In the Olympian duel of egos between yourself and Russell Brand on Newsnight on the subject of Class A drug abuse; there could be only one winner.
Today you have bleated profusely in the Daily Mail, and you may well feel obliged to redeem your dignity after the Twitter verdict on your performance. You have personally transcripted the debate to make a point that you have failed to make. You must have been up all night doing this. Your dignity has taken a blow but since you have gone to all that trouble Peter, I have reproduced it below, so that your readers can make up their own minds.
You might have hoped that your transcript would support your argument, which included the notion that you were continually interrupted and that you received abuse from Russell Brand.
As you can see your own evidence demonstrates that you were the first and indeed the only one to lose it. Furthermore it is also clear that you were doing the interrupting and you were given more of a say than Brand.
Bigotry is of course comic fodder so maybe that is where you lost the argument.
Better luck next time. If not, it's back to day- time TV?
Otherwise, you might try transcendental medication to get through your current crisis.
Here be your transcript........ And Peter, are you sure you haven't left out some of Mr. Brand's argument? I would check your transcript but I have to put out the household rubbish this morning.
PH: No, It’s a crime, it involves the possession of a Class ‘A’ drug which is a criminal offence, which people do voluntarily and they do it for pleasure. And if we continue to treat it as a disease, which (they) should be sympathised with, there will be more and more of it as there has been over the past many years. We do not any more enforce our own laws on this subject. The very word ‘addiction’ assumes that the person involved has no free will.
Newsnight:: You have no sympathy at all with the people who get trapped on drugs for years on end?
PH: I have sympathy with anybody who gets themselves into trouble. But sympathy isn’t the point. What I don’t have is any sympathy with somebody who deliberately breaks a known law. They are criminals. They should be punished. And honestly if they were punished for this they would by and large not get into the trouble they get into and there would be many, many fewer of them. But we don’t do that. Look at the figures for arrests of people even for possession of Class A drugs which we supposedly view most seriously. Of the ones who are convicted, fewer than one in ten are actually sentenced to imprisonment. This is a Class ‘A’ drug, the most serious.
Newsnight:: : Russell Brand, they are criminals, What’s wrong with what he’s saying?
RB: I understand what Peter is saying. And I understand his frustration. As a person that has to deal with drug addicts in my life they are a frustrating type of person to deal with, But I think Peter that if you can find in yourself to look at human beings with compassion and love rather than with aggression, you will find there is more of an opportunity for progress. I know it’s annoying, but..
PH: I don’t wish to be lectured on aggression by you. You’ve been extremely aggressive to me in the past when we have met…
RB: That was because of the bigotry, Peter. I don’t mean it. I’m only having a bit of fun because of the Daily Mail stuff and that.
PH: When you actually learn to use reason you can accuse people of bigotry. Until then I should keep very quiet about it. Learn to use some reason in this matter.
Newsnight:: We’re very reasoned on Newsnight
PH: Why is a comedian being given a programme on the BBC to push a policy about drugs?
Newsnight:: Because he has first-hand experience
PH: Why is our debate on drugs so debased that this is the kind of the thing we are reduced to?
RB: Peter, why are you so angry?
PH: I am angry because many, many young people in this country are being betrayed…
RB: What do you think we should do?
PH…by a feeble government and a feeble est[ablishment]…
RB: What do you think we should do, Peter ?
PH: I think we should enforce our law against illegal drugs…
RB: You want people in prison?
PH: I don’t want people in prison, no, I want people deterred from taking drugs…
PH …taking drugs which will ruin their lives, by punishment
RB: But how, I want that…(interrupts, unclear)I don’t want people to take drugs, Peter
PH: … by punishment, by effective…
PH: You asked a question, you had better listen to the answer. I want them deterred
RB …(unclear interruption, talking over PH) not just banal, prescriptive bigotry…
PH : Listen to what I’m saying, you’ll learn something
RB: I’ve heard it before Peter
PH: Well you plainly weren’t listening that time either…
PH: I want them deterred by effective policing…
RB: I don’t think you’re ignorant. I just think you’re innocent. You’re like a peculiar child.
PH: You see, ad hominem, ad hominem and interruption, absolutely nothing remotely resembling reason, thought or fact and yet you are making a programme on drugs for the BBC and I am not. And that is exactly what is wrong.
RB: I understand your frustration, mate (addressed to me), but I really think that the techniques and methods that you’re talking about are antiquated and belong in another era. That kind of foghorn madness from bygone times is not going to help anybody.
PH: There you go again. No reason. Just abuse. I love to see the embrace between you and the Conservative Party. The more of it the better, the more people will realize how useless the Conservative Party is to people in this country who care about these things.