peloton the other days, right? And I'm getting quite fit again,

as I have done sporadically. But there's always a moment when I'm going to hit that one. wall when I, you just slightly lose that steely self-disciplined street. You came through that. Yeah. And most people don't, especially in dry January and so on, what's your advice to people to breaking through the wall?

There's a mindset. But it's very, very different when both me and you now are in that point of middle age where you're struggling every day and you're trying to find that balance between everything, where if you're morbidly obese at the point where I was well over 30 stone, you're then at a point that your life is so unbalanced. It's completely out of control that one. One thing is you have to unbalance it completely the other way. So you have to remove, whether it's carbohydrates or sugars or lower calories and alcohol,

and it becomes unbalanced the other way. If you have a relatively balanced diet, which sounds like you have now, and you go up and down, you're kind of in control of it like everybody else. And that's okay. What you do is okay, you know. But it is that point where you do find yourself that you are overweight. You need to, it is a structured mindset. And most of it does come down to find...

But I would say the most motivational thing in my life over the years about losing weight was was actually reading Ali Ross's TV column in The Sun where this pasty-faced little... from Aberdeen would regularly torment me for being fat. Now, I thought he was right, so it made me get fit. So I think there's an example where being fat-shamed actually can help. It just cuts through all the crap.

That works for you. You are too fat. That works for you, but there's many people. You don't know their situations. You don't know where they're at. you don't know why their mindset is like that. And the only way that you're ever going to lose weight or you're only going to do that thing is if you can do it yourself,

you have to do it yourself. And somebody telling you, you already know you're fat. I mean, you have a shower every day or a bath and you get out and you see yourself in a mirror, right? You know, you know you're overweight. It's actually going... And currently, I'm seeing a lean, mean, fighting machine. Exactly, that six-pack is shining free.

But it is going to be that point where you have to make that decision. And it can only come down. It doesn't matter how many people tell you, in fact, that can probably make it worse. If you have some form of insecurity as somebody's telling you, you know, you come for eat. If you're come for eating anyway and then you're constantly getting told that,

it can only lead to work. Tom, I'm going to leave you there. I want to talk to you again another time about pubs, because I was brought up in a pub and I share your passion for pubs and there's a war on pubs, as we know, a lot of them going under. So we'll do another debate on that another time, but it's great to talk to you about this. It's a really big issue.

A lot of people out there at the moment doing this dry January, doing V January, which I'd rather shoot yourself than do. And you're a prime example of how you can do it. Congratulations. Thank you. Cheers, Chief. Well, coming up, Scotland finally sees sense. A transgender rapist will be moved out of a women's only prison.

How did it ever come to that in the first place? That's next for the pack. Well, after waving the flag for transgender rights, Scotland's first minister was forced into an embarrassing climb down. Ila Bryson, or Adam, as she used to be known, and raped two women as Adam, before changing gender at trial, was awaiting sentence in a woman's prison in Scotland. not for a huge outcry. She, he, they will now be moved

to a jail with male inmates. Returning is my pack. So, Paula, complex issue, but this goes right to the heart of me, of what I've always warned about this. The moment you allow limitless gender identity, you're going to get people trying it off. This guy's ex-wife came out of you today.

He's never had an inkling or mentioned a word of any of this until he got done for two rapes, realized he was going to prison for a horrific time in a men's prison, and put his hand up, transition and then goes into a female prison with women he can attack. And let's not be surprised here of a criminal not telling the truth, peers. I accept that. It happens. Of course it does. And people, you will always find somebody who's

going to try and test the system to its limits. I get that. But in terms of equating this horror story with the transgender debate, that worries me. Because they're two separate things. And do you still think it's perfectly okay for six foot three inch? former male swimmers to now be smashing women's records in swimming pools in America, for example. So what I think is appropriate is that the IOC... You're saying that I'm not a minister. Is that okay, I'm not? So what I think is appropriate is it. He's turned into a politician.

So what I think is okay is that the IOC who have done the research, who have spoken to the scientists, who have spoken to the other athletes, and who have decided that from, I think it was 2004, that transgender athletes could compete. They're the ones who are making the decisions. Look, this to me, this whole gender thing is getting hijacked by very aggressive lobby activist from the trans side. And people are simply too terrified, actually, to put their head over the parapet and call foul when it creates a new unfairness. Well, this is the thing. It's actually not a complex debate, is it?

We had a position. We had positions in place that if people had gender dysphoria, they had counselling, they had medical treatments, they went for surgery, if that is what was suitable for their. and they were part of the community. I don't think that there was a huge upro. I didn't know about a huge upro about trans people until very recently. Most trans people I know are very upset about all this stuff. Right. What's being pushed now is an agenda. They think it makes a mockery of them as trans people.

They don't agree with the new unfairness that has been created in all these different areas. And that seems to me, you know, I want to take care of trans people who just want to get on with their lives and have fairness and equality. That's where my concern is. creating a new unfairness and eroding women's rights in the process is not the answer. Well, I agree with that. I think this is actually really simple. And I think there's a very simple way of approaching it, which is that if you commit a crime as a man,

particularly if it's a violent sexual offence as a man, that only a man can perpetrate in that way, then you should be tried and charged and sentenced as a man. It doesn't matter if you fiddle around with your sex afterwards, you're going to be punished as you were for the crime that you carried out. And I just can't see why you need to complicate that any further. Okay, now, what a little moment to silence here of thought and prayers for the Guardian newspaper, the chief woke publication in the world,

who have just been accused of institutional racism in a comical turn of events. Producers working for the Guardian on a podcast about The Guardian have discovered links between its founder, John Edward Taylor, and slavery. A leaked emails at a key issue was a lack of any serious desire from the Guardian to face and interrogate its own historic role. I think we can all surely share our dismay that these wokeies have been caught

with their racist trousers now. Isn't it gorgeous to watch the left wing self-cannibalising? The battle of the rights, the battle of all. Many because they're so self-righteousness. This is always what's going to happen. I think we just sit back and go on. Go on. Dolly job. Go for it. You'll be pleased to hear.

I read lots of people. different publications. Do you read the Guardian? I have done. I have done. I've read the Sun. I've read the Times. I've read the Unnot Post. I've read the variety. I've read, you name it, I read it. But isn't the point about this, my point about this racism charge, about when you go back in history over every institution, I just think it's a waste of people's time and energy and money. What are we trying to prove that the Guardian, which does endless, let's be clear, there's a lot of very good work about racism. And now they're accused of being a bunch of racist because the founder, whenever it was, 200 years ago, had links to slavery,

and now it's all been abolished many, many decades ago. I don't get the point of it. And I don't either. I have to say I was confused by the story and where they were going with this, because I'd have to say that I think many people would struggle to go back 200 years and not find something. I'd love to think that the Guardian would learn a lesson about this. And what lesson would that be, to not dig back? into a history. Not be so down self-righteous to everybody else. Not be endlessly hypocritical.

I mean, just absolutely ridiculous. It's a kind of story the Guardian would love to expose about somebody else. You know, we've had the Enlightenment era, we've had the Renaissance. It seems to me we now live in an era of persecution and that everything about society is geared towards attacking other people.

It's sad. It is. It's McCarthyite, actually. The woke fascists are trying to behave like McCarthy and we've got to stand up to them. And I will stand up to them. There's no such thing as a woke fascist. There is, Paula.

There's no such thing. You can have a culture war. Gotta leave it there. Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored. Good night.