Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Professor Tim Wilson"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
And the irony is pointed, don’t you think? Who actually, “knows more than they’re letting on,” about that targeted, organised riot, if not Farage, who had probably prepared his script before the riot began? Who, in their right mind, can discuss this terrible tragedy without ONE reference to the depraved act of attacking the very beleaguered community that has just been shaken so badly, only to have to deal with anti-British, “nationalists,” organised and funded by hostile foreign powers? How better could Farage prove that he doesn’t care one iota for the victims, their families, their friends or their community, than to completely ignore the fact that they were just invaded by rioting outsiders?
2
-
2
-
2
-
When you ask about how to manage your YouTube account; how to ban accounts or delete people’s comments, what I would suggest is either one of two things:
1) Reach out to other YouTubers and get advice on what they do? You have so many contacts and know so many people of influence that surely one or more of those people should be able to connect you with an Editor?
2) You are based at a prestigious academic establishment, are you not? Why not approach someone from one of the other departments that uses social media or trains people on its workings? You will likely be able to find a gifted student whom you can hire for a single session every once in a while, cleaning out your channel for you? Or, better yet, hire someone from the drama, media, political history, or one of those departments to train you? Using the, “Teach a man to fish . . .” philosophy of having them train you in the technicalities of running your channel?
There is also 3) YouTubes own videos, teaching creators about managing their channels, and their online tools which are a suit available to all channel owners?
Your solution probably lies in a mix of the above, but I see how finding time might be a factor? So, my suggestion would be to make that time by (BRIEFLY) stopping your output and using that time to learn the tools? That is, only if you cannot find time anywhere else? Just as a train must stop for repairs, sometimes on the track, much to the chagrin of the passengers. But everyone is glad when the repairs are done and they get a better, more reliable service thereafter.
I wish I had these skills, as I would offer them to you for free. But, surely, if you are serious about solving these issues, the solutions you seek are in the above? You are surrounded by the help you need and paint an image of a man swimming in a fresh water lake, dying of thirst.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I understand that ancient history made it necessary that the founding of a post WWII Israeli State had to be, geographically, where it was. But, with my 20/20 hindsight, I so wish the Balfour Declaration, or the post war decision had been to set up a new Israel in Europe. It might sound a little crazy to some, but when you think of the debt owed the Jews by Germany, Austria, Hungary in particular, and of how different history might have been with Israel as a European state . . . Well, it’s just a, “what-if?” pipe dream of impossibility, due to the geographic situation of key historical places, so central to Jewish identity.
2
-
2
-
You raise a whole raft of questions though. Who are these sources? What is their track record for reliability? Doppelgängers may exist, but that doesn’t mean they exist because of Putin’s absence or death? Moreover, what is the advantage of keeping this myth of Putin being alive going?
Surely, Putin’s death would present the oligarchy with an opportunity for a reset with the west? A change of policy and to sue for peace in Ukraine? They could withdraw and put in a new leader with policies that could rescue Russia’s standing in the world, and their beleaguered economy?
So I ask, WHY? I cannot see any advantage to it. Like flat Earthers, when you ask them, why would anyone want to spread the sphere narrative? To what advantage? They never have an answer to that.
Can you give us links to your sources, so we can look for ourselves?
Putin would, if anything, find it helpful for the rumour to spread in the west, that he might be dead, because his whole approach to information is inspired by Stalin’s, where the public just can’t be sure about what is true. He wants us to throw up our hands and just say, “Well, I don’t know.”
In summary, tell us what you think Russia could gain from keeping up the illusion? And show us your sources to examine for ourselves, please?
2
-
Apropos nothing, really, but I saw that thumbnail and thought, “Quentin Tarantino’s really let himself go,” before rubbing my eyes and getting a second take. To your point, there needs to be some better, more public accountability. We have seen that our regulators are uninterested and toothless at best, in cahoots and a client of the government at worst. Sitting MP’s presenting, “news,” and current affairs shows is illegal, yet happening in Britain.
And talent shows may seem like harmless fun and less important than direct government corruption, but they’re really not. The fact is that producers are like rising water levels, constantly rising to increasingly threatening levels unless people keep bailing to stop us all from drowning in exploitation, cruelty and ultimately, tragedy.
The producers of these shows should be monitored by unbiased OFFCOM officials with the power to shut down a production on the spot and refer crimes where they are found. They will find that producers are always breaking the law, blackmailing, victimising, bullying, manipulating and pulling strings that no decent person would touch in, “real,” life.
I rarely, if ever watch, “reality TV.” I prefer the good, honest truth that makes good fiction so compelling.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I’ll be pondering your thoughts for the rest of the day, quite possibly. As it seems increasingly the case that, to do nothing about Edward, would be a mistake for The Windsor’s. And to attempt his rehabilitation into public life could prove fatal to their future.
It’s interesting to note that all of the names that appear on Epstein’s guest list had already been tainted by scandal, previous to any of us learning about their stays on his island. Some of them sexual in nature; all of them grubby. It certainly seems that Epstein preferred (or attracted?) a certain . . . “type.” I’ve never been a fan of the expression, “There’s no smoke without fire,” as it’s usually used by those with only suspicions and no evidence. But in Edward’s case it does seem fitting.
We do have the circumstantial evidence that he lies; about his whereabouts in a pizza establishment, for instance. As well as risible lies, such as that of his inability to sweat. We have the evidence of a multimillion pound settlement with his accuser. And photographic evidence that he lied about having met the woman, only later, “adjusted,” to, “I do not recall,” having met her.
From this (and other statements) we know that he is fundamentally dishonest. Also that he’s not very bright. Like Donald Trump he chooses to fabulate unnecessarily at times, about things that will prove to be demonstrably and necessarily false; and for which there was simply no need to lie in the first place, only serving to further undermine his own credibility.
On a personal level, I see a very different man in his infamous Maitliss and other, more successful interviews, from the other Royals. I could envision myself as having a great deal to talk about with King Charles in light conversation, to our mutual interest. I am positively charmed by Princess Anne and always have been. She actually reminds me of you in some ways, as she too has that ineffable capacity to mix compassion with sound reasoning, from an informed and well educated position. Her commitment to the public good seems to equal that of her mother, along with a personal (if rarely witnessed) capacity to personally charm.
Edward is someone I would never feel comfortable around, who with whom I doubt a truly intelligent conversation would be possible. I know it’s unfair to judge on the little I actually know about the man, but my gut has proved a reliable tool in my history, which has saved my life on more than one occasion, so I don’t ignore it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, “other ethnic groups,” do not get the suffix of, “British,” attached to them, even though, “White British,” is a category in this article which is entirely about British people in Britain, which makes ALL of them, “British.”
Can you see the wilful myopia in these terms being used? So, what is, “White British,” in this context, when set against, “other ethnic groups,” if not low level racism? . . . It would not seem so egregious if the article used terms like, “Black British,” and, “Asian British, “ as well, but it is using, “White British,” and, “other ethnic groups,” which is inherently racist.
By differentiating, “other ethnic groups,” without attaching, “Britishness,” to them, yet putting them alongside, “white British,” people rhetorically, the author betrays an unexamined, hopefully unconscious, inherent, low level racism of the type that has fanned the flames of division in Britain so effectively in these last years.
I am guilty of making my own assumptions here, since I am only going on what your video says, not having read the article, as I assume that the author is both white and British? But, even if either of those values measures differently, I doubt that changes the effect of their content very much, if at all.
2
-
Example: Farage says, “I said was awful. What more do you want me to say? Of course it was an apology.”
Journalist COULD have responded: “You made a, ‘comment,’ NOT an apology. Since you ask, I want you to either apologise or explain WHY you refuse to apologise?”
Basic, syllogistic, chain of reasoning logic, that would have cornered Farage into showing us more of the truth of who he is.
Example: Farage asks, “Have you covered the Labour MP . . .” etc.
Journalist: “Your job is to answer the questions and mine is to ask them.” Or better still, “Isn’t it an insult to British intelligence that you think you can avoid answering tricky questions by trying to pose your own, when you happen to know that the people want you to answer this question?”
Example: Better even still, in response to Fargage’s, “awful,” dodge; “So, why do you refuse to apologise for such abhorrent racism in your party?” Being PREPARED to field the next move, “I already said it’s awful,” with the above, “That’s an observation and comment, NOT an apology.”
See? It’s all about whether the journalist cares and is prepared. Though I hasten to add, I do not judge this particular journalist, as I don’t know her, and don’t know what circumstances she was labouring under. But I would hope she would agree that she could have done a much better job?
2
-
2
-
Do you think so? Why would that be? I’m asking sincerely, as I am somewhat out of the loop on this whole drama. But it seems to have the nation’s attention and I’m uneasy about what’s happening more broadly on a cultural level.
To me, Schofield represents fond memories of childhood. He revolutionised children’s television, with an anchorman model that was repeatedly copied around the world. Would Roland Rat have even been a thing, had it not been for Gordon the Gopher? He has always struck me as a kind, sincere, humorous and thoughtful kind of man, who’s approach to TV presentation has been a good influence on the general public.
But, not being a daytime TV sort of person myself, I haven’t followed him or his career with any great, “interest,” despite seeing him frequently crop up in many famous YouTube clips. What is really going on here? Is it as culturally important as some seem to think it is?
2
-
I worked in a government profession who’s basis for existing was based on the idea that people can change, grow, be redeemed, learn, contribute and make good any harms done. This was in a previous life as a youth worker, then a social worker, then a family therapist.
I learned several valuable life lessons from that line of work, such as that the people working in these jobs are generally more in need of such services than the general public. But, I also learned that people may change their behaviour; some are smart enough to learn from facts and information; but none will ever change who they are at their core.
Like that old Jesuit saying about giving them the child until he’s 7 years old and they, “will give you the man.” People may change tribes, but only to serve that unchanging core of their being.
I too have given Generic (as I call him, since he strives so hard to be a blandly typical Tory) too much credit. Sir, “ethically emboldened,” sounds inspiring to me. Sometimes you have such a great way with words.
2
-
People always expect the Devil to be the terrifying, cloven hoofed demon, brimstone smoking about his reddened form as he spouts expletives in a gravelly baritone from a horned head. And that’s their biggest mistake. If the Devil has truly marked you for ruination, he puts on his best clothes and his most charming smile, flatters you and expresses an empathy that touches your very soul in a way that no other person has ever done for you. He makes you his willing slave with kind words and understanding.
You will only see his true form, uncloaked, if and when you attempt to turn back from the path he set you on. And that’s what Putin’s minions are paid to do. They are simply his imps and demons, sowing pain and suffering in the world, for the sake of the Devil’s lusts. Ego, power, and money, in that order: The simplest, three word summary of Putin.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am a devotee of Orwell’s essays and I have always argued that if you juxtapose his complete essay collection with Winston Churchill’s glossy history books, therein lies the truest picture of British history you can find, so long as you understand the concept of historiography and close reading.
As to how people like Musk are hijacking Orwell, that simply reflects the Russification of far right tactics that we have seen increasingly, since Putin spread his tendrils into our media discourse at every level. The tried and tested Stalin technique of accusing your opponents of the things you are guilty of, or accusing them of doing things that you yourself are about to do, began in earnest in the west with Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, at a time when trump’s ties with the Kremlin were far less opaque and almost his entire campaign team were found guilty of crimes relating to either domestic campaign laws, or to their spying and infiltration efforts on behalf of Putin. Remember Paul Manafort, anyone?
If your goal is to muddy the waters so badly that everyone gives up trying to discern the truth, a good way to approach that is by taking the figures people who tried to warn the world about people like yourself and grafting them onto the faces of your own monsters. Have your, “creations,” utter the very phrases that people should be applying to you, and preempt that, by applying them to those who would stop you.
It barely matters that the quotes you used were out of context, misunderstood, inappropriate or just plain wrong. In some senses that helps, as you get to accuse people correcting you of looking down their noses at you and being, “liberal elites,” blah, blah, blah. All that matters to the far right is that the comments are incendiary and get attention.
Whether deliberately, by osmosis or just because of a general ongoing degradation of the quality of public discourse, Stalin’s tactics for making collective conclusions about the truth unattainable have been on the increase over the past 20 or so years, gathering momentum in the last decade, so far as I have observed them. Anyone who has read Simon Seabag Montefiore’s books on Russia, particularly his biographies of Stalin, will see what I mean, I hope?
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Americans will never reward atrocities by descaling or pulling back. Right or wrong, that’s just not how they do things. And, given that Iran is the universal link, supplying weapons to Hamas in the Middle East and supplying Putin with his missiles for his war in Ukraine, the Iranians seem to be deliberately seeking escalation?
America will see it as solving a lot of problems at once, if they can neutralise Iranian threats at the source. These events will crystallise such thinking in the minds of American decision makers, I would have thought.
Biden would need something tangible (offers up front) before he would even consider risking the optics of shuttle diplomacy in the light of the deaths of American service personnel. While there will be others, both within and without his own party, calling for embargoes to cut off their supply chains.
Iran is at the heart of the two most destabilising events in world affairs right now.
I cannot say what I would do in Biden’s shoes. His intelligence reports may cast a whole other light on things. But I do know, as does he, that words alone will not be enough.
2
-
We still don’t know who these people were working, “for.” Even if they turn out to be Ukrainians, their government has spent more than a year rooting out pro-Putinistas. No way would Zelensky have betrayed the west’s trust at such a crucial time. Given Russia’s long storied history of double and triple bluffs, as well as their deep infiltration of Germany’s upper echelons, I am not prepared to believe anything until proven.
It’s also worth noting the fact that the suspects themselves were tipped off before they could be picked up, more than once, after showing up in Western Europe and then disappearing again when warrants were issued. Where were these tipoffs coming from? Russia? Germany? Elsewhere? The one country least capable of getting such information was Ukraine, since they do not even have representation in the investigation, unlike Russia, being the alleged, “victim,” of the attack and with a whole network of spies inside Germany where this investigation was initiated.
2
-
Perhaps she feels she can do more good from behind the scenes? Perhaps she has a diagnosis of something she doesn’t want to share, or suffer in the public eye? . . . Who knows? . . . The problem with, “shock,” events like these is that, without further information, all we’re left with is speculation. I wish her well, regardless. And every blessing on her son, that he might carry out his duties responsibly and with the dignity and tact his office calls for.
Happy New Year to you too, sir. You have been a great source of wisdom, comfort and, occasionally, humour through 2023. I feel like it’s tempting fate to say 2024 cannot be any worse, so I will simply wish you health and happiness anon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It might be wrong to say, “All Conservatives are like this.” But it is right to say that ALL Conservatives work for and vocally support the very most rotten members of their organisation. Even the nicest Conservatives candidate still works for an organisation that has bought out the press; silenced critics through foul means; hidden corruption in its own ranks and covered for corrupt businesses outside of them; polluted our water; dismantled our NHS; put children in harm’s way in their schools and left them to struggle in poverty, whilst blaming their parents for not being born with their advantages; lied about the benefits of leaving Europe, whilst betting against the pound in the city at the economy’s most vulnerable moments; undermined policing; removed accountability mechanisms; destroyed the postal service whilst ruining the lives of pillars of countless communities; perjured themselves in parliamentary committees; shown utter contempt for the bravest generation at the D Day memorial and placed a blatant LIE about the opposition’s economic policy plans as the centre piece of their own election campaign!
And that list is FAR from exhaustive. So, whilst even the nice Tories may mind their P’s & Q’s, tell charming after dinner stories and speak of their dismay at the far right lurching, crushing incompetence and manifest greed and corruption of their leadership, they need to be reminded that they are perhaps WORSE than the worst MP’s in their own parties, because they remain enablers, whilst professing to know better.
I’m sorry, Prof. Wilson, but, on this score I’m with The Inglorious Basterds. (Yes, that’s how they spell it in the movie title) If I see one of them in that uniform, they’re a legitimate target, along with all the rest and they do not deserve mercy. Certainly not a seat on our governing body at least.
2
-
I understand that I’m not focusing on the actual point you’re making here, but hearing you discuss this issue has triggered deep abiding emotions for me.
The first rule of being burgled is: You are now on their list. If they get away with it once, they will do it over and over to the same address. They are generally not smart people robbing you, and often rather desperate. Drug addicts are generally the worst, since their carelessness and desperation shows in their methods, which are usually the most destructive.
It is worth hiring a private investigator, as identifying the crook/s burgling your house is not usually the problem. Proving it is. Even if there are no obvious clues, you will find that a concerted investigation will quickly track down the culprit. Note: The police didn’t forensically go over your house for clues, did they? They didn’t dust for prints or anything, as they would for a, “serious,” crime, right? They just don’t have the time or resources.
When it happened to me, I took an enormous risk (DON’T try this yourself, dear readers) and pursued the burglars myself, that very night. This was in a former life, many years back, and I did it because I had experience from my work background, having worked with criminal types professionally for over 20 years and knew how to approach the burglars when I located them, which was within an hour of the robbery taking place.
I literally tricked one of them into coming with me back to my house and into the waiting arms of the police. My actions were irresponsible, really. But I knew the statistics and didn’t want to be on that, “repeat visit,” list. My partner and I were both working full time and I knew that our house would become the local drug addict’s ATM if the culprits weren’t caught swiftly. The only alternative would have meant a change to our lifestyles and spending a fortune on security apparatus, which still wouldn’t have bought us any certainty.
I took a calculated risk (under the influence of alcohol) based on what I knew would be the likely, repeated outcome and, having a partner whom I cared deeply for, that factor was the decider for me. I wanted to, “protect,” her. Even though I knew what I was doing, I knew I should not have done it.
The two culprits had both just completed prison sentences and the one I lured back was actually being investigated for another, violent, offence and wanted for questioning. But for the grace of God I might have found myself in a physical struggle for my life at any point with this character. Having blown their paroles, they were both shuttled back to jail and the matter was swiftly resolved.
All I would say is, take every precaution and don’t be afraid of overkill when it comes to your security arrangements. Burglars a looking for easy access and a quiet place to work. Deny them this and they’ll move on to the next target. If you share your home with others, there really is no excuse not to secure the place. 99% of all burglaries occur because the burglar seized an opportunity presented to them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, you touched it with a needle. This internal fight within the, “conservative,” movement has been such a long time coming. Since the days of Winston Churchill, the European project has been causing division with the Tory party, but has remained manageable so long as it was both a distant, background feature, in a landscape filled with more pressing issues, and the leadership was strong enough to whip their party into line behind their own vision.
The referendum was blunder, but what resulted was the flare up wherein the competing visions of conservatism were finally put to the flame at a crucial moment when there was no leader with any vision and no sight of one on the horizon! That was further compounded by the moral bankruptcy of flinging open their doors to literally anybody who could win their seat due to their, “personality,” or, “performative,” populist politics. They no longer cared about their record, experience or background, so long as they could WIN, and they ended up with stiff necked grifters, with no vision beyond their own immediate, personal interests, or, “ideologues,” with the type of visions that would startle Oswald Mosley!
And then they act all, “surprised,” when they found they couldn’t manage this pit of vipers, and stunned at the fact that these unmanageable newcomers acted like they OWNED the place and had the right to make demands! And while the last season of party, “leaders,” got progressively more bonkers and weaker at party discipline with each yank on the Westminster fruit machine handle, this influx of vipers started fighting each other instead of their opposite numbers, NAME CALLING anyone in the general public who didn’t agree with their extremist views, FROM THE DISPATCH BOX . . . REPEATEDLY, (without even the suggestion that the PM might even rein them in let alone discipline them!) and scrapping in the open, for all the press to see, over policies that were either objectively unworkable, or objectively cruel and un-British!
And, as if the point needed to be made any more abundantly clear, at the moment Richie calls his election, five MP’s jump ship THAT SAME DAY!
Any party with that kind of a record deserves its wilderness years. May they be long and painful for them, as their years in office were for us.
It is to my great SHAME that I admit to voting for the Tories at the last election. Never, NEVER again. So long as ANY of this lot are around.
2
-
I passionately agree with you. I so deeply wish I had some influence in any direction to help the victims of this appalling conspiracy. Paula, “Venoms,” (as I now call her) is the spider at the heart of this web. And she knows that MP’s stand to be disgraced (at the very least) alongside her. Therefore, she has been counting on government help with the coverup. And, so far, that has worked!
Justice delayed is justice denied. And the government seems to be flailing as much as the Post Office witnesses for excuses to fudge and delay any remedies to this sickening situation. Their inaction is making it worse each day that passes.
And it’s yet another example of Richie Sunack’s appalling judgement. He could have (SHOULD have) lead the charge and made this his cause. The political points he could have scored with the public, simply by justifying his personal intervention on the basis that this truly is the, “biggest,” if not the most depraved, miscarriage of justice in British history, are innumerable. The longer he leaves it, the more he will looked forced into action and out of apathy, if not like a party with a vested interest in the coverup.
The biggest miscarriage of justice in British history has become the biggest conspiracy in British history. And what darkens the horizon in the minds of the public is the suspicion that it is still ongoing. The government AND the police have given us no reason to doubt that, so far.
2
-
We can’t judge them entirely on their first King’s Speech, as it takes a lot of time and hard work to get through all these policies. Also, as we’ve seen, Labour are reviewing all of the damage that’s been done to departments and are finding shocking sabotage in many cases, such as the prisons’ services for example. So it’s hard to be specific since they don’t know what they’ll find.
The voting age reduction, for example, is a piece of legislation that can be done fairly quickly and easily, relatively speaking, so they can afford to defer that, whilst they work on gaining cross party support for it. Always better to pass bills on the nod than with huge, loud opposition.
2
-
2
-
2