Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Vigilante Violence, Businesses Picking Who they Do Business With, Mental Health Glorification

Episode Date: July 19, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates to whether vigilante violence is justified against disruptive protesters. Piers looks into how Coutts have closed down Nigel Farage's banks and should companies pick and choose who they do business with. Piers is joined by rapper Zuby to discus whether mental health is glorified in the West? Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Piers Morgan, and censored tonight a demonstrator is shockingly punched to the ground as public patience with just-stop oil protests runs dry. Can vigilante violence ever be justified? And where were the police? Nigel Farage divides opinions as a rabble-rousing politician and enthusiastic amateur broadcaster, but does he really deserve to have his bank account shut down?

We'll debate where the companies have that right to choose who they do business with. Plus, a slew of stars blame mental gremlins for public meltdowns and career calamities, influential figures like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, say we should maybe think about toughening up. Are we living through a mental health crisis or a crisis of mental strength?

We'll debate. Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Unsensored. Well, good evening for London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Just Stop All protesters, who I'm beginning to loathe with a rare passion, I have to say, are becoming a part of everyday British life.

they were just an irritating novelty at first, privileged gap year hobbyists and silly orange t-shirts, but they've turned into a full-blown tangerine nightmare. Not a day seems to pass now without a Mandarin menace attacking a sports event or shutting down a public road. Cricket, football, Formula One, snooker, galleries, banks, the Chelsea Flowers Show, Wimbledon, the proms, you name it, they've tried to ruin it.

And these protests have proliferated because we've allowed them to. We say they're irritating, we say they're irresponsible, we say they're harming their cause, but by and large, we let them get away with it. More importantly, so to the police. You might remember Daniel Noor a couple of weeks ago. He spoiled a test match at Lords that I was personally enjoying at the time.

England's wikikeeper Johnny Berto carried him off like he was packing away his ironing board and then dumped him over the boundary like a garbage sack and good for Johnny. But today, well, Mr. Nor was back for more. He took part in a slow walk protest in London, which reportedly caused a pregnant woman to crash her car and her boyfriend then stepped in to avenge what happened.

The video is shocking. I have to warn you. Well, a shocking incident, to be clear, I don't condone the violence. I don't think Motu should take the law into their own hands. But where exactly is the law? Where are the police? I can sympathize with the anger someone feels if they're trying to go about their day to get to a hospital appointment or to see their families, or the anger of someone who sees his pregnant partner involved in a collision

because of a protest and then an argument in the street. with those protesters. Now, they haven't done anything wrong. They're not pumping oil. They're just trying to get to work. Public anger with these protests is simmering to boiling point. In the absence of common sense policing, this is going to inevitably be the result.

A growing number of protesters are simply dealing with themselves. It's only a matter of time before one of them gets seriously injured. And the best way to prevent that is possibly this. Well, that's how they do it in Germany. No nonsense. Just get them out of the way. and that's how we should be doing it here, in my view. If Just Stop Oil won't stop being complete prats, to put it mildly,

the police should step up and save them from themselves. Well, joining me now as the author, Grace Blakely and best-selling author of The War on the West, Douglas Murray over in the States. All right, Grace, as I've said repeatedly from the start of this, I have a lot of sympathy and agreement with the cause of Just Stop Oil. I think climate change is real.

I think there are real problems facing this planet that we need to deal with. and so on. But these protests, the way they're going about them, they are not bringing people with them. They are alienating the very people they should be trying to persuade. I don't get it. The more they do it, the more they're infuriating the public. I don't see anyone saying, great, they've ruined my day. I must come and join them. They've already achieved their aim, which is to get us to talk about it. You know, half the time that I come on shows, the lead item is something to do with the culture wars.

It's, you know, something about trans rights or some bathroom issue, or what? whatever, and we've just had the hottest week recorded in history. We've seen temperatures in Europe rise to heights that we've never seen in history. These people literally want to set the agenda, and that is what they're doing. And the thing that scares me the most, we've had a lot of debates in the past about free speech, about actually, you know, the state overstepping the mark. And when I see videos like that of people literally, you know, the arms of the state, literally dragging people off the streets and saying, you're not allowed to be here, you should be doing this. That's worrying me. That strikes me as a threat to the streets. civil liberties. No, but this is where the problem is, because I've got no problem

that exercising their right to free speech or peaceful protest. I don't think they have a right to ruin everyone's... To inconvenience. Well, no, no, no, to ruin people's fun days out. They've saved maybe all year to go and see it at the cricket or the flower show or whatever it may be. I don't think ordinary people should have their days ruined in that way. Here, these people... Nor do I think they should be blocking roads like Vauxhall Bridge, which lead down to one of the... These people are aware of the facts. Hang on, let me finish. that lead down to one of the busiest hospitals in London,

if not the country. I don't think they should be stopping people going to and from hospitals. There's no legitimate reason to be doing that. These people are aware of the fact that the main segment of people who are dying from climate breakdown are extremely poor people who live in the global south.

Places like the north of India, the Pakistan, that area of the world where you've seen temperatures get up to, like temperatures that scientists say it is not possible for human habitations. So why aren't they protesting over there? Well, because they live here, and we are the ones, we are the countries that have historically admitted the most carbon dioxide.

And yet it is the countries that are in the global south where poor people are dying. Why do we never see them in China, the biggest polluters in the world? We have the power in this country, in Europe, in America, in the most powerful countries in the world, and the richest countries in the world to change things. China has actually done a lot already. 98% of the world. Electric buses are in. China is by far the biggest polluter in the world.

And you never see. If you look at the... ...orne or any just-stop-ball protesters in China. How did we get rich? You know why? Because in China they get a very different treatment. How did we get rich? It was from emitting carbon dioxide.

Let me go to Douglas. I'm not about you. I just find them unbelievably irritating. And increasingly so. I think there are a bunch of attention seekers who love just getting in the papers, and that's fine. But why is the state and the police tolerating it in the way that we seem to be?

Well, I'd go slightly further than you, I mean, they are a sort of end-time apocalyptic cultist movement of a kind that Londoners and others have seen throughout history. People who go gibbering through the streets screaming about the imminence of the apocalypse. And I don't have much time for their views. And I think that their method of protest, increasingly, of course, means that more and more members of the public don't have much time for their views. Freedom of speech, of course, everyone defends it. Freedom of protest.

it. But you do not have a right. I have strong views on a whole range of things. I don't have the right to go and sit in the middle of the M24 and tell everyone else to go, you know, hang whilst I decide to tell them how they should go about their day or ruin their day. I'd be hauled off the motorway in a moment, quite rightly so. The freedom to protest doesn't extend to disrupting the lives of everyday people trying to go about their business. And I just, I just, I just can't understand why they think that they're advancing their cause. I, at any rate, think that we still haven't had one even reasonable person emerge from the just stop oil and etc., movement. Every time you get one on, there is a gibbering wreck. Well, also, they get very abusive, very quickly and turn it all very personal, when, in fact, I try and explain, I don't think your methods are working, but I agree with a lot of the message. And so it's a campaign, I think we get much more public support. if they weren't just being so deliberately irritating

to the public and obstructive to the public's ability to go about their day-to-day life. I think that incident today where you saw a guy who's in a car with his apparently pregnant partner and they get, I think, hit by a lorry behind them. So there's a collision, a crash. And she gets out, this pregnant lady,

and is remonstrating with a thing. And this guy clearly loses his rag. Now, the violence he then commits is unacceptable, and most people would agree with that. but I can certainly understand why he's reached a point of boiling rage. And you'll think, well, where are the police here? This protest has been going on for, God knows how long that morning. Why have the police not intervened to stop this particular incident then happening?

It's because the guidance that the British police have had in recent years has consistently been to protect the protesters from the general public, rather than protecting the general public from having their lives repeatedly. Do you remember what happened when we had protests around the murder of Sarah Everard? Do you remember the police treatment of those women there? I remember it very well. In fact, and this continuously happens quite a lot. We have astonishingly now draconian rules about protest.

And it was not that long ago, I remember, where a lot of the subjects and debates that we had been having was about other left snowflakes. They want to shut everyone down. They want to cancel everyone. We want to protect free speech. What happened to the free speech defenders? the right to protest is genuinely at risk in this country. It is at risk in this country.

No one is not. Because when people are, we are objecting to them causing literally, as in today with this incident, a car. It sounds incredibly small-minded when you say, oh, you know, people are trying to go about their day, and there are people basically literally standing here saying, all I want to do is highlight the fact that there are going to be millions, hundreds of millions of people who will die if we don't change course right now.

And you say, well, we all have, we all have strong views. We all have strong views on a wide range of subjects. As it happens, the policing of the Sarah Everett case was a classic case of the police getting it wrong. Everybody admits that the commissioner had to step down after it. That was people protesting peacefully as it happened during a period of lockdown. But the point is with the just of oil people is they do have a kind of protection because it seems that the advice that the police have repeatedly given, the leader of the police forces in Britain, has been that because of the climate change has become such an obsession of so many people in Britain, you might lose public sympathy for the police if the police were seen to be cracking down too hard on climate protesters. We've got to move on to the second part of this. We're going to move on, but all I would say is I think it's time the police got these protesters off busy streets. Honestly, I think this just speaks to. Otherwise, what you're going to see, I'm seeing a rising number of incidents at the public taking a law into their own hands and we're going to end up in a

very bad situation, which will be a lot worse than the video we saw today. I can guarantee it. If someone is stopping someone getting their, you know, their wife may be dying in a racing or a hospital and they get stopped by just-stop oil protest, there's going to be a very unpleasant incident. Most people on the right are actually very illiberal. And this is actually going to be interesting when we move on to this next segment, because everyone says we want a small state, but when it's the state stamping its boot on someone in the street, it's fine. Allow me to move us on to the next part of the debate. Thank you, Grace. But you team me up nicely. So this is about Nigel Farage, who is, what, he's an amateur broadcaster in his new life. But he's also

a well-known politician. Now, he claimed that documents have proved that Coots Bank have closed his account due to his views on Brexit, Donald Trump and gender ideology. The bank whose clients include members of the Royal Family and myself initially denied that was a case and briefed that perhaps Farage didn't have enough money. You've got to have a certain amount of money to have a Coots account. But according to the former Brexit Party leader, 10 other banks have refused his custom. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has condemned it today, stating that no one should be barred using basic services for their political views, adding that free speech is a cornerstone to our democracy.

So, Grace, an interesting case, when you get into the weeds of the documents, which were published by the Telegraph today, the reasons apparently are twofold. One is that Nigel's... I want to make you aware of a commercial exit decision we made about Nigel Farage. The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time,

and upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections, the perceived risk for the... future, wade against the benefit of attention, the decision was taken to exit upon repayment of an existing mortgage. Now, it turned out that that existing mortgage apparently was paid off, hence their decision to say, we're no longer going to allow them to stay as a client. So to make a decision, risk factors included accusations of links to Russia, controversial public statements which were left to conflict with the bank's purpose, and the possibility, speculated in the press and not denied, of re-entry to politics taken into account.

there is, however, also clearly a risk of negative publicity in exiting, which was accepted. So that's the broad brushstrokes here, where partly they've used the excuse, he no longer has the amount of money you need to have a coupte-to-gat. I can attest you have to have a certain amount. So that may be partly true. But clearly, another motivating factor were his political views, to which I would say I don't agree with all of what Nigel Farage says politically, but I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed an account at Coots if I am.

I have strong opinions about lots of things. Mr Farage believes in a free market and businesses within a free market have the right to make decisions about services and goods that they will or will not to life based on supply and demand. But should a major bank be using someone's political views? I mean, look, they cite his relationship with Donald Trump. I had a relationship with Donald Trump for a long time.

The market doesn't care about your feelings. The market doesn't care about anything. It is just risk and reward. It's supply and demand. And if you believe in a world that is governed by the logic of the market, market, you have absolutely no leg to stand up. I believe... Hang on, you believed in free speech. Hang on you've believed in free speech. I believe in free speech. Of course, but the market doesn't guarantee free speech. The market doesn't guarantee free speech.

You should condemn it. You know who has to, the public sector. We have to all collectively agree free speech. And if it was up to me, I believe we should have a public banking system in which everyone is guaranteed. Different issue. Different issue. No, it's not. It is a very real issue. Just to clarify, just to clarify, you think Coutts should have the right to do is fine. I don't believe that because I don't believe in a free market society, but Nigel Farage does. But do you believe that. But do you believe that Nigel Farrow should be disallowed or have his account discontinued because of his political views.

Given your adherence to free speech, you've just been banging on about it. I think that we should have a public banking system in which everyone is in. Everyone just de facto gets tangings around. Should he be allowed to have an account at Coot because of his political view? We live in a capitalist economy.

If a private bank says because of perceived political risk we aren't going to give an account to someone, then ultimately, either you say we live in a free market society, they have the right to do that. Or you say we shouldn't live in a free market society. And he shouldn't have the right to do that.

But not free speech. No, no, no. I totally agree with free speech. But the market doesn't guarantee free speech. I understood. I always... Before you speak, I want to play a clip with Nigel Faris talking about this,

and then come to you. Commentary and behaviours that do not align with the bank's purpose and values have been demonstrated. So the bank has a series of values. The bank has a series of values. of political positions. And as for purpose,

well, I thought the purpose of companies was to act ethically, yes, of course, but to return to their shareholders' dividends. And in this case, folks, do you know who the shareholders are? It's you and me. All right, Douglas, your view over this. Well, first of all, it's always delicious when a socialist sets up a binary

in the way that Grace just did. If there's something bad in capitalism, the only alternative is socialism. Of course it is. It always is for socialists, isn't it? But it is lovely hearing grace. She's even grinning at that. You've even got a grinning and self-awareness. I'm deliberately not interrupting.

Grinning and self-awareness. Go on, Douglas. It's lovely hearing Grace defend Coots Bank. It's a terrific position for a socialist to be in. Look, I would put it this way. The most important thing in this is your old shoe on the other foot. scenario, isn't it, Pierce? Here's a good example. I mean, Grace was a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn led a very racist period in the Labour Party's history, where female Jewish

MPs were hounded out of the party, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Labor Party had a serious problem with racism. Now, here's the thing. I don't agree with anything that Jeremy Corbyn believes, probably no more than I agree with anything that Grace believes. But if Coots bank, I don't know if Mr. Corbyn would bank with Coots, but whoever he banked with, If they said that because of Mr. Corbyn's association with racists and racism and terrorists and so on, he shouldn't be allowed to have a bank in the UK. I would defend him to the hilt. Because I know where this goes.

The Canadian government, Ultra Dippy Trudeau in Canada, has presided over a system in the last 18 months in which if you're an opponent of his government and actually come out and protest, as people did last year, you can get debanked. Just think about that again for a moment. We were talking about protests earlier, that if you protest against the government, you can lose the right to bank in the cashless economy. So here's the thing. We know where this leads.

We know where this leads. And I would suggest that anyone who believes in freedom, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech and much more, should care deeply when their political foes, even when their political foes who they would love to kick in the nuts, get it. they should defend those people's rights. Douglas, how might we deliver an economy in which everyone has the right to a bank account? As a basic human right, you have the right to a bank account. There's no way you can get unbanked. Yeah, okay, but look, but look.

It clearly is. That is a debate for another day. It's really not. Here's what I would say about it. It's pertinent. Nigel Farrell went out of his way to try and wreck my opening night interview with Donald Trump for this show over a year ago.

He literally went to Trump with all the worst things I said about Trump in the previous year and said, look at this, you can't do the interview. And Trump nearly pulled the plug. So I have absolutely zero reason to say anything supportive of Nigel Farage. And he works for a rival network

as an amateur broadcaster. Again, that's another reason not to say anything nice about him. However, I've got to say, as a Coots' customer myself, I find this very concerning. And I rang them today to ask, I rang them to ask to speak to him today, but they said they couldn't talk about it

because by doing so, they would be providing information about a client. I presume they mean Nigel Farge. But here's my point about it. I have what some people consider controversial views. I don't think they're controversial. But I have quite strong views about other things. I'm not quite sure why his are deemed less acceptable in terms of being a banking customer in the UK.

Well, do you know why it's the best? I may not agree with him about a number of things. I'm just not sure why I tick boxes and he doesn't when it comes to a right to have an opinion. in what I thought was a free democracy. It could be you tomorrow, peers. It could be Grace the day after me the day after that. The bank has deemed based on an assessment of risk,

which it has very professional people to do. It said it is going to potentially, over the long run, damage our profits if we offer this person to bank account. This is a decision that banks make every day, not to offer bank accounts to low-income customers, to close branches. And it's wrong. Having read the full details that appeared in the telegraph today,

I don't think there are grounds that suit that I don't think there is any damage to the case. But ultimately, the bank is able to do it because it's a private bank. Don't forget that Coots lied and briefed a lie to the BBC, which the BBC then reported. They're not interested in the truth that Coots.

I'd get your money out, Piers. Well, we'll see. I'm actually going to hope to speak to them and get some answers to some questions. I'm genuinely interested and concerned about how far they take this. How far, are my opinion is going to be one-day rules outside.

Why don't we need nationalised coups? Great. You know what, Grace? We'll come back and talk to you about your play. I'm glad we're all on the same page on now. We're going to leave all over there. Douglas, as always, thank you. I renew. Grace, great to see you twice running. I am spoiled. Thank you.

Thank you for being back today. Uncensored next tonight, Tory MP, Tobias Elwood. As we've been criticised as saying we need to talk to the Taliban. I'll be holding talks with him after the break. Welcome back to Pittsburgh with our censored. It's almost two years since the West Botch withdrawal from Afghanistan, living the fate of its 40 million people in the hands of the ruthless Taliban,

the hardline regime, has swiftly stripped women of their basic human rights to work, school or even travel on their own. Conservative MP, Tobias Elwood, the chair of the Defence Select Committee, is under fire for visiting the country and releasing a video has been described as looking and sounding

like a tourism advert for the Taliban. Well, Tobias Elwood joins me now. Tobias Elwood, I've got to say, I'll watch this video. Let's take a little look at a... part of it. I'll come to you after that. All that's happened here since 9-11, this

is a very different country in deal. It feels different now that the Taliban have returned to power. Well, it may be hard to believe that security has vastly improved. Corruption is down, and the opium trade has all but disappeared. Highlands distribute

electricity to the cities. Solar panels are now everywhere, powering irrigation pumps, allowing more crops to grow. You quickly appreciate this war-weary nation is for the moment accepting a more authoritarian leadership in exchange for stability. Well, here in Kibulda streets are relatively safe. The checkpoints have all gone. Businesses are reopening. The economy is starting to function.

Well, to my answer, when I watched it, I thought it might be a spoof. Because it sounded and looked like some kind of thing Alan Partridge would do with the cheerful music. You sort of portraying the place now as a... safe haven everyone could trope down to. Do you regret with hindsight putting out that video and the way you put it out? Yeah, thank you for inviting me on. It's important to put your hand up and acknowledge errors,

however well-intentioned, you and I have spoken many times. I stand up, I speak my mind, I try and find solutions, especially on the international stage. And I'm very, very sorry that my reflection of my visit could have been much better worded and have been taken out of context. have written subsequently about the wider issues there. I mean, the background is this, as I think you're aware, I lost my brother in the 2002 Bali terrorist bombing that drew me to

visit the country many times over the last decade, to understand what we were doing, but sadly see the demise of the efforts there. And I understand that the whole issue of Afghanistan remains very raw, especially with the veterans who served after our departure. And during the visit last week, I was astonished by what I saw. I went to something I did not expect to see an eerie calm, a visible change in security corruption and an opium growth, which I felt obliged to report and could have been better reported, absolutely. But I also saw a very vulnerable economy, and this is the important point, that will collapse without international interventions. There's no doubt about it. It'll turn the country back into a failed state.

Okay, but, Thomas, his... returning mass migration and so forth. Okay, but look, you and I have talked, as you said, many times, about a number of issues, right? Normally, you've been a smart observer and commentator on stuff that's going on around the world. I just think this time he just seemed to have lost all perspective of how this was going to play out with people.

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this video for the reaction is provoked. You've got the spectator, which is a conservative magazine, calling you basically a Taliban useful idiot. You've got MP standing up in the Commons, on all sides, condemning what you were doing. You've got the Prime Minister distancing himself from what you were saying. You've got people like Bill Neely, one of the great foreign correspondents that this country has ever had, saying an astonishing piece of propaganda.

Utterly ignores the rights and lost life chances of half the population. Not to mention them a disregard for ethnic minorities despised by the new rulers. Maybe Tobias O'Bel will reconsider his analysis once his heat stroke has passed. And then you had other correspondence. talking about this incident, which happened in the last 24 hours, a group of women come out on the streets of Kabul today to protest against the Taliban's closure of all beauty salons in Afghanistan. They chant in bread, work justice.

The Taliban used water cannons and gunshots to disperse the protesters. And one of the many things you say in your video, you talked about potentially using women's rights to some kind of bargaining tool with the Taliban, which caused complete outrage. Because women's rights should never be used as any kind of bargaining tool. they should be afforded because they're entitled to women's rights. Do you, I mean, at the very least, on that point, would you like to have the opportunity to withdraw that?

Well, you've made so many points there. Maybe I have in a turn to respond. You know, the strategy that we have at the moment from shouting from afar is clearly not working. We abruptly abandoned the country in 2021. And my simple call to action was to see our embassy reopen, just as the EU embassy has opened as well.

And we need to pursue a more direct strategy if we are serious about helping the 40 million people who feel abandoned. I understand that there is a natural inclination given the Taliban's ruthlessness, its interpretation of Syria law, it's treatment of women and girls, and in the immense sacrifice that we made

with our brave service personnel, you know, to distance ourselves and to say, no, we're not going to have any truck, which I think is what you're implying. But the awkward truth that we face is that we handed power to the Taliban. We ceded that power. We abandoned those 40 million people.

We said we were willing to commit and help. And if we are serious about returning there in any form whatsoever to provide support, that requires engaging, opening our embassies. Do you accept that women's rights should never be a bargaining tool? I would absolutely agree that that would be. our position. I'm making it clear of what I believe the Taliban's

position is for which we then need to make a judgment. The Taliban are using... With respect to bias, why should we give us stuff about what the Taliban think? There are a bunch of hideous misogynists who have taken the country in terms of women's rights back to the Stone Age, quite literally, actually in some cases.

Women there are being oppressed on a daily basis, but not allowed to be educated, but not allowed to go to beauty channels. And you're talking about using women's rights as a bargaining tool. I'm simply saying surely on reflection, you wish you hadn't said that. You need to let me finish. You need to let me finish, Pierce,

otherwise I won't be able to get my point across. Okay. First, it is the Taliban that I'm saying, I'm reporting, that's what I saw happening, is the Taliban are wanting to use this as a bargaining tool. They clearly don't care about women's rights. Certainly the hardliners don't.

And there is a concern within the Taliban itself that many of them may splinter away and join ISIS K. That's why we're seeing more restrictions coming in. What we're also seeing is the situation with women's, with girls' education is actually worse when I discovered. Half the children under the age of 11 don't go to school at all. So, I'm sorry to interrupt, but if it's worse than you discovered,

how on earth could you put yourself to a promo video with all that cheerful music about what great guys the Taliban are? I just don't get it. Well, you can keep referring back to the video, sir. I made it very, very clear. You put it out. That was my error. But I've written further than that.

I could only say so many things in that video, and I make it very, very clear. I put my hand up and say, it could have been much better done. But I've also saying very clearly, too, that our current strategy that we're adopting at the moment is allowing the Taliban to then run this country in a way without any influence whatsoever, because they're not listening to us. But look, you say the Taliban are doing everything to ensure the prosperity of Afghanistan's people. That's just a total lie. They're not. What I'm saying is that if we want, we are serious about supporting women's rights,

if we're serious about getting those schools reopened, then there needs to be quiet engagement. The shouting from afar is not working. I'm not shouting from afar. I'm just saying that your statement that they're doing everything to ensure the prosperity of Afghanistan and its people and they're no longer a terrorist organization. Those statements simply aren't true. They're consulting with lots of terrorists. I'm sorry, but I never said that they were never a terrorist organization.

They never used those words. This was the very organization that harbored the very people that killed my brother. So please don't put words into my mouth. Okay, if we want to have a serious debate, an awkward, difficult debate of where Afghanistan is going. We spent more time talking about Afghanistan in the last couple of days because of my visit that I'm pleased about. And absolutely, yes, I put my hand up and say that that video could be done better. You can keep returning back to that video as much as you like. That doesn't actually get us back to the bigger point of what we are doing internationally

to help women and children in that country. Given the reaction to the video, which is actually, as you know, something that you put into the public domain, clearly I had no idea the reaction it was going to provoke, where you wouldn't have done it. But given the cross-party fury about this, given the media fury about this, given the fury of so many people in Afghanistan,

given there's now a report in the Times that there's a plot currently being undergone to remove you from your position of chair of the Defence Committee, will you be considering your position? I'm travelling with the Defence Committee here in India where I am right now. And we're working very well together.

There is no support for any of what is going on back in the UK. I make it very clear. I don't know how many times I can say to you, Pierce. You keep returning back to it, and you don't allow us to move on. I put my hand up. You know, I step forward on many occasions and say things perhaps which other MPs won't say. And occasionally, yes, I say things the wrong way. Because of Twitter, a storm then comes about about it, and I have to deal with it. I'll be very clear. The last couple of days have probably be the most miserable as a member of Parliament. I got it wrong, Pierce. I don't know how many times

you would like me to say that. But I stand by the fact that Afghanistan is in a very bad place. The economy will clacks. We have some difficult questions. Okay, can I suggest something? Will you delete the video? I'm happy to do so, sir. I'm absolutely happy to do so. Will you do that? Immediately this interview is over? Because that would indicate you genuinely are remorseful. Of course I am. And I will not even further to that. I'll put them out a clarification of a statement to do so. But there is an underlying message that we've not spoken about Afghanistan. I I don't know when you last brought it up on your program.

It has been abandoned. The diffid budget for the United Nations has been cut. You do so. You don't have to, Tobias, with respect, you ever going to lecture me about Afghanistan? My brother was a serving British Army currently served tools in Afghanistan. So I'm very aware of Afghanistan. I've covered it a lot over the last years. I was extremely critical of the way we withdrew with the Americans from Afghanistan. It was a total debacle.

But I also happen to think the Taliban are a bunch of ruthless wolves who have taken... And I don't disagree with any of that. Poor women of Afghanistan, back to the dark ages. And I think, unfortunately, you got used in some way which provoked you to do that video, which looked like it was promoting the Taliban, which I think was a catastrophic error of judgment. I've known you a long time,

and I'd rather be straight with you and tell you that. I think the best thing you could do is to finish this interview and delete that video and then explain why you've deleted it. I think that would go a long way to putting people's minds at rest that you're not some Taliban stooge, which is how people view it. Yes, it still doesn't answer the question,

and I will do all that. make that very, very clear, as to what is our strategy to help the 40 million people who feel abandoned, and we then ceded power to the Taliban? These are, I'm afraid, the awkward questions that when everybody has moved on from this storm right now, we have to still do better. Listen, I absolutely agree there are very important questions, but doing a promo video over the Taliban is not any way to go answering them. So I hope that you now delete it and explain why you're doing that,

and I appreciate you coming on. and doubtless we'll talk about other things another time. Thank you. Thank you. Unsenster next, does today's culture glorify mental illness? Zubi thinks so, and he reckons we all should be

more resilient. He joins me for that debate next. Welcome back to Pizsburg and Unsense, breaking news. Tobias Elwood has apparently now deleted the now infamous pro-Taliban video, which he posted that causes all the problems, as a result of me telling him to delete it. So there you. Feminist author, Caitlin Moran,

made headlines last week by blasting Dr. Jordan Hearderson telling GQ that she fears that any man in a crisis turning to him. The fact is that many men in a crisis do turn to him and to others with similar messages. In a culture that seems beset by anxiety problems and epidemic of trauma, the simple message of discipline has found massive resonance, but blaming mental health seems to be a fig leaf for all manner of celebrity's sins. So are we living through a mental health crisis, or are we living through a crisis of not having mental strength?

Joining me now is rapper and podcaster Zubi and the author and broadcaster Jenny Clemen. Welcome to both of these. Zumi, you've been very strong about this. You said a lot of tough stuff, I would call it tough love. It comes from a place of wanting to help people. But you think that there's basically a lot of people who use mental health, perhaps in a way that it used to be stigmatized, now in a way, as a sort of in a glorifying manner. Yeah, I think it's pretty nuanced.

I think that there is genuinely a decline in overall mental health and mental well-being, especially amongst younger people. could get into the reasons for that. At the same time, there is also an element of trendiness that is going on with it in certain factions on the opposite end. And then I think on top of it as well, it's become, what's the best way to put this? I think there is also that, yes, there is an absence of resilience in that people are not being as well prepared for the world perhaps as they should be. And I think another thing that's going on is this sort of pathologizing of the human condition, I call it, which is calling sadness, depression, calling a pain or a heartbreak trauma,

calling, just sort of using this therapy language, all of a sudden you have teenagers who are claiming they have PTSD and everyone's got trauma and anxiety and depression, and I think these words are being overused, and so that's another factor. I have a lot of agreement with a lot of that. Jenny, I think the problem is that people that I think you've got real mental illness. because people talk about mental health, and I find that weird. It's like, well, mental health, if you're healthy, aren't you? Mental illness means you're sick and need attention and help. Clinical depression is a very serious thing and so on.

But I've seen a real trend in a lot of famous people who some of them seem to have endless things wrong with them, which then become front-page news or books or whatever it may be. And the cynic in me says, really? You're all suffering from all these things from your mansions? Well, maybe they are suffering from it. Maybe. In the past, people felt that they couldn't talk about it.

And I think the destigmatising of these kinds of problems is a good thing. It is still the case that, you know, suicide is the leading course of death of men under 50. And it is a good thing that we are getting better at telling people there's nothing to be ashamed about if you have these problems. I'd agree, though, that I do think we have a problem where we are not encouraging people. to be resilient. Some of the most rewarding things I've done in my life have been daunting, have been tough, where I've had to put myself out of my comfort zone. And I do think we need to encourage people to feel of... Well, I think there's a disconnect between, like, if you take sport, professional sport, right, people are conditioned to be incredibly mentally strong, resilient, tough.

I don't know why we don't transport that to regular life. Get into schools with tough people going in there and trying to teach people mental strength and resilience. There are actual things that you can be taught. You can be taught. You can be taught. talk to be tougher and stuff. But if you talk in this language, I'll immediately have people reacting now on Twitter, right? You're disgusting. You're inhuman. No, not. I've brought up four kids. I've had lots of intense conversations with them from time to time about very difficult times in my lives and tried to help them through it. I'm a good listener, I think. I encourage people to talk. All that is fine. But I also detect a generational issue of young people who just

don't seem as equipped to deal with normal life. And I think, Zubi, that a lot of what you're saying, it may sound like tough stuff. It's sort of tough love in a way. We want people to be better. I don't think they're being equipped to come out of school, perhaps, and have the skill set for life. Yeah, absolutely.

And I think the truth is that the world is difficult. Life is hard. At a minimum, every single person we know and love, including ourselves, we're all going to die. We're all going to experience... We all have a terminal illness. Sickness, right? We're all going to experience tragedy.

And that's just the way of the world. You're also going to come across people you disagree with. You're going to hear things you don't like. People are going to be nasty to you and harsh and so on. And sure, we shouldn't go around being nasty and harsh towards one another, but you also have to recognize if you're a teenager, if you're a young adult, if you're going to exist in the world with the 8 billion people in it and all its complexities, you have to be strong and resilient. I totally agree. And the thing is,

people can mock people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tay. Let's put aside the court case. We'll see what happens with that. But when I've interviewed him, I did say afterwards, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he was saying. You may not like the way he says it and some of it is unacceptable. But we've got a clip of one of the things he said, for example. Do you believe depression is a real thing? I believe that feeling depressed is real. I don't believe depression as a clinical disease is real.

A lot of people who are clinically depressed are suffering with something in their life. And if you fix the problem in their life, perhaps they won't feel depressed anymore. That's not a disease. That's situational. Andrew, you're simply wrong. If you think you are single-handedly curing people

of clinical depression, you are living in Cloud Cuckoo. So that's one of the issues I had with it, was I think he goes too far with that. I think clinical depression is a very real sickness that needs proper treatment. But there are other parts of that interview where he taught, you know,

and the reason that young men in particular gravitate the likes of Tate and Jordan Peterson and others, they're different characters with different skill sets. But these guys do try and give them a message of empowering them to feel stronger about life. Is that wrong? I mean, you know, masculinity is now everything masculine is now toxic, apparently. I think that's very damaging.

The problem with that approach, though, is it gives the impression that these issues are easy to solve if you man up and pull your socks up. And that if you can't solve these problems by getting out of bed, making your bed and exercising, then you have failed and you are weak. And it could be incredibly damaging for someone who's in real crisis, who's hearing that the solutions are simple,

what I'm feeling isn't real, I need to just go and do this. But actually, it's a great speech by Admiral McRaven, the great US Navy SEAL commander, and he does the making your bed speech. He did a commencement thing where he talked about if you just get up in the morning, whatever your problems are, and you make your bed and you make it well,

it's a great start to a day. And it's a great speech. I recommend people go and watch it because I do think it's doing the basic stuff in life, bringing a bit of discipline in order to your life. But if you're in real crisis... No, no, I'm not talking about people who have a genuine mental illness.

I'm talking about the vast ways of people who just seem to find life difficult now. And exactly this is why it's important for people to use words correctly. Yeah. I was talking before about what I call label inflation. If you're just feeling sad and you say that you're depressed and you have depression, if you're a little bit worried and concerned about things and you're saying that you have anxiety,

or PTSD and so on, you're diluting these terms. So now it becomes more difficult to separate someone who's just feeling sad because their life is not going well and they don't have certain things in order versus someone who genuinely has immense. We've got to leave it there sadly. It's an interesting debate. It won't go away. We'll have it again in more depth.

But it's an interesting debate. I just want young people to feel a bit more resilient and strong. because they'll enjoy their lives more. And I think social media has a lot to do with why they don't. And that's another part of this, which we didn't get into. Great to see you both. Zubi and I had a good old bust up on Twitter earlier about COVID. Haven't got time for that tonight.

But we won't another time, Zubi. I'm coming for you. Don't worry. I'm ready. I'm ready. Good to see you. Unsencer next, a brutal nickname for really stick in politics, which could be very bad news for Sakea Starma. I'll explain why after the break.

Welcome back to Pierceville-Morgon. I'm joined by my PAC. Talk to you contribute to Esther Cranko and Associatedist for Daily Mirror. Kevin McGuire. Welcome to both of you. So Keir Starmer has been branded Sir Kid Starver because he's confirmed his government wouldn't change the two child limit on benefits. Now rather than debate this, Kevin, I thought it would be quite interesting because you've been boasting apparently privately that you know every nickname of every politician

who's ever graced God's earth. Except ones you're going to ask. So we're going to try you both out, just straight off the top. All right, let's try you out. Who was known as the milk snatcher? Oh, Thatcher. Really? Yeah, Margaret Thatcher, the milk snatcher. Who was known as Grease piglet?

Oh, um, was it Cameron? Boris Johnson. No, Lauren called him it. Yeah, yeah. Who was known as Slick Willie? Slick Willie. American? Bill Clinton.

Correct, yeah, yeah. Correct. Who was known as a Gipper in America? I have no idea. Ronald Reagan! No idea. Wow, you're going to blame your age in a minute. Yeah, I am.

Who was known as a human hand grenade here? Oh, Liz Tross. Correct. Tarzan? Tarzan. Tarzan here. You're terrible at this. I know. I'm sorry, I take politicians to it.

It's an era thing. Michael Heseltine. It was known as Bambi. Blair. Yes? Complete. Complete. This is unfair.

Try something a little easier. Who's known in America as the Donald? Could it be Trump? Joe. Joe Barre. All right. We finally established. Hector Cracker is the worst nickname guesser in the history of world politics.

I tell the politicians, seriously. That was really quite startling. So private space firms, Kevin, including Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, Richard Branson's version at Galatty, are now offering civilians a chance to venture into space. Now, this could mean that we could have the first ever act of sex in space. It's always been outlawed for astronauts. So I guess my obvious question to is, should the opportunity arrive,

Would you like to be the first person to ever copulate in the stratosphere? Once I could ask, did the earth move for you? Was that out of this world? We're not even sure. Well, we're not even sure, rest of whether it's, if technically possible, but there are issues with gravity. Yeah, you'll move around. My question is, will I get paid?

That's the first thing. And secondly, will I get paid extra for different moves? You want to be paid to have sex in space? Well, of course, because I hate flying. So if I'm going up there to do all of that. Why does being paid for it make any difference? It soothes my soul. I think if you hate flying,

It's probably not one for you. I know, that lack of gravity is probably where you could do the entire karma suit around. Can you? I think you're certainly very experimental. Well, it'll be the 62 mile high club. It will be interesting. I mean, to be the first person to ever have sex in space, I wouldn't mind that on my CV. It's quite a thing, isn't it?

But for that's your legacy. It depends with whom. You know, if I could write my own obituary, I wouldn't mind it being that rather than what is likely to be the game. That's true. That's true in your case. He was the first human being. to ever have sex in space. It's quite cool. Are you a fubber?

Yes, sadly. So fubbing's where a person's distracted by their phone during a conversation with others. I'm a terrible fubber. But I'm a kind of quite proud fubber. I don't mind fubbing. I would be like, hold on, I don't want to ignore you. So let me just finish this text.

And then I'll give you my phone number. Sometimes I do actually want to ignore people. They're being boring. I'd rather be fubbing. But actually shows you can multitask. You can chat to somebody, and you can look at your phone and send a message while you talk.

I'm sorry, you guys think you're good. Men are terrible at multibbing. tasking. So clearly the women are the best fathers. How much time you spend on your phones a day, do you think? About four hours. Yeah. Really? Because you get a screen time check every week. Yeah, I do as well. And it's said... I don't even... I dread to think. You're like 25 hours a day. I mean, it's a lot. It's basically my office. We sent emails, we write stuff. We do work.

Yeah. I think I'm an obsessive phone user, and therefore probably an obsessive fubber. Well, somebody's got to keep Elon Musk in the cash in Twitter, isn't it? That number of followers. Great to see you both. Thank you both. Thank you both very much. much a nice light end to the show. Interesting to be, Tobias Elwood has now deleted his controversial video. Big clangor?

Huge clangor. He's normally a sensible guy and he's got this and he was a useful idiot. He's an Alan Partry's video nightmare. Great to see you both. That's it from me. Whatever up to. Keep it uncensored. Good night.