Instead of going on about Boris breaking the rules, the media should be asking why the rules were there in the first place and what effect did it actually have on a virus, I would say none
The best informed people in the country about the 'deadly virus' had a party, no social distancing, no lock down, not a care in the world.. They had no fear! Why was that? That's the question everyone should be asking!
It was the media that demanded lockdowns in the first place, not the government. There was a perfectly sensible plan put forward by the government of social distancing and isolating the elderly/vulnerable, but the care homes and hospitals really put their foot in it and didn't introduce sensible quarantine procedures, and the virus spread like wildfire. Hence why the government had this terrible knee-jerk reaction where they well full on CCP and stripped people of their civil liberties for 2 years.
@@MrRadiorobot No one is asking that question because the intellectual people already know the answer. The non intellectual don't want to know the answer
Peter Hitchens is absolutely right here. Labour would have doubled down. We need to investigate why the country was put in lockdowns and mandates which ultimately led to catastrophic economic, educational and health consequences.
Railways were the result of an unrepeatable combination of Victorian ambition and cheap labour. Their wanton destruction was social vandalism and financial opportunism of a unique order.
Regarding the destruction of the coal industry. I heard the coal mines are not just sealed up, they flood the galleries to make it infeasible to open them again.
My brother-in-law is a geologist who worked for the NCB. They actually collapsed the galleries and pitheads with explosives, so it would cost an exorbitant amount of money to reopen them.
My degree nearly 25 years ago was in town planning with a special endorsement in transport policy. It was well understood at that time in academia at least that road building on the scale it had been carried out in the UK was a significant mistake, and that as Peter correctly states new roads generate additional traffic. I felt sure as a student that the future would see either a return to rail and light rail, or more inventive new solutions. I never for one moment imagined that 25 years later I would be hearing this point made as if it were some new discovery, while rail lines remained derelict and cars and lorries still swarmed over the land like locusts.
Would love to hear Peter's opinions of what's happening with Russia at the minute... seems like the an obvious go to.. but i haven't seen him on talking about it anywhere...
I think Peter's point about Marples and the destruction of the UK's rail industry should extend to a piece about the TSR2 and the destruction of the UK's aviation sector.
Duncan Sandys paper set in motion the wholesale destruction of the world leading UK aviation sector through amalgamation leading to division and mismatch of corporate culture and vision. However, TSR2's demise was much more sinister in its ultimate execution and the ruthless speed it happened. It's a fascinating yet frightening story of incompetence, corruption and abject surrender by a series of intellectual lightweights posing as the UK's leading politicians. I wonder why it's never spoken of to this day.
We had to build a modern road network, by the mid 1950s our tiny byways were clogged even with the rail network in place pre Beeching. Mr Hitchens vision of a railway and tram utopia was not shared by most people in the 1960s. The motor car became an obsession. People wanted to race each other on the M1, even if it killed them. Stafford Cripps wanted to tax the private motor car out of existence, but was swept aside. People chose Alec Issigonis instead!
No I disagree no person enjoys realising the ‘system’ whether it’s the government or of late the monarchy are not fit for purpose. The scandals surrounding both are outrageous! The everyman wants to do the right thing and expects the people we all pay for through ridiculous amounts of tax are actually doing their job!
Don't think Hitchens said anything in opposition to that sentiment. He's just saying the focus is all on a short-term media circus surrounding one or two individuals - which is pointless if nothing actually gets changed.
Our politics is becoming increasing americanised all the time (ie hollow, unsophisticated, vain). Its essentially just a soap opera for hormonal teenagers now and completely lacks any substance or competence.
In Northern Ireland, the NI Government (still a self governing dominion at that stage) required adjacent landowners to buy back the railway trackbeds after closure, to prevent lines reopening.
The unforgettable (ehem) Michael Fallon destroyed our army and RAF, limiting our ability to defend ourselves as a country but got chucked out for touching Andrea Leadsom on the knee!
I'm not sure if I agree with Peter Hitchens on numerous issues - but I might be. I think he dos make sense, and I think the media deflect our attention on big matters and attempt to get us to focus on more menial things. Really the media should focus our attention on the bigger issues. Something isn't right with both the politics and the media deflection of the actual issues. Peter Hitchens isn't easily throbbed off...
Motorways in UK were simply designed and built by idiots. Three lanes of course are always reduced by roadworks (UK type of corruption, like road signs plague) but at the SAME time in Holland etc they were built with five or even six lanes across the more intelligent Europe.
Only 7% of the country is built on including roads, so I'm sorry Peter you're wrong and as for trains they're hopeless if you don't live in major population centres.
The could definitely help with the intercity transport of heavy goods, there's no reason to have all these lorries travel from city to city, and intercity travel of civilians is more sensible often and would greatly relieve traffic congestion and parking issues.
My idiot brother says he will wear a dress that covers the bombs strapped to him if saville loving Starmer tries to glue himself extinction style in the manner of a squatter in Parliament ☺️
We´ve hit a giant ice berg and the ship is sinking. Should we man the life boats, bail out the lower decks and call for help or batten down the hatches? No, let´s polish the spoons in the dining hall!
What Hitchen fails to acknowledge is that its totally unacceptable to have a clown and liar as PM. If a teacher, Dr, policeman had acted in the way Johnson has they would at least be sacked if not permanently struck off their professional register. Why aren't politicians held to the same standard? A totally biased interview, as normal from talkRadio. When is Graham going to award himself the Plank of the Week award? He would win every week.
Hm I think Hitchens is pointing the finger at the whole system tbh but your point is till right its unacceptable but then again it is almost and mandatory requirement to lie these days as a politician
What are you talking about? Hitchens and Graham have been highly critical of Boris for years, both have acknowledged that he's highly incompetent with no seemingly conservative values what so ever, both think he has no business being Prime Minister. Hitchens has been lamenting the state of British politics for literally 2 decades now, this latest fiasco is only the most recent example of the distain Johnson has for the electorate. And, It isn't intellectually dishonest to say that Keir would simply do what the Conservatives have done to the country, only more severe. One of the biggest problems we've had during this whole plandemic is that there has been NO opposition to any of these wacky lockdown and vaccination policies. The whole system is broken.
Neither are. Instead they’re basically factors which are taken into account with pre-existing offences as aggravating factors. If someone being male was the victim of a crime motivated by Gender, that would also be a hate crime. Like I get where you’re coming from but this is nothing like the dankula case and doesn’t really change anything significant in the law
@@oliverreno4734 it always has been. feminists just constantly demand more of the society that already exists whilst pretending that that society hates them and thus they are the 'change ' group. me were the ones kept out of the lifeboats, men were the ones forced into the trenches, men are the ones rescued last in disasters and traded last in hostage situations on and on. society has always valued men less, feminists have managed to trick people in to believing the reverse in order to deeper the pre existing division...
@@ravenmusic6392 If someone being male was the victim of a crime motivated by Gender, that would also be a hate crime mm youll forgive me for being suspicious. because what is notable is that every crime against a woman is framed as a crime because shes a woman. the most obvious being murder. in reality men are 3x more likely to be murdered than women. so in the real world any woman murdered is likely murdered despite being female. yet all we hear is nonsense about how women are at specific risk. in addition we live in a society that has always valued male life ;less than female-kept out the lifeboats/forced into the trenches/less spent on medicines and treatments and research/harsher punishments particularly the death penalty when we had it(still in the usa etc) on and on. and yet despite this general lack of regard for male life i never hear any murder being referred to as based on gender when its a male victim despite the fact that it fits both the pattern of who is considered more disposable by society and who is more likely to be murdered... in additon the determination to move away from who is more likely to be the victim and into distractions about who does what to whom gives the game away.
Peter - you do not understand motorways, roads or transport policy and you should stop talking about it as it makes you sound very very foolish. Advice given with respect.
"There's no-one else" isn't a valid reason for keeping Boris Johnson. Yes, there are many important issues currently - but the government has completely lost any trust the public had in them. And until this is rectified, the public won't let this drop. Johnson has to go.
Trains don’t go around sharp corners, or up steep gradients. They require expensive maintenance, complex switching system and an enormous electric infrastructure. They also don’t go to your street, or the theatre, or your place of work. Cars avoid all that. The reason they are jammed up is because there is no variable pricing which would occur in the case of private roads. Private railways might also work, they certainly do for freight, but the Government dictates what can be charged, how many trains must be run, where they are to stop, how often and how many carriages they must have. Again, government in the way creating chaos at our expense while they have wine and cheese parties.
This is missing the point. Trains weren’t in isolation pre-beeching. From most mainline stations in Britain you could immediately transfer to a tram, which would take you to the cinema or street you mention, except often faster and cleaner than a bus. If we, for example, ripped up the motorways around London and replaced them with railways, the capacity would increase by many times and reduce the impact on the environment, and possibly cost long term, if they’re subsidised. Obviously people aren’t suggesting we literally rip up every single road in the UK
Do you know what other form of transport will get you to the cinema? Riding a bike, or walking. What is the obsession with driving everywhere in order to avoid walking; no wonder we are all so fat and unhealthy. It should be sufficient to take a train into town and then walk from there.
That’s not the point he was making. Motorways are built to relieve congestion, however, they have the opposite effect because it encourages more and more people to drive
Hitchins doesn't realise that friction is necessary between tyres and roads or the wheels would spin. Someone needs to teach him mechanics. The reason that you can get away with lower friction on trains is because of the much lower acceleration and the sheer weight of the vehicles
He is not disputing any of that. His claim is that since cars require more friction, it makes more sense to utilise railways as they are more efficient and environmentally friendly. You seem to have missed his whole point?
