This is London calling, London calling. But it's just ridiculous, isn't it.
You know, when I meet with a National park in my constituency,
when I ask him to help build more houses for local people, want to
ask them to help our town centers which are really struggling, want to ask
them to do numbers of different things to help local residents. I get met
with the same response, We'd love to, but we've got no money to
do that. And now all you see is a National park splurge in money
on a rebrand of an organization which didn't need to be rebranded in the first
place. There was nothing wrong with corner at the Breck and Beacons National Park,
and yet again they're changing things. You're just a fit, a type
of cultural Welcome to London calling with me, James Debiport and my very good
friend mister Toby Young. You doing I'm okay, I'm okay. James.
Did you have a good Easter break? Did you have an Easter break?
Yeah? I probably did, But whatever joys I may have had have been
unfortunately trashed by my experience of the last week. Well, I I took
this. I took a couple of days away to see I think two of
the last unspoke counties in in England, Herefordshire and Shropshire. And I realized
that even there there is a serpent in the garden. So I was um,
Shropshire, I think, is just about as beautiful as as England gets.
Have you have you ever been to to sort of around Clan and beyond
clum Well. I've spent some time in Shropshire, but I can't say I've
ever been to clum Well. Yeah, there's sort of okay, so there's
there's a bit around Ludlow which is which is you know, more populous Shropshire.
But then as you climb up into the hills, you you you start
getting um, well, it looks looks actually quite like quite like the North.
It's it's it's it's sound like Yorkshire Dales are somewhere. It's but it's
it's, it's it's very very it's very very beautiful. And as you get
higher and higher you get you get sort of more more landish. And I
thought this is just amazing, and I, you know, I'd love to
live here. And then I crested the final hill and I looked across towards
Wales and I saw, I saw these dark satanic mills. I saw,
I saw a whole horde of bat jumping bird slicing eco crucifixes on the world
side, and I just thought, this is monstrous. How could they ever
ever do this? These are the these are some of the most beautiful parts
of our country, and we are despoiling them with wind turbines. And not
only do they ruin the view, but also because they turn they turned the
landscape into an industrial zone. But what they also do is pollute the environment
with with low frequency noise, with infrasound, which is which is audible for
miles a large array of wind turbines that you can hear them ten miles off,
so they produce this sort of low level hum which sort of vibrates the
area round round about, so there's no escape from it almost and it really
depressed me. And I think this ties in with quite a few things were
going to discuss in this in this particular episode, and it's it's amazing how
well there is no resistance from the government, which is which is pushing this
this horror hard. But it's amazing how unaware of the problem the public is.
Yeah, it's it's it's old, isn't it. Sometimes Britain is referred
to as turf Island. Um and I don't need by by trans rights activists,
particularly in the US, trying to depict the UK as an outlier,
you know, when it comes to global opinion about trans rights, and often
you know, people on the left crime depict the UK as being, you
know, a far right outlier within Europe. I don't know if you saw
that Dom Jolly meme on Twitter. I don't know if he created it,
but he certainly posted it on Twitter. It was an inversion of the Old
Dad's Army image. Near the Old Dad's Army image, we have the Union
Jack pushing back against the Swastika's coming at us from every direction on the European
continent. In this inversion of that image, the the the it's the forces
of social democracy pointing towards Britain from the continent of Europe, and a little
Swastika flag defending Britain, implying that we have become the only Nazis now in
Europe. But actually the truth is, James, that the UK has embraced
kind of green gobbledegook more credulously than almost any other country in the world.
Can I just pick you up on something that chubs, which which I find
quite quite curious. Um A, why would you care what the activists who
call us turf Island. I mean, you're talking about a really, really
tiny minority of people, So you're you're you're quoting, um, the point
of view of these people who are aggressive activists desperate for publicity, but who
are really not representative of any any current of thought that that really really matters.
Um. And the same with Don Jolly. I'm very suspicious about this
character and have been for some time. I think he was a He had
a TV show a few years ago, a sort of comedy show where where
his stick was to be seen carrying a ginormous AHS style mobile phone and saying
I'm on the train, I'm on the train and stuff. And even at
the time, one watched this and thought, well, we're being told that
this is a funny, funny program, but is it. I mean the
fact that it's in a comedy slot and stuff. And these people I think
are deliberately promoted and inserted into a sort of entertainment and media discourse in order
to disrupt and annoy but they can be very safely ignored, and by referring
to him as if he matters, as if his viewpoint matters, and if
it's a sort of valid viewpoint that we should respond to. I think you're
rarefying something that doesn't deserve to be rarefied. You're you're actually sort of becoming
part of the problem because him. I wasn't expecting you to pick a quarrel
over this. It was really just a bit of throat clearing for introducing the
idea that in fact Britain is an unusually progressive country, particularly when it comes
to the green agenda issues like net zero, sustainable energy, alternatives to hydrocarbons,
etc. And that seems to me to be the truth of the matter,
and completely at odds with this trope amongst the progressive left that we are
an outlier, but of the opposite kind, that we are a weirdly conservative
outlier, resisting the forces of progressivism and on the wrong side of history,
when in fact we're right at the cutting edge of those historical trends. I
mean, I totally, I totally agree with with with your broad point,
which is that we're actually doing crazy amounts of really awful green stuff, and
we don't need to We don't need to make a case that we ought to
be more green, or that we're or to defend ourselves we're not being green
enough. What what I'm saying is that the people you're referring to who make
these claims are themselves dishonest actors. They are They are put there in order
to um to push a false narrative, probably probably by the same people who
are in charge of green policy. That's the That's the thing. It's like,
for example, extinction rebellion, just stop oil. These are not genuine
grass roots movement that they are. There's a new one, James. I
wonder what you what you're obviously I take a it's not a new one.
I've I've been saying this for a race. No, no, no,
no, no, no no, there is a new group. I wonder
what you thought of Animal Rising? Did you did you? Did you clock
that they try we can disrupt the Grand National Do you know? It's funny.
I was thinking about this and I'm thinking this is these are not these
are these are not grass roots things that I think most people in the country
would be mortified the idea that the Grand National, but with the one horse
race that everyone watches, even people who aren't remotely interested in the horses.
Everyone has has a punt and and sure we you know, we get upset
when occasionally the horses die. But the idea that these people are representative of
anything other than a kind of a really sinister attempt to close down all our
all our forms of popular entertainment, all the things that genuinely unite us as
a country, that we that make us happy. They want to take this
away from us. I mean, I wonder, I wonder who these people
are really um And of course the other the other effect it has is I
saw in the papers this was the most heavily policed, the most heavily policed
Grand National sense the IRA kidnapped red Rum, something like that. And it's
like, how, I want a second. Why why are we in a
situation where you've got police crawling all over this event which should just be one
more event in our national social calendar. Where did this come from? It's
all it's all very dodgy. I think now why this this came up?
But the kitchen table yesterday in the Young Household, and both female members of
a young household were weren't very keen on racing or the Grand National, in
particular because because of the harm horses are likely to suffer, because it's such
a crowded feel, and because the I guess the some of the jumps are
so difficult. But didn't didn't didn't two horses die possible? I think I
think it's it's characteristic of the problem that you've got. I mean, frankly,
with respect your children, it's none of their bloody business whether that whether
the Grand National runs or not, or whether whether horses die. They're not
they're not really capable of having a kind of an intelligent opinion, or that
they're the product of the brainwashing they've had by a culture which which which which
seeks to create the concept of animal rights and ignores the human rights. For
example, you think about the industries that are involved in in um in the
Grand National. So you've got you've got the training, training yards, you've
got you've got the vets, you've got the book is, you've got the
venue itself, you've got the hospitality industry which is dependent on the Grand National.
You've got the horses themselves. These these horses would not exist were it
not for the Grand Grand National and races like the Grand Nationals. They've been
bred to race. They love racing. I can tell you that as as
as somebody who is who rides a lot and enjoys being with horses. Horses
like doing this stuff. It's not like people are forcing the horses to do
things that they really don't feel comfortable doing. Sometimes they get killed in the
process. Well that's how it works, in the same way that that we
all get. The mountaineers get injured sometimes falling off mountains, but they're doing
the thing they love, and it's the same way. Well, racing is
it is a is a very good example. By the way, the jumps
are a lot of have been have been handsified. I'd say over the over
the years that they're not nearly as as as tough as they were. No
one wants the horses to die. No one wants the horses die. It's
upsetting. It's more upsetting for for racing folk and people in you know,
the racing industry, people who ride horses than for anyone, but for kind
of random random people. It's yeah, I haven't got an opinion on you
know, I don't want to ban TikTok or whatever, your whatever, your
kids get upset about, you know, what they think matter. And I
do find it quite extraordinary that that children are being worked up into this kind
of righteous, sort of crusading zeal against something which is none of their bloody
business. Well, I suppose, in fact, it was three horses that
died at the Grand National. I'm not necessarily taking it was my wife and
my daughter's side. I guess that their argument is, um, someone has
to take the side of of of the horses. Um. And how do
they know what the horses are thinking on this? I guess they say,
well, you know, if the horses are dying, Um, then you
don't need to be a telepath or to be able to talk to animals to
know that they're not enjoying it. No, that's a silly thing to say,
isn't it. I mean that that that really is the horses, that
the horses, the horses were enjoying it up to the point where they don't.
That's the thing. And to have I mean, have your children be
anywhere near a horse? Mean, what does your wife know about horses?
This is just silly that it's It's like, so we'll be moving on next
to why why why we shouldn't need meet It's that that we've we've reached this
this pitch where people are expected to have a view on that on everything.
Funnily, if i've been I've been writing this piece that I'm gonna I'm gonna
almost with you in mind. It's about it's called why I Hate debate and
why I hate free speech. But that's that's for another episode. But but
the idea, okay, part of it is when we go to school,
Yeah, we're encouraged to think that debating societies are really good and and and
debates are really good because people can learn about about having having opposing viewpoints and
how to develop their arguments. And it's it's precisely this culture that leads to
debates over the future of the Grand National I say, leave it alone.
There shouldn't be debates about it. It's there, people enjoy it, and
that's enough. I think. The I mean, one problem with your argument,
James, or one component of your argument is you seem to be appealing
to the principle and if you're not an expert in a subject, no,
don't not right deal about it, then your opinion is invalid, and you
shouldn't bother to express it. That's not wasn't it. No, that's an
argument obviously they're going of, you know, m managerial technocray. I've never
I'd never, I'd never made that argument. What I'm saying is that people
people that if you're going to call for it, call for something to be
banned, and you have no connection with it at all, no emotional connection,
that that what you're doing becomes vexatious if you haven't got any skin in
the game, which which clearly that your your your family haven't. They're just
kind of random commentars who seem to have been have been trained to exist in
this world. And we've all been programmed in this way where where we've been,
which is my point about debates, We've been programmed that we must have
an opinion about everything, and and to have opinion about anything. It's a
short step from there too. And what should be done about this problem that
I've decided to have an opinion on. And maybe it's not a problem,
Maybe it is just a fact of life. We're all going to die,
including horses. There it is. Yeah, my objection to the animal rights
argument and animal rights activism is that why do they focus exclusively all the activism
is directed at supposed harm done to animals by humans. I don't know if
I've made this point before, James, but surely if you care about the
welfare of animals, if you want to protect them from harm, and you
think they have a right that you think you have, you know, comparable
rights to human beings, then why not devote your energy to the animals that
harm other animals? Why not place every step in the food chain to protect
animals from other animals who surely pose a far greater threat to them in the
round than human beings do. It seems oddly anti humanistic to focus just on
the harm done to animals by human beings and not the harm done to animals
by other animals. If your only concern is to protect the animals from harm,
well yeah, it's it's one of the inconsistencies in the environmental animal rights
ecology movement, because what one of the one of the developments you saw in
the roughly in the middle of the twentieth century, which this new strain of
thinking, which which became increasingly current in the mainstream, which was that no
longer are humans are sort of the dominant species that that God has given dominion
over the over the other animals, you know, all sheep and ox and
yeah, and the beasts of the field, the files of the air,
and the fishes of the seam, that suddenly we are just become we are
one species among many, and we all have equal equal rights, whether we're
a sort of bacteria. They clearly don't think that they They don't actually genuinely
embrace a kind of species egalitarianism, because if they did, they'd be much
more concerned with the damage done to animals by other animals. They sort of
seemingly, almost semi consciously accept the principle that we are, in fact,
we do enjoy it dominion over animals, and that's why we shouldn't harm them,
and why there should be a particular obligation on us to protect them,
but not on other animals. So it's sort of it's sort of almost predicated
on the very belief system that they claim to be opposed to. Should we
have an ad, James, should we have our first ad? Let me
do it? Yeah? Okay, So this is an ad for Express VPN,
one of our most loyal sponsors. Using the Internet without Express VPN is
like leaving your laptop exposed at the coffee shop table while you run to the
bathroom. Most of the time you're probably fine, but what if one day
you come out of the bathroom and your laptop is gone. Every time you
can to an encrypted network cafes, hotels, airports, any hacker on the
same network can gain access to your personal data, passwords, financial details,
etc. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack someone. Just some cheap
hardware is needed. A smart twelve year old could do it, and your
data is valuable. Hackers can make up to a thousand dollars a person selling
personal info on the dark web. Encrypted tunnel this is why you should use
Express VPN. Encrypted tunnel creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the
internet. Hackers can't steal your sensitive data. It's super secure. It to
take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past Express VPNs
encryption. It's easy to use, fire up the app and click one button
to get protected, and it works on all devices phones, laptops, tablets,
and more, so you can stay secure on the go. So James
and I use Express VPN, I have to tell you to watch QPR games
in the UK because you can only watch them on the QPR channel if you
live overseas. But using Express VPN you can you can watch them because you
can pretend you're connecting from the United States. So secure your online data today
by visiting Express VPM dot com slash London. That's e x p r ews
vpn dot com slash London, and you can get an extra three months for
free. That's ExpressVPN dot com slash London. James, you're going to Express
vpn. Their sales are all the people who want to watch SCYPR games,
so they're just going to be inundated with with subscribers. You've done them,
but you've done them. Priud there. Yeah, And I have to say
to all those potential QPR fans out there, the fact that we've only won
two games in the last twenty seven in all competitions, don't let don't let
that put you off becoming a QPR fan. As I say to my children
over and over again, he would complain bitterly about me saddling them with this
lifelong curse. It's character building, you know, if you're a Chelsea supporter
or an Arsenal supporter Man united Man City. You win practically every week.
You get very little satisfaction from winning. You just occasionally get frustrated when you
lose. There's very little upside. When you're a QPR fan, you become
accustomed to losing, so losing doesn't matter. But when you win, you
feel the most extraordinary joy. It's such a rarity, and that's the beauty
of supporting a struggling team like QPR. Are paying for that ad, that
gushing ad because it's a bit nauseating otherwise. So we should talk continuing our
green theme, shouldn't we taps a story a eco friendly name change for the
Brecon Beacons. Tell us, tell us about this, give us your takes.
So I think it's the Welsh government because the Brecon Beacons sit within a
Welsh now tional park. But I think the Welsh Government has decided to rename
the Brecon Beacons with They're going to call them something in Welsh which I wouldn't
attempt to pronounce because they don't like the word. But I know, I
know you're a descent brick. It's confusing enough that Welsh road signs are in
Welsh and English but you know, so this is just there isn't going to
be the words Brecon beacons aren't going to appear on road signs anymore, which
I imagine will decimate the Welsh jurist industry. But anyway, we'll get them
to that in a second. But the reason for this, the rational is
the word beacon in Brecon beacons refers to the fact that in olden times,
fires were lit on these beacons as a means of warning, you know,
neighboring places that you know, an invasion in invading army was heading their way,
and to warn them about other things. And this apparently doesn't sit well
with the Welsh government's commitment to reducing our reliance on carbon fuels. So because
it involved creating the beacon involved burning wood, so they decided to eliminate that
suspect, that boo word, and replace it with something more anodyne, which
captures their commitment to creating a sustainable future for the planet. Absolutely batter seems
like, you know, the ultimate example of kind of green gobbledegook gone mad.
It's peak woke, get it, James peak woke. Well, you
know you know who trains who famously trains in the Brecon Beacons. The sas
yes, sayes because Hereford, which is where their bases located, is about
what fifteen miles away from from and they do things like that. There's a
but I went to school not too far from the beacon. So we used
to do what was it called core, We have to we have to,
you know, do combine. We had to do. Were you and that
well you did it? Was that mandatory or did you volunteer for that?
Choke you as mandatory have made you the manu are today. Yeah, we
had to have compulsory weekends where we had to we had to march up a
hill with a and you probably the backpack on and freezing and you probably hated
it at the time. But last you know, this easter, you spent
time voluntarily tramping up hills and try. Oh yeah, I know. It's
it's It's absolutely true. It's the sort of thing that had my children been
forced to do these things, I said to them, this is character building
and it's a good thing. So I would have got no sympathy from from
me. It is. It is very beautiful up there. I mean,
I like the view from any fan. But what I was going to say
was. I think that there is there is more to the story than meets
the eye, and it is it is. There's there's the headline grabbing thing
that you see in all the papers. So it's like another of those ecological
correctness gone mad stories. So you think, oh, Brecon Beacons, and
now they're changing their name to something unpronounceable, and this is the way the
story has been been reported. I personally don't don't care that much that that
they're going to call them this Welsh name, because actually what the Welsh name
means is simply Brecon Beacons. I mean, I mean, I'm assuming that
brick Heiniog is Brecon and ban how do you think that means beacon? I
know, I imagine they probably they can't have substituted the English word for beacon
with the Welsh word for beacon, cam because that would defeat the kind of
maybe not maybe maybe not. I suppose the border point I was going to
make make is that a lot of these mountains hills have Welsh names anyway,
and Johnny Nights names they are too. I'm I'm mispronouncing Penny Fan. It's
probably pronounced Penny Van or something, but they do most of these peaks do
have rush names anyway, so that that's not the big deal. I think
what is really going on here is much more sinister. I don't think,
by the way, that this is the Welsh mickey mouse government. I think
that this is this is the Brecon Beacons National Park, and this is their
chief executive who's saying these things. And there's a few things I've noticed.
First of all, her name is Katherine Meeling Jones, and I looked her
up. She is just one of those career bureaucrats, sort of deep state
quango crats and the revolving door and civil service horribly woke, horribly on board
with whatever nefarious agenda the deep state has gotten planned. So she was until
recently from the UK Space Agency. In other words, she's not a countrywoman.
She's not somebody who has any any feeling for this beautiful landscape. I
mean, it really is. I've spent a lot of a lot of many
happy years walking in the Breckon Beacons, in the Black Mountains. It's a
beautiful part of the world. It is now being steadily ruined by the wind
turbines that I mentioned before. And here is something really spooky, so you've
got Katherine Million Jones sounding really really jolly and kind of saying things guaranteed to
annoy people like you and me. So she's saying, we're an environmental organization,
we're trying to cut carbon and pushed to net zero, so having a
carbon burning beacon just isn't a good look. We've had awful wildfires over the
last few years. How she slipped that one, And I don't know they
haven't had an awful what they maybe in Australia. And I've got my suspecially
what she's referring to, I can't imagine they're actually world fires on the break
And we know that the reason for the Australian wildfires, one of the reasons
is because of the eco laws preventing landowners clearing away the brush that would have
other wise gone. So so there she's planting this lie into the into the
narrative um anything that kind of sort of the mate way she speaks, anything
that kind of promotes that idea that far in the landscape is a good thing,
made us feel that it probably wasn't the look we're going for. So
she's got this kind of this this chumin us about what she's saying. But
then you look on and she says, she's a nice authoritarian. In other
words, that's that's that's that's the species of authoritaries exactly, and it's just
like chummy authoritarianism. Yeah. So then later on in the report you see
the name change is in direct response to the climate change, climate and biodiversity
emergency and is part of a broader vision for the park that includes onshore wind
turbines and reduced sheep numbers. So these are these are the two really simils
to things that are going on under the guise of ah, is this this
name change and annoying? And aren't these these green activists aren't they silly?
They're not silly. They're much much worse than that. So sheep, we
eat sheep, right, we need meet. It's good, you know,
the farmers. We should be supporting these people that they that the system is
at war with them. We've seen this in the Netherlands, we're seeing it
over here. So under the cover of this name change we've got rewilding,
which is supported by by green stooges like George Monbia. Just going back to
my point, James will cause more animals suffering because you know, if you
reintroduce wolves to the United Kingdom, they're going to kill a lot of innocent
animals and breach their right something when they care about that, just like happens
in in the Yellowstone Park, And what's going to happen to the sheep when
they kind of get rid of the sheep in someone like the breck and Biggers
and they're going to take them off to a sheep retirement home where they're going
to be you know, fed with bottles to where kind of do they die
of natural causes? I doubt it? Yeah, well exactly that. This
is what I was the sort of intellectual inconsistency I was I was calling out
with the horses the Grand National as well. It's like people seem to imagine
that they want they want these special animals that will live forever, that will
never never die. I mean, we're all going to die. That the
horses are going to die, the sheep are going to die. And the
horses and the sheep would not be there if they did not have a utility
to a man. I mean, that's that's that's our relationship with the There's
only so much space. We wouldn't be breeding sheep if we didn't eat them
or used them for a wool. We wouldn't be breeding these horses if we
didn't race them for our entertainment. And the So you've got the war on
on on farmers, the war on meat, the war on sheep, the
rewilding fad which has been being heavily produced by the green movement and suddenly being
introduced into the into the debate is the idea that what we thought of as
national parks, which were protected zones, you know, that you couldn't develop,
suddenly it's suddenly being okay to build wind turbines. Now, since when
did wind turbines become part of the national the natural landscape and become part of
the park system. What this woman is saying and doing is really really sinister.
Yeah, good point, James. I hadn't realized that it was part
of a kind of broader agenda to um commit sheep genocide and ruin the Breckon
beacons by sticking wind turbines everywhere. But I guess it's not surprising. But
yeah, no, good point, quite sinister, And yeah, we should,
we should, we should organize you when we should should we should should
organize a protest group. Given the success of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil
and now Animal Rising. What do you think, James, that the Sheep
Liberation Front could set ourselves up to protect the poor sheep in danger of being
slaughtered by George Moonbott and his army of Red Warriors. I think it should
be called extinction extinction breck and beacons because that's invented to what they're proposing.
They're just destroying it. Maybe maybe maybe we can kind of like maybe we
should contact you know, Extinction Rebellion high command and point out that the animal
species most in danger of going extinct, at least in Wales is sheep and
if they're really concerned about preserving biodiversity, they should be protecting the poor sheep
that are in the in the site now, these echomaniacs, yeah yeah,
but given that they're being paid by the same people who are pushing this other
agenda, I'm not sure that's going to wash um. Should we have another
great it's your turn now. Because of the many pressures on landlords, lots
of properties are now being sold off. Enter Dan Gaskin, cheerful pholoskeptic and
owner of Crest Mortgages. Dan is an ex Royal Navy Warfare officer who has
brought and sold companies and thrives on making sure you are financially protected and provided
for and that you find the right to mortgage. Whether your Team Toby or
Team James Dan will help you. He's also interested in networking with fellow established
business owners in order to find opportunities to work with people looking for investment in
their company or who are looking to implement their exit strategy. To ask about
the housing market or any other commercial and financial challenge and complete confidence call zero
one five zero two three zero zero zero and do please also connect at www
dot LinkedIn, dot com, forward slash in forward slash Dan Gaskin and to
BEFCA compliant. Crest Mortgages is a trading style of Epiphany Investments Limited, which
is an appointed representative of the Open Work Partnership, a trading style of Openwork
Limited which is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Your house may
be repossessed if you do not keep up with repayments on your mortgage. And
there's another there's another green story, James. There is in keeping with our
theme which is which involves the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and we ran a
piece about this by our Environment editor Chris Morrison on The Daily Skeptic this morning.
And the Australian Bureau of meteor Meteorology is an important source of data and
has been has very much been one of the many organizations that has been responsible
for the evidence that average global temperatures are steadily increasing, and it's an important
So the Australian data set is an important data set because Australia is one of
the largest land masses in the Southern Hemisphere. But it turns out someone's done
some digging and they've managed to get the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to release some
comparative information in which they showed they showed the temperature readings from ordinary merch cury
glass units, traditional devices for measuring temperatures, and they're new, more sophisticated
electronic thermometers which are supposedly more accurate. And it turns out that around in
measurements taken around Brisbane Airport, the measurements carried out by the electronic thermometers are
forty one percent higher than the readings on the mercury glass units. Sorry,
now they're higher than the readings on the mercury glass units forty one percent at
the time and only lower thirty two percent at the time. And so it
looks as though these and these electronic measurement devices are on average recording higher temperatures
than the mercury old fashioned glass units. And people are interested in whether this
is true of other data sets from different locations compiled by this bureau, and
they're refusing to release that in form. And it's a growing scandal in Australia.
The Australian newspaper has weighed in. You know, policy in Australia but
around the world is based on this data which supposedly shows temperatures rising. So
if it turns out that part of the explanation for these supposed rise in average
global temperatures is because they're using different measurement devices, then that's quite a big
story and not surprising that this bureau is refusing to release any of the data
to suggests that actually this is what the data show is not just in Brisbane
but elsewhere. Yes, exactly what you're finding, tubes is something that I
experienced every day of my life, pretty much in the days when I was
I could be bothered to write about the climate scam and the environmental movement.
And I'm not patronizing you here. Iought fought the climate wars for about fifteen
years, and I'm really glad that you're carrying on the fight. I just
find it it's like groundhog Day for me. I read these stories and I
read your story at the Daily Skeptic, and this is the kind of thing
that I was covering five years ago, ten years ago, fifteen years ago.
And by the way, I too had had had problems throughout pronouncing meteorology.
So it's one of those one of those words that gets get sort of
stuck in your palette somehow. But the Australian Bureau of Meteorology like the Zero
CSIRO or the CSIRO, which which is their their equivalent of you know,
it's their sort of climate institute. All these institutions, the same with NASA,
gifts in the NASA, the guard Institute of Space Studies, the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They are all part of this
orchestra official line machine. And it was it was this morning somebody somebody quote
tweeted your your post about about this this story, and he said, it's
like deja view all over again. And then then he gives a quote which
was which was from Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia at the time
of the climate game, um where he was he was exposed. He was
exposed when when when people approached him for data. I think it may have
been McIntyre and McKitrick who were asking him as as his good science, whether
you know, for supporting evidence for his planes, and he said, why
should I show you my data when you're just trying to find problems with it?
Now? Is that Is that something any honest scientists would say, An
honest scientist would say, go write ahead, here's my data. You can
see that it confirms all my claims I'm making about it, because that's how
good science works. But climate science is not good good science. It's not
even science, it's it's sociology. It's proper it's propaganda. So and the
Australians are absolutely up to the neck in this. The Australian establishment is just
so corrupt. They've got the Great Barrier Reef which they're constantly telling you is
in danger of being bleached or or or destroyed in some way because of global
warming, and you look at you look at the evidence, and you find
just doesn't stack up. And it's the same with with their with their data
sets for their their their weather stations. I mean this story is a bit
like the urban heat island effect, which is which is another problem with with
the with with with the climate measurements, with the temperature measurements that often,
as you know, these thermometers are these weather stations are located at places which
have been encroached on by urban development quite often. For example, there they're
at airports which which maybe in the nineteen thirties which just had you know,
the odd plane coming in once a week, and now they have they have
seven four seven's flying in every every half hour, and that inevitably tends to
exaggerate the temperature. So you all around the world, you've got these these
weather stations telling us that that we're heating up and we're doomed, when actually
it just like this story shows, it's fulty measurement equipment. Yeah, just
on that point, James, I don't know if you recall, but last
year um a record was broken and one of these measuring devices recorded the highest
ever temperature on record in England, um and I think it was like forty
one point something degrees centigrade. And it turns out that that measurement was at
RAF Conigsby, which is a military airport. Um And we've been trying to
get RAF conegs, but we've been we've been deluging them with information. We
even in fact just submitted an FOI request at the Daily Skeptic to try and
find out, you know, what planes were landing and taking off on that
day, you know, during the minute in which that will sixty minutes I
think it was, in which that I think it was actually just one minute.
It only lasted for sixty seconds the record. We want to find out
exactly what was going on in the airport at that particular moment. And they're
really going to tell you. They'll be eager because the military, the military
can't be trusted. The Yeah, well, let me let me, let
me let me just let me put an argument to you, James, which
I'm not. I mean, I've been thinking about how best to rebut it.
I mean, I think I think I think it would be hard to
argue that climate alarmists, climate hysterics aren't exaggerating the risk of various environmental catastrophes
befalling US, and we don't achieve net zero by say, twenty fifty or
sooner, some of them would have it, And they constantly do this.
They've been doing this in a routine way going back decade. We don't achieve
this by then, you know, we only have seven years left to save
the planet, five years left to save the planet, and so on and
so forth. So we know that, as a matter of course, they
wildly exaggerate the risk of what will happen. We don't do exactly what they
say. But let's suppose that, you know, a more honest climate scientist
or climate activists acknowledges that if we don't achieve net zero by twenty fifty,
the chances of various environmental catastrophes befalling US, sea levels rising, forest fires
becoming more frequent, etc. They might acknowledge, and actually, the chances
of those any of those things happening are actually only one percent. Maybe they'd
say five percent. Certainly not greater than fifty percent. But let's suppose the
honest climate activist says, okay, I admit it. The chances of sea
levels rising cities being submerged, forest burning to the ground, and if we
don't achieve net zero by twenty fifty only one percent um. Is that not
still? Is that not still a good argument for trying to do something to
mitigate that risk? The risk would be so catastrophic, it would be such
a high contal even though it's low probability. Don't we nevertheless have a responsibility
to try and mitigate it? What's the argument against this is it's Pascal's wager,
isn't it? But it's the Pascal's wager fallacy. First of all,
it presupposes that it is that there is even a potential risk of you know,
even as as small as one percent, which which there's there's not.
By the way, the other problem with with that line, which I which
I hear being touted by by sort of people who want to be who think
they're being reasonable and thoughtful about this um, is that it completely ignores the
failure to conduct any costs benefit analysis of the costs of action, and that
this is almost the thing that upsets me most about. I mean, there
are many things, you know, the mendaciousness, the corruption, the squandering
of public money. All that's really upsetting, but none of that comes close
to um, the horror of what is being done to the planet in the
name of, say, of saving it. I mean, there's there's been
a few few films about this, including a documentary I think which which Michael
Moore got got involved in UM, which is that you think about the the
primary rainforest, for example, which has been destroyed to to create to grow
um palm oil for biofuels. You think of you think of the natural landscape
which has been despoiled, and the seascape of course being despoiled by these industrial
structures, these wind turbines which create this this horrible humming noise which which upsets
whales and disrupts their their their their migration that descrubts that the signals to communicate
with that kills birds and bats on an epic scale. I mean, that's
the thing. The number of bats, bat species, including rare ones,
which have been barrow traumatized, which means that the pressure of of of the
m of the turbines causes their innards to it to implode. I think it
is um. The number of raptors that are killed by by spinning turbine blades,
the environmental damage done by the concrete bases for them, that the rare
earth minerals which have to be mined in the most appalling conditions in places like
China to produce the parts for the nacells on on these these turbines, and
then solar. We haven't even got into solar. That environmental environmentalism is killing
the planet, and that's what really upsets me about it is a monstrosity.
So I'm not buying the line about it supposed I suppose the reasonable climate activists
has a reply James which he says, the reason there's no point in carrying
out any sort of cost benefit analysis is because I accept that the cost of
all these measures we're taking to mitigate this risk are greater than the benefits,
in all likely greater than the benefits. I'm not arguing. He says that
if we do nothing, there's a greater than fifty percent chance of this harm
befalling us. I acknowledge that the chances are extremely slight, and the costs
are going to outweigh the benefits. But nonetheless, the reason there's no point
in doing a cost benefit analysis is because if this one percent risk materializes,
it would be so catastrophic that we need to pay this heavy price in order
to mitigate against it. Yeah, but for that argument to work, you'd
have to demonstrate that any of the measures that are being taken or are planned
on being taken, are going to make a slug a bit of difference,
which which they aren't, and they won't. That wind turbines, for example,
produce its supposed you bind into the lie that the CO two is a
problem, which it isn't. By the way, it's a beneficial trace gas
which makes the planet go greener. But suppose you brought into the lie completely
and this is complete fallacy, it's completely mendationous. The science it's supporting it
is junk science. Suppose you you accepted that that yes, CU was a
problem, even then that wind turbines, for example, don't work on the
terms that have been set forth. They don't. They don't save carbon dark
side, they don't stop us using carbon dark side, because you need you
need back up to support wind turbines. For example, you know you need
fossil fuel backup or nuclear back up to um for when the when the wind
is not blowing or in the case of solar panels, sun it's not shining,
so or none of this stuff even works does what it's supposed to do,
so it is it is pure damage and subsidy farming. Yeah. And
another argument, which I think is quite good, given that climate scientists claim
that their policy recommendations are informed by the science, and people following policymakers following
their recommendations claim that their policies are based on the science, is that if
your hypothesis is that if we do nothing, there's a one percent chance of
this catastrophic risk materializing, that's a non falsifiable scientific hypothesis because you can have
a control group, You could have a kind of you know, there could
be a planet B in which we do nothing and nothing happens, to which
the kind of climate alarmist says, ah, yes, I only said there
was a one percent chance. I didn't say there was a greater than fifty
percent chance. Where is planet Well? I think the better at pacts an
analogy James would be with Sweden and the pandemic. So when people like Neil
Ferguson said, in a reasonable worst case scenario, half a million people will
die in the United Kingdom if we do nothing to mitigate the impact of this
pandemic. He wasn't saying that there's a grader than fifty percent chance that five
hundred thousand people will die, just a reason. It's just a reasonable worst
case scenario, so certainly much lower than fifty percent. So he can say,
in response to someone pointing to Swedens, and we'll look, Sweden did
nothing. They didn't lock down for the whole of twenty twenty, nothing like
as many people died as were predicted to die in your reasonable worst case scenario.
So oh yeah, it was only a worst case scenario. It wasn't
supposed to be a scenario of what's likely to happen if we do nothing.
So you haven't contradicted my claims at all. In other words, his hypothesis
that five hundred thousand people would die if we did nothing was nonfal suffiable because
we'd come up with, you know, a control in which we show that
if you do nothing, fewer than thirty thousand people die. And he says,
oh no, no, that's completely irrelevant. I only said it was
a possibility, not a probability. And the climate it's not it's not scientific,
it's nonfalsifiable. It doesn't pass that it doesn't pass that poparian test,
so why should we base policy on it? Yeah, exactly, U.
The thing is tame. I. There's a there's a friend of mine who's
constantly wrings me up every every every other week to say, why aren't you
writing, Why aren't you doing more about climate change? Why aren't you Here's
here's a great story, and you know about this, And it's partly it's
ground ground top day for me. I've been there, I've done that.
All these all these stories are old hat to me because they're just variations on
the same well worn theme. But secondly, I find it's so depressing that
far from far from waking people up to what is going on, I find
that the the the medium machine, that the line machine, which is which
is our mainstream media and is organizations like the BBC, has has successfully proven
big life theory that I think it was Gebels and said, if you tell
often and often enough that it will become you know, it will enter the
discourse and become part of the public consciousness. Um even though it's not true.
I mean, I'm obviously misquoting that that was the theory behind big,
big, big lie theory that you just just repeat, repeat, repeat,
And we've reached the stage now where there is nobody in the government, nobody
in the supposedly conservative government, who was supposed to care about conservation. I
mean, it's in the name, isn't it. Um. None of these
people are even open to the possibility that what they might be doing is is
deleterious to the interests of the country that they're supposed to love and want to
preserve. That None of them. Andrea led some she doesn't care. She
she just thinks all this green stuff is great, that they're all they've all
been bought and paid for by this, by this this machine. And I
just I get so depressed that I just wonder what the point is, what
why do we even bother. I'll give you three reasons, James. The
first is, obviously, I reject what you've just said. I don't think
that anyone is pulling the strings of people like Andrew or Edson. I just
think they want to be on the right side of the argument, on the
right side of history. And if they can be persuaded that they're not on
the right side of the argument, and it's not historically inevitable that we should
embrace that zero become that zero achieved that target by twenty fifty, that I
think they can be persuaded to change their minds. Secondly, I think the
I think there's there's there's a there's a more scope for these arguments, for
climate contrarian arguments to land now than there has been in quite some time,
because people recognized that the modeling around the pandemic was completely wildly wrong, and
they know that a lot of this climate alarmism is based on modeling, so
I think they've become generally more skeptical about modeling. So there is there is
there is an opportunity I think to kind of you know, you've got people's
ear when you criticize climate modeling in a way that you haven't had, you
know, for some time. And third reason is that climate alarmism, climate
hysteria, the kind of doom mongering millenarian pessimism promoted by Gretathenberg and others,
is causing enormous harm to the mental health of young people, not just teenagers,
but people in their twenties as well. I don't know if you saw
James, but last week, a nineteen year old young man who very concerned
about the environment. An environmental activist took his own life because he became so
convinced there was just nothing he could do that could avert the impending catastrophic armageddon.
That's that's heading our way. And and so you know, I think
that we have an obligation to young people who are who have persuaded themselves that
they shouldn't have children, that there's no point going on living. Um,
there's no point in making any plans because our destruction is imminent and unavoidable,
isn't there don't we have an obligation to them to kind of give them some
hope by pointing out that it's all based on gobbledegooker nonsense and a political agenda.
It's socialism of another kind. I mean, to be fair, all
those all those kids who who think that they shouldn't reproduce for the sake of
the planet have been done a huge favor. If they've got themselves vaccinated,
they almost certainly won't be able to be reproduced, So that that's that one
covered off. It's all it's all I despair terms because um not dissing that.
The huge influence of Daily Skeptic and there's few outlets which are reporting on
this stuff. But when I started out reporting, I mean I broke the
climate gate scandal or a popular rights that anyway, it sort of went viral
on this thing called which no longer exists, called Telegraph Blogs, which was
a sort of, you know, the online offshoot of the Daily Telegraph.
I could, I could still place articles in the Mail quite regularly, and
Christopher Booker certainly could in the Mail, which is probably the most influential of
the papers. Occasionally got pieces in the in the Telegraph, in fact.
But ten years ago I had a big piece in the Mail. I went
to Australia, which was the bell weather for what's going on with the wind
industry here, and I spoke to victims of wind turbine syndrome, of people
who'd been driven out of their homes by the low frequency noise that they had
health issues. Um. I spoke to farmers whose animals had been, whose
livestock had been, they'd been, you know, disturbed in in a horrible
way by by these these back jumping bird slicing eco crucifixes. So I was
all over the story, and I wrote a piece for the Mail saying we've
got to do something about this, This is a genuine assault on people's property
rights that you can't have in the name of saving the planet. You can't
have these structures that actually don't save the environment being put in the countryside near
people's homes, ruining their health, ruining their their piece. It's just not
on. And and I predicted that that this wasn't going to continue because people
would realize what a health hazard these were, what an environmental hazard, Which
is odd, isn't it, given the best to be saving the environment.
I had faith then that the power of the media would change things. And
instead, if you try to place that piece in the Mail, would not
run that piece. Now that there is not a single mainstream media institution,
neither magazine, political magazine, nor newspaper which which would run a piece counter
to that, to the narrative that that or you'd find it very difficult from
place to one there. Christopher Booker is gone. Sadly, r ip Christopher.
Who else is that? You know? David Rose used to write pieces
for the for the Mail. I don't whether he still does, probably not,
because they give the Jewish Chronicle. Now we still have Ross Clark.
Ross Clark regularly writing skeptical things about climate hystoria in the Telegraph of the Mail.
Yeah, yeah, and that's about David Frost. David Frost, Lord
Frost has a he's a climate contrary, and I'd say he has a well
he's I mean he's now the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. But
then Charles Moore Salmore occasionally writes climate contrary. Really he's soft soft. While
we're on this, we should probably pay tribute to the late Nigel Lawson.
I don't think we did last week. We didn't get around to paying tribute
to Nigel. We didn't, did we, But we should probably acknowledge I
didn't know him, No, made him once or twice, but now I
couldn't claim to know him. But he was for a long time chair of
the Global Warming Policy Foundation, wasn't it he was? I was. I
took part in a few debates with him, obviously on the same team,
and I'm not sure he was a total fan of me. I think he
found he thought I was perhaps a bit too out there, a bit too
you know that I wasn't house trained. I mean, I think he probably
gave him an impression he probably have had. He probably would have found your
style more agreeable, sort of emollient style. But yeah, but nevertheless,
I think we did sort of form a mutual respect. Was the end was
suddenly on my part. I thought he was. I thought the work he
was such a valuable figure because he was his history is, I mean as
as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher gave him bottom and gravitas,
which we climate skeptics badly needed for our side, because very few people
in positions of prestige we were prepared to put their head above the parapet and
question the whole green narrative and the climate change agenda, although he didn't push
it as hard as I would have liked, because I mean, I think
the whole thing is a massive scam and a lie. Whereas he was saying,
well there is no evidence blah blah blah. But young Lawson and the
WPF were really important. Yeah, anyway, and he's a great loss.
We should take a break here, James, but when we come back,
we'll be discussing the latest offerings in culture corner. Hey, happy spring,
everybody. Technically it's spring here, it's cold. Maybe where you are it's
really warm. The one thing, however, that it's true no matter what
climate you're in, is that Ricochet dot com is the place where you want
to go. Ricochet dot com has got the flagship podcast, and it's got
so many of the things that I can't even start to tell you about it
without taking an hour of your time. So spring forward into a new way
of looking at the Internet and a new way of listening at Ricochet dot com.
So, James, have you seen Tetris yet? Yeah? I have,
Well, I know, don't spoil it from me. I'm halfway through.
Okay. There does seem to be a trend at the moment for movies
and miniseries about tech. Yes, yes, about yeah, so like not
any sort of it's sort of stories about it's odd, isn't it, Stories
about kind of corporations behaving heroically and beating the odds and triumphing. And this
story really is about Nintendo and how it managed to or at least tried to.
I went no spoilers rights to Tetris so it could it could it could
package it up with game Boy when it launched the game Boy. Similarly,
there's a story just been released about Air called Air right about the about this
visionary marketing executive at Nike who came up with the idea of having Michael Jordan
endorse of shoe child slaves working really hard. It goes it was odd.
I mean, it's it's like there was the Steve Jobs movie. I don't
know if it was the first in this genre a few years ago, but
at least that showed his kind of dark side as well as his light side.
He wasn't portrayed as a kind of you know, as a hero.
But it's become you know, and there was the there's the there's the playlist,
of course, and there is there is There were also, you know,
some miniseries in which people like Elizabeth Holmes aren't depicted in a terribly flattering
light. But it's odd, isn't it that this has become a kind of
mini genre, both in movies and on TV, stories about kind of corporations
making money. Basically, what do you think the agenda is? I mean,
I think I've got my suspicions that we are being we are being softened
up for this world where we're controlled by the machine people, and we've just
got to be grateful for you to your tech suppliers. Oh, isn't it
wonderful that Nike air these these faceless, sinister Luciferian weirdos who want to take
over the world. They your friends. Yeah, it's sort of like And
I guess I probably the theme of Airs was all about how kind of pursuing
that late capitalism has this kind of benign byproduct, which is to promote diversity
and inclusion naturally as a way of just making money. But I think the
Tetris has been criticized for being too aggressly pro capitalist and anti communist because it's
depiction, yes, it's depiction of the sort of the Soviet Union in its
kind of dying days is pretty unsympathetic. And the way in which the inventor
of Tetris is kind of presented as kind of having earned nothing and having not
been rewarded in any way, still a kind of desk jockey in the kind
of computer science division of the Soviet government, even though he's invented this game,
which is the most popular game in the world, in contrast to you
know, his American counterpart, who'd be living in Beverly Hills with a supermodel
and you know, flying everywhere by helicopter. But but I thought, actually
I thought that was slightly unfair, because you know, you've got kind of
good and bad people. In the Soviet Union, You've got the kind of
head of whatever it's called, the Computer Science Government Department, where this guy
works seemingly wanting to do the best for his country but being thwarted by corrupt
KG agents. And in the US too, you've got kind of good capitalists
like our hero Henk, but you've also got bad capitalists like Robert Maxwell and
his kind of ghastly son Kevin. So it sort of seemed to be making
a kind of moral equivalent sort of argument there that there are kind of good
and bad people in both communist societies and capitalist societies, and capitalism isn't all
good and communism isn't all bad. So I thought, rather than being kind
of, you know, aggressively pro capitalist and anti communist, I thought it
was suffering, if anything, from the opposite fault. But just on I
quite enjoyed the portrayal of Maxwell as a kind of evil villain and Kevin thought
I thought, I thought it was a little bit unfair on Kevin because he's
never been convicted of fraud, and it was quite careful. Actually, it's
sort of it tiptoes around this idea that Kevin was complicit in Robert Maxwell's attempts
to bribe Soviet officials in order to acquire the rights to Tetris himself or on
behalf of the Mirror group Mirrorsoft. I think it's company was cool. Um,
And you have kind of Kevin leaving the room. You know when when
when when when Maxwell tries to bribe the kind of KGB officer And clearly kind
of were not wanting to kind of libel Kevin in a way which is actionable,
But the whole portrait of Kevin is kind of, for me felt quite
kind of libelous. It's so unsympathetic, cartoonishly unsympathetic. I just felt for
me, it just kind of lacked credibility. It was implausible that this kind
of he would be quite such an asshole. I don't know what he do,
but you must not. You mean you knew the Maxwell children, didn't
you? No? I didn't. I never I've never met them. Actually
I met Kid, I'm sorry, I met Gilaine, but I haven't met
the others. I met Colline but in New York, but I've never met
the other two. The two boys. I mean, I'm not sure I've
I've got a jack a dog in this fight. I don't think i've met
what's the other one called? The one is not Kevin. Yeah, there's
another one, isn't there? I can't remember now. Yeah, But I
mean, look, I surely the apple doesn't fall to far from the tree.
I would imagine that that Kevin was a sort of ruthless vulture capitalist,
that was all right. I wasn't sort of getting vibes that he was particularly
any more corrupt than any other sort of Maxwell associate or or somebody, you
know, as I say, vulture capitalists, but I thought it probably he
probably was like that. Then I thought I thought it was just sometimes it's
I mean sometimes the kind of characterization I thought was a bit one dimensional and
cartoonie, and I wasn't quite sure whether it was intended to be or not.
I mean, it sort of there was a sort of running motif through
the film that they were kind of basing it on Tetris, So you were
kind of it divided up into level one, level two, level three,
level four. And there's a car chase at the end. James, When
when when the cars become almost like tetris pieces and kind of pixelate as they're
going around corners and start crashing. Quite clever. But but but it seemed
to be wanting to kind of but actually the kind of I don't know it
was, but it seemed to be more artistically ambitious than that. It wasn't
just trying to create a kind of video game like film. It was doing
that in a kind of playful way, just to add a bit of texture,
I thought to the narrative, and I thought in other respects it was
quite well done. But I just felt it was a little bit cartoonish in
particularly it's portrayal of of the Maxwells. I thought that was actually ones I
liked about it because it seemed to me a classic. It was you know,
it was produced by Matthew Vaughan and and I saw that Claudia Claudia Winkleman.
But who appears as Claudia Vaughan in the credits, Yeah, oh no,
no, no, produced by Claudia Schiffer. Is Matthew Well the producer?
I don't, I don't know, I don't know. Maybe so maybe
it is. Yeah, But my point for what it's worth is it is
just that I quite there's a sort of there's a style, there's a slickness
that Matthew Vaughn movies have, which although he didn't direct it, something called
john S Baird directed directed it. Um that they're very digestible, they're very
easy to watch. They're very you don't you don't sit, they're being bored,
They're very they're very professional somehow, and I liked it. I didn't
feel that I didn't feel irritated by it, which is what one quite often
does with with films. By the way, have you seen that? My
My other recommend yet that the one warsailor well, you know, I did
watch I watched part one of War Sailia. There are three parts, right,
so I watched out one. I haven't yet watched parts two and three,
but I did think it was quite good. That it gets very depressing
in episode three. Um, but I just repeat my my recommendation for that
one. So we've both seen Tetris. Anything else we need to? Oh,
you've seen you've seen Utred the movie, haven't you? Yeah? Seven?
I think it's called called Seven Kings Must Die. It's a book.
It starts with a prophecy, so Finnan his kind of Irish sidekick. Rod's
Irish sidekick is married at the beginning of the film, and his wife has
a dream repeatedly, and she she thinks it's a prophecy, and it's that
seven kings must die before and a woman and the woman Finn and loves must
die too before before India can kind of emerge triumphant. And it's clearly intended
as a as a kind of bookend to the entire story. And I was
expecting it to be quite poor because I heard bad things about it. And
I don't think it's too much of a spoiler to tell you, James that
Ethelston goes off the rails at the beginning of the film because he is blackmailed
by his gay lover, who essentially has persuades him that in order to be
a good Christian, he has to atone for the sin of being a homosexual
and engaging in homosexual relations with his kind of moral guide by conquering the various
different parts of England in a particularly brutal and totalitarian way. But turns out
he's gotten a gender and he's doing it for self interested reasons, the gay
lover. But but but I thought, oh, you know, I had
heard that the character of Ethelston turns out to be gay, and I thought,
oh my god, is this going to be part of some kind of
woke ification of the history of England. You know that one of the greatest
kings that ever lived, who was responsible for unifying the different kingdoms and creating
England as we know it, is he going to turn out to be gay?
Is that going to be some kind of diversity and inclusion point? But
actually his gayness is a huge handicap and his gay lover is the villain of
the stories, So it's anything anti woke. So and actually it was reasonably
well done. I haven't seen have you seen Season five? I did,
but you see. So here's the thing. I'm not sure that I could
go back to watching TV Ughtred having listened to the audio books of the of
the Bernard Cornwall, because what you've become very aware of, um when you
read the books is how much they've been compressed for the purposes of the TV
series, to the point where like something that might take five chapters in five
engrossing chapters in the book becomes a shot of Utred setting off and then arriving
on a beach six months later, and a lot of the subtlers I think
lost in the TV series not helped by the fact that a German model plays
Outred and English is not all yeah yeah, yeah, weird fu arad And
and I think that in the early stages, I mean, I hated to
fend the BBC, but when it was a BBC production, you had well
maybe it was coincided with a period in the books where you had Alfred and
the guy playing Alfred, was it be brilliant? And then in the later
epid the latest seasons, you again, I don't know whether this is just
a false memory, but you seem to have more of that keening, faux
Irish wailing theme tune music at every every moment, was stabbing in on every
scene, and it becomes rather ritating. Yeah. And also the kind of
they ladled on, the kind of ultra violence when it when it switched from
the BBC to Netflix, which and it was sort of it had a kind
of, you know, a family friendly vibe when it was you know,
in seasons one and two when it was a BBC production, which it didn't
have when it moved to Netflix. And I didn't much like that because although
it's very true too. I find it disturbing how much Bernard Cornwall gets off
on bone bone splintering violence. I mean I cringe whenever we get another battle
scene. He describes that the shield wall and the shit and the urine and
and and the and and and He's very good at describing in a graphic way,
um viole an injury. I mean, I don't know how how how
could you do that? How could you? How could you describe in so
many different ways what he's like? Yeah, he has. He's like he's
the equivalent of a kind of pulp fiction eskimo. He has kind of you
know, twenty seven different words for crushing someone's skull. He really does it
does I mean, because when I used to write novels, I used to
have difficulty describing what happens when there is a traumatic injury caused by a bullet
or a or a shell that might take your arm off or whatever. But
but Cornwall is right in there. He really wading up. He's like he's
like a vet. He's got his got his hand stuck right up the cow's
bottom. He's into the love it. Yeah, Yeah, he doesn't look
away when someone loses there when an arm is severed, does he He doesn't.
Yeah, Yeah, anyway, I suppose I won't go away, are
you I'm going I'm going to be away next week? Are you gonna be
away next week? Yes? Where are you going to be? What times?
Then? Are you going to be in? Well, I'm I'm I'm
going to be in the Canadian time zone. I'm going to be I'm going
on a trip across the Canadian Rockies in a train. It's a travel piece
for a new Spectator travel supplement. Um so I'm I'm I think I'm starting
in Vancouver and ending in Bampf. But haven't you got to be jabbed?
They stopped the jab require Now they stopped the jab You don't have to be
jabbed to go to Canada anymore. Yeah, jab zombies probably you'll probably get
You'll probably get whatever. You know, they'll shed ale over you and you'll
die of whatever whatever, jabb us, you'll get my card tabes. Sorry,
Mat, And it was nice knowing you. So where are you going,
James? I'm going, Well, you see, I'm going to the
opposite time zone, so we're going to be in trouble. I'm going I'm
going to Hong Kong. Okay, what are you doing in Hong Kong seeing
my seeing my family? Right? Okay, Um, well, we'll have
to try and work it out because we can't deprive our listeners of an episode.
Yeah, apparently on one of the one of the warnings I've been given
is that on this train as it kind of creeps across the Canadian rockies,
Um, there's there's there's no Wi Fi and sometimes no telephone signal either,
so I have but we are in hotels at night, so presumably that will
work because that'll be your morning time. Anyway, we'll see if you can
work it out. Are you are you going with wife or is this a
solo solo? Are you going to? So this is your this is your
this is your paypack basically for the tennis holiday in barb my wife's trip to
Barbados. Yeah it is. Yeah, but I'll only be going for like
four or five days, so it's not quite quite a way to go for
for um A, I mean for the jet lack, isn't it? It
is quite Yeah. I know by the time I've adjusted, I'll be on
my way home again. Yeah, but hey, chances are you Yeah,
I deserve it. I've been going, I've been going, you know,
nuts, so you don't have to be jabbed to get into Hong Kong.
They've they've stopped all that so that they gave up on masks about a month
ago, and they gave up on even PCR testing. Joke that that is,
you don't even have to do the PCR test now. Okay, So
Hong Kong is back to normal until they until the who invents the next crisis,
be it bird flu or whatever. So well we'll have to try and
coordinate. And of course we've got Paul Bryan are producer to think about.
It isn't another times and almogether true. So it's going to be hell big
coordination problem, but I hope we can solve it. Okay, right,
okay, all right, James, right, all right, by its unfold
Ricochet, join the conversation