Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 3

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 3 · UK Column Radio

0:38
Before we go any further, Charles, explain to me why there
0:41
is water coming in in in your sound.
0:43
Yeah, well, we were chatting about this.
0:45
The one of the perennial issues, None. let's say, with recording
0:49
these sorts of things between three people in three different
0:51
places are the sound levels, which is terribly technical and
0:56
I would say verging on dull. But it is an indication of the
0:59
world we live in, in that there's no one way of doing
1:02
stuff. And I don't know when that went
1:04
wrong, but it is the constant bugbear of so many people.
1:08
And yeah, that's how many businesses thrive by making a
1:11
product that doesn't conform with everybody else's and that
1:15
doesn't do this, that and the other.
1:16
And so you're forced down a particular route, which is a bit
1:19
of a sidetrack, but it, but it does raise the issue, as you
1:22
say, that there is a sound you can probably hear in the
1:25
background when I speak, and that is the noise of water.
1:29
And I, I must say, I am delighted that that is the sound
1:32
because in the UK, and we've been talking about this on the
1:36
news, we have been very, very short of water.
1:39
And I think it's really indicative of again, of, of the
1:43
age. So I, my, my sort of tech mini
1:46
rant is pertinent in that. I think for the vast majority of
1:51
people living in the UK, perhaps in the so-called developed
1:56
world, whether or not it rains is just not something that
1:59
people think about. I think it's a sort of, well,
2:02
the weather's lovely, but in actual fact there is a massive
2:07
implication if it doesn't rain and, and I keep track of this
2:12
keeping livestock and whatnot and needing things to grow at
2:15
particular times. It's really important when stuff
2:19
happens, but equally it's a massive reminder of the
2:22
requirement to work with and not against nature.
2:27
And yet here we are, very, very short of water in the UK, no
2:31
provision for storage of water in proportion to the
2:36
requirement. And what I mean by the
2:38
requirement is that the UK's population has obviously gone up
2:40
dramatically over the last few decades.
2:44
Water shortages are now very much more to be something at
2:50
least that water companies can talk about and, and sort of
2:52
dangle over people and try to raise prices and all sorts
2:57
against the, the, the truth of it is sort of somewhere in the
3:01
middle in, in that the, the way that water companies are run is,
3:05
is beyond doubt very, very inefficient, very poor.
3:08
The infrastructure is very badly managed and I can say that with
3:12
absolute certainty, having dealt with my own water company on
3:16
very many occasions and found out exactly how poor their
3:20
record keeping is, as indeed their maintenance of the
3:22
infrastructure is. But, but it's a, it's a big
3:24
issue. And yet here we are talking
3:26
about trying to create new energy and new water resources
3:32
just to be able to funnel them into AI and data centres.
3:36
It is, it is really crazy. Anyway, it's raining.
3:40
I'm delighted. I hope we get more of it.
3:42
And if anybody thinks you know, well we'd rather whether it was
3:46
sunny then we've had some pretty much non-stop for four months.
3:50
So I think it's time for time for some rain.
3:55
Mike. Yeah, I mean, it is, it is quite
3:59
amazing that it is really raining probably for about the
4:03
third day this year in Plymouth. This is, you know, it's fairly
4:07
unprecedented. Of course, that's not a, a
4:09
climate, I'm not suggesting that's a climate issue.
4:11
That's a weather issue. And well, this particular year
4:16
it's has been pretty dry as, as, as Charles says.
4:19
So I suppose we should be welcoming it.
4:21
The question is whether it's going to stop raining now
4:23
between now and Christmas. And that's, that's another
4:27
thing, you know, because Plymouth is right in the West of
4:29
England and we are the pretty much the 1st to get the Atlantic
4:37
weather systems that come through.
4:39
And of course, this these days they get named because we've all
4:42
got to be full of fear. You know, I grew up in Northern
4:46
Ireland, as we, as we talked about before, German and that is
4:49
similarly battered by Atlantic weather systems.
4:52
And this is perfectly normal. We didn't need to name them for
4:58
all my life. And, and suddenly we've decided
5:00
we've got to name them just in the same way that we've got to
5:03
decide, we've decided we've got to turn, you know, temperatures
5:07
of 20° on the weather map red so that we know that we're in
5:10
danger. There's a great segue there
5:14
speaking about water. If, if my connection is
5:19
problematic during the course of this conversation, it is because
5:23
we have a damaged undersea cable running on the African
5:27
continent, which is currently I believe being repaired.
5:31
So it has, it has created issues with the Russians stability most
5:36
likely the Russians. It's always the Russians or the
5:37
Chinese, Mike. It's either the Russians or the
5:40
Chinese. Yeah.
5:42
So it's somewhere off the northern, the northern Horn or
5:45
some somewhere there. I don't know where the where the
5:47
where the problem is. But in in any event, if there's
5:49
an issue, it's simply because of that cable connecting me to the
5:53
rest of the world. But that's a very interesting
5:56
thought. I mean, you don't often think
5:58
about something like that. So like if you go into your
6:01
street and you look at the cables, you know, running along,
6:03
it's not very far, right. And so if you think about cables
6:06
that run throughout your suburb, start thinking, well, that's
6:09
really long. Think about how long an undersea
6:12
cable is. It is unbelievably long.
6:16
And it leads us to globalization.
6:19
And there's a, a point that I want to make because people
6:23
often get confused between globalism and globalization.
6:26
And I, I thought this could be a great opportunity just to
6:29
discuss quickly what those two terms mean.
6:31
See if you agree, because I am I've I've been trying to figure
6:36
out the difference between the two.
6:37
Because they get used interchangeably.
6:39
So globalism is an ideological term which effectively means
6:45
central control of everything, right?
6:48
And globalization is merely the technical connectivity of the
6:53
world, like using ships to take containers around or undersea
6:57
cables connecting us. It's not, it's not an
7:00
ideological thing. It's just making trade and
7:02
movement easier. But globalism is is an ideology.
7:08
Would you agree? Not entirely.
7:12
I think. I think that globalization is an
7:19
outgrowth of globalism. And so I don't think you can
7:23
separate them necessarily. I think that the style of global
7:30
trade, because it's not just global trade.
7:31
We, we've always traded with other countries for thousands of
7:35
years. We've traded with other
7:36
countries in, in Ireland, in England, There's a ton of
7:40
evidence of, of trade between, you know, Britain as it was and
7:46
you know, the Middle East and Africa and so on.
7:49
So there's always been trade between nations over quite well,
7:54
there was no such thing as nations necessarily, but trade
7:56
with between peoples over quite long distances.
8:01
I think what global globalization has done, and I
8:06
would argue that is a, an outgrowth of globalism is it has
8:10
made supply chains reliant on, on that distance at which
8:18
paradoxically doesn't mean, you know, we talk about the lack of
8:22
internal consistency in people's arguments.
8:24
But the same people that are pushing the climate change
8:27
narrative and the idea that we've got to, you know, reduce
8:31
carbon emissions are the same people that are pushing the idea
8:34
that we've got to make a bit of an aircraft in this country and
8:36
another bit of an aircraft in that country where we've got to
8:39
grow some food in, in the United States and import it into the
8:42
United Kingdom or from New Zealand or whatever it happens
8:45
to be. You know, these two positions
8:48
seem to be inconsistent to say the least.
8:52
And, and sort of gives an idea of, of just how stupid the whole
8:56
thing really is. But but I think I think you
8:59
can't separate the 2 in in the way that that you're suggesting.
9:04
But that's just my opinion. I think I'd go along with the
9:09
one. First of all, I'm not, I'm not
9:11
sure, John, that you necessarily meant there was a very clear
9:13
distinction between the two that there has to be in a way, by
9:17
definition, some sort of overlap.
9:18
It's just a question of, I suppose, which drives which if,
9:21
if one can even suggest that there's a case for saying either
9:26
way. Yeah, I, I, I would go along
9:29
with there being a strong, a strong relationship between the
9:34
two. I would all, you know, going
9:36
back to what Mike says, I mean, I think what is very interesting
9:39
is the in a way and somewhat paradoxically, the the outcome
9:44
of trying to have a, a sort of a world system which involves
9:53
these, let's say, globalistic lines of communication.
9:59
You know, whether they be trade routes or whatever.
10:03
The the there is an inherent over complexity with them in
10:09
that we're what seems to be attempted or has been done to to
10:15
a certain extent is to make direct connections from A to B
10:21
rather than in the historic context, using the points along
10:25
the way. So as Mike says, as you know,
10:30
people in the British Isles have without doubt traded with and
10:34
had a relationship with peoples all over the world for a very
10:38
long time, but perhaps not in a direct context.
10:42
Whereas now if we're talking about, you know, and we're
10:45
forever being bombarded with sort of show off trade deals
10:50
with, you know, doesn't matter who Taiwan that's over Taiwan
10:54
was a bad example, but but it doesn't matter.
10:56
So some somewhere that's further flung.
10:58
And what is implicit in that statement is that that is a
11:04
direct connection doesn't take into account any of the things
11:07
that any of the points in between and and geography is
11:10
important. And previously where things
11:15
would be traded along a route, you could see the sense in that
11:18
and also you could see the benefit to people along the way.
11:23
Whereas now and, and we're we're seeing this to a certain extent
11:27
with the sort of Trump tariff mayhem and and associated
11:33
nonsense. I mean, he, he's now come out
11:35
talking about, I haven't looked at the list, but I suppose it's
11:37
fairly predictable, you know, countries from which people may
11:40
not enter the United States and all this sort of thing.
11:43
So it's so the, the relationships that are now held
11:48
between countries don't, I would say don't really make sense.
11:54
I mean, they, they, they might make sense on, on some level in
11:57
that, yes, it's possible to fly an aircraft from one place to
12:00
another place over a whole load of other ones.
12:03
But, but is that really the most sensible way to do it?
12:06
And, and why, you know, on the Wednesday's news?
12:12
Well, I mean, we've been talking about it for some time.
12:15
I spoke about the strategic defence review, which has, you
12:19
know, just come out and it's, it's the, the nutshell version
12:22
is that we are all going to be at war with Russia as a nation.
12:28
I mean, all of us, not, not not just the armed forces, but
12:30
everybody, we're going to have a whole society war.
12:33
The entire economy is going to be geared towards it.
12:36
We're going to funnel billions into the war industry and we are
12:40
going to absolutely engage with nuclear and all the rest of it.
12:44
But but it it doesn't make any sense because it's it's not it's
12:49
not actually really deliverable. And it's part of, you know,
12:53
without doubt that that is part of a well fits, I would say
12:58
within your globalism definition.
13:02
But because of the, the sort of bit by bit piece meal way in
13:06
which things are done, it just, it, it, it sounds like a, it
13:10
sounds like a total and utter nonsense.
13:13
And I think that that is applied to, to frankly, whatever we're
13:16
doing, you know, again, the, the, it doesn't matter when the
13:19
trade relationships, diplomatic relationships, whatever they,
13:21
they, they don't really seem to work.
13:24
So I think there is there is a lot of overlap between the two
13:28
terms that you put out. It is, it is interesting that as
13:31
time goes on and, and I speak to more people, the difference in
13:36
attitudes or the difference in understanding of what the United
13:41
Nations is between those in the West, the so-called global West,
13:46
and those in the so-called Global South.
13:48
And, and I think that the the people in the Global South view
13:56
the United Nations as something quite different and something
14:01
that has the potential to actually put the put some kind
14:04
of restriction or limitation on the activities of the global W.
14:09
I'm not suggesting that that is an accurate view that that they
14:13
hold, but that's certainly a view that they hold it They they
14:16
seem to think that that the UN Charter has, has teeth.
14:21
And well, as I say, I'm not suggesting that I agree with
14:25
that position. I'm just, I'm just saying that
14:27
that's, that's a view that has been expressed.
14:29
So, so it, it is interesting that, that, you know, even if we
14:33
take the take Agenda 2030 and the Millennium Development
14:36
Goals, our, our understanding of that, because we see what is
14:42
being published and said by the various think tanks and policy
14:46
makers in the West. Our understanding of what those
14:49
represent and what the, the ultimate destination of the
14:52
Millennium Development Goals is, is very different to the
14:56
understanding of a country that actually just wants to feed its
14:58
people. And, and part of, I think part
15:01
of the issue is that even today, even at having seen what's
15:10
happened in the last 100 years, many countries and many people
15:15
in the, in the global S aren't quite cynical enough about the
15:21
motivations of some of the policy makers in the West for
15:26
their own, for their own good, I would suggest.
15:29
And so it is interesting how people view the United Nations.
15:34
Sorry, that's that's a bit of a diversion, but I just thought
15:36
I'd make that point. Yeah.
15:39
Well, I think I think it's a point absolutely worth making.
15:42
And, and also, you know, within that, considering the perceived
15:47
benefits of the United Nations to, to all of those different
15:52
parts, particularly in terms of whether it be money or, you
15:57
know, infrastructure projects or the type, the types of sort of
16:00
involvement that any country has with the UN.
16:02
But actually the, the again, that's another, you know, you're
16:04
talking about shipping food around the world.
16:06
Well, that, that, that's a, that absolutely case in point.
16:08
That's that's precisely what I'm talking about.
16:10
You know, you have an organization with a, as you say,
16:17
a globalist ideology or or background, but does it really
16:22
make sense to be shipping food from one point thousands of
16:27
miles away to somewhere else? Or would it be better sourced
16:32
absolutely next door? Well, I mean, we get that's
16:35
getting into a sort of a different thing because again.
16:39
Well, is it though, because, because you know, what would,
16:41
what would Britain be like if we decided instead of, instead of
16:45
orienting around a war footing, we, we actually recognize that
16:49
we're only 40% food independent in this country and, and let's
16:52
organize around food production instead.
16:55
They would just be. It would be just as beneficial
16:58
in terms of jobs and and and growth in the country, but
17:02
perhaps the motivation would be more positive.
17:06
What do you mean? Sorry.
17:09
No, go on, Charles. Do you mean to to turn the focus
17:14
of the economy onto self efficiency?
17:16
Yeah. Yeah.
17:18
Yeah, Well, absolutely. If only I.
17:23
Mean I wouldn't be talking from Cape Town to you.
17:27
Well, no, but that's, I think that's the thing.
17:29
You you yeah, you would, but but the OK, we're talking about your
17:34
undersea cable. I I must say I don't know
17:36
exactly. No, no, no.
17:37
I mean what I mean is what I mean is, yeah, well, that too.
17:39
But what I mean is ultimately historically based on the
17:41
Dutchess India Company, you know, ancestry.
17:45
I wouldn't be here if it weren't for, I guess, those shipping
17:48
routes. Yes, but but then OK.
17:55
It slightly depends at which point in time we we sort of land
17:59
on or, or draw a line from but, but trade to to down to South
18:03
Africa from Europe was was not well for a point in time was not
18:09
direct. I mean, it was, you know, there
18:11
were stops along the way either. Well, mostly via the sea,
18:17
obviously initially, but but but also over land.
18:20
So the the point is that any of these places were that were
18:23
arrived at. I mean, even, you know, South
18:25
Africa again, as as a, a staging post on a voyage elsewhere.
18:30
I mean, there was a relevance to everywhere along the way.
18:34
And, and, and that's the point I think I was trying to make
18:38
earlier, was that that all that stuff has been forgotten.
18:41
The relationships of places to one another have been forgotten.
18:45
We, we, everything now is like it's, it's sort of, I don't know
18:48
if they still print them, but aircraft used to have maps of
18:51
all their routes, you know, the airline's routes and they all
18:54
just go from one place to, you know, everywhere else in the
18:57
world. And it, it was, it was all about
18:59
the, you know, whether it was London or Paris or, or whatever,
19:03
as opposed to a route from London through Paris through
19:08
Berlin or, you know, whatever. And, and I think we we are just
19:12
the poorer and more vulnerable for it that the the sense of
19:17
sort of economic or other integrity via a relationship
19:22
that actually makes sense, a trade route that makes sense, I
19:25
think is something we've lost. But you're making an argument
19:29
for decentralization, actually, which is a good argument.
19:33
Well, I mean, yeah, possibly. Which is exactly, definitely,
19:38
definitely make it. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
19:40
Yeah, but I mean, that's, that's sorry, but that's the
19:41
undercurrent. The undercurrent is that
19:43
globalism is about centralization and you're making
19:47
the argument for decentralization, which is
19:49
ultimately, we know the better outcome for most things.
19:53
That's why I was starting off by saying globalism.
19:56
I'm, I'm suggesting it's not a positive thing because it's all
19:59
about central control, whereas whereas globalization like us
20:03
talking via undersea cables, etcetera is just, it's just the,
20:07
the, the, the consequence of technological progress.
20:14
Does that make sense? Or or or not?
20:16
It does, it does. I, I, I hope I haven't trapped
20:19
myself in a perpetual cycle of nonsense.
20:25
But yes, you're, you, you are quite right in that I am talking
20:30
about decentralisation. I think what I'm yes, I mean
20:35
that, that's a very good point. But, but it's as though to what
20:39
I think what I'm trying to say is that when you, you when you
20:41
put it forward that that there was an ideology and then in
20:47
effect a sort of a delivery system.
20:50
I think what I'm suggesting is that ironically or
20:54
paradoxically, the delivery system via globalisation is, is
20:58
actually not the most effective for, for pushing through the
21:03
ideology. I mean, that's not a tip to
21:07
Klaus Schwab or, you know, anyone else, but, but I, but it
21:11
I, I, I do think there is a, there's an inherent
21:14
vulnerability in having these, I, I would say sort of
21:18
disconnected networks of, of whether they are trade or, or
21:23
diplomacy or whatever. Let me.
21:25
Let me potentially stab myself on the foot and suggest that
21:31
when I use the example of undersea cables, I I personally
21:35
see that as a good thing because it allows me to access the world
21:39
from the bottom of the African continent via information and
21:42
chatting to you gentlemen and so on and so forth, right?
21:45
You could. You could.
21:46
Argue that that likely is is being used for bad nefarious
21:53
things and I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
21:56
I mean, we know that the cyber, the cyber future is, is is under
22:00
threat. But think about Starlink.
22:04
Now that could be the inversion of what I was just talking about
22:09
because the connectivity already exists.
22:13
Now that is a different type of connectivity, which I think is
22:18
tightly connected to mass surveillance and the collection
22:21
of data, which is ideological more than it is practical.
22:29
Starlinks more than that, I mean, it's effectively A defence
22:33
organization because it is being used, it is being deployed as a,
22:36
as a weapon. It is being used for military
22:39
purposes in certain countries. And, and so, but, but
22:44
increasingly the, the, the global Internet is also being
22:48
weaponized as, as you've just hinted at with by using the word
22:52
surveillance. But but the entire Internet from
22:54
the beginning to some degree has been predicated on this
22:59
opportunity and opportunism by certain people to use it for
23:03
that purpose. But you know, at the end of the
23:05
day, it's a piece of infrastructure.
23:08
And like any piece of infrastructure can be used.
23:11
It could be used for positive or negative purposes.
23:14
It depends who's in the driving seat at the time, I think.
23:16
I think the just, sorry, just to make one final point on your
23:20
globalism versus globalization question.
23:24
I think that the difference between what happened with,
23:27
because as we've said, there's, there's always been this global
23:32
aspect to trade, But the difference between what happened
23:34
in the past and what's happening now is that when trade happened,
23:40
it was because, you know, country A produced certain goods
23:45
which were perhaps useful to country B, and country B
23:47
produced certain goods which were perhaps useful to country
23:50
A, and those things were effectively swapped in some form
23:55
of trade. What's happened in recent
23:58
decades, of course, is that country A no longer produces
24:03
anything useful and country A attempts to exploit the
24:08
differences in the cost of labour with in country B in
24:11
order to to produce stuff more cheaply or whatever and
24:15
therefore make bigger profits. That's that I think is, is the
24:20
real danger of, of the policies that the West has pursued over
24:23
the last decades, because actually in not too many more
24:27
years, there won't be anybody left in our countries that
24:30
remembers how to do certain things.
24:33
And, and this is part of this sort of goes back to, to
24:36
Charles's point about the strategic defence review.
24:38
I'm not convinced even even if they wanted to, as Charles was
24:44
saying, even if they wanted to do what they're suggesting they
24:46
want to do, it's not actually achievable because a, they don't
24:50
have the skills, they don't actually have the intelligence
24:54
or the capability to, to, to pull it off.
24:57
So the whole idea is stupid and and will result in in disaster
25:02
for this country if it is pursued, if people don't oppose
25:05
it. So, but this this applies to
25:09
globalization, globalism and and how how globalization has been
25:13
done. It's not globalization in itself
25:15
isn't a bad thing as you're suggesting germ, but it's it's
25:19
it's the way it's being done is is absolutely detrimental to to
25:25
all our to to all our lives, in my opinion.
25:29
And and that doesn't just apply to people in the West because
25:32
people in the, in the so-called global S are absolutely
25:35
exploited by it left, right and centre.
25:38
So yeah, nothing else to add to that.
25:43
I remember when I when I had the great pleasure of chatting to
25:48
John McAfee before he was Epstein, and he made the point
25:54
that paranoia is a very good thing, and paranoia is what led
25:58
him to developing antivirus software before there were
26:03
viruses. I think we should be absolutely
26:06
paranoid. I think there's no question that
26:10
our governments are to get us. There's no degrees about it.
26:13
We should be absolutely paranoid.
26:15
Our governments are right to get us.
26:16
And now that is. I mean, this, this really is, is
26:21
the nub of it isn't it is, is who, who is our enemy.
26:25
And it's, it's, you know, we've got to keep our focus on who the
26:29
enemy actually is. It's yeah, it it begins with our
26:33
governments and then you start working out from there to, to,
26:36
to various heads of corporations.
26:38
And, and because you know, if, if we're talking about the
26:43
global W having exploited the global S over actually over a
26:49
couple of centuries or whatever it is that actually ordinary
26:54
people in Western countries are the, are the in a sense the same
26:59
as the global S because because we are equally being asset
27:03
stripped and exploded just as Africans were during the 19th
27:08
century and so on. It's, it's, it's quite
27:10
incredible to watch. And in the meantime, we're being
27:13
convinced that, you know, we have to pay our taxes to make
27:17
sure that the National Health Service is allowed to give
27:20
pharmaceutical companies big profits, But and we have to pay
27:26
increasingly corporatized and and centrally controlled food
27:31
companies in order for them to get have the right to poison us
27:35
with hyper processed foods and so on.
27:37
Even using the word food for those kinds of products is is
27:41
completely inappropriate. It is incredible how we are
27:46
absolutely unwilling to consider the possibility that that that
27:50
we are the targets for massive exploitation the likes of which
27:56
only certain countries experienced in the past.
27:59
But Speaking of paranoia, I flew to a few years ago, I flew to, I
28:04
flew to Australia. And I remember when, when I was
28:07
in Sydney at the luggage terminal, the luggage is coming
28:12
on that, on that what you call that conveyor belt thing.
28:14
And mine was the, only, the only luggage on the flight that was
28:20
wrapped in bubble wrap and it had all, it had straps around it
28:23
and all sorts of stuff. And, and, and so that's how I
28:26
muted my luggage because nobody else had had luggage looking
28:29
like that. And I, I took it off the, the
28:31
conveyor belt and this American woman next to me goes, are you
28:35
from South Africa? I said yes, she says.
28:40
I knew it. Yeah, that's, that's a very good
28:43
anecdote. And I and and absolutely I, I, I
28:46
understand that completely, but just, OK, go back one.
28:52
What? What do you mean by paranoia?
28:57
Well, that feeling that they're allowed to get us is it.
29:00
Yeah, I mean that, that they're on the fairest, on the fairest
29:02
agendas and nefarious people. OK, yeah, All right.
29:09
I mean, I, I would, I would go along with that.
29:11
I, but to me, paranoia sounds like a, a negative state to be
29:18
in, in that it seems to have inherent within it a level of
29:22
fear and therefore stress. And I, I consider that to be not
29:30
a positive way to think. And, and I would say that
29:35
always, regardless of the situation, the only thing one
29:39
wants to be considering is how to, how to take positive, a
29:44
positive action. And so, yeah, I think to be, to
29:49
be circumspect, to be sceptical, to be aware.
29:55
Yes, absolutely. I, I think I would stop short of
29:58
saying that. I I know this might sound like a
30:00
pedantic point to make, but I would say that stopping short of
30:05
paranoia, I think is is where I'd end up in in and actually
30:09
going back to the to the baggage carousel thing.
30:13
Carousel I think is the word you were looking for.
30:15
That's right, Carousel, yeah. Because because we've all, we've
30:19
all jumped on them at some point and had the alarm go off,
30:23
haven't we? But yeah, I would.
30:29
I would never ever wrap my bag up in that, in that wretched
30:32
cling film stuff. I would never do it.
30:36
And the reason I would never do it is that if someone wants to
30:39
pinch my bag or destroy it or take something out of it, cling
30:44
films just not going to stop them.
30:46
And the and and I think it's it's all about committing
30:51
effort. Sorry, that's not a really
30:54
deliberate pop at you, by the way.
30:56
The, the, the, the, you know, the, the way that I think the
31:02
world should work is, is that at least, you know, for us, if
31:06
we're, if we're confronting these sorts of points of view,
31:08
is, is that you have to put in the effort where it's going to
31:12
where it's going to count, where it's going to make a difference.
31:14
And things like, OK, I'll give you an example.
31:17
The car alarm. I mean, there have been a lot of
31:20
utterly pointless things invented over the years.
31:22
But the car alarm, I mean, seriously, what?
31:25
Whatever was that for it? I mean, the only time they go
31:30
off is wrong. I drove on the way to Plymouth
31:34
yesterday morning. I, I drove past transporter
31:40
lorry with two tiers of of vehicles on it and the, the car
31:45
at the very back on the lower deck, it's, it's alarm was going
31:48
off. I just thought it's just
31:50
classic. So, so there it was, you know,
31:51
flashing lights. How incredibly annoying for the
31:54
driver of the, of the transporter that his rear
31:57
vehicle, you know, nothing you could do about it, just car
32:00
alarm going off. And so the, the, the point I'm
32:04
trying to make via via in a way a deliberately stupid example is
32:07
that is that an induced state of paranoia.
32:12
I, I, I, I'm afraid to say I just did not see as being
32:15
productive. And, and also I see it as
32:18
surrendering control to the wrong side and to consider that
32:23
that somebody is doing something to you rather than you are the
32:28
doer. You are taking the situation on
32:32
its own merits and then deciding what's going to happen.
32:35
And yes, to anyone who's wondering still why I wouldn't
32:38
cling film my bag. Yeah, I have had stuff nicked
32:41
out of out of bags, but there we go.
32:44
I, I'm still here. And I think that's the that's
32:47
the point, you know, So, so yeah, I, I would say that you,
32:53
you know, with all these situations, with all these
32:54
thoughts, you've just, you've just got to consider it in such
32:57
a way that you turn it to your advantage and to your sort of
33:01
self improvement. Yeah, yeah.
33:03
I just want to add that I also agree with Charles as well.
33:06
And you know, I was being utterly flippant with with the
33:10
use of the term, But but, and really the point there was was
33:15
who is The, Who is the, this should be the focus of, of the
33:20
resistance of whatever urge for resistance that we have.
33:24
And and so, you know, it was, it was perhaps playing loose with
33:29
the term. But but, and I completely, I
33:31
completely agree with you, Charles, whatever is going on in
33:34
this world, we should not be interacting with it from a
33:38
position of fear. Yeah, exactly.
33:41
Yeah. So, so I mean, you know, if I
33:43
think of words used, we know the the governments are are out to
33:47
get us let's say well, you know, So what because how really is
33:52
that to be achieved? You know, let's let's say the
33:56
sort of The Cave scenario if we didn't work for UK column and we
34:02
didn't put out a news programme and research all these things
34:06
and we got on with our lives in a, you know, within the this
34:12
idea of being in a nation that was self-sufficient.
34:15
I mean, OK, there's obviously this is a an absolutely
34:17
ludicrous situation to be putting out there because it
34:22
might never happen. Let's not say won't because
34:25
there was a point in time where it did because it had to.
34:28
And don't forget that this is what drives everything is
34:31
necessity. And I go right back to the
34:32
beginning where I talk about the rain here.
34:34
And the only reason people do just drift about the place
34:38
listening to their whatever these radioactive Earpod things
34:42
are called, you know, not not having a clue is because there's
34:45
no necessity. They don't need to think about
34:48
water because all that's spoon fed, you know, all that's done
34:50
for them. And, and that's, that's sort of
34:53
what this comes back to, I think is, is this idea of necessity,
34:59
which which largely has been lost.
35:01
But, but, but, you know, so if we were in a situation where we
35:04
were not aware of the sorts of things that we do know about and
35:09
therefore are able to form judgements like the government
35:12
are out to get us because they have said blah, blah, blah,
35:15
blah. Actually, how would we know?
35:18
And, and OK, I say that from a position of being in a rural
35:23
environment where I, I don't see anybody who works for the state
35:27
ever. I mean, you know, occasionally
35:31
the people come past and pick the, pick the rubbish up.
35:33
But if they didn't, wouldn't be the end of the world.
35:35
There'd be a way to deal with it.
35:37
And, and that's it. OK, I, I know that's, that's one
35:40
thing if you, if you're, if you're in a, let's say, if
35:43
you're in an urban environment, the likelihood is you will see
35:46
people who are working for some state agency.
35:49
But, but, but probably in the bleak sense, they're not
35:52
actually there to necessarily deal with you.
35:55
So this is not an advert for people to switch off and not
35:58
watch UK column news, by the way, I should make that very
36:00
clear. But but the but the point is
36:02
that if you're you know, if you're not thinking about it and
36:06
then allowing it to corrupt your thoughts and make you feel
36:09
helpless and that it is taking control of your life.
36:13
And then, you know, you're you're yeah, you're you're sort
36:18
of moving into the into dangerous and and I would say
36:20
wrong territory. So yes, awareness, but use that.
36:23
So that's why you don't going back onto the why you should
36:25
watch UK column news bit. But the reason you should is
36:28
because there is a higher sense of being in a higher sense
36:31
purpose in that empowerment of knowing what these people are
36:35
trying to do and understanding how to make that inform your
36:39
life choices in a positive sense.
36:42
So like for example, the government or the state, they
36:46
are or it is out to get you. I think that is that.
36:50
I mean that's, that's, that's it's purpose.
36:54
It is out to get you to control you and, and, and the society at
36:57
large. But that's in the abstract
37:00
because there are individuals who work in various departments
37:03
who genuinely believe that they're doing a good thing and
37:07
they're trying to make, you know, their society better.
37:10
Makes perfect sense to me and that and that's you know that
37:12
brings us right to the heart of of what we do, which is the fact
37:17
that we are in an information war.
37:19
And if you present two people with a a shared set of values,
37:24
let's say exactly like the people you're talking about and
37:26
I and I can totally corroborate that I mean I've I've worked for
37:29
two of the the sort of so-called state agencies, the army and the
37:34
police. And I know that makes certain
37:36
people bridal because they wonder why on earth I should
37:39
therefore be speaking on a platform such as this.
37:42
Well, fair enough. I mean, people entirely entitled
37:45
to their views, but what I would say is that gives me absolutely
37:50
gold plated insight into how these organisations work and,
37:54
and what sorts of people they do attract good and bad.
37:57
And I've absolutely seen the bad and I'm not going to shy away
38:00
from that, although the, the point that we're discussing here
38:02
is really the good. So, so the, The thing is, if you
38:06
put people who do have shared values and in a sense a, an
38:10
inherent core of, let's say good, but you present them with
38:13
two different sets of information, then you would
38:17
expect the outcomes to be different, which is why it is so
38:20
dangerous to introduce narratives like climate change.
38:25
For example, here we are talking about dry weather and then some
38:28
rain, which I know perfectly well is weather exactly like
38:33
Mike said at the beginning. But but of course, if you're
38:36
told that it's climate and therefore it concerns carbon
38:40
dioxide and greenhouse gases and blah, blah, blah, then then the
38:44
outcomes that you think you desire going to be different.
38:47
It's a, it's a terrible, terrible problem.
38:49
And so that you know that that's the the way that this should be
38:51
treated, I would say. The the climate change
38:54
narrative, though, is part of that invisible boogeyman agenda.
38:59
You know you can't see it, and whenever there's a change in
39:04
whether it's climate change, it's because you drove a diesel
39:07
car. It's your fault or you know, you
39:10
left your light bulb on for too long.
39:12
You're incandescent light bulb, which by the way, is actually
39:14
healthier to use than an LED light, which most people don't
39:18
know. And or the other invisible one
39:23
is the pandemic, which remember, you can't see it right?
39:26
So you have to trust what you've been told.
39:28
What's there are a couple other invisible boogeyman Bill Gates
39:31
actually mentioned 4 in an interview recently.
39:34
And the problem here, and we spoke about this previously, is
39:37
that because it's Bill Gates, you'll dismiss everything he
39:40
says. And that's a bad idea because he
39:42
can actually tell you what he's thinking, and you should listen
39:46
sometimes. So when he says things like we
39:49
need to be prepared for climate change, which is the one
39:53
invisible boogeyman. The other he mentioned was more
39:56
pandemics. What is the other one?
39:59
It was nuclear war. I mean, we've never seen that
40:02
actually play out. We've only ever been threatened
40:05
from the, from the Cold War era. We've, we don't know actually if
40:09
nuclear war can actually be a real thing.
40:11
We, we just think it can. And, and then what was the other
40:17
one? He said There was one other,
40:20
I've gone blank now, I think. I think it was AI that was the
40:24
other one. Yes, AI taking control of
40:25
everything. Yeah, I mean that it's, it's
40:28
very interesting the the invisibility thing, because of
40:33
course one might say that it works both ways in that I would
40:37
totally agree with you that that if you want to make money and be
40:41
able to control people, then then the spectre of something
40:45
rather than having to actually produce a monster is is a much
40:49
more effective way of doing it because in in a sense, people's
40:53
imaginations do the work for you.
40:55
You just suggest as a whether it be a deadly pandemic or a
41:00
climate, this, that and the other and you don't even need to
41:03
bother to substantiate your claim in any way.
41:05
People will just run away with it.
41:07
So, so yeah, I mean, it's an absolute gift.
41:09
I would say the not exactly the counter to it, but of course the
41:15
the other side of it is that we are in a position now where we
41:22
look at things that are supposedly sort of in the
41:26
pipeline like let's say a digital identity system or a
41:32
central bank digital currency, which which does sort of exist
41:37
in some places and does sort of work.
41:41
In some. Places, yeah, OK, but, but but
41:44
not, not in the main, they're not, I mean, in, in the UK you
41:50
can exist perfectly easily without a digital identity or a
41:56
central bank digital currency. And yet they, so I'm sort of,
42:00
I'm describing them as things that you can't really see, but
42:06
they are certainly by people that are aware of them.
42:10
They are being considered as something that should be feared.
42:13
And I know we've talked about this a lot before.
42:16
I, I, I don't, I'm not trying to dismiss the pitfalls and indeed
42:21
the, the fact that they can be turned into a reality, but I
42:24
think I would like to qualify any sense of fear around, around
42:30
those ideas, all those, all those realities.
42:33
I think the, the, the motto in life that I would happily pinch
42:39
from my days as a soldier is, is adapt and overcome.
42:43
And if you know, if it happens, you're OK, you're not, you're
42:47
not going to embrace it, But there will be a way.
42:50
And I think this is this, we are, we are very quick to do
42:54
ourselves down. People have come up with
42:57
ingenious workarounds all the way through the ages.
43:01
And I think we just haven't had enough pressure on us to come up
43:05
with these sorts of things. But also I would, I would again
43:08
look at the positives and the places where in particular
43:12
digital currency has been tried. Certainly on the central banking
43:17
in central banking capacity, it has failed absolutely
43:21
spectacularly. Not Nigeria and Jamaica being
43:23
the two obvious examples to complete and utter flop and, and
43:27
say for the Bank of England or whoever else to put out this,
43:30
because it's very easy. You know, you, you, you write up
43:33
some snazzy looking PDF document and send it around the place and
43:36
get parliamentary committees to talk about it.
43:38
And then, and then you in a way you've sort of jacked up your
43:40
idea like there's a pandemic. You've, you've created the sense
43:44
that this thing is real and it is happening and you're all
43:46
going to be part of it. And actually the truth is, is
43:48
that that that is total rubbish. It is just to fiction and, and
43:52
we need to be really mindful of that.
43:54
So, so yes, be aware and, and you know that, that going back
43:57
to the sort of paranoia thing, be aware, be mindful of it, but
44:00
also reject it entirely. And we'll find those
44:04
workarounds. We, we, we have to do.
44:05
Like if we don't think like that, then then then we are, we
44:09
are just shooting ourselves in in the feet.
44:13
The other thing I would, the sorry, the other thing I would
44:15
add to that is that I was, I'm going to be talking about this
44:20
on the next UK column news program, but I was watching the
44:25
Ofcom Live seminar, we might call it, on the part of the
44:33
Online Safety Act, which is about protecting children.
44:36
And one of the, one of the core sort of tenets of this was we've
44:42
got to protect children online because children are using
44:44
online services and, and they're, they're exposed to all
44:49
kinds of harms, potential harms on the Internet.
44:53
And the whole it was, it was a whole day event.
44:57
And it began with a, a, a little propaganda piece, which was a
45:03
bunch of parents talking about the harms that their children
45:08
had been exposed to on the Internet and the effect that it
45:12
had on their children. And I'm, and, and it the entire,
45:16
sort of the entire basis of, of the whole initiative is that it
45:23
is wholly incumbent upon the platforms, the, the services on
45:30
the Internet to keep children safe.
45:33
At no point in the discussion was there any consideration of
45:37
the role of parents. And you know, I just, I just
45:42
find this whole approach totally about face and, and really
45:47
actually, we should be saying to parents it's all right to
45:53
restrict access to certain types of content on the Internet.
45:57
In fact, we're not saying that, we're saying the opposite.
46:00
We're, we're almost telling parents you have 0 role in the
46:04
upbringing of your children. It's completely.
46:07
And of course, we understand why this is the case, because it,
46:09
it's because the, the basis of this entire approach is, is to,
46:14
is, is about narrative control and the effort to, to regain a
46:21
foothold in the minds of, of younger people and make sure
46:23
that younger people aren't being given access to certain types of
46:28
information. And, and the threat of
46:32
pornography or other harms on the Internet is being used as,
46:36
as a tool for that. But it just, it just fascinated
46:39
me that, that, that they, they were quite happy to pursue, to
46:43
present this idea that parents were complaining that at the
46:47
lack of action from the platforms to protect their
46:49
children, where while at no point did the parents consider
46:53
protecting their own children themselves.
46:56
And, and this is, I think, indicative of something which I
47:01
suppose was expressed through the, through the pandemic, in
47:04
particular, this notion that that the role of the state is to
47:09
keep people safe. Now, you could say that
47:12
historically the role of the, of the the, of the king or the
47:17
whatever was to keep people safe.
47:19
But, but this has been taken to an entire different degree to
47:24
the point where in order, because it's been twisted that
47:28
in order for, for us to keep you safe, you've got to submit to
47:32
certain limitations. And, and, you know, and it is
47:37
without question attempting to build a level of control that we
47:41
haven't seen over people's lives, that we haven't seen
47:44
previously. And, and so that should be
47:47
resisted. But, you know, I think it keeps
47:50
saying this, it all begins with, with choices that we make as
47:53
individuals and, and whether we're willing to to take agency
47:58
for our own existence, which I suppose echoes a lot of what
48:02
Charles has said today. A lot of people around me, I
48:07
noticed, don't see the psychological war that's going
48:11
on. Very subliminal.
48:13
Extremely subliminal, where it's always about shifting
48:17
responsibility to the corporations or to the state
48:20
and, and it, and I think it's also a consequence of
48:25
entitlement. It's everybody has too many
48:27
rights. That's my personal view.
48:30
People have got too many rights. It's my right.
48:32
It's my right. It's my right, you know, and
48:35
it's always my right and, and, and who enforces the right?
48:38
It's the state. It's never the personal
48:41
responsibility. And look at the messaging that
48:43
came out during the COVID era. It was about we will protect
48:47
you. It's always about putting the
48:51
emphasis on the bigger structures, the bigger power
48:55
structures. And what ultimately happens is
48:59
that you end up with very obedient, very compliant
49:03
peasantry, effectively at the end of the day.
49:06
So just to clarify, you would remove everybody's rights?
49:10
I think so. No, I think no.
49:14
I mean, I often joke. I often joke.
49:16
I'll say that I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a monarchist, anarchist,
49:20
you know, so I oppose the state unless I am the state.
49:25
But I mean ultimately, I mean so.
49:27
You're happy to be a dictator yourself, just benevolent.
49:32
I think I think it is a it is a serious issue.
49:34
I'm, I'm very happy to jump into this complete mess in that I
49:39
think, right. I know, I, I, I, I think I see
49:44
exactly where you're coming from in that.
49:45
What I would say is that is that rights really are nothing more
49:49
than a tool of control because they're, they are something
49:52
written down that can therefore be rescinded and, and, and
49:57
enforced and enforced. I mean, and so, and also they
50:00
are perfect for divide and rule you, you set one load of rights
50:05
against another or, or the rights of an individual against
50:08
those of a group or different individuals.
50:10
So, so the way in which rights have come to be manipulated,
50:13
whether or not that was intentional, it doesn't really
50:15
matter whether people do believe that to have been intentional or
50:18
not. We go back to things like, you
50:20
know, even the things like the UN Charter.
50:22
I mean, the point is the moment you write something down and
50:25
look at what the, whatever she's called the head lady of the ICRC
50:29
is now saying, I mean, admissibly, incredibly belatedly
50:33
about the situation in Gaza. It's the same with international
50:37
humanitarian law. It doesn't matter.
50:38
Whatever you write down will be manipulated.
50:41
And we go, you know, we spoke about this last week, we talked
50:43
about fundamental principles and you, you know, you talked about
50:47
free will. You, you've spoken about free
50:49
will, I think on the previous sessions we've done.
50:51
And you know, and, and so guiding, overarching guiding
50:54
principles like that are much, much easier or, or well, no,
50:59
sorry, let's put it the other way around, much harder to
51:02
manipulate and to create compliance slaves with.
51:06
So I, although perhaps we might come at it from sight of an
51:10
angle. I do, I do agree with you on
51:11
the, on the rights issue, which is not to say that people should
51:14
not be able to do stuff. And that's, that's not at all
51:17
what either of us would mean by it.
51:19
But but no, I mean I totally agree the way the the problem is
51:22
if you if you put your faith in rights, I believe you are on
51:27
hiding to nothing because it will absolutely be turned.
51:30
Against you. Let me just let me just come in
51:32
there because this is this is there's there's two types of
51:37
rights that that exist today historically and certainly in
51:44
recent centuries. If we look at the Constitution
51:48
of the UK or the United States, the there were there was not
51:54
necessarily expressed explicitly, but there was the
51:56
principle of God-given unalienable rights, certain
52:02
certain rights that everybody is entitled to, but those were
52:06
perceived they were written down or they were agreed that these
52:10
came from a higher power. Anyway, there what what happened
52:13
with the UN Charter and and subsequently was, was that the
52:17
idea of human rights came along. And I think that's where the
52:20
danger about rights comes from. Because once you remove, once
52:24
you say that, that a right is conferred by to 1 human from
52:29
another human, that is putting the other human in a position
52:35
above the human that gets the right.
52:40
The, the fundamental problem with human rights is it starts
52:42
with a blank piece of paper. It starts with the idea that you
52:45
have no rights, and then you start adding rights to those.
52:48
But if you're, if, if some, if a human being is giving a right to
52:51
another human being, then that human being can take that right
52:54
away again at some future point. And, and so, so, so I would, I
52:59
would say that that societies can organize around some
53:03
fundamental principles, which we might call, you know,
53:07
unalienable rights that are, that are give that are sort of
53:10
universal and, and come from something outside of humanity
53:14
and can't be removed. And we can agree that there that
53:17
there's like the right to life, for example, there are some
53:21
fundamental rights that, that, that, that are just obvious.
53:25
The, the, the issue for me is, is once you start bringing that
53:29
to a human level, because you've removed God from the equation.
53:32
And I'm not, I'm not saying that you have to believe in, in a
53:35
higher power, you know, although it's obviously easier if you do,
53:40
but you have to at least agree that there's a Prince, a
53:42
principle above humanity, which, which that, that, that in other
53:50
words, a human being can't remove certain fundamental
53:54
rights from people. I I think that that is important
53:56
even no matter it's an important distinction between what's
53:59
happened in more recent decades as opposed to what was
54:02
considered reasonable previously.
54:05
Sorry, I should have said I, I, I absolutely meant human rights,
54:10
the way in which human rights have been legislated and and so
54:14
forth. But, but, but yes, So what, what
54:18
you end up with is not only that these have been sort of
54:21
confected and conferred by humans to other humans, which is
54:24
an extraordinary situation to start with, but but also it
54:30
means that the state as the arbiter is, is looked towards to
54:36
sort out and resolve these issues.
54:39
So, so straight away you're creating an imbalance or this
54:43
ridiculous situation where people feel that they have all
54:46
agency and, and sort of consciousness taken away from
54:50
them. You know, why can't people just
54:52
work this stuff out for themselves?
54:54
And, and in fact, I think that goes exactly back to what Mike
54:58
was talking about with Ofcom and with parenting.
55:01
And OK, they've given me many other factors over the years,
55:04
but it is it really does appear that the Internet in particular
55:08
has driven people completely mad because if you were to say 20 or
55:12
30 years ago, so, you know, to go into a household where two or
55:17
three small children live and say to the parents.
55:19
So just if you, if you could just tell me I'm, I'm just doing
55:24
a survey this week. How many stabbings and shootings
55:29
have you hosted inside your home?
55:31
And how many sex shows have you had between the hours of 3:00
55:34
and 6:00 in the afternoon in your kitchen?
55:38
And obviously the answer by the horrified parents would in most
55:41
cases be none at all. Don't be ridiculous.
55:44
Get out. Whereas with the Internet it,
55:48
it's, it's a total inversion of that people think nothing of
55:51
having all this stuff going on in the house.
55:53
But because it's the Internet somehow it's different.
55:57
And, and people, parents I think in particular are, are, it's,
56:02
it's as though they are absolved of that.
56:04
And I think that is all absolutely part of this idea
56:08
that the state is there to control and protect.
56:13
And if things go wrong, then it's the, it's the state's
56:18
problem, and it's only the state that can fix it.
56:21
And that's a terrible place to find yourself.
56:23
Yeah, I don't know whether the Internet in itself could be
56:26
blamed for that though, because it isn't.
56:28
I mean, I think this, this Rod said and actually a lot earlier
56:31
and, and it, the, the whole issue of individualism and, and
56:38
you know, why, OK, I've had a child now, but why, why should
56:42
that child occupy my time? I've got to, I've got to go and
56:45
play football or I've got to, you know, whatever it happens to
56:48
be. It's, it's, it's, it seems to me
56:51
it's, it's something significantly more fundamental
56:53
than than just the Internet. It's, it's coming back to, to,
57:00
you know, the, the idea of, of giving something to, to the next
57:04
generation. We've lost that somehow, you
57:06
know, children are, are perceived by most parents as
57:08
just being an inconvenience. Just shove a phone in their hand
57:11
because it gets them out of the way.
57:12
It's not, it's not that the, you know, I'm not sure if I'm
57:16
expressing this very well, but but it just seems to me that
57:19
that parents actually, for whatever reason, don't really
57:23
want to be parents anymore. They don't want to spend time
57:26
with children. They just want to stick them in
57:29
a room and let them entertain themselves, I think.
57:32
I think that the the fact that the Internet is there is is a
57:35
convenience, but if it wasn't the Internet it would be
57:38
something else. It might be, I mean, I think
57:40
again, I, I don't know how definitive one can ever consider
57:43
this sort of data to be. But, but there are, you know,
57:47
statistics which show that people's time, the, the way in
57:51
which people's time has been taken up over the years has
57:54
transformed so radically towards spending time on on the
57:59
Internet. So I'm not necessarily
58:01
suggesting that it's the Internet that's corrupted
58:02
people's minds behaviour in so far as what they're viewing, but
58:06
it's the sheer length of time or the distraction of the Internet
58:10
itself. But no, I mean, I absolutely
58:12
agree with you and it's a trend and it's, you know, you could
58:15
say this was been, this has been the purpose of television in
58:18
large part, etcetera. There are plenty of other
58:21
influences, but it does seem that the Internet as a driver
58:25
for this and you know, strictly relating to Ofcom, it is it is a
58:30
massive, massive factor. James, look at the time that's
58:34
coming from landing. Let's do the Ligatory Support UK
58:38
column and and watch and watch and watch my show and watch the
58:45
the news which soon will be daily.
58:49
That's that's the plan. But, but look, I mean, I mean,
58:54
look, we do need support and you know, we, we obviously need
58:57
financial support. We absolutely appreciate.
59:00
And just once again, thank everybody that is supporting US
59:03
financially. But equally important as far as
59:05
I'm concerned is, is just be willing to share and share and
59:11
share because, and, and try to promote what it is we're doing.
59:15
If you, if you like what we're doing, and then please do share
59:17
it because I mean, we are just, we just can't express how, I
59:22
mean, everybody knows how much, how, how big an impact the
59:26
censorship regime has. And there is no doubt that, you
59:31
know, when we, when we engage with people that haven't come
59:34
across us before, we often get a positive response.
59:38
But the, the, the fact is that still the majority of people, no
59:42
matter how many people were aware of us during locked down
59:47
and on the marches and so on. And, and the idea that lots of
59:50
people are aware of the UK column, actually it's still
59:53
quite a small proportion of the, of the, the population of this
59:57
country or any other country around the world.
1:00:00
So, you know, just encourage everybody to share as much as
1:00:04
possible. Yeah.
1:00:05
And I think just just do it which is 1 SEC sorry, just add
1:00:08
to that. Also share the things that you
1:00:10
are doing that where you have achieved effect.
1:00:13
Share that with us because we we rebroadcast it and that that
1:00:17
does show people that that changes can be made and that
1:00:21
people can make ground and do stuff.
1:00:23
So so it's a it's a two way St. Mike Robertson, Charles Mallett,
1:00:28
Thank you for joining me in the weekly banter, Strangers.