Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Time up for Truss?

Episode Date: October 13, 2022

On this episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers speaks to former Conservative minister Ken Clarke who believes that rather than sack the Chancellor, Truss should start the mini budget again. Piers comments on Putin and the latest in Ukraine with former US Secretary of State Leon Panetta. Piers is joined by Nicole Hockley, whose son died in Sandy Hook, who shares how conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' lies have impacted her life as he's ordered to pay $965m in damages. Piers Morgan discusses masculinity with family lawyer Paula Rhone-Adrien as he asks: 'are men under threat?'. 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

Tonight, our Piers Morgan Uncensored, Alex Jones, is ordered to pay a billion dollars for his vile conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, a chilling effect on genuine free speech, as some claim, or in my view, justice served on a hateful whack job. We'll debate that and talk disinformation with the former director of the CIA. Quasi Quarteng says he's going nowhere. My money is he is going somewhere, and that's out the door, probably followed by Liz Truss, making them both the shortest-serving Chancellor P.M. in history. way to fix Britain's mess. Ken Clark, former Chancellor and Tory Grandee, will be live in the studio. Plus, India wants Camilla to ditch a crown jewel,

which it says Britain stole, is diplomacy more important than ceremony? Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored. Good evening from London, and welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. I believe passionately in free speech. The clue is in the name of the show, Uncensored. I believe you have a right to be heard,

just as importantly, I believe you have a right to hear what other people think, especially if you disagree with them. Why? Because unpleasant or radical opinions, even offensive opinions, are what a free democracy is made of. You might furiously disagree with somebody, but only by hearing their other opinions are you forced to ask yourself, why you disagree? I didn't know they're wrong. I didn't know your right. Is it just because you've always been told that they're wrong and convinced yourself that you're right? And who told you they're wrong in the first place? Opinions belong in the daylight. Well, they can be challenged,

debated and exposed for what they are. That is free sense. speech. But there is a line, and to me it's a pretty clear line, and nobody illustrates better where that line is than the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. People with long memories may remember an account I had with him once. Hitler took the guns. Stalin took the guns. Mal took the guns. Fidel Castro took the guns. And I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms. Yeah, he was crazy back then, about 10 years ago, and he's got crazier ever. since but he's got malevolently crazy because Alex Jones has made hundreds of millions of dollars by deliberately peddling lies not opinions just hateful deliberate lies most

disgustingly he lied about the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre where 20 young children had their lives taken by deranged young man all between six and seven gunned to their deaths with a semi-automatic rifle Alex Jones told his followers it was all a a government hoax. He said the grieving families were actors. Because of his lies, grieving families were harassed, even threatened with death by his fans. Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn't believe it at first. People just instinctively know that there's a lot of fraud going on. But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.

Well, it turns out that the one who was the fraud was him. Every honestly held opinion deserves to be heard, but what Alex Jones was doing was spewing deliberate, vile lies to make himself rich. And he was using the families of Sandy Hook, grieving the deaths of their murdered children to make himself rich. And he didn't care about the impact of his life.

on their lies. He didn't care that their lives themselves became threatened by complete morons who believed the nonsense that he was spewing. Well, finally, it's caught up with him and family sued Alex Jones and as a result, a billion dollars was awarded in damages yesterday, one of the highest defamation payouts in history. Well, I want to start by talking to the retired professional wrestler and former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. But before I get to him, I'm going to talk to Nicole Hockley, who lost her six-year-old son, Dylan, in the Sandy Hook massacre. And she joins me now. Nicole, thank you so much for joining me. I thought of you very hard yesterday and all the families, having covered this appalling atrocity that befell you all when I was at CNN, to see at least some justice

being served to this vile man, Alex Jones, for perpetrating wicked lies which compounded your grief. I guess it was satisfying, although his response, of course, was to be completely insensitive once again. What was your reaction? When you heard that this huge payout of damages was being made against him, what was your response? My initial reaction was just to be absolutely overwhelmed when the very first amount of award against one of the plaintiffs was being mentioned in hearing that first number come out and realizing that this was really a very historic moment and the jury had not only listened to us and really heard us, they were sending a message.

You don't get that kind of award without really saying this is important and this is how we're going to stop this spread of disinformation and have people understand that there are, consequences for your action. So I was overwhelmed by a verdict that was significantly larger than I could have thought about in my wildest dreams, but it was a message, and I think it's being heard. For people who think this is about free speech and he should be allowed to say what he likes, and this is ridiculously over the top payout, I want you to paint a picture of what it's been like for you families from Sandy Hook to be on the receiving end of this continual tirade of lies

and the damage it's done to the way that you can conduct your lives yourselves. You know, that's a good question. And because we kept so much of this private from the public, I've had a lot of people reaching out over the last few weeks saying, I just didn't know. I had no idea that it was that bad. I mean, when you think about for 10 years, and this isn't just something, I mean,

he did his first broadcast saying that he thought this was a false flag. When I was still in the firehouse, and I didn't even know if my child was alive or dead yet, he started off within two and a half hours of the shooting. and has kept putting out video after video for year after year after year and calling us all crisis actors, calling our children either that they were never killed or they were never alive in the first place,

that were traitors, that were treasonous, and that were government shills. It's been very difficult. It's been easy to turn off some of it, but some of these people have been incredibly dangerous. And when he says, when he stokes this anger in his base, this fear, and then incites them to action by saying, you know, we need to investigate this.

You need to look into this more. They come at us. So part of it's just social media comments, which can be damaging, it's defaming, it's hurting your reputation, people, I don't know if I'm walking around, who thinks I'm real and who thinks I'm an actress. It's damaging to my son's memory

in terms of his life, his short six-year-old life. It's damaging to my surviving son because I don't know what he's going to deal with going forward. but it's also scared the living daylights out of me. I sleep with weapons by my bedside. I've received death threats. I've received harassing calls and mail. I've had people send me pictures of dead children

because they say, as a crisis actor, you have no idea what a dead child looks like. So let me send you this picture so you can see it. This is stuff that has really not only just been distressing, it's disturbing. And in terms of security, you know, I'm just a mom. I'm just trying to look after my surviving son, run my organization and make some good in the world.

I didn't choose to be part of this. Alex Jones chose to tell lies knowing that they were lies and continuing to harbor that lie and make it happen for his own profit. And that's what this trial has been about. Yeah, I completely agree, and I think it's utterly disgusting. It's sickening. Even as I hear you tell the story of what you've had to endure, the idea that you lose your son and all these other families

lost their loved ones, young kids who were at schools supposedly safe, that you go through that, and then your misery and grief is multiplied and compounded by this monster deliberately lying just to make money. I find, and then imperiling your lives. I mean, it's just, it's so completely sickening. Nicole, you rewarded you and your husband in $155 million in damages.

He's made it clear. He doesn't have the money. He's not going to pay it. What is your message to Alex Jones? This has never been about the money. This is about accountability. This is about showing that there's consequences. And I would hope that Alex Jones learns, A, you lost, okay?

That's the most important thing here. You lost. Truth is prevailing here. And you need to stop willingly spreading false information just so you can petal beet juice and iodine tablets. It's absolutely ridiculous. And to all of his followers, you need to know to stop doing this as well. Don't just believe what you hear on the Alex Jones show

because it's not news. It's not journalism. It's not fact-checked. It's just his wild hypotheses so that you'll send him money. That's what needs to stop right now. Nicole, I'm incredibly happy that you had at least a moment yesterday, you and the other families, where you held this person to account

and he will be held to account for this money and it will probably bankrupt him, and that is a good thing. It will stop him spreading his vile lies and I thank you very much for joining me. Like I saw, I remember it very painfully covering Sandy Hook at the time and speaking to you and some of the other families.

It was one of the most unbearable stories I've ever had to cover, and I can't even imagine what you all went through. And the fact this guy made it worse, I find repulsive. So I'm pleased that he's been held to account, and I thank you for joining me. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Well, let's pick up this debate now with retired professional wrestler and former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. Jesse, great to talk to you. Hey, good to talk to you. Pears, it's been a while. It's been a long time, and it's great to have you. I mean, when you hear that interview with Nicole Hockley, who lost her young son,

it's utterly heartbreaking, but it's also, I find it enraging. Enraging that someone like Alex Jones, who I knew briefly, you've, I know known in the past as well, that someone could deliberately peddle such wicked lies purely to make money and knowing that they were lies. I don't think you believed for a moment any of what. what he was saying was true? Well, Pierce, you know, he got what he deserved, I think.

Now the question is, can, you know, he truly get what he deserves? Because, you know, he made light of the whole system, the whole judicial system that convicted him of this, and he's laughing that they'll never get their money or anything like that. Now, I guess it gets to the second phase. can he be truly held accountable or will bankruptcy get him off the hook? You've always been a big proponent of free speech,

as indeed I have. A lot of debate raging now about where the line gets drawn, who draws it, you know, what this line is. It's hard, it's not easy. When you see a case like this, is this clear cut to you? Well, you know, there's a difference between questioning like I question the murder of John F. Kennedy. And I think I have reason to do so,

considering the government is still holding on to documents for over 60 years claiming national security. Well, if the story's true in what they told us, then they shouldn't have to hold on to anything. It should all be released. But there's a difference, because we all know John F. Kennedy died. We all know that children at Sandy Hook died.

The difference in my questioning of conspiracies is that I don't deny they didn't happen, which is what Alex Jones tried to do here. He tried to say Sandy Hook was an action film or something or propaganda, whatever he did, which is totally ridiculous because it did occur. And so when I question and go into conspiracies myself, I go into ones that obviously they've occurred, but sometimes not all the information is being released to us the public. I think we're entitled to know that as well as free speech. I interviewed you at CNN several times actually.

And on one occasion you talked about 9-11, and you said my theory of 9-11 is that we certainly at best knew it was going to happen. They allowed it to happen to further their agenda in the Middle East and go these wars. This is about the US government. I mean, when you say that, would you be mindful now about the potential impact on families of loved ones who died on 9-11? No, because the families of 9-11 are asking the same questions I am. They want to know because release documents now indicate there was quite possibly a great deal of Saudi Arabia

playing a role in this. And I'm with the 9-11 families. Let's know the absolute truth. And that's all the 9-11 families are asked. for? It's all I'm asking for. There's still a lot of unanswered questions, peers, and you've got to remember something. I spent four years in the Navy underwater demolition team. I know how to blow things up, and I know how different explosives work, and I question 9-11. Absolutely. I question it still today. I know it occurred. If I'm challenging you, though, Jesse,

I was like, you don't seriously believe the U.S. government knew this was going to happen or play any part of it, right? I don't know, but I just know that they have, that 9-11 and Kennedy, they have not been forthcoming, and I'll give you the example. You had the 9-11 committee, right? The 9-11 report? They didn't even mention building seven. Half the people in America don't even know that a third building went down that day,

that it went down at 520 that afternoon and was never strewned. by an aircraft. They never gave an explanation to that building. That is just completely untrue. What? It's untrue. That's why people don't know about it. You're saying building seven didn't fall to the ground?

Well, your suggestion that this was, what? The US government blew up Building 7? Is that what your claim is? No. I'm saying that no explanation was given as to what happened to Building 7. In fact, the BBC. The BBC had a reporter who was doing a live broadcast back talking about Building 7 had collapsed to the ground,

and the entire time she's doing it, Building 7 is still behind her standing. Because it didn't fall till 520, and on the tape this says 450, 30 minutes before the building fell to the ground, she was already reporting back to you and Britain that it had fallen. Doesn't that raise a question to you? question to you? Why would somebody cover that up? Who gains? I don't know. You know, you're asking me to take a role and answer questions that need to be investigated. I have not investigated. These are just things that I see and have heard that have never been answered. And building half the people in America don't even know that a third building

went down that day. Well, we have the perfect person to talk to about this because I'm now going be joined, thank you Jesse Ventura for joining me. We're now being joined by the former director of the CIA, former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, Leon Panetta. Leon, I think you were holding your head in your hands through some of that. You know, just to clear us up for any viewers who are wondering what on earth that was all about, what is the truth about what Jesse Ventura just said. Well, having gone after bin Laden and those that were involved, in the attack on this country.

I think it's pretty clear to me that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden were the primary planners of 9-11 and conducted the attack on 9-11. And with regards to buildings that may or may not have come down, there's no question that the impact of what happened with the trade towers

created the kind of dynamic that brought down other buildings as well. There's no mystery here. It's the result of the attack on the Twin Towers that resulted in bringing those buildings down. But the idea, which Jesse Ventura was sort of suggesting there, that somehow the American government knew that this might happen or had some involvement with the Saudis with it, What is your response to that?

Well, again, there's no question. It was a National Commission that looked at 9-11. And what it clearly found is that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were primarily responsible for planning the attack and conducting the attack. Now, was there a failure of intelligence sources to be able to get all of the information that was out there.

The National Commission basically said because there was a failure to share intelligence and information, we may have missed the fact that they were in fact planning this attack. And that is the responsibility, obviously, of the intelligence agencies that failed to share that kind of information.

But the idea that somehow our federal government was directly involved in this attack is crazy. Yeah. Let me turn just to the wider issue. Following this extraordinary win for the Sandy Hook families against this conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of nearly a billion dollars of damages, historic figure, obviously. But it does bring into question, doesn't this whole fake news disinformation era we now live in and the brutal, cynical monetizing of fake news by people like Alex Jones,

deliberately putting out very damaging disinformation to line their own pockets to make money. What do we do about this? Well, it is a tremendous cause for concern when it comes to the stability of our world and our countries. Democracies, particularly our democracy, is in many ways being a, undermined by those that claim the lies that just go to the very core of what our country is all about, the fact that Donald Trump has basically claimed the big lie and that somehow the election was stolen. Even as we speak, the January 6th committee is reporting that Trump knew very well.

that he had lost the election and that nevertheless he promoted this lie and ultimately it led to the attack on our capital. The reality is that these kinds of conspiratorial lies are being used. And what concerns me is that, in fact, there are people that basically believe those lies without asking questions about what is the real truth here. Look, it really does depend on the institutions of our democracy. to respond to this kind of craziness. And what the court did in the Jones case

is essentially hold him accountable for spreading what was clearly a lie, a blatant lie that caused harm. And so I'm a little bit comforted by the fact that the institutions of our democracy are responding and trying to hold people accountable for trying to present these kinds of blatant lies and lies that harm people. Look, I believe in free speech. We all believe in free speech.

There's a case that Oliver Wendell Holmes decided in this country that basically said, yes, you can have free speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And so clearly you can't use free speech to cause harm. That's where the line is drawn. And that's where the court drew the line. Finally, Mr. Beneda, I want to turn to Ukraine, Putin, where we are with this. We've spoken before at the early stages of this war. Where do you think we are here? What's the end game, do you think?

I really do believe that the tide of war has changed here. You know, we've gone through a number of phases in this war. The fact was we've had a failed invasion by Russia initially that was stopped by Ukraine. And obviously the United States and NATO working together to stop Putin. We've been through a siege warfare. Actually, we're still seeing some of that in what Putin is doing and blatantly destroying that country and killing innocent men, women, and children to break the will of the Ukrainian people. And that hasn't happened.

We've been through a war of attrition. But the Ukrainians have now advanced with a well-planned offensive, have been pushing the Russians out of the east, really capturing again almost a thousand square miles in that area. So Ukrainians are winning this war, and Putin is losing. And as a result, Putin feels cornered. He's fighting a two-front war. He's fighting a war against Moscow and the hardliners who are criticizing him for losing this war, and he's fighting a war in Ukraine.

So Putin is cornered, and that makes him dangerous because when you corner a bully, a bully can be very dangerous. And I think that's the situation we're facing right now. Leon Panetta, great to talk to you, as always. Thank you very much indeed. Good to be with you. Well, coming next to PM in this country is having another week from hell.

Every week so far has been a week from hell for Liz Truss. How much more can she or more to the point the country take? Plus, mansplaining, man-spreading, man-spreading, toxic masculinity, men. Is it all over for us? As a species, former GQ editor, Dylan Jones, who created Man of the Year awards. In fact, I won three of them,

and every time I did, I lost the job I won them for. So I've held him accountable for that as well, but he'll join me live as well. Well, welcome back. They've lost the markets to the public and a rapidly rising number of their own MPs. Now, it seems like, well, even the King may have had enough of Liz's trust in Quasi Quartet.

This is what happened when the King met. the new PM yesterday. Prominestine, Majesty. Majesty. I'll need to see you again. That's a great pleasure. Dear, dear, anyway. Oh dear.

Not the most encouraging, heartwarming exchange we've seen between a monarch and the Prime Minister. But joining me now is somebody delighted to have on the show, the former Chancellor, Tory Grandee, Ken, now Lord Clark. I'm not saying. Welcome to you, Ken Clark. Good to be here, Pierre.

Great to see with a nice glass of red wine as well. It's a civilised hour to me. My others, I've set a precedent for the programme. You have. You're the first one to be actively drinking. You provided it. I didn't bring my own. It's great to see you, and I really appreciate you coming over. Without getting too personal about the individuals, what have you made of the last three weeks,

just from a position of former chance. Well, I don't think I'd surprise people by saying. Unfortunately, I've never known a new government get off to a more chaotic start. I mean, this made a disastrous beginning, and they've really got to start again. I mean, you know, you know, you're saying I don't want to get any of the individuals. It's quite right. I'm still a conservative, but slightly detached one sometimes, compared with the past.

I want them both to succeed. I mean, in the national interest, we don't want chaotic government. We actually want them to tackle several really serious crises that they've inherited. The problem they have, it seems to me, is once you lose the confidence, particularly of the markets in this kind of situation, then things can unravel very quickly. And they are playing, it seems to me, a form of roulette with the nation's economy. Well, they're plunge into a budget too quickly.

They didn't think it through. They acted solely on the basis of what Liz had said during her election campaign. I doubt whether they pause much to take very much advice. I mean, Rishi Sunnak, her opponent in that race, specifically said, he warned. He said this is what would happen if they did it. Well, I voted for Rishi.

Right. Well, I thought he would have been a much better candidate. don't claim to be an expert on market sentiment, which can be extraordinarily odd and unpredictable. But I think this was a real danger. And when I listened to the budget, I thought this was extraordinary. All they were doing was spending huge amounts of money which they proposed to print and borrow. Right. Without any indication to us about how they were going to afford any of this. Well, precisely, because they'd inherited a serious debt situation already. Our credit was already, you know, strained. and in fact, when they issue bonds now,

foreign creditors often went by it, and the bank prints the money and takes the bonds. And you can't do you do that. They've inherited a dreadful combination, which we haven't had for many, many years, of a highly inflationary situation, almost hyperinflation, with a recession going down.

So the bank is working to take money out of the economy and get interest rates down. They turned out with a number, enormous pile of debt already that they had to contemplate what to do about and they promptly added hundreds of millions of pounds to it I mean to me I'm not an economist like you I've not been chancel but to me it seemed it seemed nuts at the time I said it on the day they did it well I did startle as I listened to it I was watching it on television I'm not in the commons anymore and yet it surprised me it's pretty mildly people have tried to compare Liz Truss as like the new Margaret Thatcher but the interesting thing about Thatcher was it when she was it when she was it when she was it was a when she was it was a she came in, she didn't actually, she did the opposite to this. Geoffrey Howell's 1981 budget was very unpopular because it was so tough. We had to do that. Put up taxes.

Yeah, well, we had to get fiscal situation sorted out before we started on all our structural reforms. That's a, you know, that's, I'm used talking jargon. I'm sorry. Yeah, it was a very tough and quite unpopular budget that Jeffrey had to introduce. And if something like today's proposition had been put to Margaret, she would have lectured, Quoese, I think, on good housekeeping. She didn't ignore fiscal discipline. She didn't just say, well, I promised it when I was

on the stump, so I'm going to do it anyway. Is he, for want of a better phrase, toast, quasi-quate? Is there any way back for it? At the moment, we don't know what they're going to do. All we have is wild rumours. There are apparently rumours tonight swirling. They're going to reverse the

corporation tax, which another big plank of their mini-budget? I gather that's the current one. If they're If they have to do that, surely, at that stage, the game for a new chancellor who's done all these things and then reverses it. I've made U-turns in my very long political career. Anything quite like this?

Nothing quite like this. And not, I don't think when I was Chancellor, but, you know, I think I went on the floor of the house. If you were him and you have to get up and say, I'm sorry, I'm making it, you know, I did this once in the Commons, I'm making a U-turn on something. I'm making a U-turn, we got it wrong,

and we're going away to think again. and it calm things down. I think their fate now, and the fate of the rest of us, depends on what they now do. They can't come back, talk to each other, and say now, after the last 24 hours, they're going to do nothing. They were right all along, and they're carrying on.

And if you're going to do a U-turn, do it properly, you can't do... Don't want already. Should they just start again? Start again. Start again. Start again. You can't do little bit.

To scrap the whole mini budget. Otherwise, they'll be doing little bits of U-turns every few days. So you would literally scrap the entire thing and start again? Well, I suppose you could modify it. I'd just say the tax cuts are off, and they're the tax cuts we wish to make when circumstances allow us to do so. The fuel price thing, you have to give some people help with fuel prices, but it's the poor and the less well-paid who needs.

their help. There should have done some scheme where by you did actually cut fuel prices and hold them. They haven't cut them, but they've frozen them for people who consume below a certain amount of energy and

left the rest of us to grumble about fuel taxes and blame Vatimir approved. Would you raise the benefits in line with inflation? Yes, I think in the present... We have too much poverty in the country. We have too much poverty in the country and we are going to have a very hard winter.

And we, the one thing, even the most highly paid person in the country probably doesn't want, is to see more of our population drifting into destitution and abject poverty. So, yes, that was an absurd thing to float. If you were a betting, are you a betting man, Ken?

I used to be, no. About the only... With your old betting... With your old betting hat on, would you put good money on quite surviving the month and Liz Truss surviving until Christmas? Well, I wouldn't bet on it, but as I said, I want them to sort it out. But it entirely depends on whether they learn the lesson, start again,

say they're making changes to restore or get some stability into the markets, just calm it down for a go to. If you were Liz Truss, would you... If you're going to do a U-turn, do a proper U-turn. If you were Liz Truss, would you sack Guasi-Guarting now? No. Really? Well, again, the politics,

the politics of the budget were all wrong. The cutting the top rate of tax wasn't really the financial problem, but that was a bizarre thing to do when the rest of the country was facing hardship. If sack quasi, people would immediately say he's being made a scapegoat, absolutely being made a scapegoat. And I don't think it would rebound to her credit very rapidly.

It's a better to actually sack the mini budget and start again. Start the mini budget again. And we'll see if changes of personnel can be kept to the minimum. I've no objection personally to either of these people. Start again. And as I said when I started, learn the lesson. Just don't plunge into things like this anymore. Do study a bit more and take some advice on this simplistic retro.

that cutting tax for wealthy people boosts growth and pays for itself. It's all complete nonsense, isn't it? Yes. Thank you. You know what, Ken? It's great to have my own views validated by a man of your expertise. I thought you invited people on to do that. Of course.

How is our wine, by the way? It's not bad. Ken Clark, great to see you. Thank you very much for coming in. I really appreciate it. Well, coming up next, Cool Britannia, Park Life. Things are going to get better. That was a glorious 90s.

God, how I miss it. But how wrong they were. Former GQ editor Dylan Jones has a great bookout about the 90s. He's on next. Plus, should Camilla wear the controversial colonial diamond? We'll debate that as well. It's very difficult to understand how demoralized people are. And certainly, many young men are in that category.

And you get these casual insults, these in-cells. What does they mean? It's like, well, these men, they don't know how to make themselves attractive. to women who are very picky and good for them. Women, like, be picky. That's your gift, man. Welcome back. That interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson has now racked up seven million views,

the whole interview on YouTube. You can see the whole thing here again tomorrow night. He reached some serious points about everything masculine being branded toxic these days. A far cry from those days of unparalleled hedonism in the 90s, the time where many people thought they too deserved to live the rock and roll lifestyle. I know I tried.

Blur, Oasis, the Spice Girls, Tony Blair, Kate Moss, Beddiel and Skinner, what a time it was to be a man and to be alive. But was that the last great time to be a man and be alive? Well, who better to ask, a former GQ editor, Dylan Jones, who joins the long time I packed tonight, lawyer Paula Rohn, Adrian, and talk to the TV, Senator Isabel O'Sha. Well, first of all, Dylan, great to see it. Great to see it.

In my opinion, the greatest magazine editor of them all, this country's scene. You were also the man who gave me three of your Men of the Year awards, one for my work at the Daily Mirror, opposing the Iraq War, one for my work at CNN, taking on the NRA over guns, and won a Good Morning Britain haranguing politicians over the pandemic. And the uniquely bizarre thing about it was, within three months of every one of those three awards,

I lost the job that I got it for. So thank you, Dylan Jones, of being the number one curse of my entire career. But great to see it. Men, when I think back to the 90, the giddy days before social, media, the internet, even email, tech. Life was so much simpler.

You could go out and behave like a toxic man and nobody cared. Now what's happened? Can I first say that the only reason I actually left my job was to spare your blushes so you didn't get fired again, okay? I think that's, it's true to a certain extent. I mean, I spent my last book trying to redeem the 80s, and I'm trying to redeem the 90s this time because I think it gets a bad rep because it was an incredibly culturally rich time.

But I think it was, I don't think it was just great for men. I think it was a culturally emancipating period for men and women. Are men basically now being introduced into being pathetic? No, and I think as anything, it's about balance. And I think there's been a period in the last five years or so where masculinity has been. toxic and there has been a kind of it's been redressed and

in part for good reason but I think you can see the pendulum beginning to swing all right Paul my view is men are being introduced we're being parked into a box where everything masculine that people used to look up to and respect and like about men is now being used as a stick to beat us it's everything is toxic if you behave like a man I'm confused about this I'm confused because let me just remember

mind everybody in case we've forgotten this, you still dominate in practically every single field across this planet bar home care or child rearing. So let's not create a myth here. At which age group though, because you probably find that that is only the case amongst older men because things are changing massively, aren't they? If you look, if you actually look at the gap. We saw what happened during COVID. We went, we reverted back to old stereotypes, didn't we? Even though the women were working at home with the men, who did the majority of the childcare? Women did.

And when you talk about men and emasculating men, we're not emasculating men by teaching them to be vulnerable. We're not emasculating men by getting them to understand. What we're thinking about if men aren't blubbing every two minutes, it's something emotionally wrong with them, that somehow the stiff upper lip is now a terrible thing. You're not allowed to actually have a stiff upper lip because it's shameful to not emotive.

all the time. I do find that all a little bit like, come on, really? Have I got to start blubbing every 10 minutes just to prove that I'm a real man? We know that toxic... They're there. Can you not actually touch me in the workplace? I'll have you arrested by HR. Now, now, dear. Now now, now. Calm down. Can you not call me, dear? You see how this works?

We know that on a serious note, we know what the stats tell us about, for example, the suicide rate in men. Yeah, and that is serious. I know that. The Fair Grill's read a really good piece today, actually, Dylan. A really good piece of times based on his new book about the shocking epidemic of anxiety amongst young men.

And I've seen this with my own sons from time by time, and a lot of their friends suffering real anxiety. And his theory, and I agree with it, is they're exposed to so much stuff now, sensory overload, whether it's constant social media, shocking imagery from wars and all the rest of it, which we were spared it when we were young. There was no way of seeing most of this stuff. pornography, all these things.

It's constant, bombarding, bombarding, and I think it's really getting to them. But conversely, I think we are in a period now where because men have been encouraged to be more open about their feelings and to be more honest about being vulnerable, that they can be more open and they can talk to people.

So I think it works in another way too. So I think that in many ways, men have benefited. I mean, I've been great conversations with you at GQ Christmas parties, but only after about 16 bottles of wine, which would remain my go-to for emotional outpouring. That's the point I'm exactly going to make. Who are these men who are being told they can talk?

Who are these men who are being told they're vulnerable? They aren't allowed to do that. You're not going to find a man on the street doing that. What you're going to do is you're going to go on the internet and you're going to find a group, you're going to find an activist male group, and that's where you're going to spout, and that's where you're going to feel heard,

and that's toxic peers. Well, let's talk about faster than a... Look, you make some points. I don't agree with most of them, but you make them. Good of you to make. Very good of you to make them. I'm just pat on the head if I could reach. Fast on the cannonboard, 1995 and all that.

1999 was actually the year I took over the Daily Mirror. And I remember that I wrote a book of diaries about that decade. It was a spectacularly entertaining decade and dramatic with all the news and the people and Princess Diana and Blair and all this kind of thing, wasn't it? It was uniquely special decade. I think one of the most important things was that it was the last, analogue decade. And in this country, I think people felt that they had a kind of sense of emancipation and they could behave badly without having a smartphone shoved in their face.

And there was it, it felt like a kind of level playing field. And it was an incredibly intoxicating period, but the fact that it was the last analog decade and there was this sort of rush towards the end of the century, I think played into the cultural diversity. My only problem with it is, I turn to the index, there's a lot of mentions of me in the index. Farting me. But on the back, you've clearly drawn up your main stars of a 90. They're not being funny, but there's no Morgan here, but there is Alistair Campbell, Gary Lineagate, Matthew Freud. I mean, where am I here?

You've obviously got the proof copy, Piers. You are actually on the final one, I'm sure you are. It's a fantastic book. I love the stuff you do on these decades. And this was one of my all-time favouries, not at least because I actually courted my wife at one of your parties in the 90s at GQ. So thank you.

Pleasure. It's about the only thing you did for me, which enhanced my life. It's a great book, Dylan. Great to see you. Fast and accountable, 1995 and all that. Thank you very much.

You're going. You're staying. We're going to pitch you against your own partner. Oh, that happens all the time in our household. We might just talk about intimate stuff just to get everyone going. But next tonight, India wants Camilla. It's a ditch a crown jewel.

It says Britain stole. His diplomacy, important and Ceremony we'll be discussing that with Isabel and her other half-riched and ties and they disagree. But we could be watching the first domestic dispute unfurled on national television. That doesn't keep you. Nothing will. Start spreading the news.

Beers is taking the show to New York City with big guests in the Big Apple. Heavyweight champion Mike Tyson. The most controversial man in American news, Tucker Carlson. and the man who tried to kill the president, John Hinkley Jr. And many more. Join Pierce Morgan uncensored in New York City. Going to be a big week in New York next week, having the show from there. But there's breaking news tonight from America.

Former President Donald Trump will be ordered to give evidence under oath over US capital riots on January the 6th. So that will be a fascinating development. It's been subpoenaed to give testimony. Well, Talk TV's Richard Tice has joined my pack of one. Isabel, a pack you knows well, because you are a couple. And you're at loggerheads over a... I've got to bring in a little crown here.

It's very rare. You're at loggerheads over a crown. I can't imagine as much you ever agree about you to. But it's quite interesting. It's about the Coenor, which is going to be part of the... Well, it's one of the great crown jewels, I guess, isn't it? Part of the coronation. And the debate really is whether we should be giving this back.

Which I think is a ridiculous... What's your view? Well, I think it's a ridiculous... suggestion. If you actually look into what this is made up of, this crown, absolutely thousands... This is not the real one, by the way. Sadly, sadly. This goes to the winner of the debate.

Thousands of jewels on it, almost all of which have probably got some kind of questionable heritage. I mean, how many of the diamonds are blood diamonds? How many of the jewels can be traced back? I mean, there's a jewel in there. It's called the Black Prince Ruby, which is traced back to some battle in

Grenada. I mean, are we going to now give that one back because it's got blood all over it and bad history. But this is actually all about diplomacy. Essentially, does the Queen Consort wear this crown at the coronation? That would be Camilla. Exactly. And the point is

that the whole purpose of the royal family is to be diplomatic, to sell the UK across the world. You don't want to create a great row with a fantastic growing nation like India. And the truth is about this particular diamond, the Kohia Nore diamond. It was obtained

by the East India Company under very questionable circumstances. It wasn't a gift. It was a gift. It was reparations for war debt in 1840. What would you do with it? You can pick it out? I actually, no, I'm not going to pick it out, but I just think it's a bit unnecessary.

So what would you do that? I just don't think the Queen Consort should wear it at the event. So she doesn't wear the crown or she takes the diamond out? One suggestion I think is take it out, replace it with a replica and put it back. It's very sensitive. What happens if they say? Why create a diplomatic instrument? Because I think Isabel's right.

Because actually, once you start taking some jewels out, you'll suddenly find there's a dodgy history about all of them. The greatest members of the Commonwealth, there's no need to unnecessarily create a row. So what, it's okay to have a row with the other countries? And by the way, also Afghanistan is claiming it. We're not talking about politicians. The role of the royal family is to smooth over when politicians make a huge mess of it. When did you go so woke?

This is really weird. I've been accused of many worse things in my life. I mean, Isabel, I mean, if he has genuinely gone woke, is that really the beginning of the end of the relationship? That is it. I can't. I'm not sure that you could be with a woke package. She's properly annoyed. She doesn't mean it.

I mean, obviously, I'm right. Obviously, I'm right. I actually do mean you can't have a fake crown of the coronation. That's absolutely. You can't have a royal family upsetting a main member of the Commonwealth. What happens if they then literally say, right, we're going to go over every jewel that is one of the crown jewels. You have answered that.

Any dodgy history, they've all got to go. I'm not saying, give it back. What I'm saying is don't unnecessarily wind people up by wearing it, by rubbing people's noses in it. I'm saying, look, just be sensitive. That's the role of the royal family is to smooth over diplomatic incidents. So what are they going to wear instead? They replace it with something else.

But you're going to find that every element of whatever the replacement is has also got some question mark about it. You know, gold from some dodgy mine and on and on it goes. I think the biggest question. March tonight, is the unthinkable. Has Richard Tice gone woke? In fact, has he gone nuts?

Honestly. Gone nuts. When Richard Tice goes woke, you know the world has literally taken leave of its senses, and I'm afraid I'm awarding this crown to your other half. I'm obviously not going to wear it.

You're going to place it on her head, on Isabel's head. You're going to get on with it. You go about five seconds. There we go. Where it belongs. Actually, you look very good as it. They're very heavy. You'd be a great queen consort.

Thank you very much to both of you. That's it for me. Keep it on censored. Good night. See you, New York. Next week.