Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Stanley Johnson and Harry Redknapp

Episode Date: June 14, 2022

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Stanley Johnson joins Piers to talk about trophy hunting and endangered species. Piers is also joined by football legend Harry Redknapp to ask if sports have put money over morals and sold out to Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Piers speaks to Lisa Bloom about Depp v. Heard after Amber Heard gives her first interview since the result. This episode also sees Piers give the latest on the legal disputes over Rwanda asylum plan. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Pierce Morgan, Unsenso. Coming up on tonight's program, Stanley Johnson will be here to talk trophy hunting for big beasts and endangered species. I'll also ask him about animals. Money over morals has sports sold out to Saudi Arabia. The legend Harry Rednapp will be here live. And she lost a court case to Johnny Depp. But Amber Hur does not stop playing the victim. Do you stand by your testimony and your accusations against Johnny Depp about abuse? Of course, to my dying day, we'll stand by every word of my testimony. Well, good evening. Bad news, I'm afraid to start. Amber Heard is still yapping. She's broken her silence, which didn't last very long, in a new sit-down interview after her defamation trial loss to ex-husband Johnny Depp,

insisting that he's the liar and repeating claims that he assaulted her during their marriage. Because we've heard all this before, haven't we? And the more that she whines and plays the victim, rather like that other American actress, Megan Markle, the less credible she becomes. This was the most humiliating and horrible thing I've ever been through. The vast majority of this trial was played out on social media. I think the jury saw it?

How could they not? It would have been impossible to avoid this. He says, you start physical fights and you say, I did start a physical fight. I can't promise you, I won't get physical again. I mean, this is in black and white. I understand context. But you're testifying and you're telling me today,

I never started a physical fight, and here you are on tape saying you did. As I testified on the stand about this, is that when your life is at risk, not only will you take the blame for things that you shouldn't take the blame for, but when you're in an abusive dynamic, psychologically, emotionally, and physically,

you don't have the resources that, say, you or I do with the luxury of saying, hey, this is black and white. But then there are other times, there's another tape where you're taunting him and saying, oh, tell the world, Johnny Depp, I, a man, the victim of domestic violence. 20-second clips or the transcripts of them

are not representative of even the two hours or the three hours that those clips are excerpt from. He says he never hit you. Never. Is that a lie? Yes, it is. In the closing arguments, the Depp lawyers called your testimony, the performance of a lifetime. What do you say to that?

Says the lawyer for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers? When I asked his lawyers, why do you think you won? And the answer I got was because she never took responsibility for anything she did in the marriage. I did do and say horrible, regrettable things throughout my relationship. Do you think that maybe he just had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly a better job of distracting the jury from the real issues. Do you stand by your testimony and your accusations against Johnny Depp about abuse? Of course, to my dying day, will stand by every word of my testimony.

I'm joined now by several rights attorney Lisa Bloom. Lisa, I'd love to talk to you again. When I watched this this morning on the today's show, I've got to be honest with you, my mind went back to Megan Markle's Oprah Winfrey. to our whine-a-thon. Because the longer Amber Heard talks, frankly, the more she whines, the more she plays the victim, the more she tries to blame everybody but herself,

as with Megyn Markle, the less I believe her. I just find her a really incredible, or another uncredible witness, or both, actually. Well, you certainly have a right to your opinion, peers, and I have a right to mine. I have a lot of sympathy for Amber Heard. I agree with the couple's marriage counselor that they were both abusive to each other.

And there's no question that she was vilified on social media. As she says, she had to go into court past blocks and blocks of Johnny Depp superfans holding up signs that she deserved to die. I mean, this was a horrific experience for her. She stands by her testimony. My concern for her is, is she going to get hit with a new defamation case

because now she's out there calling him a liar? Right, and also my question would be If Johnny Depp had lost that case, would he have been allowed on the Today Show to call his victim a liar to stand by everything that he'd said? I don't think he would have been given the platform. So to me, there's a double standard there.

You've been involved in many of these cases I know, but I think there's a real double standard there. I think the Today Show would have been thrilled to have him on if he lost to tell his side or any of these high-profile guys who are accused. I don't think that's a problem. I don't think he has a problem having a platform. He's got a massive platform.

He's an A-list celebrity. He's wealthy beyond all imagining. I don't think that would have been a problem for him. I don't think this was a good idea for Amber, though. No, I thought he was a total train wreck for her. But my point being, I don't think that today's show would have given Johnny Depp the chance to continue playing the victim if he'd been found guilty of domestic violence. And my issue watching Amber Herb was a jury didn't believe her. You know, 95% of the verdict went Johnny Depp's way.

They thought she was the liar. And in fact, the only hard evidence that came out during the entire case about domestic actual violence, physical violence, was by her, not by Johnny Depp. Yes, but keep in mind, she used the term domestic abuse, which includes emotional abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse. She never said in that op-ed that was the center of the whole case that he physically... physically abused her. And I also think Samantha Guthrie at the Today Show did a pretty good job. She's an attorney. I know Samantha a little bit. She's tough. And I think she did a pretty good job of saying, look, just as you just said, Pears, look, Amber Hurd, the jury didn't believe you. The jury felt that you were a liar. I mean, she really, you know, did a pretty tough interview

there. You know, the problem I have, Lisa, with the whole thing with Amber Hurd. And I've got no great truck for Johnny Depp, by the way. I think he came out of it pretty awfully too. But I think His behaviour since has been a lot more respectful to the process. He certainly hasn't tried to hammer things home with Amber heard in the press by continuing to rant about her. But my whole problem with it, if you go back to that first piece that she wrote, we now live in a culture, in a society, where there is a premium to people to play the victim, to write these kind of heart-rending op-heads, positioning themselves as these terrible victims.

What became clear through this case was at very best, this was a mutually toxic, abusive situation. She certainly wasn't the victim. And yet there she was taking space in a major national newspaper to write this searing op-ed as a kind of representative for the victims of domestic violence. And I think that goes to, in my mind, this culture we now have where people can build a career out of victims. And many of them do it. And I think it diminishes real victims, people who are really suffering, really being abused, really the victims of domestic violence. And I'm cynical about it. And I'm seeing it more and more. And I'm like, what is happening when there's that mindset?

Well, I don't necessarily agree with you, peers, that people make careers out of victimhood because I represent dozens and dozens of victims of sexual abuse and race discrimination right now in my law firm. And I can tell you, none of my clients want to be in this position. They wish it never happened. They wish they could just go on with their lives. Most of them never do any media. They just want justice. They just want some fairness and accountability.

And with regard to Amber Hurd and Johnny Depp, they can both be victims. And I think there are many marriages where the both parties abuse each other. And it's horrific. And they can both be hurting. And in the article, she talked about the massive backlash that she had gotten in Hollywood for saying that she was a victim. And clearly what we've seen a massive social media hate for Amber Hurd

and what she's had to experience in the last couple of months of this trial, is not something anybody... Yeah, but again, you know, I agree. She is not coming out of this a winterland. Yeah, look, I don't like the social media pile on with her. It can get very nasty, very ugly. But her insinuation that the jury must have been reading all this,

and that's why they found against her, I think is extremely, in my view, disrespectful to the jury. the process, to the court case, to the jury. I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to read any social media. So maybe one or two did. We don't know. They're not supposed to.

Right. So they're not supposed to. They're not supposed to. But you and I know, peers, when was the last time you were off of Twitter for six weeks? Probably before Twitter began. Try six minutes. Most of us are pretty addicted. Most of us are pretty addicted to social media, whether it's Instagram or Twitter,

whatever it is. and to say that they were all entirely off for six weeks that none of their friends and family members talk to them about it. I mean, do we really believe that in the stage age? No, but it could be, Lisa, couldn't it? I work with juries. I know.

But ultimately... They say one thing and they do another thing. I know. But ultimately, to me, it comes back to this thing where all women must be believed as a starting point for these kind of cases. I think all women should be listened to and evidence should be studied.

Of course. But I think the clear, overwhelming, sort of fallout from Megan Markle, Oprah Winfrey, Amber Hurd and this court case, is it actually no, not all women should be automatically believed, because sometimes they're telling porcupies. Well, listen,

no sane person says that all women must be believed. I mean, that's absurd. I think you're right. A lot of people do say that. We should listen to any accuser. I represent men. I don't know about a lot of people saying that, peers. Maybe there's always fringe people on both

sides of things. But I think we want to take these allegations seriously. I think what the Me Too movement has taught us that a lot more people are sexually abused and sexually harassed than we ever knew in the past. And we're all taking this a lot more seriously and we should. And a lot of prominent people, mostly men, have been taken down by the Me Too movement, and they should have. And so overall, it's a positive thing. But there's always going to be outliers, people who make up stories, and we have to have due process. I agree with you. I agree with everything you just said. I think most of the Me Too movement and times up movements have been

long overdue and very necessary. A lot of bad people have been held a proper account. I just think when I watch someone like Amber heard, I see an actress and I see somebody who lost but who doesn't want to admit she lost. She's a kind of Donald Trump of actresses. Well, Johnny Depp is a more successful actor.

Sorry? Johnny Depp, yeah. But Johnny, he's a far more successful actor. Why isn't he accused of acting when he's on the stand? I just know if Johnny Depp had lost, there's no way. he'd have been allowed to carry on calling his victim a liar on primetime American television.

They wouldn't have allowed it. Well, you know, I'll defer to you. You know more about television than I do. I'm just a simple civil rights lawyer representing victims. I'm not actually sure about that, Lisa. You're a very accomplished television performer these days. Great to talk to you. Thank you very much.

Always good to see you. Thank you, Piers. Well, on the next. Stanley Johnson, his son, was obviously too scared to be interviewed by me. runs into fridious to avoid me, but his father is made of tougher stuff. There is the Prime Minister's dad. We'll be here live and unleashed to talk about endangered species, big beasts facing possible extinction.

And a sports sold out to Saudi Arabia where the great Harry Rednapp will be here to talk about sports washing. What is it? Does it matter? And the first flight transporting asylum seekers from UK in Rwanda leaves him just over an hour. We're now down to just six people on board. at vast expense. More this controversial migrant policy takeoff, Adam Bolton and Richard Tice will be here to debate. Well, an endangered species is a beast considered highly likely to become extinct in the near future, fending increasingly for themselves. They're put at risk

by the loss of territory. Their plight is made worse by ruthless coaches who often want to bring them down as a trophy to their own prowess. Sadly, these big beasts are sometimes too deluded to realize that it's already over. It's only the poor marksmanship of the hapless hunters that spares them their futures. Stanley Johnson is here. You're not talking politics, aren't you? Staley, I'm obviously talking trophy hunting and endangered species. No, let's start, first of all.

I sense the trap. It's not a trap. Let's just be completely up front about this. Talking of endangered species who may be facing possible end. Your son, Boris, I have to ask you about it because he won't come on the show.

I've interviewed him in seven years. No, let's talk, if I might, about injunction. We will. Let me talk about Boris first. All right. Then we'll come to the trophy and your book. I'm just curious, you're his dad, right? He's been through one hell of a period in his life. He becomes Prime Minister. He gets Brexit done. He's then hit by a global pandemic. He's hit by a war in Ukraine. He's hit by all sorts of stuff, surging inflation now. In the middle of it, he gets COVID and nearly dies. His mother dies. You put all this together. That's a hell of a hell of a lot of

two and a half years for any human being. As his father, when you've watched him go through all this, what have you been thinking? I've been thinking, I am very proud of this boy, of this man, of this PM. I mean, that's what I say to myself. I mean, he caught, you know,

the big calls, right, and as well, like I'm saying, he's got a lot of things right. You know, okay, I'm an environmentalist. I think the way he pushed on climate change, the way he pushed on biodiversity, the way he pushed, if we get to it, So this is a sort of in danger of species. It's fine. And honestly, if you're asking me my absolute opinion on this,

I'd say, I'd say, I listen to what Imman Khan said to you the other day. You know, people in Karachi are bewildered at the attention which this party gate, beer gate or something was going. Yeah, but you know why it's rattled people. Party gate is not really about parties, right? You and I have been to a lot of parties together, right? It's not about the parties. It's about the time when he and his government

were locking people in their homes. And they couldn't go and see dying relatives who were literally dying in hospital from COVID. That was the rule, the law. When the queen was at her own husband's funeral sitting on her own because she wanted to abide by the letter of the law. There is Boris, the prime minister,

being fined by the police for breaking his own law. And 84 of his staff fined for illegal party? So that's the scandal. No, well, I don't actually see it in that way, because I see it. Something had happened on the 19th of, on the 19th of June 2020, which was just a few weeks after he came out of hospital,

having been really seriously ill. He steps by for 20 minutes. It's his birthday. It wasn't a birthday party, as I know. He broke his own law, Stanley. Yeah, come on. Come on, Piers. We're not done here.

You don't take my word for it. Take the police's word for it. Okay, I think that that is time, it's time to move on from that. You know, it was a situation where, yes, he has a drink. He would put this head a glass in his hand. And that was it. That was the end of it. Yeah, but it's not about the drink, is it? It's about having a party which breaks his own rules.

Hey, hey, Pear. When he was telling other people every day from the podium, you can't do this. It's the doing one thing and preaching another. No, you know that. Look, I know you're in charge of this interview and no reason why you shouldn't be because, you know, you're the big cheese. But I didn't come here, you know, so on I'm concerned, it's high time. We moved on to things which really matter, which are the things he is doing now. Do you see, it's the things he's doing, and you mention them. You know, COVID, let's hope that's out of the way. Inflation, he's got to deal with it. Ukraine, Ukraine, well, who is taking the lead on Ukraine? I think he's been good on Ukraine. Yeah, I think Boris has been, I think he's been, I think he's been, I think he's been, I think he's been. I think he's. he's been a leader on Ukraine. And on the big calls, on COVID, I think he got some right and some horribly wrong. First half of it, he was a complete

disaster. The second half, I thought with the vaccine program rolled out and not locking down actually at the end of the last year, I think there were two important calls he got right. Britain feels a much freer country right now than if you go abroad. So I think he's got some of the calls right.

The idea he's got all the big calls right. It's a bit ridiculous, right? I don't think I said that. I think he's, I think he's got, you know, many of the big calls right, and that I think is crucial. And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, I am, because you ask me the question, I am particularly pleased to see this son of mine being primanist.

Well, other sons will be brunners at another matter. But I am very, very pleased about this, and long may he laugh. Stanley, when you see him being attacked repeatedly for being dishonest, for being amoral, all those things, what do you feel about it? better than most people. Yeah, this is all a lot of garbage. I mean, total garbage. I see this as

the worst kind of journalism. I'm not going to name the journalists. I hope I don't have to meet them. But honestly, I think it's and I think it's tinged with, look, it's a hunting scene, isn't it? We're going to get on to hunting. It's a hunting scene. There we are. They think the beast is wounded. Let's gallop after him. Let's fire a shoot few more shots. It is absurd. We have to move away from that. Is he irreparably wounded by the fact that 42% of Conservative MPs don't have confidence in it?

No, I don't think it's on contrary. If you look at the figures, more Conservative MPs voted in a confidence vote for Boris Johnson than have ever voted for a Conservative Prime Minister in any confidence vote. Look at the figures. Now, it may be that's because they were more Conservative MPs to vote. That's why? OK, that's why. But why were there more Conservative MPs?

It was because they won... On the percentage share, that doesn't work. Leave the percentage out of it, leave the sheer numbers. all that matters, isn't it? Shere numbers got that result, and you cannot deny that. The 360 Tory MPs who were elected in 2019

were elected... You know, I mean, you're a sharp political animal. You know that actually the stats are now heavily against him. Hardly any conservative prime minister has ever survived much longer than six months from a no-confidence vote, even if they all win them,

but the margin of the win is what brings them down. Let me tell you something. I am completely confident that this time, two years from now, you and I will be having this conversation possibly, and you will be saying, well, you're still the father of prime minister then, Stanley. You know what? That might be true.

I'm not saying necessarily that should be what happens, but I think you might be right. He has got the escapology skills of Harry Udini, hasn't he? Eudini, as I recall, eventually died because someone... He did. struck him in the tummy rather hard. I'm not mentioning Jeremy Hump, but you know, you're going to be careful who's around him at the moment. Look, we need to concentrate on the main things.

As far as I'm concerned, why I'm here tonight is there's a crucial moment when this government, and I'm not criticizing my prime minister, I'm not doing that, but nonetheless, just to show I am not, as it were, starry-eyed. I am deeply worried that the proposal the government has promised to make regarding banning trophy, hunting imports, has not yet seen the light of day. Well, let's be quite clear about this, because I agree with you about trophy hunting.

I think it's a disgusting thing, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen. Boris said he was going to get rid of it, and he hasn't. So he's gone back on his word. Well, to you? No. Stanley. It's in the word as it appeared in the Conservative Party manifesto. And if you ask the government about it,

the government says firmly, we are still committed. But have you talked to him privately about it? I don't go into what I say privately to my son, and I wouldn't expect him to say what he says to me. You know, on air. But nonetheless, on this sort of thing, I would prefer to speak out loud to you peers in the privacy of this studio, if you see what I mean,

and say the government has to move on this, because I don't want to say... And for those who haven't followed this whole saga, what is it exactly, you and a lot of signatories to a letter, want to get what done? Okay. Trophy hunting is still massively practice all around the world. And by the way, British sportsmen are massively involved in trophy hunting.

And we have a time when endangered species are truly endangered. And we've got the animals, we've got... Lions and rhinos, and they're all there. They're all there. And yet people are still getting prizes from the Safari Club International, for killing 100 different species of animals. And people are paying $50,000 to fly in from America,

from Minnesota. We saw the Sessalb a lion. Absolutely. So I want the government to really deliver on its promise to bring in this law banning the import, of trophies. And also I want the government to push hard now on this other thing, which is again in the manifesto, which is to do with animals abroad and the fact that British tourists are going off in huge numbers post-COVIDs

to places like Thailand and India and other places where animals are abused for spectacles and entertainment, particularly... Stanley, we have reached a point of agreement, although I would point out on trophy hunting. Yeah, look at this. It's also a prime example of your son saying one thing and not doing it. No, he has got every chance to do it. That is the point. If he's watching this program, what's your message to him about trophy hunting? Sure, he watches you every day. Well, he comes on it.

Well, I can't speak. Come to get out of the fridge and get on here. I can't speak to that. But I am convinced that environment remains a top priority of this government. Climate change remains top priority, biodiversity in rains, and animal species is there. You've got a great new book out from an antique land. You've written how many books now? This is my 25th.

Unbelievable. What did you get the energy, you Johnson? No, I don't have any energy at all. No, no, no. Frelentless, isn't it? It's a very nice you to say. That is a thriller. That is a thriller and it's all to do with what happened in Cambodia in 1975. I'll afford to reading it. I like all your books. I want to show you a bit of footage. This is of a cock-a-crow in Turkey. This is a moment, Stanley, where I think you and I, probably Boris as well, have a moment, don't we,

occasionally, when you just want to do this. Watch this cock-roll. You're sure that's not the call. It's not the famous Johnson mating call. I think it could be the caller than where it's seen it comes from Turkey. Watch the end though, Stanley. You see what happens at the end here? It's going. Now the last time I saw a magnificent beast like that doing something similar

was when you came on Good Morning Britain and we got you to do a handstand. Do you remember this? Oh, come on. I do remember. Is this really sensible? Yep. Oh my goodness. Oh, goodness.

One again. One again. No, that's enough. I've got him. I've got it. There he is. All the money. There, oh, my God. His money's falling out. Well, let me get you down, Jim.

What I meant to say to you, then, is I always like to put my money where my mouth is. I fail to say it then. I'm happy to say it now. Stanley, it's great to see you. As always, an effervescent presence. And you are a cheater. I've got to tell you, Piers. You know, you lured me in here.

It was a bit like Cecil the line. You learned me in here. I'm a trophy hunter. I'm a trophy. I don't think I'm a trophy. You know what? There's nothing wrong with defending your son, by the way. And we got to talk about trophy hunting

and your book. And I showed you doing a handstand. The words you're looking for, Stanley, are thank you, peers. Good to see you. See you all, folks. Tell Boris to come in soon. We'd have fun. Cheers, Sally. Good to see you. I think he's going to get Boris out of the fridge

to get him on the show. Well, on sense the next thing. The British government flies migrants to Rwanda, impactful or immoral. Pierce Pack is next. Well, from Big Beasts to two more Big Beasts. It's the Pierce Pack, Talk TV contributor to Adam Bolton, Talk to me, presenter, a leader of Reform UK, Richard Tice. Welcome, heavyweights.

Stanley Parsi on the way out. I said you're a cheat. Yeah, I don't think so. I'm not taking that from them either. But, no, it's a good interview. I like Stanley. Let's talk about Rwanda, Richard, Because I do think this is a genuinely complicated issue.

We've got a live shot here of Bostcombe down in Wiltshire. This is the plane that's due to leave in about half an hour's time. We're down to apparently six people are now on this flight, which makes it incredibly expensive, obviously. Does it even make it worth it if he's trying to prove this point? Does this prove anything? I think what it proves, Piers, is the principle. The principle is whether or not the government,

the elected government of the day can carry out one of the key. policies that it was elected on, which was to get Brexit done, which included taking back control of our borders. So I think it's really, really important that the plane goes. And we've been through not one, not two, three court process in the UK. And yet the European Court of Human Rights seems to have decided wants to interfere. Even if there's nobody on that plane, it should still go with the blessing of the domestic courts. So here's my issue with it. I think what's going on on the sea is unacceptable. It cannot just go on. like this. You can't have more and more boats and more and more people drowning. It's just not acceptable for us to look at that and think we do nothing. But I can't find it in my heart

to think this is British to then take people, many of whom are genuine asylum seekers, albeit trying to enter the country illegally, many of them have come from genuine war zones that we simply say to them, right, we know you've come from Syria, we know you've come from Afghanistan, we know you come from Iraq, which we bond, by the way. But what we're going to do, we're going to put you on the first plane to Rwanda. Look, there are no good options. We all want to be somewhere else, which is no one's coming. Did you feel comfortable about that?

All of these are bad options. I think the government has tried, it's tried to work with France, everything else has failed, and essentially this is saying it's another last-ditch attempt. I also think here, Piers, that Rwanda is actually getting a very bad press by quite a lot of people here who may not know what they're thinking about.

For example, the United Nations' own report recently said, and I'll just read it out, Rwanda's made notable strides toward improving people's lives. There's 130,000 refugees there. Rwanda has been impressive with progress. Rwanda's done an excellent job integrating refugees. It's built over 500 classrooms for 20,000 children. As I mentioned last night.

As an arsul fan, we have on our shirts, the players, visit Rwanda. I think it's getting a very bad press. OK. First of all, this is not about Rwanda. People say nice things about Rwanda. I've never been there. because this is about people who came through Europe to Britain and who wanted to stay in Britain.

So, you know, we ended deportation for criminals, I think, in the 19th century. So I think the whole idea of deporting people is, you know, to quote Prince Charles appalling or shaming or ugly, as the Tory MP, Jesse Norman says. But the real test is, is it going to work? Right. And that's where you've fallen for this. I mean, you're not a Tory. I know you've got your own party.

But the fact is this is cruel gesture politics. Because they've got six people on the plane. We know, contrary to taking back control of our borders, actually immigration is going up in this country, if that's what people are really concerned about. There more people come in every day than they're even thinking of deporting to Rwanda. We know they've only prepared 76 places in Rwanda

with the money. that's been given so far. So this is not going to become and shouldn't become mass deportation. Well, we also know this, Richard. It's not going to follow. Richard, let me put this to you, because it's just an interesting thing that I read about today. We found some information about it. So between 2014 and 2017, Israel operated a similar scheme, sending people to Rwanda and Uganda under a voluntary scheme. Migrants were given a choice to return to their own country or accept a payment of £2,700 and a plane ticket to East Africa or go to jail if they stayed in Israel.

Now, apparently, a lot of people took the option of going to East Africa, but then left. And they actually migrated to other parts of Europe. So it didn't solve the problem. That was then, this is now. I referred to what I just read out earlier in terms of the UN's own report. Amnesty International is more critical of Spain's performance with migrants and refugees and indeed the UK than it is of Rwanda. Ultimately, I think we're all agreed,

we've got to have a deterrent to stop people coming across the channel. This may or may not work. My hunch is that it probably won't because the odds, for the reasons you've just mentioned, of you actually going from the UK to Rwanda, are remarkably low. My preference, actually, is to keep working with the French

and to have a joint arrangement where anybody who comes across the channel is picked up, safely, taken back, to France, you have a joint processing centre, and they are promptly, rapidly processed. But the French have resisted that today. But the French are showing no income. The problem is we can't trust the French to do a problem.

But you have to try new things to act as a deterrent. What about Ukraine? So when the war in Ukraine happened, we certainly have a massive influx of Ukrainians. Now, they're not entering illegally, vast majority. They're coming here legally. But we are working very hard to process very quick asylum for these people.

Well, nothing compared to other European countries. Right. We're still doing it. What I mean is our system seems to work fine with Ukraine. Well, this is what... Why can't we get a better system for people who are not coming from Ukraine? This is what you hear from people like Nadim Zaharwee, that there are ways to come in. Actually, if you're in Libya, if you're in Iran, if you're in Iraq, there aren't easy ways for you to apply and come in. So I'm not saying you should try and be illegal.

But they are actually not telling the public the truth when they're... say it's easy for people to a fly outside. If we accept that the Rwanda thing probably isn't going to work, I don't think it will. But either way, if it's not doing something like that, something dramatic, we try and make a big deterrent statement, what should we do about stopping so many people risking their lives to come over on these dinghies? Well, I agree with Richard. I think we should be working with other European countries,

but of course, thanks to Brexit, we're not working. No, thanks to Emmanuel Wreck. We're not. preventing that particular thing that I just suggested from taking place. That could happen with good will on. Let me hear what Adam was to do. Because we've chosen to go to a menu where we think we can pick and choose rather than actually operate in the alliance.

And, you know, people were told, okay, that's going to put up the drawbridge. And actually, through government incompetence, it hasn't put up the drawbridge. People are still coming in. And once they recognize and see that, I think the government's going to be in big problems because their supporters wanted that. And that is why they are doing this policy. This policy is a PR stunt to persuade people that they're dealing with immigration when they're not. As we know, this government is very good at talking the talk,

all sorts of headlines, short-term headline-grabbing spin, and then no delivery. And the reality is you've just touched on it. The Home Office is not fit for purpose. We saw it in the early weeks of the Ukraine Refugee Crisis. We were miles behind. We know that we're way too slow with processing these claims. But I just want to put one point here, which is actually there's a lot of suggestions we're not taking our sort of allocation of asylum seekers and refugees. That's actually not true. In the last three years, we're in the top four nations for taking refugees from elsewhere.

And we've been taking them from Afghanistan. We've been taken from Ukraine. As refugees are different from immigration. Hang on, Afghanistan was a war zone. Ukraine is a war zone. Obviously, we've been rightly very generous with Hong Kong. Whenever I watch people like Nigel Farage, constantly banging on about economic migrants and saying, these are young men in a very disparaging way, why do we demonise economic migrants who might be of use to our economy? Well, I think the reality is, you know, we always want a smart, lawful immigration system that works for our economic needs at a particular time. But the key word is lawful as opposed to illegal. You can't just open all borders and say, everyone's welcome.

That's not going to work. We know we've got huge infrastructure problems, housing problems, GP problems, hospital problems. We've got to plan for this on a sensible grown-up basis. And I think historically we've actually been quite good at that. You see, but this is the problem... I agree with what you've just said, but I don't agree that it is the British way to just ship people off

who may have come from genuinely horrific places and horrific conditions, which partly we may have helped create Iraq and so on, that we just put them on a plane to someone like Rwanda. Well, particularly if you're paying half a million pounds per seat, whatever it's costing to get... That number is irrelevant. If we have 50,000...

On a comparative basis, it is. If we have 50,000 people cross the channel this year, 40 grand each in the first year, that's 2 billion in one year on top of the current 5 billion plus. We'll give us all the other things, but I've actually really enjoyed this debate. I just want to end by asking both of you, you first, Richard, in a year's time, will we still be sending people to Romander as this thing dead in the water?

Well, that's unfortunate phrase, but you know what I mean? I think that's unlikely. And in a year's time, I suspect, sadly, there will still be, lots of refugees, people, illegal migrants, making that very dangerous voyage trip across the channel. Adam, we don't want to have people dead in the water, but I don't want to have them flown off to Rwanda. So there's got to be another way.

Has this government got it in it, do you think, to come up with another way? In a word, no. I mean, the precedent of schemes like this is the Israeli scheme you mentioned, is the Australian scheme you mentioned. And both of them basically have gone into stalemate now, and they're not sending vast amounts of people out,

although there are some people still in two. But actually, the Australians keep did work. It did stop. Well, it did reduce the number of people coming on most. But they also had a lot of mistreatment of people and these centres they put them in. And of course, we don't want that. That's not the British way.

But the British way is to actually find a problem, try and find a solution. And we've got to keep... And the problem is no one else has got an alternative solution. Australia, as they always point out, has a much greater flow of immigrants coming into the country anyway. I do agree, though.

When I listen to Labor, But I don't hear an answer, right? I hear a lot of whining about what the Tories are trying to do. I don't hear a credible answer from them either. It's a very complex issue. Thank you, Richard. Thank you, Adam. Good to see you both.

On sense of next is golf stars spurned the PGA for a Saudi-back rival. Is sports washing, as they call it, selling up? Well, football legend, Harry Rednatt will be here to discuss that. Not the least surprising news of the millennium is that Kim Kardashian seems to have ruined Marilyn Monroe's iconic dress. This is before. on the left and on the right is what it now looks like. Apparently all sorts of stuff went wrong with it

when Kim Kardashian tried to burst herself into it. That's why she should have never been allowed anywhere near the damn thing. There we are. Kim Kardashian ruins popular culture. Who knew? Sport washing. What is it? Well, it's when a cold-shouldered controversial country uses the prestige and popularity of sport

to whitewash its ugly reputation. The live-golf series is the latest sporting spectacle to face the charge. Top stars have been offered bottomed as pits, pots of Saudi Arabian gold to join the breakaway league and abandon the PGA tour. And to supporters, that's just business. But to critics, it normalizes the Saudi regime

which uses forced labor, bombs children in Yemen, and murders journalists. So it's sport putting money before morals. Well, his golf superstar Rory McElroy, who spoke out against the live golf invitation series. I'm sure not every Saudi Arabian is a bad person. It's very, you know, we're talking about this in such a generalized way. And I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East,

and the vast majority of people that I've met there are very, very nice people. But there's bad people everywhere. And, you know, the bad people that came from that part of the world did some absolutely horrendous things. Well, join me now, one of the most experienced Premier League managers of all time, former Topman and West Ham boss, Harry Redneck. Harry, great to talk to you. Peers, good talk to you.

This sports washing, what do we make of it? I mean, the principle behind it is that these dodgy regimes, corrupt regimes that do terrible things have appalling human rights records, use sport by investing heavily into sports to try and improve their image. What do you feel about this phenomenon? We're seeing it more and more now in boxing in football in Formula One, now in golf. I think it's been going on a long time peers I mean we look back to you know people cleaned up their image

by buying football clubs coming to England buying Premier League clubs it's something that's been going on quite a while obviously with the Saudi situation and the things that have gone in their country but you know they're coming they're now owning a club in the Premier League Newcastle and we can you know

we all feel strongly about the things that have gone on in that country, but you know, you can't tell them jewelies, 55,000 of them that turn up every week to Newcastle, they're not suddenly going to stop going, and the players have been offered enormous amounts of money to go and play in this new golf, this new golf competition and golf tour, and they're going to take it. I mean, to be honest, they're not, you know,

if someone's coming off of them 50, 60, 100 million to go and play golf and where they can treble their earnings, they're going to think, well, if I don't do it, somebody else would do it. So unfortunately, that is the way to the world. Someone will come along and tomorrow and say, do you want to come out and work in Saudi? We'll give you 10 times what you're earning now. It's very difficult to turn it down.

I mean, I think that my issue with it is there's a lot of hypocrisy around this. I mean, take the PGA who run the biggest golf tournament in the world, the series. Everybody was to be on it. But the PGA did let Phil Mickelson, a number of the other players, on this LivTornell. They did let them play in a Saudi tournament last year. The deal was they then had to play in the Pebble Beach Pro-Am once in the next two years.

That says to me this is not about morality. It's about money. Yeah. But it's all about money, in it really. Everything is about money really appears, you know, we've had the boxing going to Saudi. We've had, you know, as I say, they're now coming the owning clubs in the Premier League

and, you know, nobody. really, you know, the Newcastle players will go over to Saudi for a visit with the management team and, you know, as I say, in the Jolty, them great Newcastle fans who love their club every week, they're not the slightest bit bothered

whose money it is, as long as they're buying better players, they're winning more games, they're up the league. I've always said years ago, if Saddam Hussein had a team, they'd all be singing, there's only one Saddam, the fans, you know?

That is how it is, isn't it? They're only interested, they give us a way. winning team, don't care where your money come from. How many times have you seen it in this country with people owning buying sports franchises who, you know, we all wonder where their money's come from and suddenly they changed their image, they cleaned their image up by getting into sport. I mean, we saw it with Abramovich, a Chelsea, you know, who was one of Putin's friends and he bought Chelsea, he gave him a better image with the war in Ukraine. He was unable to then denounce the war or criticize Putin

because he would have probably been killed by Putin, so he'd said nothing, and as a result, he's lost at all. Yeah, I mean, we don't actually know who owns half these Premier League clubs anyway, really do. You know, we had people, you know, I hear stories. This guy who owned one club, he now owns another club in England, but he's not the chairman, it's his money, it's owned by the frontman is somebody else. They're all, you know, they're using their money to wash their money,

and it's so really it's, we're, we're. We're not sure who's actually behind after clubs in the Premier League. I wouldn't think of them, certainly a few of them anyway. We've got the World Cup, Harry. Russian money. Right. And I clearly agree with you. We've got the World Cup coming in Qatar.

And as a result, it's not this summer as it should be. It's going to be in our winter. And my issue with that is I saw FIFA, for example. FIFA's been all over Pride Month and talking about it's, we should be celebrating LGBT equality and gay rights and so on. And yet they've sold their most prestigious tournament, the World Cup, to Qatar, where it's illegal to be gay. There's a lot of hypocrisy again there, isn't it? Absolutely.

Well, you know, listen, we're not silly. You're not, you're a clever man. You know, why has it ended up there? You'd have to, you know, why have we have all these problems with set bladder, platini and all these people. Is it corruption, Harry, plain and simple? Yeah, of course. It's got to be in it. Why do they get these tournaments?

You know, you see the Russians, you know, you see Putin with Johnny Fentz. What's his name, Infantini, or where his name is, you know, he's got to give him a lovely nice, I don't know whether it was a gold watch or what he was getting off him one day. But, you know, listen, that's how it works, unfortunately. So we'll end up with tournaments, you know, in place. like that because it suits the people to make the decisions. Yeah. Harry, great to talk to you. Really appreciate it. It's a complex issue, but I think in the end, you're right.

And I think there's so much hypocrisy about all this. Money will talk and the hypocrites should really... Yeah, there is for sure. Money will talk. It should take it back to see. Greater talk to you, Harry. Andrew Pearce. Well done, mate. Bye. All the best. Well, finally tonight, I've got a 10-year-old little girl who I'm proud to call my daughter. But thankfully, she doesn't attend the Burgess Hill Girls' School, a couple of miles from where I grew up. Where the world daughter is now apparently offensive.

Your head teacher of his school, who's a private girls' school in Leifie West Sussex, won't call her pupils girls because she says there are so many gender options available. Liz Leibor says, I use the word students instead of girls, but when you're writing to parents, it's difficult not to use the word daughters sometimes. Child or children suggest someone too young. You can't use the word daughters all the time.

about someone's little girl. Let me help you, headmistress. Can I call you headmistress? Little girls are somebody's daughters. Stop the madness. That's simple tonight. Whatever you're doing tonight? Keep it uncensored. Good night.