Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter Episode 18 - Daylight savings and Saturday monring cartoons

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter Episode 18 - Daylight savings and Saturday monring cartoons · UK Column Radio

0:38
Good day gents. It is now an hour later for me
0:43
because because you're still part of that daylight saving
0:47
system. So we we are too simple minded
0:50
to adjust our times. We just wake up earlier or
0:52
later. I completely disagree, I think
0:55
that's absolutely the way it should be everywhere.
0:59
I was in simple minded about sticking their fingers up at
1:03
this whole time. Change business.
1:06
I actually read an article sometime ago that when you
1:10
artificially adjust people's times, it's actually not
1:13
healthy. No.
1:16
Well, you see, the one thing we mustn't forget, although this is
1:20
of course, pure speculation and correlation is not causation,
1:23
but it's interesting to note that all the articles about
1:27
people having heart attacks and dying from the clocks changing
1:30
coincides with all the autumn vaccination campaigns.
1:35
So I'll just, you know, put, put that out there.
1:38
No, it is, it is ridiculous. I mean, it's ridiculous.
1:41
We, I know we've talked about it before.
1:42
So for all those that do remember every ounce of that
1:45
chat, then many apologies. But my, my supposition was just
1:49
that because, because we've introduced artificial elements
1:53
into our lives that prolong the day.
1:55
And actually, funnily enough, I, I've visited a National Trust
1:59
property recently which goes back to the, I think it was
2:04
built in the 15th century and there was a sort of bed in
2:08
there, which has quite an interesting sort of text
2:13
written. They, they printed it out onto a
2:15
bedspread, but it was actually from a handwritten note of the
2:18
period. And it describes the the Squires
2:23
night, which was that he would go to bed at about 8:00 in the
2:27
evening and then wake up at about midnight.
2:30
So that would be the end of the first sleep, wake up at
2:32
midnight, Potter around or write or whatever by candlelight,
2:35
presumably for a couple of hours and then go back to bed again
2:39
about two and get up at 6:00. So, so this idea of a first and
2:43
second sleep, and I think that's something that we don't really
2:45
talk about very much. First of all, we prolong the day
2:48
through looking at screens, gadgets, using electric lights,
2:51
all that sort of stuff, as well as the culture of sort of going
2:54
out in the evening. And, and then we expect to be
2:59
able to make up all of our regenerative sleep in one go.
3:03
And that is highly unusual. I, I suspect very strongly that
3:08
we're not really designed to do that.
3:10
And obviously there are some cultures where they will take
3:12
siesta and this, this up and the other.
3:15
But but ultimately we do our our whole approach to the way that
3:18
the, the, the, the cycle runs, the day runs.
3:22
It is a bit crazy. And I think that becomes more
3:24
amplified in the northern last dues, particularly where the,
3:28
where the length of the day becomes either so very long or
3:30
so very short. Yeah, it makes us all look a bit
3:34
silly. And then, and then of course,
3:35
we've got the absolutely ridiculous confusion of having
3:40
clocks that do change but at different dates.
3:44
And so, you know, for example, UK column, obviously we, we have
3:49
quite a number of people that we work with in the United States
3:52
and their clocks do change, but I don't think that's for another
3:54
couple of weeks. So we we have this absurd limbo
3:58
period when no one has any idea what the time is.
4:03
I actually wanted to talk about something else, but I just want
4:05
to quickly stay on this because it's really interesting what
4:07
you're talking about now a moment ago, Charles, about
4:12
breaking up sleep versus getting it all in one go at night.
4:15
I've never thought about that. That is absolutely fascinating.
4:18
So what? OK.
4:19
So is is the hypothesis that we should be taking sort of naps
4:24
during the day and then a longer sleep at night?
4:27
I think it probably it's it. Well, you see, this is again
4:31
where where last student daylight hours come into it.
4:34
But but yeah, I think by and large the bulk at night.
4:40
But the idea, I think it's really just this idea that you
4:43
would do all of your sleeping in one go.
4:45
And, and, and in fact, you know, that's very much corroborated
4:47
by, if you, if you ever go to a, you know, a well preserved sort
4:52
of Abbey or monastery, you will get the sense that they, that
4:56
the monks absolutely had a, a program that meant they slept
5:00
for a bit, then they would get up and they would work a little
5:03
bit more or pray or whatever during the night and then they'd
5:06
go back to bed. And, and this, OK, I don't know
5:08
a huge amount about it, but this does seem to tie in with a lot
5:11
of sleep research into sleep cycles.
5:13
But I think it, I think there's kind of, you know, there'll be
5:16
an individual element to it because I, as far as I
5:19
understand it, we all have our own deep sleep cycles of either
5:25
approximately 3 or 4 hours. And if you're, if you're not in
5:29
one of those and you're awake, then you may as well, you may as
5:32
well be up and about doing something and then go back to
5:35
sleep for the, for the next one. But it's, it's just the, you
5:38
know, the trouble is obviously every aspect of our lives has
5:42
been organised now around doing something that is probably not
5:46
really coming naturally. And, you know, I think lots of
5:50
people listening probably do. I mean, you know, on occasion I
5:52
definitely do have those moments where you just you wake up
5:56
absolutely completely wide awake in the middle of the night for
6:00
no apparently good reason and nothing's actually woken you up.
6:03
And it does, it does sort of seem silly not to think, right.
6:07
Well, it should just be doing something.
6:10
You've given me an idea now for my show.
6:14
OK, It's really interesting. And I mean, sorry if I if I
6:18
think about like, you know, babies, they have naps during
6:21
the day and I guess that's simply because they're growing
6:25
and they require more sleep. But I mean, your body also tells
6:29
you when it's exhausted. And that often happens to us.
6:32
We've, you know, like, I don't know, let's say lunchtime, you
6:35
feel like I just need to lie down for 30 minutes.
6:37
I just want to sit down for 30 minutes.
6:38
Your body is saying, hey, you know, just give me a moment
6:41
here. And then we override that.
6:45
There there's some people, you know, absolutely believe in the
6:48
idea that you don't actually sleep for a big block of time at
6:51
all, that you sleep 30 minutes every four hours and and that's
6:55
day and night. There's some people live by
6:57
that. I don't know how effective it
7:00
is. They claim it, it makes them
7:01
extremely productive and, and it is very effective, but I haven't
7:05
really haven't heard people discussing this in recent years.
7:07
This is something that is going back 20 years is the last time I
7:11
sort of heard people talking about this so.
7:13
There are options. Yeah, OK.
7:16
Yeah. No, no, I mean, I, I think, I
7:18
think you absolutely should find people to talk to you about
7:20
this. I, I find it completely
7:22
compelling because of course, the other thing is the, the
7:25
delusion that we are regenerating ourselves because
7:29
we believe we've had enough sleep.
7:31
An awful, you know, an awful lot of people will not have had
7:34
sufficient sleep. But by, by the use of stimulants
7:38
like caffeine, you, you can convince yourself that that, you
7:44
know, everything's fine, your body's working absolutely as it
7:47
should be, But but it's not these are, these are sort of,
7:50
you know, artificial inputs which are sustaining a pattern
7:54
of life which is basically unnatural.
7:56
And again, you know, you just talked about eating as well.
7:58
I, I think, I think a huge part of this, again, the disruption
8:02
of this is the way that we eat, you know, this idea that you
8:05
should eat three times a day and at sort of regular intervals.
8:09
And again, it's not that, that it's just so odd that that's,
8:13
that would be our take. When you look around you and
8:15
there's not a single species on the planet that that does that.
8:19
Either you've got creatures that sort of, you know, browse or
8:23
graze almost all the time, or they will just have one big
8:27
scoff and that's it. And yet we, we decided that we
8:31
should be totally regimented and, and do it three times a
8:34
day. And also, yeah, so it's bizarre,
8:36
but, but I'd say it very much plays into the this idea of,
8:40
well, where are you in the world?
8:43
Because of course, the closer you get to the equator, the, the
8:46
less change you have over the course of the year, both in
8:49
terms of climate and therefore requirement for body fat, but
8:53
also length of day and, and therefore the effect that that
8:56
has on your on your brain and on your metabolism.
8:59
So there they go. There's some of you to look
9:01
into. Well, we'll expect some good
9:04
results on that. This is a really good segue
9:06
actually, because I was going to ask both of you for your Damas,
9:12
your first Damascus moment, your first red pull moment.
9:15
And this is potentially red pull the the idea of how much sleep
9:19
we need. But let me ask you, Mike, when?
9:23
When did you start rethinking everything you thought you knew?
9:28
I did. I don't know.
9:30
Did we not discuss this before? I don't know when I remember.
9:33
When I was 11. 11 What were you thinking about at 11?
9:40
I was. Thinking about, I was thinking
9:41
about the fact that my father had been running his business
9:44
for a year and got blown up by the IRA and, and we heard, we
9:49
were told afterwards, not not that long afterwards, that, that
9:55
the police had Northern Irish police.
9:57
The RUC had watched the bomb being put in the back of the car
10:01
and they'd followed it down the Andersonstown Rd. in Belfast
10:03
and, and they'd watched it being left and they were told to leave
10:06
it alone. And basically what was going on
10:10
there was that the, the paramilitary groups were running
10:14
protection rackets. This was part of their
10:15
fundraising efforts. And the, the owner of the
10:19
industrial estate that my dad had his business on didn't pay.
10:24
But the only, the only that, that just got me wondering,
10:29
well, what, what, how, how could that possibly be?
10:32
Because we're supposed to be, we're told we're in this, this
10:36
conflict between republicanism and loyalism and, and that the,
10:41
the RU CS on the loyalist side. And, and so why would they be be
10:45
leaving the leaving this to take place and, and, and that bomb to
10:49
go off. And, and the only explanation I
10:51
could come up with was either somebody was getting paid off or
10:56
we, whatever was going on wasn't quite what we thought.
10:59
And so it's so, you know, I'm, I'm not going to say that that
11:02
was that, that was a, a conscious sort of train of
11:05
thought that, but it just, it just started me asking questions
11:09
about what I was seeing around myself.
11:11
And, and and then over the subsequent decade or so that the
11:16
questions got more developed. I wrote a sub stack this week
11:24
discussing, you know, when I first started changing my views
11:30
on things. And I think that's what led me
11:32
not to asking. I don't remember this
11:33
conversation. If we did have it, I apologize.
11:36
It would have been a while back. And in my sub stack, I said that
11:42
my first sort of Damascus moment was around 2009 when I watched a
11:47
documentary called the the The Great Global Warming Swindle.
11:51
And that was when I thought, oh, wait a minute, is me driving my
11:56
car actually heating up earth and then realizing that the
12:01
whole thing just didn't really make any sense.
12:04
And then started looking into it over over the next few years,
12:08
which eventually led to me, you know, thinking of other things
12:12
around me like big events and how how fabricated or true are
12:17
they? But I, I actually realized that
12:21
my first red pull moment was actually when I was about 6
12:23
years old when at Christmas I got given a watch.
12:28
But my folks and I was just starting to learn to read.
12:32
And I remember seeing something along the lines of made in
12:36
Japan. And I asked my I asked my dad,
12:39
but doesn't Santa Claus make watches?
12:43
And he said, well, I think he ran out and he had to go and
12:45
fetch one in Japan And then. Well, I mean, look, look, this
12:50
is a good point because surely that's everyone's red pill
12:53
moment, the moment they realized that Santa Claus is not real and
12:56
that they were lied to. Surely that is, that is really
12:59
everybody's that, that is everybody's red pill moment,
13:02
isn't it? To some degree.
13:05
What about? What about you, Charles?
13:09
Well, I mean, this seems to be a progression.
13:12
So in the spirit of 1 upmanship, I should say, I suppose when I
13:16
was the age of four, which of course would be a total lie.
13:21
But but it does remind me of a what I found to be a highly
13:27
amusing meme or meme. However one pronounces these
13:30
things, which was 22 photographs, one above the other
13:34
of a a sort of cowboy. But actually it might, it might
13:37
even be Chuck Norris. It could be a still from film,
13:39
doesn't really matter. But it's of an older man sitting
13:42
on a hay Bale talking to a younger boy, you know, in sort
13:46
of cowboy country. And the man says to the boy, how
13:50
old are you? And the next frame is the boy
13:52
replying saying I'm eleven. And the man says back to him.
13:57
When I was your age, I was already 12, which I found
14:02
absolutely hilarious. But anyway, that's slightly by
14:04
the by, I think for me, the, the way in which if I try to trace
14:09
it back and, and think what's been the continual thread that
14:14
has run through the way I've looked at things.
14:19
I I think that's a gift that's come from time at boarding
14:23
school and the sort of rubbing up against school rules, which
14:30
are in effect the way that that the world works.
14:35
They are designed for purposes completely outside of the way in
14:41
which they're explained. They are very often
14:44
contradictory and vicious and they allow for things like
14:50
blanket punishment and for specific victimization.
14:56
They can be manipulated or ignored or any of those sorts of
14:59
things. And, and so I think I realized
15:03
at that point from from an early age in, in a non competitive
15:09
sense, you understand that that I, I realized at that point that
15:15
I had no intention of going along with the school rules that
15:19
I didn't think made any sense. And so therefore I didn't.
15:22
And that gave me that I would say that the benefit of a a
15:28
mistrust of authority, not for the sake of it, not I definitely
15:32
wasn't in the sort of, Oh well, you know, just two fingers at
15:35
everyone because they're an authority figure, you know, a
15:38
teacher or a headmaster or whatever it was.
15:42
I don't mean to say that, but it but I would I would not take
15:45
something at face value. And I think that has turned out
15:51
to be an extremely useful way to be able to look at things from
15:56
an early age. And so, yes, it meant getting
15:59
into sort of what was described as being trouble for apparently
16:05
breaking school rules. But frankly, when the you know,
16:08
when the, when the sort of explanation was, well, you know,
16:10
well, that's too dangerous. Or that's too there's something,
16:12
I mean, just think one, I mean, it's not really, is it?
16:15
Because if it were, then then you would be able to point
16:19
towards instances where harm has fallen out of these
16:24
circumstances and whatever. So I think, I think that that's
16:28
really been the way I've looked at it.
16:29
And then, yeah, I mean, that's just developed more and more
16:34
over time. And, and it's just been the, the
16:35
greater understanding of how all of these things are connected
16:39
and, and, you know, crikey, let's face it, boarding schools
16:44
set up specifically to provide the administrators to run the
16:48
British Empire. So, so this is not an oblique
16:51
reference to something that's, that's got no wider
16:56
connotations. It, it absolutely does have.
16:58
So looking back, I do find it fascinating, even though at the
17:01
time, obviously I wasn't really aware of, of knowing why that
17:05
was going to be of use. But I, but I, but I think, yeah,
17:08
I think, I think that's exactly what it has.
17:10
And, and also having a, you know, being able to have that
17:13
relationship with people where you can sort of without a gender
17:17
just to just in an objective sense, just question stuff.
17:20
And, and to say, you know, to a, a master or I mean, you know,
17:24
this is obviously brilliantly written about in, in lots of
17:26
sort of humorous books about boarding school stuff.
17:29
But to be able to, to ask, you know, we'll say yes, but but
17:33
why? I mean, why is such and such a
17:36
rule in place? And, and where's that come from?
17:38
That is in large part how I would recommend that anyone
17:43
looks at anything now. You know, whenever, I mean, we
17:46
were just talking about just before we started recording,
17:49
Mike was talking about the US ambassador to the United
17:52
Nations. And, and, you know, that's a
17:54
brilliant example, the all these statements that get made.
17:56
I mean, I think particularly of of sort of Barbara Woodward,
17:59
who's forever making these statements to, to the United
18:01
Nations. And you just, you just read it
18:03
and just think why, why? Why would you be saying that?
18:07
And, and is it really true? So, yeah, sorry, long, long
18:10
answer, but that that's for me, that's probably it.
18:12
No, no, I don't. I can't think of a particular
18:15
yes moment where I felt it was an epiphany or anything like
18:19
that. So why?
18:20
You're not chief of the defence staff because you're too
18:22
subversive. Is that is that what's going on?
18:25
Sorry, just say that again, Mike was the beginning.
18:27
I I said is that why you're not chief of the defence staff
18:29
already? Because you're just too
18:31
subversive. Well, I think probably a few
18:32
reasons why I'm not chief of the defence Staff, but that might be
18:36
one of them. Yeah.
18:37
No, I mean, it's, it's yeah, it's a good point because that,
18:41
you know, again, for anyone who who knows a bit about my
18:43
background, yes, obviously listening to that, you know,
18:46
might be thinking, well, how does that work?
18:47
If you're you know, if you spent time in the Army and indeed the
18:50
police and, and it does because it's it's all to do with having
18:54
a rationale. If you can explain why you did
18:56
or did not do something or you questioned something on a on a
18:58
consistent and I'd say objective basis, then then, you know,
19:03
frankly exposing, exposing faults within the system.
19:08
Yeah, it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily win you any friends,
19:10
but it but it can, it can work out to people's advantage.
19:13
If you find that you are actually dealing with somebody
19:15
who, who does have the, you know, sort of honesty to respond
19:21
and then that, you know, that that absolutely did happen.
19:23
I can think of, I can absolutely think of instances of going to,
19:28
you know, people who were sort of further up the chain of
19:30
command and, and addressing a particular issue and it would be
19:33
dealt with. And it was just fascinating to
19:34
think that that sort of a thing could have persisted for so long
19:38
without anyone really questioning or challenging it.
19:41
So it's always worth it. Your point though, about asking
19:44
why is so, so fundamental. I mean, I've, I've seen
19:51
cartoons, you know, where kids will say to the parents, but
19:55
why? And then they'll answer, but
19:57
why? And then they'll answer, but
19:58
why? And eventually they get to the
20:00
point where they'll say because I said so.
20:03
And that is such a dangerous place to be actually saying
20:07
because I said so. It's it's the the act of asking
20:11
why is really crucial to critical thinking, Charles I
20:14
mean, I think that's a great point that you're making.
20:17
Yeah, it is. And and that that again is a is
20:20
an excellent sort of rejoinder because this is this is for a
20:23
lot of people sort of where it does go wrong.
20:26
And I think if you know that, that is one for parents to to
20:29
think about. Yeah.
20:32
If you, if that is your, your fall back, you're, you're in
20:36
trouble. You really do need to have a
20:37
better answer than that, as you should in any environment.
20:42
I yeah, in fact it was relatively recent.
20:47
I was dealing with a solicitor who prefixed the conversation we
20:51
were about to have with, I'm just doing my job.
20:57
Absolutely incredible. It's, it's sort of, it's the
21:00
same thing in a way, which is the sort of, you know, just
21:03
because I said so. So you can't, you're not going
21:06
to provide any satisfactory justification.
21:09
So, yeah, I mean, really important one.
21:13
But the, but the problem is, you know, for a lot of children,
21:15
sadly, who do get told, well, you know, because I say so if
21:20
you, if you hear that enough times, it does become a battle
21:22
of wills. And maybe maybe children do have
21:26
that sort of inquisitiveness and innate skepticism drummed out of
21:30
them. I I think that that can be the
21:32
only explanation because you're quite right.
21:34
It is. I think it is a natural thing to
21:36
do. Yeah, but that feeds into then
21:39
the deeper conversation about schooling and indoctrination
21:43
because when when kids ask too many questions, they get shut
21:48
down very quickly. I remember.
21:49
I mean, that's what happened when I was at school.
21:52
Yeah, it's been the right, the right response there is.
21:54
I don't know, let's find out, isn't it?
21:56
It's not, it's not the right response as opposed to, you
22:00
know, as you say, because I say so.
22:03
Or here's an iPad. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
22:08
Do your own research. Although, I mean, that's a good
22:10
thing. It it is, but it but it depends
22:14
what age the child is. You know, just to shove with an
22:16
iPad in their hands and send do your own research.
22:18
If they're 6, maybe it's not the right the right response.
22:21
They need some help to to learn how to do their own research.
22:26
The reason why I was asking about these Damascus moments is
22:30
because they sort of like a domino effect.
22:35
You, you question global warming.
22:38
I mean, that's generally, generally a gateway question.
22:42
You know I. Know you're too young.
22:44
You're too young. But I mean, look, I mean global
22:49
warming, that is probably one of the largest agendas in
22:52
existence. I mean it, it's what drives the
22:54
UN. You know, sustainable
22:55
development and it's goals are all around carbon.
23:00
I mean, this is a very, very big talking point.
23:04
It's not Mickey Mouse. I mean, the social credit is
23:07
almost entirely based around your your carbon emissions.
23:14
And I think what I find today is about that.
23:16
I'm sure there are there are other methods, but similarly in
23:20
you know, the way in which one might catch Father Christmas out
23:23
my sort of camping out at the bottom of the chimney overnight
23:26
and and finding out you know what you find out there is one
23:29
graph to to to my belief there is one graph that absolutely
23:35
shatters what anyone might try to tell you about about global
23:41
warming, which is the the graph that's produced.
23:43
But I can't remember the the NOAAI think it's I can't forget
23:48
the only way the American Institute that basically records
23:51
the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide both locally in Hawaii
23:56
and on a sort of worldwide mean basis.
24:02
And first of all, the grass tally.
24:04
So at first glance, they do exactly what they're supposed to
24:08
do, which is to show you this terrifying upward trajectory of
24:12
the parts per million of carbon dioxide by as as expressed as a
24:16
percentage of the atmosphere. But then when you look at the
24:19
detail every six months, the the graph goes up and then down, up,
24:27
down with a, with an upward trend.
24:29
But there is absolutely no way to explain on on her on that
24:36
basis, the the way in which man is somehow able to manipulate
24:41
carbon dioxide levels. So they they go drastically up,
24:45
followed by drastically down, then drastically up, then
24:47
drastically down. It it's a, it's a total, total
24:50
farce. So it's completely remarkable to
24:54
me that an entire industry and worldwide control system can be
25:02
built around something that can be demolished with just one
25:05
piece of paper. I, I, yes.
25:11
And I've had this discussion multiple times over the years to
25:15
the point where I almost no longer want to have this
25:18
discussion because because I always get the same response.
25:24
But Jim, are you a scientist? Are you, are you a climate
25:27
scientist? No.
25:29
Yeah, but that, well, that's it. But that's the joy of this
25:32
graph. You don't have to be anything.
25:33
All you have to be able to do is see it or or or just have it
25:36
described to you. No, no, no, no, because I've
25:38
done that too. And they go.
25:39
But you're reading the graph wrong.
25:44
To cut it upside down, yeah. How, how do you know?
25:48
How do you know that that what you're saying is, is what that
25:51
graph means? Are you a scientist?
25:53
And so around and around and around you go.
25:55
Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I obviously I, I, I
25:59
won't enter into a discussion with a scientist about it.
26:02
I think that would be no. But you should.
26:05
That's the whole point, though. You should.
26:07
You should. Because look, hold on, hold on,
26:09
hold on, hold on. Science is not some elite
26:13
category of, of, of education. It's open source.
26:17
The whole point of scientific. I mean, nobody 500 years ago had
26:22
a piece of paper that said they were scientist.
26:24
They thought scientifically, which basically meant they
26:27
looked at how the natural world works.
26:31
I don't think, I don't think Leonardo da Vinci had a piece of
26:35
paper that city was a scientist. I mean, and he did scientific
26:38
stuff. Yes, I agree.
26:41
No, I, I think I, yes, I just mean from the, from the point of
26:47
view of the vast majority of these people who are supposedly
26:51
scientists in this area basically just hanging off
26:53
coattails of something that they haven't started in the 1st
26:56
place. So it's sort of in a way it's
26:58
neither here nor there. I, I know what I, I know what I
27:02
know, or rather I know what I believe and I also know what
27:05
they believe. So yes, OK, there might be,
27:09
there might be some merit and it would be interesting to see how
27:12
people would justify. Yes, OK, let's put it like that.
27:14
That would. That would be interesting
27:15
actually. I mean, if you think about it
27:18
right, so if you, if you say to somebody, well, you're not a
27:22
scientist, so you can't comment, What they're effectively doing
27:25
is shutting down the thought process.
27:28
They're saying, well, stay in your lane, you don't know what
27:30
you're talking about. And so they've, they've
27:33
inadvertently elevated a category of education to a point
27:38
where it it cannot be questioned unless you yourself are in that
27:41
category. And that's a very dangerous
27:44
slippery slope. Yeah, but isn't that, isn't that
27:47
exactly what we do with the children that say why?
27:51
It's exactly the same thing. It's just it's just they view,
27:54
they view us as being children that are asking why and and and
27:57
because I said so because I'm a scientist.
28:00
That's exactly it's exactly. But it's not the.
28:02
Same though, Mike, because children are physically way, way
28:06
too young for for for some of this kind of thinking.
28:10
They would argue, they would argue that, that, that they've
28:13
put, you know, decades of their lives into understanding this
28:16
stuff and, and we haven't, therefore they're qualified and
28:19
we're not. And so, so I'm, I think it's,
28:23
it's absolutely the same mentality and.
28:25
So what's the argument? Well.
28:29
You still got to be able to justify it.
28:31
You still have to be able to, I mean, you know, suggests that if
28:35
you're a scientist, that means you can only talk to other
28:37
scientists. It's completely ridiculous in
28:38
the way that if you're a parent, you can't only talk to other
28:40
parents. You've got to be able to talk to
28:42
your children. It's exactly the same.
28:43
You have to be able to make it make sense.
28:45
So you might have done the research and extrapolated from
28:49
that what you believe to be logical conclusions where no
28:53
money has necessarily changed hands and and you need to be
28:57
able to demonstrate to somebody who hasn't had the benefit of
29:02
all your research and perhaps training and to a certain extent
29:06
knowledge. I mean, you know, I think again,
29:08
we have to be careful just to suggest that the the science is
29:11
corrupt doesn't mean that the scientist is an idiot.
29:14
They can, you know that that's of course there's I absolutely
29:17
respect the fact there's plenty of stuff that scientists might
29:20
know that I don't because they have studied this and the other.
29:24
But to to suggest that when presented with the findings that
29:30
I could only come to the same conclusion as them or, or indeed
29:34
that I might not be qualified to come to a conclusion because I'm
29:37
not a scientist. It's ridiculous.
29:38
If you, if you're going to tell a child that, that putting their
29:43
hand into a fire is going to hurt them and you need to be
29:47
able to explain why. I think as a parent you would
29:51
not struggle too much to explain why.
29:54
Whereas there are some things, if you're going to tell a child
29:57
not to do it or to do it then and you can't explain that, then
30:01
then that shows you've gone off course.
30:03
I think it's exactly the same with with science.
30:06
I'm sure there's the bottom. Line here Jeremy is though, the
30:09
bottom line is that science and politics and the media, well,
30:15
certainly science and politics. Let's leave it, leave it with
30:18
those two are at this point in time inherently corrupt because,
30:24
because of the, the way that they are funded.
30:27
And, and so when we have scientists and politicians
30:32
effectively being employed to do certain types of work by
30:35
lobbyists who have vested interests, then then there's
30:39
nothing objective about either of those areas of endeavour.
30:43
And and so you know, that I think is the core of the of the
30:46
problem here. I'm sure there's a Segway in
30:49
yes, some way, but I've I've got an an app on my phone that that
30:55
that'll take a website and it says Eli 5.
30:59
You can see that there, which means explain like I'm 5.
31:05
So they have got auk column article that it that it that
31:08
it's summarizing as if I were a 5 year old and perhaps perhaps
31:15
the because I said something should switch to actually
31:19
engaging. I'm in the same way that a
31:22
scientist saying stay in your lane should change to engagement
31:27
rather than shutting down discourse.
31:32
I think this is a very hard thing for certain types of
31:35
people to do, particularly in technical fields.
31:40
It's it's a hard thing to to, you know, some people find it
31:45
extremely difficult to communicate with non-technical
31:48
people and put put these ideas in in a way that I mean, that is
31:52
a real skill, it has to be said. And there aren't that many
31:54
people that are that are able to do that.
31:57
So, so I'm not going to criticize, you know, a, a
32:01
scientist for not being able to, to, to put things in a way that
32:05
that the general public would be able to grasp in, in some of
32:09
these more complex areas. But it is.
32:12
It is something that's needed, I think.
32:14
I, I had a conversation this week, which will be out and you
32:19
get column. I think next week was was
32:22
fascinating, fascinating woman who has been studying children's
32:26
books for like the last 20 or 30 years.
32:29
And she was making the point that 100 years ago kids were
32:34
reading books that are now a considered teenager or adult
32:40
books like Charles Dickens and and whatever else.
32:43
Right. When I was six or seven years
32:45
old, I was reading, you know, jump, sadly jump, whereas 100
32:51
years ago kids were reading full sentences.
32:54
And she was basically making the the the underpinning point that
33:01
society is being dumbed down. And she argues deliberately so.
33:07
And then they, there are a lot of, you know, very good reasons
33:10
for that. If you want to control thought
33:12
and you want to control people on on mass, it was also very
33:16
scary. So, so one of my youngest, one
33:19
of my earliest memories is in my grandmother's house was a boys
33:26
on annual. I, I, I still have it, but it
33:29
was something that I guess my dad had, they had bought or they
33:32
had bought for him when he was a certain age.
33:35
But boys on annual was, was the, the obviously the annual where
33:39
they took every issue for the year of the boys on paper, which
33:43
is, you know, sort of this was from 19 O one, I think this
33:46
particular version. And, and the first thing that
33:52
you notice is, is that this is the, the comics of the day, you
33:55
know, for, for kids that are growing up sort of 10/11/12,
34:00
whatever. And just the density of the
34:02
text, the, the, the stories that are published are proper
34:05
stories. They're not cartoons.
34:07
And, and the density of the text, the size of the text, you
34:10
know, the fact that that amount of content was read in one week
34:14
and then there was a new, another one came out a week
34:16
later was just amazing to me. It's always been amazing to me.
34:20
And you know, at, at, at the equivalent age, I was not able
34:24
to really engage with that content because it was just, it
34:28
was just already at that stage. I was not, I was not at the same
34:32
level that that that they were expected to be at that age, you
34:36
know, 60 years before. So, so that's or 70 years before
34:40
whatever it was. So that's, I think that
34:43
absolutely what you just said is absolutely correct.
34:46
We have allowed ourselves to, to get ourselves to the point where
34:51
we're not actually able necessarily or we don't have the
34:54
skills we never were taught to, to think at at a level that
34:59
maybe we need to be thinking at at this stage.
35:01
I. Don't know if this is true, but
35:05
I heard that a lot of particularly western schools are
35:10
no longer teaching cursive handwriting.
35:13
You know when kids learn to write?
35:16
I learned to write in cursive and as far as I understand there
35:21
are a lot of very good psychological reasons to do
35:24
that. And if kids are not being taught
35:25
that now, that's also a bit sad. Well, they're barely been taught
35:30
to write at all in schools anymore because what's the
35:33
point? You speak to your computer now.
35:35
Hey Siri, whatever it happens to be, why do you need to learn to
35:38
write? And I have heard recently that
35:41
that of a couple of schools that are starting to, to sort of
35:45
bring this, this back and, and trying to teach kids to write
35:50
cursively again. So whether there's, whether
35:53
that's a, a general sort of pushback on that, I don't know.
35:56
But but maybe there's, there's, there's some people thinking
36:01
that this is not a great idea to to not be teaching kids how to
36:05
write anymore. When I was looking into the
36:08
dumbing down of of kids. I'm a huge fan of Asterix and it
36:14
turned I don't know this. It turns out that a whole bunch
36:17
of Asterix books, because, you know, it's written in French
36:20
initially and so English is the is the big is the big
36:24
translation of of asterisks. But I had no idea that when they
36:29
exported asterisks to the United States, and I think this is
36:32
still the case, a number of the characters names were changed.
36:37
They were made shorter and simpler.
36:40
That's unbelievable. If it's true, if it's true, it
36:44
is unbelievable. I certainly didn't it.
36:47
Is true I I mean I saw this on on Wikipedia it.
36:51
Must be true. It must be true then.
36:54
'Cause that on the tell me explain like I'm 5 version of.
36:59
Well, look, as far as I know, I can't remember now, but I think
37:03
the the the the the board Cacophonyx.
37:05
I think his name was changed and I think vital statistics.
37:08
Who's the the the the village chief.
37:11
I think he his name was changed also, but I'm, I have this
37:13
wrong. I'm, I'm sure somebody's going
37:16
to respond and say that is either correct or it's false.
37:19
But I mean, it's not a stretch of the imagination, particularly
37:26
when it comes to the United States.
37:28
I. Love it.
37:30
Are you expecting us to make some comment and response to
37:33
that? If you want to, If you want to
37:36
insult an entire nation, that's up to you.
37:41
Couldn't possibly comment but. Bearing in mind, bearing in mind
37:45
the names, the original names were changed in order to go into
37:49
English. It it might not necessarily just
37:52
be that they're shorter. They might.
37:53
It might just be they make slightly more sense to an
37:56
American audience. I mean, sure, I guess you can.
38:02
Let's just give the benefit of the doubt.
38:04
We don't. None of us really knows.
38:06
But do you know what any of the original names are 'cause I
38:08
don't. Well, the French names.
38:10
No, I don't. Yeah, that's what I want to
38:13
know. I I was in fact talking about
38:14
this very thing the other day and it occurred to me, I have no
38:18
idea. I'm assuming Asterix and Obelix
38:21
are the same, but the others I guess are all different.
38:24
I don't know. I've got some copies of the
38:25
French version I can have a look.
38:28
OK, please do. But but yes, I mean, on that
38:31
point, I absolutely agree. And funnily enough, not just
38:35
what children were able to digest, but the stuff that they
38:39
actually did. The the the most recent
38:45
encounter I've had with that is is reading Arthur Ransom's
38:49
books. And I was just reading a chapter
38:51
of Swallowdale last night, which involves, well, it's one of the
38:59
sailing boats they're using gets, I think crashes into a
39:02
rock and sinks. They've got a 2 year old on
39:05
board which which they sort of plonk onto a raft and you know,
39:11
the 2 year old folks off. But the point is they're all
39:13
children and they are sailing, preparing camps, lighting fires,
39:19
cooking, absolutely all on their own, you know, and this was,
39:24
this is completely normal. And now the idea that, OK, there
39:30
will be places where people still do do that and have the
39:32
skills and, and and whatnot and the resilience particularly but
39:38
but but very, very few. So, yeah, in, I think in
39:41
absolutely every respect. I mean, what I thought you were
39:44
going to say about the about the book thing is partly the way in
39:48
which they've been dumbed down, but partly in way, the way in
39:50
which content has been stripped away at the expense of
39:54
indoctrination, you know? That's also part of the
39:57
conversation, yes. Yeah, yeah, because I think that
39:59
that is having looked at, you know, having had, I suppose a,
40:04
you know, a number of decades gap between looking at
40:06
children's books and then looking at them again relatively
40:08
recently. It is it is outrageous.
40:11
I know you know Diane's done a lot on this on on UK column in
40:15
particular, but. But it's just absolutely
40:19
everywhere. You know, it is very hard to get
40:21
what I found very hard to scan through a book that doesn't
40:24
contain at least a pride flag, at least a reference to not
40:32
having a combustion engine car or something.
40:35
And and indeed having a, a totally unexplained same sex
40:39
couple parent with a child. Where, where did the child come
40:42
from? It's and you know, this goes
40:45
back to the sort of because I told you so.
40:47
It's like the science thing. OK, we'll say how.
40:49
How seriously, how did that happen?
40:51
And I mean, it's not just the books.
40:53
I don't think I'm going to let my kid watch Cartoon Network.
40:59
I don't know what that is, but. No, no, well that well indeed.
41:02
But I would absolutely, I would absolutely agree with you, Germ.
41:05
And, and you know what, my kids didn't grow up watching a huge
41:10
amount of television, but what they did watch was the same
41:14
stuff that I'd watched because because, you know, so I went out
41:19
of my way if if they wanted to watch something, they watched
41:23
the original series of Paddington or, or.
41:26
Winnie the Pooh. Yes or yeah?
41:32
My the bees and and Bugs Bunny. Right, and the thing and The
41:37
thing is right back post was was for example, anybody that that
41:42
remembers back post was was pretty harmless.
41:46
It was sort of folky music and and and stories.
41:51
But they're about to produce a new bag post film, which is
41:56
going to be, you know, undoubtedly full of exactly the
42:00
type of content that we've just been talking about.
42:03
So, you know, they're attempting to to bring back much love
42:07
characters from from, you know, people that that remember those
42:12
days and present that to to a new youthful audience.
42:15
And of course, naturally the the parents or the grandparents are
42:18
going to say, Oh, great back post where I remember that.
42:20
That was fantastic. Let's take them to the cinema to
42:22
see this. And they're going to get another
42:25
couple of hours of indoctrination.
42:27
Yeah, it's very cynical that it's that it's very, very unkind
42:32
on on every generation because it completely ruins it for the
42:35
people that do have fond memories of the original.
42:38
And it it corrupts the minds of the people who introduced it for
42:41
the first time. It's dreadful.
42:43
And I mean, maybe it was ever thus.
42:46
I'm not sure. I suppose it's, it's hard to see
42:49
that it could have been exactly the same throughout because of
42:52
course we're, we're not so far into the development of that
42:56
industry for it to have been rehashed and rehashed.
43:00
But but but yeah, by and large anything that's done again is
43:05
just ruined and and completely propagandized.
43:10
I remember as a kid, I mean the cartoons, Saturday morning
43:14
cartoons were for me, they were fantastic.
43:18
But Saturday morning cartoons now are a disaster.
43:21
I mean, it's just all propaganda.
43:24
I'm going to say even for even for our generation, Saturday
43:27
morning cartoons were a disaster.
43:29
I think that was the Saturday morning cartoons undoubtedly
43:32
have contributed hugely to to our dumbing down because what
43:37
did we do? We spent we spent half the day
43:39
watching this complete junk and that that time could have been
43:43
used more productively. Maybe I.
43:46
Don't know if you know this, but Doctor Seuss, he was actually
43:50
instructed to dumb down his his writing specifically for the,
43:56
for the purposes of simplifying the language and simplifying the
44:01
concepts. And he, I mean, he spoke about
44:04
this a couple times and maybe that's maybe that's why he drank
44:07
so much. But that is so, so
44:12
disappointing, you know, because, I mean, I, I love
44:14
Doctor Seuss in an ironic kind of way now, because I didn't
44:19
know that he was deliberately sort of, you know, stripping
44:23
away substance for the purposes of some sort of agenda.
44:30
And and then it makes me wonder about all sorts of other, you
44:34
know, children's books. Well, look, I mean the mechanism
44:38
for this is, is is very clear, you know, that there are for for
44:43
children's television and for children's books.
44:44
There are sort of annual conferences where they all get
44:49
together and, and the various producers bring their wares and
44:52
they attempt to sell their wares to the, to the platforms and
44:55
the, and the broadcasters or the, or the publishers and, and
44:59
of course the people that are commissioning the, the content
45:04
are, are coming with an agenda. And so they're only
45:08
commissioning content that fits what they their, their agenda
45:13
and and therefore you end up with producers learning what
45:17
that is very quickly. And then they end up choosing
45:21
content which which is likely to win them the contract to, to
45:25
produce the actual product at the end of the day.
45:28
So it is, it is a, an easily manipulable situation.
45:35
Very easy. You just get it's absolutely top
45:39
down editorial control effectively and, and anybody
45:42
that's that's sort of a a low level producer of, of cartoons
45:47
or of, of animations or of other forms of, of content are utterly
45:53
controlled. It's.
45:54
It's simple as that. But I mean, if our kids were to
45:59
watch cartoons and I don't, I don't like the argument.
46:02
Well, they shouldn't watch TV at all because that's also a bit
46:05
ridiculous because we do have TV's and we do have cartoons
46:09
and, and I watched cartoons and it's, it's helped make me who I
46:14
am today. I mean, I draw cartoons.
46:17
But if we were to to let our kids watch cartoons and we
46:20
regulate that I have no idea what what is acceptable.
46:27
I have to go back 30-40, fifty years.
46:31
See the the problem, the problem with that I have with what
46:33
you've just said is the words and we regulate that this, this
46:38
has never happened. Germ cartoons are there for the
46:42
cartoons are the iPads of, of where the iPads of the day that
46:46
that was there for the parent to, to plunk the child down in
46:49
front of the television and take 4 hours off that that was that
46:53
was what it was for on a Saturday morning.
46:56
And and so there was never any regulation of what anybody was
47:00
watching and the and parents everywhere simply presumed that
47:05
what was being pumped into their child's head was appropriate and
47:09
that wasn't damaging. I mean.
47:11
What do you think? What am I saying?
47:14
I'm saying I'm saying that even, even children's television in
47:18
the in the 70s and the 80s was, was damaging for the next
47:23
generation. I'm, I'm saying that if you're
47:26
saying that, that, that that Saturday morning cartoons
47:30
contributed to what you are today, I'm going to say I think
47:34
that's absolutely the case. But I'm not sure that that's
47:37
something that we should be applauding and that's not
47:43
targeted at you. That's targeted at everybody.
47:46
It's anybody, any of us that, that that grew up watching
47:49
Saturday morning cartoons. But I mean, the music that we
47:52
listen to and you know, because, because at the end of the day,
47:55
we are a product of, of the culture that that we grew up in.
47:59
And, and you know, I've said this before, but, but you know,
48:01
if we just, if we just look at politics, because that's what
48:04
we, that's what we, we see off, you know, on the daily basis
48:08
sort of thing. And I'm not, again, we, we
48:12
shouldn't even be concerned with what the politics were, what the
48:16
content of the speeches was. But just take the time to go and
48:21
look at Prime Minister's Questions from the House of
48:24
Commons from 1975 or from 1985 and compare that to Prime
48:29
Minister's Questions from 2005 or 2015 or 2025.
48:34
And just look at the difference in the standard of the
48:37
discussion. Not, never mind the content of
48:39
it, but just the the level of the language that's used the the
48:43
the standard of the discussion. And and you just get a, a
48:47
perfect example of how far society has fallen even only in
48:54
40 years. And look at Trump.
48:57
Why? Why we're so screwed.
48:59
But look at the way people. Yes.
49:02
Well, yeah. Who knows who he's talking to.
49:05
Yeah, I, I think it's fascinating.
49:07
I think actually, Jim, I, I mean, again, this is not said at
49:10
you, but the, but the, the wider point on television, I think it
49:14
is. I think it is one to consider.
49:16
And I, I, of course, I absolutely understand what you
49:18
mean about sort of deriving pleasure and inspiration and,
49:21
and whatnot. But just think of how, how
49:25
easily things are brought into cartoons in particular.
49:30
Like, for example, you know, you get a bump on the head, you
49:34
know, cartoon character gets bump on the head.
49:36
The next thing is, you know, there's a somebody with a sort
49:39
of Red Cross on their little white hat giving them a pill and
49:42
an injection. It's, it's those sorts of things
49:45
which are just absolutely part and parcel of it that mean that
49:48
people are immediately, whether whether they realize it or not,
49:52
of course they won't realize it, but they are absolutely
49:55
conditioned. And, and I just just to sort of,
49:58
you know, turn this into something of an anecdote.
49:59
I, I've not, I've not had a television for 22 years now.
50:06
I've got a family who therefore have never been exposed to
50:11
television. And certainly on the sort of,
50:13
well, gosh, what should we do instead?
50:16
Front. There is absolutely no issue
50:17
with that at all. You know, and, and, and indeed I
50:21
can testify to that from my own life.
50:25
And also the other thing I was going to say is that what I do
50:28
find very interesting is that as a correlation is that when when
50:32
there were these first mutterings about, you know, a
50:36
novel illness that was going to sweep across the the globe, the
50:41
world, the whatever one wants to describe it as in twenty
50:45
20/20/2019. That's what.
50:49
You didn't. Across our realm.
50:53
The. The only people, the only people
50:55
who straight away smelt the rat and realised it was nonsense
51:01
were all people who didn't have television sets.
51:04
And OK, I, I know that that obviously there will be
51:07
exceptions. I'm not suggesting therefore
51:09
that people do have tellies, can't see any of this can't
51:11
market or whatever. But it was just, it was a very,
51:14
very interesting and very obvious correlation.
51:16
And, and you know, I'm just talking about my sort of
51:18
immediate family and friend circle and, and I've that, that
51:23
is something that I really cannot ignore.
51:26
And I think it's, it's very easy.
51:29
It's a bit like what I was talking about with the, the sort
51:32
of sleep cycle and convincing yourself that you're fine.
51:34
You feel absolutely in good form because you have a strong cup of
51:37
coffee when you get up. And so you think you've had a
51:38
good night's sleep. Well, actually, you, you
51:40
probably haven't or you may not have done.
51:42
And it's the same thing with this.
51:43
You think you're resistant to all these things, but actually
51:46
when you take it away, you then realize what the situation is.
51:51
And I, and I think I, I think on that basis, I mean, OK, I yeah,
51:56
I'm, I'm in uncharted territory because I have absolutely no
51:59
idea what's on television. But I can guess from having
52:03
looked at children's books, what sorts of themes are introduced
52:07
into cartoons And and they are, you know, it, it is done very,
52:10
very cleverly. And so I, I do think, and not
52:15
just to be a contrarian, but I do think there is a very, very
52:18
strong case for not having television because it, first of
52:23
all, it, it, it removes those potential and likely influences.
52:28
But also going back to what you can digest, whether it's Boyzone
52:33
or Asterix or, or whatever, you've got the time to do that.
52:37
And, and, and you do do it. And certainly where I've seen an
52:40
absence of television, I've absolutely seen the presence of
52:44
a greater stimulation of a desire to to read and draw and
52:48
write and you know, and all that stuff.
52:50
Be great so I want to I just want to give one example of of
52:54
of this and that was a a British television series on BBC called
52:59
Grange Hill for kids. It was, it was a sort of soap
53:02
opera about us, about school. And my mother was, was primary
53:08
school principal and she despised that program with a
53:12
passion. And I, and I, when I was that
53:14
age, couldn't really understand it.
53:17
And, and she, well, she said, because what they did was they
53:21
took, they took the issues that an inner, an inner city London
53:25
School would have had and then they exported those issues to
53:28
the rest of the country. So, so the, you know, the types
53:31
of the, the, the, the justification for the program
53:34
was, it was, you know, it was just sort of expressing the
53:38
day-to-day lives of, of, of kids at school in a, in a particular,
53:44
either humorous or dramatic way. But, but in fact, what her point
53:49
was, it was it was taking the, you know, for example, the way
53:52
the kids were speaking to the, to the teachers or the way the
53:55
teachers were treating the children.
53:56
It was just taking that unpleasantness and, and
54:01
exporting it to to schools that never had experienced this type,
54:04
these types of problems before. And, and I think that there
54:08
there was, you know, looking back on it now, there's a lot to
54:12
be said for that, for that point of view.
54:14
I. Mean, I'm not a, I'm sorry,
54:16
Charles, but I'll just want to quickly comment on what you're
54:18
saying. I'm not opposed to not owning
54:22
ATV at all and I'm, I'm certainly not opposed to I guess
54:28
blocking Saturday morning cartoons.
54:33
But I see it just as a extension of the ancient Greeks.
54:36
It's just entertainment and the human condition does require
54:39
entertainment. It's theatre.
54:42
I mean, we go to the theatre still out.
54:44
I don't know if you still do, but I mean, I try and go to the
54:46
theatre at least once or twice a year and not dress up and I wear
54:49
a suit. And because I think it's one of
54:51
the last bastions of sort of high society and, and I think it
54:56
should be preserved. I I, I get very, very upset when
54:59
I see people going to the theatre wearing shorts or AT.
55:02
Shirt OK, but you see but you see you've done it again there
55:05
John because what you're what because you're absolutely right
55:08
with with respect to the theatre but but you could argue that
55:11
that's that's a a more positive expression of culture than the
55:18
trash that we see on Saturday morning television.
55:21
And I don't think that those two things can be can be equated and
55:24
you know I don't I don't in principle have an objection to
55:27
having ATV in the house. Charles knows that I do have ATV
55:30
in the house, but what we don't have is any way to watch
55:35
broadcast television on it. And, and so that that is where I
55:43
draw the line. So, so we have, we have always
55:48
decided what type of content was going to be on that.
55:51
And I'm not going to say that that that that was universally a
55:55
correct decision by any means, because I've, as I've already
55:58
said, I've no doubt that that quite a lot of the content that
56:01
I watched growing up is not as bad as as it is today, but
56:06
certainly had had its issues. Yeah, but but.
56:09
What you're saying is that what you choose for your TV is
56:11
deliberate as opposed to it being fed to you.
56:14
Yes, yes, yes, but but yeah, but that doesn't, that doesn't
56:19
absolve me of all of having been influenced by it by any means.
56:25
I was only going to say that this is what Jason Kristof is so
56:28
strong on. You know, he he refers
56:29
particularly to films and, and again, it's the it's unwitting.
56:33
People don't in in, in the most part, people don't even realize
56:37
that they're being manipulated by this content.
56:41
And, and I think therein lies the the massive danger.
56:46
Jason actually, has he been on my show recently?
56:49
I don't know. I must actually check.
56:51
I think he's coming to South Africa later this year.
56:53
Very good. No, he's, he's got some very,
56:57
very, very good takes. Yeah, but he's also got, you
57:00
know, I mean, OK, we're slightly straining back into the science
57:03
thing. I mean, he's got he's got
57:05
evidence. I mean his one the one thing he
57:06
always cites is was the car theft film Gone in 60 Seconds
57:11
and how there was a notable spike in car theft when that
57:16
film came. Out.
57:17
Really. Yeah.
57:18
Yeah, he's it was in. That's incredible.
57:20
Where was it? I forget where it was either in
57:24
I think it was in Montreal. I I can't remember, but but he
57:27
he absolutely cites the the release date of that film
57:30
coincided with the spike in car in vehicle car theft.
57:34
I mean, you know, that that to to explain that away in any
57:39
other sense, I think is impossible.
57:41
So, yeah, it's it's it's very, very, very strong.
57:47
OK. We're talking about that sort of
57:48
film. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
57:50
Exactly. Yeah, yeah.
57:52
It's probably global warming. Yeah.
57:54
But I mean, do you not? Do you?
57:58
I don't ask the question. Oh yeah, I'm looking in the
58:01
other across the way now. There's the French asterisks.
58:05
I'll, I'll have to have a look after we've switched off the
58:07
recording. I've got books lying all over
58:12
the place. Is there a fundamental
58:16
difference though between books and TVI mean, if you're going to
58:19
say, well we don't own ATV, then is it?
58:21
Is it the same thing as saying, well we don't own a library?
58:24
No, no, it is completely different for so many reasons.
58:28
You're, you do the work when you're reading a book, not just
58:32
'cause you're physically reading it, but because you are creating
58:35
everything that you're reading on that page and your, your
58:39
brain is, is utterly active. You sit there with a a
58:43
television set. I mean, there again, there there
58:45
are loads of studies into what actually happens and the way in
58:48
which people are going to sort of almost like a trance like
58:51
state. But you are you are on receive
58:54
only your your imagination is doing nothing.
58:56
I think. I mean, as far as I understand,
58:58
it's engaging totally different parts of your brain and the you
59:02
know and and don't forget. Well, I suppose it's slightly
59:05
similar. You will take different things
59:06
from from stuff you view on screen as well.
59:09
But each person, you know, I think what what the amazing
59:11
thing about a book is that two people reading exactly the same
59:13
book will come away with totally different conclusions possibly
59:19
and a different idea, a different, you know, if you were
59:21
then able to sort of recreate in a visual sense, everything that
59:26
you've read about it, it might be completely different.
59:28
I think that's the that's the beauty of it.
59:30
So I think in in absolutely every respect, but also just the
59:33
enjoyment of the prose. I've just started rereading some
59:38
just entertainment. They are so hilarious.
59:41
The Flashman books, which may or may not be known to members of
59:45
the audience, but they're they're it's kind of remarkable.
59:48
So I mean, I guess you'd call it historical fiction written by
59:50
somebody called George MacDonald Fraser, who was a, he was a sort
59:53
of post war soldier and he, he wrote about all sorts of other
59:57
things. But he, he recreated the
1:00:00
character of Harry Flashman from Tom Brown's School Days written
1:00:03
by Thomas Hughes and wrote, you know, this sort of many, many
1:00:09
fictional stories. But what's so interesting, and
1:00:11
it goes back right to the beginning of our conversation,
1:00:13
is that they start in the 1840s when he was expelled from Rugby
1:00:18
School for for for drinking. But the, the prose is absolutely
1:00:23
first class. I mean, it is the the word play
1:00:27
and the humor that's introduced is absolutely without compare.
1:00:32
I would say it is such a pleasure to read it.
1:00:35
And you can't really quite replicate that on the screen.
1:00:39
And I think that's the great strength.
1:00:40
You know, the the the depth to which a book or a written
1:00:44
description can go into is is not.
1:00:47
You cannot recreate that on a screen, I don't think.
1:00:51
And would that apply also to an audio book?
1:00:57
I think it would because again, you're, you're, you're, there's,
1:01:00
you're not an active participant and people are putting audio
1:01:03
books on in the background while they're doing other stuff.
1:01:06
I mean, part, part of the problem here is aside from the,
1:01:10
the, the sort of hypnotic effect of, of screens, another part of
1:01:16
the problem is that people tend to, to put this entertainment on
1:01:20
while they're they're not actually focusing on one thing,
1:01:23
they're not doing anything well and they're not concentrating.
1:01:27
The information is going in at a subconscious level.
1:01:29
But, but I think, I think Charles is absolutely right.
1:01:31
It's the, it's the active participation in creating
1:01:37
because the words are on the page.
1:01:39
You've got to, you've got to create the scene in your mind
1:01:41
to, to absolutely understand what's what's going on in the
1:01:44
book and that so that is that is that is a creative act in
1:01:48
itself. And this is something that we
1:01:50
have absolutely lost through the, through the, the visual
1:01:54
medium mediums that we're being bombarded with these days.
1:01:58
It's. A good point.
1:01:58
So make sure that instead of listening to an audio book, you
1:02:02
read a book while driving. Yeah, right.
1:02:06
Absolutely. I see we are out of time.
1:02:13
Thank you gentlemen, really enjoy the conversation.
1:02:15
Catch up with you next week.