Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Yeygeny Prigozhin Dead, Britain's Looted Treasures, OnlyFans Billboard Outrage, Snow White Backlash

Episode Date: August 23, 2023

On tonight' episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and discusses the news that Wagner boss, Yevgeny Prigozhin has been killed in a plane crash. Rosanna looks into whether Britain should return its looted treasures. Also Rosanna assesses on the outrage that an OnlyFans Model was allowed to keep her billboard and the Snow White backlash continues. 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 am Rosanna Lockwood here on Uncensored Tonight. Yevgeny Bregogyn led a failed mutiny against Putin back in June. Tonight, Russia's mercenary boss believed to be dead as a private jet explodes just north of Moscow. We'll have the latest on an extraordinary developing story out of Russia. Also tonight, more than 2,000 treasures worth millions stolen from the British Museum. And our countries like Greece are saying it shatters the myth that the UK is the best place for history's loot. we'd be giving it all back, and we're debating that. Plus, an only fan's model sparks outrage

by advertising hoaxed slitted services on billboards in London and New York. Are we normalising obscenity or just being prudish? The model in the eye of the storm joins me life. From the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan, uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Good evening, welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored, with me, Rosanna Lockwood in the chair for Pierce tonight.

Now, Yevgeny Prigodzhin, the feared boss of Russia's Wagner group, this mercenary army accused of atrocities in Ukraine and across Central Africa. In June, you might remember, Progogyn seized the world's attention by launching a failed mutiny against President Putin himself. And tonight, he is believed to be dead. A private jet flying from Moscow to St Petersburg has crashed north of Moscow. Progogsian's name was on the passenger list, according to... Russian authorities and information. Now, videos do appear to show a plane falling from the sky. Eyewitness report suggests there were loud bangs shortly beforehand.

Wagner-linked social media channels accused Russian air defences of shooting down the plane. Putin, of course, branded Yevgeny Pregoshen as treasonous after that failed coup and then exiled him to Belarus. But Progogsian remained the head of the Wagner group and appeared in a video in Africa only this week. So has Russia's dictator exacted the ultimate revenge for a powerplay that shocked the world last month, or back in June rather, or as is so often the case in Russia, is there more to this story that meets the eye? For more on this, I'm joined by a big panel this evening, the author of Freezing Order, surviving Vladimir Putin's wrath, Bill Browder, joins us once again, as well as the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dear Love, and dissident diplomat Boris Bondarov, who worked for the Russian permanent mission to the UN at Geneva. before resigning in protest over the invasion of Ukraine. Thank you, gentlemen. Boris, I'll start with you then.

How reliable is this information that we've got from the Russian authorities, do you think? Well, it is very hard to judge whether it is reliable or not, because all information flows in Russia are strictly controlled by the government, so they just let it out only what they want to let out. But it seems that, according to all information sources we have now, that it is more likely that progogion is dead than otherwise. It would seem to be that it's weighted in the favour of him being dead, given, of course, that Putin has branded him a traitor various times,

and anybody who gets branded a traitor by Putin tends to end up dead. Sir Richard, dear love, when you heard the information this evening, what were your thoughts on it? Well, I wasn't particularly surprised by the news, but on the other hand I think one approaches the reports with caution was pro gorgian on the aircraft. Did it crash? Was it shot down?

What were the weather conditions? I mean, there are so many questions to which we don't know the answer. I've seen video clips on the internet. It looks as though it crashed in fine weather. And if that really is the plane coming down, it almost looks as it was shot. down. No, but there are many questions. I mean, we have to speculate, but the fact that Pragorzian might be dead, as far as I'm concerned, that's unsurprising news. It was a matter of

time. Unsurprising, yes. And Bill, coming to you, unsurprising to many people. Of course, you know, we had the quips and the gaffs almost over the last two months since the mutiny, that there would be an open window that Progogsian would find his way out of and the rest of it. But in terms of appropriating any kind of value to what has happened this evening, you get people saying, well, it's brilliant news, of course. He was a mercenary boss, if indeed he is dead. But it's also a sign that Putin has strengthened somewhat. Could be read like that. Absolutely. I mean, the way I look at this whole thing is that the fact that Progogian was running around for two months, sort of unkilled,

that he was still alive, having meetings, being in Moscow, being in St. Petersburg, being in Africa, every day that he was alive, it was another day of humiliation for Putin. Putin is a strong man, he's a dictator. The way he stayed in power for the last 22 years has been by scaring everybody, by sending the message that if you are disloyal and disrespect him, you will end up in jail or dead. And the fact that progoshin wasn't dead was a humiliation for Putin and sort of opened the door for for other people to have a go at Putin. And so for Putin, this is a very good day because he's effectively reestablished his authority. He's put himself back as the boss of the prison yard.

And while progoshin is an odious murdering character, I don't think that we should in any way be celebrating this. because this only strengthens Putin. Yeah, indeed. It's a strange mixed celebration for some. If they do indeed want to celebrate, of course, the death of a mercenary boss. But as you've laid out there, a lot more complexities to this.

And, you know, the old adage that we were going to see Putin flailing with after the queue has not been proven true at all. Let's then talk then, Boris, about the way this may have happened, if we are to believe the reports are true that Progoshin was on board. Eight bodies have been supposedly recovered from the crash site, according to Russian authorities, once again, and we are unable to independently verify that beyond the information that we have got.

If that is the case, what do you make of the fact that it was a private jet? Do you think that was an error, a weakness of Prozacians to choose to travel like that around through Russia? Well, I've noticed that Progogs has so far traveled by his private jets many times since he's muting, so for these two months. So I think it was a very comfortable way of traveling for him. Perhaps he didn't suspect anything. Perhaps if he's really dead by now, he was very naive and not that intellectual kind of person. So he believed the insurance is given by President Lukashenko, Belarus, or President Putin himself. And so he believed that he was safe and secure, and then that they,

both would keep the wars and nothing will threaten him, his life, his people, and all. So, well, evidently, it's not the case. But it says to all of us again that people in the Russian elite on top of Russia are not that clever, are not that intelligent. They are mostly behave and think like common criminals without thinking through the consequences of their actions. So we shouldn't be afraid of them, afraid of their strategies, afraid of their mind, anything. We should deal with them for what they are, criminals. There's some scamp reassurance we had there. Gentlemen, Sir Richard Dillov, I will come back to you shortly.

I'm very interested to know how the security services would behave in a situation of this. But I want to introduce the conversation, someone else as well. John Sweeney, who has been reporting from Ukraine, I believe, for 500-something-plus days now, John, you're able to to correct me on the exact figure. But how do you think this information will be received by Ukrainians today? At the moment it happened, I ordered a Begottenberg.

And said, E.B. So there are people saying on a plane to Argentina. We've got to this sent... Unfortunately, John, we're struggling to hear you. we've got some connection issues. We'll come back to in a moment. So I would like to cross back over to Sir Richard Dearlov

and just talk to you, giving you a role former head of MI6, what the security services, our intelligence services here in Britain might be doing right now in terms of trying to verify this information, what it means for those that are based in Russia as well in terms of gathering more information

and what this means for the outcome of Putin's presidency as well. Well, obviously there'll be attempts. I mean, this is a statement of a moment. my part, but there'll be attempts going on as we speak to verify the story, and there are all sorts of ways and means of doing that, particularly in an aircraft crash, because you've got air traffic control, you've got flight records, you've got all sorts of other sources, half of which are open sources on which you can draw and try to find out the background and the detail. But I mean,

I think there will be a reluctance to make any sort of statement or official reaction. until the information is clearly and strongly verified. I mean, we used to say when I worked on issues Russian, and I'm talking about Soviet Russia, that it was always better to take the line that nothing in Soviet Russia happened by accident. And I think, you know, in relation to these events surrounding alleged pregorsion killing,

that, you know, this may not be an accident. or one should maybe start from the assumption that it isn't an accident. So I think the same rules apply to Putin's Russia as applied to Soviet Russia where the issue of, as it were, control. But I think the other thing we ought to reflect on is, you know, there were nine other people on the aircraft. They are all presumably killed in the crash. I mean, this is an extraordinary series of events.

And in a way, shows the desperation, disarray, and problems that the Russian leadership faces, even if one does see it as a reassertion of Putin's authority. That idea of nothing happening by accident in Russia, Bill, I know that will chime very true to some of the things you've experienced, but let's talk about that a bit more relating to Bregoshen in the mutiny, which was exactly two months ago to this day. Again, seems a little bit coincidental the plane would come down today.

And again, Putin's aggressive re-invasion of Ukraine happened around the time of an anniversary as well. he is somewhat coordinated in his moves, isn't he? He's absolutely coordinated. And from Putin's perspective, the thing that always troubled me was why did he not engage in a purge of all these mutinous people like Progogian and those who sided with him the day after the mutiny? And what we also know about Putin is that he never forgives, never forgets, never forfeiting. And so it seems like he was from that moment on planning a massive purge. I think that Progoshan is the first. I don't think he's the last.

I think there are other people involved in this whole exercise that will also find themselves dead. And Putin had to do this. He couldn't not do this if he wanted to stay in power. And so that this is the obvious result of a person who is just loyal and who turned on him. turned on him and i guess everybody expected it to happen and here we are unless progoshin somehow uh put his name on the manifest um he's dead and and that's that's the you know that's what putin needs to show everybody else and again that is still a possibility because anything is possible

sometimes when it comes to russia and you know we are going by this information as borriss at the start this conversation it seems waited more likely that progoshin is dead as a result of this but we do have to wait and see a bit more um we were just showing pick there of Vladimir Putin, President Russia, from Russian state media at a concert today. These pictures have been walking on stage, looking very happy, and, you know, doing the old, I'm very busy, nothing to do with what's going on elsewhere. So very interesting to see those. Boris, coming back to you then on Bill's point about why there wasn't a purge of these close,

you know, potentially changeable characters in the Kremlin, progogsian nickname Putin's chef, obviously was very clear. close to him for many years and then sort of was allowed to go off on one and do what he did in Ukraine and have his mercenary army. Why wasn't there a purge? Why hasn't this been controlled sooner in the Kremlin? I believe first it's not Putin's habit, tradition to make purges. He likes things go down smoothly and quietly. So there is why I doubt that there will be any significant purges now in the ranks of presidential administration or military or whatever. Why they did not do anything like this sooner in these two months?

I believe the very same reason why they didn't suppress the rebellion, the mutiny on this very day. They just were unable to do though. Everybody saw that Pregozhen marched, well, Wagner Group marched on Moscow without any resistance, without any people trying to block the roads or anything. So if Pregozhen did push further, he may have ended in Moscow and nobody knows what could happen then. So I believe Putin found himself to be, well, in a very uncomfortable situation. he didn't have enough resources to stop Pregozhen. And when Pregozhen agreed to withdraw, when they struck a deal with the help of Mr. Lukashenko or without,

then Putin was gathering resources. He was waiting for a proper opportune moment to strike. Today, it is, well, likely is the day he chose to strike. But Putin, I, I, uh, would like to reiterate that Putin is not that all-powerful that he used to be. And this killing of Kyrgyzhen, if it is by Putin's design, does not strengthen him either. He was weakened and diminished by the mutiny of Kyrgyzhen itself, and his very weak response to that. And now he may try to kill Kregosjin or Mr. Udkin, the right hand of Krozen or someone else, but it will not

changed the fact that Putin was, Putin showed weakness during the mutiny. And it gives a clear signal to anybody who would like to repeat Mr. Pregozian experience. They will understand that they just must push to the end. And that's, and then they can manage this situation. It's never moving and worrying situation in terms of that tumult that we, John Sweeney has managed to rejoin us with a more stable connection, John, just interested to quickly get your thoughts about how this information might be received in Ukraine this evening? Well, I already know the moment I heard, I ordered a Bogotian burger, and the waiter in the restaurant, I mean, said, are you sure he's dead?

And then he laughed. So everybody here knows just how evil, how barbarous, how murderous the Wagnerites have been. They have committed war crime after war crime after war crime. And so this is Ukrainian National Flag Day. Tomorrow is Ukrainian Independence Day. So the mood here in Kiev is exultant if it's true that he's dead. To be honest, I would put a fiver on him being dead. Tons of my Ukrainian friends are being skeptical.

Some are saying, you know, let's see the DNA evidence. Some people are saying he's already in Argentina wearing a wig. But the sense here is this is great because Brigodzian was an evil man. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. But also it weakens Putin. The fact that Putin has such a – it feels like that he has had this man killed means that he is a fragile monster. It means that he is murdering his own people.

And that for the Ukrainians here in Kiev and across the whole country, it feels like that soon that perhaps many people in the West think the comeuppance will come for the master of the Kremlin himself. I can imagine they are waiting for that day with bated breath. Look, John, Boris, Bill Richard, thank you very much for making time. Unsensored next tonight.

Treasures worth millions stolen from the British Museum with countries like Greece saying it shatters the myth the UK is the best place for history's loot. So should we be handing it all back? We'll be debating it all back. next. A reminder, you can vote for Pierce Morgan, uncensored, in the best TV interview category at the National Television Awards. You can do this by going online, having your say at national TV Awards.com, or by scanning this code on your screen right now. Hold the phone up as though

you're taking a picture, you'll get that QR code and you can vote there. Pears would love it. You know he would. Love another gone for his dressing room. I can confirm that much. And he is having a lovely time of holiday. He'll be back soon. Now, though, plenty to debate on the show, the renewal of a debate. In fact, it's almost as old as the artefacts it's about. Should Britain return the spoils of empire to the countries they were originally taken from? The British Museum has revealed close to 2,000 historic pieces

worth millions, were stolen by one of its senior curators. And now Greece is using this opportunity to demand the return of the Elgin Marbles held by the museum in London. They claim thefts have shattered the myth that it's the best and safest place. the UK to hold these types of artefacts.

Joining me to discuss all of this, the co-chair of the Pan-African Reparations Council, Kofi Maui Klu, former UKIP MEP Roger Helmer, and former Labour advisor to Jeremy Corbyn James Schneider. Thank you gentlemen, making time this evening. Let's get stuck right in. Kofi, why is it necessary in your mind that these types of artefacts should be returned?

Well, they should be returned because they belong to the people from whom they've been stolen. They've been literally brought here through criminal acts of armed robbery. And it is about time if people are waking up to these crimes, to atone for them, and to meet the demands for reparatory justice that Africans and other colonized peoples are actually highlighting at this time. Then it is about time that we actually talked about.

what to do with them. And it is, you know, engaging with the communities that have an interest in this matter who must be seen as co-custodians. These are world heritage, you know, treasures right now. And it is for us to deal with them as matters of reparatory justice, in which case, for us, as the international social movement

for African reparations, what we are calling for, of which Paco is part, what we are calling for is, let's have an all-party, you know, commission for truth and reparatory justice we call the Apkittach. Let's bring everybody around the table and let's discuss how we handle this world heritage treasure. So it is, we are not part of those who say, return them, return them to whom, how, to where. If in the British Museum, they can be stolen, then, you know, if you take it to these corrupt governments and so-called misleaders we have in places like Africa today, you know, you can be sure that they will dissoning. disappear right back. So what we are saying is that let's call everybody around the table and as co-custodians

of world heritage treasures. Let's see what best we can know to have out. Let's get our facts right. You say it's armed robbery. Certainly in the case of the Benin bronzes, what was done was legal in terms of international law at that time. In the case of the Elgin marbles, they were sold or given to Lord Elgin. So let's finish with this armed robbery, shall we? But who's international law are you talking about? These national law is it stood at the time. You violated laws of the peoples for whom these robberies and criminalities were conducted. This wise supremacy, racist attempt to think that anything consumed in Europe can be imposed upon the world.

And your idea that anything done by Europe is wrong. No, that is not what I'm talking about. I am very tired. I'm not saying. Gentlemen, I'm going to let James, please, because obviously it's an impassioned about. a lot of people do agree that these artefacts were originally stolen. It's the repatriation process or the returning. It should it be a collaborative, you know, or should we be keeping them here?

I think what Kofi says basically correct, that there should be a collaborative process to take the ones back to the places that they were taken from. And we all think that theft is wrong. We think that this curator who's allegedly taken 2,000 pieces, we think that's wrong. So we should think it's wrong that they were taken in the first place. And there might be some artefacts. that are best place in the British Museum

because for the reasons Kofi was saying they can't go back to where they are or they'll be seen by more people. But when those ones are displayed, they should have the history of how they were taken and how they ended up there as part of the permanent exhibition so that the museum is not just a museum of some objects,

but it's also a museum of history and how those objects have come to be in front of the people looking at. The logic of this position is that if we are saying that all foreign artefacts must be returned, you will end up where an English museum only has English artefacts, where a Nigerian museum only has Nigerian artefacts, an American

museum only has American artefacts. Anybody wishes to study the history of human culture over a long period would have to make a world tour in order to see all these exhibits. The great thing about the British Museum is you get the whole thing together

and you can study the whole thing in one place. And the same applies to other major museums in Europe and in America. But who says Britain has a right? to, you know, hold onto stolen goods, particularly those brought here through criminal acts of, you know, crimes against humanity like war, enslavement, you know,

invasion, and so on and so. Britain has no such right. These are world treasures. You know, this belongs to all of humanity, but we need to bring everybody around the table so that they are no longer... If it belongs to all of humanity, then why are we returning?

them to wait. No, because Britain has no right to have taken them from there in the first place through just crimes against humanity. If many people lost their lives through them. The other way around, and the kingdom of Ashanti had colonized Britain and had taken back, for example, Stonehenge

and that was displayed in Kumasi, you would be sitting here saying, no, we should have those back. That's part of our heritage. That's part of our culture. And that would be a perfectly reasonable thing. Now, then, what should the museum director in Kumasi say they should say, well, how are they going to be displayed? How can we work with you to display them in the way that's going to most show to the most people

what they are and that pays respect to the culture from which they came from? In the case of Stonehenge comes from the southwest of England. Two thousand years ago, the Romans colonised Britain. I don't know what they took, but I dare say they took a fair bit of stuff. So far as I know, nobody is demanding the return of any such materials. So how far back are you going to go in history? But we would know if they were things that we really wanted back. We would be aware if Italy was holding on to something the road.

Because it was 2,000 years ago, we will probably have forgotten. What about the idea? The point is that, you know, crime in the past, particularly crimes of armed robbery, you know, through genocide and echo side upon, you know, millions of people, right, that cannot be justified under any circumstance. I've given you two cases where it was not a crime of armed robbery. Well, that's your opinion. The Elgin Markles were purchased off the Ottomans who were occupying at the time.

So it's a deal between essentially a colonial power, a wannabe colonial power and an occupying power. It's hardly a fair trade. But in terms of Lord Elgin, it was done in a legitimate way. What had happened to them beforehand was not his concern? What do you feel about the idea of having replicas? Your point about, you know, if you return everything to its home country, you'll never be able to observe things from other countries in all right. I think that's a reasonable line of argument.

What about the idea of replicating artifacts? I drove here from the station or I was driven in a taxi. We'd be past Madam Two Swords. Now, Madam Two Swords is interesting and people go and see it. But what people really want to see is the original. I can buy a copy of the Mona Lisa and I can frame it up nicely and hang it in my home and say there is the Mona Lisa.

But actually, nobody will be excited to come and see my copy. They're interested to go and see the original that the original artists worked on. And I think that is a fundamental difference. Of course we could make copies. to see the original, you know, Europeans in here on the basis of crimes against humanity that have impact up to today in terms of devaluing human life and also dehumanizing Europeans. Well, this whole white supremacy, racist, arrogance of, you know, we've stolen and we hold on to

as you said to me, Kofi, a few moments ago, that's your opinion. But it is not an opinion which I share. But this is an opinion. millions of people, the majority of humanity who's been subjected to these crimes against humanity, all these views. And the point is this. We either do it in a civilized way

where we all come around the table and look at this, you know, well-herited treasures of humanity and pull resources together in terms of where they can best be placed for everybody to have, you know, the benefit of learning from them in other to reorder are present for a better job.

I'll allow the final... You cannot keep holding onto them, you know, with imperialist arrogance. I'll allow the final word to James. Because those days are finished and our people are speaking with their feet. James, quickly. Do you think we're able to do this civilly? We should be able to.

The British Museum has a huge opportunity to do some leadership on this. It should do an audit of what it has. It should publish that. It should reach out to everyone who's involved and it should put in its permanent collection how it got everything so that we know when we go

and we can see what the objects are and how they got there. Gentlemen, what a debate. I found that fascinating. Thank you so much for coming in. Uncensored next tonight. The only fans model causing outrage for advertising her explicit content

on billboards across London and New York, including next to schools. Is outrage justified? We'll debate that next. Welcome back. Now, it is August, and some people are very upset about billboards. Apparently, this is something that happens in August.

Only fans model, Eliza Rose Watson, paid for these giant posters advertising her X-rated subscription content. for several sites across London and New York. They've sparked a flurry of complaints to the UK's advertising watchdog, which today ruled these billboards were not, quote, overtly sexual and therefore are quite all right to have up.

But furious campaigners want them banned, arguing that they are normalising obscenity. So do they have a point for more on this? I'm joined by the only fan's model at the centre of the route, Eliza Rose Watson, and the political commentator Lauren Chen. Ladies, thank you very much for joining us. Eliza, first of all, you must be relieved, obviously, that the billboards are staying up. And what do you make of the arguments that this is inappropriate and obscene?

Well, firstly, you know, I am encouraged and pleased that the ASA have ruled what they've ruled. I think in general what I make of the argument is, you know, it's understandable in a sense that if someone doing something new, there's a lot of misconception about what only fans is and what only fans isn't, but only fans is now a household name. It's no good denying it or pushing it under the carpet. That's what's going to do damage, you know, we need to face it, we need to talk about it, we need to not really focus as much on whether it's right or wrong, whether people should be doing it or shouldn't be doing it. The fact is they are doing it, it's here to stay. We should be focusing on how we approach it, is turning a blind eye into it realistic,

let alone helpful, is banning it and shaming it, just an old outdated, archaic approach, which has never really worked for any societal issue. I think that's where I'm coming from. Okay, interesting. The argument does come off a lot about sex work, and OnlyFans is somewhat in the remit of that. For anyone who's not aware,

I feel like everyone in the world is aware of what Only fans is, but it's when people pay content creators for pretty sexy pictures, sexual pictures, and they can be to the very pornographic end or to the lighter end as well. We've just shown you. some pictures there that were softened for our evening audience. Lauren Chen joins us now as well. Lauren, um,

do you buy that argument that we should be more accepting of this type of work in society? Otherwise, if we clamp down on it, then it will be worse for a lot of women. Well, I think we are plenty accepted already as a society. People are perfectly able to start only fans accounts. Not only that, but become very financially successful for a slim minority. I think that includes Eliza. The question we were talking about here is,

it appropriate? Is it okay to advertise pornography in places where children can see it? You mentioned that some of these billboards are right next to a school. And in my opinion, the answer is clearly no. And I have to say, Eliza, regardless of what the overall watchdog ruling is, that doesn't mean that you as a business owner, as the person who is sponsoring these billboards, needs to keep them up, especially the ones that I think are under the most controversy, which are the ones near the school. You are able to take them down. There are other ways you can advertise for your only fans account, including, I would say, appearing on this show, that don't expose children to this,

to the concept of pornography, you know, young girls, the idea of selling their bodies, young boys, the idea that women are commodities. There are other ways to go about this, even if you insist on having an Onlyfans account that would draw a lot less fire from parents especially. Let's give Eliza a chance to respond to that, but also, according to the information I've got,

the billboards, one of which is located around 450 meters from a school, which is a fair distance, and the advertising standards agency did come back and said, look, these billboards are all. all around New York and London, children walk around those cities all the time. They're going to see them anyway. Whether or not the ruling is correct or not, I mean, people have different opinions on that. But Eliza, I mean, your chance to respond there, are you advertising pornography widely?

Is it necessary to do that? That's what Lauren's saying. I think my intention behind the ads was to do exactly this, to start a discussion. That's what my intention was, and I think that's been achieved. I will point out I'm not the first person to put an only fan's logo on an hour. advert. There are boxes and Formula One drivers that have the only fans logo in exactly the same way on their helmets, on their shorts, on their clothing. I think the issue here is people are putting two and two together with a woman in the logo. I will also say the only overt reference to pornography on my ad was the graffiti on it and this is what sparked the press I got and ultimately all the attention this has received. The ad was very clearly designed for adults. I'm a 34 year old. woman. All my social media audience is between the ages of 25 and 35 and 98.8% male. I will also point

out that in the same vicinity, there were alcohol ads on bus stops, presumably where these children would sit and wait for a bus home from school. The only difference is that conversations have been had around alcohol. That's the difference. And this is what I'm starting to do here. The other thing is, just because there's an ad with a bottle of beer on it, it doesn't mean a child or a minor could walk straight into an off licence and buy a beer. They'd have to provide ID. And what people don't understand about OnlyFans is the same applies there. It's actually even harder.

Even as a creator, when I buy a new mobile phone, I have to physically call up my network provider, provide ID on a credit card in order to even access the platform. And that's even without subscribing. I think those are all really good points to raise, you know, the alcohol one as well. that Lauren's point about the money aspect of this and the attention you've received. You said your intention behind it was to raise this debate. Of course, that has created more marketing for you and you're going to receive likely more customers and more money from this.

Was that part of it as well? Not really. I didn't expect any real increase in revenue from the billboards. As you might know, we already advertise. We advertise online. I think as well, like the point. around it was again to just raise a discussion and I'd also like to add at this point the ads do not glorify or glamourise the use of only fans in any way and I will make this

point about the money the money can be really good for a small minority as was mentioned however there are great sacrifices to be made for people who do only fans you post a sexy picture on even Instagram it's there for your whole life and it's a short lived it's a very short lived career so These are the kind of things that I think we need to be talking about. Lauren. Sorry, Eliza. We're just running short of time. I just want to ask Lauren, final words, whether you're all convinced by any of this?

Well, I think it's somewhat silly to say that the billboards weren't done, at least in part, for increased revenue. That's the point of billboards in advertising. And I appreciate that Eliza does bring out of the fact that there are downsides to Onlyfans. But the thing is, that's not what's mentioned on this Billboard. On this billboard, there's simply her provocative pose, a link to her social media and OnlyFans accounts. And obviously, children should have their social media usage monitored by parents, but at the same time, I don't think it's too much to ask for people who make pornography like Eliza to not directly market to children, which is in part what she is doing.

There are other ways she could advertise where you wouldn't have this fur, where they wouldn't be exposed to children. But she is, I think, specifically trying to normalize in mainstream. She even said, OnlyFans, which is not a good thing. This is not a positive for society, for men or for women. That's interesting. Oh, go on quickly, Eliza. Because statistically,

teenagers are way more likely to be exposed to sexual imagery on places like Facebook than they are only fans. I obviously would never purposely have put this ad next to a school. However, I think it's actually quite... So you can take it down. You can take it down at any point. You're the one paying for it. It doesn't need to be there.

Regardless of what the agency says, you have the ability to take it down. I did six days after the complaints. It came down. So you agree with that, I guess. the complaints in that case? Not particularly, no. I agree with the fact I would not like to be directly

marketing at children. However, it's naive. What I was going to say is it's naive to assume that a teenager with a mobile phone would not have seen imagery like this before. And this I find concerning, the fact that people don't know that or just don't want to accept it. The point of the ads,

and I think they've achieved the point, is to start this discussion. And maybe raise a more adult way of fresh time. We have had that discussion. We appreciate both your points of view. Unsensored next tonight. The Spanish football scandal gripping the world. Spain's FA chief is accused of sexual assault for kissing World Cup winning player Jenny Hamasso on the lips. He said sorry, but is it enough? We'll debate. Welcome back. Now it is the smooching scandal that is overshadowing Spain's World Cup win. Spain's FA chief Luis Rubial is kissed one of

their World Cup winners fully on the mouth at the end of the match. without consent and with millions of people watching around the world. He has apologized, but Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez says it's not good enough. For the latest on this, I'm joined by Spanish football journalist, Semra Hunter. Semra, thanks for making time. Just remind our viewers about this and why it's got people so outraged. Well, one of the main reasons why it has people so outraged is that there was a new law put into place last year,

which is called only yes is yes, and it's about consent. So in the absence of consents in an action like this, it's considered to be sexual aggression. So in other words, it's considered to be a crime, actually. So it has people very outraged because this is a boss kissing a subordinate, in this case an employee, not just privately, but publicly, in front of the entire world, in the pinnacle of her career, in a crowning moment, and it's forever going to be tainted.

And so many people feel as though he has crossed the line. He's the president of the Federation. This never should have happened. It's completely unacceptable behavior. And actually, in the protocols themselves of the Federation, it also borrows from this law, and it very clearly states that if you kiss someone by force, it is completely unacceptable behavior, and there should be immediate actions taken place. Unfortunately, the immediate actions have been to try and cover this up,

to try and protect the president and to try and keep him in the job, which has then caused even more outrage over the last few days. So it's fascinating background that I wasn't aware of about that in Spain and the rules. I've got two of the regular panelists in the studio joining me this evening. Esther Kraku, Talk TV contributor and socialist and author Grace Blakely. They've been listening and we want to bring them into the conversation to get their reaction to this. Not simplify it by just saying there's four women in a conversation about this, but it is about a man kissing a woman without consent.

Esther, listening to that. What were your thoughts? I mean, I think it's important whenever we talk about these sorts of conversations around what we consider sexual harassment, not to patronize women. And the reason why I'm saying is because the lady in question came out, she's 33 years old, she's not a child, she came out and said, you know, we have a close relationship. Obviously, I made the point that culturally, you know, the Spaniards and the French are more

like huggy and physically kissy-kissy and all of that. I'm not saying it's okay because I wouldn't appreciate it. However, if the person in question said, actually it's fine, we have a close relationship, I wasn't offended. And he did come out and apologize as well, if she was offended. Why are we making a fuss about it? Who are we to tell her how she should feel about it? Semra?

Thank you very much. There's actually two things I want to say to that. One, the apology was half-baked. If you actually listen to the actual language, he uses the word seguramente. That actually means probably. So he said, probably I made a mistake. He actually absolved himself of any kind of blame. On top of that, he made it sound like it was mutual,

and it very much was not mutual. That's why so many people were so upset with this apology because it came across as though it was forced because he knew he was under threat of losing his job, and that's why the president of Spain also said this isn't good enough. The second thing is about those statements you were referring to just now, it has since come to light, and this is absolutely atrocious, by the way, if it turns out to be true,

it has since come to light that Jenny never made those statements. The communications department within the Spanish Federation made it up. She never said it. But the thing is, here's the issue I have with that. Everyone saw it, right? This is on national television. So, I mean, you know, if you really wants to sexual assault, I don't think live TV at a World Cup final would be a good place to start.

And also, in the, I feel like we're getting upset on behalf of someone. This is what female empowerment looks like. I want her to open her mouth, get on TV, and say how she feels about it, if she's really upset about it. But that's actually on Instagram. The thing is, here's the issue. And I just say very quickly, because she actually did speak on Instagram. There's a public video.

You can see her. where she was asked by one of her teammates how she felt about it and she said she didn't like it. And then she also said, what am I supposed to do? So that is the only thing that was supposed to do. I think that's the point, isn't it?

Because we know already how much pressure these football players are under as women. There's literally, every time they play a football game, we have this massive debate about women in football. Most of them don't want to be defined by the fact that they're women. They just want to play football, right? And so whenever stuff like this comes up,

they must feel under immense pressure to kind of sweep it under the rug to say, oh, it's fine, there's nothing wrong with this, you know, just to basically get back to doing what they want to do. But here's the thing. Even when they are made to Fiona Hustle. Because realistically, he's not going to have done that to a man. Well, I was just about to make that point.

If it would be a man. Because the men smack each other's bottoms and do all sorts of things like this. Is that appropriate? Also, the coach for the English team is a woman. If she kissed the teammates, if we'd want, would we make a big fuss out of this as well. It's an interesting counterfactual.

I'm not sure. I feel like it would still be weird. But here's the issue. He didn't just kiss her. He didn't just kiss her. And also, we have to include the cultural norms here because I understand why this would make news in the UK because we're a lot more prudish and conservative

in the way that we show affection. But it also made news in Spain. No, because we were just hearing from that. I'm sorry, Spain's on the kissing capital of the world. Can I talk about those cultural norms? Because, yes, we are more affectionate. We are more expressive. We are warm.

However, yes, we do tend to give each other hugs. We do tend to give each other two kisses on the cheeks. But it never crosses a line. and kissing someone on the lips in the way that he did did cross the line. And therefore, a lot of people here in Spain are completely against his actions. They feel as it was completely inappropriate, and they are no way to defend it. Obviously, there is a subsection within society that does so because there's a very big problem with sexism and matismo that still runs rampant in this country that we still need to work on.

And that's part of the issue here as well. Rubiales even said he wasn't entirely sure what he did wrong or that he even did anything wrong. And that speaks volumes in and of itself. That's a red flag that there's still a very big problem here to be addressed. And actually many members of the media who initially defended him have actually since in the few past days. They've switched sides. And they've actually heard arguments from women. They've heard arguments from other people.

And they said, actually, you know what? We were wrong about this. We apologized. And actually, what Rue Riales did was wrong. And it's not just the kiss in it of itself. It's the tip of the iceberg. There's so many other things that have happened. And in the past, and recently, if you look at his celebrations on the pitch,

the way that he was hugging the players, he was kissing them on the cheeks. Also, I don't know if you saw it when he was in the stands, standing next to the Queen of Spain, her daughter, Gianni Infantino, some of the high-ranking officials of the British government as well that were there. He grabbed his genitals in celebrating Spain's win. What kind of behavior is that? I mean, that's gross. I mean, that's the kind of person you want to represent in your country.

Here's the thing, though, him grabbing, excuse me, him grabbing his balls is not assaulting anyone. all due respect. I don't want to see it, but he's not assaulting anyone. It feels like, with all due respect. I understand what you're saying. Trust me, I know nobody will do that to you or other people that have complained about this being inappropriate. Fine, but I just don't want us to get upset on someone else's behalf when there's a

33-year-old woman. But we're not doing that. A grown woman who can speak for herself. And she has spoken for herself. Well, not according to the statement that I read. And if she wants to dispute that, that's absolutely fine. And this is also, as we've just heard, but the statement that you read was not actually written by her. We are out of time.

That's the point that the media are trying to say here in Spain. Semra, you've been great. It's great to get your perspective. Thank you to all three of you. That is it from us tonight. Keep it uncensored. Whatever you're doing, good night.