"TRAGIC And Obscene!" Is Henry Nowak's Death The New George Floyd? + Iran War Debate

21:56Piers Morgan:Let's lower the temperature. Well, the reason I tried to cut in was we lost your sound as you explained what that was two years ago, which was an incident where, an appalling incident where three young girls were killed by a deranged maniac Act, who initially the reporting was that he had come over illegally on one of the small boats on the southern border of the UK. And that turned out to be completely untrue. And that fact led to a lot of the rioting and disinformation that was doing the rounds. And just to explain what we couldn't hear you saying, that's why I was trying to cut in. But we got you back for the rest of it.

22:31Piers Morgan:Yeah, I mean, like I know, Tommy Robinson's an interesting case on this because he's tied himself into quite a few knots with this story already. I want to play what he said at the protest down in Southampton. Let's take a listen to this. I've spoke about this for 20 years. I said you'll be a victim of a race gang, i.e. Pakistani Muslims, will be beating up a white kid. The police will turn up. They jump on the white kids. Every time I've seen him a whole life, they jump on the white kids. What the whole world has now seen in Henry's video is what we all know anyway. It's a different treatment for white people compared to non-whites.

23:10And we've seen this spread through every single institution in our country.

23:15Piers Morgan:Now, the start of that, which is just before that clip starts, he says, I've spoken about this for 20 years. I said you'll be a victim of a race gang. And then says, i.e. Pakistani Muslims. Now, Pakistani Muslims had nothing to do with this, right? And this is a classic Tommy Robinson play where he tries to smear Muslims over something they have nothing to do with at all. Everyone knows that. And one of the reasons might be, and I'll play a second clip here, this is him talking about Sikhs several years ago. If we need immigration for our ageing population to keep up with pensions, if that's the reason, then bring in Sikhs, bring in Hindus, bring in Filipinos, bring in people who will integrate, assimilate and work.

24:02All the history of Luton Town, this is now an Islamic town. And if this were a Sikh town, would you have the same problem? I wouldn't have the problem, no. Tell me why. No, because the Sikh community integrate, assimilate, and they work very hard. There's no dominating gangs. They're not attacking our culture. In fact, they integrate and they become British. Come to our event. Wait until you see the diversity of our crowd. You'll see many Sikhs, many Hindus, many Persians, many Jews, many blacks, many, many, many, many, many.

24:30Piers Morgan:Well, that may explain why he tried to turn the debate in the moment of the protests to Pakistani Muslims because he'd been so supportive of the Sikh community. He now says those comments that we just played have been taken out of context as part of a bullshit narrative, and he says this. Now, this is one rogue motherfucker within the Sikh community. Think of all the rapes every week, every week, by members of the Islamic community. Not just that, those quoting the Koran whilst committing acts of terrorism and jihad every week. Pretty extraordinary, Michael. And this is my problem with Robinson, is I think he's just a massive Muslim-hating grifter, is that, again, what he's trying to frame there is, well, it's a one-off incident involving a Sikh because he knows he's on record defending the Sikh community, rightly, actually, based on what he said there, but his desperation to try and bring his wider anti-Islam, anti-Muslim rhetoric into this is laid bare once again.

25:27Piers Morgan:And again, this had nothing to do with any Muslim. This is problematic, isn't it? Well, nobody's ever accused Tommy Robinson of being an Islamophile. And it's certainly the case that Muslims didn't have anything to do with the killing of Henry Novak. But the public response to that killing, the reason that the killing is so notable politically, not merely at the level of human tragedy, does certainly involve Pakistani Muslims. Is anybody seriously going to argue that Pakistani Muslims have not been involved in lots of crime over the years, lots of stabbings, and one of the other biggest political issues in the country, namely the grooming gangs, which, we will point out, long predate the George Floyd riots and the George Floyd killing.

26:08And so in this way, I actually don't think that American wokeness liberalism is totally responsible. You know what Tommy Robinson never does?

26:16Piers Morgan:He never points out any violence by white people, ever. By white Christians. And yet the vast majority of crime in my country is still committed by white people. Now, obviously, the proportion of the population is much higher, but actually he never, ever... I mean, this idea, for example, that only a Sikh has stabbed somebody to death, right? What happened was appalling, absolutely appalling. But there will be a lot of knife crime up and down the country in the last week in this country. and I can pretty well guarantee the vast majority will not have been committed by Sikhs, right? But he will never, ever talk about any crimes committed by white people and that, to me, is part of the problem.

27:03Piers Morgan:That is what's creating a lot of the tensions, is that he likes to create an impression that it's only the Pakistani Muslims committing all these crimes. So even when there's a crime committed by a Sikh against a white English young teenager, he has to immediately deflect back to Muslims and Islam. But, well, Tommy Robinson doesn't talk about marginal tax rates either. I mean, in defense of Tommy, what he's talking about, his chief political issue is migration and the Islamification of the United Kingdom. And those are real political issues. Obviously, the British people care very much about it.

27:36They voted for the Brexit. They didn't get the Brexit, unfortunately. They didn't get much of what they voted for.

27:41Piers Morgan:Well, because the Brexit doesn't really exist in the way that we were sold. I mean, that's the right. It's been 10 years, and the truth is, Brexit was sold to the country by a bunch of snake oil salesmen. The Brexit, obviously, the voters did not get what they wanted. And so the reason that the killing of Henry Novak has such political importance, I think this is the point we have to keep coming back to. It's not just because a lunatic Sikh stabbed a poor, innocent white boy. That's awful. I don't, obviously, that doesn't indict all Sikhs. I don't even know that that's an argument to get rid of the ceremonial knife.

28:11The reason that it has political import is because of the police response because what people saw was that the police were always giving deference to migrants or children of migrants over white people. They were all, they were siding with the criminal over the perpetrator. And we have seen that happen again and again and again. That's the story which predates George Floyd. That's why I bring up the grooming gangs is because the police looked the other way. There were so many reports of Pakistani grooming gangs who were abusing English girls. And that is true.

28:40Piers Morgan:I mean, Martin Amon Hill, that is undeniably true. And so whatever I think of Tommy Robinson, there's no doubt he's been very vocal about the grooming gang scandal, the rape scandal. And it involved almost exclusively Pakistani, British Pakistani Muslim men committing these heinous crimes against young white English girls. That was what that scandal was. under every tier of the establishment, if you like, from very small local up to the federal government, there was a consistent pattern of cover-up, whether it involved law enforcement, politicians, local state officials or whatever. There was a sustained period of covering this up going over many, many years.

29:22Piers Morgan:And that is why tensions in my country are so inflamed. And it is undeniable that the scandal happened and the cover-up happened. And so people like Tommy Robinson have entered a vacuum here where they can whip people up. My issue with what he's done here, and the reason I played the clips, is that he's tied himself into this ridiculous position where he's on record defending Sikhs. And so to try and deflect, he goes back to Muslims again. But there's a lot of tension here, which people like him are fomenting because it suits them, but you can't deny that there isn't underlying that cause. So, again, you said a few things that I think are worth responding to.

30:06First, if there is a Pakistani Muslim grooming gang slash scandal going on, then it should be addressed and people should be held accountable. I don't take issue with that. I think we can all agree on that. I think where we disagree, not necessarily you and I, but other people, is how that gets tied into this moment. It's the opportunism of taking this moment and using it to abuse or to beat up on or to scapegoat other groups. That's where I take issue. I think it's a sort of disingenuous analogy or comparison to say, well, he's not talking about marginal tax rates either. But if his primary agenda were tax policy and he were talking about the reasons and the sources of tax revenue and he suddenly left out a big chunk, that would be an issue.

30:56Similarly, if you're talking about racial violence, if you're talking about racial unrest, if you're talking about all the things that make the racial landscape in the UK what it is, I think you have to be honest about all the things. It would be like if in the United States I didn't talk about black people when I talk about crime or violence or poverty or these other things. And it isn't the whole story, but it has to be part of the story. And I think that it's a little odd to leave it out. Earlier, David said that if the tables were turned somehow, I wouldn't be denying that race matters here.

31:24Again, to be clear, I never said that race didn't matter here. What I'm suggesting here is that there isn't a two-tiered system of justice where white people are on the wrong side of it. If, for example, the person in handcuffs bleeding out were a Jamaican immigrant or were a black American who'd come over or were a West African migrant, I don't think that they would have been treated any differently. The issue here, as Pierce pointed out at the beginning, was a level of deference to the claim made by the Sikh that something happened to him. And I don't think that's the worst thing. If somebody says, hey, I was I was the victim of a racial attack.

32:02I understand why police may even be more sensitive to that right now. But you have to listen to the person in handcuffs bleeding out. But I think we'd have to be living in a bizarre world to believe that if the person in handcuffs were black, they would have been trusted and listened to more. There's no history in any Western country. Mark, are you kidding me? Whether it's the United States, whether it's Europe. I'm not, but just allow me to finish the point. There is no history in the history of policing that shows that black suspects in handcuffs who are beaten up or bleeding out have been believed or trusted or shown extraordinary deference by law enforcement.

32:34I think the issue, I think it's one thing to point out the overinvestment in the statement of the Sikh gentleman, but I don't think it's honest or realistic to suggest that only a white guy would be ignored and neglected in handcuffs. There's just no, there's no historical evidence of that. The guy who's been stabbed five times and is bleeding out on the ground saying, I can't breathe, is a Sikh man. And the guy who's claiming that he wasn't really stabbed and there was some racial incident is a white guy. Let's say the roles were exactly reversed, not to go to some trite racial political nonsense, but I guess it's illustrative here.

33:09If you're, if the roles were reversed in this situation, you seriously believe that the police would not have acted any differently? I seriously believe in this counterfactual hypothetical. A very simple one that you brought up. If the complainant... Yeah, yeah, agreed. I'm saying all of them are. I'm not taking a high ground here. I'm just stipulating the same thing you are. If the complainant is a white guy and the person in handcuffs bleeding out is black, there's a whole history in the United States and in the UK of this happening. Or seek in this case. Seek in this case in the UK, yes. I'm accepting the terms of your hypothetical.

33:46I'm saying yes. I don't believe the police operate any differently. I got a bridge in London to sell you, Mark. I got a bridge in London to sell you. Ridiculous. That's great. But allow me to tell you the reason why, since you asked me. The reason is because I think that we have a problem with policing. I think we don't do thorough investigations. I think police are too reactionary. I think whether the person is black, white, red, or yellow, we don't respond properly. That's not to say that all races get treated the same. But I think there's a fundamental problem here. But again, finally, there's no evidence that black people get treated better by police.

34:16Let me bring in the others. Or brown people. Let me bring in the others. Bajaha, you want to say something? Well, Piers, I want to talk about double standards. I want to remind everyone what Henry's father said again. We do not want his death to create further division, hatred, or tension. Nigel Farage said, I want us to respond with pure cold rage. Nigel Farage of Reform UK used the word grifter, and I think that's a really good word. Grifter, exploiters, people like him and Tabby Robinson using and exploiting this heinous strategy to cause further division and hate. They're cosplay crusaders.

34:44They're wealthy men. They're not going to get their hands dirty. They're not there with the hooligans, but they're inciting this mob. Do you know what Nigel Farage said when there was a white cop in England, a Metropolitan police officer? His name was Wayne Cousins. He kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard. Do you know what Nigel Farage did when it was a white male cop who kidnapped and murdered a woman? He on his own released a five minute video saying, hey, hey, hey, you can't blame all men and cops. Come on now. This was a one off. It just happens to be one bad male cop. Don't blame all cops.

35:19Don't blame all men. That same Nigel Farage, the day that Henry's father said, do not use his death to create further division, hatred, or tension said, oh, because it's a brown killer, respond with pure cold rage. And it's really interesting - No, it's because it's not a one-off, why John? That's why. Wait, wait. It's really interesting that Michael Knowles of the failing Daily Wire, the world's smallest violin, Michael, good luck. You'll land up, I'm sure. It's amazing. My paychecks keep coming in. The predictions of our demise never seem to come true. You talked a lot. Go on, go on, watch that.

35:48Yeah. You said, you said this, and I hope people play this clip. In defense of Tommy, you said in defense of Tommy Robinson. Tommy Robinson, fraudster, hooligan, thug, violent instigator. Do you know two years ago in Southampton when he incited this mob to go against all black people, brown people, immigrants, citizens, Muslims? Do you know that there were neo-Nazis there? Do you know that there were white supremacists there? Do you know that they beat up cops? And do you know whose name they were chanting, Michael? Tommy, Tommy, Tommy. So you go ahead and defend Tommy Robinson, and you go ahead and defend Nigel Fry.

36:19I think I will, yeah. I think I'll defend both of them, yeah. Please, please do. Good for it. And Rage Farm, and maybe you can buy another Rolex Datejust. Maybe just one response, Pierce, because you bring up this point, and you say, it's outrageous. Nigel claimed in this kind of extreme fringe case that it was just a one-off, and you can't blame all men and blame all cops. And so why not here? The reason why not here is because it is not a one-off for the police and the political authorities to give undue preference and deference to migrants and to children of migrants and to people on racial grounds.

36:51That's not a one-off. Well, that's the point I want to bring in. All the data proves otherwise, Michael. You are exploiting this and you are using his death. You are using his death to create tension.

37:04Piers Morgan:Let me bring in Daysmith. You're just grifters. They're all race grifters. The other point to all this, Dave, is something I touched on earlier, which is whether the fallout from the George Floyd incident and killing, whether that has had a bad effect on institutions in the way they now deal with incidents like we saw with Henry Novak. Now, in the UK, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, IOPC, is now reviewing a 2025 guidance document, so last year, from the National Police Chiefs Council, which says its goal is producing equality of policing outcomes. It doesn't mean treating everyone the same or being colourblind.

37:45Piers Morgan:Now, Police Minister Sarah Jones says the document gives the wrong impression. This particular document is a sort of values document. It's quite a short document. I don't think it forms the basis of training or police activity. It is an official MPCC document, yes, and it's being reviewed. we think the language is wrong and gives the wrong impression. Now, the MPCC text reads, exactly. Our commitment to racial equality means producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be radicalised and with the...

38:25Piers Morgan:Sorry, racialised and with the aim of reducing harm. It does not mean treating everyone the same or being colourblind brackets, racial equality. Now, they can say now that it's being misconstrued and taken the wrong way ever, but it is quite possible that this has filtered through police forces up and down the country and that they've been effectively instructed not to treat everybody the same, not to be colourblind and to be aware of people's racial ethnicity in incidents like this, and that that is why they were moved in the moment to believe the Sikh when he came up with this nonsense story and why they didn't believe the white guy bleeding to death.

39:10Piers Morgan:I'm not saying that is what happened, but I'm saying it is a possibility given this guidance and that the guidance wouldn't have existed, I don't think, without the George Floyd fallout. Hence the line that I think is quite possible to be drawn. yeah well i mean look uh pierce you know if you just since you bring up the george floyd fallout i mean what you're talking about was like the worst riots of my lifetime billions of dollars in in property damage there were dozens of people who were murdered in the george floyd riots and there were hundreds of vicious assaults and just terrorized civilians all around this country and largely what the police did was stand down and allow it to happen now there were of course because the police always give you the worst of both worlds.

39:55There were also some examples where they threw, you know, smoke grenades into crowds of peaceful protesters, but they didn't stop the actual violent rioters. And look, again, as we were talking about before, no one, certainly not me or Michael on this panel are saying that this is indicative that it's all Sikhs or that most Sikhs are violent like this. But again, look at the facts on the ground. You have one class of people who are allowed to carry this weapon on them. You have another class of people who are totally disarmed and not allow them to defend themselves. And in the moment when there's an accusation of bigotry, that's enough to get everybody to freeze and go, ooh, we better err on the side of not being the bigots, because they know, as we've learned over the last 15 years, that that's what's going to get your face in the paper.

40:42That's what's going to go super viral. That's what will actually lead to violent riots and things along that nature. And, And, you know, to your point, Pierce, everyone should know this already by now. But as soon as you start thinking of equality of outcomes, you're an enemy of justice because there's no such thing as collectivism and justice. If you're thinking at all in any part of your mind as a function of police work, that the overall result of this has to be that different groups end up being prosecuted in the same way. The only thing you should be thinking about is the justice in the immediate short run.

41:17And there's absolutely egalitarianism is just such a revolt against nature, a revolt against common sense. The idea that every single group should end up at the same end goal is ridiculous. It's like expected. It's like running a race. It's like. No, one second. White supremacy is better, right? Fascism is better, right? No, no, I don't think Dave's saying that. Let me just get my last sentence out. Let him finish his point. Let him finish his point. it's like running a race with the expectation that everyone will finish at the exact same time. That's not how human beings work. We end up in different places.

41:54Piers Morgan:But I think the problem, and Mark Lamont Hill, I want to move on to something else before we finish, but when the police are giving out official guidance from their authorities, that it does not mean treating everyone the same. I'm sorry, but as someone who lives in the UK, I'm appalled that any of the police forces in my country would be led to think that we don't treat everyone the same. The starting point for justice at any level should be that everybody is treated the same, surely. So my response to that first is that the expectation from those of us who've been doing this work as activists, as organizers, is to have the same outcome, not in judicial decisions, not in terms of jury verdicts, but in terms of treatment, meaning that every single one of us should have the same...

42:46Piers Morgan:But that's what that says, treated the same. You would agree, right? So, Pierce, two statements were made. One by... statement. Pierce, two things were said. One by David, one by you. I'm addressing David's point first, and then I'm going to respond to yours. I'll do them both in 20 seconds. The outcome of... The outcome that David were talking about isn't that everyone ends up the same. Obviously, if I commit a crime and you don't, or vice versa, we shouldn't have the same outcome. But if we commit the same crime, we should get the same sentence. We should have the same due process. We should be arrested in the same manner, et cetera, et cetera.

43:14That's what we're talking about. So the idea here is not that we all run a race and cross the finish line at the same time. It's that we all get timed by the same stopwatch. Piers, to your point, I think everyone should be treated equally. We do have to consider context, though. For example, if I live in a city where there are a lot of anti-Semitic hate crimes, I would expect to see a heavier police force in the Jewish neighborhood than in the neighborhood where there aren't a lot of hate crimes happening. As an example, that's not treating everybody the same. Treating everybody the same literally would mean every neighborhood gets the exact same belief.

43:45Yeah, but that line, I mean, I would say they could go a long way

43:48Piers Morgan:to solving a lot of the problems around this case if rather than saying it does not mean treating everyone the same or being colorblind, they revised that to say it does mean treating everyone the same and not being colorblind, right? In other words, you should treat everyone the same, whatever their color is. But people aren't treated the same. No, but they should be. We should all agree. We should all agree. But they're not. We agree. We agree. They should be. Exactly. They should be, but historically they aren't. That's the problem. But if that's the problem, if that's the problem, then your comment would be that there shouldn't be obstacles in people's way or people shouldn't be treated different.

44:29You wouldn't make a comment about outcomes. outcomes means that no matter what happened in between there we want them finishing in the same place and i'm sorry but some groups are more criminal than other groups david david david first you ignored you you ignored the point that i made which was again the issue here is not outcomes irrespective of how people behave the issue here is outcome in terms of how they are treated in the system i literally responded to what an outcome is just a moment ago outcome is No, I heard your response. No, David, David, David, David, David, David, that's not true.

45:03I was part of the organizing committee for the planning document. We were very specific in talking about outcomes in terms of how people perceive the process of going through the criminal justice system, how people perceive or are factually treated with regard to access to a lawyer. These are the things we're talking about. Outcome doesn't just mean the disposition of a criminal case. That's not what we were talking about when we organized the document. I'm literally telling you. Okay, but then when you organize, there are multiple... No, David, let me finish my thought like you asked me to let you finish the thought.

45:34There are multiple outcomes that we're talking about. You're taking one specific idea of outcome and making that a straw man. I'm telling you that the thing you're talking about, I agree with you. No one should get a different outcome in terms of criminal prosecution or arrest based on whether they're black or not. If I commit a crime, I should have the same outcome as you irrespective of what you're racist.

45:51Piers Morgan:We agree so we don't have to argue about that silly point. I'm talking about something different. Just to come back to this, if there is official guidance that says it does not mean treating everyone the same or being colourblind, surely, actually, in the system that ultimately we would all like to see, we would treat everybody the same and we would indeed be colourblind. If those two things happened and genuinely happened, that would actually be racial equality utopia because nobody would be adversely judged according to their skin colour and everyone would be treated the same. Now, I don't for a moment suggest that is what's been happening.

46:34Piers Morgan:Right? I don't. Of course. And we see it... And this we're seeing... With George Floyd, we saw it one way. With Henry, we're seeing it another way. But actually, ultimately, if the new guidance just reversed that statement, then we might go some way to getting somewhere. No. I know you don't think so, but I think we would. Anyway, look, I want to change. The statement is in response to the realities on the ground. I know. That's all I'm saying. I know. The statement is in response. And it's funny because the right wing, when it comes to racial profiling, when it comes to racial profiling, the right is always like, wait a minute, the black people are committing all the crimes.

47:06Why don't we put the police there? Why don't we search the black people? They say, well, let's not be colorblind. Let's acknowledge who's doing the crimes. And yet somehow now we want to be colorblind. OK, let's move on. It's a double standard. It's a grift. And just listen to Henry's father. I want to say it again. Listen to Henry's father. I agree with that. The UK. Anyone who's watching in the UK, notice the people who are exploiting this for racial divisions. And then look what happened two years ago. Did it make your life better when there were riots? Did it make your life better? Did it help your quality of life?

47:33We should play back to what you two guys were saying during the summer of 2020. Can anyone on the internet find like a best compilation of what you guys said in the wake of George Floyd? I want people to play back what Dave just said, who's against egalitarian, and Michael, who's in favor and defending Tommy Robinson. Let's play it now. I want to very quickly against egalitarianism.

47:50Piers Morgan:OK, I want to very quickly move on to Trump calling Benjamin Netanyahu fucking crazy, because I think we can't ignore that little bombshell that dropped this week. Michael Knowles, some extraordinary stuff. Axios reported that Trump lost his temper with Netanyahu over specifically Israel's escalation in Lebanon and reportedly said to him, you're fucking crazy. You'd be in prison if it wasn't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this. Now, with sort of chilling predictability, sources from the Israeli government immediately said this was all complete fiction.

48:27Piers Morgan:And then today we had Donald Trump saying this. He said, are you effing crazy? What are you effing doing? I helped you stay out of jail. Is that true? Did you speak to him in those terms? I did. I would say angry. I was a little bit perturbed at his constantly fighting with Lebanon. There we actually heard from the President of the United States' own mouth that in fact it was true, which was hardly surprising because clearly it had been briefed to Axios from probably President Trump. But notwithstanding that, it was quite interesting to me that Israel's first response from the government was to try and dismiss it all as a bag of lies until Trump just ignored that and said it's all true.

49:11Piers Morgan:But there's a wider point here, of course, which is this increasing flashpoint about Iran and the fallout and about what Israel's doing in Lebanon at the same time. And I want to play you a clip from this show, Michael Knowles, a few weeks ago. I'm not freaking out until week six. He said it would take five weeks. I'm going to freak out on week six. I don't care how my oil futures are doing. He has a very good record. He's the only president in the last quarter century on whose watch Vladimir Putin hasn't invaded a country. His attack on Iran over the summer was excellent. His decapitation of Venezuela took 88 minutes.

49:47He dropped the Moab. He killed Soleimani. He's just done very, very well on foreign policy, which is why, for now, I say let him cook.

49:54Piers Morgan:Well, we've let him cook now for 13 weeks. You said you would be freaking out at week six. You're showing remarkable calm, Michael Knowles, for a man who ought to be hyperventilating now, given what an absolute quagmire of a mess it actually is. Do you accept now that my own view about this from early on, including in that debate, which was this was heading into just a gigantic mess with no easy endgame or win, was probably more accurate? Piers, don't you know this is my freaking out? I have very low blood pressure. I keep my cool all the time. But what's funny is, from the beginning, before the war started, on the very day we were broadcasting, the day that the war began, and consistently ever since then.

50:37I have not changed my view one bit, which is that had I been on the NSC, nobody invited me, I would have made the arguments against the war. Not because I don't think the Iran regime has it coming, not because I don't think it could be in America's strategic interest to change things in Iran, but because I didn't think there was a reasonable probability of regime change there. Maybe we can set back the nuclear program. I guess that's a worthy goal. But from the standpoint of proportionality, I didn't know that the goods to be achieved in a major war in Iran were really worth the costs. That was my position before, at the time of the strike, and afterward.

51:08Now, President Trump would say the war did only go on for six weeks, and we've now been in a ceasefire ever since then with Schrodinger's Strait of Hormuz. But my analysis of the situation remains exactly the same. You know, the issue here is, if you go all the way and you push for regime change, one, it might not work. Two, it might end up being worse than it was before. And three, there's absolutely no political appetite for it whatsoever. And then the only other alternative is a deal that probably people are going to be unsatisfied with. But from the beginning, I've pushed for the deal. I just don't see how a major regime change war is going to work here.

51:41And so what you're seeing with President Trump and Netanyahu, where you say, did he really, did he not? It's helpful to the White House for that news to get out. Then the Israelis downplay it. So now I kind of believe the White House. But then Trump admits it. And so what is it? Really, even that situation hasn't changed, which is the U.S. and Israeli interests have diverged at this point on Iran. Israel does not want an end to the war. Israel wants regime change. Iran is a greater threat to Israel than to the United States. Israel's support is collapsing in the United States, even among Republicans.

52:09So I think the Israelis are looking at this as the last chance to really give them hell in Iran. And if I were the Israeli prime minister, I wouldn't want a peace deal either. But if I'm the American president, I want a peace deal. I think that's probably the best case for the American interest, given where we are right now. That's going to irritate the Israelis, their allies. Our interests align a lot of the time. Here, I think they're diverging, and that's why you're seeing these two men yell at each other. I think that's the important part of the story. Well, hang on.

52:36Piers Morgan:Bajaha, I would say the likelihood is that Donald Trump will get out of this war sooner rather later because of the catastrophic political damage it's causing, not just to him personally, but to the Republicans. They've got the midterms coming and so on. What's very hard to see is how he's going to claim any kind of Pyrrhic victory if the Iranian regime remains in place, as seems very likely, with the Ayatollah's son replacing his killed father. You have the IRGC clearly still in a firm grip on the country. No popular uprising at all of the kind that Netanyahu had promised Trump would happen if they decapitated the leadership.

53:18Piers Morgan:And the Iranians, even worse perhaps than any of this, is despite suffering a lot of damage to their military capacity, which is undeniable, they have managed to turn the Strait of Hormuz into perhaps the most powerful weapon of all. And they've been holding the entire world over an economic barrel where 20 % of the world's energy goes through, including fertiliser, gas and oil. And every time anyone tries to put more pressure on them, they fire off some rockets at their Gulf state neighbours, which causes them untold havoc and economic damage as well. I don't see how this ends well for President Trump, and I caution that from day one.

53:56Piers Morgan:And I fear that he's going to have to get out of this in a way which, if you compare it to, say, the Obama deal that he's always ridiculed, it's going to end up being, I would imagine, something that's very hard to deny will be an ignominious retreat and failure. As a result of Donald Trump's failed war of choice, we have replaced and killed the older, dying Khamenei with a younger, more radicalized Khamenei. The Strait of Hormuz was open. Now it's closed. Twelve servicemen have died. Thousands of Iranians and Lebanese have been killed. Our Gulf allies now are retreating and seeking new alliances.

54:35Our bases are under attack. The price of gas has gone up to$450, and according to the Trump administration, it's going to keep going up until 2027. Some people might say it'll go up to$5 or$6. The price of groceries, which was already up due to Trump's failed trade war of choice, is going to keep going up. He betrayed his base and said no forever wars. Now he has this unwinnable quagmire. He can't win. Also, the United States looks weaker because the United States, the world's greatest military might, cannot force Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz. So then he goes between with his tail tucked between his legs to China to get it to open up.

55:09And China said, nope, he has his allies try to open up. They say, nope, he already has a black eye. He's lost. This is the only way out. The only way out is for Donald Trump to say, I made a mistake. I'm the only president in the past 47 years. No Republican president, no Democratic president was dumb and reckless and stupid enough to follow Israel in this quagmire. Donald Trump was the only person who chose to do it. And as we know from New York Times reporting, even the people around him, Marco Rubio, Coates, J.D. Vance, said this was a mistake. But Benjamin Netanyahu came in and buttered him up.

55:43And Donald Trump said, OK, Benjamin Netanyahu, do what you want. And then you had warmongers and Zionist fanatics and war hawks like Ben Shapiro who went all in for this war. And I'm going to say this because I just listened to what Michael said. There's a great line from Born Identity. Look at what they make you give. Young conservatives, look at Michael right now. Look at what they make you give. for the sake of his boss, Ben Shapiro, he still goes all in on this failed war. World's smallest violin playing for the Daily Wire. Wait, hold on. I still go all in on this failed war. It's very interesting, Wajahat, because it seems you really want to debate my friend Ben Shapiro, and I don't know if he'll have you on.

56:17I don't know if he knows who you are, so maybe not.

56:19Piers Morgan:But in any case, the thing that I said... Well, I would love to have my old friend Ben Shapiro on. I think this is a big point. Can I jump in? Unfortunately, he hasn't talked to me for a year and a half since I began to be critical of the Israeli government. Maybe you could put a word in for me and see what the problem is. I'll give him your number, Pierre. I'll pass. No, no, I've tried texting him. He used to reply all the time. But ever since I began to criticize the Israeli government, there was a complete drawbridge between Ben Shapiro and I. You've had me on too many times, Pierre. As a guy who prides himself as being the king of free speech, and I don't think it's fair to judge Michael here by any issues with Ben Shapiro, but I do think it's interesting to me that he would do that to someone like me when I'd always gotten well with him, but also that he's gone very quiet recently about this war.

57:04Piers Morgan:Well, Piers, if it makes you feel better, Ben has been not texting me back for long before I criticized the Israeli government. So I got years on you on that. Wajat's making a point, though, that's totally ridiculous. He's saying I'm all in on the war when I've said before, during, and after, or in the present moment, that I was very skeptical of the war. I would have argued against the war. I didn't think that you had a reasonable probability of regime change, and so I would argue for restraint. Now, I don't know what Wajahat's point is about saying this is entirely about Israel. It's obviously not entirely about Israel.

57:34Piers Morgan:But in your line, though, Michael, where you say, for now I say let him cook, can we all agree that perhaps the meal hasn't come out of the oven very satisfactorily? Now we're just waiting for dessert. I hope there's a cherry on top of this Sunday, but I agree with you. It's very hard to do that. Let me give the other two guys a chance to come on. There won't be. Just quickly, if you may. Dave Smith, we've talked about this a lot. But, you know, this whole splinter now between Trump and Netanyahu, I think was entirely predictable because, as Michael said, they have parallel objectives here. I don't think that the Israelis want to have any sort of peace deal with Iran that leaves the regime in place or leaves them with their, we haven't even touched on, enriched uranium.

58:13Piers Morgan:None of that has been voluntarily handed over, and it's not going to be. Why would they? They've got all the leverage. To quote somebody in the White House Oval Office, they got all the cards. You got all the guards. And there is an irony to that, because militarily, Dave, it's inarguable. The Americans and Israelis militarily have caused a lot of damage to the Iranian military. But they haven't won the asymmetric war, which has turned out to be more important. No, they've been destroyed in the asymmetric war, not only haven't won it. This is going to go down as one of the biggest defeats in U.S.

58:51military history. And it's different than even our previous defeats where essentially we just got into prolonged conflicts. But, OK, we can't really overthrow the Viet Cong or we can't really overthrow the Taliban. And so eventually we leave. This is going to be different where we're going to transform Iran into a global power. Let me just be clear here. I don't believe the Axios reporting and I don't think other people should, too. If you check Axios's track record throughout this war, it's just been a ridiculous, the most cartoonish version of a mouthpiece for the administration. In fact, Pierce, as you recall, it was way back last Thursday that they reported that the deal's been finished and is just awaiting President Trump's signature.

59:26Piers Morgan:Well, I think that certain members of Axios have a direct line to the president whose own view about what's going on, depending on what hour of the day it is, can change quite dramatically from we're about to launch Armageddon on Iran to we're getting on famously with Hezbollah. There's a lot of conflicting reports. So I don't believe I don't believe any of this. But even if it is true, I mean, come on, dude. Donald Trump launched this war with the Israelis back last summer. And the same exact thing happened when he wanted the off ramp. They started, you know, bombing the crap out of Iran. That was the famous time when he said all of them don't know what the fuck they're doing out there.

1:00:03So listen, the bottom line here, Pierre says none of you guys are condemning this in strong enough language. This was the most retarded decision a president has ever made in my lifetime. in 2026 after the entire failed global war on terrorism, you're going to say that's what America needs, another regime change, unwinnable war in the Middle East? I mean, come on. We had national consensus that that was the last thing we wanted, and Trump was the candidate who ran on the explicit promise of no more of these wars. Unfortunately, Michael, I can't get you back in.

1:00:37Piers Morgan:I've got to give Mark a final, very quick say about this, just to finish things off. Mark? Well, while I wouldn't share David's use of the R word there, I do share his repudiation of this war. I think that it's obvious that this isn't just, as opposed to what the media is representing, this isn't just a failed bromance between Netanyahu and Trump. This is, as Michael said, a divergence in U.S. interests and in Israeli interests that I hope will finally, finally, after since the beginning of the Kennedy administration, finally get the United States out of this bizarre, unhealthy, unhelpful, disastrous and unethical relationship with the state of Israel.

1:01:13Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, as he aligns more and more with the far right, like Itamar Ben-Gavir and others, he has an investment in the doctrine of permanent war. He needs Israel to be in a permanent state of war for his own interests to advance, which is what Trump was saying in terms of saying, I want to keep him out of prison. So Israel's interest is to keep fighting. The U.S.'s isn't. And so we have to separate here. We have to let it go.

1:01:34Piers Morgan:And what is clear is that polling all suggests that Israel is getting more and more globally unpopular, not least in America, and that is a heartbreaking situation. As they should. For Israel and for Israelis, that this is happening because of the actions of their leader and their government. Every time I now see Ben Gavir or Smodrich open their mouths, they make Israel more globally unpopular. And, you know, how they are still members of a government in Israel is completely and utterly beyond me. They are complete psychopaths. And so, you know, anyone who thinks otherwise prefers to side with psychopaths, as far as I'm concerned.

1:02:12Piers Morgan:Anyway, we've got to leave it there. Thank you very much indeed for an excellent panel. The right of Sikh people in Britain to legally carry a ceremonial dagger is now under review. The history of why they do it and why they're allowed to do it is a fascinating story, which is about to become a divisive debate. Bianca Nomolo, host of History Uncensored, explains how we got here. Henry Novak's killer, Vikram Digwa, was carrying two blades, a small traditional kirpan, the Sikh article of faith, concealed under his clothing, and a second, much larger 21-centimetre dagger, so eight inches, worn openly.

1:02:46And it was that second blade, the external one, the larger one that killed Henry Novak. So the word kirpan comes from two words in Punjabi, kirpa, meaning grace or mercy, and an, meaning honour or defence. It's translated differently. It's not a knife in an ordinary sense. It's one of the five articles of faith, the five Ks that every initiated Sikh is required to wear at all times. So others include kesh, uncut hair, kara, a steel bracelet, and they're not optional. They're obligations of faith, commanded by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 when he founded the Collective of Initiated Sikhs. Now the kharpan is typically a curved single-edge blade, usually between three to six inches long, worn in a wooden sheath on a strap called a ghatra, most often under clothing, and the Sikh code of conduct prescribes no fixed length for that blade.

1:03:40Now the UK Sikh Federation says the kurpan symbolizes dignity, courage, a solemn duty to protect the vulnerable and stand against injustice. So Sikh organizations in the UK have been emphatic that any blade carried with violent intent or used offensively ceases by definition in their view to be a kurpan at all. So in Sikh tradition, the 17th century was marked by conflict with Mughal power and the persecution of religious freedom. There was this guru, Guru Teghbehadur, the ninth guru, who was executed on the orders of a Mughal emperor in 1675, and he's revered by Sikhs for sacrificing his life to defend freedom of conscience.

1:04:22So his son, Guru Gobind Singh, later founded the Khalsa in 1699, the community of initiated Sikhs, whose visible articles of faith included the Kirpan. So that embody the duty to defend the vulnerable, protect the freedoms of others when power is being used against them. And obviously sacred blades exist in Buddhism, Hinduism, other faiths as well, and they often represent protection, justice, the cutting away of evil, a duty to defend the innocent. Now the only knife that you can carry in the UK without any justification at all is a folding non-locking pocket knife with a blade of three inches, so that's 6.7 centimetres or less than that.

1:05:05Anything beyond that requires a lawful excuse. So that could include carrying a blade for work, if you're a carpenter or a chef, national costume, for example you can carry a Scottish shkiandu, a small knife traditionally put in a guy's stocking as part of highland dress, or for religious reasons. And that religious defence for possessing Sikh ceremonial blades It's existed under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988. Then the Offensive Weapons Act of 2019 clarified and extended protections around possessing and ceremonial supply of certain larger Sikh swords. Obviously, some swords like ninja swords, straight blades between 14 and 24 inches, are banned.

1:05:45So in Henry Novak's case, the court heard that Dīgwa belonged to the Nihang tradition, in which some Sikhs carry a second visible blade. So the judge said it was possible that Digua had a legal reason for possessing the larger dagger when he encountered Henry, but that any protection ended when he drew it and attacked an unarmed 18-year-old. Hence why Digua was convicted not only of murder, but of possessing the bladed article in public. Now, I've done martial arts weapons training for over 14 years in the UK, And under UK law, I can legally transport to and from a licensed club swords like a katana or weapons like nunchucks as long as the travel is direct, the weapon is not visible and the purpose is training or reenactment.

1:06:32But the law doesn't permit me to carry any of those swords for display or self-defense. And I say that because it underscores that, as the religious defence does, that when it comes to many blades in the UK, it's the purpose and the context that determine the legality and not the blade itself.

1:06:51Piers Morgan:Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, you can ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. and in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.